John: "He's putting thoroughly incompetent unqualified people in positions of massive responsibility". What is your evidence for this? The left-wing media you read? THEY never give evidence for that claim either.
The " billionaires" that the MSM claim are running things happen to be highly competent people who have achieved massively, which is why they are billionaires. You have to be doggone smart to have done so well in ANY field . I chalk that complaint up to the usual money envy of lefties.
I can understand waiting to see how his policies play out, Glenn. But being silent and uncritical about the corruption (crypto being a prime example) is mystifying to me.
Did you read the report saying the largest group of beneficiaries of DEI was white women, the second was white men, and i think the 3rd was Latino women....
That claim is pure nonsense and is based on the idea that because the largest change in managerial positions since affirmative actions was implemented was to women (any women, not specifically white women) that all of those were due to said policies and not a function of, you know, women entering the workforce and graduating college.
Yep - Loury is showing his age - I’m right behind him at 70 and, he’s blind to our current reality in pursuit of fairy godmothers and unicorns. I expected more from a realist like him. John is a squish more or less so his takes are entirely predictable. The border was and is a problem - and the fix isn’t rocket science. Replicating Germany in 1935 however isn’t the answer. But Glenn is oblivious to the existential crisis engulfing the world as a result of Trumpian incompetence. The post WW 2 world is gone, I wouldn’t trust the US going forward for anything. Our word used to mean something, now nothing. The Republican Party, the Party of Lincoln and Reagan is dead, so let’s stop calling them by that noble name.
We are more endangered on Feb 19, 2025 than we have been since 9/11/01. These are just facts - moving my family to Italy where at least the food and people are good is now an active option.
Good luck with that move to that magic place where the food & people are both good!
But 'existential crisis'? 'Replicating Germany in '35'? What?
What existential crisis engulfs the world? I'm not aware of anything which threatens the very existence of the planet, our civilization, in any kind of real or imminent fashion. Is there a Godzilla out there I'm missing? And what on earth did Trump actually do in the last 35 days which has thrown 7.7B people into sudden and terrible existential dread?
If anything his initial forays into foreign policy have eased tensions with Russia. That seems like a good thing. The strengthening of the European contribution to NATO -- that also seems good as does their increased self-reliance for their own security vs. a blind reliance upon the American nuclear umbrella. The initial indication that Trump is not going to passively cede military dominance in the Pacific to the Chinese is an excellent strategic indication. The opening of dialogues is always good. Ending the war in the Ukraine which has killed perhaps 1M people -- that seems positive.
Domestically his efforts to radically reduce government waste and corruption ... to shrink the size of the swamp and the bureaucratic behemoth which inhabits it is outstanding (but of course with 3M employees and a multi-trillion dollar budget it's a massive undertaking). A leaner, meaner, more efficient and far more effective federal government is a tremendous goal. The elimination of DIE...the rejection of Trans Subsidies and support...the shredding of the DoEducation....the closing/control of our open borders....the deportation of criminals....the return of law to the DoJ...the elimination of Lawfare (the list is a large one): It feels like Christmas doesn't it?
How is any of that like Germany in '35? Do you see Nuremberg Laws being put into effect? Is the swastika being made our new national flag? Are Jews being forbidden from the armed forces?
The world as it existed post WW2 is long gone. No one would disagree. Pax Americana is different now than it was then. As for our 'word' meaning something -- it still does...within limits...just as it's always meant something....within limits.....as does the world of every nation on the face of the earth....within limits. National interests -- Realpolitik -- always tend to 'crimp' extra-national concerns. That's how the world's worked pretty much forever.
As for being endangered....heck, my friend, we didn't have a clue that we were radically endangered on 9-10-01.... nor did we have a clue on 12-6-41. We are probably most endangered when we don't feel endangered: being fat, dumb, and happy is typically a precursor to losing. These are just facts, though -- it remains to be seen what happens next.
