There is a military coup in Thailand, a crazed leader of Iran denying the Holocaust and prattling about the return of the “12 Iman”; a Venezuelan demogague brandishes the work of terrorist sympathiser Noam Chomsky; there are riots in the streets of Hungary, a major hedge fund loses billions in the gas market.
What do the world’s economic markets do in response to all this? Well, as historian Niall Ferguson notes, they do remarkably little:
The price of crude oil for November delivery fell 5 per cent last week, even as Messrs Ahmadinejad and Chávez were holding their rant-fest. On news of the coup in Bangkok, the Thai currency declined by little more than 1 per cent against the dollar – nothing compared with its spectacular gyrations during the Asian crisis of 1997. Investors in the Hungarian stock market are not having a great year, it’s true, but recent political events have barely registered. If you invested in Budapest two years ago, you have still nearly doubled your money.
To see just how far politics and economics have parted ways, just consider which of the world’s stock markets have done best so far this year. In pole position is Morocco (up 58 per cent in dollar terms since January 1). Next is none other than Mr Chávez’s Venezuela, up 49 per cent. In third place is Indonesia, where three Christian men were executed on Friday for their part in sectarian violence, sparking riots (34 per cent). Russia, where it is bankers who get the bullet, is not far behind on 32 per cent.
He goes on to argue:
investors are continuing to mistake liquidity for security. Despite the much-trumpeted tightening of interest rates by the world’s principal central banks, the reality is that monetary expansion has barely slowed. In Britain, for example, the broad money measure M4 grew at an annual rate of 13 per cent in July, a remarkable figure. Money may be dearer, but it is still amazingly plentiful. That seems to be encouraging a rather cavalier approach to risk assessment.
So it would seem.
This is where the “leave it to the markets” idea, so central to libertarianism, falls down. It all just ends up being a hedge for selfishness and sod the rest (selfish being, let’s be honest now, what most libertarians are by nature).
No matter. Once we’ve all made our quids we’ll get back to the serious business of actually sorting this dangerous mess out. Perhaps Perry can conduct the military strategy from his armchair.
Everyone is just trying to ignore it all. Imagining that these obviously crazy people could not possibly be serious. And hoping that “reality” will prevail if we just give it time. That tactic worked so well in the ’30s and the ’90s….
OH,
So “the markets” are supposed to oust Chevez and Ahmadinejad and restore the Thai government? How exactly are they supposed to do that?
Meanwhile, if the people of, e.g., Iran were more libertarian and sought “a hedge for selfishness and sod the rest” as opposed to their quite “selfless” calls for, inter alia, the obliteration of Israel, would the world be a more or less stable place?
And what happened the last time the “enlightened” politicians decided that “something had to be done” somewhere in the world and in fact did do something?
Oh right — Iraq. Go figure.
The market took a big hit after 9/11, and one could argue that it hasn’t really returned to where it “should” be purely in terms of the low inflation and high profits that presently exist.
It may be that geopolitical uncertainty has already been factored into stock prices, to the degree that individual examples of it don’t have as pronounced an effect as they once had.
Far from it. A fool and his money are soon parted, but it is ‘his money’. Let the fools who invest in Venezuela or places like Russia come a cropper. No one makes me invest in those companies who make such decisions.
I’ve seen a war up close, have you? Or is what annoys you that I have no regard for your witlessness?
old holborn:
Self-preservation is the most selfish act of all. Therefore, were your hypothesis correct, libertarians would have made serious strides to defeat Islam and communism. Anyways, I don’t know if anyone is suggesting that foreign policy be left entirely to individuals. It is the Western governments who should be sorting this mess out in order to earn their living an justify their existence, and yet they have not, preferring instead to bribe citizens with their own money. Socialism has become the opiate of the masses, making them blind and indifferent to the true threats posed to their existence by external actors, and to the incompetence of their own governments in confronting these threats. Combined with how poorly equiped the “education” (indoctrination) system leaves them to understand the real world, and with how poor (perhaps intentionally?) a job the media does in presenting the true nature of the world to the citizenry, it’s a miracle Western civilization still exists at the moment.
KipEsquire:
Withdrawing all foreign investments, refusing to trade, and so forth are all powerful tools of war and of influencing domestic policy. It would be possible for the markets to attempt to solve these matters if people were pursuing their long-term self-interest instead of their short-term self-interests (human nature, combined with socialist educational retardation, does however make most people pursuing long-term self-interest or survival less likely). Regardless, as a society, the choice has been made to delegate foreign policy to the governments. As a side note, an interesting method of economic warfare was employed by Eisenhower during the Suez Canal Crisis, when he blackmailed Britain by threatening to sell the US reserve of British currency. Oil was also used as a weapon by various parties (including the Saudis) during the conflict. In the end, Britain and France were forced to capitulate.
Perry:
The problem is that while a fool and his money are soon parted, the person who receives the money from the fool does end up benefiting, and the rest of humanity suffers as a result e.g. if I had a trillion dollars, and gave it to Hitler (or Ahmadinejad) in exchange for some magic beans (or in exchange for anything, for that matter), HItler (or Ahmadinejad) would now have a trillion dollars, which would not bode well for the Jews or Europe. Similarly, investing in any economy run by people who are likely to be a force for evil in the future e.g. People’s Republic China, aids that economy, and therefore the ruling regime, and helps them attain their future goal. The problem is, that unlike what leftists like to blabber about all the time, trade actually does help both parties, which is a problem if one of the parties is evil and may in the future try to kill you or your children. Therefore, trade policy should be under close scrutiny. While free trade amongst freedom-loving people is a good idea, it may not be a good idea with “evil people” unless it somehow benefits you (in absolute terms as well as in relative terms)
far more than it does the “evil people” (e.g. Nazis, Commies, actual Muslims).
Some more thoughts:
Niall Ferguson is an interesting character.
The military coup in Thailand is not that tragic. It was bloodless (as far as I know) and there is no reason to think that Thailand will be any worse governed than it was before. The riots in Hungary, while interesting, were an abnormality carried out by a small percentage (and we’re actually talking small here, not like “small percentage of Muslims are terrorist-sympathizers” small) of the protesters. These last two events, while interesting to read about, are of little macrohistorical importance.
Musim persecution of non-Muslims (as witnessed in Indonesia) is a tradition as old as Islam itself; therefore, this news from Indonesia is hardly news at all, and could only be construed as such by someone who has gone through the socialist Western education system (a wretched system, which after completion, leaves its victims even less well-equiped to understand the world around them than they were before they began the whole process as an infant).
The true threats to the West (and humanity) are the same that have existed for quite a while: Islam (a 1400 year threat), and communism (a slightly more recent threat, although lack of respect for the property rights of others is an ideology that goes back to the very first thief).
It should be noted, however, that Chavez carrying out a public display of affection with Chomsky at the UN does not make him any more dangerous than he was before (he was, and still is, extremely dangerous). Therefore, this last revelation should cause anyone to change their plans only if they were previously ignorant of Chavez’ true character.
The fact that the president of Iran is a Holocaust denier, desires to carry out “the actual holocaust,” and carry out a nuclear holocaust in order to bring about the 12th Imam, would be of little concern to anyone (other than the poor non-Muslims living within the borders of Iran), were it not for the fact that petro-dollars, the Western tech transfer, and Western impotence and lack of resolve in projecting power internationally and maintaining Pax Americana, have given him the means to actually carry these things out (had he only the most advanced Muslim weaponry at his disposal (“the sword”), he would have a hard time accomplishing his goals). Chavez has also been empowered by the West in exactly the same way.
Well, I was going to go somewhere with this, but I’m running out of time, so this will have to do.
