So Obama has new ideas. What are they one might ask? To be sure, like any good politician, he offers something for everyone: the teachers’ union, veterans, “working families”, college students, taxpayers, small businesses, alternative energy development, the war in Afghanistan, poverty and health care. He claims he has already identified the sources of funds to pay for all of this but in the next breath says he will (future tense) go through the budget line by line and eliminate those programs that don’t work and close loopholes. This suggests that he hasn’t actually figured out how to pay for all of this.
He said he would reduce taxes for 95% of “working families”. Has that term ever been defined? Who does it include? Who does it exclude? Do you have to have blue collar to head up a working family? How about retirees on a fixed income? Do they get a tax break? How about those with 401ks? Will he impose new taxes on the dividends and capital gains earned by the underlying mutual funds of 401ks and other pension funds? His words may sound good to the uninformed but not to someone who is tax-savvy or who is dependent on those funds.
He says drilling for more oil can only be a stop-gap measure yet if we exploit all natural gas and oil deposits available in the United States and offshore, there would be enough to last us for the rest of this century, especially if we stabilize our population. Of course, we must push ahead with the development of alternative energy sources of all kinds with great urgency. Everyone knows that. Obama is preaching to the choir on that issue. His reluctance to wholeheartedly endorse the development of all of our oil and gas resources, even as a stopgap, should be troubling to every American who understands how energy dependent our society and economy is.
Now to Afghanistan. It is here that Obama demonstrates his ignorance of the war on terror. He made fun of McCain’s remark that he would follow Bin Laden to his cave. Obama has no appreciation of the fact that that is exactly what we have been trying to do while we concurrently deal with a resurgent Taliban. Obama has no new ideas in that area except to close down the war in Iraq “responsibly” (this is a new term for him, earlier he wanted us to withdraw without that condition) and place those troops in harm’s way a short distance away in Afghanistan. He doesn’t know or doesn’t comprehend that the Brits and the Russians came a cropper in that backward country and its history would indicate that no country can overcome the horrible conditions that exist there for the fighting man without unspeakable casualties. Obama has not plan for finding Bin Laden or bringing that conflict to a close “responsibly”
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Cindy McCain vs the "Unproud" One
Cindy McCain
Bet you would have never guessed this one! No matter your politics. The media will never tell of this, so pass it on.
GO GIRL!!!!!!!! !!
There was an article in the Wall Street Journal on Cindy McCain, John's wife. All I ever saw was this attractive woman standing beside John. I was surprised how talented and involved with world problems she is. This is a summary of the article.
She graduated from Southern Cal and was a special-needs teacher.
After her Dad died she became involved with his beer distributing firm and is now the chairwoman. Sales have doubled since she has taken over from her father.
They have a marriage prenuptial agreement, her assets remain separate. She is involved around the world clearing land mines - travels to these countries on a detonation team and service on their board.
They have a 19 year old serving in Iraq , another son in the Naval Academy , a daughter recently graduated from Columbia Univ. , an adopted daughter in high school, and a son who is the finance guy at the beer firm.
Raised kids in Phoenix , Az. rather than Washington DC . (better atmosphere) He commuted.
In 1991, Mrs. McCain came across a girl in an orphanage in Bangladesh . Mother Teresa implored Mrs. McCain to take the baby with severe cleft palate. She did so without first telling her husband. The couple adopted the girl who has had a dozen operations to repair her cleft palate and other medical problems.
They have a Family Foundation for children's causes.
She's active with 'Halo Trust' - to clear land mines, provide water and food in war ravaged and developing countries.
She will join an overseas mission of 'Operation Smile', a charity for corrective surgery on children's faces.
She has had two back surgeries and became addicted to pain killers. She talks openly about it which she says is part of the recovery process.
I'm surprised the media is so quiet about her attributes. She sounds more capable than Hillary or Obama. We would really get two for the price of one. A person with business and international experience. John did work for the firm for awhile when he left the Navy. She, however, has the real business experience. Very interesting.
