May 12, 2006

PEOPLE WHO HATE PEOPLE:

For environmentalists, a growing split over immigration (Brad Knickerbocker, 5/12/06, The Christian Science Monitor)

The flow of people into the United States is troubling some environmentalists for two reasons. First, more Americans means more people living in one of the world's most resource-consuming cultures. Second, there's new evidence that Hispanic women who move to the US have more children than if they stayed put.

"We've got to talk about these issues - population, birth rates, immigration," says Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which confronts whalers, seal hunters, and those who poach wildlife in the Galapagos Islands. "Immigration is one of the leading contributors to population growth. All we're saying is, those numbers should be reduced to achieve population stabilization."


If you could just harness the crazy power of the anti-immigrationists we wouldn't need to burn fossil fuels.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 12, 2006 9:32 AM
Comments

I must be an environmentalist.

Posted by: AllenS at May 12, 2006 10:06 AM

Bingo! Environmentalism isn't about the environment.

Posted by: oj at May 12, 2006 10:12 AM

Seriously, is he really afraid that Mexican immigrants are going to be hunting seals and whales?

Posted by: Shelton at May 12, 2006 10:21 AM

So it appears Enviromentalists hate human beings, and elitist Harvard has bunches of them.

In other news, the sun rises in the east. And this just in: Women and Men are different.

Posted by: Brad S at May 12, 2006 10:22 AM

Shelton:

It has nothing to with animals, just humans.

Posted by: oj at May 12, 2006 10:26 AM

"Environmentalists decry immigration's impact; women and children hit hardest"

Posted by: ratbert at May 12, 2006 10:27 AM

Here's a thought... Let's just make it a trade. We'll take their hardworking, family-oriented, risk-takers and they can have our useless environmentalists. That way, the population stays approximately unchanged and everybody wins.

Posted by: Jay at May 12, 2006 10:29 AM

Jay:

Exactly, and our libertarians can go enjoy legalized drugs in Mexico and our socialists should feel more comfortable in VZ & Cuba. Black pols who oppose Latino immigration can head to Haiti....

Posted by: oj at May 12, 2006 10:35 AM

Oh, and we could send our intellectual elites to France, and they could send us.....

Well, their birthrate is so low anyway they won't notice a few more.

Posted by: Jay at May 12, 2006 10:45 AM

And it's not just immigrants. The latest Seattle bumper sticker: "Thank You For Not Breeding".

Posted by: Patrick H at May 12, 2006 12:23 PM

Speaking of crazy power, I just saw a titanically weird comment from Derbyshire to Podhoretz on the NRO Corner:

"What, exactly, was the moral imperative on the United States to let Catholics and Chinese in in the 1850s and Jews in the late 1800s and early 1900s? If the American people did not wish to let in Catholics, Chinese, and Jews, was that a collective moral failing? Why?"

Leaving aside the bizarre attempt to refight the immigration battles of the nineteeth century...Podhoretz is Jewish, Derbyshire's wife is (originally) Chinese, and Derbyshire himself is a former illegal immigrant.

But he's not Catholic, Chinese or Jewish, so I guess that makes him okay.

Comments like this will really win friends and influence people. Crazy, yes. Powerfully persuasive, no.

Posted by: Casey Abell at May 12, 2006 3:58 PM

Why doesn't he ask what the moral imperative was for the Indians to admit the English?

Posted by: oj at May 12, 2006 4:06 PM

Casey,

I stated earlier that Salem Communications ought to seriously consider purchasing NR. That purchase could not come soon enough, if the likes of Derbyshire keep infesting the place with British-style antipathy toward illegal (Irish, Derb?) immigrants.

Posted by: Brad S at May 12, 2006 4:12 PM

BTW, should the rest of us soon expect Steve Sailer and his head-measuring "theories" to grace the NRO pages again?

Posted by: Brad S at May 12, 2006 4:24 PM

The debate between Podhoretz and Derbyshire is a lot of fun. Podhoretz called Derbyshire a Know-Nothing and invoked the "faith of the ancient Hebrews." The comment about Jews stung, but JPod didn't go completely bananas.