The problem with this is that Libertarianism is not a philosophy of “just leave it to the markets.” That’s called anarchy. The crucial difference with Libertarianism is that Libertarianism recognizes that naked aggression exists and can only be dealt with in kind. Contrary to an anarchist system – Libertarianism provides for courts of law, prisons, and a military There are coercive things that have nothing to do with market reality. Having created them, Libertarianism then puts strict limits on their use. Chavez calling the president names and holding up a copy of an idiot’s manifesto at the UN is provocative, but it doesn’t warrant military action. However, there are certain lines that if Chavez crossed, Libertarianism would be much less hesitant about blowing him to kingdom come as some other systems we could name. In fact, it is a moral imperative in a Libertarian system that the nation be well-defended. Libertarians do not, as a rule, believe in appeasing naked aggression. We are not pacifists. And in contrast to pacifists, we do not waste our money on outreach initiatives and feel-good international conferences on racism, etc. We draw very clear lines and allow any sort of behavior up to those lines. Once those lines are crossed, the reaction is swift and severe.
It seems to me that the world could do with more of this approach from the Western nations. In any case, contrary to what old holborn wants to say, Libertarianism does not advocate leaving people like Chavez up to the markets, It may allow him more leeway than many people are comfortable with – but when lines are crossed, Libertarians are very much in favor of calling out the troops.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of the investors in the Russian, Moroccan etc. stock markets are natives of those countries vs. what percentage are foreigners. If they’re mostly natives, and the markets are doing better than Western experts expect, possibly the investors have a better sense of the real economic potential of their own countries than those Western experts have?
I wouldn’t expect the Russian, Indonesian, or Venezuelan economies to suffer any harm from any of the examples of turmoil cited. In fact, those countries might benefit from the Iran crisis if the inevitable US airstrike on Iran’s nuclear program disrupts Persian Gulf oil shipping and thus drives up the price of non-Persian-Gulf oil. Russian oil stocks might be a good medium-term bet.
Nor would I criticize stock markets for manifesting selfish behavior. Altruism isn’t one of the functions of a market (though in fact “ethical investment” plans abound, at least in the US). Some people who have gotten rich in stocks are philanthropists, but they know that the main reason to invest at all is to make money, even if you then give it away. In any case, what should I refuse to invest in in order to express concern about riots in Budapest?
Western civilization has survived for just one reason: superior firepower and the fear it inspires. Superior firepower stays superior because of technological progress. One of the factors encouraging technological progress is a free-market economy. We can’t afford to lose that.
Economics can’t solve every problem. No imaginable economic sanctions could deter the rulers of Iran from their nuclear ambitions. People willing to embrace Armageddon are not going to be intimidated by falling stock portfolios. Only precision bombing, and plenty of it, can solve that problem. In the meantime, there’s no point in wasting money and energy on measures which we know in advance won’t work.
Joshua — of course from a pragmatic viewpoint, advocating a free society cannot include advocating anything which in practice would result in the destruction of that society, such as unilateral disarmament.
This raises what I think is one of the main reasons why the Libertarian Party in the US has never gotten anywhere electorally: its advocacy of open borders.
If the US made no effort to control immigration at all, we would be inundated with so many people of much lower educational level, radically different culture, and no commitment to American values (including the preservation of a free society), that the libertarian order would not last long. In fact, American culture and civilization as we know them would not last long. Most people instinctively understand this. It should be equally clear to Europeans. The indigestible Muslim populations in France, Britain, etc. are already causing plenty of problems. Just imagine what would happen if immigration were totally unrestricted. The consequences would certainly not include European societies moving in a more libertarian direction.
Controlled, legal immigration has benefitted the US. Our open society and market economy allow us to attract creative people from other countries who know they will have more opportunities for personal success here, and their contributions move the whole nation forward. But immigration must remain under our control, and not simply become an indiscriminate flood which would destroy our free society.
As long as libertarianism is associated with unrestricted immigration, most people won’t vote for it. Neither will I.
“It all just ends up being a hedge for selfishness and sod the rest (selfish being, let’s be honest now, what most libertarians are by nature).”
That’s right: attack the motives of libertarians. What you miss is that in this world, people will make mistakes and those mistakes create costs which must be borne by someone. More often than not, the people who make these mistakes want to selfishly force others to bear the costs of their mistakes. One of the reasons libertarians prefer such institutions as free markets and private property is that these institutions work so well at curtailing such selfishness.
Nations like the US or UK only need to restrict immigration because they have also restricted the ways society naturally makes those who do not want to ‘fit in’ feel unwelcome by socially and economically disadvantaging them. In fact more than that, the state in both places has, via the welfare state, actually set things up that people who hate the host society are actually subsidised by the taxpayer.
Open immigration will work just fine, just not until the welfare state is dismantled and private property rights plus the right to free association/dis-association returned to people.
I realize it’s difficult for political junkies to imagine, but some people, and some of their everyday activities, go on their merry way with little or no obsessing about the latest blatherings of this or that governmental entity.
Some people actually go to work, listen to music, plan their investments, eat lunch, go to the theater or a movie, drink wine, and have romantic interludes without ever giving a moments’ thought to the speeches of fulminating little tin-pot dictators at the UN, or anywhere else.
And that, by the way, is a very good thing, indeed.
In the midst of all the doom and gloom over the war on terror, or global warming, or oil dependency, or resurgent leftism, or waterboarding, or the 97 other shocks all our flesh is heir to, sit down with a good glass of wine, put on some quiet music, and think about the world for a moment.
A century ago, much of the world was dominated by aging autocracies, very few people led free lives, or even knew what that might mean, anarchism ( of the old, bomb-throwing variety), socialism, progressivism, racism, sexism, and a host of diseases, epidemics, mysterious economic depressions, and brutal, back-breaking labor 12-14 hours a day, seven days a week, all bore down on the backs of the average person.
I recall a stat I read some time ago that estimated that, in the 19th century, 90% of the muscle power used by society was human muscle. By the end of the 20th century, it was 10%. This was a sea change of unprecedented scale and significance, still unrecognized for the immense depth of its effects, and something that future historians will marvel at as they describe this period.
The world then collapsed into a gruesome war, killing untold millions in a disaster approaching the scale of the “Black Death” of the calamitous 14th century, a worldwide depression stifled growth as empires around the globe tottered and shattered, to be replaced by numerous “leaders” preaching some form of massive statism or another, united only in their contempt for the individual, and hatred for any of the petty private concerns that might obstruct the construction of their “Great Society”.
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Peron, Franco, Salazar, Tojo, Chiang Kai Chek, various kings, sultans and emirs too numerous to count, lorded over the crushed peoples of the world, stoking every fire with the bones of their victims, drowning every attempt at freedom with the blood of the citizenry, until the massed lunacy of collectivism triumphant resulted in purges, camps, wars, and terrors in which millions more perished, so many unknown, lost in a deluge of death.
The whole world stopped when a quake and a wave killed many thousands, and yet, no force of nature has ever equalled the inimical evil of men who desire power over other men.
By a miracle still not fully grasped, or appreciated, a dark age unlike any to threaten mankind was avoided, only to have the victory turn to ashes as atomic marxism loomed across the globe, enslaving billions, killing millions more, subverting, attacking, and perverting every aspiration, threatening to overwhelm the last few vestiges of liberty, aided by legions of sympathizers and syncophants who bore from within, termites of treason gnawing at the support beams, wishing the house would fall.
But, mirabile dictu, the wall fell, the creaking machinery of inhumanity ground to a halt and collapsed, and, for a few bright moments, we went out in the evening and felt the cool breeze of a soft, spring day, watched our children play, and did not need to listen for the sirens, did not fear the night.
Of course, such bliss could not continue indefinitely. Old antagonisms rebirthed, ancient hatreds revived, unrepentent peddlers of the snake oil that had poisoned half the earth crept out of their caves, dressed in new clothes, their products in new bottles, disguised with different flavors and colors, and began the same old pitch to a new generation of non-innoculated innocence.
Life on this earth is never easy or free of trevail. The old gods, and even older demons, spring up to fill any void. Evil embraces a vacuum, even as nature abhors one, and a culture built on principles suited to existence in this reality began to doubt its own foundations, question its own structures, and replace granite with castles built of sand.
But, after all this, and with all this, look around. Is Stalin replaced by some little Iranian cutthroat? Is Chavez Breznev? Is AQ the SS, its minions equal to the divisions of the wehrmacht, or the samurai of the emperor?
