The Mariners have celebrated Latinos in baseball annually in recent years. In 2024, they will do so as Los Marineros.
Players will don the same white home uniforms Saturday afternoon against the Detroit Tigers at Safeco Field, with one distinguishable difference — the front of their jerseys will say “Marineros,” the Spanish translation of the team name.
It will be the first time the team has done so, and is the most prominent gesture of all of the team’s previous yearly salutes to Latin American “beisbol.”
(Thanks all that is Good and Right that he wasn’t wearing a scarf!)
It gets worse!
Traditional Latin music and dance and small ceremonies have marked the occasion in years past. So have stadium public-address announcements in Spanish, which will take place again on Saturday. This year, however, there is the wearing of the Spanish-language jerseys, which has also been done by the Milwaukee Brewers (”Cerveceros”) and San Francisco Giants (”Gigantes”). Also, the first 25,000 fans at the game will get a commemorative souvenir: “Marineros” baseball caps.
Cute post. Unfortunately, all readers of this site get are cute posts like this and retransmitted smears.
Besides mine, is there a site that discusses issues like this in a grown-up fashion and considers the massive downsides of the creation of a separate culture inside our country?
Besides mine, is there a site that discusses issues like this in a grown-up fashion and considers the massive downsides of the creation of a separate culture inside our country?
I can’t comment on your site, but anyone who is worried about “the creation of a separate culture inside our country” likely has a simplistic understanding of culture, power, and an undeveloped conception of historical development.
Ratoe: thanks for your most high-minded reply. However, living in L.A. I see the development in action. And, even those living in other areas can see it in things like these:
That reminds me of this post at Sadly No! (scorll down a bit).
And in re: #2 and #3 above: it is rather odd (if not downright amusing) to be called unserious by a fellow who blogs under the pseudonym “The Lone Wacko.”
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, May 30, 2024 @ 6:54 pm
On a similar theme, this discussion reminds me of when one of the city council members in Garden Grove, Calif., proposed an ordinance for English-only signage back in the late 1970s or 1980s.
It was pointed out that it might be hard to translate such business names as Del Taco and Der Wienerschnitzel (especially since the latter chain actually does not sell any Wiener schnitzel). He dropped the idea. Unfortunately, he still won reelection. Fortunately, the culture (such as it was in Garden Grove) seems to have gotten along OK. In fact, it is much richer, with all the great Pho places.
I don’t think it was Dr. Taylor’s intent to start an argument. He was simply observing that the Mariners are wearing Spanish jerseys for one day, and making some comments on it.
If you run your own blog (and who doesn’t these days, for Pete’s sake I even have one, and a handful of subscibers) you know that blogging is almost always editorial in nature. As such it is not always purely journalistic and is frequently laced with opinions, which you can take or leave (and we all know what opnions are frequently compared to.)
If I may, I think it was Dr. Taylor’s opinion not that there is no cultural change happening in the United States, but that this change is frequently approached out of context and in a way that seems to be designed to induce panic. There is a larger historical context to place the change in, and when you do that, you get a different picture than when you simply take a snapshot like this and use it to project where America is going.
As far as immigration and separate cultures within the United States go, the Mexican/Latin American wave is only the most recent of a very long string of immigration waves that started in the 16th century. There has always been panic among those of us who got here a generation or two or three (or more) before the current immigration wave about “those darned immigrants.” And there have always been pocket cultures within America.
As a case in point, I grew up in Cleveland, Ohio, which, during the 20th Century, experienced a massive influx of immigrants from Eastern Europe. At the time they came, people were saying the same thing about them that people are currently saying about Latin Americans. There were people scared that German or Romanian or Hungarian or Ukrainian would be the new national language, and that our culture (whatever that is) would be destroyed.
What actually happened is what always happens; natural market forces, the availability of jobs, and other factors slowed the trend down, and those who projected that America would be more than 50% German or Romanian or whatever - based on the trend they observed for a decade or two - were dead wrong. Whenever you make a projection into the future based on a few decades, you are likely to be wrong; things like immigration, when expressed graphically, are rarely straight lines. They have spikes and valleys, and if you make your future projection based on one of the spikes, you’re going to be wrong.
