Black-Brown Unity (by Carolyn Delossantos)
When I first decided to spend this semester of my college career in
In these past months, I have seen appalling cases of how immigrants are blamed for the societal ills that afflict us. The scare tactics of anti-immigrant groups have been successful at instilling anti-Latino sentiment among the American populace. The media has painted a gruesome picture of Latinos, and made us all culpable.
Perhaps the worst example I've seen is the idea that undocumented immigrants are wholly responsible for lowering the wages of low-skilled and poor African Americans. In one particular briefing I attended, the low wages and high unemployment rates of poor African Americans were correlated with Latino immigration.
These scholars based their findings on research and data sets, but it left me questioning their motives and analysis. This "research" paves the way for the scapegoating of the other. Are Latinos and African Americans not working toward the same goal - that is, overcoming structural forces that prohibit social advancement? Thus, why are we not working together? My mind cannot conceive how powerful it would be - both spiritually and socially - if Latinos and African-American communities united around immigration. Instead of concentrating our powers against one another, we must unite. We will remain powerless or disempowered until we are able to fight alongside one another.
Currently, immigration is the hot issue and is therefore being used to widen the gap between these two groups of people who share a common history, struggle, and legacy. Why do we fight each other for the crumbs? The entire time I sat during this briefing, I wanted to scream, "Those brown people you condemn are my people, and we are not the root cause of poverty." As seekers of truth and justice, we must acknowledge that massive deportation will not solve some poverty or its root causes.
Let us stop finding scapegoats for complex issues and instead seek unity. Power is in the hands of those who want to make us believe lies about ourselves and others. We must begin to unite around issues like immigration. Imagine how powerful it would be if Latinos and African Americans, two of the largest minority groups in the U.S., would challenge the broken systems that afflict us both. Let us find common ground and redirect our energies toward the real struggles that will truly empower our communities.
Carolyn Delossantos is a junior at Gordon College. She just completed a semester internship at Sojourners.
Add to:
Category: Immigration, Race
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I have heard this data before. I don't buy all of it or even the motives behind it. I have a problem with the conclusions the data reveals. I have a problem with the way the data helps to perpetuate an idea that immigrant Latin and poor black folks are fighting for the lowest wage jobs. I find that to be not true in practical experience. I used to work with different immigrant and black groups in Los Angeles and I never saw the level of competition and disparity some of the conclusions create. It may not have been there or there could be other dynamics going on.
But when I went and worked in poorer communities black folks were not competing for the construction, produce jobs I saw in immigrant community.
p
Posted by: Payshun | May 14, 2008 1:57 PM
So if the data doesn't say what you want it to, then ignore it? Data is a scare tactic now?
So basically the author is asking people to coalesce around a myth.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 14, 2008 2:08 PM
Carolyn: Thank you for your work and your post. I am suspicious of these data sets that allege loss of low-paying jobs, etc. I think this economic argument goes too infrequently unchallenged. In an macroeconomics class I took many moons ago I remember learning about full employment. The US economy has, for a significant period enjoyed a state very close to this. Can anyone tell me why the conservatives (champions of opportunity and supply side economics) are embracing a zero sum model when it comes to immigration? They seem to oppose population control, going so far as to blame the looming Social Security crisis on too small families, and yet want to regulate the flow of immigrants. Human beings are more full of solutions and contributions than they are problems and expenditures.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 14, 2008 2:21 PM
Carolyn: "These scholars based their findings on research and data sets, but it left me questioning their motives and analysis."
kevin s: "So if the data doesn't say what you want it to, then ignore it? Data is a scare tactic now?
So basically the author is asking people to coalesce around a myth."
me: So we should accept the findings uncritically because it supports your views on illegal immigration? Sounds to me like you're asking us to coalesce around a myth.
Certainly, as a scholar, I expect and indeed welcome critical examination of my work.
Posted by: carl copas | May 14, 2008 2:41 PM
Yes, the argument that immigrants are "stealing" jobs deserved by other people is silly. No one is entitled to a particular job unless they've entered into some sort of agreement with their employer. The belief that we should restrict immigration simply to protect "our" jobs is selfish.