Bet you would have never guessed this one! No matter your politics. The media will never tell of this, so pass it on.
GO GIRL!!!!!!!! !!
There was an article in the Wall Street Journal on Cindy McCain, John's wife. All I ever saw was this attractive woman standing beside John. I was surprised how talented and involved with world problems she is. This is a summary of the article.
She graduated from Southern Cal and was a special-needs teacher.
After her Dad died she became involved with his beer distributing firm and is now the chairwoman. Sales have doubled since she has taken over from her father.
They have a marriage prenuptial agreement, her assets remain separate. She is involved around the world clearing land mines - travels to these countries on a detonation team and service on their board.
They have a 19 year old serving in Iraq , another son in the Naval Academy , a daughter recently graduated from Columbia Univ. , an adopted daughter in high school, and a son who is the finance guy at the beer firm.
Raised kids in Phoenix , Az. rather than Washington DC . (better atmosphere) He commuted.
In 1991, Mrs. McCain came across a girl in an orphanage in Bangladesh . Mother Teresa implored Mrs. McCain to take the baby with severe cleft palate. She did so without first telling her husband. The couple adopted the girl who has had a dozen operations to repair her cleft palate and other medical problems.
They have a Family Foundation for children's causes.
She's active with 'Halo Trust' - to clear land mines, provide water and food in war ravaged and developing countries.
She will join an overseas mission of 'Operation Smile', a charity for corrective surgery on children's faces.
She has had two back surgeries and became addicted to pain killers. She talks openly about it which she says is part of the recovery process.
I'm surprised the media is so quiet about her attributes. She sounds more capable than Hillary or Obama. We would really get two for the price of one. A person with business and international experience. John did work for the firm for awhile when he left the Navy. She, however, has the real business experience. Very interesting.
Obama's Descent from the Firmament
My impression of the aerial view of the Obama stage at Invesco Field at Mile High is that it is a preparation for a descent from the heavens by Obama in flowing white robes sans the turban. Anything less will be seen as an anticlimax, a reversal of his role as the messiah of change (as though we have never heard that word many times before from politicians), and an ending totally inconsistent with the DNC’s $5 million rental of this facility for its final night extravaganza.
Monday, August 25, 2008
President?
I was talking to my friend's little girl, and she said she wanted to be President some day.
Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, “If you were President, what would be the first thing you would do?”
She replied, “I’d give houses to all homeless people.”
“Wow…what a worthy goal,” I told her. “You don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I will take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward a new house.”
She thought that over for a few seconds while her Mom glared at me, then looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?
And I said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.” Her parents still aren’t talking to me.
Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, “If you were President, what would be the first thing you would do?”
She replied, “I’d give houses to all homeless people.”
“Wow…what a worthy goal,” I told her. “You don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I will take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward a new house.”
She thought that over for a few seconds while her Mom glared at me, then looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?
And I said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.” Her parents still aren’t talking to me.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
A Corporate Model for Dealing with Illegal Aliens
Following World War II, in 1945-46, more than 8 million ethnic Germans were expelled from the Eastern Territories in less than a year. Although this amply demonstrated the logistic feasibility of a mass repatriation of foreign nationals, few Americans believe it is desirable or necessary to undertake a similar effort now to rid the U.S. of most of its 12 million illegal aliens. In any event, everyone knows it couldn’t be done overnight even with our modern transportation systems. That, of course, does not deter the mass legalization proponents from claiming time and again that mass overnight deportation is the only model under consideration.
Krikorian has suggested a different and more suitable model from the business world.[1] When a business needs to down size it may (1) institute a hiring freeze, (2) make some layoffs, and/or (3) create incentives for early retirement. The analogues for illegal aliens would be (1) secure borders to stop new illegal violations and settlements, (2) conventional deportations, and (3) the creation of incentives for self-deportation by denying employment opportunities to the illegals.
This is a suitable model because, properly administered, it could be very effective. It is fair because it incorporates the same general rules under which citizens, who have a much higher degree of entitlement, must work.