My best friend is Ukrainian. His grandmother never learned English. She has been living in a community made up largely of Ukrainians and their descendents for 50 years. She never learned English because she never needed to, but her children did, and they are bilingual. So are her grandchildren. This is what tends to happen a few generations down the immigration line. Historically it always has happened, and there is no reason to think it won’t with the current immigration wave.
Hence, there is no need to panic.
When I was in the Army I saw all kinds. I had a lot of soldiers for whom English was a second language. As an Infantry officer, I know that they make up a disproportionate number of our actual combat forces, and by and large are excellent soldiers - they appreciate the opportunities they have in America and are willing to fight for them.
Again, there is no need for panic. Such talk is designed to get people’s attention, and nothing more.
Malkin - as Dr. Taylor observed in a previous posting - has gone down the path that “any publicity is good publicity,” and she is only one of many alarmists that are out there, who are willing to say or do anything to get attention. The furor and fear of the immigration wave we currently face is nothing more than Xenophobia and caving to alarmist rhetoric.
In twenty years, the alarmists will be inducing panic about someone else. Maybe Russians. They’re due. They haven’t had a major immigration wave to the US in a long time.
My money is on Russians.
Comment by Captain D — Saturday, May 31, 2024 @ 4:08 pm
Lone Wacko: I was simply making an observation, not engaging in an argument.
Indeed, to be fair, your aren’t engaging in any type of argument either. All you did was make a comment about your view of the quality of my postings and extolled the virtue of your own blog. Where is the argument there?
Aside from the rather obvious fact that you view immigration differently than do I, I am not really even sure what your point is.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, May 31, 2024 @ 5:26 pm
The reason? McCain’s position on immigration, and specifically Hawkins’ view that McCain promised one thing, and then changed his mind (i.e., that McCain had supposedly recanted on his position of comprehensive immigration reform in lieu of a “security first” approach). This allegedly flip-flop led Hawkins to write (amongst other things):
Put very simply: John McCain is a liar. He’s a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration. Quite frankly, this is little different from George Bush, Sr. breaking his “Read my lips, no new taxes pledge,” except that Bush’s father was at least smart enough to wait until he got elected before letting all of his supporters know that he was lying to them.
Under these circumstances, I simply cannot continue to support a man like John McCain for the presidency. Since that is the case, I have already written the campaign and asked them to take me off of their mailing list and to no longer send me invitations to their teleconferences. I see no point in asking questions to a man who has no compunction about lying through his teeth on one of the most crucial election issues and then changing his position the first time he believes he can get away with it.
Now, a few things immediately come to mind upon reading all of this. The first was that McCain has not changed his position on this issue, but I wasn’t willing to go through the trouble of walking through this fact. However, since James Joyner has already done the work, I can point my readers to his run-down and steal cite his conclusion:
McCain is not feeling his way around on this one. He’s represented a border state in the Senate for 31 years and has been a passionate leader on this issue. Why would anyone think he’d turned 180 degrees in the middle of a presidential run? For that matter, why would they want to trust the leadership of their country to someone who had?
Instead, he took his beating on the issue like a man, announced that he’d learned that he’s not going to get his way without addressing the security issue first, but reiterated that he thinks we need a comprehensive, humanitarian approach to the problem.
Exactly. Indeed, I still think that this view is far more prevalent within Republican ranks than the anti-immigration faction act is the case. Indeed, if it was the issue they think that it is, McCain would never have been nominated and Tom Tancredo would have done a bit better than he did (i.e., the low single digits).
Beyond all of that, I continue to find it remarkable that so many people think that immigration is the most important issue on the table at the moment. Forget the economy, energy or wars and stuff, the most important problem is the ongoing infiltration of gardeners, roofers, fast food workers, nannies and the like across the southern border.
Further, I have to ask people like Hawkins, Malkin and company if they think that they will be closer to their policy goals if Obama is president. I mean if it really is the Paramount Issue of Our DayTM, then surely they will get closer to what they want with a Democratic Congress + McCain than they will with Obama in the White House, yes?
Of course, the real truth of the matter is that regardless of who gets elected, the likelihood of a radical change of the status quo vis-a-vis immigration and the border is unlikely to occur in any significant way, meaning that the issue shouldn’t, logically, be a deciding one for a voter (given all those other issues out there to choose from that might actually be affected by the election). But, then again, most discussions of immigration and border security can’t be considered logic-ridden these days…
I think the most alarming part of the Hawkins rant is “I see no point in asking questions.”
