The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
NYT Mentions Word "Immigration" in Article on California Population Growth!
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Screen Shot 2015-05-17 at 9.57.14 PM

If you squint, you can kind of sort of make out the difference between the two Gov. Browns’ eras, maybe

From the New York Times:

Brown’s Arid California, Thanks Partly to His Father
By ADAM NAGOURNEY MAY 16, 2015

LOS ANGELES — When Edmund G. Brown Sr. was governor of California, people were moving in at a pace of 1,000 a day. With a jubilant Mr. Brown officiating, California commemorated the moment it became the nation’s largest state, in 1962, with a church-bell-ringing, four-day celebration. He was the boom-boom governor for a boom-boom time: championing highways, universities and, most consequential, a sprawling water network to feed the explosion of agriculture and development in the dry reaches of central and Southern California.

Nearly 50 years later, it has fallen to Mr. Brown’s only son, Gov. Jerry Brown, to manage the modern-day California that his father helped to create. The state is prospering, with a population of more than double the 15.5 million it had when Mr. Brown, known as Pat, became governor in 1959. But California, the seventh-largest economy in the world, is confronting fundamental questions about its limits and growth, fed by the collision of the severe drought dominating Jerry Brown’s final years as governor and the water and energy demands — from homes, industries and farms, not to mention pools, gardens and golf courses — driven by the aggressive growth policies advocated by his father during his two terms in office.

You know, Pat Brown lost to Ronald Reagan 49 years ago, so I’m kind of thinking that other, more recent policies since then (e.g., the 1986 amnesty and the resulting Hispanic baby boom, lack of enforcement of immigration laws, massive legal immigration, etc. ) may be more directly relevant to why population keeps going up, up, up in 21st Century California.

… Pat Brown, who died in 1996 at the age of 90, was the embodiment of the post-World War II explosion, when people flocked to this vast and beckoning state in search of a new life. “He loved that California was getting bigger when he was governor,” said Ethan Rarick, who wrote a biography of Pat Brown and directs the Robert T. Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service at the University of California, Berkeley. “Pat saw an almost endless capacity for California growth.”

Jerry Brown arrived in Sacramento for the first of two stints he would serve as governor in 1975 — just over eight years after Pat Brown was defeated for re-election by Ronald Reagan. He was, at 36, the austere contrast to his father, a product of the post-Watergate and post-Vietnam era, wary of the kind of brawny, interventionist view of government that animated Pat Brown. The environmental movement had emerged in the years between Pat Brown’s defeat and Jerry Brown’s arrival — the first Earth Day and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries oil embargo took place during that period — and among its most passionate adherents was Pat Brown’s son.

If Pat Brown wanted the stunningly ambitious California State Water Project that he muscled into law to “be a monument to me,” as he later said of what was the most expensive public works project in the state’s history, Jerry Brown championed the modest if intellectually provocative “Small Is Beautiful” viewpoint espoused by the economist E. F. Schumacher, which emphasized the dangers of depleting natural resources. (Mr. Brown flew to London to speak at Schumacher’s funeral in 1977.) As governor, Jerry Brown spoke of limits and respect for the fragility of the planet from the moment he took office.

“He positioned himself as very, very different from my father,” said Kathleen Brown, who is Mr. Brown’s youngest sister. “Some looked at it as a psychological battle between father and son. I don’t think it was that at all. I think it was a coming-of-age in a different period. The consciousness that our resources were limited was just beginning to take hold in the broader community.”

Since taking office as governor for the second time, in 2011, Jerry Brown has again been the voice of limits — though this time, his view is informed less by the theories of environmentalists and more by the demands of trying to manage a drought of historic proportions. One month Mr. Brown is ordering a 25 percent reduction in the use of potable water in urban communities; the next he is pressing for a 40 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions to battle the choking pollution that is another byproduct of the heady growth.

“We are dealing with different periods,” Mr. Brown said in an interview. “The word ‘environment’ wasn’t used then: You talked about conservation. Environmentalism came in after my father left. There was this sense that we can become No. 1 ahead of New York — they rang church bells when we did — but now, you fast-forward 60 years later, and people are concerned about whether the water is available, the cost to the environment, how to pay for suburban infrastructure.”

“All of these insights and concerns developed after most of his governorship,” Mr. Brown said of his father. “But they preceded mine — and they have intensified.”

