Dispatches from the Creation Wars

This kid was fairly articulate, therefore I'm surprised that wasn't a dead give-away to the Teabaggers he was punking them; except for the fact they're not able to distinguish parody.

By the way, Keith Olbermann reported last evening that the Oxford Dictionary added a new definition to the word "Teabagger". So while it remains a self-created slur, it's at least a grammatically correct one. So this is a chant directed at Ed:

Teabaggers, not Tea Partiers! Teabaggers, not Tea Partiers! Teabaggers, not Tea Partiers!

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 18, 2009 9:49 AM

Check out the new video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rry_SlPW7oU&feature=related

Posted by: Robert Erickson | November 18, 2009 9:59 AM

Bourgeois_Rage @ 4- It doesn't really matter. Sean Hannity will just use footage from the Sept. 12 one in D.C. to represent this one too.

Posted by: Jeremy S | November 18, 2009 11:10 AM

Pretentious morons like Ed and Robert Erickson need to stick together! This country would be nothing but dirt and huts without European immigrants. That's the difference between European immigrants and illegal immigrants from south of the border, whose cost to this country outweighs their benefits. (Granted, that does not excuse their horrible treatment of the indigenous inhabitants but I doubt their modern descendants would be willing to give up what European immigrants brought to this country, especially the tribes who own casinos.

Posted by: Milesius | November 18, 2009 11:29 AM

Milesius:
Do you ever eat meat? Or vegetables? Fruit? Do you use petroleum products? Do you ever stay in motels?

Then thank a Mexican, scumbag.

Posted by: Coragyps | November 18, 2009 11:40 AM

@Milesius: We don't all own casinos. Most of the profits from the ones that do still go to white people. I'd say we'd have preferred our dirt huts (Really? Dirt huts? Dumbass.), but then we'd have missed out on rape, disease, and genocide.
Yeah, a couple of us having casinos far outweighs the vast majority of our race ceasing to exist.

Posted by: JThompson | November 18, 2009 11:46 AM

Milesius: Without resorting to polemics here, you would probably be very interested to read Guns, Germs, and Steel. It might answer some of your questions here.

Bottom line -- While this "dirt and huts" characterization is both moronic and offensive, it is undeniably true that Europeans had superior technology at the time of contact between the two civilizations. But would it have continued that way forever? Probably not. There are numerous complex reasons why civilization in the Americas took significantly longer to develop advanced states and complex technologies. And some native American civilizations were on the verge of breaking out into something that might have fended off the Europeans.

Of course, many will also debate whether modern civilization really is a good thing... I would argue "yes definitely", but the opposite position has its merits.

Posted by: James Sweet | November 18, 2009 12:04 PM

Mike H @ 14 -

Of course not, but the Eurpean immigrants brought innovation, enthusiasm and efficiency to those things that the native population never imagined. Sure the Aztecs cut the hearts out of prisoners of war as sacrifices to their gods. Pretty nasty, but compare that to elimination of 95% of the population. Buncha pikers.

Posted by: Seraph | November 18, 2009 12:18 PM

Of course not, but the European immigrants brought innovation, enthusiasm and efficiency to those things that the native population never imagined. Sure the Aztecs cut the hearts out of prisoners of war as sacrifices to their gods. Pretty nasty, but compare that to elimination of 95% of the population. Buncha pikers.

The introduction of smallpox and other European diseases was not a deliberate act, Ward Churchill’s “scholarship” of smallpox laden blankets notwithstanding. If you want to make the case that the Europeans who colonized the Americas were simply more effective at making war (and diplomacy as well, Cortez and his 500 men didn’t conquer the Aztecs by themselves) than the native populations, that’s certainly a valid point, but lets not pretend, as so many do, that the native people were a peace loving, unicorn riding, eco-friendly, multicultural simple folk whose pure hearts could never perpetrate brutality on another living being.

Posted by: Mike H | November 18, 2009 12:31 PM

"Columbus Go Home!" is a powerful coinage. That's my new rallying cry.