Are you familiar with the Meloni lead government in Italy? As an Italian American with a husband who still has family there I love Italy. However they are not immune to the populism that is sweeping many western nations. Largely brought about by permissive immigration policies (i.e. France, Sweden, Ireland, Great Britain and Germany) with very little assimilation into existing culture. Meloni’s government is way more right wing populist than the current Trump administration:
I am familiar with Meloni and her agenda. Like with all leaders I follow especially what they do and not what they say-that’s why the US is in trouble because the saying stuff is over, they’re doing stuff that it dangerous and stupid - my wife is SAN Marínese and so we visit every year - I’ll take Meloni’s pseudo-authoritarianism over Trumps real live actions -
I want to share a DEI-related update from SF. I discovered recently that the new health director was selected by Mayor Lourie from a list of “acceptable” candidates presented by the SF Health Comission. While, I want to give the new director a fair chance; the health comission is controlled by local DEI directors.
The members of the health commission are not elected officials. I want the mayor to abolish the health commission because its primary purpose is to shield DEI from necessary scrutiny. Our mayors in 100 cities must abolish DEI.
While I applaud the new mayor’s dedication to public safety; SF has experienced an unprecedented stampede of stores fleeing the city due to crime. Yet, city hall has never explained to the public how DEI interference in the police department, municipal courts, etc., is the cause of the crime increase. Such secrecy and unaccountability is unacceptable.
I should know whether the mayor vs council is strong/weak, but I don’t. Former mayor Breed fired health director for glass half-empty and then new director was hired. I assumed that mayor Breed had hand-selected new director.
Former mayor Breed did things that the council members would have
1: Abigail Shrier, (WSJ) reported that schools and hospitals in Arizona were overwhelmed by volume due to immigration.
2: Involuntary Sex-trafficking is part of immigration picture.
3: Immigrants are Not just from Lat. America, but from around the globe.
4: Mexican Cartel members are among undocumented immigrants.
5: Under-prepared forest rangers have stumbled into Mexican Cartel marijuana farms and drug-production facilities in state parks in the Santa Cruz mountains in recent years.
That's the highest percentage ever recorded, going back to 1850. The previous high was 14.8% in 1890.
About 25% of America's foreign born population 25 and older had less than a high school degree according to Census Bureau figures for 2022 (See Figure 7):
Here's the composition of America's foreign born population (See Table 2):
Africa - 6%
Asia - 31%
Europe - 10%
Northern America - 2%
Ocean1a - 1%
Latin America and the Caribbean - 50%
The foreign born population share exceeds 20% in four states (See Table 1):
California - 27%
New Jersey - 24%
New York - 23%
Florida - 22%
But the most rapid growth occurred in places like Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, and West Virginia. The foreign born population grew by more than 40% in these places between 2010 and 2022 (See Figure 3).
Beyond population shares, the immigrant share of the US labor force was 18.6% in 2023 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
More recent polls show that a majority of Americans support deporting migrants living in the US illegally who've been convicted of a violent crime and a plurality of Americans support deporting all undocumented migrants:
John's comment on Latin American migrants who come unlawfully is ill informed in significant ways. First, when speaking of the criminal, he singles out one who burned a woman to death. What happened to the cartels that traffic women, children and fentanyl. The problem is more significant than what John argues. Second, if John's approach of responding to economic motived (poverty), the poor of the world would be incentives. The current standard is being threatened by one's government. And he fails to mention near million of legal immigrants who come. Why the blindspot?
I think it's noble to want to welcome anybody in the world who is desperate to come to your country - as you say, they may face danger from governments or criminals, or just feel that they cannot make ends meet in their home land, so feel a driving need to go to a nation which is relatively safer or richer. Some times that's the US.
If one wants to truly live that "welcome to all" policy, why not fly people from all around the world to the US? - the plane fare being just a fraction of the overall support we would supply.
However, I question whether the noble welcome to all policy is sustainable. I suspect that at least a billion people would qualify by that standard, three times our current population. Can we reasonably accommodate them all, and still take care of our own existing citizens and legal residents? Or would it be reasonable to decide democratically how many we can and will accommodate legally every year (versus welcoming any number)?
