The Upcoming Liberation of Mexico (and Parts of Africa)
As many academics and community activists – in fact, anyone woke – will tell you, the US is a racist society steeped in the white supremacy of its majority population. White people are haters who keep ruining things. Which is why reading this story in the LA Times about people from Africa trying to cross from Tijuana into San Diego is so hearbreaking.
The article describes African refugees who have fled their homeland for safety, who have braved all sorts of hazardous conditions just to get where they are, and who are desperately trying to get out of Mexico even if it means ending up in the US. But we all know the US is going to be awful for them. The US is a country where even the Justice system is built to humiliate and oppress black men as described in the headline to this article. It is a country where police kill black males with impunity as documented in this article. And then there are a myriad of other forms of aggression both large and micro. So imagine how bad Mexico must be for these for refugees from Africa. A hint, a shadow, a crumb of that iceberg appears in the LA Times piece:
He doesn’t care where he lives in the U.S. as long as he is allowed in.
“I want safe. I want peaceful,” Tesfaldet said.
Some of the migrants from African countries expressed frustration that they were the ones left outside after Mexican officials intervened.
“We are human beings,” said another man from Eritrea. “They don’t respect. I’m feeling racism here, a big discrimination here. We don’t want to be here in Mexico. Our target, our way is U.S.A.”
But the reality is, it isn’t just Africans who are suffering in Mexico. It must be pretty bad for Mexicans too. Estimates vary wildly, but somewhere in the neighborhood of a tenth of Mexico’s population is in the US, some legally and some not. Additionally, over a million Mexicans have filled out paperwork to come to the US legally. Who knows how many would go through the effort if the odds seemed less daunting?
To put those numbers in context, there are no signs that anywhere close to 10% of the North Korean population is trying to make its way to South Korea, and yet, North Koreans who manage to do so are welcomed with open arms to a country with the same language and same cultural traditions. Plus the weather is better in South Korea. On the other hand, so many Mexicans are trying to get to a country where they are discriminated against, and where their contributions are at best ignored. And then there’s the weather. I’ve met immigrants from Mexico (and from African countries) living in Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin; that can’t be easy for someone who grew up in a warmer, more comfortable climate.
All of this, taken together, suggests that Mexico is an awful place for Mexican and non-Mexican people alike. And yet, the land has so much promise. Plus great weather. The humane and socially aware solution is obvious: the government of Mexico must be overthrown. Ideally, it would be replaced by indigenous, peaceful, inclusive, tolerant, non-racist, intersectional, organic and home-grown Mexicanx policies and traditions. Obviously, in Mexico, that would be a social structure derived from Aztec culture. That would be the ideal outcome. However, given the conditions people in Mexico are willing to tolerate to get to and live in the US, the bar is very, very low. That means the odds of making things worse are infinitesimally small.
So for this operation, the likelihood of success is large, the probability of failure is tiny, and the benefits are huge. What’s not to like about regime change in Mexico? Furthermore, the benefits of this regime change wouldn’t accrue just to Mexicans and African refugees who are currently trapped in Mexico. Even white supremacists – who because they are in the majority in the US would bear the bulk of the cost in blood and treasure – would have a benefit: penance. The karmic load they carry would diminish slightly, and they might even develop some empathy. Some white supremacists might stop and think about how the world could have turned out but for their accident of birth. With a different history, America’s white supremacists would have all ended up in Mexico. Conversely, the Mexican population (together with America’s minority population and the few white Americans who are racially aware) might have ended up living in the US, perhaps even a US operating along pre-Columbian Mexican norms.
Now, this opportunity for racist white people to achieve some small measure of redemption doesn’t have to stop with Mexico. In fact, it shouldn’t stop with Mexico. From the LA Times article, it is clear there are people in countries in Africa who could be spared having to flee their homeland if the white supremacists in the US would develop a small measure of humanity and overthrow their governments too. Now I know what you’re thinking… we heard a similar “we will be greeted as liberators” line about a decade and a half ago. But it was different then. The motives were selfish. Our leaders thought they were acting to make Americans safer, and to make matters worse, they didn’t even bother to differentiate between the safety of the racist majority who should just die already and those who are worthy of such safety.
The most important difference between then and now, though, is this: how many Afghans and Iraqis had fled their respective countries in 2001 and 2003 before we invaded? The answer is: a small fraction relative to those who have fled since. Which leads to another obvious conclusion: we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq too early. The time to liberate those countries and to knock off their governments is now!