Posted by: S | November 18, 2009 12:45 PM

If you want to make the case that the Europeans who colonized the Americas were simply more effective at making war (and diplomacy as well, Cortez and his 500 men didn’t conquer the Aztecs by themselves) than the native populations, that’s certainly a valid point, but lets not pretend, as so many do, that the native people were a peace loving, unicorn riding, eco-friendly, multicultural simple folk whose pure hearts could never perpetrate brutality on another living being.

Yeah, they were still humans. They were still industrious, they still killed each other over land and resources, but they also had cities that would rival any European city of the time in culture and advancement. The only things they never developed were draft animals, mostly for lack of good draft animals such as the horse and auroch, which didn't stop them anyway.

If the Dutch had been the only European power to explore America, it might've made a very stark difference in how things developed, with a much lower chance of genocide and conquests, with the Americans trading with the Dutch to get draft animals, firearms, and other technologies the Europeans stole from the Middle East, China, and pretty much everywhere that didn't involve developing it themselves.

Posted by: LtStorm | November 18, 2009 12:49 PM

This kid is a new American hero.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 18, 2009 1:20 PM

A student of mine boldly proclaimed that "All of the problems in America today are the result of our horrible immigration policies!"

He was a Lakota Sioux.

Posted by: Anon | November 18, 2009 2:08 PM

So was this a real group and real event that he was sabotaging, or was the whole thing a setup?

It would be so much more hilarious of it was the former.

Posted by: CoffeeJedi | November 18, 2009 2:21 PM

Syphilis is generally believed to be an American contribution to Europe. The first identified outbreak was in Europe in 1494.

Posted by: william e emba | November 18, 2009 2:57 PM

Milesius,

You need to work on non-literal meanings, as you completely missed the point of the speech.

Posted by: Robert Faber | November 18, 2009 3:36 PM

This country would be nothing but dirt and huts without European immigrants.

I am reminded of a conversation I once had with a young white slacker. We were discussing military history and the subject came up of the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Bomb. He made the remark "That was all us white people who came up with that, wasn't it?"

us white people? This guy apparently, due to nothing more than his good fortune at having been born with the same skin colour, had mentally elevated himself to the same pedestal as Oppenheimer, Einstein, and Fermi.

So Milesius, before you go making sweeping claims about the paucity of Mexican immigrants' contributions to U.S. society, be aware that credit will not be given you for the work, genius, or discipline of other white people in history. From where we stand you are neither an intrepid explorer, nor a hardy pioneer, nor a great inventor. Until you show otherwise, your contribution to society is to be a troll on a blog, and your opinion of others' accomplishments will rightly be viewed through that lens.

Posted by: DaveL | November 18, 2009 3:44 PM

So Milesius, before you go making sweeping claims about the paucity of Mexican immigrants'...

You forgot illegal.

...contributions to U.S. society, be aware that credit will not be given you for the work, genius, or discipline of other white people in history.

I don't expect to get credit for their work.

From where we stand you are neither an intrepid explorer, nor a hardy pioneer, nor a great inventor.

Who are the "we" of which you speak and why should I care?

Until you show otherwise, your contribution to society is to be a troll on a blog, and your opinion of others' accomplishments will rightly be viewed through that lens.

Right back at you.

Posted by: Milesius | November 18, 2009 3:50 PM

Illegal immigrants from south of the border cost more than they contribute. Read that as many times as it takes to sink in.

Yeah, because in Milesius' world, statements become true when you reread them over and over.

Dude, if you want to convince me that Mexican immigrants contribute less to our society than, say, uneducated white bigots actively trying to degrade and defund our public school system, or white CEOs usng Ponzi schemes to rip off and impoverish everyone else, or white businessmen destroying the environment on which we all depend...well, let's just say you have a HUGE burden of proof on your head, so you'd better get cracking and show us some factual backup.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 18, 2009 4:01 PM

Oh, and if illegal immigrants take more from our society than they contribute, then why do so many people hire them, pay them under the table, and quietly resist any concerted attempt to get them out of our country?