Is the malignant dwarf in Pyongyang a new Mao? Does anyone honestly think hundreds of millions will ever march, chanting his name, trying to remake the world in his image?
We are the giants in the earth, the men and women who have led mankind into the 21st century, and reach for the stars. Will we now climb on a chair and scream at the appearence of a few mice?
Put out some bait, set a few traps. A thunderstorm is not a tornado, and the bleatings of second-hand sheep are not the growls of a lion.
L’audace, tujours l’audace.
Those who will accept nothing less than liberty have nothing to fear from wretches afraid of any independent mind. I speak as I live, the wine is soft, and the music is deep and clear.
It is my children who will inherit the earth, not mice.
Perry, I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on this one. The differences in standard of living between the West and most other countries are so huge that no amount of social ostracism or disadvantage would be enough to prevent open borders from leading to a flood. The trip across the Arizona desert often results in the deaths of illegal immigrants. They know this, but continue to come anyway. If the risk of death is not enough of a deterrent, it’s hard to see what would be.
Imposing economic disadvantages wouldn’t work because there are too many cases where people in rich countries benefit from hiring immigrants who are extremely poor and/or have no legal rights. Unrestricted legal immigration would exacerbate this problem by eliminating the few legal sanctions we have on such employers.
A hard-line libertarian might argue that if immigrants want to come and people want to hire them, then the state has no right to stop this, regardless of the numbers involved. This is where I, and the great majority of people, will always disagree. Immigration on a large enough scale changes the cultural character of a country. This is likely to take the form of increased crime, challenges to the position of the dominant language, and shifts in attitudes about everything from noisy neighbors to the status of women. The larger the immigrant community, the less capable the natives will be of imposing any sort of social “sanctions” on them. American or British people, or people in just about any country for that matter, will object to such ccultural changes, and they have every right to do so. Again, think of the cultural changes brought about by Muslim populations in western Europe. Now try to imagine what would happen if there were no restrictions on the numbers of further Muslims who could immigrate there.
In Europe there is also the issue of overcrowding. It staggers me to think that the whole of Britain, which has sixty million inhabitants, is slightly smaller than my home state of Oregon, which has just three and a half million. The last thing you need is tens of millions of additional people.
As I said, immigration benefits the US, but only when we can control the type and numbers of immigrants to make sure we can absorb them. Voters in a densely-populated country like Britain might want immigration cut almost to zero; if so, this is a decision they are entitled to make. Control over immigration is one of the essential characteristics of a sovereign state. If you have no immigration controls, ultimately you have no sovereign state. This should be included among those few basic functions that even libertarians acknowledge as legitimate roles of the state.
It’s an extension of the principle Joshua articulated. Advocacy of a free society cannot extend to advocacy of that which will, in practice, destroy the free society.
But that is just fine by me. The problem is not people coming to work, it is people coming to ride the gravy train.
Also fine by me.
I think you underestimate the power of western civilisation. Only the Muslims have proved, so far, to the the exception to the rule that they will not assimilate. Afro-Caribbeans, Hindu, Chinese, Eastern Europeans… all have (and are being) assimilated and very widely miscegenate. I might at least somewhat agree with you regarding Muslim immigration, but I suspect the main impediment to assimilation in most other cases in the West is (naturally) government ‘multi-cultural’ policies which are designed to slow or prevent assimilation (such as the astonishingly wrong headed provision of Spanish language TAX FUNDED ‘public’ education in the US… likewise the insane tax funding of ‘faith schools’ for Muslims in the UK (or ‘bobby-trap factories’ as I like to call them)).
Get the damn state out of the way and people do assimilate… the only instance in which the demonstrably superior Western civilisation seems to be failing to assimilate in useful numbers (at least in the short to medium term) is the Muslims.
And yet in the long run I suspect they too will eventually succumb and simply become us (I am quite sure Osama bin-Laden thinks that, and hence his desire to destroy the west before that happens). The trick is surviving long enough for the ‘long run’ to become ‘now’.
Oh, and …
Not at all. Take a look at Dutch population density. As far as I am concerned the sooner we pave over Kent to make room for housing and infrastructure for 21st Century London, the better.
With all due respect, if it isn’t obvious why these positions doom any version of libertarianism that espouses them to permanent political irrelevance, nothing else I might say would have any effect. So I’ll leave what I’ve already posted as my final word on that.
The only thing I’d add is that it seems odd that so many libertarians are willing to sacrifice all hope of their philosophy ever winning popular acceptance for the sake of something that isn’t even a real personal-freedom issue.
As I see it, libertarianism is about stopping the government from violating people’s rights. If my government tells me I can’t own a gun to defend myself, it’s violating my rights. If it tells me I can’t write something that offends ethnic minorities, it’s violating my rights. If it tells me I can’t buy a magazine because the feminist movement thinks pictures of naked women are evil, it’s violating my rights. If it tells my female neighbor that she can’t get an abortion, it’s violating her rights. These violations are serious, blatant, and intolerable.
But if the British government tells me I can’t permanently move to Britain if I feel like it, I don’t see what right of mine is being violated. I’m not a citizen of that country and can’t claim the rights of those who are. As an American I have no more natural right to live in Britain than I do to vote in British elections. I want a libertarian movement which will stick up for the rights I really do have which are being violated, not throw itself off a cliff for the sake of something that isn’t even a right in any rational sense.
I am sure we can agree on that 🙂
Actually I have no objection to some immigration restrictions with the way things stand at the moment (as I said, you have to survive the short term before you can reap any long term benefits) because I too do not want to be buried in intolerant Muslims just now. I also do not mind supporting interim things that I really want to get rid of eventually just as a tactical ploy… but really the problem is not (non-Muslim) immigration and to pretend it is does not really help in the long run. Certainly the mass influx of Eastern Europeans here has been a spectacular success, although I suspect some people in Poland are none to happy with the brain-drain and mass exodus of labour to the UK.
But in truth I really have no problem at all with as many Yanks, Europeans, Hindus or Afro-Caribbeans as would want moving to the UK.
For my views on that…
The only thing we can conclude from the market’s “whatever” reaction to recent political events is that liquidity is still staggering.
When LTCM went bust in 1998, the financial system shuddered and the banks clubbed together to bail it out. Amaranth (the latest hedge fund collapse) lost more money than LTCM but their $9bn portfolio has been eagerly snapped up without a ripple.
I tried to buy some of their assets (they are all for sale)thinking i could pick up some bargains. I was spectacularly outbid.
What a wonderfully efficient system.
One of the mistakes people opposed to the Libertarian immigration policy (which is to say, the Libertarian lack of immigration policy) make – and which infidel753 is making here – is to assume that all other variables would stay the same with open borders.
They wouldn’t.
Perry points out nicely that we’re not actually interested in open immigration in the current environment. Libertarians can debate about how to handle it – but it’s clear that we can’t pay the welfare bills for endless numbers of incommers. Either welfare would have to close shop as a result, or welfare for immigrants would, or else (the version I prefer), welfare would have to close shop before the borders opened.
In any case, immigration without welfare would be a different demographic situation indeed, and immigration would be limited in this way by the number of available jobs.
Another thing that would be different is the situation in prospective immigrants’ home countries. We would, I suspect, see a lot more Berlin Walls going up around the world if the US and UK opened their borders for real. Massive immigration out of failing states would exacerbate their problems by cutting down on their labor pools, etc. (Those that chose, as an alternative, opening their economies would gain prosperity and eventually obviate the need for their people to leave, of course.)
Also, immigrants who do not assimilate do not, as a rule, wish to stay. Most of the Mexican immigrants in the US don’t come here to stay. That many of them do end up staying is a function of political realities in both countries, but lots of Mexicans make their money and then go home. It’s not a one-way street, and there’s no reason to believe that under open immigration every single person who entered the country would still be here in 20 years.
Finally, with an open immigration policy I think the incentives to assimilate would be rather higher. Right now employers are more than happy to hire illegals because they get a windfall. If there were no such things as “illegals,” then immigrants would have to compete for jobs on roughly the same playing field as everyone else. This would be a huge economic benefit in terms of price efficiency, etc. It would also mean that employers wouldn’t have to put up with people who refused to learn English, or who needed Ramadan off to sit in the shade all day, or whatever else. People who mastered the language and passed as normal Americans/Brits would be much more amenable to US/UK employers I should think.
