I left two comments on the entry "Greg Mankiw Explains Why Economists Favor Immigration" from UC Berkeley professor Brad DeLong. Both were deleted.

Since both comments have a bit more heft than some other comments which were not deleted, and neither comment is abusive, I have to wonder what's going on. Has DeLong suddenly realized that he and the other "economists" have no argument?

The two comments are in the extended entry.

July 9 UPDATE: Oops, he did it again. The comment he deleted this time is at the end as "COMMENT #3". He must realize exactly how weak his arguments are.

Related:

The Independent Institute's Open Letter on Immigration (Delong, Mankiw, and others signed on)

"Brothers Judd" deletes comments

Banned by ThinkProgress and QAndO

Banned by RedState

Banned by DailyKos

COMMENT #1:
Apparently these economists are unable to make a simple distinction between legal and illegal immigration. What's worse, they seem unable to think beyond simple, first-level economic impacts.

For instance, illegal immigration leads to political corruption. What economic impact does that have?

What economic impact does giving the government of Mexico even more political power inside the U.S. have?

What economic impact does companies being able to choose between cheap labor and innovation have?

What are the non-economic impacts of massive legal or illegal immigration, especially from one country or region?

Perhaps they need to think about this in a bit more depth and consult people who have an ability to see the big picture.

------
COMMENT #2:
I continue to be amazed that some "liberals" attempt to claim that there's no reconquista movement, however loosely constructed it is.

Do they think people will just believe what they say without doing any research? Do they hope to have any credibility remaining after people do that research?

All you have to do is google a few related terms, and you'll find a ton of evidence, questionable statements, and questionable links.

For instance, here's a quote from a 1996 Black Issues in Higher Education article:

The Chicano activists' mission at that time -- as documented in the book "MAYO: Avant-Garde to the Chicano Movement in Texas" by University of California-Riverside Professor Armando Navarro -- "was to eliminate and replace the gringo," says Jose Angel Gutierrez, director of the Center for Mexican American Studies at the University of Texas-Arlington.

How many Mexican-American politicians can you find who have links to Navarro?

Or, take a look at this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=FgbCB8QlQWw

That's the Speaker of the California Assembly, Democrat Fabian Nunez.

For more, see all the replies to this thread:

huffingtonpost.com/alex-koppelman/cnn-stands-by-lou-dobbs-_b_21617.html

"Liberals" need to come up with a new excuse for the Democratic Party's support for racists.

-----
COMMENT #3:
Since my comments on the other thread were deleted (lonewacko.com/blog/archives/005235.html), this might not be here long. But, here's my reply to the NYT article:

---
First, cute photos of undocumented workers in the shadows. A bit hamfisted, but what do you expect?

David Card says: "If Mexicans were taller and whiter, it would probably be a lot easier to deal with."

What Card fails to realize is that many Mexicans are in fact both tall and white. Those are the leaders of Mexico (such as the Spanish-Irish Vicente Fox), and they're the ones who are sending us their excess population. One against Card.

And, if all those illegal aliens were indeed tall and white, and everything else were the same as it is now, there wouldn't be an illegal immigration problem: all those millions of illegal aliens would have been deported long ago.

It's largely because most of the illegal aliens from Mexico are not white that illegal immigration supporters such as the MSM and others are able to racialize this issue and smear anyone who simply wants to enforce our laws.

As for the economics, they don't really matter. The economic effect of illegal immigration is clustered somewhere around zero. It might be slightly good, or somewhat bad. But, no one is arguing that it's very good.

Now, compare the possible benefits to the negatives:

* increased corruption in the U.S. as companies that profit from illegal immigration donate to politicians who look the other way

* increased numbers of low-wage workers coming into a high cost of living country (resulting in people living in garages or even tents in backyards)

* lowered wages for our own low-wage workers, many of whom have simply stopped looking for work

* increased chance of worker abuse and workplace injuries and deaths (much higher for illegal aliens)

* entrenching the corrupt Mexican government rather than forcing them to reform

* assisting the government of Mexico meddling in our internal politics

* assisting attempts to weaken U.S. citizenship and sovereignty

* foreign citizens marching in our streets demanding rights to which they aren't entitled

* among other diseases, drug-resistant tuberculosis

So, one the one hand you might get a small economic benefit. But, at what cost? All things considered, is illegal immigration really worth it?