The people who believe that Yglesias has found an Arnold lie are the same ones who believe Kerry spent Christmas in Cambodia (which not even Kerry believes anymore).

Amen, brother. I came to the US from Holland in 2000 and haven’t looked back since.

What I appreciate most is American’s openness (I live in SC) and can-do attitude. Of course, the fact that everyone isn’t terminally depressed because of lack of sunshine helps ;-)

I have one gripe with Arnold’s speech, however. According to Arnold:

In this country, it doesn't make any difference where you were born. It doesn't make any difference who your parents were.

Not so. Once you have a Green Card it doesn’t make any difference anymore. But before that happens, not having the right papers is the modern-day equivalent of being a leper (to HR folks, at least). I have personally been passed over for many job opportunities, regardless of my competence or experience, because I don’t have work permission yet.

Nevertheless, if I were an American citizen seeking to stay in the Netherlands, I’d be in a worse position. Because, (1) lots of people would hate my guts or think I’m stupid because I was an American, and (2) there is no Green card system in Holland for non-Europeans.

It seems both countries have a paradoxical problem with immigration: it’s easy for illegal workers who take bad, low paying jobs, but hard for professionals who can really make an impact and help grow the economy. In my opinion, the US should STRIVE to be a brain-drain on the rest of the world. Smart immigrants aren’t a threat to American jobs. They are more of a threat to American jobs if they are forced to work oversees.

#1. It assumes that Schwarzeneggar's political philosophy has remained frozen since his immigration. I don't think that is realistic and it is very hard to tell exactly how it has changed since that time from his current rosy-colored speeches. He wasn't a political figure at the time, so there's not a good record of his political thoughts from the period to compare to now;

#2. He does leave out a few things that may have tarnished WJC's credentials in Schwarzeneggar's eyes: Hillarycare, the fact that WJC was a very reluctant welfare reformer (although very good at hopping aboard enthusiastically and claiming the credit once he realized he wasn't gonna win the fight), the slow and aimless reduction of the military by funding attrition in the post Cold War period, his absolutely ineffectual projection of military power in all cases but Kosovo (and arguably ineffective in the longer-term there), and most importantly, Schwarzenegger's love of tax cuts. Less certainly, I seem to remember reading that Schwarzenegger is a moderately firm supporter of 2nd amendment rights, an area traditionally weak for the Democrats.

#3. Schwarzeneggar is a Republican not just in the US as a whole, but specifically in Kah-leee-for-neee-aaa. While perhaps not a rabid as they once were, I think there are still enough "Californian Democrats" (worse, HOLLYWOOD Democrats!) around that the constant daily exposure to them would tend to, uhhhh, negatively impact any perception of a "centralizing" Democratic shift that he might otherwise see coming from Washington.

Matthew obviously missed Orson Welles' classic The Third Man, set in circa 1949 Vienna, as part of his liberal arts education.

Good luck to you, and glad to have you here. Striving, hardworking immigrants are America's secret weapon. I wish you all the best in your endeavors.

regards,
lex

Why not? Let's start with that Humphrey-Nixon story. It conveys that Schwarzenegger's understanding of the two parties is frozen in 1968. That's a long time ago. Both parties have changed a lot. The Democrats under Bill Clinton rediscovered a centrist philosophy they had abandoned. They became more attentive to public safety and more friendly to free enterprise. The Republican Party also shifted—not to the center, but to the right. If you liked where Nixon stood in the late 1960s and early 1970s, you're more likely to find similar policies 30 years later not in the administration of George W. Bush, but in the administration of Bill Clinton and possibly the administration of John Kerry."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106025/

Saletan's point being that Arnold was the big appeal to moderates who like fiscal conservatism but are turned off by the Christian fundamentalists who dominate the party today. And yet the Republican Party Arnold lauds in 1968 is actually the Democratic Party of today. Arnold is, and has always been, a Rockefeller/Eisenhower Republican. These folks never rejected the basis of the New Deal - they just wanted it to be less intrusive than the Democrats wanted. Even as the GOP turned to the right in 1980 the alternative for Arnold Republicans was still unacceptable as the Mondales still dominated the Democratic Party. But then with Clinton we had a free trader and budget balancer, and a generally centrist outlook. The old Great Society Democrats were largely repudiated in the party. Not completely absent, mind you - Paul Wellstone, Jesse Jackson, Teddy Kennedy were all there to keep the flame burning. But nobody from that economic wing would ever be nominated for President again. Even the "maverick" Democrat this year, Howard Dean, was a fiscal conservative as Governor. So if Arnold Schwarzeneggar was inspired by the GOP of 1968, and by all indications his ideology hasn't shifted to the right since that time, then the party holding it most is the Joe Lieberman - and possibly John Kerry (though who really knows :) - wing of the Democratic Party, not the George W. Bush wing of the Republican Party.

Curious, that.

How about pre-Thatcher Britain? Each of those economies are (or were) “mixed” economies in the loose sense that they have capitalist elements, but each and everyone of the ones I named is socialist.

Wow, 'The Monk': you're astonishingly ignorant of European economies.

The Netherlands is a democracy, but also very socialistic. Starting your own business, not being part of a union, believing in free trade, are all things that are looked down upon. Even worse, if you are a politician that stands up for it, you literally get killed.

The #1 reason why I left the Netherlands four years ago is because its never ending push for socialistic ideals. Being against them is oddly enough described as fascist and Nazi like.

I came to America for much the same reasons as Arnold did. While I am not, yet, nearly as successful as him, I have had a better life and more success than I ever had in Europe.

And while not old enough to know anything from first hand experience on WWII, Vietnam or the start of the cold war, I do remember the anti-nuke protests of 1986 in Amsterdam. As an 8 year old, I clearly was too young to understand why this was necessary. But Arnold was right when he said that it was the U.S., and Reagan, that took the threat of the Sovjets away, and with that the much hated nukes. It takes time to win the peace and it takes even more time to win it in way that in the end everybody wins. It is something that is easily forgotten, just as it seems like 9/11.

Arnold's speech summed up why I moved to the U.S., why I am proud to be here and why the struggle to get a green card and a citizenship is worth it. He reminded me why I am here, why I support the Republican party and why I am proud to be able to contribute to the greatest nation in the world.