Even Ruben Navarrette, columnist for the San Diego Union and the darling of the pro-illegals, has conceded the need for some if not all of these measures.[2] He says by way of enforcement that we need to stiffen penalties on employers. This certainly is a way of denying employment opportunities to illegals particularly if those penalties are on an escalating scale. Moreover, he agrees that the word “knowingly” must be removed from any future reform proposals because that loophole permits employers to escape punishment merely by claiming they “didn’t know” an employee was illegal. The elimination of this single word is therefore of vital importance.
Navarrette is serious about enforcement. He would add an identification card, better tools for the border patrol, continued workplace raids, accelerated deportations, arrest of an employer once in a while, and an extension of the deployment of the National Guard at the border. These are all good ways to help enforce the law.
On the other hand, Navarrette wants to legalize those aliens who can prove they have been here 5 years or longer. This is not an unreasonable proposal when it is coupled with his other requirements: irrefutable proof of length of time in the U.S., fluency in English, a $5,000 fine, and a criminal background check. In addition, illegals would have to initiate and process applications for legal entry in their homelands and then accept a position at the back of the line of all prior applicants. Navarrette would also impose a lifetime ban on welfare, food stamps and Medicaid but allow those whose applications are approved to collect whatever they had contributed to Social security.
Krikorian’s “conventional deportations” could be construed to be applicable only to the illegals who have been here less than five years. Limiting deportations to more recent arrivals would be consistent with Navarrette’s recommendation. But since many deportees are back in the U.S. within 24 hours and since 97% of those who attempt to violate the border are ultimately successful, simple deportation is not a solution. Without some additional penalty, deportation is not much of a disincentive for the illegal who wishes to return.
Many will disagree with Navarrette regarding his proposal to increase the allotment of green cards, including H1B visas for highly skilled workers and triple the number of legal immigrants admitted annually to 3 million. The former might be reasonable if that increase is precisely tailored to the demonstrated needs of our economy and approved by local unions and professional organizations. Of course, citizens must be assured first dibs on all jobs at the standard wage rate for citizens with equal credentials and experience.
The proposal to triple the number of legal immigrants ignores all the changes in our society, economy, government, education, technology, natural resources, demography and lifestyles that have occurred since the previous immigration waves of the 19th and early 20th centuries. When proposals of this nature are made there is never any reasonable rationale whereas there is an ample rationale for reducing the number of annual legal immigrants allowed. Declining natural resources, congested highways and streets, and environmental damage are only a few of the many reasons to reduce that number to more like the 200,000 per year. This was the level just a few years ago. According to the UN, the annual output of pollutants by Americans is 20 metric tons per capita. This means that as our population increases by another 300 million people before the end of this century, we will produce another 6 billion tons of pollutants annually at the present rate. Even if we were to be able to reduce our annual output to 10 metric tons per capita (the output of Mexico) we would still be unable to reduce our total annual production of green house gases below the present level, leaving us with the status quo ante.
Labor demands are certainly important as Navarrette suggests but families should be required to apply as a group to avoid the family reunification ploy. Nevertheless, in a competitive world, education and skills cannot be ignored and are certainly far from “silly” as Navarrette has condescendingly called them.
No democratically-elected government, however firm the demands or wishes of their constituents might be, has been able to move quickly to solve problems that profoundly affect the country they are sworn to protect against enemies, foreign and domestic.[3] Often, in its attempts to act, government is unable to avoid policies that have unintended consequences because policymakers rarely understand the scope and long term impact of their actions. Likewise, although members of Congress and the President may understand the need for action they may not fully appreciate the danger or cost or long term effect of further delays. As a result of this lack of a sense of urgency, they fail to expend the energy necessary to achieve compromise on bipartisan solutions to the important problems facing our country. Moreover, they tend to evaluate new proposals in terms of the here and now rather than what those proposals, if enacted, might mean to the long term viability of the American culture, language, ideals, environment, natural resources and prosperity. Their prodigious myopia leads to another set of unintended consequences later when it may be too late to correct their errors.