But that seems to be what people do these days - get attached emotionally to an idea, then someone seems to betray it, and we shut down and stop talking.
Asking questions becomes MORE important when you get something you don’t expect from a politician, not less so. Perhaps if we spoke to our political rivals more instead of calling them names and fortifying ourselves within our own polar faction, we might have some solutions to the problems we face as a nation.
Comment by Captain D — Friday, May 23, 2024 @ 5:00 pm
Who is John Hawkins, and why does anyone care whether he’ll support McCain?
[...] tact that partisans often take when unhappy with their party (a recent example of that would be John Hawkins). Others, like Andrew Sullivan, stung by the failure that is Iraq (amongst a variety of other [...]
U.S. border authorities no longer apprehend illegal immigrants only as they enter the country. Now they’re catching them on the way out.
At random times near the Tijuana-San Diego border, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers have been setting up checkpoints, boarding buses destined for Mexico and pulling off people who don’t have proper documentation.
[...]
“If our officers come upon people who are here illegally . . . regardless of whether they’re leaving the country, we detain them, make a record of the fact they were here illegally and return them to Mexico,” Bond said.
This strikes me as nonsensical from a policy perspective. It is clear that we do not have the resources to stop persons from illegally entering the country, so we are going to divert what limited resources we do have so as stop people who are in the process of leaving so that we can, well, make them leave?
In other words, such individuals are mere minutes from deporting themselves, but the U.S. government wants to spend tons of money to do it instead.
More from the article:
Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center of Comparative Immigration Studies at UC San Diego, said he was not aware of similar crackdowns in the past. The checkpoints make sense for intercepting contraband, but targeting illegal immigrants voluntarily leaving the country is a “bizarre” way of handling the illegal immigration question, he said.
Bizarre, indeed.
Again: as a deployment of scarce resources, this is a clear waste. Further, if part of the overall policy is to get those in the country illegally to leave of their own accord, surely the possibility of being arrested on the way out will dissuade them from trying to go home in the first place, yes? Can we therefore say “counterproductive”?
All I can figure, aside from simple stupidity, is that this a sop to those who say that the government isn’t doing enough in terms of enforcement. Indeed, it is classic politics: if one cannot actually accomplish the main policy goal, do something visible within that overall policy area, even if it doesn’t make much sense. At least people will see that one is doing something.
Oh sure, some of us blogging types rant and rave with questions about justice at Guantanamo Bay and the efficacy of current border policy, but what do we know, right?
So, let’s see what people on the ground think.
Hmm, on that Gitmo thing, it would seem that the former chief prosecutor at the Guantanamo Bay facility, one Colonel Morris Davis, testified this week that he believed that politics, not justice, was driving the process (leading to his resignation). See this WaPo piece (From Chief Prosecutor To Critic at Guantanamo) and this interview from Tuesday’s All Things Considered.
Chief Patrol Agent Victor Manjarrez Jr. said that without comprehensive immigration reform, border agents continue to split their attention between “economic migrants,” criminals and potential terrorists.
“Most of these people are economic migrants but we have to deal with them between the ports of entry because we have not, in terms of a legislative fix, determined what we do with these people,” Manjarrez said.
“I think it’s pretty obvious that the country has a need for economic migrants. To what degree, I don’t know. That’s for the country to decide and for the politicians to decide.”
And here I thought we were doing so well in these areas.
The government is scrapping a $20 million prototype of its highly touted “virtual fence” on the Arizona-Mexico border because the system is failing to adequately alert border patrol agents to illegal crossings, officials said.
The move comes just two months after Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced his approval of the fence built by the Boeing Co. The fence consists of nine electronic surveillance towers along a 28-mile section of border southwest of Tucson.
Boeing is to replace the so-called Project 28 prototype with a series of towers equipped with communications systems, cameras and radar capability, officials said.
The system wasn’t a total failure, but like practically every other type of border security policy it caught some crossers, but not the majority thereof. Oddly, that describes all border security policies heretofore tried, and will describe all those yet to be invented, one suspects. The engine that drives this behavior is basic supply and demand and the human drive to better one’s life–unless and until a solution is directed at dealing with those underlying motivators, all attempts at solution will fail.
