Lately I’ve been watching Fox News Channel more than usual. I’ve noticed Jesse Waters (who replaced Tucker Carlson, who replaced Bill O’Reilly) using a phrase a lot: military-age males. He invariably uses it to refer to immigrants, typically illegal immigrants.
Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit also did it recently.
When you observe the males they’re talking about, you know just as much about these males as Waters, Reynolds, et al do; in other words, not much.
They could just as easily go to UC Berkeley, wander around the campus, and notice that 90% or more of the males there are “military-age males.”
But they don’t refer to male U.S. college students that way.
So why do they refer to immigrants as “military-age males?” I think it’s to subtly plant in the listeners’ minds the fear that a hostile foreign government is sending these males here to help them take over or at least somehow undercut American society.
Could a substantial percent of these military-age males be actual military personnel, but in disguise? Sure, they could. But it seems unlikely.
Occam’s Razor applies here.
The more-likely explanation is that they want to get the hell out of the country they’re from because this country (the United States) is so much less oppressive and so much better in other ways. In fact, it wouldn’t be totally surprising if some of those military-age males were fleeing conscription. That was a strong motivator for their counterparts who came here between 100 and 150 years ago.
READER COMMENTS
Jon Murphy
Apr 16 2024 at 8:33am
Yeah. I mean, think of how the story would change if they used the equally accurate “labor-force age males.”
David Henderson
Apr 16 2024 at 9:53am
Right, Jon. Or, since they want so much to focus on youth, “young males.”
gwern
Apr 16 2024 at 11:41am
If it’s ‘young males’ then it’s not the same as ‘labor-force age males’, since there are a lot of men in the labor force who would not be drafted except in the utmost extremity (even Ukraine is trying to avoid drafting men over, what, 45?).
Anyway, it’s a dogwhistle for violent crime.
Jon Murphy
Apr 16 2024 at 10:48am
Every year, millions military-age men (and women!) gather in cities all around the country from roughly August to May. They semi-isolate themselves from the outside world and learn all sorts of military-adjacent tools. Some of them even spend inordinate amounts of time in the gym and playing violent games! Indeed, some are even recruited for their strength and aptitude in these games.
Sure, they may be called “universities,” but we know the truth: they are really just trying to train people to take our jobs! It’s an invasion.
MarkW
Apr 16 2024 at 11:37am
If they’re military age and military inclined, so much the better. Our armed forces are having trouble meeting their recruiting numbers and serving in the military is a route to citizenship. Win win.
Politics right now is SO discouraging. IMHO the Biden admin has brought us one disaster after another while on the other hand we have the know-nothing party of xenophobia in various forms (anti-immigration, anti-foreign trade) that is also only marginally less fiscally irresponsible than the blue tribe. Meanwhile, the Libertarians have been taken over by the paleos. Yikes.
Thomas L. Knapp
Apr 16 2024 at 3:30pm
And the same people bellyaching about “military age males” coming to the US are bellyaching about the inability of the US military to meet its recruitment quotas. It kinda seems like a win-win.
Mike Burnson
Apr 16 2024 at 7:54pm
The opening comments seem rather myopic, the readers’ comments closer to specious. The disproportionate number of “military-aged males” is a valid concern for many reasons, and it was regularly cited in Europe during the crush of “migrants” a few years ago. We should be very concerned about this malignant condition.
Young males are disproportionately criminal. They most certainly are NOT coming here for the opportunity to enlist and they almost universally fail to meet qualifying requirements for recruits. They certainly have shown no interest in gainful employment, as the total number of persons employed (BLS Household Survey) shows barely any change over the past year. That is, virtually all “job growth” has been people taking second jobs to cover lost purchasing power from inflation. Where do the 10 million illegals under Biden show up? BLS numbers cannot even be trusted nor believed: over the past year with 3 million additional illegals, BLS shows only 640,000 more employed (0.4%), about 560,000 more unemployed. Where are the three million illegals?
The Biden misadministration has corruptly opened our borders with essentially zero control over who is entering or where they are – starting with the BLS whose numbers are wildly inconsistent with illegal entries.