Just as often it means that Congress and the Administration have failed to comprehend the import of the dramatic changes that have occurred in our country over the last 100 years. Many of them are still living in the past. Their thinking is still constrained by the false idea that since America was once a nation of immigrants with seemingly unlimited natural resources, it should or can always be. They are deluded into thinking the status quo in that regard is in the national interest.
Does this sound like they have changed with the times? Does it sound like they have fully digested all of the changes in our government, economy, population, natural resources, education, technology, demography and lifestyles that should affect their thinking about major problems like immigration, illegal aliens, birthright citizenship, and population growth. The present Administration and the Congress have neither responded to these changes nor to the exigencies of long term population growth occasioned by excessive legal immigration and the uncontrolled, unarmed invasion by illegal aliens, some of whom would do us great harm.
Many proclaim the importance of secure borders but at the same time propose a mass legalization of the illegals already present in the U.S., granting to them what many call, with some justification, an outright amnesty not unlike the failed one of 1986. The 1986 measure assumed that once amnesty was granted to those already here, the borders could then be secured to avoid future problems. Instead, that amnesty gave a green light and extended an open invitation to millions of additional illegals. Obviously, the borders should have been secured before any amnesty was granted and yet, in spite of the aftermath of the 1986 measure, a significant number of those in Congress want to repeat that mistake. It doesn’t matter whether there are some conditions imposed for legalization, this approach will still be perceived as an open invitation for additional millions of illegals. Those who cannot meet the conditions will simply stay on illegally while their progeny acquire birthright citizenship.
The greatest perfidy of many of those who claim that they support secure border is that they offer only lip service and continue to deny the DHS the tools it needs to achieve that goal. Anyone with knowledge about horrendous amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and the others circumstances at the borders knows that only the most stringent measures have any hope of success. Improvements in staffing and infrastructure at the borders are bound to fail unless they are buttressed by changes in the rules of engagement and a defense in depth.
The rules of engagement must permit hot pursuit and the use of lethal force against drug runners and other violent criminals encountered in the immediate environs of the border. Other illegals who are apprehended must be detained and required to work on border infrastructure projects at minimum wage for an appropriate time before they are released with the admonition that if they ever return illegally they will do hard time for two years for the first repeat offense and five years for each subsequent offense. No form of catch and release can be permitted even for those apprehended immediately at ports of entry. If illegals are simply escorted back across the border, they will try again and again, sometimes in the same day, with an ultimate success rate of 97%. Obviously, a policy of immediate expulsion is utterly useless and ineffective.
Defense in depth means a program of vigorous and continuous internal enforcement using mandatory E-verification of work status as one of its most important tools. Both employers and employees that violate the rules must face an escalating schedule of penalties sufficient to deter future violations. To be effective the cost of breaking the law must always dramatically exceed the benefits.
Other features of the failed comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) proposals of the past include new forms of visas, major increases in the number of visas granted, and a huge temporary worker program without any teeth to assure that these workers are indeed temporary and that they promptly return to their homelands when their visas expire.
While no one wishes to deny employers the labor they need, immigration policies must assure that foreign workers are paid at the same rate as their citizen counterparts and that they are provided with full family health care coverage so that that cost is not offloaded on the unsuspecting public. Employers must demonstrate that they have been unable to meet their needs by offering their jobs to qualified citizens at a living wage. Otherwise, the importation of cheap foreign labor would constitute unfair competition with citizen workers.
There is a broader issue related to our ability to assimilate large numbers of legal immigrants and illegal aliens or foreign workers. Krikorian has pointed out how the changes in American society have made it much more difficult if not impossible to achieve the kind of assimilation that occurred following past waves of immigration.[4] Trans-nationalism, a cousin of globalism, facilitated by modern communication, is only one of several factors that reduce the probability of assimilation.