Derbyshire responded that the Know-Nothings really thought that Catholics and Jews were "superior," not inferior. Podhoretz belly-laughed on that one.

Derbyshire replied that Catholics and Jews are really, really (honest!) smart. Of course, he couldn't help tossing around terms like "Jesuitical" and "Papist." At least he avoided "Hebes." I get the feeling he knows JPod is really, really p.o.ed at him.

Jonah's trying to play peacemaker now. But he's definitely harder on Derbyshire. Goldberg is uncomfortable with the racist stereotype of a conservative that Derbyshire seems determined to play. My guess is that Derbyshire acts this role partly for fun, just to shock people. "You think conservatives are racists? You're right, I AM racist."

But Derbyshire also thinks blacks and Hispanics are intellectually inferior, on average, to whites. I don't think anybody can honestly doubt that, though he hasn't quite admitted it blatantly on the Corner yet. JPod would certainly like him to admit it, though, and one day he might get his wish.

Posted by: Casey Abell at May 12, 2006 5:31 PM

Just realized I goofed on the phrasing. I meant to say that I don't think anybody can honestly doubt that Derbyshire thinks blacks and Hispanics are, on average, intellectually inferior to whites. I didn't mean to say that nobody can honestly doubt the truth of the proposition itself, which is wide open to debate, as we have seen.

One of these days, in one of his naughtier moods, Derbyshire might come right out and state his racial beliefs on the Corner.

Posted by: Casey Abell at May 12, 2006 5:42 PM

"Derbyshire's wife is (originally) Chinese"

What, she's not chinese anymore? Did she have an operation or something?

Posted by: Jeff at May 12, 2006 8:27 PM

Derbyshire's the National Review's batty old uncle in the attic. I used to have a lot of respect for his writing, but he lost me over the last year and a half or so. He's made a lot of Buchannanite statements like the above lately, and he's also publicly invited Michael Schiavo to his house ("Bring the shack-up honey and the kids with you") and opined that Michael Jackson was just a harmless eccentric.

Posted by: Mike Morley at May 12, 2006 8:29 PM

Casey, OJ

Could you state the moral issue that is involved which would require the Amerindians to accept the immigration of Europeans to their lands?

If you can't then I guess Derbyshire is correct.

Posted by: h-man at May 12, 2006 8:41 PM

h:

Yes, they were savages yielding to civilization.

Posted by: oj at May 12, 2006 8:46 PM

Then according to you a society that has what could be called a civilization is NOT "morally" required to accept immigrants. Only that society consisting of "savages" is so required.

Therefore Derbyshire is correct.

Posted by: h-man at May 12, 2006 8:57 PM

Immigration is not a favor we do immigrants; it is a favor we do ourselves.

Posted by: David Cohen at May 12, 2006 9:22 PM

Yes, that's why we're obligated to allow unlimited immigration of those who share our moral values -- they are already American, regardless of where they reside or were born -- but not obligated to allow anyone who doesn't.

Derbyshire and you judge people by their ethnicity, not their values--blood, not soul.

Posted by: oj at May 12, 2006 9:36 PM

Derbyshire's politics are nuts. His writing about mathematics is marvelous. Batty old uncles can be like that.

Posted by: Brooks at May 12, 2006 11:43 PM

OJ: Is your 9:36 comment directed to me or to H?

Posted by: David Cohen at May 13, 2006 12:09 AM

Derbyshire is a loathsome character, and most of the othe Brits who infest NRO are scarcely better.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at May 13, 2006 12:13 AM

David
You're kidding, right. His comment is directed at me. I agree with your statement and that is consistent with Derbyshire's statement that there isn't a moral imperative, but instead such decisions are discretionary.

OJ
Try and look at this issue as if the US was a corporation trying to maximize the value of citizenship. You are arguing for a stock split, which will dilute the value of each share commensurate with the amount of increase in number of shares. Yes, that MAY mean an increase in total value to presently existing shareholders, but it might not.

Regarding blood and soul, or blood and soil, how do you say "blow it out your a**" in German. [Editor's note: Gesundtancredo]

Posted by: h-man at May 13, 2006 7:30 AM

h:

People are value--we're adding value. The notion of dilution is based on purity of blood and is literally nazism.