Perry’s right – the assimilation problem isn’t something that’s created by any critical mass of incoming foreigners. Rather, it’s created by silly social institutions here at home that support cultural maintenence. Let it go, and you’d see a lot more assimilation I think.
I should add that in the case of the US, there have been other points in history when other groups were demographically – at least in certain areas – as much of an assimilation “threat” as Mexicans and Muslims are now. The Irish and Italians in New York City come to mind. We managed.
Joshua,
In regard to immigration destroying welfarism. I believe that there are enough of those in power who’s idea of fairness would be to not reduce welfare benefits until all lived at the same level of poverty. Immigrant and native citizens alike.
Regarding ‘Berlin wall’ situations, this only works if there is a reciprocal wall preventing the ‘immigrants’ from sending their income back to prop up those regimes. I put immigrants in quotes because they are not true immigrants. They still have their lives in the old country and only their employment is here.
Regarding assimilation. It has nothing to do with immigration policy and everything to do with domestic policy. You yourself concede this point when you say “then immigrants would have to compete for jobs on roughly the same playing field as everyone else.” The playing field is the product of domestic law, not immigration policy.
Last point. The Irish and Italians left their homes and came to America. The Mexicans and Muslims are bringing their old country here.
Last point. The Irish and Italians left their homes and came to America. The Mexicans and Muslims are bringing their old country here.
And this is precisely where any “open borders” policy fails. I live in South Manchester. Just up the road from me is a veritable little Pakistan. Pakistani immigrants to here would have no need to integrate into anything other than essentially the same culture and society that they lived in in Islamabad. They could easily get jobs in the shops and kebab houses speaking only Urdu.
Multi-culturism has allowed these ghettoes to form. Opening the gate completely would only expand them. In many cases it would not result in integration in any meaningful way. Of course this is not always the case. The recent influx of Poles to South Manchester has been very successful (some of the bus drivers think they’re Ayrton Senna but I suspect that’s more Stagecoach policy than anything else). Perhaps the Poles are more adaptable? Perhaps they are joing their compatriots in a long established well integrated community?
I increasingly think the architects of modern, mutli-cultural Britain don’t have the slightest idea what they have wrought but the dawning of understanding might be approaching… Unless he’s completely dimwitted I think it must have struck John Reid when he came face to face with that nutter who complained that the Home Sec. had dared to enter a muslim area.
PS. Somewhat belatedly, welcome aboard the good ship Commentariat Infidel753! Whatever happened to infidels 1 through 752?
PPS. I was in Manchester city centre all yesterday. The bloody police helicopter was overhead all the bloody time. And it’s noisy. Just to protect the likes of Hazel Bleary and David Millipede at my bloody expense. No sign of Mandy on Canal Street mind.
Nick M — This is exactly what I’m talking about. There is no reason why people in Manchester should have to put up with the presence of growing encampments of unassimilated barbarians in their midst just because of some ideological abstraction about open borders. Take away all immigration restrictions and your city would be not merely infiltrated, but engulfed, and you’d find you were the one who needed to learn Punjabi or Sindhi to fit in (I seriously doubt those people are speaking Urdu, which few Pakistanis ever learn even though it’s the official language of the country). State policy on immigrants, or lack thereof, would have only negligible effects in such a case.
No one ever seems to have asked the British people whether they wanted to be turned into that kind of multicultural society. It’s a question on which they were entitled to be heard. Of course, anti-freedom authoritarians who believe in the superiority of government bureaucrats might disagree.
I could write pages on why eastern European immigrants are different from Muslims, but this isn’t the place.
I am very happy that my own country’s immigration is mostly from places like Mexico, China, and India rather than from Muslim countries. These immigrants are assimilating pretty much as the previous waves from Ireland, Italy, etc. did. I would still be uncomfortable with the prospects for this if the numbers were much greater, though.
As for Europe, the view that immigration is perfectly all right with that one barely-worth-mentioning exception about Muslims, puts me in mind of the old joke that the voyage of the Titanic was a great success aside from that minor bit of unpleasantness about the iceberg.
The 753 in my internet name is a reference to 753 BC, the traditional (though likely mythical) date of the founding on the city of Rome. I believe that the true essence and roots of Western civilization lie in our cultural inheritance from the Roman Empire.
Best of luck getting your city back. I haven’t been to Britain since 1979 but I remember it as being a pleasant place. I’d hate to see it paved over or turned into North Pakistan.
That is your edit, not mine. If you actually read the constant stream of Islamophobic articles I write, I think ‘hardly-worth-mentioning’ is a rather odd interpretation.
But given the large numbers of mixed race couples one sees on the streets of London, clearly we are really very good indeed at assimilating people (who are not Muslims), and not just white Europeans either.
As for not ‘paving over’ Kent, why not? Britain is not a theme park. I have never seen the attraction of large parts of the British countryside which are really just a series of dreary open-air agricultural factories. I say pave over half of it for roads and housing (we will need somewhere to put all the refugees from France that will be arriving in, oh, about 10 years) and turn the rest into reservoirs 😛 Yes, I grew up in Kent…
Infidel753,
Actually Urdu is very common in the UK Pakistani community.
Reading your comment focussed me somewhat. The end result of multiculturism is not people of all faiths and cultures meeting. We go past each other like ships in the night. There is absolutely no engagement beyond buying a can of coke. Ironic isn’t it?
And, yes, there is something especially different with the muzzies. Manchester has a reasonable sized China Town but that never seems threatening (although an “all you can eat” buffet for GBP4.95 just can’t be that good for you).
But China Town (any China Town) is a stage set. They want you to come in and eat. Islamic Town is different. It is threatening and odd. Which is a real shame because I like Mid-East food. And God alone knows what this self-imposed apartheid does to the economy. In the area I live, there is a real mix of people and therefore absolutely no problems. But Longsight*, just up the road, is a Pakistani colony. Many of the people there live such a constrained life that I don’t wonder that some of them become terrorists (a few were arrested round here not long since). I can’t really imagine living in a ghetto and being constrained by the appalling surface tension of not being able to speak the language of the wider community but I’m not surprised they turn inward…
My point on the economy is the critical one. In many cases muslim immigration to the West is now predicated upon the idea of muslim as victim. It is not in the interest of the average imam to disavow his flock of that idea. Linguistic, social and economic exclusion are not the result of us nasty Brits. They are the result of certain islamic communities forming a phalanx to defend their values and social norms. It is not entirely a result of their religion. The most pious muslim I ever knew was perfectly integrated into UK society. I really don’t know what is going on. I suspect language is the key.
UK muslims underperform in school exams pretty much everyone else. So they get crap jobs (or crap jobs which involve only dealing with their own “kind”) and they get resentful…
I fail to see any particular reason for muslim immigrants to the UK to be dimmer than their hindu, buddhist and sikh counterparts although their habit of marrying cousins might be a factor… This puzzled me until I saw a bit on the local news. Apparently in certain areas of Bolton 80% of the kids turning up at the primary schools pitch up not speaking English. So we have a whole generation of kids for whom English is a second language. No wonder they under perform.
I suspect that the imams want to keep control and they do that by imposing this apartheid. Ably aided by the useful idiots from the government.
Back to the point (for once). I really don’t know about the open borders thing. For instance I strongly suspect that if the US opened it’s borders it would rapidly find a certain English speaking Americanophile with an MSc living there…
I was about to say I’d like to live in Montana and drive a truck but I know that means I’ll be shot in the final act…
Perry,
Are you doing a wind-up? Paving over Kent would mean a lot of CPOs and I always thought that liberatarians believed private property to be sacrosanct.
Also. Are you supporting a measure introduced by our beloved deputy Fuhrer?
If so, how odd!
Mixed race couples other than the muzzies. Well, yes it is indicitive of integration. I’m not trying to be coarse but can you think of a form of integration closer than sex? Unfortunately, Islam has pretty strong rules against the free mixing of males and females. If you can’t even flirt with someone from a specific group what hope has that group of ever assimilating?