The characteristics of our newest immigrants are not that different from those of a century ago. Their faces and their languages may be different but their aspirations, work ethic, and desire to improve their lives and those of their families are not much different from those of the earlier immigrants. They are not necessarily the poorest of the poor but now they come from what many of us would call third world countries. The earlier immigrants from Europe were often poor but they came from countries that were never considered third world. Those countries were the font of learning and scientific achievement.
So what is different today that justifies a more critical view of the newest immigrants and illegal aliens? It is the changes in America itself more than the differences in the immigrants. The society, economy, government and technology of the past, which were so fundamental to our success in dealing with the waves of immigration extending from the middle of the 19th century to the early 20th century, no longer exist. The changes that define modern America mean we can no longer depend on what once worked to assure the assimilation of millions of foreign-born immigrants and illegal aliens.
A vast unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers and their successors. Its natural resources were virtually untapped and appeared limitless. Arable land and water were abundant. Family farms were scattered across the landscape and farming, hunting, fishing and herding employed more Americans than any other occupation. Now thirsty cities are buying up water rights to serve their burgeoning populations leaving behind the land made unproductive by the lack of water resources. The ranches and farms will no longer be able to produce the food needed to feed the growing numbers of Americans as our population doubles again by the end of this century to 600 million people.
When one young leader spoke eloquently and passionately in 1933 about the need for change and denounced the old system, the people were receptive.[5] Elsewhere, in 1950, another such leader sounded a similar note. The press fell in love with both and never questioned who their friends were or what they really believed in, until it was too late and the moment had passed. When they said they would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, the adulation was predictable. When they promised to restore lost power and bring justice and equality to all, the people said, Heil!” or “Viva Fidel”. When these leaders said, “I will be for change and I’ll bring you change” the cheers were unending. Does that sound familiar?
But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the concentration camps were set up and the executioner’s guns rang out, the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they had no rights and equality was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late because it was now controlled by the government or the propaganda ministry. The endings of these stories are well-known. Millions died, treasuries were depleted, and more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes to escape the tyranny of change.
Luckily, in America, we would never fall for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America? How is the change you offer different from the change all politicians offer? And the free media would never be seduced by political rhetoric of change. Instead it would examine all of the consequences of proposed changes and ask the hard questions about how these changes would be paid for while paying down the national debt, balancing the budget, restoring the value of the dollar, and repairing America’s decaying infrastructure. No, we wouldn’t do that in America, would we?
To suggest that the main reason for the opposition to excessive legal immigration and the flood of illegal aliens is the fact that they are not from Northern Europe is at once an error and a gross oversimplification. Nevertheless, this is the chief argument of those like Ruben Navarrette who refers disdainfully to those who disagree with him as “nativists”.
Immigrants in the past were largely white, but now they are not; they used to want to assimilate, but now they don’t; they used to be self-sufficient, but now they seek out government assistance. We’ve all heard those laments and they are largely true. But the America of our ancestors no longer exists and that is a fact. Change, of course, is inevitable. Some changes will be good; other changes will be bad as they were in the Germany of the 1930s and the Cuba of the 1950s and beyond. We all welcome the spread of cheap communications and transportation but mourn the weakening of our communities; the establishment of trans-national communities; acceptance dual citizenship; the failure to enforce, language, citizenship and immigration laws; the use of drugs; the spread of fast foods; the dumbing down of our schools, the excessive cost of education and health care; and the inactivity and increasing obesity of our children.
Certain changes have been embraced by some but not by others; the growth in government, for instance, is seen by the Left as recognition of our social responsibility to the poor and the marginalized but feared by the Right as likely to erode liberty and personal responsibility and require confiscatory taxes. One presidential candidate promises higher taxes, the other advocates making the present tax rates permanent. Neither discusses paying down the national debt, balancing budget, fixing our decaying infrastructure or restoring world confidence in the dollar as the international medium of exchange. One proposes various alternative energy initiatives coupled with a new push for conservation but opposes development of known oil fields and nuclear power. The other sees offshore drilling as essential to provide oil during the lengthy transition period to alternative energy sources and for the other uses of oil and petrochemicals that cannot easily be replaced.
