Sorry, meant “lyme-infected

The study of such adjustments is what economics is all about, and it is simply mind-boggling that the WSJ employs so many people who apparently cannot grasp how this concept of adjustment applies to immigrant labor issue. What we have now is a large, rapid expansion of the low-skilled work force fueled by the annual importation of an estimated 500,000 illegals. Reduce that influx and the economy will simply … adjust.

Not disaster, not collapse, just adjustment.

Hotels and restaurants in places like Chicago, Miami and just about every other city would have to shut down without waiters, maids and others with dubious credentials. The well-manicured lawns in my home town would soon become weed gardens in the absence of the Mexicans who man landscape services.

How is this comment any different than the Howard Dean comment about Republicans speaking in front of minority crowds? Or Joe Biden’s famous line about Indians in convenience stores? There seems to be a not-so-subtle implication there that no one is apt to take them to task for, except here, praise be to allah(pundit).

Oh, come on. there’s plenty of hay to be made here without trotting that out.

Just using Melloan’s logic: he disagrees with me, therefore it must be hate and emotionalism.

Anyway, since he disparaged me without provocation I’d say the “hate” and “emotion” labels can be reasonably argued to apply to Melloan more than to me based on that one fact alone. In addition, his column acknowledged that the Rule of Law was a reasonable argument, but my opinion must be caused by hate and emotionalism, regardless. That sounds emotional and hateful to me.

By the way, there were several reasons to oppose the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill besides just Rule of Law, and none of them that I saw (except from people like Melloan) involved hate or emotionalism. It’s plain to see that the Editors and the Editorial Board at the WSJ hate the people who opposed that Immigration Bill.

Melloan hates America…
jaime on July 27, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Oh, come on. there’s plenty of hay to be made here without trotting that out.

Biffstir, thanks for chining in on this. I still think your paper’s one of the best in the country; I’m just weary of their approach on this issue.

George Melloan is deputy editor, international, of The Wall Street Journal, responsible for the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal Europe, headquartered in Brussels, and The Asian Wall Street Journal, based in Hong Kong. He also writes a weekly column, “Global View,” which appears all three papers.

Melloan hates America, and he’s too emotional while doing it. That does not produce good columns in the WSJ, Mr. Melloan.

Gregor, while a good portion of The Journal’s readers are indeed investors and of high net worth, many ARE business owners.

Biffstir on July 27, 2007 at 5:36 PM

Huh?! Duh. Did I suggest otherwise? Did you read my entire comment? Did you read the comment I was responding to?

One last thing: the edit covers global companies and not just corporate America

Exactly right, which only solidifies my argument that the Wall Street Journal should not be trusted to act in the best interest of the United States, but are instead more likely to act in the best interest of their “customers.”

Wall Street Journal customers = Corporate, small business, and investment interests worldwide. All of which benefit immensely by cheap labor.

Corporate America

Gregor on July 27, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Gregor, while a good portion of The Journal’s readers are indeed investors and of high net worth, many ARE business owners. Your suggestion is not based on the facts (I work here, you’ll have to trust me on this one, I have the research).

Again, what investors do with the information they gather from any media property much less TWSJ is up to them. But it’s safe to say that The Journal’s readers probably do have significant portfolios representing substantial stock ownership in American companies large and small.

One last thing: the edit covers global companies and not just corporate America ;)

(Apologies to…The Cutting Crew, natch)

CC, you left out stomach stapling (AKA gastric stapling or gastroplasty :)

It should also be noted that a good portion of the Journal’s readers are not business owners at all, but rather investors. And these investors are investing in what?

Corporate America

Gregor on July 27, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Hmm. Sounds sinister.
A lot of investors are investing in stocks that will pay them dividends for their retirement. They are buying stocks today, one at a time, two at a time or through mutual funds, hoping to get some cash to live on after they retire, a couple thousand a month, if they’ve saved carefully – money saved and invested that was left over from bills, expenses, mortgages AND taxes and will be taxed AGAIN by the ravenous USG. They mow their own yards.
So, YEH, they’re investing in Corporate America. Damn straight! They are providing the capital that Corporate America uses to invest and develop new products and businesses, then pays them back for the use of their money. There’s a risk involved – the USG might punitively cripple the companies, over tax them, put on new regs – and force the company out of business. Then what for the little guy? He don’t have the luxury to subscribe to the WSJ.

I will, however, repeat that The Journal is not all about ‘big business’ and corporate America! Something like 65% of the readership is Small Business (defined by let’s say less than 500 employees but don’t quote me here). The Journal is about business, money, markets, regardless of size and segment. Get over that argument already!

Biffstir on July 27, 2007 at 3:13 PM

The fact that the “readers” consist of small business owners does not mean the Wall Street Journal is not about Corporate America or “big business.” Almost all of those “small business owners” are striving to become “big business.” The management of the Wall Street Journal bases their decisions on this fact, and of course … on the source of advertising dollars, which is Corporate America.

The paper’s customers, regardless of the size of their business, read the Wall Street Journal because they feel it provides them with information which will help them succeed (increase profits).

It’s naive to think the Wall Street Journal’s support for open borders and zero penalties for illegal alien employers is not based on this fact. They’re well aware that business owners (their readers) want cheap labor.

It should also be noted that a good portion of the Journal’s readers are not business owners at all, but rather investors. And these investors are investing in what?

Corporate America

…All of which is yet another good reason to enforce the laws.

Professor Blather on July 27, 2007 at 2:18 PM

But have you thought this through? If Americans get off their fat, dead *sses and do their yard work, they won’t be able to blame their best friend for making them fat. Furthermore, the pharmaceutical companies will lose a LOT of money (Lipitor sales will tank), Jenny Craig will go out of business, and the medical doctors won’t be able to do all those quadruple by-pass heart surgeries. The MDs might even have to switch disciplines and start to address that OTHER widespread epidemic routinely found everywhere in mainstream American society, viz. mental illness.

/sarcasm off

(Just messin’ with ya’ a bit, that’s all.)

Hate and emotion do not produce good laws.

One could argue that really “good” laws rarely need to be enforced, primarily because they are almost never broken. So enforcement is may be a necessary, but not a sufficient condition — to prove that a law is really worthy. On the other hand, a law that is perpetually violated and NEVER enforced is at best “useless,” probably detrimental, and arguably, a “bad” law.

Since our immigration laws are not enforced, are they “bad” laws? Let’s face it, the executive branch is not going to waste its time trying to enforce something that is unworkable or something that taxes its resources into oblivion. Hmmm. No new legislation has been passed, right? That may not be a bad thing, since the cure for “bad” old laws is almost certainly NOT “bad” new legislation.

Seems to me, if anyone is employing “hate and emotion” in order to pass new legislation, it would be the “hate and emotion” that it directed AT the electorate BY the members of the executive and legislative branches of government. The so-called “hate and emotion” expressed by the constituents has had the net effect of simply STOPPING any further action (viz. by the legislative branch of government).