But have these insights and concerns intensified to the extent that a massive front page article in the New York Times about the last 56 years of California history will dare to mention the I Word? Let’s find out:

Ctrl-F “immigra”

Yes! The very last paragraph:

Still, Mr. Brown said he would have done what his father did if he had been governor during Pat Brown’s era — and expected that his father would be doing the same thing Jerry Brown is doing were he running the state today.

“What else could you do?” he said. “Who sets the agenda? The times set the agenda. It’s not like I don’t have a lot of things I want to do. There are a lot of challenges — you have to respond, whether it’s water or drought or education. Health. Immigration. Here they are — do something. That’s what I do. I think my father would do the same thing.”

The word “immigration” appears in a NYT article about water shortages in California! Granted, it appears as an afterthought in a wholly non-informative context, but we still have to chalk this one up as the NYT making intellectual progress. Give it another 49 years and who knows how far it might get?

 
Hide 29 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “NYT Mentions Word “Immigration” in Article on California Population Growth!”

    Ah, but did they say “Despite high levels of immigration, the population continues to grow”?

  2. Speaking of California, the latest from the high achieving element of the Coalition of the Fringe:

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/17/us/harvard-asian-americans-discrimination-complaint/index.html

    Asians angry that affirmative action meant to give unfair advantage to low achieving blacks now hurting them more than the evil straight white male menace.

    • Replies: @anon
    white people should just learn farming and trade skills and wait for it all to collapse under the weight of insanity
    , @Wilkey
    "Asians angry that affirmative action meant to give unfair advantage to low achieving blacks now hurting them more than the evil straight white male menace."

    Inherent in their lawsuit is the assumption that colleges should value SAT scores above all else.

    The allegations that Asians are being discriminated against because their share of the Ivy League student body has plateaued are absurd. Just look at Asian success post-academy: they do well, but they aren't exactly overwhelming us with their awesomeness. In business, politics, culture, etc., Asians maybe do better than average, but they don't overperform to a degree which suggests they should be 30-40-80% of the Ivy League student body. What's really happened is that the Ivy League schools have figured out that they have to separate the true geniuses from the grinds.
  3. OT but Steve you should check this out it’s almost too ridiculous to believe http://www.thestatelyharold.com/#!Cuckolding-Fetishist-Writing-Nickelodeon-Childrens-Shows/cmbz/5558f7cf0cf298b2d3c41f04

    • Replies: @Nathan Wartooth
    That was actually from 4chan on the /pol/ (politically incorrect) board.

    Here is an image of the discussion that someone put together:

    http://i.imgur.com/mOcs4FW.jpg

    There are also some Jewish themes as well, they are claiming the number 27 is important in some way to Jews, but the wiki tells me that tons of numbers of important, so I'm guessing it is just a coincidence.

    A user supposedly watches the show and claims that there really isn't any cuckholding going on in the show, but I can't really comment as I have never seen it.
    , @Hrw-500
    That reminds me of the rumors I read here and there about Dan Schneider who produced for Nickelodeon Drake & Josh, ICarly, Zoey 101, etc...
    http://www.lipstickalley.com/showthread.php/755855-Nickelodeon-creep-Dan-Schneider

    I saw this French clip made by a guy nicknamed Aldo Sterone a interesting rant about the recent wave of immigrants in Europe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHxnJoEdUu4 I think there the options of English subtitles to view that clip.
    , @Alfa158
    Loved the part about the girl being a high school quarterback. Nothing unrealistic about that. There was a case at a high school in Cailifornia a few years ago where a girl insisted on joining the football team, and her parents informed the school district that they had lawyers ready to spring into action if they didn't let her. The school board attorneys told the school to let her try out for the team. The lawyers got work anyway. The girl suffered a fracture on her very first practice scrimmage, whereupon her lawyers filed a lawsuit against the school for failing to inform her that football could be dangerous.
  4. Monkeys at keyboards. There isn’t enough time in the universe.

  5. Kaz says:

    To be fair immigration has little to do with water in this case. Pollution maybe.

    It has more to do with California’s agriculture economy.

    Meat consumes a lot of water and I’m willing to live with that.

    But we shouldn’t waste water on almonds, rice, etc.. when there are countries willing to export it to us for cheaper than we can grow it.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Meat consumes a lot of water and I’m willing to live with that.

     

    California's attitude on immigration in a nutshell!
    , @ben tillman


    To be fair immigration has little to do with water in this case. Pollution maybe.
     