And if the time to do good is now, the converse is also true. Any delay, and anybody urging delay, is a racist. Let’s get started.
Update: If it isn’t obvious, and apparently to some reader it is not, this post is not meant to be taken seriously. I do not advocate for an overthrow of the government of Mexico or any other country.
The site managers really need to do an intervention. Kimel is becoming more and more deranged every day. I’m serious. He’s showing serious mental issues. If you care about him, do something.
WTF is this all about?
He’s trying for snark, I think.
It is said you should never explain a joke. But this isn’t exactly a joke, so what the heck…
There is a claim that has become increasingly extreme and is growing in prominence in certain quarters. In fact, in some places, questioning that claim can be career ending. And yet, nobody really follows through on what it would mean if the claim were actually true. This post was merely an attempt to engage in that little exercise.
I took the claim, mixed in a few indisputable facts, and followed the combination to its obvious conclusion. Sure, the outcome was preposterous. However, if you give it any thought, it is fairly obvious that inclusion of this claim leads inexorably to an absurd model of the world no matter what other inputs are used. The problem lies with the claim. It is not only wrong, it is beyond wrong.
In the past, I’ve attacked variations of the claim using data a few times. The response tended to be ad hominem attacks in lieu of an argument that was compatible with what we observe in the real world. I figured this time it would be fun to put the cognitive dissonance itself on display.
If figured that if you were serious then you would have left these three comments out of your post. So I did not comment earlier.
See: “The article describes African refugees who have fled their homeland for safety, who have braved all sorts of hazardous conditions just to get where they are, and who are desperately trying to get out of Mexico even if it means ending up in the US. But we all know the US is going to be awful for them.”
See:”Ideally, it would be replaced by indigenous, peaceful, inclusive, tolerant, non-racist, intersectional, organic and home-grown Mexicanx policies and traditions. Obviously, in Mexico, that would be a social structure derived from Aztec culture. That would be the ideal outcome.”
See: “Which leads to another obvious conclusion: we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq too early. The time to liberate those countries and to knock off their governments is now!”
Happy New Year!
My wife read the post last night before I put it up, and her favorite part was the second of those three comments you mention.
But its all serious if you make one single, extremely fashionable assumption. I challenge anyone to start with that assumption, combine it with the LA Times piece, and end up with a description of the world that is both internally consistent and credible. I couldn’t do it.
Happy New Year to you and the rest of the AB community
Mike, it did not take me long to get past being utterly appalled and to get the point of your post. I am sympathetic, being absolutely disgusted every time my government openly embraces “regime change.” Even now, what would be our reaction if a European leader pronounced that “It is time for Mr. Trump to step down.” I suspect we would indignantly and with great anger retort that is none of their business.
Not to mention how we would react if someone started lobbing Hellfire missiles into downtown Phoenix.
Opposition to regime change was one of the points of the post, but a lesser one. I am more concerned with people believing, or professing to believe, that this country is especially and uniquely racist. Since I’ve noticed that nobody who makes that claim follows it to see where it leads, I decided to do that myself. Even leaving out the regime change piece of the post, that one assumption inexorably results in a conclusion that either most other countries are horrible places for their residents, or that the huge number of people who want to be in America (including many who were born here) have no regard for their own safety and well being at all.
Its the equivalent of seeing large numbers of Jewish families trying to immigrate to Berlin in 1942, Black people trying to relocate from NYC to Birmingham, AL, during the Jim Crow era, or South Koreans trying to obtain North Korean citizenship today. It is completely bonkers. Only an insane person tells stories like this. And yet… talking up this sort of nonsense gets you tenure in a range of academic departments in colleges all across the country.
i got the joke. moreover, the “racism” in the rest of the world is a well understood fact. there was a time when it was understood that America was the beacon of the world against all that (except for the South).
your problem is not that America is more racist than anywhere else (though to be sure there are people who believe that) but that the arguments you use to limit immigration by race or country of origin are in fact racist by definition.
i am sorry if you find that “ad hominem.” i just wish you would recognize the essentially racist nature of your arguments (at times) and recognize that even if they were true (they are not) they really are “ideas” that America cannot afford to shape policy.
just to give you a hint; we cannot have a society of only experts in math, science, technology or whatever it is you think we need. and your wife’s telling her seven year old that he MUST study that curriculum amounts to child abuse.
I feel we keep going over this same point over and over. Which we should not, because I have been very, very clear. My views, for the umpteenth hundredth time….
