What a shame - my first BHtv in quite a while and this woman has to bulldoze the conversation. Please have Mr. K back with a more civil partner, it's an important topic. Why not Mickey, he loves this issue?

For someone who has just written a book on the subject, captain Krikorian was clearly less in command of the facts and issues than his challenger. He seemed to have only one idea -- Mexican immigrants are nineteenth century peasants in a 21st century America. Sounds good but didnt get him very far. He really deserved the sound drubbing he received.

This was pretty pointless. Dalmia seemed to not listen to what Krikorian actually said; making it a bit hard for him to make his case. And her line of argument in regards to the term "foreignborn" was outright bizarre. The term has an exact meaning which makes her point that Krikorian should refer to himself as "foreignborn" because his grandfather was an immigrant tautologically wrong. And even if we try to help her out and substitute "foreignborn" for "immigrant" or some such to make her argument meet at least some minimum logical standard, it still seems highly questionable to me to not count naturalized citizens when discussing the effects of immigration on society. I immigrated in my mid twenties myself, have lived less than 10 years in the US and will soon be eligible to become a US citizen. If I do take that step, that will emphatically not change the fact that culturally, I remain a Scandinavian.

This guy is off the wall – that he wants to build. He has just released a study claiming
that immigration leads to dangerous increases in greenhouse gas emissions!! He’ll say
anything. His position that even highly skilled immigrants are a danger to this country
is off the scale of reasonable debate. He couldnt defend any of his claims in this
debate. He can’t make the economic case against skilled immigrants, so he has invented
an emotional argument that is semi-paranoid.

Polywonk, did you listen to the dialogue? From the outset, Ms. Dalmia was dismissive of Mr. Krikorian's thesis, lobbed cherry-picked statistics at him in an outraged tone, and argued as if the plural of anecdote is data. In the time in which he was permitted to speak, Mr. Krikorian demonstrated command of relevant facts and (especially helpful) worked to clarify the categories in which the discussion is conducted. I agree it would be good to have him back; I'm not sure Mickey Kaus would be the best interlocutor -- although that diavlog would balance this one -- but someone willing to consider a restrictionist case as a policy option to be assessed rather than a heresy to be shouted down would be welcome.

Krikorian had the posture of a reasonable guy, but he ended up backing down on all of his arguments when under fire from Dalmia. In the end he's just another scare mongerer dressed up in sheeps clothing. He claims the US will be flooded with immigrants from low-wage countries if it doesn't hurry up and build a wall to keep the hordes out. But this is obvious bullshit. Just look at Puerto Rico. The whole island has US citizenship, their wages are 35% lower than ours, and yet net immigration from the PR is currently zero. Zilch. NADA. Comprende?

jeffpeterson: Yes, I listened to the whole debate, such as it was. It wasn't much of a debate because Mr. Krikorian could not back up very many of his confidently asserted positions. Ms. Dalmia relied, not on anecdote, but on facts -- "cherry-picked" being an odd description of them from more than one point of view. It is true that she betrayed her indignation at K's views but having listened to the whole exchange, I can't blame her. From start to finish, she showed that his views were based on a combination of myth and misinformation. He didnt have the facts about the relative size of current immigration, about welfare use in comparison to tax payments, about levels of patriotism as shown by participation in the armed forces, about US policies in comparison to other industrial countries, and so forth down the line. You and another blogger want to hear from K again, no doubt hoping that he'll do a better job. Unlikely.

I immigrated in my mid twenties myself, have lived less than 10 years in the US and will soon be eligible to become a US citizen. If I do take that step, that will emphatically not change the fact that culturally, I remain a Scandinavian.

So what? What's so great about so-called cultural assimilation? Way overrated. In fact, why is it even rated at all? What difference does it make to anyone if Shikha feels Indian or not?

I agree with the sentiments expressed above. Though I don't agree with Mark, I do think he should be treated with more respect. Or if that can't be managed, don't talk to him at all. Also the diavlog was a little confusing because Shikha seemed to be attacking what she knew his position to be rather than allowing him to explain his position and then attack it. A good example of this is her objecting to calling foreign born citizens immigrants. The way she denounced this so aggressively made me think there must be more to the story than what he managed to articulate. In the end, I ended up sympathizing personally with the person with whom I disagree politically. And that can't be an effective strategy.