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 18, 2009 4:05 PM

Natives of Bharat are the only "real Indians?" Thanks, that clarification makes the rest of your white-superiority ravings SO much more relevant and credible. Not.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 18, 2009 4:14 PM

Raging Bee,

Neither you nor your fellow oxygen-depletor, democommie, meet my minimum intelligence requirement for dialoguing. Sorry.

Posted by: Milesius | November 18, 2009 4:19 PM

DaveL @ 33 - Masterpiece of a fisking, the troll goes down in flames.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 18, 2009 4:27 PM

...right about the time a bunch of counter-protestors began changing "Columbus go home."

Well, yeah, he was just another Hispanic* who came here without permission, never bothered to learn the language(s) of those who were born here, cost more than he contributed, and got in everyone's faces with an exaggerated sense of entitlement. What sort of reception did he expect, fercryinoutloud?
--------------
*Okay, he was Italian, and sent here as a guest-worker by the Spanish. I guess that kinda complicates the ethnic picture...

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 18, 2009 4:35 PM

DaveL @ 33 - Masterpiece of a fisking, the troll goes down in flames.

Heath,

If you and Richard "Ed" Brayton are going to share a brain, then at least get one that works. You are all bluster and no pith. (I don't know if your vita contains a long list of failures like Brayton's, but you are a carbon copy when it comes to pretentious idiocy.)

Posted by: Milesius | November 18, 2009 4:37 PM

I've always wondered just when Spain was separated from the rest of Europe.

fusilier
James 2:24

Posted by: fusilier | November 18, 2009 4:40 PM

If you and Richard "Ed" Brayton are going to share a brain, then at least get one that works. You are all bluster and no pith.

Milesius, if you want to prove you're any better, then back up your claim that illegal immigrants "cost more than they contribute." Stick to the facts, and drop the name-calling and dick-waving, which isn't fooling anyone here anyway.

I suspect that Milesius hates illegal immigrants so much because beneath all the bluster and cultural-superiority ravings, he knows that they contribute, and he and his kind don't.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 18, 2009 4:45 PM

Really? I'd have thought that a group who paid taxes, but found suckling from the collective teat limited, would put in more than they got out.

Illegal immigrants can't pay for their own health care or that of their children (illegal or citizen), so that bill is footed by the U.S. citizen taxpayer. In fact, illegal immigrants use emergency rooms for primary care, which costs a lot and also makes for longer queues for U.S. citizens. The U.S. citizen taxpayer also pays to educate the children of illegals (including the cost of translators for the parents) and they usually cannot afford to live in anything but housing that is subsidized by the U.S. citizen taxpayer. They also make use of food stamps and the like since they often cannot afford to raise their children on their low wages. Finally, any "discretionary" income they have is often sent back to Mexico to help their relatives there; it does not contribute to the U.S. economy.

The fact of the matter is that illegal immigrants take advantage of our social services. It is a myth that they do not.

Posted by: Milesius | November 18, 2009 4:57 PM

Yet hear me, friends! we have now to deal with another people, small and feeble when our forefathers first met with them, but now great and overbearing. Strangely enough, they have a mind to till the soil, and the love of possessions is a disease in them. These people have made many rules that the rich may break, but the poor may not! They have a religion in which the poor worship, but the rich will not! They even take tithes of the poor and weak to support the rich and those who rule.

Posted by: Taz | November 18, 2009 5:01 PM

Illegal immigrants can't pay for their own health care or that of their children

they usually cannot afford to live in anything but housing that is subsidized by the U.S. citizen taxpayer.

they often cannot afford to raise their children on their low wages

Milesius probably also thinks that black slaves were a net drag on American society because their wages were so low (namely zero), and had to depend on good upstanding white slaveowners to provide for all their needs.

Posted by: DaveL | November 18, 2009 5:05 PM

Milesius @56

A hint: when someone on this blog asks you to back up a claim, answering it with more claims doesn't help. What they're asking you for is a link to an information source that backs up your claim in some way - in your case, something that makes a dollar-amount estimate of how much illegal immigrants cost the U.S. in terms of social services per year, compared to an estimate of how much profit they provide to U.S. businesses and how much they keep prices down for U.S. consumers with their grossly-underpaid labor.