    No, it has a huge impact, given the system that gives priority to agriculture. If 40 years' worth of immigrants were absent, each native would get almost twice as much water. Of course, immigration to a significant but incalculable degree replaced natives rather than adding to them, so it's hard to know what the population would be without all the immigration.

    It has more to do with California’s agriculture economy.

    Meat consumes a lot of water and I’m willing to live with that.

    But we shouldn’t waste water on almonds, rice, etc.. when there are countries willing to export it to us for cheaper than we can grow it.
     
    I agree with that.
  6. awesome interview from 1994 with Sir James Goldsmith illustrating what stewardship means

  7. You know, Pat Brown lost to Ronald Reagan 49 years ago, so I’m kind of thinking that other, more recent policies since then (e.g., the 1986 amnesty and the resulting Hispanic baby boom…)

    Reagan was the bridge between the Browns: sharing Pat’s optimism and boosterism, and Jerry’s obsession with limits, though Ron aimed that at government rather than the people in general.

    How much of the excess growth was due to the so-called “amnesty”, and how much to legal immigration?

    The 1986 deal was the third in a hat trick of pseudolibertarian bills Reagan was conned into signing. The first two, in Sacramento, were no-fault divorce and legal abortion. Funny that those here who rag him on 1986 never take issue with the others.

    Signing those enabled the attack on two of los sacramentos, baptism and marriage. If Californians had stayed married and carried their youngun’s to term, they wouldn’t have had to invite all those Mexicans.

    Did they think they’d all be like grandpa’s gardener?

    • Replies: @Nico

    The 1986 deal was the third in a hat trick of pseudolibertarian bills Reagan was conned into signing. The first two, in Sacramento, were no-fault divorce and legal abortion. Funny that those here who rag him on 1986 never take issue with the others.
     
    As a conservative, I certainly do, and would cite it as proof that Reagan was no conservative, or that he was just a cretin who did well with a script. Abortion and divorce aren't necessarily major themes of this blog, though.
    , @Anonymous
    "Grandpa's gardener" Which grandpa?
    My father's father lived on the Palisades in Santa Monica. His gardener (who lived behind the six car garage in what we called the "Jap House" was from ... well, take a guess.
    My mother's father had men come in once a week. They, a father and two strapping sons, were from Denmark.
    A few more of the first, and many, many more of the second would have been fine, even ideal, for forging a Californian population vigorous in mind and body.
    What we got instead was a disaster for both goals.
    , @MarkinLA
    How much of the excess growth was due to the so-called “amnesty”, and how much to legal immigration?

    And how much legal immigration due to the amnesty because of family reunification chain migration and how much illegal immigration because of the amnesty as everybody back in the pueblo realizes they have a link, and a place to stay until they get settled or until the next amnesty?
  8. @Kaz
    To be fair immigration has little to do with water in this case. Pollution maybe.

    It has more to do with California's agriculture economy.

    Meat consumes a lot of water and I'm willing to live with that.

    But we shouldn't waste water on almonds, rice, etc.. when there are countries willing to export it to us for cheaper than we can grow it.

    Meat consumes a lot of water and I’m willing to live with that.

    California’s attitude on immigration in a nutshell!

  9. @Tom Saw
    Speaking of California, the latest from the high achieving element of the Coalition of the Fringe:

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/17/us/harvard-asian-americans-discrimination-complaint/index.html

    Asians angry that affirmative action meant to give unfair advantage to low achieving blacks now hurting them more than the evil straight white male menace.

    white people should just learn farming and trade skills and wait for it all to collapse under the weight of insanity

  10. Ctl+F – the One Weird Trick to instantly see if an article on water shortage, unemployment, overpopulation, etc. is worth reading.

  11. @Reg Cæsar

    You know, Pat Brown lost to Ronald Reagan 49 years ago, so I’m kind of thinking that other, more recent policies since then (e.g., the 1986 amnesty and the resulting Hispanic baby boom…)
     
    Reagan was the bridge between the Browns: sharing Pat's optimism and boosterism, and Jerry's obsession with limits, though Ron aimed that at government rather than the people in general.

    How much of the excess growth was due to the so-called "amnesty", and how much to legal immigration?

    The 1986 deal was the third in a hat trick of pseudolibertarian bills Reagan was conned into signing. The first two, in Sacramento, were no-fault divorce and legal abortion. Funny that those here who rag him on 1986 never take issue with the others.

    Signing those enabled the attack on two of los sacramentos, baptism and marriage. If Californians had stayed married and carried their youngun's to term, they wouldn't have had to invite all those Mexicans.