Not only is the motivation selfish, it's an unwarranted fear. If you look at a graph of U.S. population and overlay it with a graph of U.S. employment, you'll find they virtually mirror each other, with the employment line just a little below the population line. As long as our economy remains dynamic it can absorb more workers.
You'll also find a similar argument advanced by populists of various stripes from Lou Dobbs to John Edwards. They complain about the Chinese or some other scary group of foreigners "stealing" our jobs. A Chinese man has just as much right to a job as I do.
Posted by: Eric | May 14, 2008 3:03 PM
"The US economy has, for a significant period enjoyed a state very close to this. "
The full employment theory was set aside as the unemployment rate dropped below 5% nationwide. That said, I don't think it has much bearing on this issue.
"Can anyone tell me why the conservatives (champions of opportunity and supply side economics) are embracing a zero sum model when it comes to immigration? "
Of course, this question could be redirected toward liberals. That said, most conservatives support legal immigration. There are even some schools of thought that unlimited immigration could be beneficial, so long as welfare systems and minimum wage laws do not apply.
But they do apply, and they create artificial barriers to legal employment and legal immigration. Let me ask this, do you support any restriction on immigration? If so, why? If not, then make the case for an open-borders policy.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 14, 2008 3:20 PM
Yes, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. I haven't seen the data referred to so I don't have an opinion on which of the three labels to give it.
I agree with Eric about the idea that "our jobs" are being taken away. I've been very disheartened lately to hear so many anti-immigrant comments when I give presentations on wages and poverty to labor union groups. I do wish the unions would try a little harder to explain these issues to their members.
But then again, sub-minimum wage jobs are hardly "Americans' jobs." Those who complain would rightfully not want to work for less than what the law rerquires.
Posted by: I and I | May 14, 2008 3:30 PM
Jeff,
I actually don't hear many economic conservatives (those that support free markets and trade/supply-side economics/etc) making the case that immigration results in the loss of low-paying jobs. Most economic conservatives who oppose illegal immmigration generally do so on the issue of not encouraging the breaking of laws and concerns about the money spent by schools, hospitals and other services on illegal immigrants. If you have some examples that disprove my thoughts I'd be interested. I could be wrong.
Posted by: Eric | May 14, 2008 3:31 PM
There are also many economic conservatives (read the Wall Street Journal once and a while) who are perfectly fine with immigration and support comprehensive immigration reform and amnesty for illegal immigrants. So I think this brush with which you're painting is a little too broad Jeff.
Posted by: Eric | May 14, 2008 3:39 PM
so you don't believe that more people competing for the same job has any effect on wages. my all clergy should take econ 101 and 102 roger
Posted by: roger | May 14, 2008 3:46 PM
This article does not even mention the study to which the author is referring, so there’s really no opportunity to critically review the data collection and analysis to determine its validity. The author of this article has not even given us her review of the study, so I have to agree this is a bit of alarmism.
It cuts both ways.
I’ve been participating in a nursing blog. The topic of a recent thread was Indian nurses coming to the U.S. to work for lower wages. The participants of that thread were bemoaning the not only the inevitable reduction in nurses wages, but also the lowering of standards of nursing care to “third world” level.
I asked the participants of that thread if there was any evidence that this was going on. The replies I received were circumstantial, anecdotal, and speculative.
In other words, no.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 14, 2008 3:55 PM
"Certainly, as a scholar, I expect and indeed welcome critical examination of my work."
There is no critical examination here, only dismissal and attributing motives. If that is the sort of examination you welcome, you are a curious scholar indeed.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 14, 2008 4:10 PM
Carolyn, how did your immigrant parents send you to college and bring down these “structural forces that prohibit social advancement?”
Posted by: DITE | May 14, 2008 4:19 PM
Well actually I have done a great bit of research on this and I find the data to be questionable because I found other data that doesn't fully corroborate this. If one is going to study the data, one must study the methodology and the underlying issues they are trying to show.
p
Posted by: Payshun | May 14, 2008 4:20 PM
Carolyn,
The answers you put forward are valuable. Thank you for reminding us that uniting is far more constructive than blaming another party. Keep contributing, as your voice is needed.