I believe, in fact, that that is the point that is being made: current domestic policy is what allows people to resist assimilation to the extent that they do. Immigration policy has little to do with it. Ergo, opening the borders is not going to worsen it. Opening the borders might even help it in terms of taking away the marketable advantage of those who barely speak English, etc.
The Italians and the Irish also brought their home countries here for a generation or two. Their grandkids are now indistinguishable from all other Americans.
Not at all.
Yes indeed, but who needs CPOs? All it would take is abolishing the Town and Country Planning and Land Act (i.e. returning ownership to, well, the owners) and the price of the now fully utilisable land will do the rest.
Perry,
Well… I’m not au fait with that particular act. Kent is a lovely piece of the world though and I’d hate to see it fucked over. That is not a call for state involvement. Neither is it a defence of Northern Kent and the Thames estuary which is bloody awful area.
If you are up for the folks in Kent doing what the hell they want with their property then I’m with you, It’s just you’re pave it all over remark reminded me of something a civ eng student once said to me – jobs for the boys and all that. He said it to wind up a greenie. It worked brilliantly,
I guess I just like Kent as is. Now if you’d suggested concreting over Hertfordshire…
The act that enabled planning permission for more or less everything anyone wants to build.
And I guess I just do not think that much of Kent (or ‘London’s doormat’ as I like to call it) 🙂
Out of curiosity, what does “doing a wind-up” mean? That idiom does not yet seem to have immigrated to this side of the Atlantic.
Ah it means
Extracting the michael
Taking the piss
Are you having a laugh? (an old British cliche, dusted off by Ricky Jervais in Extras and soon to be in every british school playground again)
Welcome Infidel753
Never be afraid to ask. We are nice people here (in the main), and are always willing to help each other.
Oh and by the way vis a vis the original point.
The model of the “Perfect Market” is just that. A Model.
The reality is that, as any fule know, markets aim for Monopoly if they possibly can.
Joshua,
Well, you seem to be ignoring the underlying problem. Which I already stated as –
I vote strongly against the idea of killing ourselves to prove the system won’t work.
And you also said –
You clearly have no concept of the importance of language. My dad’s parents immigrated here without knowing a word of English. They determined to learn to speak it fluently. They had to put in a fair amount of effort to learn sounds that do not exist in their native tongue. The used to speak to each other in their language until they realized that my dad was picking up bits of it. From that point on, my dad said he never heard one more word of it from their mouths.
Yes, previous immigrants brought their traditions, legends, foods, (can I say that one again) foods (mmm….), ceremonies, etc. But they did it in English. Previous immigrants that didn’t learn English after they arrived here were generally old enough to have been brought over by their children. And even many of them did.
I draw a huge distinction between Americans who came here from Mexico, and Mexicans who are moving the border north. The difference is language. Most people from Mexico that I have met are, on average, more free enterprise libertarian capitalist than the general population already here. I love the things that have come into our culture from the south. The music, did I mention food, and yes, the culture to the extent that it is compatible with our constitutional principles.
It is not possible to conduct a legal system in two languages. Are we to have two separate languages of each law passed? With the inevitable differences, will we be able to choose which one we want to obey? Shall we have UN style translators in congress?
Two languages is a dead end. Either the system itself will fail, or those who speak only the minority language will forever be religated to second class citizenship. Those who push for bilingualism are, deliberately or not, pushing for second class status and isolation for their constituents or planning on replacing the existing first language.
Joshua,
I’m one of those grandkids. You don’t seem to realize the attitudes and effort it took to achieve that. I ask you to perform a simple test. Take a grandkid that lived in a language ghetto for those three generations and compare them to one that mixed with society for those three generations. Yeah. You get the picture.
Ferguson’s knowledge of asset price movements is on a par with Jade Goody’s understanding of history. His comments are so moronic and full of logical fallacies that it is not even worth the 10 minutes that it would take typing out a complete and utter demolition of every one of his lines of reasoning. The arrogance of his comments is breathtaking.
Hardly. Which is to say, yes, the Irish did (because that was the language they already spoke), but read up on history a bit and I think you’ll find that the first generation of Italians and German/Russian Jews and so on didn’t speak English when they got here and that many of them, in fact, either failed to or refused to learn it. Their children, however, did.
In fact, I do realize it. I study it, in fact. I am in graduate school studying Linguistics now, and there is not a single shred of research to indicate that children are more likely to speak their parents’ language than they are to speak the ambient language. Quite the contrary – it is well known that it is something of a struggle for the children of immigrants to retain full fluency in the parents’ language. Second generation children are generally bilingual English dominant, and by the third generation the original language has usually vanished. This is true even of children who live in what you call “language ghettos.” The only apparent exception are migrant workers who often literally have no contact with the ambient language at all. But for anyone who lives in a city, or even a small town, it would be highly unusal for the second generation to speak no English, and completely unheard of for the third generation (where here – just to clarify -I’m using first generation as the immigrants themselves. Others would use that for the first generation born in the US; I’m not sure which is common usage.)
Now, granted, Mexican migrant workers fit the description of a community that’s likely to be immune to this trend – speaking here only of farm workers and not the factory workers, mind you. So there may, indeed, be a problem there. But for the general population of immigrants, you would have to ignore something like 50 years of accumulated research to believe that there are large numbers of second-generation immigrants that can’t communicate in English. Maybe you personally know some counterexamples – but they are exceptions and not the general rule.
Hats off to your grandparents. I sincerely hope their efforts were rewarded financially in the form of increased employment/business opportunities. I suspect they were. But your grandparents’ hard language acquisition work has nothing whatever to do with your father’s English fluency. He would have been fluent in English anyway.
The test has been performed – and the results are as reported above. No need to take my word for it either: this stuff is well-documented.
This is a separate issue. I have no objections to the US adopting English as its official legal language. (Currently, by the way, there isn’t one.) However – bilingual countries are the norm and not the exception in the world, and your description of the legal difficulties is a giant exaggeration. Canada, to name the most pertinent example, does just fine with a bilingual set of laws. The overwhelming majority of Canadians are monolingual (and something like 80% of the bilinguals are French-dominant) and refer to the version of the law written in their native language. The only problems this causes that I’m aware of stem not from the fact of a code in two languages, but rather from the fact that Quebec has a different legal tradition altogether. No one here is advocating that the US adopt Mexican law, however. So the issue is merely one of translating the laws into Spanish, and that is really a non-issue. It is regularly done in California, Florida, and New Mexico, and I have never heard of a case of a legal ambiguity arising from it. Probably if you Google hard enough you can dig one up – but that is what higher courts are for, etc. I do not know how they settle such disputes as arise in Canada, but I would imagine the language the law was originally written in has precedence. And yes, Canadian laws are generally drafted in one language or the other (usually English) and then translated, though I guess these days the version put to a vote is generally bilingual.
I’ll back you on this one. I’m for – at a minimum – enforcing the laws we have (which we’re currently not doing) just in the name of general law and order. I would like to see most of those laws repealed, just as I would like to see most of our welfare system abolished. I’m willing to wait for open borders until welfare is significantly weakened. I’m just saying that I don’t believe there’s anything to fear from open borders (modulo the welfare question – and there’s plenty to fear from welfare with or without masses of immigrants), and plenty to gain from them.
I’m more optimistic than you about welfare collapsing in the face of masses of immigrants. Sure, there are those in power, as you say, who would try to tax us till we bleed in the name of “equality,” but they’re always aroud with or without immigrants, and they’re always finding “marginalized” populations to justify their arguments. People go along with them because the price never seems that high (though it becomes huge over accumulations of such bills). Faced with sudden increases in welfare spending, however, I think we might find more militant opposition to the welfare state.
Of course, I suppose it might turn out the other way around, and I don’t mind waiting until welfare is reduced or eliminated to knock out immigration laws.
The discussion, however, started on the question of whether Libertarians shoudln’t back off of the immigration issue in order to win support. I would just point out that if we’re talking about a Libertarian government striking off the immigration laws, that same government would be simultaneously decimating welfare payouts.