We are all familiar with the inherent characteristics of our modern society and how they affect the way we live. Fewer understand or even think about how immigration undermines many of the objectives that our modern, middle-class society sets for itself and exacerbates many of the problems brought on by modernization. As Mark Krikorian put it, “…mass immigration is incompatible with a modern society”. John Fonte, a Hudson Institute scholar, stated it even more succinctly, “It’s not 1900 anymore.” Those who keep haranguing us about our immigrant past fail to see how changes in our society make it a whole new ball game that needs fresh thinking rather than remaining mired in the past.
The process of Americanizing immigrants was tumultuous and wrenching for everyone involved but eventually successful. Those prior immigrants have indeed become one people because American nationality is not based on blood relations, like a biological family, but is more like a family growing partly by adoption, where new immigrants attach themselves to their new country and embrace the cultural and civic values of their native-born brethren as their own. Instead of rejecting the moral underpinnings of our republic as the archaic thoughts of some crusty old men, the earlier immigrants earned the right to claim those moral principles as their own as though they were blood of blood, and flesh of flesh of the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and so they are.
This was illustrated poignantly in 1920 when Japanese American children in Honolulu’s McKinley High School referred to “our Pilgrim forefathers” and were able to recite the Gettysburg Address from memory. And they had every right to do so because they had adopted those moral principles on which our country was founded and which were totally foreign to the country of origin of their parents.
The changes in America since the mid 1800s and early 1900s are many. Some examples of those changes are as follows:[6]
Economy: A century ago, what economists call the primary sector of the economy (farming, fishing, hunting, and herding) still employed more Americans than any other, as it had from the dawn of humankind. Today only 2 percent of our workforce occupies itself in this way. Meanwhile, the tertiary sector (service industries) now employs 80 percent of working Americans, and the percentage is climbing.
Education: Along with the change in the economy, education has become more widespread. Nearly a quarter of American adults had less than 5 years of schooling in 1910; as of 2000, that figure is less than 2 percent. Likewise, the percentage that had completed high school increased six fold, from about 13 percent of the totals to 84 percent. And the percent of college graduates increased tenfold from 2.7 to 27 percent. Another way to look at it is that in 1900, only a little more than 10 percent of high-school age children were actually enrolled in school; in 2001, nearly 95 percent were.
Technology: In 1915, a three-minute call from New York to San Francisco cost about $20.70 (about $343 in 2000 dollars); the same call in 2000 cost 36 cents. In 1908, a Model T cost more than two years’ worth of the typical worker’s wages; a Ford Taurus in 1997 (a much better car) cost eight months’ work. A thousand-mile airline trip in 1920 would have cost the average American 220 work hours; by 2000, it cost perhaps 11 work hours.
Demography: The birthrate fell by half during the past century, while infant mortality fell by 93 percent. In 1915, sixty-one out of 10,000 mothers died during childbirth; in 2001, only one out of 100,000 did. Life expectancy went from 47 years in 1900 to 77 years a century later, while people 65 and older have tripled as a share of the nation’s population, from about 4 percent to more than 12 percent.
Government: In 1900, total government spending at all levels equaled about 5.5 percent of the economy; by 2003, it was more than 36 percent. Total government employment (federal, state and local) went from little more than 1 million in 1900 (about 4 percent of the workforce) to more than 22 million in 2000 (more than 16 percent of the workforce).
Lifestyle: America’s population was still 60 percent rural in 1900; in 2000, only 21 percent of Americans lived in rural areas (and only a tiny fraction was involved in farming). The average household went from more than 4.5 people to a little more than 2.5, while the number of people per room in the average house fell from 1.1 in 1910 to 0.4 in 1997.