    Did they think they'd all be like grandpa's gardener?

    The 1986 deal was the third in a hat trick of pseudolibertarian bills Reagan was conned into signing. The first two, in Sacramento, were no-fault divorce and legal abortion. Funny that those here who rag him on 1986 never take issue with the others.

    As a conservative, I certainly do, and would cite it as proof that Reagan was no conservative, or that he was just a cretin who did well with a script. Abortion and divorce aren’t necessarily major themes of this blog, though.

  12. Most of California’s problems can be laid at the feet of the state’s agricultural industry and the fight with Cesar Chavez over farm labor. Up until 1964 farmers could get all the labor they needed to plant and harvest crops via the Bracero program, an imminently sensible deal where California farmers could hire Mexican laborers as needed through a labor contractor. The contractor would deliver temporary workers where needed and return them to Mexico at the conclusion of the contract.

    Of course Chavez, who wanted to unionize farm workers, opposed the Bracero program AND third world immigration ( something his acolytes don’t mention these days). Like any union guy he knew wages could only go up if farm labor was in short supply and his union controlled the supply of farm workers. Chavez’s only real success was in getting the Bracero program ended in 1964 but Congress then went and liberalized immigration in 1965 so agriculture got all the workers they needed but the workers didn’t go back to Mexico when the work was done and wages never went up enough to enable farm workers to make a decent living so, as we’ve seen over and over again, the real cost of labor was paid by the welfare state. In turn agriculture expanded in California beyond what it otherwise could have done had it had to pay wages based on the available supply of farm labor ( and water).

    Like the 19th century mining camps that became ‘ghost towns’ when the ore ran out, California has imported a vast population of workers dependent on the West’s ability to mine ‘water’ and the water supply is running out. Its not just farm workers either. Its the army of immigrants who go to work each day armed with weedeaters and leafblowers, the pot growers in the Emerald Triangle and the golf and ski resort maids, bell boys and restaurant employees whose jobs are drying up with the Colorado River and the Central Valley aquifer. There is going to be a new ‘Grapes of Wrath’ migration bigger than the Dust Bowl if more water is not found.

    • Replies: @Formerly CARealist
    Interesting, unit472. Where do the Mexicans get their water? Isn't it the Colorado? I know they grow more and more of our veggies so I wonder how long that will last. If this drought continues on I suspect more of our ag will go south and CA will just become drier and poorer while anybody with spunk will move to other states. I can't tell you how many of our friends have moved out over the last 15 years. All Republicans.
    , @MarkinLA
    The contractor would deliver temporary workers where needed and return them to Mexico at the conclusion of the contract.

    Nonsense - see Operation Wetback.

    One other problem, so migrant farm workers never get to enjoy any benefits of US citizenship since farmers want cheap labor but their kids get to have all the responsibilities like signing up for the draft or being put in prison? Sorry, but maybe we let the free market work - the farmers that pay more get all the workers they need and the people willing to pay more for produce get all they want.
  13. @Tom Saw
    Speaking of California, the latest from the high achieving element of the Coalition of the Fringe:

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/17/us/harvard-asian-americans-discrimination-complaint/index.html

    Asians angry that affirmative action meant to give unfair advantage to low achieving blacks now hurting them more than the evil straight white male menace.

    “Asians angry that affirmative action meant to give unfair advantage to low achieving blacks now hurting them more than the evil straight white male menace.”

    Inherent in their lawsuit is the assumption that colleges should value SAT scores above all else.

    The allegations that Asians are being discriminated against because their share of the Ivy League student body has plateaued are absurd. Just look at Asian success post-academy: they do well, but they aren’t exactly overwhelming us with their awesomeness. In business, politics, culture, etc., Asians maybe do better than average, but they don’t overperform to a degree which suggests they should be 30-40-80% of the Ivy League student body. What’s really happened is that the Ivy League schools have figured out that they have to separate the true geniuses from the grinds.

    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    What’s really happened is that the Ivy League schools have figured out that they have to separate the true geniuses from the grinds.

    I would say if this thread is to continue, we should define what "genius" is. A survey of Ivy notables of the last few decades warrants it. The Ivies have treated us with a lot of monkeys with typewriters of late.

