tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3957366923512814537.post8273610189426480650..comments2023-10-26T02:05:15.270-07:00Comments on Offcenter with Ehkzu: Republican gun nuts vs. Democrats' whiteguyphobiaUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3957366923512814537.post-62827757943373737602009-09-03T18:03:51.782-07:002009-09-03T18:03:51.782-07:00Ehkzu said: "The New York Times editors censo...Ehkzu said: "The New York Times editors censored this comment, refusing to run it. Feel free to let me know why you think they did that."<br /><br />Ehkzu<br /><br />It's impossible to figure out what motivates the NYTimes editors. I think it's different ones. I've attacked the Times Editorial position and been selected as an "Editor's Choice"<br /><br />http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2008/12/26/opinion/26fri1.html<br /><br />On the other hand, they would not publish this comment (which also criticized the NY Times Editorial Board). Can you explain that to me?<br /><br />This story is scary on so many levels. But this is the price we pay for the DISHONEST rationalizations that have come forward to justify our current policy of non-enforcement of our immigration laws. <br /><br />The worst of those justifications is the idea that we should allow unrestricted immigrations because "these people" for some odd unspecified reason don't want decent work, they only want the work that "Americans don't want." This destroys America's egalitarian ideals at its roots. So immigrants are, under this logic, coming here as a lesser class to do only the work no one else wants. They are a lesser breed. <br /><br />It turns out, their children do not accept that status and rebel. But they are rebels without a clue. But America's "immigrant advocates" (including the NY Times Editorial Board), are outraged that these "American born" children are forced to accept the same status prescribed for their parents or rebel and accept the "Thug Life." Rather than allow employers to pay more for work that no one wants (like cleaning toilets) -- a true market solution, our current system of immigration non-enforcement insists that these jobs be filled at Third World pay levels because employers have an entitlement to workers that accept poverty level wages. <br /><br />There was never any work here that couldn’t be done AT A HIGHER WAGE by those already here. It was always a lie that Americans did want this work. Americans wanted it at a higher wage: a wage that the ordinary free market mechanisms of supply and demand would have dictated in the absence of uncontrolled immigration. The effect and purpose of unrestricted immigration was to fill these jobs at lower wages. Wages so low that they have stripped the work of all dignity. These wages were so low that “No American would want them.” Wages that even the children of the illegal immigrants found unacceptable. They understood and rejected the implicit social contract of unrestricted immigration.<br /><br />For the Times Editorial Board – We are reaping the fruits of the anti-democratic seeds that you sew. Read this and know that this is logical consequence of what you advocate. You insisted that immigrants be allowed to come here as a special underclass of the working poor. What you got was a special non-working underclass of the criminal and violent. <br /><br />The comment refers to the following article <br />on the rise of an immigrant you underclass.<br /><br />http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/04/19/us/19immig.html?s=1&pg=2Kevin Ricanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3957366923512814537.post-12008766766976474872009-08-29T13:53:42.295-07:002009-08-29T13:53:42.295-07:00"The New York Times editors censored this com..."The New York Times editors censored this comment, refusing to run it. Feel free to let me know why you think they did that."<br /><br />Ehkzu<br /><br />It's impossible to figure out what motivates the NYTimes editors. I think different screeners/censors do it differently. I've attacked the Times Editorial position and been selected as an "Editor's Choice" -- see this:<br /><br />http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2008/12/26/opinion/26fri1.html<br /><br />On the other hand, they would not publish the comment below (which also criticized the NY Times Editorial Board). Can you explain that to me?<br /><br />This story is scary on so many levels. But this is the price we pay for the DISHONEST rationalizations that have come forward to justify our current policy of non-enforcement of our immigration laws. <br /><br />The worst of those justifications is the idea that we should allow unrestricted immigrations because "these people" for some odd unspecified reason don't want decent work, they only want the work that "Americans don't want." This destroys America's egalitarian ideals at its roots. So immigrants are, under this logic, coming here as a lesser class to do only the work no one else wants. They are a lesser breed. <br /><br />It turns out, their children do not accept that status and rebel. But they are rebels without a clue. But America's "immigrant advocates" (including the NY Times Editorial Board), are outraged that these "American born" children are forced to accept the same status prescribed for their parents or rebel and accept the "Thug Life." Rather than allow employers to pay more for work that no one wants (like cleaning toilets) -- a true market solution, our current system of immigration non-enforcement insists that these jobs be filled at Third World pay levels because employers have an entitlement to workers that accept poverty level wages. <br /><br />There was never any work here that couldn’t be done AT A HIGHER WAGE by those already here. It was always a lie that Americans did want this work. Americans wanted it at a higher wage: a wage that the ordinary free market mechanisms of supply and demand would have dictated in the absence of uncontrolled immigration. The effect and purpose of unrestricted immigration was to fill these jobs at lower wages. Wages so low that they have stripped the work of all dignity. These wages were so low that “No American would want them.” Wages that even the children of the illegal immigrants found unacceptable. They understood and rejected the implicit social contract of unrestricted immigration.<br /><br />For the Times Editorial Board – We are reaping the fruits of the anti-democratic seeds that you sew. Read this and know that this is logical consequence of what you advocate. You insisted that immigrants be allowed to come here as a special underclass of the working poor. What you got was a special non-working underclass of the criminal and violent. <br /><br />The comment refers to the following article <br />on the rise of an immigrant you underclass.<br /><br />http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/04/19/us/19immig.html?s=1&pg=2<br /><br />Both comments on similar topics. Both comments expressed a similar viewpoint. The Times is just inconsistent.Kevin Ricanoreply@blogger.com