Fences

For an example of how silly the right can get:  

Charles Krauthammer has said that "If fences don't work, then why do we have one around the White House?"

In case it is necessary:

1.   The fence around the WH is short.
2.   It is "closed" - that is it has no ends that one could go around.
3.   It is all in constant public view.

Pelosi advises the Republicans

Just for the record I support the Immigration bill, but does anyone else find the headlines like the following a bit odd?

Pelosi says Republicans need immigration reform to win presidency again

Does Pelosi really want to help the Republicans?

A country with a fence around it.

In a clip from Foxnews Kirsten Powers says  "I don't want to live in a country with a fence around it."

In this context a trigger is a requirement of 90% border security before certain steps are taken in the path to citizenship for the current illegal immigrants.

Ms. Powers says that the people who want a trigger are just using that idea to keep all immigrants out.  I have heard it said that people who assume that other people --- fill in the blank --- are themselves inclined to do   that which they accuse others of doing.  Ms. Powers made no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.  That suggests that what she really favors is open borders.  But it wouldn't do to admit that would it?

The Immigration Proposal

This is a variation the post "Immigration 2" on 7-6-10.

Contrary to what most people would prefer I think that the first thing to do about the immigration problem is to deal with the source of the problem. The IIUWs (illegal immigrants - undocumented workers) do not come here because it is fun to risk their lives crossing the border. They come for work. Therefore the focus should be on employment not the border. (The border should be secured, but that should be done because of drugs and terrorists not IIUWs.)

This proposal includes "Universal E-verify" which means that unless you are registered with the government as having legal status you cannot work.  To require employers to confirm the legal status of new employees means that the government has to  maintain a system which is universal and easily used by employers (since they will face the penalty for violations). This requires only  that new employees prove their legal status when they take a job. It does not require that they carry “papers please” or any of the silly claptrap that we have heard from Rachel Maddow et al. More importantly new IIUWs will not have any reason to come.

Step two involves taking down those two signs that we have on the border: “help wanted” and “no trespassing”. Replace them with one sign that says “help wanted apply at the front door”. In addition to regular legal immigration (expanded  to include more highly skilled immigrants), the proposal will establish an expanded and accessible “work visa” program. Apply, pass a background check similar to what is done for immigrants and receive a work visa.

With those two things you have dealt with the essence of the long term problem.

Now for the folks who are already here illegally. Currently they may go home and stay for 10 years and then apply for immigration.  This proposal will allow them to stay here with legal status including the right to work.  On the grounds that getting citizenship after you have come into the country illegally should be harder than getting it after you come in legally, the proposal includes a very difficult path from "legal status" to "green card".  It is harder than I would prefer, but it does not seem outrageously tough.

Of course we could just continue what we are doing now and let their employers use these folks to keep wages low and our politicians use their situation to incite our Hispanic citizenry.

Globalization

.
A friend sent me an exchange between two people from the right and left. I include a bit from each side to give you the flavor of it, and then include my thoughts.

The righty wrote: "It's easy to dismiss individual programs that benefit non-citizens until they're put together and this picture emerges. Someone did a lot of research to put together all of this data. Often these programs are buried within other programs making them difficult to find." .... there then followed a lot of data about how immigrants were destroying the country under the title: WHY is the USA BANKRUPT? It looked like one of those rabid things that you sometimes get in an email and drop in the trash.

The lefty responded with an erudite quote from Dietrich Bornhoeffer (sic) and then went on her own rant about globalization. It included:

"One major flaw in the message is the statement that illegal people 'suppress' wages for Americans. Very typical, hot-rhetoric distortion. The true 'suppression' of American living-wage comes from globalizaton; from corporate greed; from 'hoarding' profits for the few, instead of turning portion of profit back into the community. Outsourcing is the cause of failing wages, that is fact. The reality of immigrant labor is a minor piece of a very large and toxic puzzle. And, let us not forget that we are all 'immigrants.' Our people came from somewhere else, not all that long ago. And my people faced amazing animosity. It took generations of hard work and determination to come out of that, somewhat. The difference? There was work to be had. It had not been hauled off to Indonesia or China or India or wherever the few could grab the benefit provided by the many."

A little side point: If you are going to answer an irrational rant it does not help your argument (except with those who already agree with you) to make blatantly false statements. In point of fact, we are not all immigrants. To put single quotes around it may make it satisfy some esoteric sense of validity, but it is still silliness. I was born in this country and that makes me a native. I'm no more of an immigrant here than are the descendants of those Mexican families who stayed on this side of the border and became Americans when the land changed hands almost two hundred years ago. End of the side point.