If those who do not get accepted (based on merit or lottery, whatever) should be allowed to cross illegally without consequence, doesn't that take us back to not limiting immigration to what we can reasonably handle - as well as circumventing any merit or lottery based methods?
And if we accept that there are limits to how fast we can accommodate immigration, should we wait until those limits have been exceeded to slow the flow, or act now to avoid getting to that point?
While I'm not entirely happy with the conclusion (I would prefer being noble if practical), I just don't see how we can maintain our society without limiting the rate of new immigration. What number we need to limit it to is up for debate, but the need for such limits is more clear; and such limits are meaningless if we plan to accommodate as many as can cross illegally as well, without limit.
I think Glenn would understand this reasoning, but I'd be curious how John squares the circle.
Open, unlimited, mass migration to the United States -- for whatever reason -- is absolutely unsustainable.
And it would end only when the United States becomes -- as Trump might put it -- just another 'shithole / 3rd World nation' that most people would prefer to escape. Living in a poor, ghettoized, Balkanized America would be exactly like living everywhere else. Why travel hundreds/thousands of miles to end-up in exactly the same rotten 'place' you just left?
Saints might give everything they have to the poor ... and then wander the world in sackcloth, begging for alms. But nations are definitely not saints...nor would we want them to be.
So just as we lock the doors to our homes and monitor and control who enters, when they enter, and what they do and how they behave when there.... so too must we 'lock' our borders and decide who, when, and how our wanna-be neighbors come in... with the full understanding that this is not some glorified Motel 6. They need to become Americans.
We expect, in other words, the 'melting pot' metaphor... not the 'salad bowl'.
Welcome to literally ALL is not sustainable economically.
Welcome to the numbers that have arrived over the past few years is not sustainable politically. Likewise for having a border that is not perceived as secure.
If Trump was focused on these three things he could implement them with something like 70% (at least) national public support: 1) Ensuring that the border is secure, 2) Pushing Congress to reform outdated asylum laws that are used by migrants seeking economic opportunity (rather than fleeing persecution), 3) Targeting migrants involved in crimes in the US for removal.
The problem is that he is promising to round up and deport the 11-15 immigrants here illegally. An operation that big will not be economically or politically sustainable. It would require concentration camps, etc., perhaps use of the military as prison guards, and would involve the displacement of a lot of workers at the very bottom of the economy.
It is not necessary or advisable, morally or legally, to allow migrants who want to come here to show up whenever they want in a completely unregulated way.
It is legally and morally necessary to allow some people to seek political asylum in the US, to take in some refugees, etc. Just not everyone and not unregulated.
John, you question the urgency of deporting illegal immigrants and ask rhetorically whether or not our social system is in fact being strained. Yet, wasn't the entire reporting over the past couple of years that cities like NYC were being overwhelmed by the migrants who were bussed there by Republican governors like Greg Abbott?
The numbers of migrants who have arrived in recent years is not sustainable, I think that has become clear. The inadequate securing of the border is also not sustainable.
But mass deportation of the milllion of illegal immigrants who are here in the US already, most of whom are contributing to the economy and not committing crimes, is also not sustainable.
The comments seem to either complain that John has TDS or that Glenn is a myopic trump apologist. I don't necessarily disagree with either complaint but it's still refreshing to hear these two perspectives converse respectfully.
John: "He's putting thoroughly incompetent unqualified people in positions of massive responsibility". What is your evidence for this? The left-wing media you read? THEY never give evidence for that claim either.
The " billionaires" that the MSM claim are running things happen to be highly competent people who have achieved massively, which is why they are billionaires. You have to be doggone smart to have done so well in ANY field . I chalk that complaint up to the usual money envy of lefties.
I can understand waiting to see how his policies play out, Glenn. But being silent and uncritical about the corruption (crypto being a prime example) is mystifying to me.
What corruption? Please give examples. I don't see it.
John, get your head out of your butt!