Posted by: Seraph | November 18, 2009 5:07 PM

I find it humorous that anti-immigration supporters always argue that immigrants cost more than they contribute when this is the exact opposite of the truth. I don't have time to look up the exact statistics, but I know that the Cato Institute has them (that's where I got them), and that immigrants, because they don't receive social services, contribute far more than "real" Americans to the economy. So really, "Go home, Columbus!" may be the right chant.

Posted by: ESC | November 18, 2009 5:10 PM

Milesius probably also thinks that black slaves were a net drag on American society because their wages were so low (namely zero), and had to depend on good upstanding white slaveowners to provide for all their needs.

Appeals to analogy are known as the weakest form of argumentation for a reason, dim bulb. (Of course, it is not so much an appeal to analogy as it is an anemic attempt to lump my opposition to illegal immigration and pretentious morons with slaveholders in the Old South. Why not skip a couple of steps and mention Nazis next time?)

DaveL, you are one sorry, stupid sack of ****.

Posted by: Milesius | November 18, 2009 5:13 PM

Here's something else illegal immigrants to in large numbers: look for, and take, jobs. (That's another thing nativists like you complain about, which kinda blows your point about how they don't contribute.)

I wrote:

"Illegal immigrants from south of the border cost more than they contribute."

Learn how to read you f'ing moron.

Posted by: Milesius | November 18, 2009 5:16 PM

Stop repeating the same old argument and back it up with facts, numbers, and logic, you fucking moron.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 18, 2009 5:22 PM

Like the Salem witch burnings?

Nitpick: the witches at Salem were hanged, not burned. Except for Giles Corey. He got pressed to death. If you want some proper witch burnings, you need to go back to - Survey says! - Europe.

Posted by: Seraph | November 18, 2009 5:25 PM

This thread is about a pretentious moron, Robert Erickson, at an anti-illegal-immigration rally in the United States, making claims about the impact of European colonists on the United States.

I disagree.

This thread is about the irony of the descendants of earlier European "illegal immigrants" feeling all indignant (with strong overtones of moral righteousness) about the presence of modern-day illegal immigrants (in their country!). It's particulary amusing (at least it is to me; it's possible that I'm just easily amused) that many, if not most, of these illegal immigrants that are the subject of the outrage actually derive substantially more of their ancestry from indigenous Americans, than do the protesters.

(And in case you're wondering...my own ancestry would entitle me to be deported most, but not all, of the way back to where my ancestors came from. Such a pity I'm not a stronger swimmer.)

Posted by: cicely | November 18, 2009 5:26 PM

I disagree.

Yeah and?

This thread is about the irony of the descendants of earlier European "illegal immigrants" feeling all indignant (with strong overtones of moral righteousness) about the presence of modern-day illegal immigrants (in their country!).

European immigrants were not illegal because the anarchic, hunter-gatherer societies they found here had no such laws. Sorry.

It's particulary amusing (at least it is to me; it's possible that I'm just easily amused) that many, if not most, of these illegal immigrants that are the subject of the outrage actually derive substantially more of their ancestry from indigenous Americans, than do the protesters.

Indigenous peoples of the U.S. != Mexicans. Sorry.

Posted by: Milesius | November 18, 2009 5:35 PM

Stop repeating the same old argument and back it up with facts, numbers, and logic, you fucking moron.

Read this ****head. (Or, more appropriately, have it read to you.)

Posted by: Milesius | November 18, 2009 5:43 PM

Tenochtitlan was in the Aztec empire, which was wiped out by European immigrants long before Mexico or the United States ever existed.

Small correction, the Aztec empire was wiped out by several hundred European immigrants and the tens of thousands of native American allies they recruited to help them.

Posted by: Mike H | November 18, 2009 5:59 PM

I'm surprised he didn't get his ass kicked.

Posted by: Owen | November 18, 2009 6:14 PM

Gotta love Ed "fuckyoufuckyoufuckyou" Crankshaft in the extended video.

Milesius, you wouldn't happen to own a black and yellow NRA hat by any chance, would you?