Her message is that she cares for the many not the few. Yet globalization does not just help the few who are managing it. It helps - literally - billions of people around the world. Does anyone doubt that the Asians are living better today than they did 30 years ago. Why are liberals only concerned about the foreigners who are in our country? If the left is true to itself shouldn't they care about all of those other people who are being helped by globalization?

I don't think that globalization is a "choice". I think it is a fact of history. Since we can't build a fence around the country to keep people out, does anyone really think that we can build one that will keep all of that capital in? We cannot be separate from the world. I understand how frustrating it is to feel that the results of all of those battles that were fought in this country (and elsewhere) to get the worker a living share of the products of industry seem to be slipping away. But, as Margaret Thatcher said, "You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it.” I think that we have to recognize that labor's gains are going to have to be fought for again and this time on a world scale.

In my mind the big question for the left is which way will you choose: Are you going to seek your goals by empowering labor to force employers to pay a living wage or are you going to try to get the government to just take the money from the rich and redistribute it among the people?

Success by the former method will create a proud self reliant population.
Success by the latter method will produce a culture of dependency.
I'll bet you can guess which one I prefer.

BTW What did all of those folks (on both sides) think was going to happen when the rest of the world figured out how the West got that rich?
.

Immigration

.
I have friends who disparage the notion that there is anyone who favors "open borders" by which I would mean someone who believes that anyone who wants to come here should be allowed to come here and stay.

I have not seen anyone acknowledge that they support open borders. But there are keys that appear in the discussion of those who are very close to it. Here are a few:
The fact that there is a law against hiring people who are not here legally is not mentioned.
The notion that if they could not work, then they would self deport is not mentioned.
The statement that You can't deport 11 million people. is accepted as an obvious fact.
The persons in question are referred to as residents or immigrants.
The words illegal and unlawful are never used. The closest that they come is undocumented worker.
The fact that at some time ago someone broke the law in coming here is referred to euphemistically as "something in their past".
There will not be a question such as:"Do you believe that a nation has a right to determine who can come into their country?"


Last night I saw a show on PBS's Need to Know series which was, more or less, an infomercial for amnesty for the "undocumented immigrants" that are here now and coming in the future. It was mostly about the recent Alabama law. (I don't think much of these state laws either.) Someone mentioned a friend who was a naturalized citizen who didn't have a driver's license. It was noted that she couldn't carry her naturalization papers as ID because they are way too valuable and must be kept in a lockbox. The speaker doesn't indicate whether copies might work.

One of those interviewed was New York University Law Professor Alina Das.

When asked about improving the laws she answered with:
"The laws do have to recognize the reality of the way people come to this country ..."

In her view we do not set the law and aspiring immigrants follow it. It goes the other way:
First comes the reality of how people come into this country and then the law recognizes that.
She does not say the words "open borders", but her statement sure does sound like it.
.

California

.

From the Daily beast: Illegal immigrants in California will be eligible for financial aid now that Gov. Jerry Brown signed the Dream Act. But at the same time, Brown vetoed a controversial bill that would have let public universities consider an applicant's race and sex in admission decisions. "I wholeheartedly agree with the goal of this legislation," Brown said in his veto message, but he thought that the courts, not the legislature, should decide on the affirmative action law. Brown is sifting through a flurry of legislation that passed the legislature at the end of the session; he must sign or veto 142 more bills before midnight on Sunday.

Read the entire article in the SF Chronicle.
.

Kinds of immigrants

.
If you are listening to someone talk about immigration, take note of whether they distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. That will tell you a lot.
.

The Alabama immigration law

.
The other night (8-24-11) on the PBS news I watched a discussion of the new Alabama law on immigration. Among other things the law provides for school systems to require public school students to verify that they have legal status. The opposition to the law was represented by Mary Bauer of the Southern Poverty Law Center. She seemed to not be aware of any distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. Her main points against the Alabama law was that it is “extreme” and “radical” and “very extreme” and “anti-immigrant” and “controversial” and “contains incredibly extreme radical provisions”.
.

Papers Please

.
Well we have just returned from 6 weeks in Europe.

One of the things that we did there was, at all times, maintain identification on our persons including passports. On several occasions we were asked to produce them. For example we bought a cell phone and were required to show a passport.

Twice when we were being stopped for possible traffic violations (one warning, one fine) we had to show who we were. Papers Please! As Rachel Maddow would say in her imitation Nazi voice. Thank God the ACLU is working to prevent that kind of police state activity in Arizona.