Maybe we can agree that the Libertarians need to emphasize their devotion to cutting welfare at the same time they play the immigration card?
To clarify, a point-by-point refutation of Ferguson’s comments.
“The price of crude oil for November delivery fell 5 per cent last week, even as Messrs Ahmadinejad and Chávez were holding their rant-fest.”
The markets already know Chavez and Ahmadinejad are anti US. So another set of speeches repeating that view is simply a repetition of something already known – it’s “old news”. Old news is already in the price, so typically has no impact whatsoever.
Secondly, even if it did matter, market prices are not determined solely by one factor. There are dozens, hundreds, even thousands of factors which impact the market price. Even if the speeches *were* new news, it’s quite possible that other news had even more impact, and thus swamped the supposed price-supporting anti-US rhetoric.
Ferguson here demonstrates complete and utter ignorance of two of the most basic and obvious market principles that are known to anyone who has spent more than 1 month on a dealing floor.
“On news of the coup in Bangkok, the Thai currency declined by little more than 1 per cent against the dollar – nothing compared with its spectacular gyrations during the Asian crisis of 1997.”
The trivial response is that the economic factors affecting Asia in 1997 and 1998 are not present today. Why should the replacement of a democratically elected prime minister with a military junta have a huge effect on the likely future earnings of a small group of corporations? Maybe the new junta will focus more on patronage and corporatism, which whilst bad for the economy as a whole, would be actually *beneficial* for the country’s leading businesses. It’s quite possible the the junta will turn over power within a moderate period of time. It’s possible that they may stay in power yet persue better economic policies. Pinochet’s administration in Chile came to power on a coup, yet persued the most economically liberal policies in recent South American history.
“Investors in the Hungarian stock market are not having a great year, it’s true, but recent political events have barely registered.”
Companies are valued on the perception of their future long-run profitability, adjusted by a risk premium. In 2016, in what way will the revenues of Hungary’s leading businesses by affected one iota by whether the current PM stays on, or is replaced by an identikit bureacrat? The markets may well judge that plus ca change, and think the replacement will just continue the same policies as before.
“To see just how far politics and economics have parted ways, just consider which of the world’s stock markets have done best so far this year. In pole position is Morocco (up 58 per cent in dollar terms since January 1). Next is none other than Mr Chávez’s Venezuela, up 49 per cent. In third place is Indonesia, where three Christian men were executed on Friday for their part in sectarian violence, sparking riots (34 per cent). Russia, where it is bankers who get the bullet, is not far behind on 32 per cent.”
Another high school fallacy. Market price changes are not absolute, but relative. The question is, up 58 per cent FROM WHAT? If Morocco was trading on 1 times earnings, it is dirt cheap, *even if the fundamentals suck*. If Switzerland or the US was on 100 times earnings, they are ludicrously overpriced, *even if the economy is great*. A jalopy is worth more than 1 cent. A Porsche is not worth 1 billion.
“investors are continuing to mistake liquidity for security. Despite the much-trumpeted tightening of interest rates by the world’s principal central banks, the reality is that monetary expansion has barely slowed. In Britain, for example, the broad money measure M4 grew at an annual rate of 13 per cent in July, a remarkable figure. Money may be dearer, but it is still amazingly plentiful. That seems to be encouraging a rather cavalier approach to risk assessment.”
If there is lots of money being pumped into the system, how does that imply that one ought to stay away from stocks and invest in…er cash or bonds? Both of which suck ass in an inflationary environment. But even this premise is flawed – the bond market has been rallying significantly in the last few months. If the market thought inflation was a major factor, binds would be at new lows, not climbing to 6 month highs.
Ferguson, and all the posters here giving tacit or explicit agreement, have disgraced themselves with this comments. Stick to what you know, and keep quiet on things you are ignorant of.
Joshua,
I was not aware that these “Italians and German/Russian Jews and so on” migrated into communities where the public (government funded for UK types) schools taught in their native languages, where driving tests where given in their native language, where government facilities provided native language services, where public transporation was served and signed in their native language, where all product packaging and instructions were in their native language, where nationwide network radio and tv was available in their native language. I just didn’t realize that those communities had much more than religious services and local newspapers readily available. The reality was that only very local private services were in their own language. If they wanted anything more from the larger community they needed a translator. I certainly didn’t realize that those other immigrants ‘benefitted’ from business being compelled by law to accomodate them. And that business could lose lawsuits for not speaking their language. This is news to me.
Well… yes. That’s exactly the point. “the ambient language” and when the ambient language is Spanish, you’re right. That is the language they are more likely to speak.
Joshua, that’s what a language ghetto is. Those circumstances you keep referencing to show how everything is okay are not language ghettos. They are not large scale multicultural. They are integrated communities. Your observation that when they have no contact with English, they don’t learn to speak it, should hardly come as any surprise.
You talk about fifty years of research showing I’m wrong. They must be studying somewhere else, because it hasn’t happened here before. If you want to study history, you need to study a couple of thousand years of situations where two cultures shared turf but not language. I think that track record is not so good. But of course that would be annecdotal. And the fact that there are so few places like Belgium, Cyprus, and the former Czechoslovakia where two different languages do live together in complete peace and harmony, suggests that it does have intrinsic problems.
Your reference to my grandparents does not do them any justice. No. They certainly saw little financial benefits. My grandfather started in a chair factory at an age that would now be very illegal. He died at 57 after an extremely hard life. My grandmother milked cows until she was in terminal stage cancer. At one point milking with a broken arm. They learned to be Americans because they came here intending to be Americans. They were Americans.
You suggest all this research showing how studies (of situations that have never occured before in this nation) prove that it won’t be a problem. Even the Amish and the Hassidic Jewish communities were not able to isolate themselves from English like Spanish speakers can.
I’m not going to go through all of your post. Predictably, both of us being Samizdata regulars, we have much more agreement than disagreement. I was a little surprised you introduced Canada and its neighbor Quebec. It didn’t seem like that would be a situation you would want to remind us of.
You say no one here is advocating the US adopt Mexican law. Well, that’s because of where ‘here’ is. Samizdata. Adopting our laws to suit the Mexican culture is something that is advocated by multiculturalists. You said that having the laws exist side by side in two separate languages is a non issue. I think you may want to see some of what goes on in the interpretation of laws by the judicial system. Remember what they say about making sausage, there are some things you don’t want to see being done. I don’t think laws would survive multilingualism in litiginous setting.
I’ll cut to the chase –
Oh my no. I agree with you on a great many things, Joshua, but definitely not this. There are people with the means to move government that intend us to be as poor as the third world. These people have no understanding of the creation of wealth and believe we have stolen our success. These people would permit the immigration to happen but will continue to defeat any useful reforms. Doing what you suggest would very much play into their agenda.
Well, this diatribe of mine came out sounding rather strident. More intense that I intended. I tend to get wound up on this topic. It is not something that can be rethought later without substantial upheaval. And too much unassimilated immigration can and historically always has brought down civilizations.
His comments hardly come across as arrogant. Mistaken maybe, but hardly arrogant. Cobden, you sound like you got out of the wrong side of bed today!
Cobden, this time I will be harsher on you. Of course some of what Ferguson said is nonsense, but it is worth highlighting how there has been a confluence of political problems kicking off in recent weeks and yet there has been remarkably little market reaction. Yes, some of what you say is true but it is worth remarking nonetheless that there has been a lot of trouble internationally and yet little market response. Ferguson remarked on this. I think his explanation that cheap credit is helping ease the situation is valid, but obviously not the whole story.
I’d be careful in accusing people of ignorance, by the way. I work in the City and know probably just as much about these matters as you think you do.
And this one is news to me. Since when do businesses lose lawsuits for not being able to speak Spanish? I doubt if this is the case in states that haven’t adopted Spanish as a legal language. But again, we’re talking about an immigration policy, not a language policy. I have, as I said before, no problem with the US adopting English as the standard legal language. But that is a separate issue from the immigration policy.