Posted by: jpf | November 18, 2009 6:35 PM

Much like a broken clock, Milesius did manage to say one thing I agree with back in #26. I too would rather pay more for all those things that are made cheaper by the efforts of illegal immigrants. I suspect my reasoning is a bit different, though. I suspect that if we ever managed to actually crack down and secure our borders, deport most or all of the illegals, and try to run our economy just on the efforts of citizens and legal immigrants, we'd quickly discover just how much of a benefit the illegals provided...and that would force us to open up a legal immigration path to far larger numbers in order to balance it back out. Then everybody's happy. Well, except for the racists who are simply using the economic argument as a cover for their efforts to maintain white superiority.
Mostly though, I just want to secure the borders because I think it's a damned embarrassment that the most powerful and technologically advanced country in the world pretends that it can't.

Posted by: BobApril | November 18, 2009 7:09 PM

The Aztec empire fell in large part because of its ruler deciding that the Spaniards were from their god. Had Montezuma not done this tremendously stupid thing, the Aztecs might have fought off the Spaniards.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 18, 2009 9:31 PM

BobApril "I suspect that if we ever managed to actually crack down and secure our borders, deport most or all of the illegals, and try to run our economy just on the efforts of citizens and legal immigrants, we'd quickly discover just how much of a benefit the illegals provided...and that would force us to open up a legal immigration path to far larger numbers in order to balance it back out."
Granted, there is a difference between legals and illegals, mostly in how bad you can abuse them before you get in trouble, but doesn't that happen whenever there's an "Immigrant Rights March"? Every company that runs on their labour ends up shutting down for the day, like so. Then the next day things are back to normal, with well-off honkeys complaining to their three-dollar-an-hour Panamanian nanny about how useless immigrants are ("I mean, look at that! My landscaper didn't even mow the lawn yesterday!").

Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 18, 2009 9:33 PM

Scott Hanley @ 24:

Short answer to your question, "No.". What I'm not implying, but saying straight out, is that the fact of the native populations succumbing to all sorts of diseases from which they had no natural resistance was a windfall for the colonists, which they were quite happy to accept. The bison extirpation was governmental policy.

Mildewsius:

Oh, you don't think I'm smart enough to talk to? I'm fucking crushed.

Hey, you should just ignore what Raging Bee said @53 about name-calling and dick-waving. The name-calling thing, because you obviously use that INSTEAD of advancing any genuine arguments to back up your bluster--and the dick-waving thing because, well, a man's got to know his limitations.

Posted by: democommie | November 18, 2009 10:01 PM

Milesius - just some random thoughts for you
(#38) - "By the way, can you name any earth-shattering concepts that were "stolen" from the indigenous inhabitants of the U.S. or the Americas as a whole? (Mesoamericans discovered zero, for which I give them full credit, but we already knew about zero when we first encountered them.)"
Uh, just of the top of my head, how about corn, chillies, chocolate, potatoes, tomatoes, cocaine, tobacco, strychnine and that's just plants! (and before you say but they didn't invent them, two points a) tomatoes, potatoes, chillies and corn were extensively modified by artificial selection and b) do you really think Europeans just wandered around randomly trying plants to see if they were non-toxic?)
(#58) - "Incidentally, any civilization that practices human sacrifice needs to be toppled."
And how many were executed in Texas this year?
(#75) - "Indigenous peoples of the U.S. != Mexicans. Sorry."
So you've never been to New Mexico then? Mexicans are native to the South-west, and have been, possibly, back as far back as the 10th century CE. And then we come back to Texas. Sorry I forgot, how long have you and yours been in the US?

william e emba - On the subject of Syphilis. It's a little more complicated than that. It is believed to have existed in a much more mild form in Europe. The more virulent and devastating American form was believed to be common in Mesoamericans. Because the Mesoamericans wore few clothes, bathed often* and were exposed to the disease, it rarely troubled them. The Europeans, however, were extremely venerable.
In some ways Syphilis changed European history. Would Schubert have written so obsessively and brilliantly without the threat of madness and death hanging over him? (Another benefit of the Americans for you Milesius) -DJ
______________________________
*(yes Milesius, imagine that! Those hut-dwelling primitives were cleaner than their 'civilised' European counterparts. The Queen of England at the time of Columbus' explorations was famously reported to "..bath twice a year, whether she needed it, or not")

Posted by: DingoJack | November 18, 2009 10:27 PM

Hell, I'd go further than 'Robert Erickson' ...

