Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Alberta legislation aims to improve gunshot and stab wound reporting | Main | What the hell is STV and is it contagious? »

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

What part of legal immigration don't you understand?

What part of legal immigration don't you understand? Hit & Run reports that Reason magazine has won a "Maggie Award," given by the Western Publishing Association, for the best editorial cartoon - entitled "What part of legal immigration don't you understand?"

I wish (oh, how I wish) that I could post it here in a way that would make it easier to view, but you'll just have to click on it instead. Please do - it's brilliant.

Posted by Janet Neilson on May 5, 2009 | Permalink

Comments

In addition to being a not at all disguised Liberal, and a feminist, I see you are an illegal immigration supporter, a supporter of twelve million illegal immigrants - during a recession, in a welfare state. A hat trick of asshattery. Honestly, at this point if your next post advocated rounding up the white straight males and shooting them, I wouldn't bat an eye.

Posted by: Some Commenter | 2009-05-05 7:21:31 PM


liberal -> feminism - > illegal immigration support -> support for the murder of white people = LOGIC 2.0

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-05 7:32:19 PM


I love it, and it's true. I only wish our system here in Canada were as strict and had as few channels into the country as the U.S. Here in Canada, we simply get too much useless waste in here (only 23% of our immigrants are productive net tax contributors; the rest should be sent home).

Posted by: Werner Patels | 2009-05-05 7:42:27 PM


If that "cartoon" were published in Canada, the HRCs would hunt down the publisher/editor/pool cleaner of the "offending publication".

Posted by: Werner Patels | 2009-05-05 7:43:35 PM


Tell me, Some Commenter, how did you read support for illegal immigration into that post?

Seems to me you can be a critic of the U.S. legal immigration system without therefore supporting illegal immigration.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-05-05 8:09:45 PM


Janet, a feminist? Of course it all depends on what one calls a feminist. Rightly or wrongly for a myself a feminist is someone demanding special status for women. Based on posts and comments I have seen from Janet, this does not apply to her. If however a feminist means simply treating women fairly and equally then she qualifies as do I.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-05-05 8:31:04 PM


"Tell me, Some Commenter, how did you read support for illegal immigration into that post?"

The same way I infer her loathing of Conservatives and her support for Liberals. One needn't explicitly declare something before one can be accused of something, some people in this life are less than forthcoming and it is only reasonable to call them on it. We are all guilty of that which we don't do, and Janet is hereby invited to make her next post one strongly critical of illegal immigration if she wishes to settle the matter, as are you.

"Seems to me you can be a critic of the U.S. legal immigration system without therefore supporting illegal immigration."

True, but you're ignoring a problem orders of magnitude more urgent and important. And it wasn't a very intelligent or mature post, there is little a twenty year old girl can tell me about immigration, despite the snotty title of this post. Her post gives a non-accurate account H1-B visas, for example, and ignores the TN visa, which applies to many Canadians. It's a snotty, immature post designed in a passive aggressive way to criticize critics of immigration, at a time when even left wing people are questioning the need for twelve to twenty million low skilled largely latino illegal immigrants in America. It's straight political correctness. You need to criticize illegal immigration and you need to do it now, IMHO, to retain any shred of libertarian credibility. Milton Friedman did, implicitly, and would if he were alive today, you should too.

Posted by: Some Commenter | 2009-05-05 8:32:02 PM


"liberal -> feminism - > illegal immigration support -> support for the murder of white people = LOGIC 2.0"

I said straight white males, liar, a demographic cohort which is in direct competition with young Miss Neilson in the workplace and elsewhere, it is eminently reasonable to suggest she has material motive for hating us and wishing us gone - she does support gender quotas restricting us from the workplace, for example, as do you - so the logic is solid. For a programmer your logic is spectacularly awful, and overridden, I suspect, to appease your feminist/gay circle. All the IQ in the world is of little use if one is too politically correct to use it.