Posted by: Jessica | May 14, 2008 4:27 PM
kevin s,
Do you just go looking for fights on these blogs? I work for a research and marketing firm, and I can tell you that research can say just about anything you want it to say. That's why people on two sides of the exact same issue can back up their positions with research. Anyone can shape research by asking the questions a certain way or by interpretting the answers as they see fit.
I think what the author is asking for is just that we try to see the world through other people's eyes and to walk a mile in their shoes. That we try to hold each other up as brothers and sisters, rather than push each others down as adversaries.
Posted by: Paul | May 14, 2008 5:21 PM
You know, I have to add something to what has been said about the laws of supply and demand. People are talking about immigrants (legal or illegal) like they are increasing the demand on a limited supply of jobs. Remember though that they are also buying goods and services, increasing demand for exactly the kinds of things that people in jobs produce. So as supplies of products and services increase to meet the increased demand, so goes the supply of jobs.
Posted by: Paul | May 14, 2008 5:28 PM
As far as statistics go, Paul is correct. Statistics and data can be manipulated to support almost anything. It's worth the time to use critical thinking, asking how the data was collected, for example, as well as noting what group collected the data.
Lou Dobbs persists in using extremely questionable data, obtained primarily from an organization that is known to be directly connected to white supremacist groups, just because it supports his position on immigration. On one of his shows he produced "statistics" intended to increase the fears of immigrants in his viewers. (It worked. I received a "forward this" e-mail that was being shotgunned out to a huge list of friends, quoting Dobbs' assertions.) He claimed that illegal immigrants had brought an enormous increase in leprosy, TB, and hepatitis, to name a few.
Recently, though, Roger Kleckner from the Green Valley News in Arizona wrote an interesting column trying to shed some light on the "facts" that are stirring up so much fear and animosity. At one point he says:
"An example is the reported 7000 new cases of leprosy in the last three years. According to a March 2008 report from the Centers for Disease Control listing reported cases of diseases from 1975 to 2006, there were only 258 reported new cases of leprosy from 2004 through 2006 with the number dropping each year. From 1985 (highest) till 2006 (lowest), the decline was 82 percent.
Also mentioned was the threat of hepatitis. From the same report, the combined number of reported cases (1975-2006) of Hepatitis A and B declined 83 percent, with 2006 having the lowest. A CDC fact sheet states that the number of new cases of Hepatitis C has declined from around 240,000 in the 1980s to 19,000 in 2006.
We were told that polio is back and increasing. According to the same report, there was just one reported case of polio from 2000 to 2006; that in 2005.
We have been told that last year, illegal immigrants killed five of seven police officers in Phoenix. Interesting, since the Officer Down Memorial Page and Phoenix Police Museum Web sites list only three officers killed in 2007 in Phoenix and a 30- mile radius around Phoenix. Only one dealt with illegal immigrants.
A local Minutemen told me that the last five Border Patrol agents were killed by illegal immigrants.
According to the official Border Patrol Web site; of the last eight agents killed, five were in single car accidents, one drowned trying to save his canine partner, one had a heart attack related to the heat as he was tracking (not chasing) migrants and one was hit by a suspected smuggler. There were also three air interdiction agents killed; one in an airport training accident, one in a helicopter crash while chasing migrants, and one in a plane crash while supporting BP agents. Thus, only one of the 11 agents was directly killed by an illegal immigrant; a suspected drug smuggler, not someone looking for a job."
As to the question about open borders, I'm not sure that I have seen anyone support that idea here. Rather, I think many of us would like to see immigration law reforms that make "migration for work purposes" a simple matter, again, allowing people to come through legal channels. And hopefully, those same reforms would also make legal immigration possible for those who are willing to come here to work and improve their condition. Then, those who are trying to bring in illicit items like drugs and terrorist materials would stick out as they try to negotiate a border without the cover of poverty stricken people looking for work.
Posted by: janible | May 14, 2008 6:10 PM
kevin s: "There is no critical examination here, only dismissal and attributing motives. If that is the sort of examination you welcome, you are a curious scholar indeed."