ALL HUMANS BACK TO ADDIS ABABA, NOW!!

Won't someone, please, think of the megafauna? - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | November 18, 2009 10:36 PM

Milquetoast,

GodDAMN, but you're getting your ass kicked up and down this blog. The post at #33 was a particularly ferocious spanking. If your poor cheeks are getting a little red and chafed, might I suggest a little daub of ointment and a short break from trumpeting your ignorance on a blog populated largely by people more educated and intelligent than you?

Also, if you're trying to produce some evidence for a cost-benefit analysis of illegal immigration, you're going to have to come up with a better source than USA Today. I mean, c'mon, you're Google-fu has GOT to be better than that.

Oh, speaking of Google-fu, I've gotta say that your namesake, the "father of the Irish race", was a wee bit dense. Twenty-six years of famine in Spain and THEN he says "Hmm, perhaps the gods are angry at me for not fulfilling the prophecy and seeking Ireland." You'd think he MIGHT have gotten this brainwave after 10, or even 15 years of famine, but nooooo - it takes him 26 freakin' years to figure it all out. I'm sure his countrymen were downright pleased when he finally pulled his head out of his arse and headed off to his doom. At least then the rains could come.

Come to think of it - you two have a lot in common.

Posted by: Amenhotepstein | November 18, 2009 11:21 PM

If your poor cheeks are getting a little red and chafed, might I suggest a little daub of ointment

Leave me out of your fantasies, please.

...and a short break from trumpeting your ignorance on a blog populated largely by people more educated and intelligent than you?

If you piled your Pelion of delusions on Raging Bee's Ossa of delusions, you two could assault the heavens! The fact of the matter is that I have an advanced degree in an analytic discipline, am a coauthor on some papers, and would have to take a hammer and chisel to my head to descend to the intellectual level of Brayton and his pathetic hangers-on.

Also, if you're trying to produce some evidence for a cost-benefit analysis of illegal immigration, you're going to have to come up with a better source than USA Today. I mean, c'mon, you're Google-fu has GOT to be better than that.

And you are going to have to do better than a decade and a half year old analysis from someone at Humboldt State, the laughingstock of the CSU system.

Posted by: Milesius | November 18, 2009 11:35 PM

Oooh let me guess! You're an engineer (of some sort).

Nope.

"Humboldt State, the laughingstock of the CSU system." says Mr. USAToday. So let's see the evidence, Mr. Analytical. Show us the cost/benefit analysis of immigration.

Ruminate on this.

Posted by: Milesius | November 19, 2009 12:05 AM

Tsk, tsk Mr Analytical - I'm not paying a cent for you to make you argument. Any other ideas? - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | November 19, 2009 12:43 AM

The fact of the matter is that I have an advanced degree in an analytic discipline, am a coauthor on some papers,

The use of credentialism over evidence-supported arguments suggests otherwise. Advanced degree holders with paper authorships would know better than to rely on tertiary sources like USA TODAY.

Put some minimal effort into this. This is pathetic.

Posted by: gwangung | November 19, 2009 2:07 AM

The fact of the matter is that I have an advanced degree in an analytic discipline, am a coauthor on some papers, and would have to take a hammer and chisel to my head to descend to the intellectual level of Brayton and his pathetic hangers-on.

Don't forget to mention a MENSA membership. That always wows people.

Posted by: Troublesome Frog | November 19, 2009 3:14 AM

Good Grief. This has got to be the most stupid ScienceBlogs comment thread yet.

For one thing, equating what is happening today with what happened hundreds of years ago is simply ridiculous as it will not change what happened or make things better for anyone today.

Though there are no 'Native Americans' in my ancestry, many in my family have married into various tribes, including my father after my mother died.