You, know it doesn’t make sense not just the 20million dollar waste of money, BUT why put up some stupid gate one moment and be a hypocrite and want “FREE TRADE” with mexico?! Seems like Bush needs to shoot himself in the head or foot or both. What is the point of NAFTA which is still a blatant power play for money and power, if your going to put up some “virtual” Gate and waste 20million tax payer dollars. W needs to stop this lie of his. I bet the Mexican president isn’t spending 20million dollars on all the people starving in his so called country. Why oh, why do you people in power insist on trying so hard to hold onto your imagined power? You should all do a bit of personal homework and find out WHY you insist on doing these things to YOURSELVES. The only people getting really screwed here is YOU in POWER. It will all come down on your heads, you all seem to think that this little parade of stupidity will just keep on going and life will be good. I’ve got news you for you people on the “HILL” Karma applies to EVERYBODY, so sooner or later, like it or not your going to get in right in your tail holes.
Comment by Joe — Monday, April 28, 2024 @ 11:49 am
The representatives question the constitutionality of a broad waiver, which Congress authorized under Section 102 of the REAL ID Act in 2024, that issues no further restrictions or points of guidance to the executive when it hands over the power to indefinitely waive federal statutes that could hinder the progress of a border wall.
A first thought: why aren’t the objecting Representatives seeking to have the provisions of the REAL ID Act in question rescinded? Why not not try to exercise legislative power? After all, their party is now in the majority.
Beyond that: regardless of one’s position on the border fence1 , one would like to think that it would be clear that granting an executive entity such broad-sweeping powers is a bad thing. Although, no doubt, if one is pro-border fence and skeptical of environmental regulations2 then one probably doesn’t see much here to complain about.
However, let’s consider a different scenario: let’s say that the next president of the United States comes into office and seeks to fix the mortgage crisis by convincing the Congress to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to waive whichever financial regulations he or she thinks needs to be ignored so as to “fix” the problem? Or, what if to fix the national debt the next President convinces the Congress to allow the IRS to waive whatever rules that it wishes to ignore so as to accelerate income collection and thereby the paying down of debt?
This is a dangerous course to take in terms of governance (i.e., the notion that the legislature should defer to the executive), and yet it is one that the current administration is all too comfortable with–as Bush’s attitude on signing statements makes quite clear.3
If the Congress believes that certain aspect of established statutes stand in the way of policy goals, then the Congress ought to debate those statutes and change them via legislation (if the support for such changes exists) not grant an executive branch official carte blanche to ignore laws at will and even, if Chertoff’s interpretation of the provision is correct, to ignore court orders:
the environmental groups won a restraining order from Huvelle in October 2024 that temporarily stopped border wall construction and instructed DHS to investigate the local environmental impacts of the project.
Chertoff responded by using the waiver authority; in November, he circumvented the restraining order by waiving 19 federal statutes. He followed that up this month by authorizing two waivers — involving some 30 laws — in order to complete construction of the fence and other protective measures in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
Forget border fences and environmental regulation and ask oneself: is this really the way we should want our democracy to function?
In terms of statutory authority, I’m pretty sure Chertoff is in the right here; the provisions of the REAL ID Act waive specific provisions of specific statutes as they relate to the construction of the border fence, so the argument that “Congress didn’t know what it was waiving” doesn’t really fly. And the idea that Congress can’t pass laws that waive or alter provisions of laws it has already passed doesn’t pass the laugh test.
As a matter of Congressional behavior, this is par for the course and classic buck-passing by Congress. Congress wants a fence. Members of Congress don’t want to deal with the details or have to explain why the details are bad, so they pass that along to the bureaucracy. Then they can complain about the bureaucrats not following “Congressional intent” when it all goes to crap, when they know full-well that the bureaucrats are following their intent.
As a matter of public policy, the border fence is fundamentally stupid and will not work in terms of its stated goals. In the iterated game of policymaking, though, it may be a necessary precondition for a sufficient critical mass of politicians to have the political cover needed to make other, more desirable policy changes related to immigration in the future. So if a few rust-belt representatives need to stand in front of a fence before they can sell their union backers on comprehensive immigration reform, I can’t say the fence will be the biggest waste of money in American history. Or even for that matter FY2008-09.
It seems to me, however, that if they want to waive specific provisions, they ought to waive them in legislation, not give the power to the executive. It isn’t so much whether Congress can do things this way, but rather whether they should (which, granted, is a normative question).