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105833
should have said "poor white women, poor white men; then poor Latino women"
Did you read the report saying the largest group of beneficiaries of DEI was white women, the second was white men, and i think the 3rd was Latino women....
Glenn please take are of yourself. : ).
That claim is pure nonsense and is based on the idea that because the largest change in managerial positions since affirmative actions was implemented was to women (any women, not specifically white women) that all of those were due to said policies and not a function of, you know, women entering the workforce and graduating college.
Me (in John's eyes)...
"Press 2 for Spanish? What the...! Those damn brown people!"
"Press 2 for Norwegian? Wonderful! My white brothers!"
Yep - Loury is showing his age - I’m right behind him at 70 and, he’s blind to our current reality in pursuit of fairy godmothers and unicorns. I expected more from a realist like him. John is a squish more or less so his takes are entirely predictable. The border was and is a problem - and the fix isn’t rocket science. Replicating Germany in 1935 however isn’t the answer. But Glenn is oblivious to the existential crisis engulfing the world as a result of Trumpian incompetence. The post WW 2 world is gone, I wouldn’t trust the US going forward for anything. Our word used to mean something, now nothing. The Republican Party, the Party of Lincoln and Reagan is dead, so let’s stop calling them by that noble name.
We are more endangered on Feb 19, 2025 than we have been since 9/11/01. These are just facts - moving my family to Italy where at least the food and people are good is now an active option.
Good luck with that move to that magic place where the food & people are both good!
But 'existential crisis'? 'Replicating Germany in '35'? What?
What existential crisis engulfs the world? I'm not aware of anything which threatens the very existence of the planet, our civilization, in any kind of real or imminent fashion. Is there a Godzilla out there I'm missing? And what on earth did Trump actually do in the last 35 days which has thrown 7.7B people into sudden and terrible existential dread?
If anything his initial forays into foreign policy have eased tensions with Russia. That seems like a good thing. The strengthening of the European contribution to NATO -- that also seems good as does their increased self-reliance for their own security vs. a blind reliance upon the American nuclear umbrella. The initial indication that Trump is not going to passively cede military dominance in the Pacific to the Chinese is an excellent strategic indication. The opening of dialogues is always good. Ending the war in the Ukraine which has killed perhaps 1M people -- that seems positive.
Domestically his efforts to radically reduce government waste and corruption ... to shrink the size of the swamp and the bureaucratic behemoth which inhabits it is outstanding (but of course with 3M employees and a multi-trillion dollar budget it's a massive undertaking). A leaner, meaner, more efficient and far more effective federal government is a tremendous goal. The elimination of DIE...the rejection of Trans Subsidies and support...the shredding of the DoEducation....the closing/control of our open borders....the deportation of criminals....the return of law to the DoJ...the elimination of Lawfare (the list is a large one): It feels like Christmas doesn't it?
How is any of that like Germany in '35? Do you see Nuremberg Laws being put into effect? Is the swastika being made our new national flag? Are Jews being forbidden from the armed forces?
The world as it existed post WW2 is long gone. No one would disagree. Pax Americana is different now than it was then. As for our 'word' meaning something -- it still does...within limits...just as it's always meant something....within limits.....as does the world of every nation on the face of the earth....within limits. National interests -- Realpolitik -- always tend to 'crimp' extra-national concerns. That's how the world's worked pretty much forever.
As for being endangered....heck, my friend, we didn't have a clue that we were radically endangered on 9-10-01.... nor did we have a clue on 12-6-41. We are probably most endangered when we don't feel endangered: being fat, dumb, and happy is typically a precursor to losing. These are just facts, though -- it remains to be seen what happens next.