Posted by: Some Commenter | 2009-05-05 8:37:14 PM


SC sorry but I must call you on your claim of Janet or most others here supporting hiring quotas based on sex, or affirmative action. I have yet to read anything of the sort, and I would have picked up on it being totally opposed to such hiring quotas or hiring quotas of any type. It should simply be that the most qualified person is hired regardless of sex, colour, or whatever. Please provide some evidence of your claim.


Posted by: Alain | 2009-05-05 8:47:20 PM


SC,
I also am reptilian, eat kittens and am from outer space.

Posted by: Janet | 2009-05-05 9:04:29 PM


"One needn't explicitly declare something before one can be accused of something"

I think that No Commies/Your Better/Some Commenter has more than adequately proved this statement.

Evidently one can be accused of something (or more specifically: supporting something), regardless of whether one has ever said, written, or done anything to support the accusation.

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2009-05-05 9:10:18 PM


Kalim,

I'm sorry.. my AI is going off the rails again. :-)

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-05-05 9:14:59 PM


"Evidently one can be accused of something (or more specifically: supporting something), regardless of whether one has ever said, written, or done anything to support the accusation."

I think Bush is a socialist, and was a crappy president, he's never said so, but it's a fair label considering his record. Jack Layton has never called himself a militant unionist I don't think, but that is fair label. Aaron Wherry of Maclean's is a preposterous Liberal hack, yet he wouldn't admit that.

Making judgments and expressing them even when the subject may be less than forthcoming about their politics is perfectly reasonable. Many of us in a thread past said that Mike Brock is no libertarian, and yet he calls himself a libertarian, so you can see the cleavage that exists between being a soi dissant so-and-so and actually being one.

Accordingly, it is entirely cricket to call a spade a spade regardless of what the spade calls itself. Now stop being unreasonable on this point; if you oppose illegal immigration, cease with the snottiness and just say so, not deep in the combox but on the front page. Since we both know you won't do that, you are, ipso facto, an illegal immigration supporter.

Posted by: Some Commenter | 2009-05-05 10:00:24 PM


"SC sorry but I must call you on your claim of Janet or most others here supporting hiring quotas based on sex, or affirmative action."

You may be right Alain so let's find out: Janet and the rest, can you please clearly go on record one way or the other on the issues of illegal immigration and race/gender quotas, fer or agin? I think you are far too politically correct to have the stones to clearly and unambiguously oppose either but maybe, when cornered, you might, so this is your chance.

You have to actually say stuff, folks. Kathy Shaidle thinks she can call herself an open immigration critic despite never actually having criticized open immigration in over 6 years of blogging. Get serious.

Posted by: Some Commenter | 2009-05-05 10:05:32 PM


"Evidently one can be accused of something (or more specifically: supporting something), regardless of whether one has ever said, written, or done anything to support the accusation.

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2009-05-05 9:10:18 PM"

Oh, just to clarify, are you the same Kalim Kassam who criticized John McCain as a "red state fascist" during the last election, an election which saw an outright Marxist elected president of the USA? If so, would you kindly direct me to a statement or statements of Senator McCain where he says he is a red state fascist?

Got you there, didn't I? Now cease with the silliness, you can get called on statism without explicitly admitting to being a statist.

Posted by: Some Commenter | 2009-05-05 10:31:42 PM


Rightly or wrongly for a myself a feminist is someone demanding special status for women

Actually, no. That is not the definition of feminist. Look it up.

Libertarians are almost universally, by definition, liberal feminists.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-05 10:46:11 PM


What do you call a feminist in the presence of a millionaire?

Sweetie.

What do you call two lesbians in the presence of a millionaire?

Bisexual.

A priest, a rabbi, and a feminist walk into a bar, and - just kidding, feminists hate men and would never do something as cool as sit down and have a beer with them, let alone men of the cloth.

Why did the feminist cross the road?

That's not funny!

Posted by: Some Commenter | 2009-05-05 11:11:39 PM


I just want to say that the level of discussion in this comments section is pretty admirable. And yup, the description of legal immigration is pretty accurate, although it is important to point out that adding citizenship as the end goal might unnecessarily make the process seem longer. As someone who is currently negotiating the illustrated schematic, all I care about is the ability to work and live here. And this goal can be attained reasonably quickly for many; certainly in a time-frame that is comparable to Canada's. The only privilege reserved for citizens is the right to vote, and I can wait for that.