They didn’t have much more than local newspapers and religious services, you’re right. But we’re also talking about a time when there wasn’t much more expected. People didn’t deal with the government much because welfare handouts weren’t as available, they didn’t have cars, etc. People didn’t think to watch TV because no one had one. What they did instead was go out and talk to their neigbors (who spoke Italian) or read books (which were in Italian), and, indeed, go to church (which was in Italian). They did all their shopping in Italian because the neighborhood shopkeepers all spoke Italian. They didn’t generally use public transportation because everything they needed was in their own neighborhood, and available in Italian. They lived their lives in Italian – the way the Mexicans now live their lives in Spanish. Where are these monolingual Italians now?
As for the education system, it might interest you to know that just prior to WWI over 6% of all secondary school instruction in the US was given in German. German was an official language of the State of Pennsylvania, in fact, until the mid-1950s. Nevertheless, it hasn’t managed to supplant English.
Sorry, Midwesterner, but there’s nothing particularly new about the wave of Spanish-speaking immigrants.
They were and they did. And their grandkids all speak English.
No, it’s definitely a situation I want to remind you of because it makes my point. Laws in Canada are all bilingual, and there are no problems, ergo your concern on that point is unwarranted. There is plenty of (public school) bilingual instruction in Canada, and yet English remains the dominant language. The only place where the survival of French is not under threat, despite government efforts to promot it, one should add, is Quebec, and that is, as you say, because Quebec is really a separate country (with a separate legal system, even). In other words, even if some state in the US adopted Spanish as sole official language (which is extremely unlikely – even Florida and California have declared English as sole official language), there is nothing in Canada’s experience to suggest that this would be any kind of a threat to the language culture of the nation as a whole. The stats on Canada, by the way, are that about 18% of the population claims to speak French. In the US the number is more like 13% for Spanish – about 40million people. This 13% in the US recieves far less government support than the 18% in Canada and has no government of its own. There is little reason to expect that it will somehow become a threat to English-speaking culture here, and Canada well illustrates that point.
As I’ve pointed out, it has happened here before, with the results that the “native” language vanishes by the third generation. And yes, there is also research from other places that comes to the same conclusion. If a community is completely isolated, then sure, the immigrant language will persist. (So I’m not predicting Miami to go English-speaking anytime soon.) But virtually all the Mexicans moving to the US now will have grandkids that barely understand them because their grandkids won’t speak Spanish.
http://www.kempsmith.com/news.ssd?c=702e53b0818c4c93
And from the realm of product liability,
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0742ad4f2b.htm
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/ts_comments.php?id=60783_0_10_0_C
Plaintiff lost this case. But the tire was taken to Mexico where accident occured. Did that effect the outcome?
I’m not sure whether it’s under government or liability but if a product sale is conducted in Spanish, by federal law, the product warranty and disclaimers must also be in Spanish. This effectively requires Spanish language product labeling. I presume you can find me similar laws effecting previous generations of immigrants.
And in the field of government, there are any number of cases like this one.
and this one
Regarding my statement “Even the Amish and the Hassidic Jewish communities were not able to isolate themselves from English like Spanish speakers can.” you said –
And exactly how did they learn English while isolated from English speakers? The answer is they were not isolated.
? So I guess that whole Quebec secession/multinational state/asymmetrical federalism thing is my imagination.
Since you insist in every way that nothing is different now in how we are dealing with Spanish speakers verses how we dealt with earlier arrivals (“As I’ve pointed out, it has happened here before”.), yet at the same time you say earlier examples may not count because things were different then – “They didn’t have much more than local newspapers and religious services, you’re right. But we’re also talking about a time when there wasn’t much more expected. People didn’t deal with the government much because welfare handouts weren’t as available, …” Your right about that. Welfare handouts were not available. Immigrants had to integrate.
You say “There is little reason to expect that it [multilingualism] will somehow become a threat to English-speaking culture here, and Canada well illustrates that point.” I think Canada proves exactly the opposite point. Assigning turf according to the highest percentage language spoken on it is perhaps the worst case example of how unfettered immigration can bring down a society.
In your final paragraph, you acknowledge If a community is completely isolated, then sure, the immigrant language will persist.(So I’m not predicting Miami to go English-speaking anytime soon.)
You refuse to accept that we are facilitating isolation in a way that is unprecedented in our history, claim these people will all learn English within three generations, while at the same time you say it won’t matter anyway if they don’t because multilingualism is no problema.
The cynic in me wonders if perhaps, with your field being linguistics, you have some subconscious desire to see the Babelization of society?
I deleted my finished comment ‘minimizing’ by clicking ‘X’ instead of ‘_’. It took me a fair while to learn how to resurrect deleted Firefox screens from the cache file. Seemed it made more sense to learn a new skill instead of spending the same amount of time trying to remember my points and links. I’m bored with this topic. You need to step back from the trees and have a look at how the forest grows.
Thanks. But I’m through here.
Obviously. My distinction between completely isolated communities and these was meant to capture this, but you persist in reading what you want to read. Neither are most Mexican communities in the US “completely” isolated. I allowed that migrant farm workers are, but not anyone living in cities or working in factories. These people are isolated to the same degree that the Italians were, etc. That point was quite clear, I think, in both of my previous posts.
No, it isn’t, nor did I say it was. This point is meant to refer to the fact that federal laws in Canada are all written in both English and French. These laws, being federal, apply to all provinces – i.e. not just Quebec. The point you were making originally was that there would be legal ambiguities from the mere fact of writing laws in two languages, but nothing in the Canadian experience shows this to be the case.
Quebec has a different system of laws, and this may create some issues. But these issues are not a language problem but rather a problem of having two legal systems in the same country. Since no one in the US is advocating adopting Mexican law, and since the Canadian experience shows that there are very few interpretation problems having a federal code in two languages, I think Canada does indeed illustrate that your concerns here are unwarranted.
Manitoba and New Brunswick are both bilingual French/English provinces and have no troubles in this area that I am aware of.
You get this impression because you selectively chose not to read the rest of that paragraph, which makes amply clear that people in those days lived in just as much relative isolation as the Mexicans do today. In those days, they didn’t have much dealing with government. So, the time that they didn’t spend dealing with government they spent talking to their neighbors or working with their coworkers in their native language. The point I was making in that paragraph was that the sum total of time spent dealing in the native language is no different now for Mexicans than it was for Italians then. As for TV – it was just silly for you to even bring that up for peope living in the 20s. Mexicans now watch TV in Spanish. In the 20s, people read books in Italian. I don’t really see how you thought that TV would be an argument for your case anyway since if you flip a channel English is there (which wouldn’t have been the case for the ersatz activity of reading a book or newspaper or talking to an Italian-speaking neighbor).
I don’t know how many times I have to repeat that I have no problem with making English the official language. I’ve said it in the previous two posts, but I guess I’ll need to repeat it here: I have no problem with making English the nation’s official language.
This is not an argument.
And this is undeserved.
Your links give me a lot to think about. I was unaware that these kinds of cases were going on. I will need to read them carefully, of course, but the first one gives me plenty of reason to change my mind on Spanish-speaking immigrants. You may be right that we are facilitating these people to an extent that we didn’t in the past.
Cobden
You need to get out more, pal.
A crane operator that has been here for 24 years and can’t take a safety test in English? And sues?
Most of my family lives in the Phoenix area. When I visit, I’m amazed by going into a anglo supermarket in an anglo neighborhood and going through three or four employees to find one who speaks English.
No Joshua. I am and have been making the case from the start that there are many Mexican communities that are completely isolated from English and they are increasing in both size and number at (to me, at least) an alarming rate.
It is now possible to be born in a hospital were you are cared for in Spanish. Go to Spanish language day care. Attend school where your linguistic culture will not be discriminated against. Work in entirely Spanish language work places and sue them if it isn’t provided, vote in all elections in Spanish, register for all of your government programs in Spanish, take your driving test in Spanish, watch a wide choice of Spanish language television at home, listen to a wide choice of Spanish language radio in your car, subscribe to exclusively Spanish language publications (including some very high profile ones), go to a ‘big box’ store and find the merchandise clearly marked in Spanish, make insurance claims in Spanish, collect foodstamps, welfare, and retirement benefits in Spanish and eventually be buried without ever needing to know English.