Posted by: oj at May 13, 2006 8:27 AM

I flunked analogies, or at least they can't seem to penetrate your psyche.

"People are value" and from that it follows that China has more value than the US, is that your argument?

Try this variation. "More people, potentially equal more value to a country, depending on the rules under which they operate"

An uptick in the birthrate of France will not benefit the country, unless they are operating under rules that encourage positive action by French people.

BTW, you intentionally misinterpret the term dilution as referring to "blood" etc, I guess in order to maintain the Nazi connection. People have ideas and if the prevalent ideas amongst a particular group is socialist, racist, zero-sum thinking, instead of entrepreneurial, freedom loving, tolerant then more people may equal less value.

Posted by: h-man at May 13, 2006 9:14 AM

h:

Yes, China's rise was fueled by adding people--its decline by killing them. China is as anti-human a place as you nativists would like to make us.

Certainly a country does better to add people who believe in certain things, which is why our addition of hard-working Christians from Latin America has been such a boon.

When you speak in nazi tropes you can't be surprised that they are read as they are intended.

Posted by: oj at May 13, 2006 9:22 AM

The prevalent ideas of the mestizos from Mexico are the issue. If as you suggest their predominant influence will be positive, then no problemo.

Try looking to the presently existing societies of Mexico, Bolivia, Venezuela, Peru to determine what the facts are. Chavez and Morales seem to think that mestizos agree with them. I think they are correct.

"Nazi tropes".....good one.

Posted by: h-man at May 13, 2006 9:43 AM

h:

Yes, if these people chose to stay there you'd have to wonder about them. We should take everyone who doesn't want to live in such places.

Look around you, the influence of every immigrant group has been positive.

Posted by: oj at May 13, 2006 9:46 AM

"every immigrant group is positive"

I don't agree that statement. But even if I did, I could make distinctions between this present wave of illegal immigrants and others.

Secondly the American society that is receiving these immigrants is different than that society which received other waves. Your position is that 75 years of socialism, has not changed the basic premises we are presently operating under. Wrong.

Posted by: h-man at May 13, 2006 10:02 AM

Indians didn't allow the Europeans in. The Europeans conquered.

And forget trying to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. OJ will have none of that.

Posted by: sharon at May 13, 2006 10:30 AM

H-man, Sharon, you don't think that changing the immigration process from one day to half a generation has anything to do with all these 'illegal' immigrants, do you? Just a thought.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 13, 2006 10:57 AM

More Americans = more value.

Posted by: David Cohen at May 13, 2006 11:21 AM

Mr. Cohen, OJ, more people = more value if the people in question are citizens, not slaves. That's why they are of value to us, but not China or Mexico. I think that much of the problem Sharon and H-man have is that they see our home grown slaves to the state, and they think that the slaves who excaped to come here will fall into that pit. It's hard for someone who's birthright is freedom to understand how hard an excaped slave will fight to stay free.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 13, 2006 11:28 AM

sharon:

Because there is no difference.

Posted by: oj at May 13, 2006 11:56 AM

h:

Yes, in the past the natives were arguably the main bearers of the worthwhile culture, today the Latino immigrants are inarguably superior.

Posted by: oj at May 13, 2006 11:58 AM

Sorry to be late responding to one comment. But yes, Derbyshire's wife was originally Chinese, and yes, she changed.

Into an American. Too bad her husband (once an illegal immigrant himself) wants to stop Hispanic immigrants from doing the same thing.

Anyway, the NRO Corner debate spilled over into Sullivan's blog. He predictably started tossing around Nazi implications, which gave Derbyshire an easy response.

Again, I think Derbyshire does a lot of his stuff just to get people riled. (He certainly succeeded with Sullivan.) Derbyshire's defense of Michael Jackson was probably one of those loopy provocations, because Jacko is the last person on earth you'd expect the self-identified racist and homophobe Derbyshire to defend.

But I also think Derbyshire dislikes JPod, and his comment about keeping Jews out of nineteenth-century America was meant as a direct slap in the face.

Posted by: Casey Abell at May 13, 2006 1:30 PM
« RUSHING WESTWARDS: | Main | LOST WORLD: »