This diavlog was hard to listen to, due to Ms. Dalmia's lack of civility. As to the debate: I thought that both made relatively good arguments. I appreciated the factual grounding of the debate (often lacking in the blogosphere). I found Mr. Krikorian's factual analysis to be generally superior, though the relevance of these facts to his conclusions is up for debate. E.G. the qualitative change in emotional assimilation may be born out by the facts (this one appeared to be a wash from my perspective), but it does not convince me that we are in dire need of restricting legal immigration.

Krikorian was "backing down" because Dalmia would not allow him to get a word in edgewise, would raise her voice when he tried to, and would not extend the conversational courtesies to him that he extended to her. Also where did in the diavlog did he push for a wall? Can you give us a ding-a-link? Krikorian and CIS's main goal is attrition through enforcement (worksite enforcement, work visa enforcement, E-Verify, etc.) Jobs are the primary magnet for immigrants. A border fence may be helpful (or simply a distraction) but enforcement is the main goal.

It's ironic that the person wearing the "Reason" t-shirt is hysterical and unreasonable. Her argument about West Germany assimilating millions of East Germans reminded me of when I used to do debate in high school. And the libertarians complain that they don't get taken seriously.

Quoting anothervoice: Krikorian had the posture of a reasonable guy, but he ended up backing down on all of his arguments when under fire from Dalmia. In the end he's just another scare mongerer dressed up in sheeps clothing. He claims the US will be flooded with immigrants from low-wage countries if it doesn't hurry up and build a wall to keep the hordes out. But this is obvious bullshit. Just look at Puerto Rico. The whole island has US citizenship, their wages are 35% lower than ours, and yet net immigration from the PR is currently zero. Zilch. NADA. Comprende?

Anothervoice -- Puerto Rican residents do not pay federal income tax on income earned in Puerto Rico. Also, under Section 30A industry enjoys a tax credit for operations conducted in Puerto Rico. Furthermore, the predecessor to the current tax credit Section 936, was enacted in 1976. As you can see from the attached chart, at p. 6, Puerto Rican migration reversed itself when Section 936 was enacted in 1976. One way of looking at it is that the government is, in substance, bribing Puerto Ricans to stay in Puerto Rico, rather than migrating to the mainland.

Although I wanted to hear what Shikha had to say, I found her bulldozing, Mark-let-me-finish-my-interruption manner very hard to sit through. As someone who also tends to get excited in conversation and interrupt (but has been trying to improve for some time), I realize it’s not easy to change. But Shikha really ought to study the video carefully and try to polish up her debating style a bit.

Quoting Wonderment: So what? What's so great about so-called cultural assimilation? Way overrated. In fact, why is it even rated at all? What difference does it make to anyone if Shikha feels Indian or not?

I don't think the important question about assimilation is whether one continues to identify with one's country and culture of origin or not, but rather whether one also comes to identify with the culture into which one has immigrated. It's fine to continue caring deeply about India and Indian culture (and ditto for other countries and cultures of origin, of course), but will Indian immigrants to the U.S (or to Britain, France, etc.) also adopt many of the main features of American (British, French) culture, internalize them, care about them, etc? It seems this latter concern could only be viewed as overrated by someone who thought that preserving American (British, French, etc.) culture was itself overrated. I find it striking that many people who don't particularly care about preserving and protecting such cultures which in recent years have been dealing with massive immigration -- and I'm not saying that's your view, Wonderment; I don't know what your view is on this -- themselves identify strongly with other cultures

One wonders how Ms Dalmia has ever learned anything with her undeveloped ability to listen. But maybe she is more aware than she lets on. Her bullying and dismissive tactics are symptomatic of someone who does not have a real argument. She chooses to obfuscate, interrupt and deflect instead of engaging in civil point-counterpoint where (god forbid) Mr Krikorian may get his point across. It might work in most US university humanities classes but I expect more from BhTV. Please try again with someone who respects the subject, the other blogger and the viewers. As to Puerto Rico: I worked there for one year in 2004 and was as amazed by the trashed beaches and high crime rate as I was the disdain for everything American (except dollars). There are some wonderful people there but the movement for independance coupled with the demand for US largesse was strange indeed.

It wasn't only that Shikha was rude and dismissive; she was really loud. is that the fault of the Blogginhead editors?