    , @MarkinLA
    The problem even in the sciences of determining who can make a significant contribution is that the projects today are so big and require so many people that even the "grinders" are needed and how you determine who is what? We now need the hadron collider to answer questions about physics and billion dollar projects to answer questions about the cosmos. What are the contributions of the average person working on those projects?
    , @Escher
    A high fraction of said geniuses belong to a certain tribe, it seems. As one of the other commentators has said, might be worth checking on accomplishments of Ivy League grads over the past few decades.
  14. What’s truly disturbing about California’s growth over the last 20 years or so is not that it’s been so immense, but that it’s happened in spite of the fact that so many native-born Americans have been moving out.

    Proof positive that American politicians don’t really give a shit about the interests of the American people.

  15. @Wilkey
    "Asians angry that affirmative action meant to give unfair advantage to low achieving blacks now hurting them more than the evil straight white male menace."

    Inherent in their lawsuit is the assumption that colleges should value SAT scores above all else.

    The allegations that Asians are being discriminated against because their share of the Ivy League student body has plateaued are absurd. Just look at Asian success post-academy: they do well, but they aren't exactly overwhelming us with their awesomeness. In business, politics, culture, etc., Asians maybe do better than average, but they don't overperform to a degree which suggests they should be 30-40-80% of the Ivy League student body. What's really happened is that the Ivy League schools have figured out that they have to separate the true geniuses from the grinds.

    What’s really happened is that the Ivy League schools have figured out that they have to separate the true geniuses from the grinds.

    I would say if this thread is to continue, we should define what “genius” is. A survey of Ivy notables of the last few decades warrants it. The Ivies have treated us with a lot of monkeys with typewriters of late.

  16. You think we have 49 years left?

    When California goes all Fury Road, do you see yourself with a giant beard and staff dispensing wisdom and being known as “The Sailer without a Boat”?

  17. @unit472
    Most of California's problems can be laid at the feet of the state's agricultural industry and the fight with Cesar Chavez over farm labor. Up until 1964 farmers could get all the labor they needed to plant and harvest crops via the Bracero program, an imminently sensible deal where California farmers could hire Mexican laborers as needed through a labor contractor. The contractor would deliver temporary workers where needed and return them to Mexico at the conclusion of the contract.

    Of course Chavez, who wanted to unionize farm workers, opposed the Bracero program AND third world immigration ( something his acolytes don't mention these days). Like any union guy he knew wages could only go up if farm labor was in short supply and his union controlled the supply of farm workers. Chavez's only real success was in getting the Bracero program ended in 1964 but Congress then went and liberalized immigration in 1965 so agriculture got all the workers they needed but the workers didn't go back to Mexico when the work was done and wages never went up enough to enable farm workers to make a decent living so, as we've seen over and over again, the real cost of labor was paid by the welfare state. In turn agriculture expanded in California beyond what it otherwise could have done had it had to pay wages based on the available supply of farm labor ( and water).

    Like the 19th century mining camps that became 'ghost towns' when the ore ran out, California has imported a vast population of workers dependent on the West's ability to mine 'water' and the water supply is running out. Its not just farm workers either. Its the army of immigrants who go to work each day armed with weedeaters and leafblowers, the pot growers in the Emerald Triangle and the golf and ski resort maids, bell boys and restaurant employees whose jobs are drying up with the Colorado River and the Central Valley aquifer. There is going to be a new 'Grapes of Wrath' migration bigger than the Dust Bowl if more water is not found.

    Interesting, unit472. Where do the Mexicans get their water? Isn’t it the Colorado? I know they grow more and more of our veggies so I wonder how long that will last. If this drought continues on I suspect more of our ag will go south and CA will just become drier and poorer while anybody with spunk will move to other states. I can’t tell you how many of our friends have moved out over the last 15 years. All Republicans.

    • Replies: @unit472
    The Colorado River has not flowed into the Gulf of California for years. It just disappears into the river bed. Mexico, like the Western US, uses ancient aquifers to supplement its flowing surface water and , if there have been a few incidents of crop contamination with grey water, Mexico, like any food exporter or farmer, does not want people to get sick from eating their food. It is also the case that Mexicans harvest most of America's food ( and cook and serve much of what they don't harvest) so, from a health standpoint, it doesn't really matter if your melon, tomato or fruit comes from Mexico, California or Florida its got Mexican fingerprints on it.