I recognize that this is not new behavior, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. However, this does strikes me as a particularly egregious example.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, April 20, 2024 @ 5:35 pm
I will say that you are more optimistic about the long-run positive outcomes of this policy than am I. I suspect that we will simply spend a lot of money, get nothing for it in terms of actually doing anything about immigration, and eventually people will tire of yelling “reconquista” and move on to something else to hyperventilate about.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, April 20, 2024 @ 5:38 pm
Well, when they’re tired… that’s when you hit ‘em with the reform between the eyes. And I’m not all that optimistic… just sketching out a possibly optimistic scenario, which is unlikely to come to pass. Or maybe I’m just hoping against hope that living near the front lines of this cluster**** of a policy will be better than it seems now.
On the REAL ID Act, I took a look at the provision in question and it is phrased very generally: “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements such Secretary, in such Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.” For some reason I thought it specified the laws that were waived. That said, I’m not sure it matters as to the bill’s constitutionality (although it does matter in terms of the bill’s wisdom).
Incidentally the bill passed in final form by 368-58 in the House and 100-0 in the Senate three years ago. The Democrats have had 15+ months in the majority to repeal the provisions by attaching a rider to “must-pass” legislation (which is how this mess started in the first place); methinks they protest too much.
I agree that the constitutionality argument makes no sense.
But, looking at the vote (which I should have looked up myself) underscores why they are trying the lawsuit route.
And yes, you are going to get to see all this up close, aren’t you?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, April 20, 2024 @ 7:24 pm
You and Lawrence are correct in noting this is not new behavior or restricted to the border fence. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court (like Bruce Babbit back in the day, HE wanted to immunize EPA from environmental suits for a few years so that it could actually get some work done) seems to be tiring of it. The Congressional buck-passing I mean. In fact, in one recent case, it hit me right in the pocketbook … hard.
The way I see recent pre-emption cases, including the above-referenced painful Reigel v. Medtronic, is that the Court seems sick of Congress passing laws with broad writs of authority to reach goals, not specifying how those are to be reached and then holding hearings and pressuring agencies when results are not going the way they’d prefer that day.
I see the Supremes as simply writing bright line rules case-by case. Agency A can, agency B cannot, no ambiguity. no if’s, ands or buts. if that’s not the way Congress wanted it, Congress can greow a pair, take a stand and legislate for a change. That would, of course, require stand on issues the voters could judge them on …
Why no outrage over the latest protectionist moves by our fine, fine legislators?
Comment by Jenda — Sunday, April 20, 2024 @ 9:07 pm
I lived in California during the Northridge earthquake. I remember that the state decided to cut a lot of red tape to get bridges and roads repaired, with the end result being that the contractor finished the work a month or two early and the state balked at the daily incentive in the contract (basically if the contract was finished before a target date then the contractor made more money, if the project finished after the target date the contractor paid a penalty; and in the end the contractor finished much earlier than anyone expected).
The best part, to me, was that most of L.A.’s infrastructure was repaired well before San Francisco’s, and San Francisco’s had been damaged in an earthquake a year earlier.
Point is, when it comes to construction projects I believe it’s widely acknowledged that a lot of red tape isn’t necessary. Even in a left-of-center state like California.
Comment by Max Lybbert — Monday, April 21, 2024 @ 12:30 pm
Why not not try to exercise legislative power?
That’s an easy one. Always good to get a hanging curve on a Monday morning.
Because Democrats don’t control the “legislative power.” Given the supermajority (status-quo biased) institutions we are saddled with, the president controls the legislative power when the majority’s proposal is to rescind anything on the books.
Comment by MSS — Monday, April 21, 2024 @ 12:54 pm
True enough–I was really more wondering aloud why they didn’t try any legislative action (the vote, as Chris noted, answers my question as well).
On balance I am just bemoaning the situation.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, April 21, 2024 @ 1:01 pm
While I have no doubt that at the end of the day some US consumers will refuse to buy Absolut vodka as a result of this ad, I find it amusing that ultimately it was a pretty good buy for Absolut, as they certainly got their name out there with a ton of free pub. If anything the whole thing reinforces the association between the words “Absolut” and “vodka” in a way that is almost certainly more positive from a marketing point of view.
What I also found amusing, but not surprising, about the reaction to the ad is the massive insecurity a lot of people must feel about to the US-Mexican border to assume that an ad for vodka could, in any way, be threatening.