More curious and indeed curiouser than you'll ever know, pal.
More seriously, my point was simply that just because Delossantos has doubts about motives and analysis doesn't mean that she's asking us to coalesce around a myth.
Posted by: carl copas | May 14, 2008 6:40 PM
lloyd,
We could all say the same to you. How about you write something that isn't a sarcastic put-down of what someone else has said. Are you sharing Christian compassion when you post here? Please think about that before you post again.
Or maybe the moderators will have to delete a few more of your posts...
Posted by: Sarah | May 14, 2008 9:09 PM
"More seriously, my point was simply that just because Delossantos has doubts about motives and analysis doesn't mean that she's asking us to coalesce around a myth." carl copas
It's a tactic that that particular person has used in the past- re-frame the issue in the worst possible light and hope that it will stick. It is a very intellectually dishonest and cynical way of trying to make a point. Good job of calling him on it.
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 14, 2008 11:05 PM
Posted by: Paul | May 14, 2008 5:28 PM
Thank you Paul. I see my degree in economics isn't just toilet paper after all. (re:
"so you don't believe that more people competing for the same job has any effect on wages. my all clergy should take econ 101 and 102 roger"
Posted by: roger | May 14, 2008 3:46 PM
Economics is a messy science. There is no reality that reflects the theory of multiple laborers pursuing one job. You would learn that after you got beyond econ 101 and 102.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 14, 2008 11:52 PM
Cite data that refutes your position and you will critique the study.
History has never shown us a wave of immigration that;
1. was bad for the country and the culture
2. caused an increase in crime
3. hurt the economy
4. was anything but good for the country in every way
despite this all of these accusations are always given by those who oppose immigration.
In most of our history there has never been anything that could be called illegal immigration;
You came without application
You passed a basic health exam
You went to work
people hated you for doing this.
the only difference is that now we have laws so that we can use the pejorative "illegal", instead of using one that is purely racial in nature. It is self righteous.
Now, it obviously is not illegal to use the law this way, but it is criminal.
As far as your data goes, please demonstrate for us, one time where immigration has proven to be bad for this nation. Then show us where the negative claims made against the immigrant were in anyway true. Then you can cite all the data you want.
Posted by: wayne | May 15, 2008 12:11 AM
Roger and Jeff,
Multiple workers all pursuing one job isn't the issue here. The issue is immigrants willing to work for lower wages than American citizens. That's what supposedly drives wages down and what African Americans are supposedly concerned about.
I don't have a problem with someone willing to work for less than someone else and getting a job because of that. Passing laws to prevent that from happening is unfair to the person willing to work for less. Much of the history of today's wage regulation comes from the sad history of white Americans trying to keep African Americans from "stealing" their jobs.
Posted by: Eric | May 15, 2008 12:53 PM
Maybe I missed something, but I don't hear kevin s. defending or advocating any particular position on immigration in this thread.
What I have read by kevin and a few other people on this thread is that Ms. Delossantos has not provided any evidence to support her claims - a statement with which I agree.
"and I can tell you that research can say just about anything you want it to say."
"Not if the research is done well." KS
I agree, and this is the point, we have to be able to examine the data and methodology to determine the validity of the 'statistics,' a point also made by Payshun above.
Ms. Delossantos has not even named her source, yet we are expected to accept her allegation without evidence that the study a. says what she says it does, and b. that the research methodology is questionable.
This is why people don't trust 'statistics.'
Data collection and analysis are sciences. One of the essential components to the scientific method is publishing results so that others can examine the stduy and assess the validity of the conclusions drawn from it. Ms. Dellossantos purports to have done so for us, but does not specify her objections to the methodology or even specify to which study she is referring.
I certainly agree that there may be a 'sky is falling' attitude among those opposed to immigration. I've read 'studies' that draw conclusions similar to those described by Ms. Dellossantos - 'studies' that were really nothing but propaganda that were made to look like scientific studies. This is my point; I was able to read them, critiques them, and very clearly state my reasons for rejecting their validity.