    So far, most of the out migration from California has been because of the cost of living. Having to live in a cheap garden apartment in LA or the Bay Area when you are making $100,000 per year isn't very appealing once you are over 30 or so. The real problem will come if the rains don't return. Agribusiness, if not Silicon Valley, is a huge part of the state economy. If you think it through there are even more dire implications. Dead vegetation burns and hillsides denuded of vegetation are prone to mudslides and California tends to get what rain it does get in giant dollops when the Pineapple Express or an Alaskan storm rolls in. If your multimillion dollar hillside home doesn't burn up in a firestorm it could well slide down in an avalanche of mud and insurance companies are going to notice the risk even if it hasn't happened to you... YET!

  18. @Anonymous coward
    OT but Steve you should check this out it's almost too ridiculous to believe http://www.thestatelyharold.com/#!Cuckolding-Fetishist-Writing-Nickelodeon-Childrens-Shows/cmbz/5558f7cf0cf298b2d3c41f04

    That was actually from 4chan on the /pol/ (politically incorrect) board.

    Here is an image of the discussion that someone put together:

    There are also some Jewish themes as well, they are claiming the number 27 is important in some way to Jews, but the wiki tells me that tons of numbers of important, so I’m guessing it is just a coincidence.

    A user supposedly watches the show and claims that there really isn’t any cuckholding going on in the show, but I can’t really comment as I have never seen it.

  19. @Anonymous coward
    OT but Steve you should check this out it's almost too ridiculous to believe http://www.thestatelyharold.com/#!Cuckolding-Fetishist-Writing-Nickelodeon-Childrens-Shows/cmbz/5558f7cf0cf298b2d3c41f04

    That reminds me of the rumors I read here and there about Dan Schneider who produced for Nickelodeon Drake & Josh, ICarly, Zoey 101, etc…
    http://www.lipstickalley.com/showthread.php/755855-Nickelodeon-creep-Dan-Schneider

    I saw this French clip made by a guy nicknamed Aldo Sterone a interesting rant about the recent wave of immigrants in Europe.

    I think there the options of English subtitles to view that clip.

  20. A few weeks back, I made a polite comment on an SFGate article about the water crisis, and suggested that perhaps one thing that might help would be to stop inviting large numbers of Latin Americans to move here. The comment was deleted.

  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    You know, Pat Brown lost to Ronald Reagan 49 years ago, so I’m kind of thinking that other, more recent policies since then (e.g., the 1986 amnesty and the resulting Hispanic baby boom…)
     
    Reagan was the bridge between the Browns: sharing Pat's optimism and boosterism, and Jerry's obsession with limits, though Ron aimed that at government rather than the people in general.

    How much of the excess growth was due to the so-called "amnesty", and how much to legal immigration?

    The 1986 deal was the third in a hat trick of pseudolibertarian bills Reagan was conned into signing. The first two, in Sacramento, were no-fault divorce and legal abortion. Funny that those here who rag him on 1986 never take issue with the others.

    Signing those enabled the attack on two of los sacramentos, baptism and marriage. If Californians had stayed married and carried their youngun's to term, they wouldn't have had to invite all those Mexicans.

    Did they think they'd all be like grandpa's gardener?

    “Grandpa’s gardener” Which grandpa?
    My father’s father lived on the Palisades in Santa Monica. His gardener (who lived behind the six car garage in what we called the “Jap House” was from … well, take a guess.
    My mother’s father had men come in once a week. They, a father and two strapping sons, were from Denmark.
    A few more of the first, and many, many more of the second would have been fine, even ideal, for forging a Californian population vigorous in mind and body.
    What we got instead was a disaster for both goals.

  22. @Anonymous coward
    OT but Steve you should check this out it's almost too ridiculous to believe http://www.thestatelyharold.com/#!Cuckolding-Fetishist-Writing-Nickelodeon-Childrens-Shows/cmbz/5558f7cf0cf298b2d3c41f04

    Loved the part about the girl being a high school quarterback. Nothing unrealistic about that. There was a case at a high school in Cailifornia a few years ago where a girl insisted on joining the football team, and her parents informed the school district that they had lawyers ready to spring into action if they didn’t let her. The school board attorneys told the school to let her try out for the team. The lawyers got work anyway. The girl suffered a fracture on her very first practice scrimmage, whereupon her lawyers filed a lawsuit against the school for failing to inform her that football could be dangerous.

  23. @Formerly CARealist
    Interesting, unit472. Where do the Mexicans get their water? Isn't it the Colorado? I know they grow more and more of our veggies so I wonder how long that will last. If this drought continues on I suspect more of our ag will go south and CA will just become drier and poorer while anybody with spunk will move to other states. I can't tell you how many of our friends have moved out over the last 15 years. All Republicans.