The whole thing was absolute nonsense, quite frankly.
Background on the story, along with a picture of the ad, can be found here.
A few months ago I noted that the proposed border fence would create not only property rights problems, but also issues about the de facto border. Now the Texas Observer notes some rather unjust Holes in the Wall.
For example, Eloisa Tamez, aged 72 is going to have the fence go right through her backyard, but there will be no fence down the road at the River Bend Resort and golf course (two miles from Tamez’s home). Another example:
Just 69 miles north, Daniel Garza, 76, faces a similar situation with a neighbor who has political connections that reach the White House. In the small town of Granjeno, population 313, Garza points to a field across the street where a segment of the proposed 18-foot high border wall would abruptly end after passing through his brick home and a small, yellow house he gave his son. “All that land over there is owned by the Hunts,” he says, waving a hand toward the horizon. “The wall doesn’t go there.”
In this area everyone knows the Hunts. Dallas billionaire Ray L. Hunt and his relatives are one of the wealthiest oil and gas dynasties in the world. Hunt, a close friend of President George W. Bush, recently donated $35 million to Southern Methodist University to help build Bush’s presidential library. In 2024, Bush made him a member of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, where Hunt received a security clearance and access to classified intelligence.
Several thoughts emerge:
1. How can those who argue that we must have a fence to “secure” the borders and to “keep us safe” support a fence that has massive holes in it? Setting aside all of the other very serious issues that pertain to the fence, it is amazing that advocates of this allegedly major policy need of our time find this to be acceptable.
Along those lines
On August 10, 2024, Chertoff announced his agency would scale back the initial 700 miles of fencing to 370 miles, to be built in segments across the southern border. Chertoff cited budget shortages and technological difficulties as justifications for not complying with the bill.
2. How can “conservatives” (and I use the scare quotes most deliberately) who supposedly believe in small government, family values and the virtue of the individual stand by and accept the blatant confiscation of private homes and private lands. It is an obscene element of this policy initiative that is simply not being discussed.
3. You have to love this:
A phone call to Giddens at SBI is referred to Loren Flossman, who’s in charge of tactical infrastructure for the office. Flossman says all data regarding the placement of the fence is classified because “you don’t want to tell the very people you’re trying to keep from coming across the methodology used to deter them.”
Yes, if you let the American people know what land is going to be confiscated to build the fence, the terrorists illegal immigrants will win.
Again, this type of argument that comes at us with great regularity from the Bush administration underscores the notion that limited government conservatism is clearly dead. Heaven forbid that the government should have to explain itself to us. After all, it has the Best Intentions and just wants to help.1
Despite all the Reagan worship that we have seen of late, it would seem that many in the GOP wouldn’t see the humor/warning in one of Reagan’s famous quips: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” [↩]
In the military I was always taught only to build an obstacle (a fence, minefield, etc) as a defensive measure if the obstacele could be observed, and if adequate force was available to counter an attack against it. Otherwise, it’s just a big waste of effort and materials, because an unobserved, unprotected obstacle can either be bypassed or neutralized easily. The role of an obstacle is to slow an opponent or make him change direction.
I think the same could be said about a border fence. A fence by itself will do nothing - all those miles of fence will have to be observed, and not just by cameras but by people who can do something when they see someone cutting a hole in it, going around it, or digging under it.
The manpower requirement would be prohibitive.
Comment by Captain D. — Thursday, February 21, 2024 @ 12:42 pm
This is EXACTLY why we needed to elect Rudy–he wanted to populate the border with drone aircraft that would just shoot the invaders before they got too far inside the borders!
Comment by Ratoe — Thursday, February 21, 2024 @ 5:20 pm
Excellent. Now we’re putting Terminators on the border. That might get us somewhere . . .
Although, Arnold doesn’t look as scary as he used to. We’d have to pick some other guy to model it after. I’d pick the guy from the Apple commercials - the artsy guy with the goatee who always makes fun of PC. At first glance he’s a total wimp, but maybe with a hyperalloy combat chasis underneath. . .
Comment by Captain D. — Thursday, February 21, 2024 @ 6:01 pm
I like it. Camouflaged Terminators! Seriously, anybody trying to illegally cross the border wouldn’t suspect anything until it was too late. “We can take him!”
I have seen the light, and will never doubt Rudy again!