I am all for cultural mixing. To do this we need a common language. It is almost impossible to sit down with someone in a casual setting and exchange cultural and social knowledge when language is a barrier.
The more linguistic isolation there is, the more cultures diversify instead of integrating. The more the minority language is isolatied in second class. This was my point in bring up Quebec’s problems. This study tried hard to cast a positive light on bilingual laws, but in the end concluded –
Somehow, “collective accountability mechanisms” doesn’t sound good to me.
You say that I “selectively chose not to read the rest of that paragraph”. Careful with that accusation, you are ignoring bucket loads of my points. For example, you say that since previous immigrants didn’t need to communicate with the government as much for things like welfare, that example doesn’t count. My point was that with government (in Spanish) providing all of the needs that used to come from society, and mandating that society provides every they have in Spanish, that the trend of more government activity is making things worse, not irrelevent like you state.
My brother made an interesting point that lead me to another. Isolated groups (ideally) meet each other at the edges and this is where assimilation occurs. But to this, I add that the area of the community increases by a multiplying factor over the lengthening of the border. These communities are reaching critical mass in a way that has not happened previously in our history.
Wisconsin also used to be extremely German. But the nature of an agricultural economy is that no community could get very large and still be isolated.
As for English as an official language, I don’t care. It will only make a difference if English is the official language and there are no others.
I apologize if I made any ad hominems yesterday. Something else hopefully enlightening did come out of this exchange, I learned how to recover previews out of my Firefox cache.
Off topic, I know, but I just quit Firefox in favor of Opera about a week ago and would like to recommend it to you. It’s much nicer to use (especially if you take the time to learn the keyboard shortcuts) and doesn’t frequently lose information like Firefox did (had a tendency to lose my bookmarks, etc.)
Back on topic –
Yes, I agree it’s completely insane. I didn’t realize things had gone that far – though I suppose in our sue-happy country I should have guessed. Certainly this kind of thing wouldn’t have happened in the 1920s when the Italians I spoke of were busy trying not to assimilate (and failing with their children).
I did some snooping around on the net yesterday, however, and found that the firm you cited (the first link, I haven’t gotten to the others yet) is exaggerating about the law a bit, though. The official interpretation of Title VII of the (1972-updated) Civil Rights Act definitely goes further than I’d like it to 9actually I think it’s time to repeal that law) – but officially all it covers is employers making office conversation related “English-only” laws at work. That is, you’re not allowed to tell your employees, who happen to speak a common non-English language, that they have to converse with each other in English.
However, companies are allowed to require English in safety situations. The overall point seems to be that “English-only” rules have to be narrowly tailored to suit certain situations – which is a general legal principle.
It also allows “English-only” rules when they are appropriate to the job – for example in hiring cashiers.
Now, obviously I don’t support this bogus law – no Libertarian could. But I thought it worth noting that the official government line on it isn’t as unreasonable as the source makes it out to be.
Whether they stick to this in practice is, of course, a completely different matter. All Americans know from personal experience that “discrimination” is largely in the eye of the beholder (especially if the beholder is a recognized minority).
Well, I’ll give in on immigration. I’m convinced that that there are legal realities now that didn’t exist in the 1920s that make my analogy with Italian immigrants unworkable. If the government can’t restrain itself on language policy once they’re here, maybe it’s better that we stop them coming in the first place (at least in such numbers), right. I’ll support open borders when the government takes a more “hands-off” approach to business and social welfare.
As for the language aspects, though, I still find it difficult to believe, given all I’ve read, that Spanish is here to stay. I don’t see these communities being as isolated as you seem to see them. Whether they really are or not is an empirical question – I guess we’ll find out…
Joshua, thanks for the correction on workplace English-only rules. My first thought was, “Oh. So at least that is no big deal.” Then I went to read other threads.
After a while a thought that had been creeping around the back of my mind (scary place) stepped up where I could have a good look at it. Here is the scenario.
Anti discrimination laws compel an employer to hire Spanish (or other) language employees. You and I both agree those laws are a violation of the employers rights, but they exist, none the less.
Now, the employer is forbidden from requiring English in the workplace. When ever he is talking with the employees, they are protected by law to speak in non-English among themselves.
In effect, they can talk about him behind his back right to his face. Hhmmm….. It made sense when I thought it.
Seriously, or at least more seriously, I understand what you are saying about most previous groups resisting integration initially. I was raised in Chicago. We had waves of Irish, Poles, Germans, to name some of the larger ones. But far from being welcomed and coddled, their community customs and traditions were deliberately attacked by existing institutions with the intent of breaking them. Usually the attempts failed but at the price of the attacked group needing to integrate into the mainstream in order to defeat them.
One example that comes to mind is of Germans in Chicago. “A temperance crusade against Irish and German drinkers resulted in stiffer licensing and Sunday closing laws that culminated in the Lager Beer Riot.” from this very interesting read. What I got from this page in general is that the first full generation (called “second generation”), while retaining their ethnic identity, were bringing it to shared forums where many ethnicities were present. “Ethnic leaders worried the second-generation would become debauched or meet the wrong people at public dances, so they organized dances at ethnic clubs and neighborhood halls. Their young men and women preferred modern commercial ballrooms with big bands but maintained a sense of ethnicity. They preferred accessible halls where their group dominated or controlled part of the floor.” Those same ethnic leaders are today using the power of government to get their way now where they couldn’t in the past.
That page linked above has many hotlinks to more good stuff if that’s your sort of thing. I enjoyed it. Try this, on the page linked above, enter ‘immigration’ in the search box. Incredible. What is unique now, is that for the first time since the first english settlers arrived here as a substantial group, we have one ethnicity that’s able to overwhelm all by itself.
In the course of looking for more interesting relevant information, I came across a another fantastically interesting page that gives the immigration history of just one neighborhood (Bridgeport) of Chicago. It doesn’t have much in particular of direct statement to our discussion except that it quickly becomes apparent that, especially since we are talking about just one neighborhood, the diversity of immigration makes integration inevitable.
I did find one reference to earlier Mexican immigrants to Bridgeport, Chicago. –The article says
When one considers what living conditions must have been like, then and there, that many adults in night school is impressive. Probably between one and two per household.
Well, I really do need to let this topic go. If you want to carry on this discussion, we should probably go to email. We’re spilling Perry’s eink all over the place. I think I may have your email on my crashed disk but it’s a substantial project to find out. I can’t remember, you may have mine and if so, feel free to use it.
I forgot email addresses weren’t showing up on Samizdata anymore. I don’t have yours, no (I don’t have any old Samizdata pages saved).
I doubt I would be much use in an offline discussion anyway since you seem to have done more reading on it than I have. I’m also “between opinions” on the issue at the moment (noted in earlier post). I’d need to read through a bunch of cases on the net, only of course being in gradschool I’m obligated to spend more of my time with Linguistics and programming than politics (I should probably avoid Samizdata altogether – it’s a great way to get distracted!).
But I do intend to go through those other two links soon (I’ve bookmarked them, not read them), so if your email turns up anywhere I’ll drop a line with my reactions.
It is a topic of substantial interest to me. It was actually in large part the topic that turned me from a lurker into a commenter at Samizdata. With my dad’s parents arriving on a boats with no knowledge of English, and my mom’s ancestors arriving on much earlier boats (including the Mayflower) I often think about how this incredible novelty, the United States came to be. And how it can continue to be.
I checked your website and didn’t find a contact address, I thought sure we’ve exchanged emails in the past so it might be on my crashed disk somewhere…
I am quite interested in what you learn, particularly if it concerns assimilation in reduced contact situations. In addition to Amish, my brother recalls a situation in North (?) Dakota involving an immigrant Norwegian community that went many generations without learning English. I haven’t found information on this one yet.
If memory serves, I think your email has something like ‘ceau’ in it? Or I may be remembering someone else. If I dig into those email files again, I’ll be sure and look for it.
Losing the common tongue, Jeff Jacoby
This link was down when I when I wanted to use it earlier. You may find his thoughts interesting.