Are you familiar with the Meloni lead government in Italy? As an Italian American with a husband who still has family there I love Italy. However they are not immune to the populism that is sweeping many western nations. Largely brought about by permissive immigration policies (i.e. France, Sweden, Ireland, Great Britain and Germany) with very little assimilation into existing culture. Meloni’s government is way more right wing populist than the current Trump administration:
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2025/02/17/meloni-consolidates-popularity-by-disrupting-italian-democracy_6738269_23.html
I am familiar with Meloni and her agenda. Like with all leaders I follow especially what they do and not what they say-that’s why the US is in trouble because the saying stuff is over, they’re doing stuff that it dangerous and stupid - my wife is SAN Marínese and so we visit every year - I’ll take Meloni’s pseudo-authoritarianism over Trumps real live actions -
I want to share a DEI-related update from SF. I discovered recently that the new health director was selected by Mayor Lourie from a list of “acceptable” candidates presented by the SF Health Comission. While, I want to give the new director a fair chance; the health comission is controlled by local DEI directors.
The members of the health commission are not elected officials. I want the mayor to abolish the health commission because its primary purpose is to shield DEI from necessary scrutiny. Our mayors in 100 cities must abolish DEI.
While I applaud the new mayor’s dedication to public safety; SF has experienced an unprecedented stampede of stores fleeing the city due to crime. Yet, city hall has never explained to the public how DEI interference in the police department, municipal courts, etc., is the cause of the crime increase. Such secrecy and unaccountability is unacceptable.
Isn't the mayor of SF a weak mayor? In the sense that in SF the City Council holds most of the power (and causes most of the problems).
I should know whether the mayor vs council is strong/weak, but I don’t. Former mayor Breed fired health director for glass half-empty and then new director was hired. I assumed that mayor Breed had hand-selected new director.
Former mayor Breed did things that the council members would have
[Time 28:00]; Topic of immigration.
1: Abigail Shrier, (WSJ) reported that schools and hospitals in Arizona were overwhelmed by volume due to immigration.
2: Involuntary Sex-trafficking is part of immigration picture.
3: Immigrants are Not just from Lat. America, but from around the globe.
4: Mexican Cartel members are among undocumented immigrants.
5: Under-prepared forest rangers have stumbled into Mexican Cartel marijuana farms and drug-production facilities in state parks in the Santa Cruz mountains in recent years.
The immigrant share of the U.S. population reached 15.6% last year according to Census Bureau figures quoted by Visual Capitalist:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-foreign-born-share-of-the-u-s-population-1850-2024/
That's the highest percentage ever recorded, going back to 1850. The previous high was 14.8% in 1890.
About 25% of America's foreign born population 25 and older had less than a high school degree according to Census Bureau figures for 2022 (See Figure 7):
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024/foreign-born-population.html
Here's the composition of America's foreign born population (See Table 2):
Africa - 6%
Asia - 31%
Europe - 10%
Northern America - 2%
Ocean1a - 1%
Latin America and the Caribbean - 50%
The foreign born population share exceeds 20% in four states (See Table 1):
California - 27%
New Jersey - 24%
New York - 23%
Florida - 22%
But the most rapid growth occurred in places like Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, and West Virginia. The foreign born population grew by more than 40% in these places between 2010 and 2022 (See Figure 3).
Beyond population shares, the immigrant share of the US labor force was 18.6% in 2023 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/forbrn.nr0.htm
It's easy to look at these figures and understand why a Gallup poll from July said 55% of Americans want a reduction in immigration levels:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/647123/sharply-americans-curb-immigration.aspx
More recent polls show that a majority of Americans support deporting migrants living in the US illegally who've been convicted of a violent crime and a plurality of Americans support deporting all undocumented migrants:
https://www.newsweek.com/how-popular-deporting-migrants-donald-trump-polls-2020482
Calling these folks racists or xenophobes says more about the accusers than them.
John's comment on Latin American migrants who come unlawfully is ill informed in significant ways. First, when speaking of the criminal, he singles out one who burned a woman to death. What happened to the cartels that traffic women, children and fentanyl. The problem is more significant than what John argues. Second, if John's approach of responding to economic motived (poverty), the poor of the world would be incentives. The current standard is being threatened by one's government. And he fails to mention near million of legal immigrants who come. Why the blindspot?
Good conversation. I have become used to John's TDS.