Sorry, Ms Dellossantos, this is a tough audience.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 15, 2008 2:07 PM
Neuro nurse
kevin s wrote: "So if the data doesn't say what you want it to, then ignore it? Data is a scare tactic now?
So basically the author is asking people to coalesce around a myth."
Ms Dollosantos' intention was to promote unity and to say that those who are using data to divide and scare us should be ignored.
Sure she could have debated their data, maybe she should have done so, but that was not the intention of her writing.
History may not trump all data but it is squarely on the side of Ms Dellasantos' argument for the need for unity and not fear.
Data can be skewed and while a proper study may be definitive it can still be argued against. If this were not so all arguments would be easily solved.
There is no historical precedent for any of the anti immigration reform attitudes, except that the offer of amnesty in the mid eighties did not solve the immigration dilemma. Given that, there is still no evidence that can prove this current wave of immigration is somehow unique in history and is a negative thing for this country. That there is nothing historical to back the anti immigrant stance can be proved.
Immigration cannot be proven to be the cause of any health problems or healthcare cost problems here in the US.
It cannot be proved that it is costing jobs.
It cannot be proved that whatever the costs are the benefits of immigration do not at least equal or outweigh them.
It cannot be proved that immigration is the problem with our education system.
It could certainly be asserted that the recent harsh moves against immigrants are doing many of these things.
Here in AZ schools are finding lower attendance rates mean less money.
People who are now afraid of the police are not calling in to report crimes
People who are afraid are not seeking health care and diseases that are untreated seem likely to spread. Mersa (sp?) may be one example of this here in AZ.
Employers are complaining about the need for workers and subsequent profit losses. Retailers have reported big drops in sales, before the recent mortgage debacle seemed to have kicked in.
Landlords are complaining that their vacancy rates are up, yet homeownership is not improving.
Can I cite a study to prove these allegations?
No.
I will just cite history. Can Kevin or Wolverine do so? I think not, but maybe I am wrong.
Posted by: wayne | May 15, 2008 2:44 PM
One more thing.
I just said goodbye to a young man who is leaving to go back to Mexico with his parents and siblings.
They are all going except one older brother. He isn't here in the US. He is fighting in Iraq with our Army.
I helped him earn a little money for the trip by working on my house. I was extremely embarrassed to do this but he would not take a hand out.
I guess that makes me an illegal American.
Posted by: wayne | May 15, 2008 2:54 PM
As I read it, it seemed that Ms. Delossantos found the research believable, but didn't like the implications, and chose to reject it for that reason. That's a pity - it isn't difficult to criticise research.
Posted by: Gordon | May 15, 2008 3:14 PM
"Data can be skewed and while a proper study may be definitive it can still be argued against."
Exactly my point.
"Can I cite a study to prove these allegations? No."
So, upon what do you base your beliefs? What you read in the media? What politicians tell you? You must have a basis for your beliefs. Opinions and beliefs about immigration cannot, as far as I can tell, be based on a priori assumptions.
I'm not questioning that what you or Ms. Delossantos are saying is true - but neither of you are providing any evidence for the veracity of your statements. If kevin or wolverine made statements without providing evidence or a source I would just as quickly, and have, made the same point with them.
Look, I'm on your side, but we criticize conservative commentators who do not provide evidence for their claims. Liberals need to be held to that same standards to which we try to hold conservatives.
We can't just say, "This is the way it is" and expect people to believe us. We need to do our homework.
Ms Delossantos can easily alleviate my objections to the statements she has made in this article by simply citing her source and specifying her concerns about the methodology of the study.
If I could read the study she cites, I might be able to find flaws in the methodology and defend her statements, but since she hasn't cited her source, I can't.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 15, 2008 3:20 PM
"Maybe I missed something, but I don't hear kevin s. defending or advocating any particular position on immigration in this thread."
Correct. My problem generally is that this is the most complicated issue that Sojo takes time to discuss, with multiple competing interests on all sides of the aisle, and it always pivots on labelling people racists.
That is the sort of emotionalism that produces bad policy. If there is data that does not support your claim, introduce it and contend with it.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 15, 2008 3:21 PM
“As I read it, it seemed that Ms. Delossantos found the research believable, but didn't like the implications, and chose to reject it for that reason. That's a pity - it isn't difficult to criticise research.”