1. I think a country’s immigration policies, including our own, should first and foremost favor the people who are already citizens.
2. To do 1. it makes sense to admit people who will assimilate well and who do not wish ill to substantial numbers of people who are already citizens. (e.g., admitting criminals, or people who state their hatred of Americans on social media such as one of the San Bernadino shooters, makes no sense at all)
3. Also to do 1., it makes sense to admit people who have skills/attitudes/characteristics that will result in them generating more output in their new home than they will consume. (e.g., admitting people who will spend what for other people are the most productive years of their lives on welfare makes no sense)
4. You will find productive, assimilable people in every culture. And you will find unproductive, unassimilable people in every culture.
5. As I have stated, I don’t really care if potential immigrants come from Japan or Guatemala or Cameroon or wherever else… if they will be productive and assimilate, I have no problems with them. If they will not be productive or will not assimilate, I don’t think they should be allowed to immigrate even if they are relatives of mine.
6. Some (relatively small number of) exceptions should be made on a case by case basis (e.g., refugees, children of people who wish to immigrate and who fulfill criteria above)
Now… to me, this isn’t racist because I expect everyone to live up to the same criteria. To you, this is racist because some cultures and societies generate a higher proportion of people who would fail the criteria I laid out.
To me, your approach is racist. I don’t understand why you think it is OK to say: well, we should admit so and so, even though he has no useful skills and has repeatedly stated he wants to kill Americans, because when we insist on people who have useful skills or don’t state they want to kill Americans, we end up rejecting a disproportionate number of people who are just like so and so.
To me, having equal expectations of everyone is not racist. To you, having equal expectations of everyone is racist if it leads to unequal outcomes. Your approach builds in an implicit assumption that not every group is equally capable of good behavior or productivity.
As to your last paragraph… I think you are reacting to a comment I made about how my wife has told our kid that we won’t pay for his college if he wants to major in something that isn’t marketable. I noted that my wife has a degree in fine arts, and while she did manage to work in the film and tv industry for however long, she considers those degrees to be useless.
She isn’t telling the kid he can’t study fine arts, just that we won’t pay for it if that is his choice. That’s providing guidance (a carrot and a stick) that she regrets nobody gave her.
I note… speaking of art, to the best of my ability to judge, the finest piece of literature ever to come out of Argentina of which I am aware is Martin Fierro. Sadly, it does not translate well, and I cannot find my copy right at this moment. There’s a line in it that loosely translates as “a parent who gives advice, more than a parent, is a friend.”
you have made your position very very clear to you. unfortunately when you get around to explaining it, you leave out the parts that sounded racist to the rest of us, and get a little vague about how you are going to determine just who is and who is not likely to be an unproductive citizen.
i am aware that my own comments are sometimes not very clear, so i would agree that there is not much point in our arguing about it.
telling a seven year old what his parents will approve of when he is eighteen is child abuse. you might try giving him a chance to grow and discover for himself what his interests and abilities are and how he is going to fit into the “economy”. but if you’ve already got him worried about how he is going “to pay for his education,” it’s probably too late.
Not at all. I am also not at all vague on how to determine just who is and who is not likely to wish to do harm to Americans.
I suspect it still won’t sink in, but here goes again. To start, let’s focus on the question you asked… productive citizens….
1. Someone moving to the US at or past the age of retirement is not likely to produce a net positive for the country. Exceptions exist, of course, and can be determined on a case by case basis.
2. It used to be that to immigrate to the US, one had to guarantee not to be a public charge. Making it illegal for someone to collect public benefits within 10 years of arriving would probably fix that.
3. It used to be in chain migration, a potential immigrant needed sponsors who were on the hook if said immigrant did become a public charge. I believe those laws are still on the books, even if not enforced any more. Start enforcing them again.
4. Given far, far more people want to immigrate to the US than we take in, we can and should be selective. Potential immigrants can be ranked based on either their current or recent income, or the average income of an American with the same profession and commensurate experience, whichever is greater. I’ve put up posts with data showing that there is a strong correlation between income in one’s home country and income once in the US.
The question you didn’t ask but should have is simpler still. How do you determine if someone is a public threat? Simple. Ask questions such as:
1. This country contains a very large number of people of the following religions (list the top 10). Do you profess a faith or philosophy that indicate to you that people in any of these groups should be subjugated or killed or should otherwise enjoy fewer rights than people from that faith or philosophy?
2. Do you subscribe to a faith or philosophy that indicate to you that you should have the right to determine how other people unrelated to you dress, who they marry, what movies they are allowed to watch, etc.?