Jon Murphy
Apr 17 2024 at 7:59am
Surely, then, you must be concerned about the disproportiate number of military aged men who flood cities and towns across America every August through May? In many cases, this influx of military age individuals is so large, it changes the voting composition of the area (this is true of where I last lived, when the sleepy town of 3,000 mostly older folks was invaded every year by 15,000 military aged males and females)
Monte
Apr 17 2024 at 12:37pm
Jon,
What are your thoughts regarding undocumented military-aged men serving in the U.S. military? If, instead, we were to refer to undocumented military-aged men as college-aged men, would you support legislation making them eligible for federal financial aid, considering they’re already eligible for certain state and private college/university financial aid? Also, are you in favor of welfare benefits for undocumented working-aged men and women?
Most libertarians support free immigration but oppose the welfare state. Alex Nowrasteh has advanced the notion that, contra Friedman, the U.S. is capable of supporting both. Do you agree?
Jon Murphy
Apr 18 2024 at 7:53am
Great idea to me. Especially if the concern is them being “undocumented,” then being in the military makes them documented. Problem solved!
The point about “college-aged” versus “military-aged” is that they refer to the same age range. Just the latter is fear mongering. So, the question as posed is irrelevant.
No, except in a handful of extreme circumstances (eg hospital visits). Though, if the pathway to immigration and working were easier, it’d make the point moot.
I’ll defer to Alex on that. He has way more insight than I do on the matter.
Monte
Apr 18 2024 at 11:25am
I agree.
Whether or not you believe it to be irrelevant doesn’t really answer the question, but OK.
I agree, so long as the pathway we take is legal.
So by deferring to Alex, we can assume you agree with him? He has greater insight than me, as well, but I’m more convinced by those opposed who have as much expertise as Alex.
Thanks for the discussion.
Jon Murphy
Apr 19 2024 at 7:06am
Correct. I didn’t answer the question because I felt it was irrelevant to the point I was making.
No, that would be erroneous. I simply said I defer to him on the matter. He could be correct. He could be incorrect. I don’t know.
steve
Apr 17 2024 at 1:00pm
Yes, it was cited by anti-immigrant people in the EU, but why? Its a group that wont need to go to K-12 for school so it wont be so much of a tax burden and since they come here to work they will contribute to economic growth and pay into SS and Medicare and other taxes.
“BLS numbers cannot even be trusted nor believed” But we should trust your 3 million number? How does that work? I guess you get to win every argument if you get to choose which numbers you want to believe and dont want to believe.
Steve
Monte
Apr 17 2024 at 5:28pm
Most “military-aged males” come here to work, but it’s certain that a small percentage arrive here with bad intentions. Of particular concern to Gordon Chang, expert on U.S.- China relations, are the ~65K Chinese nationals among whom he claims represent a credible threat to our national security:
It’s also been suggested that some these young men are almost certainly members of China’s PLA. And some “military-aged males” from other countries belong to gangs involved in drugs, prostitution, and other criminal enterprises.
Given these statistics, shouldn’t we be a bit more discriminating with who we allow across our borders?
MarkW
Apr 18 2024 at 6:23am
Some portion of homegrown young males in every society exhibit ‘bad intentions’ when it comes to committing crimes. We manage this by having an effective criminal justice system, not by somehow ‘purifying’ our populace and then keeping it pure by preventing it from being ‘polluted’ by immigration.
There’s no reason to expect a higher percentage of immigrants to have ‘bad intentions’ than our own citizens. Do we get more total ‘bad’ people if we let in immigrants? Sure. But we also get more ‘bad’ people when we have population growth and fewer total bad people when the population shrinks (and ages — old people are much less likely to commit crimes). If your goal is fewest total number of bad people, you should be cheering for population aging and decline — are you?
Monte
Apr 18 2024 at 11:07am
And…you’re presenting this as an argument for open borders?
Laughter is an instant vacation.
The accusation that those of us who support pro-legal immigration are racists is just getting too old and worn out to bother with a response.
That’s the kicker, and that’s why we should control immigration and properly vet those who we let into our country.
Appealingly nonsensical.