What evidence do you have to support that claim? Or, is this speculation on your part or your opinion?
Reviewing and critiquing the methodology of a study requires a fair amount of knowledge and skill. It can be very difficult.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 15, 2008 3:40 PM
"My problem generally is that this is the most complicated issue that Sojo takes time to discuss, with multiple competing interests on all sides of the aisle, and it always pivots on labelling people racists."
I agree. The racist charge is over-used. "Cold", "callous" and "insensitive" are race-neutral terms that probably provide a better description.
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 15, 2008 3:43 PM
I am sorry guys but again with history showing us what it does, I would have to say the onus for provable data is on the shoulders of those who stand opposed to reforming the laws and are pro forcing people out of their homes.
Neuro I understand your point but in this case I just don't think it was Ms Delassantos intention to be scientific. You can ask and she can provide. That is fine. She is, I believe, talking to two segments of our society who people are trying to split. She is trying to keep that from happening and encouraging unity.
"Let us stop finding scapegoats for complex issues and instead seek unity. Power is in the hands of those who want to make us believe lies about ourselves and others. We must begin to unite around issues like immigration. Imagine how powerful it would be if Latinos and African Americans, two of the largest minority groups in the U.S., would challenge the broken systems that afflict us both. Let us find common ground and redirect our energies toward the real struggles that will truly empower our communities."
Does that statement need a scientific study to validate it?
Does anyone really need proof that this would be a good thing?
Kevin took exception with one comment;"These scholars based their findings on research and data sets, but it left me questioning their motives and analysis."
She did not ignore the data, she questioned their motives. With history showing us that all past accusations of this sort were wrong and were also based in bad motives, I do not believe any accusation of emotionalism or is warranted.
Again it would be nice to see the study, but the burden is not on those who are for reforming the system. It is squarely on those who are opposed to it, after all they are the ones asking us to coalesce behind a myth.
Posted by: wayne | May 15, 2008 4:14 PM
"I would have to say the onus for provable data is on the shoulders of those who stand opposed to reforming the laws and are pro forcing people out of their homes."
Maybe they have, maybe they haven't. How would I know from reading this article?
"She is trying to keep that from happening and encouraging unity."
That's all well and good, but what does it mean in practical terms?
One of the reasons I'm still a Catholic is the social teachings of the Church. Nothing angers me more than injustice.
But as I've said many times in numerous threads, "What are you going to do about it?"
Let's all get together and... what? and why?
If you can't demonstrate that an injusitce is occurring and that there is a clear plan of what needs to be done about it, then don't expect me to jump on board.
It really shouldn't be that difficult, but Ms. Delossantos has failed to demonstrate to me that this is something about which I should be concerned.
I'm only one man, I can do only so much. As many people on this blog know, I'm working towards a goal to serve the Lord - a goal that is strongly motivated by my sense of justice.
I believe very little of what I read in the media, and hate to be proven wrong.
I need evidence. We need evidence if we are going to convince people who either oppose us or who might become our allies that our actions are justified.
"after all they are the ones asking us to coalesce behind a myth."
In this case, I fail to see the difference between "us" and "them."
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 15, 2008 4:47 PM
that should have read JamesMartin, not Paulmartin
Posted by: Jeff | May 15, 2008 4:49 PM
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 15, 2008 3:40 PM
"What evidence do you have to support that claim? Or, is this speculation on your part or your opinion?"
Oh, please - I think I made it clear that was my reading of what she said. Perhaps you had a different impression, but your previous posts seem to imply that you agree with my impression. Perhaps my impression wasn't what she meant to say, but I think it's a reasonable reading of her article.
"Reviewing and critiquing the methodology of a study requires a fair amount of knowledge and skill. It can be very difficult."
Well, sure, most worthwhile endeavors require some skill. But this is not beyond the capacity of any well-educated second-year college student, and she should have learned the rudiments in her required introductory science courses. If she didn't, it's easy to learn - it just requires a few days of hard work. It certainly is preferable, in my view, to just dismissing research because it doesn't agree with one's preconceived notions of unity.