When my mother was alive, we lived in southern CO and northern NM, where white people were the minority and Spanish (Mexican, more accurately) was the language most often spoken.

I worked in Dallas in the restaurant industry for years and saw first hand how impossible it was to get "citizens" to work for almost any amount of money. Illegals were paid 2 to 3 buck above minimum wage then to wash dishes and bus tables.

At the same time I saw how some illegals were abused -- not by their employers -- but by the men from their own country. They were so controlled and so much of their wages were paid for their housing and "protection" it was sickening.

The human ability to exploit another human is not limited by race or ethnicity.

In Arizona near the border a few years ago, I watched Border Patrol agents round up unlucky, poor, and probably cheated illegals during the daytime, while others were quite neatly picked up and transported at night.

While I think that history should be recorded very accurately -- without bias toward any group -- history cannot change what IS now.

The best reason I've heard for limiting illegal immigration from Mexico is that it systematically weakens and encourages corruption of the Mexican state -- not the U.S. Drug traffickers are not the same as illegal immigrants coming here to work. But the two are often conflated when policy is made and that ensures the policy will not be effective.

How about some realistic and pragmatic policy thinkers instead of knee-jerk reactionaries such as the argumentative but (mostly) useless commenters above?

I would suggest legalization of drugs on this side of the border, an opening of the border to allow much easier legal immigration, and somehow investing in Mexican businesses while helping to eliminate corrupt officials there.

Sadly, there are so many corrupt officials here that it is hard to criticize corrupt officials elsewhere, not to mention actually working to eliminate corruption on either side of the border.

Posted by: Donna B. | November 19, 2009 4:01 AM

Donna D. - "For one thing, equating what is happening today with what happened hundreds of years ago is simply ridiculous as it will not change what happened or make things better for anyone today."
Perhaps you should contemplate some quotations:
"The history of the world is the world's court of justice." Friedrich Von Schiller
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana
"What experience and history teach is this -- that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles." George Wilhelm Hegel
"We can learn from history how past generations thought and acted, how they responded to the demands of their time and how they solved their problems. We can learn by analogy, not by example, for our circumstances will always be different than theirs were. The main thing history can teach us is that human actions have consequences and that certain choices, once made, cannot be undone. They foreclose the possibility of making other choices and thus they determine future events." Gerda Lerner
"Our ignorance of history causes us to slander our own times." Gustave Flaubert
"History is a race between education and catastrophe." H G Wells
"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." Karl Marx
"History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again." Maya Angelou
That should be enough be be going on with.
Rich - Yep, correcting outrageous lies and demanding sources to back up unsubstantiated claims: sure sounds like "pissing in the wind" and "dick waving" on my part. (Just a hint: use a narrower brush to get more detail). - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | November 19, 2009 5:23 AM

"if you owned a piece of real estate that someone else thought they could develop to better effect (and we'll ignore the question of what constitutes "better", altogether), would that person, or group of people, be within their rights to just move in with the earthmovers?"

I didn't realize that the Spaniards had Kelo v NLDC on their side.

Posted by: nedlum | November 19, 2009 11:11 AM

I am not sure what this adds to the flame fest, but...

What happened to Roanoke?
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2906/so-what-did-happen-to-the-settlers-at-roanoke

In a fairer fight it appears that white Europeans weren't all that.

Posted by: KeithB | November 19, 2009 12:46 PM

I work for the welfare office and I can tell you that illegal immigrants are NOT eligible for any welfare programs except for pregnant woman or the seriously ill for medical assistance, and only for time period their condition calls for. They are NOT eligible for Food Stamps or Cash assistance. PLEASE stop spreading your misinformation.