Seriously, I did not feel at all put out that those countries felt that they had a right to expect me to stand and identify myself as a legal resident.

I agree with them and I think we should exercise the same right with respect to anyone seeking employment in this country. That would, of course, require everyone (including citizens) to demonstrate legal status when applying for work.
.

We are all immigrants?

.
Eliot Spitzer has a M-F show In The Arena (7 PM CDT on CNN) which leans left. It is a pretty interesting show, however, last nite Spitzer said: "As Eleanor Roosevelt said, 'We are all immigrants in this country.'"

I don't know whether she said anything so obviously and blatantly false or not, but it does seem to be consistent with the level of discussion on the issue of immigration.

Is it no longer true that making false statements undermines your argument?
.

immigration - chances this year

I suppose that it is too much to ask that the DsandRs do something about immigration.
Too much to ask the Ds to give up what they see as a good electoral issue.
Too much to ask the Rs to give up all that cheap defenseless labor.

How Obama can lose me.

.
It is possible for Obama to lose me next time.

He has already taken the first step. Immigration. He does not pursue a solution to the general immigration problem. At the same time he supports the "sanctuary cities" folks who are clearly acting in opposition to the Federal immigration laws and goes after the folks in Arizona who are trying to support the Federal immigration laws.

Now he has taken the second step. Money. He proposed a budget with a 1.7 trillion dollar deficit and ignored the long term problems. That is he supported the monetarily irresponsible types. Now he opposes those (read Govenors Walker, Daniels, and Christie) who are seriously attacking the problem.

2011 State of the Union

.
Well what I hear from the media suggests that I am not going to be happy with the SOTU. The focus will be on jobs, jobs, ... (repeat till you get tired) and will not focus on some of the things that would solve some other problems as well.

Two examples:
Even if Keynesian economics does require that we don't raise taxes right now, we could deal with some of the long term debt issues surrounding SS and Medicare.
That would have the immediate benefit of improving our financial credibility.

A serious approach to the immigration problem that would very simply require proof of legal status to be employed, enforced by severe penalties on the employers who violate it, which would require a reliable Government database that the employer could check. This would have to be combined with a serious work visa program which would allow immigrants in to do those jobs that really are jobs that "Americans won't do."
The immediate impact of that would be many of the illegal immigrants would self deport and free up some jobs. If you believe that all of the illegal immigrants are doing jobs that Americans would not take, then ask someone in the construction industry. It would also reduce downward pressure on wages.
.

Immigration 6

There are two groups that I disagree with on the subject of immigration.
Group one says: stop immigration into the US.
Group two says: if you are against illegal immigration, then you are in group one.

The Rs win in AZ

They say that unless the Republicans recognize that Hispanics are the fastest growing minority they are going to lose a lot of elections.

In this argument "recognize" means vote for whatever "pro-Hispanic" legislation is being pushed at the moment. If it encourages illegal immigration well then that is just what the Rs are going to have to accept in order to woo the Hispanic vote.

In Arizona the Rs have not been doing that and they just won big in the 2010 elections.

Maybe "they" are wrong. Maybe being an Hispanic American does not necessarily mean that you support every proposal that comes down the line that promotes more illegal immigration.

Maybe.

.

borders?

take a slogan:
No human being is illegal. - ACLU website
add a little logic:
An immigrant is a human being.
Therefore, no immigrant is illegal.
Therefore, all immigrants are legal.
Therefore we must have open borders.

Revising the 14th amendment

It might be a good idea to revise the criteria for birthright citizenship someday, but not right now and not because of “anchor babies”. The argument is that (contrary to established immigration law) we are going to be intimidated into granting immediate citizenship to the relatives of a baby who obtained its own citizenship by being born here. That we will wilt in the face of the claim that if we do not give citizenship to illegal aliens who have a citizen baby, then we are “tearing families apart” and worse we are: “ripping babies from their mother’s arms”. I don’t doubt that the case will be made and I don’t doubt that the media will be unable to resist playing up such an emotional appeal. But the proper response to that “argument” is: “No we are not doing anything to families because the parents have the right to choose. They can take the child with them.” If our policy making procedures cannot overcome that kind of emotionalism, then we cannot be saved by a constitutional amendment.

Mediocrates says

No human being is illegal. - ACLU

Immigration 5

It’s gonna’ have to be bipartisan for it to be effective and the trade off is gonna’ have to be improved security of our borders at the same time allowing those who are already here to reach out for that American dream.
Barack Obama 2004 Senate campaign radio interview