I think it's noble to want to welcome anybody in the world who is desperate to come to your country - as you say, they may face danger from governments or criminals, or just feel that they cannot make ends meet in their home land, so feel a driving need to go to a nation which is relatively safer or richer. Some times that's the US.
If one wants to truly live that "welcome to all" policy, why not fly people from all around the world to the US? - the plane fare being just a fraction of the overall support we would supply.
However, I question whether the noble welcome to all policy is sustainable. I suspect that at least a billion people would qualify by that standard, three times our current population. Can we reasonably accommodate them all, and still take care of our own existing citizens and legal residents? Or would it be reasonable to decide democratically how many we can and will accommodate legally every year (versus welcoming any number)?
If those who do not get accepted (based on merit or lottery, whatever) should be allowed to cross illegally without consequence, doesn't that take us back to not limiting immigration to what we can reasonably handle - as well as circumventing any merit or lottery based methods?
And if we accept that there are limits to how fast we can accommodate immigration, should we wait until those limits have been exceeded to slow the flow, or act now to avoid getting to that point?
While I'm not entirely happy with the conclusion (I would prefer being noble if practical), I just don't see how we can maintain our society without limiting the rate of new immigration. What number we need to limit it to is up for debate, but the need for such limits is more clear; and such limits are meaningless if we plan to accommodate as many as can cross illegally as well, without limit.
I think Glenn would understand this reasoning, but I'd be curious how John squares the circle.
Open, unlimited, mass migration to the United States -- for whatever reason -- is absolutely unsustainable.
And it would end only when the United States becomes -- as Trump might put it -- just another 'shithole / 3rd World nation' that most people would prefer to escape. Living in a poor, ghettoized, Balkanized America would be exactly like living everywhere else. Why travel hundreds/thousands of miles to end-up in exactly the same rotten 'place' you just left?
Saints might give everything they have to the poor ... and then wander the world in sackcloth, begging for alms. But nations are definitely not saints...nor would we want them to be.
So just as we lock the doors to our homes and monitor and control who enters, when they enter, and what they do and how they behave when there.... so too must we 'lock' our borders and decide who, when, and how our wanna-be neighbors come in... with the full understanding that this is not some glorified Motel 6. They need to become Americans.
We expect, in other words, the 'melting pot' metaphor... not the 'salad bowl'.
Welcome to literally ALL is not sustainable economically.
Welcome to the numbers that have arrived over the past few years is not sustainable politically. Likewise for having a border that is not perceived as secure.
If Trump was focused on these three things he could implement them with something like 70% (at least) national public support: 1) Ensuring that the border is secure, 2) Pushing Congress to reform outdated asylum laws that are used by migrants seeking economic opportunity (rather than fleeing persecution), 3) Targeting migrants involved in crimes in the US for removal.
The problem is that he is promising to round up and deport the 11-15 immigrants here illegally. An operation that big will not be economically or politically sustainable. It would require concentration camps, etc., perhaps use of the military as prison guards, and would involve the displacement of a lot of workers at the very bottom of the economy.
It is not necessary or advisable, morally or legally, to allow migrants who want to come here to show up whenever they want in a completely unregulated way.
It is legally and morally necessary to allow some people to seek political asylum in the US, to take in some refugees, etc. Just not everyone and not unregulated.
John, you question the urgency of deporting illegal immigrants and ask rhetorically whether or not our social system is in fact being strained. Yet, wasn't the entire reporting over the past couple of years that cities like NYC were being overwhelmed by the migrants who were bussed there by Republican governors like Greg Abbott?
The numbers of migrants who have arrived in recent years is not sustainable, I think that has become clear. The inadequate securing of the border is also not sustainable.
But mass deportation of the milllion of illegal immigrants who are here in the US already, most of whom are contributing to the economy and not committing crimes, is also not sustainable.
The comments seem to either complain that John has TDS or that Glenn is a myopic trump apologist. I don't necessarily disagree with either complaint but it's still refreshing to hear these two perspectives converse respectfully.
Here we go again. John McWhorter shooting from the hip and making ill-informed and false allegations. Naturally John is entitled to his opinions.