    The Colorado River has not flowed into the Gulf of California for years. It just disappears into the river bed. Mexico, like the Western US, uses ancient aquifers to supplement its flowing surface water and , if there have been a few incidents of crop contamination with grey water, Mexico, like any food exporter or farmer, does not want people to get sick from eating their food. It is also the case that Mexicans harvest most of America’s food ( and cook and serve much of what they don’t harvest) so, from a health standpoint, it doesn’t really matter if your melon, tomato or fruit comes from Mexico, California or Florida its got Mexican fingerprints on it.

    So far, most of the out migration from California has been because of the cost of living. Having to live in a cheap garden apartment in LA or the Bay Area when you are making $100,000 per year isn’t very appealing once you are over 30 or so. The real problem will come if the rains don’t return. Agribusiness, if not Silicon Valley, is a huge part of the state economy. If you think it through there are even more dire implications. Dead vegetation burns and hillsides denuded of vegetation are prone to mudslides and California tends to get what rain it does get in giant dollops when the Pineapple Express or an Alaskan storm rolls in. If your multimillion dollar hillside home doesn’t burn up in a firestorm it could well slide down in an avalanche of mud and insurance companies are going to notice the risk even if it hasn’t happened to you… YET!

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Agribusiness, if not Silicon Valley, is a huge part of the state economy.

    Not in dollars and cents. It only makes up 2% of the GDP of the state but takes up 80% of the water.
  24. @unit472
    Most of California's problems can be laid at the feet of the state's agricultural industry and the fight with Cesar Chavez over farm labor. Up until 1964 farmers could get all the labor they needed to plant and harvest crops via the Bracero program, an imminently sensible deal where California farmers could hire Mexican laborers as needed through a labor contractor. The contractor would deliver temporary workers where needed and return them to Mexico at the conclusion of the contract.

    Of course Chavez, who wanted to unionize farm workers, opposed the Bracero program AND third world immigration ( something his acolytes don't mention these days). Like any union guy he knew wages could only go up if farm labor was in short supply and his union controlled the supply of farm workers. Chavez's only real success was in getting the Bracero program ended in 1964 but Congress then went and liberalized immigration in 1965 so agriculture got all the workers they needed but the workers didn't go back to Mexico when the work was done and wages never went up enough to enable farm workers to make a decent living so, as we've seen over and over again, the real cost of labor was paid by the welfare state. In turn agriculture expanded in California beyond what it otherwise could have done had it had to pay wages based on the available supply of farm labor ( and water).

    Like the 19th century mining camps that became 'ghost towns' when the ore ran out, California has imported a vast population of workers dependent on the West's ability to mine 'water' and the water supply is running out. Its not just farm workers either. Its the army of immigrants who go to work each day armed with weedeaters and leafblowers, the pot growers in the Emerald Triangle and the golf and ski resort maids, bell boys and restaurant employees whose jobs are drying up with the Colorado River and the Central Valley aquifer. There is going to be a new 'Grapes of Wrath' migration bigger than the Dust Bowl if more water is not found.

    The contractor would deliver temporary workers where needed and return them to Mexico at the conclusion of the contract.

    Nonsense – see Operation Wetback.

    One other problem, so migrant farm workers never get to enjoy any benefits of US citizenship since farmers want cheap labor but their kids get to have all the responsibilities like signing up for the draft or being put in prison? Sorry, but maybe we let the free market work – the farmers that pay more get all the workers they need and the people willing to pay more for produce get all they want.

  25. @unit472
    The Colorado River has not flowed into the Gulf of California for years. It just disappears into the river bed. Mexico, like the Western US, uses ancient aquifers to supplement its flowing surface water and , if there have been a few incidents of crop contamination with grey water, Mexico, like any food exporter or farmer, does not want people to get sick from eating their food. It is also the case that Mexicans harvest most of America's food ( and cook and serve much of what they don't harvest) so, from a health standpoint, it doesn't really matter if your melon, tomato or fruit comes from Mexico, California or Florida its got Mexican fingerprints on it.