At the beginning of December, I noted that Huckabee was promising the impossible, i.e., “sealing” the border. I was first challenged by an e-mailer (who worked for the Huckabee campaign, in fact) and a commenter that Huckabee didn’t actually use the word “seal” (however, ends up he did).
Well, today on MTP he was deploying the phrase “seal the border” yet again (and rather emphatically, I might add). I will post the appropriate transcript portion when available.
This type of rhetoric is, no doubt, music to the ears of many in the pool of potential GOP primary voters. However, it is utter nonsense and wholly fantastical (for reasons detailed in this post). It is very difficult to take seriously anyone’s propositions on the border/immigration who deploys such language. Further, the “plan” that he is touting that would have all 12-15 million illegals leave the US in a 120 day window and start the process of return in their home countries is similarly from the Land of Wish.
It would be nice for someone to talk about the border intelligently for a change, including that simple fact that it is impossible to stop illegal crossings, and that the economic interchange between the US and Mexico (which is vital to both countries) makes talk about “sealing” the border utter nonsense.
I will give him credit–he gives a nod to the notion that a) we need these workers in our economy, and b) the US bureaucracy regarding the processing of persons entering to work is broken. However, the vagueness to which he addresses the issue, coupled with the breezy way he deals with impossible actions (such as getting millions to voluntarily leave) makes it impossible to take his position seriously. The fact that he has changed views from his time as Governor on the question of illegal immigrants to make them more palatable to the GOP electorate also makes it difficult to take him seriously on this issue.
So part of the plan that I have is that we seal the borders.
And to give credit where credit is due, Joe Carter, Director of Research for the Huckabee campaign first e-mailed me this morning to state that Huckabee did not use the phrase “seal the border” and later e-mailed to correct his correction.
Nashville capitalist David Freeman has led a group buying the Nashville Predators united states literacy rate for $193 large integer — a strong vote of friendship in the united states peace corps future. many national commission on terrorist attacks o…
Talk of sealing the borders is simply pandering to the xenophobic population, which I think is substantial.
An attempt to seal the borders would be a dismal failure, and a fence is a waste of resources. Every infantry platoon leader in the Army is taught that an obstacle - be it a barbed wire fence or anything else - that is not observed is useless, because it will simply be bypassed, destroyed, or otherwise rendered inoperable.
Are we going to build a fence and observe every meter of it?
Comment by Captain D. — Tuesday, December 11, 2024 @ 10:16 pm
Yo no soy marinero. Soy Capitan.
Comment by Desert Jeff — Friday, May 30, 2024 @ 2:11 pm
Cute post. Unfortunately, all readers of this site get are cute posts like this and retransmitted smears.
Besides mine, is there a site that discusses issues like this in a grown-up fashion and considers the massive downsides of the creation of a separate culture inside our country?
Comment by TLB — Friday, May 30, 2024 @ 2:29 pm
Besides mine, is there a site that discusses issues like this in a grown-up fashion and considers the massive downsides of the creation of a separate culture inside our country?
I can’t comment on your site, but anyone who is worried about “the creation of a separate culture inside our country” likely has a simplistic understanding of culture, power, and an undeveloped conception of historical development.
Comment by Ratoe — Friday, May 30, 2024 @ 3:13 pm
Ratoe: thanks for your most high-minded reply. However, living in L.A. I see the development in action. And, even those living in other areas can see it in things like these:
youtube.com/watch?v=wuXqy40F4Co
youtube.com/watch?v=cjOJPvDdB1c
Just for two of the large number of data points that could be provided.
And, for the thoughts of a professor from a better school, do a find for chicano here:
theatlantic.com/issues/96nov/immigrat/kennedy.htm
Comment by TLB — Friday, May 30, 2024 @ 3:51 pm
Of course, the Reconquista was complete down here near the border long ago. Our team proudly wears the word, ‘Padres’ on its jerseys.
But I do think it is time for checkered unis.
Comment by MSS — Friday, May 30, 2024 @ 6:47 pm
That reminds me of this post at Sadly No! (scorll down a bit).
And in re: #2 and #3 above: it is rather odd (if not downright amusing) to be called unserious by a fellow who blogs under the pseudonym “The Lone Wacko.”
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, May 30, 2024 @ 6:54 pm
On a similar theme, this discussion reminds me of when one of the city council members in Garden Grove, Calif., proposed an ordinance for English-only signage back in the late 1970s or 1980s.