Posted by: Gordon | May 15, 2008 5:02 PM
"your previous posts seem to imply that you agree with my impression."
Nope, the only thing that I implied was that Ms. Delossantos hadn't done her homework.
"But this is not beyond the capacity of any well-educated second-year college student, and she should have learned the rudiments in her required introductory science courses."
That is not the impression I get from the undergraduates to whom I have the misfortune of being exposed.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 15, 2008 5:31 PM
"Nope, the only thing that I implied was that Ms. Delossantos hadn't done her homework."
I don't see how that's materially diferent from my point of view.
"That is not the impression I get from the undergraduates to whom I have the misfortune of being exposed."
As I said, it takes some skill, but it's not beyond the capacity of a second-year college student. One only has to do one's homework . . .
Posted by: Gordon | May 15, 2008 5:35 PM
"Why do you feel a need to insult people? Do you feel that putting others down somehow elevates you? We have seen you engage respectfully on some occasions. We know you can do it." Jeff
Whom did I insult? I was merely describing some people's past statements on immigration with accurate adjectives. I agreed with the statement that the racist charge is unfounded- it's just too hard to get into somebody's mind to see if race is the motivational factor. It's much easier just to describe the position in accurate terms. I was somewhat perplexed that the person would bring up unfounded charges of racism. That wasn't insulting in any way, was it? Were you offended by that?
As for telling me that you have seen me engage respectfully on some occasions that isn't insulting, is it?
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 15, 2008 5:48 PM
"it seemed that Ms. Delossantos found the research believable, but didn't like the implications, and chose to reject it for that reason."
Besides assigning a motive, you implied that she found the conclusions of the study valid.
That's going a lot farther than my saying that she failed to make a convincing argument.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 15, 2008 5:55 PM
The problem with statistics is that they sound reliable, but they aren't. A good statistician can use any data to prove anything he wants. So -- we have to be careful about believing such data. It's interpretation is in the eye of the beholder.
I heard similar things after Katrina -- that the blacks wouldn't work, so Mexicans were coming in and taking the jobs -- it was on a news clip. I remember having a hard time digesting the story, since most of the original residents were still in Houston and various other cities at the time. If they're legal (and I assumed they were)I have no problem with them making the most of a rare opportunity. I don't think anybody should be hired or not hired based on race. At the time, they were paying great wages, since finding employees of any kind was hard.
Posted by: frankie | May 15, 2008 6:06 PM
"Besides assigning a motive, you implied that she found the conclusions of the study valid."
That's how I read it. My point was that she should have evaluated the research rather than reject it out of hand. That she did seemed to be based on her unwillingness to accept its conclusions. That's just intellectually lazy. She could have either evaluated the research (done her homework) or accepted its conclusions and nonetheless argued on policy ground (or some other grounds) that the conclusions were moot. She did neither.
Posted by: Gordon | May 15, 2008 6:09 PM
"A good statistician can use any data to prove anything he wants."
No, that's what a BAD statistician does!
A proper scientific publication includes a description of how the data was collected and analysed.
There is certainly plenty of opportunity to introduce bias, which is one of the reasons for publishing the methodology - so that others can read the study and determine what, if any, bias may have affected the study outcome.
There are certainly investigators who lack integrity and misrepresent their methodology. Their studies will usually lack reproducability, which calls their methodology and conclusions (and integrity) into question.
As I said before, I've read some of these 'studies' on immigration - it took me just a few minutes of scanning the articles to realize that they were not scientific publications - they were made to look like scientific studies, but there were great big holes where the methodology should have been.
Oh, and I live in New Orleans. There are lots of Hispanics here working in construction, but the only complaints I've heard were about the taquerias in the parking lots near construction sites.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 15, 2008 6:26 PM
Gordon,
I agree with you on a couple of points. You used a word that I avoided, but expresses my feelings about the article.
Peace.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 15, 2008 6:32 PM
"Peace."
With that I agree entirely
Posted by: Gordon | May 15, 2008 6:40 PM
Whom did I insult? I was merely describing some people's past statements on immigration with accurate adjectives.