There are, of course, other questions, but that’s a start.
As to the seven year old… he doesn’t seem all that concerned. He probably wishes that we let him watch the iPad more than we do, but he is treating the idea of getting an education the way he is treating other advice like “don’t take drugs” and “exercise is good for you.” He asked a few questions,he noticed that his parents are trying to live up to those standards themselves, he reasoned things out, etc., and he seems OK with it all. He doesn’t seem all that traumatized by our advice. He doesn’t quite get the concept of college in its entirety at this point, but he does get that “mom and dad are going to sacrifice to get me there if I study something that is likely to pay off for my future.”
good luck with the kid. if you are not completely insane the kid will probably be okay.
the reason what you say again and again doesn’t sink in is because after you have made racist statements backed up with bad statistics, you “explain” them with a somewhat different set of claims about what you mean. the racist basis is still there if one bothers to look, but just to ease your mind even i do not favor the immigration of declared terrorists.
i don’t even like much then native born who display their “racial” identity with tatoos on their necks.
speaking of which, i read recently an account of an ex cia agent who was sent to jail essentially for revealing that America was torturing prisoners. what struck me among other things about his prison experience is that the prisoners have no choice but to adopt the identity and seek the protection of their “race.”
have a nice day.
I don’t like them either. Nor do they like me. But as I’ve noted many times, we are stuck with existing citizens, both good and bad. So ideally we would seek to dilute the bad and increase the good by bringing in more agreeable, productive people who assimilate well with most everyone else. Having bad actors already here is not a good reason for bringing in more bad actors. Its a reason to bring in less bad actors.
I don’t know much about prison, but it would be interesting to know how prisoners started self-discriminating. I read an account from Australia, and it seems it occurs there too. In France, it seems to occur by religion.
Maybe, just maybe I am being internally consistent and following the data where it goes. Just because one says “A” doesn’t mean one sticks with everything that comes with “A.” In fact, people who say “A” are often surprised and horrified with what follows logically from “A.” That was the point of this post, in fact. I tend to try to maintain internal consistency to the best of my ability, even if I don’t like what it means. As I have noted many, many times – the world is as it is, not as we’d like it to be. You perceive something as racist because you don’t like the baggage that comes with “A.” Bear in mind that I may not like the baggage that comes with “A” either but nothing is gained by pretending the baggage doesn’t exist.
Have you ever asked yourself why?
I can’t resist.
“Having bad actors already here is not a good reason for bringing in more bad actors. Its a reason to bring in less bad actors. ”
1. Substitute “hombres” for “actors” and you mimic the racist Trump
2. Define who you are specifically referring to by “not bringing in more bad actors” please. Be as specific as possible though. Names if you have them, locations of country, race, religion..
i have been against unlimited immigration since the year the Rhine froze over. That Mayflower deal wasn’t very good for the locals either. I understand that racism is the default setting of all human brains.
But we can learn to mitigate its effects… and have to, in a diverse society.
I am pretty sure I can tell the difference between “natural” racism and pernicious racism. I can also tell when it is no longer worth talking about.
What works as a gotcha in your head is actually quite tiresome.
1. Spend a few minutes on google. You’ll find that I used the term “bad actors” on this blog long before Donald Trump threw his hat into the political arena. As in years before. Now, I admit I cannot prove that half a decade ago I hadn’t heard the term from Donald Trump while Donald Trump was in the middle of making some negative claim about people from Mexico, but if that’s the route you want to take, I think the onus is on you to make that argument, not on me to disprove it.
2. “Names if you have them, locations of country, race, religion..” I stated how to determine them at 1:51 PM. Check that answer. As to specific locations, race, religion, I answered that even earlier in the thread:
No Mr. Kimel,
In your 1:51 pm comment you only stated two made up example questions… you applied no objective criteria for “accept or reject”, nor did you define what a “bad actor” is even in the remotest sense.
And you get even more vague & subjective with “if…. will be” but you provide no means of determining how “will be” is assured or not assured. You are using future unknowns without even defining the assumptions underlying your own opinion of the future conditions that will or will not assure a completely undefined outcome.
You sound like a used car salesman.
To be extremely precise here, you have managed to noodle out that I believe immigration authorities should check social media to see if a would-be immigrants called for the murder of American citizens. You just aren’t able to figure out whether I believe that wanting to kill Americans should be a criteria for exclusion from the country or a requirement for entry into the country.