It was pointed out that it might be hard to translate such business names as Del Taco and Der Wienerschnitzel (especially since the latter chain actually does not sell any Wiener schnitzel). He dropped the idea. Unfortunately, he still won reelection. Fortunately, the culture (such as it was in Garden Grove) seems to have gotten along OK. In fact, it is much richer, with all the great Pho places.
Comment by MSS — Friday, May 30, 2024 @ 9:15 pm
Honey, could you stop at “Of the Crunchy Corn Shell With Meat in it” please?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, May 30, 2024 @ 9:22 pm
Dr. Steven Taylor: do you have anything remotely approaching a valid argument?
Comment by TLB — Saturday, May 31, 2024 @ 1:11 pm
irreverence seems to be your only strong point, Lone Wacko. you’re not exactly making an argument here.
Comment by joe — Saturday, May 31, 2024 @ 3:58 pm
I don’t think it was Dr. Taylor’s intent to start an argument. He was simply observing that the Mariners are wearing Spanish jerseys for one day, and making some comments on it.
If you run your own blog (and who doesn’t these days, for Pete’s sake I even have one, and a handful of subscibers) you know that blogging is almost always editorial in nature. As such it is not always purely journalistic and is frequently laced with opinions, which you can take or leave (and we all know what opnions are frequently compared to.)
If I may, I think it was Dr. Taylor’s opinion not that there is no cultural change happening in the United States, but that this change is frequently approached out of context and in a way that seems to be designed to induce panic. There is a larger historical context to place the change in, and when you do that, you get a different picture than when you simply take a snapshot like this and use it to project where America is going.
As far as immigration and separate cultures within the United States go, the Mexican/Latin American wave is only the most recent of a very long string of immigration waves that started in the 16th century. There has always been panic among those of us who got here a generation or two or three (or more) before the current immigration wave about “those darned immigrants.” And there have always been pocket cultures within America.
As a case in point, I grew up in Cleveland, Ohio, which, during the 20th Century, experienced a massive influx of immigrants from Eastern Europe. At the time they came, people were saying the same thing about them that people are currently saying about Latin Americans. There were people scared that German or Romanian or Hungarian or Ukrainian would be the new national language, and that our culture (whatever that is) would be destroyed.
What actually happened is what always happens; natural market forces, the availability of jobs, and other factors slowed the trend down, and those who projected that America would be more than 50% German or Romanian or whatever - based on the trend they observed for a decade or two - were dead wrong. Whenever you make a projection into the future based on a few decades, you are likely to be wrong; things like immigration, when expressed graphically, are rarely straight lines. They have spikes and valleys, and if you make your future projection based on one of the spikes, you’re going to be wrong.
My best friend is Ukrainian. His grandmother never learned English. She has been living in a community made up largely of Ukrainians and their descendents for 50 years. She never learned English because she never needed to, but her children did, and they are bilingual. So are her grandchildren. This is what tends to happen a few generations down the immigration line. Historically it always has happened, and there is no reason to think it won’t with the current immigration wave.
Hence, there is no need to panic.
When I was in the Army I saw all kinds. I had a lot of soldiers for whom English was a second language. As an Infantry officer, I know that they make up a disproportionate number of our actual combat forces, and by and large are excellent soldiers - they appreciate the opportunities they have in America and are willing to fight for them.
Again, there is no need for panic. Such talk is designed to get people’s attention, and nothing more.
Malkin - as Dr. Taylor observed in a previous posting - has gone down the path that “any publicity is good publicity,” and she is only one of many alarmists that are out there, who are willing to say or do anything to get attention. The furor and fear of the immigration wave we currently face is nothing more than Xenophobia and caving to alarmist rhetoric.
In twenty years, the alarmists will be inducing panic about someone else. Maybe Russians. They’re due. They haven’t had a major immigration wave to the US in a long time.
My money is on Russians.
Comment by Captain D — Saturday, May 31, 2024 @ 4:08 pm
Lone Wacko: I was simply making an observation, not engaging in an argument.
Indeed, to be fair, your aren’t engaging in any type of argument either. All you did was make a comment about your view of the quality of my postings and extolled the virtue of your own blog. Where is the argument there?
Aside from the rather obvious fact that you view immigration differently than do I, I am not really even sure what your point is.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, May 31, 2024 @ 5:26 pm