    So far, most of the out migration from California has been because of the cost of living. Having to live in a cheap garden apartment in LA or the Bay Area when you are making $100,000 per year isn't very appealing once you are over 30 or so. The real problem will come if the rains don't return. Agribusiness, if not Silicon Valley, is a huge part of the state economy. If you think it through there are even more dire implications. Dead vegetation burns and hillsides denuded of vegetation are prone to mudslides and California tends to get what rain it does get in giant dollops when the Pineapple Express or an Alaskan storm rolls in. If your multimillion dollar hillside home doesn't burn up in a firestorm it could well slide down in an avalanche of mud and insurance companies are going to notice the risk even if it hasn't happened to you... YET!

    Agribusiness, if not Silicon Valley, is a huge part of the state economy.

    Not in dollars and cents. It only makes up 2% of the GDP of the state but takes up 80% of the water.

  26. @Wilkey
    "Asians angry that affirmative action meant to give unfair advantage to low achieving blacks now hurting them more than the evil straight white male menace."

    Inherent in their lawsuit is the assumption that colleges should value SAT scores above all else.

    The allegations that Asians are being discriminated against because their share of the Ivy League student body has plateaued are absurd. Just look at Asian success post-academy: they do well, but they aren't exactly overwhelming us with their awesomeness. In business, politics, culture, etc., Asians maybe do better than average, but they don't overperform to a degree which suggests they should be 30-40-80% of the Ivy League student body. What's really happened is that the Ivy League schools have figured out that they have to separate the true geniuses from the grinds.

    The problem even in the sciences of determining who can make a significant contribution is that the projects today are so big and require so many people that even the “grinders” are needed and how you determine who is what? We now need the hadron collider to answer questions about physics and billion dollar projects to answer questions about the cosmos. What are the contributions of the average person working on those projects?

  27. @Reg Cæsar

    You know, Pat Brown lost to Ronald Reagan 49 years ago, so I’m kind of thinking that other, more recent policies since then (e.g., the 1986 amnesty and the resulting Hispanic baby boom…)
     
    Reagan was the bridge between the Browns: sharing Pat's optimism and boosterism, and Jerry's obsession with limits, though Ron aimed that at government rather than the people in general.

    How much of the excess growth was due to the so-called "amnesty", and how much to legal immigration?

    The 1986 deal was the third in a hat trick of pseudolibertarian bills Reagan was conned into signing. The first two, in Sacramento, were no-fault divorce and legal abortion. Funny that those here who rag him on 1986 never take issue with the others.

    Signing those enabled the attack on two of los sacramentos, baptism and marriage. If Californians had stayed married and carried their youngun's to term, they wouldn't have had to invite all those Mexicans.

    Did they think they'd all be like grandpa's gardener?

    How much of the excess growth was due to the so-called “amnesty”, and how much to legal immigration?

    And how much legal immigration due to the amnesty because of family reunification chain migration and how much illegal immigration because of the amnesty as everybody back in the pueblo realizes they have a link, and a place to stay until they get settled or until the next amnesty?

  28. @Kaz
    To be fair immigration has little to do with water in this case. Pollution maybe.

    It has more to do with California's agriculture economy.

    Meat consumes a lot of water and I'm willing to live with that.

    But we shouldn't waste water on almonds, rice, etc.. when there are countries willing to export it to us for cheaper than we can grow it.

    To be fair immigration has little to do with water in this case. Pollution maybe.

    No, it has a huge impact, given the system that gives priority to agriculture. If 40 years’ worth of immigrants were absent, each native would get almost twice as much water. Of course, immigration to a significant but incalculable degree replaced natives rather than adding to them, so it’s hard to know what the population would be without all the immigration.

    It has more to do with California’s agriculture economy.

    Meat consumes a lot of water and I’m willing to live with that.

    But we shouldn’t waste water on almonds, rice, etc.. when there are countries willing to export it to us for cheaper than we can grow it.

    I agree with that.

  29. @Wilkey
    "Asians angry that affirmative action meant to give unfair advantage to low achieving blacks now hurting them more than the evil straight white male menace."

    Inherent in their lawsuit is the assumption that colleges should value SAT scores above all else.

    The allegations that Asians are being discriminated against because their share of the Ivy League student body has plateaued are absurd. Just look at Asian success post-academy: they do well, but they aren't exactly overwhelming us with their awesomeness. In business, politics, culture, etc., Asians maybe do better than average, but they don't overperform to a degree which suggests they should be 30-40-80% of the Ivy League student body. What's really happened is that the Ivy League schools have figured out that they have to separate the true geniuses from the grinds.

    A high fraction of said geniuses belong to a certain tribe, it seems. As one of the other commentators has said, might be worth checking on accomplishments of Ivy League grads over the past few decades.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS