I. First of all, read the two excerpts mentioned below; both come from Americans:
(i) Today’s HBL highlights immigration (to the USA), but unlike Binswanger’s earlier article, today’s excerpt has a subtle shift of emphasis. Since today’s HBL excerpt is likely to go away in a day or two, I copy and paste it here… If it’s immoral and/or illegal, let me know and I will remove it (though I know that copyright laws do permit copying for “fair use” and that “fair use” includes quoting for criticism.)
“Way back when this crisis began, Caroline Jones noted in a post (Sept. 30) that opening up America to more immigration would solve the housing crisis. I then promoted that idea in some of my own posts. Yaron Brook picked it up and mentioned the idea in his inaugural speech at the Ayn Rand Center, calling it: “Buy a house, get a green card.” Last Tuesday, March 17th, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed defending this same idea. The authors of that op-ed didn’t use Dr. Brook’s memorable phrase, so I don’t know if they got it from him, directly or indirectly, but his phrase did appear as a headline in an online piece by John Mauldin: “Buy A Home, Get a Green Card: A Real Stimulus Package.” — Harry Binswanger”
(ii) Now, let us see a couple of lines taken from Michael J. Herd’s essay on immigration, published at CapMag.com on March 4, 2009:
“…Unfortunately, since the country is now part welfare state moochers and part productive people, you cannot guarantee that all those wanting to get into the country are self-responsible. Some are coming for the opportunity to stand on their own, and some are coming for the freebies…”
Access the full article here: “Immigration: Why the Debate Is Tragically Flawed”.
Concerning these two excerpts, I have the following comments to make:
(i) The reason Americans loved Carolyn Jones, Harry Binswanger, Yaron Brook et al’s idea is because by way of its emphasis it gives the impression that only rich immigrants would be allowed to enter, thereby helps consolidate the idea that only rich immigrants ought to be allowed to be entered into the USA. There is this subtle equation, as it were, which is being sought to be established between richness and morality, but in a subversive sort of a way. Today’s rich Americans indeed are, oftentimes, that immoral. This is America removed one physical century from: “Give me your poor…” But, in moral terms, the distance obviously is far bigger. I wonder whether Harry and Yaron realize this… (And, is this Carolyn the same as the one who teaches architecture at MIT?)
(ii) As to Michael J. Herd. You know that I am going to be worse with him. (Anyone who knows me could have guessed this much).
One very obvious implication (struck to me within the same few minutes that I read Michael’s article) was this: Since the country indeed is part moochers, it also loses its moral right to encourage the more productive people from other countries of the world, thereby stripping the other country of their supply of the productive men who sustained them, thereby driving them to the only course their evil dictators/powers-that-be are capable of—one of destruction. Michael’s article is a case against Americafollowing such a course of action primarily because it has lost the moral right to do so…
(I did promise you I would be worse towards Michael, didin’t I?)
Naturally, to return to one of my past themes, IIT Bombay BTechs in USA (e.g. Kanwal Rekhi and further down, e.g. Jaggi Ayyangar, etc.) also cannot have much moral right to show superiority to the rest of us (say BEs from COEP) working from/in India, right?
Now, come to think of it, 10-15 years is a relatively short period in the course of a country, and it was only in mid-1990’s that Kanwal Rekhi was visiting India, lecturing on, of all else, “Capitalism” (LOL!), and letting BTechs from IIT Bombay (whether in India or in USA) “feel good”, distributing money to them, and so on…
Was all that money good, too, Michael? My conscience is just as sensitive in raising these questions as the timely insertion of that article of the title “Nationalization Is Theft” at CapMag.com (and I do agree with the essential philosophical points of the latter, too) as soon as I mentioned something about NCP in my blog.
… And, if Michael (or anyone else) does say that all that money was good, my immediate next question is: Why does Kanwal Rekhi et al have tie-ups with the religious right such as (some of the) Kirloskars in Pune? Don’t take my word on it… Just check out that Peshwa Hindu Brahmin and Hindu etc. sort of a thing which has been going on on their Web site for the past 7 years (from 2001 to 2008, at least).
And, also consider: Why do I come to streets even with innovative PhD work like what I have done? Any answers, Americans caring for/against immigration?
Also, do you have any answers, Mr. Suhas Patil of Cirrus Logic? In those mid 1990s, also Mr. Patil had been quoted so extensively in Indian media that if one were to sincerely read all of those accounts in his praise, one would have actually turned dead simply out of the boredom of having to read and re-read the same inane writings concerning Mr. Patil’s remarks that doing a PhD is similar to entrepreneurship, and how it helped him become a better businessman, etc. All those quotes coming in a paper after another one, complete with a photograph of Mr. Patil shown wearing expensive trousers as used in the black dress, but without any jacket, and while wearing white sports shoes to go with those trousers. MIT‘s Patil. Remarkably like the jet black hair and the unblemished white beard (or vice versa) of Sam Pitroda… I have not yet forgotten those photographs…
Obviously, none of Mr. Patil’s money has come my way any time during the past 7 years of my unemployment, and still, all his money is his own, and all of it is good, right, Americans?
There have been pieces of Ayn Rand’s own writings that tell about the infantile level of intellectual discourse in USA (in her times). One is reminded of that (I mean her writing).
And, sure enough, these are not among the things that have gone right, are they?
May many Americans (including those I have quoted) ought to feel a bit ashamed—at my circumstance. … It is high time that they did—if they had any sense of morality still left with them. … BXXXXXXs, playing games with everything of a foreigner’s life…
2. “All Politics Is Local”
Suresh (Kalmadi), you want to talk with an upper nose that only Congress supported immigration? Even now? And even if you know that I (sometimes) read your remarks?
See, if you want to get sympathy or votes from the likes of Sangita Tiwari, I couldn’t care less. (The last time I checked, they were calling North India their mother, and Pune, their aunty. No issues with that.
Except that, both times, they were evading, together with you, what and who has actually made Maharashtra so much the greater.
… So greater that today Marathi books outsale Hindi books (or any other Indian language books) despite Hindi occupying geographically 4-5 times greater area and having perhaps 3-4 times population, and always having weilded an all pervasive influence on Delhi’s politics—and therefore, of India.
… So greater that talented Karnataka doctors could immigrate here and settle down here comfortably too… Or is it that you want to debate that, too?—I mean, what and who made Maharashtra so much the greater, or the fact that Congress politicians like you routinely evade it? …
But anyway, in politics, Suresh, you (and Congress in general) could try to get votes from them… It all is a matter of your daily bread and butter. (Hindi: “tumhare roji roTi kaa sawaal hai woh.”) But why give it the subtle spins that only the Congress that is slavish to the High High High Command supports immigration? That is my question.
OK. Let me make something clear. I voted for Suresh Kalmadi the last time. If he gets a ticket, I will vote for him again. In fact, I will straightway vote any Congress candidate from Pune. Even a stone whitewashed and put up with a Gandhi cap will get my vote. (On second thoughts, even the Gandhi cap isn’t necessary—it doesn’t look all too good at the Filmfare ceremonies, right, Vilasrao?)
The reason I vote Congress in Pune is: it keeps BJP and communists away from the power at the center.
(Another—and actually a minor—part of the reason is, NCP has no candidate in Pune as per their seat-sharing agreement. I say minor, because picking out a good candidate is so easy provided there are no overarching issues complicating the matter… For instance: What would one do if AB Vajpayee of the yesteryears (of his vigorous younger years) were to contest from Pune? And, suppose, the opponent was, say, Suresh Kalmadi of todays, one who has done nothing in the last many years of his career apart from supporting the Congress High High High Command in each one of the latter’s games to undermine Sharad Pawar and keep him out of PMship, adopting any which way… Tough call, such a contest would have been—because the question so easily eggs one to go out of the context…. I will answere what my call would have been, later on…
For the time being, let me just say that that is not going to be the nature of choice in Pune this time round anyway, and, yes, I would certainly vote Kalmadi if his High High High Command bestows on him a ticket regardless of whether he has earned one or not.
But simply because people like me go out and vote for Suresh, there is no reason if he begins to read something more into it and begins to act over-smartly. If he does, it would be time to cut him down to size. …
Suresh, never let the impression gain the grounds that only the Congress that is slavish to the High High High Command supports immigration. The simple fact is, this isn’t true. Just think of how accomodative common Indians are, and you will get your answer… (And none set me up write this. Go ahead and enquire discreetly, using your own channels. They all will confirm exactly the same as I am telling you here. The fact is, I simply don’t care enough for politics that I get interested in it often enough that anyone can find any use for me in practical politics enough that they can think of setting me up—including, esp., NCP.)