Posted by: ErinB | November 19, 2009 3:50 PM

Milesius, I have no degree of any lind, in fact I am a high school drop out. However, I have worked in the construction industry for the last 23 years. From laborer to general contractor, all over the country, the Carribean and Canada. I can tell you for a fact that the majority of THIS country's homes and commercial buildings could not have been built for the money that was paid without these "illegals". Notice that the politicians in Washington only give lipservice to cracking down on them if they address the issue at all. There is a reason for that, profitability These people are almost always, whether legal or illegal,honest, hardworking, detail oriented, extremely smart, adaptable, respectful,and affable. Unlike most Americans who are often lazy, sloppy, ridgid, surly, dishonest and quite often out for no one but themselves. The right's attempt to dehumanize them makes it easier to attack them, and you sir, are enabling that. Thanks, James

Posted by: James M.Phillips | November 19, 2009 9:20 PM

My second guess to Mr Analytical's field of study would be Programming or IT*, although I'm sure he's a member of MENSA, at least in his own head. :) - DJ

Nah, you are way off.

The use of credentialism over evidence-supported arguments suggests otherwise. Advanced degree holders with paper authorships would know better than to rely on tertiary sources like USA TODAY.

Put some minimal effort into this. This is pathetic.

It is important to know your audience, and the audience at dispatches is lacking in native intelligence (on the whole--there are a few exceptions), their delusions to the contrary notwithstanding. Moreover, a ****ty blog is not the same as a journal; the latter demands a certain level of formality and rigor.

Incidentally, you completely ignored my link to a paper of George Borjas'. There is another which is more mathematical (as I recall) but I won't post a link to it because a) Raging Bee and others are too moronic to understand it and b) dingojack will complain that he doesn't have access to it.

I work for the welfare office

Because there is only one...

and I can tell you that illegal immigrants are NOT eligible for any welfare programs except for pregnant woman or the seriously ill for medical assistance, and only for time period their condition calls for. They are NOT eligible for Food Stamps or Cash assistance. PLEASE stop spreading your misinformation.

It appears you are correct; illegals are not suppose to receive food stamps. However, they can and do receive WIC, which, despite your claim, extends well past pregnancy. (Hence the name of the program, Women with Infant Children.)

Posted by: Milesius | November 20, 2009 1:09 AM

Are you retarded Milesius? I don't mean to talk trash but you seem to have mental problems.... particularly following certain schools of thought...

Posted by: Harry Bosch | November 21, 2009 5:08 AM

However, they can and do receive WIC, which, despite your claim, extends well past pregnancy. (Hence the name of the program, Women with Infant Children.)

Damn, those slaves are just eating you out of house and home, aren't they?

Posted by: DaveL | November 21, 2009 8:03 AM

Milesius said:

(Which is how I have access to Borjas' article.) neener neener neener

DJ - I can shoot you a copy if you really feel the need to read it (all 50 pages of it), although I agree usually it's good policy not to deal with kidnappers who offer to show you proof your loved one's alive only after you pay them the ransom.

Here are some selections from the paper. I'm not claiming I understood it completely - I'm unfortunately not fluent in Maths - but these seemed important [tried to keep original wording when possible]:

1. Definition of immigrant = both noncitizens and naturalized citizens

2. Assumption: immigrants don’t participate in crime

3. Assumption: black & white criminals tend to operate in separate markets

4. According to the literature, other possible factors, not addressed here: impact of government programs on the minimum wage; changes in the wage structure; and the trend in black incarceration rates shaped by crack epidemic [my own thoughts about other variables: women entering workforce; shift of industry from ag/mfg to service/info, etc.]

5. The incarceration rate is an imperfect measure of participation in crime, as individuals in prison today may have committed crimes seceral or more years in the past when different labor market conditions prevailed

6. Our approach can’t explain the observed changes for high-skill blacks

7. Our “all other things equal” assumption ignores the capital adjustments induced by the immigrant supply shock. Over time these adjustments attenuate the wage affects of immigration [my emphasis]

8. Put differently, immigration seems to have an effect and this effect seems to be numerically important, but we would have witnessed a sizable decline in black employment and the concurrent increase in black incarceration rates even if there had been no immigration in the past few decades [my emphasis].

For a professional semi-response to Borjas, which is from the same source - NBER - but much more accessible: Rethinking the Effects of Immigration on Wages

Posted by: marnk | November 22, 2009 12:28 AM

marnk - thanks. Sorry took a while to get back to you, life intrudes. - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | November 22, 2009 5:41 AM