John's Recommended Articles

Antiwar myths about Iraq, debunked: "Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations. Yet for some critics of the president, these are minor matters. Like swallows to Capistrano, they keep returning to the same allegations--the president misled the country in order to justify the Iraq war; his administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments; Saddam Hussein turned out to be no threat since he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; and helping democracy take root in the Middle East was a postwar rationalization. The problem with these charges is that they are false and can be shown to be so--and yet people continue to believe, and spread, them. Let me examine each in turn: "

"A North Korean like you is easier to kill than a chicken." : "A North Korean in China--even one who is there against her own volition--quickly learns that there is a worse fate than being sold into sexual slavery: being captured by the Chinese authorities and repatriated. It is a crime to leave the North, and Koreans who are sent back end up in prison camps or worse."

Americans should be happy that oil companies are making money: "If a healthy profit margin--about 10% for the oil giants--is a problem, it comes with a built-in solution. Large profits create large incentives to increase supplies, build more refining capacity, and create new technology to meet energy needs. "

Saddam wasn't a feminist: "Much of the anti-war propagandists' defense of Saddam as a champion of women's rights rests on his willingness to allow women to vote (for him), drive cars, own property, get an education and work. What they choose to ignore, however, is the systematic rapes, torture, beheadings, honor killings, forced fertility programs, and declining literacy rates that also characterized Saddam's regime. "

"The overall effect of Mexican immigration on the U.S. economy is trivial -- almost certainly less than one-tenth of 1% of GDP. Moreover, to the degree that Mexican immigration makes some industries more internationally competitive, it does so by reducing the wages of the U.S.-born workers in those industries. The reduction is not trivial. Careful research done by Harvard's George Borjas indicates that Mexican immigration has caused a 7% decline in the wages of U.S.-born high school dropouts, and a 1% decline in the wages of workers with only a high school diploma. Score one for the hard-liners on immigration.

Hard-liners, however, have it wrong about the social and cultural impact of immigration on the U.S. They tend to look at recent immigrants and decry their low levels of education, difficulties with the English language, and propensity to choose marriage partners from their own immigrant group. They tend to ignore that every other large-scale immigrant group in the history of the U.S. -- Poles, Italians, Irish, Eastern European Jews -- had many of the exact same social and cultural characteristics.

The impact of immigration on American culture is not determined by what immigrants do, but by what their children and grandchildren do. Here the evidence is unambiguous: The children and grandchildren of Mexican immigrants assimilate and move up the income ladder. Meticulous research by James Smith at Rand demonstrates that second- and third-generation Mexican-Americans quickly overcome the educational deficit faced by their immigrant parents and grandparents. As a result, they do not constitute a permanent economic underclass; they have been steadily narrowing the income gap with native-born whites. Nor do they constitute a social and cultural group independent of mainstream America. The reason is clear: 80% of third-generation Mexican-Americans cannot speak Spanish. Score one for the soft-liners on immigration.

Both sides in the immigration debate have it wrong, however, when it comes to one core assumption -- that Mexican immigration is only a domestic policy issue. What we choose to do will have serious ramifications for Mexico.

What would happen to Mexico if we were to suddenly cut off the escape valve provided by immigration to the U.S.? Unemployment and underemployment, already major problems, would increase dramatically. Remissions from immigrants, which total some $18 billion per year and are the lifeblood of many rural communities, would dry up. The widespread frustration felt by the population caught between rising crime and diminished economic expectations -- which fuels the populist presidential campaign of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador -- would almost certainly become more acute. There is no scenario in which these developments would be positive for Mexican political and social stability. And there is no scenario in which a politically and socially unstable Mexico is in the interest of the U.S."

Study: US mothers deserve $134,121 in salary: "'It's good to acknowledge the job that's being done, and that it's not that these women are settling for 'just a mom. They are actually doing an awful lot.'"

Poll: 1/3 of Youths Can't Find La. on Map : "Despite the wall-to-wall coverage of the damage from Hurricane Katrina, nearly one-third of young Americans recently polled couldn't locate Louisiana on a map and nearly half were unable to identify Mississippi.
Six in 10 could not find Iraq on a map of the Middle East."