The problem with complaining about Dalmia's indignant tone and occasional interruption is that she was clearly provoked. I know that there is a taboo against saying in public that anyone, short of an open Klan member, ever says or does anything racist ("the Race Card"). However, let's be honest. His views on immigration are racist. The point about "foreign born," which superficially seemed like a dead-end or a side-issue, is crucial. John McCain is "foreign born" (in Panama). Does that make him less "American"? Does that make him a threat to anything important (setting aside that very real risk that he may come to occupy the Presidency)? Does Krikorian even think so? No. He is clear. It's those Hispanics that he's worried about. Not because they are "foreign born," in the literal sense, but because even if they become citizens, he doesn't think they can ever really be Americans. He concedes that once they becomes citizens, there's "nothing we can do about that" (or some words to that effect), but he still defines them as a problematic category. Taboo or no taboo, I'm willing to call that racist. And how can one expect a person of color, and a "foreign

I agree with Drew: provide Dingalinks for your assertions. Though I'm more in favor of immigration than Krikorian is, I applaud his courteousness and deplore Dalmia's lack of same. If Dalmia really agreed -- as she claimed to -- that questions of immigration are definitional, not moral, then she wouldn't have so heatedly talked past every point that Krikorian made. The dialog never got to the point of discussing in any satisfying way whether or not low-wage immigrants depress the wages of American born low-wage workers. Dalmia was harangued the issues before they could be discussed.

all these libertarians seem to be salivating over opening the gates to immigration BUT nobody callls them out on the real issues on what their motivations are: to line the pockets of the rich by displacing citizens with cheap labor provided by those who are "foreign born." This is the elephant in the room...why isnt this issue discussed?

Is it just me or does Shikha's performance present the next wave in the opinion world? I think since that moment Jon Stewart appeared on Crossfire and asked the talking heads to be more real, information junkies have been hoping to hear discourse that is more direct, honest, and combined both head with heart. For those of you who think she was uncivil, I posit this to you: How civil is it to NOT engage others in a passionate way? I call that UNKIND! People talk about wanting a return to more civil public discourse, but I think the only way for us to move forward together is to really blow the top off civil discourse. Let's get furious about what we believe in, and bring some of our heart to our mind and logic. Let's care enough about each other to engage each other in this more real fashion than the decrepit claptrap banter that has become the norm. I really can't believe people are condemning this bright shining beacon of hope. Go, Shikha! Wake up world! Passion is the future! And if it isn't your future, what are you living for?

SteveD I completely agree with you. Dalmia’s naivety through this exchange – and I did not watch the whole thing – was quite amusing. What was amazing to me was that she took his arguments seriously – preachy though she was -- as if he actually cared about the facts. Only toward the middle did she seem to be catching on to how Krikorian has stacked the deck against immigrants when she said that it seemed that with him, “heads he wins, tails immigrants lose.” Did she not know that going into this debate? Had she watched this YouTube video on CIS’s vitriolic genesis she might have known what she was dealing with. The video shows that CIS, along with others of its ilk, has been funded by John Tanton, founder of the Federation for American Immigration Reform – an anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic group that reprinted French fascist Jean Raspail’s Camp of Saints that depicts France as being taken over by swarthy Eastern hordes arriving at its shores on a flotilla. Tanton has created fronts like the CIS to put a respectable patina on what is at root an utterly racist anti-immigrant agenda. CIS tries

what this conversation showed is that S. Dalmia can't listen and doesn't really know what her statistics mean. i'd love to see mark have a conversation with someone that is capable of engaging in a conversation instead of just being defensive and not listening.

like the "myth" that "foreign born" means being born in a different country? She couldn't even wrap her mind around one of the simplest ideas in the conversation. absolutely pathetic.

passion in arguments generally obscures both analysis and information. If you just want to scream at people and feel "empowered" then - sure your idea works. If you want a discussion to be something where both sides just might learn something or think about something in a new way, then passion ( as expressed by shikha in this DV) is a huge obstacle.

Ginger Baker writes:

all these libertarians seem to be salivating over opening the gates to immigration BUT nobody callls them out on the real issues on what their motivations are: to line the pockets of the rich by displacing citizens with cheap labor provided by those who are "foreign born."

Ironically, that is exactly the opposite of Krikorian's view of the motivation of pro-immigration advocates. According to his column on the issue in the National Review online, advocates of immigration see it as "a way to promote more socialism." Of course, you're both leaving out the more plausible interpretation: some people advocate immigration because it is so obviously a good thing. As for the impact of immigration on wages, it is well known that many of the most effective trade unionists, both now and in the past, have come from the ranks of immigrants, and when they are thus organized into unions immigrants have an enormously positive impact on wages. Nativist sentiments, by contrast, play into the hands of employers who want to weaken and undermine the