Actions Speak Louder than Boos

The clear popularity of 'anti-Americanism' in the face of massive immigration is quite interesting. The fact that Mexicans clearly dislike America out of envy points out a sad fact that economists are hesitant to acknowledge, specifically, that if envy is important to people, they aren't simple selfish maximizers, which has lots of implications.

To say that we should ignore their boos because they are contradicted by their actions, is like saying you should ignore the fact that your friend talks about you negatively while never missing your company at happy hour.

Professor Boudreaux,

I think you're projecting ideas and thoughts onto a group of people without any evidence.

Perhaps the majority of people who cross our borders illegally are looking for a job. But on what basis do you then declare that their move to this country is based on some "profound affection for American civilization?"

That's an awfully optimistic assessment based on pathetically little evidence. How do you know what these people are thinking? Maybe all they want is to make money to send back to their home country.

I hope they print his letter, so many more people can have a good laugh at how childlike he is.

They're coming here to a great extent due to their corrupt system pushing them out and profiting from the money they send back. And, to a great extent due to massive PoliticalCorruption in the U.S., as politicians refuse to enforce - or try to subvert - our laws.

I could add much more, but the reader should consider the Zogby poll done of Mexicans in Mexico which showed that 58% think the U.S. southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico. Those are not the beliefs of Kapraesque immigrants the professor is trying to sell you on.

Don Boudreaux you are either an idiot or a liar.

You have sacrificed common sense at the alter of ideological purity. So I will guess you to be a liar.


The audience booed Miss USA in Mexico City for nothing less than rank Anti-Americanism.


Illegal aliens come here from Mexico out of nothing less than rank opportunism.


For you to pretend that the latter negates the former is nothing less than a rank display of intellectual dishonesty on your part.

I think it was really cheap on the part of the hosts to boo the poor girl. She's no migra, she's just a contestant.

Considering how kind the US is to illegal immigrants (and unkind to many legal ones), they should really know better than that.

I thought Mr. Boudreaux was smarter than this. As an economist, you should be particularly aware of the massive negative consequences this bill will have for our country. Are you trying to get a job with the Bush admin? This is not a question of "nativism" (god forbid one should be loyal to one's home...) but one of preserving America's sovereignty, security, voting rights, and economic needs. I'm all for cheap labor, but this sick joke of a bill is massively destructive to American business because it de facto dissolves the USA into the USSA.

If you'd like to remove your head from the sand, I refer you to Hugh Hewitt's thorough analysis of the Amnesty & Anarchy Act.

I am a legal immigrant, and I came here for much more than rank opportunitism thank you very much. Do you have any idea what even those of us who are well off when we leave our home countries give up to come here--money, family, a stable future. We come here because the U.S. is one of the few places on the planet that reflects our values--freedom, liberty, low taxes, and the abscence of genocidal state-run healthcare systems. Immigrants become the best damned Americans ever, because they know (unlike most Americans) the true face of socialism and the tyranny of the state. Most of the Mexicans I have worked with in the states have children who speak perfect English (many of whom don't even speak Spanish), and when they are asked if they want the Southwestern US to revert to Mexico, they reply, "I (or my parents) swam the Rio Grande--do you think I want to have to swim the Red River as well?"

The idea that the Southwest should revert to Mexico is a silly idea perpetuated by a very few in the academic elite, ask an illegal migrant and he will give you a very Mexican "Hell No." The booing in Mexico City was in bad taste, but I consider it no worse than the smarmy, superior comments we get from the pond scum. I guess as Americans it will be our little cross to bear--well worth the 4.6% unemployment and $43,500 per capita GDP.

Don--a very very slight tad too much (perhaps) but you are no fool and certainly no liar.

You are right that a "revealed preference" shows that Mexicans like the prosperity America offers, but all evidence shows that they do not realize that capitalism provides this prosperity. Here are polls. As Steve Burton put it "Hispanics are the most extreme and consistent anti-libertarian constituency in American politics today."

Remember that those booing are still in Mexico.

Right, Sam. There's no such acting unit as "the Mexicans", which is just a false agregate. There are likely to be some individual Mexicans who don't like America & boo, as well as other individual Mexicans who like America & wish to move here. It's probably not the poor working class Mexican who goes to some televised pageant.

Don:

There's this guy named Thomas Sowell. He's an economist. You may have heard of him. He is the ROSE and MILTON FRIEDMAN Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution.

He too seems a little hot'n'bothered about this whole amnesty thing. Check out his 3-part "Amnesty Fraud" series. (They're accessible from here: http://www.hoover.org/bios/sowell.html).</p>

Like Michelle Malkin, this guy is way over the top. Nevertheless, something about his writings and way of thinking appeals to me. Guess I need one of those 12-step support groups.

In my experience (my fiancee is Mexican, so I have one specific data point), Mexicans consider the US as something akin to a selfish, rich uncle, who refuses to share his wealth with his family. They might suck up to the uncle in hopes of snatching a piece of his largess, but they hate him all the more for it.