Accurate adjectives? Well thank you for your OPINION Mr. Martin.
Posted by: aaron | May 15, 2008 6:49 PM
n_n: There is raw data on immigration statistics in the US maintained by, not the INS, but , of all people, the boondogle Dept of Homeland Security. I shared these stats on another thread with provocative questions and got the equivalent of cows looking at a new gate from most here. One reason for the dearth of real significant data is the inter-activity of social systems which renders the causality of events open to manipulation by those predisposed to a given position. You can not say that immigration causes low wages any more than you can say that the US government targeted blacks with AIDS. They are both inflammatory statements that may or may not be true, but do not contribute to the advancement of the solution.
JamesMartin: I look forward to your comments on this subject given your experience in this field. I thought your comment linking "illegal aliens" with racism where dead on. I don't think Jesus would label anyone an "illegal alien" any more than He would use the "N-word" to address a Black person.
Eric: I never said that it was about multiple persons seeking one job. That was Roger's atomization of the issue. This seems to be a common strategy of some on this blog. "If we can reduce the issue to anecdotal sniping and dueling research then we've washed our hands from shame and conviction.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 15, 2008 7:42 PM
Cut the kid some slack. She wasn't basing any conclusions on research. She was illustrating how this issue can be manipulated and appealing for solidarity amongst mutually opressed groups.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 15, 2008 7:46 PM
"JamesMartin: I look forward to your comments on this subject given your experience in this field. I thought your comment linking "illegal aliens" with racism where dead on. I don't think Jesus would label anyone an "illegal alien" any more than He would use the "N-word" to address a Black person."
I am no expert on the impact of immigration on wages but I think that it is safe to say that maintaining people in undocumented limbo probably is depressing wages in some industries. As long as people are undocumented, they are going to be fearful of standing up for their rights and demanding higher wages and better working conditions.
BUT the solution is not mass inhumane deportation. Nor is the solution in slowly torturing people through attrition policies that seek to make them leave on their own. (This latter solution really gives some people the jollies because not only is it mean-spirited but it doesn't cost the government money) It would seem that the most humane and Christian policy would be to legalize the undocumented immigrants already here and to secure the border and control the flow of people into this country.
Unfortunately there is a segment of conservative movement that will not be happy until undocumented immigrants are forced to leave- either through deportation or attrition. That particular segment of the conservative movement does not give a damn about the impact that such evil, ill-advised policies would have on families- especially those families where the children are U.S. citizens by birth and the parents are undocumented. It is more important to them to satisfy some sick, perverse sense of justice than to exercise mercy.
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 15, 2008 10:08 PM
"You can not say that immigration causes low wages any more than you can say that the US government targeted blacks with AIDS. They are both inflammatory statements that may or may not be true, but do not contribute to the advancement of the solution." Pastor Jeff
I hope you meant 'you' in a general sense and did not intend to direct those comments to me. I've not implied anything with regards to immigration, wages, or the economy.
My sole point on this thread has been that if we want to 'contribute to the advancement of the solution,' we need to make a better effort than the author of this article.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 15, 2008 10:46 PM
n_n: "You" are correct on both points.
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 16, 2008 1:18 AM
What about the wicked financial elites who benefit ecomically from people being illegal and desperate?
These sons of satan love the opportunity for such a "market"
and have no conscience about playing vulnerable peoples against one another in order to reduce those laboring to make them wealthy just another commodity.
Why are the "poorest of these" the ones demonized and divided against one another, instead of those who take their ease and wealth from their mouths?
Whether driving down wages, eliminating benefits and pensions, or exporting jobs to countries with no protections for workers, these elites care nothing for their neighbors, seeing them only as merchandise rather than equal human beings.
Why do we not call those to account who have made greed their god?
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | May 16, 2008 1:51 AM
Carolyn,
The vision of unity and a passion for bringing it about are mighty blessings. Do all in your power to educate others and invite them into places where it can become real to them. I pray that your vision bears fruit beyond our wildest dreams!
Posted by: Audrey | June 5, 2008 7:48 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?