Posted by: owen | 2009-05-06 10:11:26 AM


just to clarify, i meant most of the commentary is pretty admirable. certainly not all of it. sorry.

Posted by: owen | 2009-05-06 10:14:46 AM


Owen, thanks for reading - I wish you the best of luck.

Posted by: Janet | 2009-05-06 12:44:23 PM


So what's your comment on it, Janet? Posting something and standing there with your eyebrows raised does not constitute an argument.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-06 1:18:38 PM


I believe in a truly rational/logical discussion - the onus is on the person making a positive assertion to make their case -- It is not, and never is on somebody to prove a negative.

What has Janet posted that you find objectionable Shane,and for which you think she needs to answer for?

Posted by: MW | 2009-05-06 1:36:04 PM


So Mike, if being a feminist does not includes those demanding special treatment for women, how do you explain that those demanding affirmative action and other special treatment for women call themselves feminists. That is why I said it all depends on how one defines feminist. Otherwise provide the evidence that these anti-male women do not refer to themselves as feminists.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-05-06 1:48:03 PM


Re: questions on the definition of "feminism," even though it's a highly tangential point.

Feminism is a politicized term. The technical definition of "feminism" is a belief that men and women should be granted equal rights under the law. By this definition I proudly consider myself a feminist.

The confusion starts (as it so often does) where people decide that "equal rights" ought to mean "equal outcomes."

As I've said before, a feminist in the technical sense ought to be offended by those who demand special treatment and laws for women - the underlying implication is, after all, that women couldn't succeed or flourish without them and I find this notion offensive.

I believe that those who label themselves feminists when they are demanding better treatment for women than men under the law and those who label "feminism" as a belief that these unfair laws ought to exist are both misusing the term. However, since the misuse is so rampant on both sides, there might be an argument that the term is evolving and those who are classical feminists are going to have to redefine themselves somehow if they want to eliminate the ambiguity of the term.

Posted by: Janet | 2009-05-06 3:15:27 PM


What has Janet posted that you find objectionable Shane,and for which you think she needs to answer for?

She hasn't posted anything, MW, except a picture, and calling attention to that fact. Which is my point. She had neither approved nor disapproved, nor said why. And that's entirely consistent with Miss Doorslam's style. She gives the pot a stir and then watches the little swirlies, taking a very limited role in the discussion itself.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-06 3:35:07 PM


Janet, spot on concerning feminism. You have explained clearly the point I was making in a much less clear way. This is also the reason why most young women, my daughters, daughters-in-law and their friends refuse to identify themselves as feminists. The hijacking of the term is typical of the radicals for they have done so with many other terms. Liberal is another good example, which now has nothing in common with what it used to mean. Yet for some unknown reason we continue to allow them to get away with it.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-05-06 4:13:12 PM


I don't see how anyone can call themselves a feminist and support illegal immigration, considering that most of our illegal immigrants come from very misogynistic cultures, i.e. Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America. How can the importation of millions of misogynistic men be good for Western women?

Posted by: MaryJ | 2009-05-06 4:38:00 PM


I don't know Shane. I don't think there is anything specifically morally wrong with pointing out something that one finds interesting.

And not stating a position one way or the other about it -- well, maybe Janet is still working herself through on that particular subject and waiting to comment until she's fully explored the matter to her intellectual satisfaction.

It seems to me to be quite a common thing on blogs for this sort of thing to be going on.
Come to think of it -- that's the stock-in-trade of such celebrated blogs as Five Feet Of Fury - and Small Dead Animals

Very little original content, lots of links or just postings of pictures - and the only thing
they add to it is a

"Heh"

or "Feh"

or even "meh!"

And sometimes even an "Oy Vey!"

Why do you take issue with it?