In other words, they assume that they are poor because we are wealthy.

This is precisely the point I tried to be make to Professor Boudreaux about a week ago.

The difference between the free flow of capital over borders, and the free flow of human capital over borders, is that human capital has a vote, or may be politically active in some other way.

If, in the name of the principle of liberty, we permit the fee flow of human capital from a largley socialist culture, we may soon lose that liberty altogether.

Well, all I know is that the winner of Miss Universe graduated from the same high school as I did, but four years after.

If, in the name of the principle of liberty, we permit the fee flow of human capital from a largley socialist culture, we may soon lose that liberty altogether.

Another argument against political government.

Scott Wood: " Mexicans consider the US as something akin to a selfish, rich uncle, who refuses to share his wealth with his family."

Scott, is that your conclusion from conversation with "one specific data point"?

My wife and I have talked with at least two dozzen legal and illegal Mexican workers in Texas. Most seemed very happy to be here and showed no animosity toward the U.S. citizens. The displeasure with the U.S. government is that they can't be allowed to work freely at jobs offerred them. Many do resent that that government gives them no choice but to obtain work by deceitful means, and then takes a portion of their earnings toward a social security system they will never benefit from.

.

Mr. Boudreaux,

I absolutely love your and Mr. Roberts' (especially Mr. Roberts) Cafe Hayek blog, regularly read it and whole heartedly agree with the free market and Hayakian ideals it represent.

I am deeply dismayed though to read your low ball attack on the honorable Michelle Malkin. I know you and Mr. Roberts pride yourselves on your high academic standards and your reliance on "the data" to make your points.

I am not sure though how the words and phrases you used to describe Ms. Malkin personally and her ideas, namely "hot'n'bothered", "comrades", "nativist", "nationalism rooted in ignorance and fear", advances your point.

In fact, regardless of the validity of your point of view or Ms. Malkin's, your cheap attack does nothing but bring shame upon yourself. It is not my habit to go around telling people what to do, however if it was me, I would apologize to Ms. Malkin and restate you case.

BTW, are you aware that there has been an unrelenting and disgusting attack in the nutroots leftist blogosphere upon Ms. Malkin making obscene use of sterotypes of her ethnic origin and good looks. Hot'n'bothered" huh? Now that will really advance the discussion. You should be ashamed. Since you are obviously disgusted with her ideas, why I wonder were you on her site? Are you too a stereotyping voyeur?

Sorry to be so rough, but Mr. Hayek is probably overturning in his grave.

Tom Fry,


St. Louis, MO

P.S. It seems from what I read that thanks to you, Mr. Robets, et. al., that George Mason is becoming the new "Chicago" for economist, but tell Mr. Roberts that I am very disappointed that he left Wash. U. I live across the street and was enjoying learning through osmosis.

The illegals come here to exploit this country, along with their corporate masters. When will the people of this country stand up to the elites who favor the open borders/amnesty boondoggle?

Professor Boudreaux,

I am usually in agreement with your ideas but I must take exception this time. For starters, Ms. Malkin does not fit the 'nativist' image - she and her side of the family are Philipino immigrants themselves. If you were to become aquainted with her writings you would see that she values immigrants and immigration, BUT, she also values the rule of law, especially in a time when terrorism is seen as an acute threat, and the idea of becoming an American as opposed to simply valuing the fact that a person can make money here. Money is not the all-defining aspect of this nation.

Take it from me, a fellow immigrant of Ms. Malkin's - some of us value this country to the point where we dislike being booed by a nation that mistreats its own people to the point where they have to flee in search of a better life elsewhere.

Fry, his name is Roberts, and there is no reason to desist from criticizing Malkin's positions and arguments simply because others attack her racial background. That being said, I agree with the restrictionists. Unfortunately for Sam Grove, we ARE going to have "political government", and even if people attempt to pass referendums denying benefits to illegals and others courts have stepped in and ruled them unconstitutional (this happened twice in California). You cannot have a welfare state and open borders. The first isn't going away any time soon, and will be much harder to get rid of if the United States transforms into something like Brazil, Indonesia/Malaysia or Zimbabwe.

Sorry Fry, the PS was still in my head when I posted and I forgot you wrote "Roberts" correctly several times.

Were they really booing because she was an American or were they booing because she fell on her rump and still made it into the top 5? Why should Ms. Malkin automatically jump to the conclusion that they were booing her because she was an American. It would have surely thought they would have booed the American hosts of the show. Or maybe even the American judge who asked her the question.

Calling Malkin a nativist may feel good, but I think it's ultimately unproductive.

With our current level of socialism, I don't think we can afford unrestricted (illegal) immigration of low-skilled workers from south of the border.

The answer is obvious: eliminate socialism, and letting in a large number of low-skilled workers (legally) whould become much easier.

Malkin doesn't like socialism:

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=socialism&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=www.michellemalkin.com&as_rights=&safe=images

So I don't see what's so awful about her.

Am I off base?

Don,

Not a little hypocritical sniping in your current diatribe, is there?