I think I understand what you are driving at -- and to be honest, watching Kate and Kathy doing it for years was something I found to be irritating. Not dishonest or immoral -- just irritating. My suspicion was (in their case) that they don't want to state certain things explicitly because they don't want to be pinned down to a given position in certain discussions...

So long as they keep things kind of fuzzy, abstract or they don't explicitly state a position - they can't be challenged about that position. If they can't be challenged - they can't ever be proven to be mistaken or wrong.

And the reason I believe this to be true of these two blogges is because I've seen them both attempt "debate"--and they don't have the chops to defend their conclusions about various things.

They are both simply "one punch wonders" who traffic in political pornography and have never actually integrated the premises which they claim to hold into their heirarchy of knowledge. They have only the most facile level of intellectual ammunition by which to defend almost any of their stated conclusions -- and they bloody well know it. (At least I suspect as much-- but I'm not a mind reader.)

Is that what you are accusing Janet of?
Because, (and perhaps because I am new here) I don't see that in what she does.


Posted by: MW | 2009-05-06 4:56:45 PM


"So Mike, if being a feminist does not includes those demanding special treatment for women, how do you explain that those demanding affirmative action and other special treatment for women call themselves feminists. That is why I said it all depends on how one defines feminist. Otherwise provide the evidence that these anti-male women do not refer to themselves as feminists."

Let me re-write what you just said, replacing various words and names to demonstrate your bad logic:

So Alain, if Christianity does not include those celebrating the deaths of American soldiers, how do you explain the Westboro Baptist Church and other fundamentalists who call themselves Christian? That is why I said it all depends on how one defines Christianity. Otherwise provide evidence that the Westboro Baptist Church do not refer to themselves as Christians.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-06 5:14:44 PM


Seriously... can the commenters here: pick up an Introduction to Logic book and school themselves on logical thinking and argumentation?

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-06 5:16:07 PM


I don't see how anyone can call themselves a feminist and support illegal immigration, considering that most of our illegal immigrants come from very misogynistic cultures, i.e. Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America. How can the importation of millions of misogynistic men be good for Western women

What about people who want to come here to escape the misogyny?

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-06 5:20:26 PM


MW,

For the record I am actually an advocate of open immigration and the dissolution or severe cutting of the welfare state to correct the incentives for those coming to Canada (not to mention those already here).

As for the post itself, I wasn't trying to make a point. I just thought it was interesting and a clever cartoon and that Shotgun readers might enjoy it. I try to mix my posts up between simple reporting and commentary, but I often avoid discussion in the comments because my sarcastic side has a tendency to rear its head when I do. ;)

Posted by: Janet | 2009-05-06 5:36:35 PM


MaryJ,

Your comment is actually an argument against any immigration (or at least easy immigration) and not just illegal immigration.

My response to this particular criticism of immigration would be that I am strongly in favour of maintaining and enforcing the laws that guarantee the equal rights of women under the law in spite of any changes to the democratic will of the country. Given that the rights in, say, a constitution will be guaranteed in a country's legal system, the above isn't a concern.

I acknowledge, though, that if you believe in the supremacy of democracy over those constitutional rights that allowing people with different values into the country creates a problem. In this case my problem would still not be with immigration, though, but instead with an inadequate legal system.

Posted by: Janet | 2009-05-06 5:46:01 PM


I take issue with it, MW, because it's not debate; it's just babble. I can get white noise by disconnecting the antenna from the receiver. And your description of Kate and Kathy is more or less applicable to Janet as well; as I said, her style largely consists of opening the windows and taking quiet satisfaction from watching the papers fly round the office.

Of course, she's been known to slam them closed, too.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-06 5:54:06 PM


What about people who want to come here to escape the misogyny? - Yes, Mike; that's the number-one reason Mexicans slip across the border, to escape the misogyny. Economic opportunity is like, so far down the list it doesn't even register.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-06 5:56:38 PM


Yes, Shane; Mexicans are the only types of immigrants. And I was talking about Mexican immigrants specifically. Non sequitur anyone?

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-06 6:00:14 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.