These major changes require new policies and outlooks regarding immigration and our ability to maintain the cohesiveness of our country through effective assimilation and the discouragement of trans-national enclaves and communities. The original ideal of our country are timeless but the willingness of legal immigrants and illegal aliens to accept them is in doubt
This is not to say that the national goal should be zero net immigration. Again Krikorian has the right idea.[7] He suggests a zero-based budgeting approach. This would mean that rather than dealing with reductions from the previous level of immigration we should start with zero immigration and then work up. “From zero we must then consider what categories of immigrants are so important to the national interest that their admission warrants risking the kinds of problems…” [8] inherent in excessive immigration numbers. The three major categories that must be considered are: family-based, skills-based, and humanitarian immigration. Navarrette again agrees with Krikorian that family-based immigration makes no sense except for spouses and minor children. “The others are grown adults with their own lives, for whom “family reunification” is a misnomer.[9] Navarrette would abandon the skills-education criterion and shift it to a needs basis. In other words, if we need nurses, our immigration policies should enable a fast track for the admission of those with skills and credentials in this area. I would add fluency in English as a criterion for those professions, like medicine, where this is important. In fact, I would give special consideration and priority to all applicants who are fluent in English. Krikorian suggests that aliens of extraordinary ability and outstanding professors and researchers should also be admitted quickly with a minimum of bureaucratic delay.
Policymakers have not changed with the times. They have not have fully digested all of the changes in our government, economy, population, natural resources, education, technology, demography and lifestyles that should affect their thinking about major problems like immigration, illegal aliens, birthright citizenship, and population growth. The present administration and the Congress have neither responded to these changes nor to the exigencies of long term population growth occasioned by excessive legal immigration and the uncontrolled, unarmed invasion by illegal aliens, some of whom would do us great harm.
There is a broader issue related our ability to assimilate large numbers of legal immigrants and illegal aliens or foreign workers. Krikorian has pointed out how the changes in American society have made it much more difficult if not impossible to achieve the kind of assimilation that occurred as a result of past waves of immigration.[10]
The characteristics of our newest immigrants are not that different from those of a century ago. Their faces and their languages may be different but their aspirations, work ethic, and desire to improve their lives and those of their families are not much different from those of the earlier immigrants. They are not necessarily the poorest of the poor but now they come from what many of us would call third world countries. The earlier immigrants from Europe were often poor but they came from countries that were never considered third world.
So what is different today that justifies a more critical view of the newest immigrants and illegal aliens? It is the changes in America itself more than the differences in the immigrants. The society, economy, government and technology of the past, which were so fundamental to our success in dealing with the waves of immigration extending from the middle of the 19th century to the early 20th century, no longer exist. The changes that define modern America mean we can no longer depend on what once worked to assure the assimilation of millions of foreign-born immigrants and illegal aliens.
A vast unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers and their successors. Its natural resources were virtually untapped and appeared limitless. Arable land and water were abundant. Family farms were scattered across the landscape and farming, hunting, fishing and herding employed more Americans than any other occupation. Now thirsty cities are buying up water rights to serve their burgeoning populations leaving behind the land made unproductive by the lack of water resources. The ranches and farms will no longer be able to produce the food needed to feed the growing numbers of Americans as our population doubles by the end of this century. It appears no one is paying attention.
[1] Mark Krikorian, The New Case against Immigration, (New York: Penguin Group,2008),p. 217
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/23/navarrette/index.html
[3] [3] Adapted from Karen Kornbluh, “Families Valued”, Democracy, A Journal of Ideas, Issue #2, fall 2006, p.1.
[4] Krikorian, Op.Cit., p.10.
[5] Adapted from Manuel Alvarez, Jr.’s letter to the Richmond, VA Times Dispatch, “Beware of charismatic men who preach change”, July 7, 2008
[6] Krikorian, Op.Cit., pp. 2-4.
[7] Krikorian, Op.Cit., P.228.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Krikorian, Op. Cit., p. 227
[10] Krikorian, Op.Cit., pp. 10-45.
Krikorian has suggested a different and more suitable model from the business world.[1] When a business needs to down size it may (1) institute a hiring freeze, (2) make some layoffs, and/or (3) create incentives for early retirement. The analogues for illegal aliens would be (1) secure borders to stop new illegal violations and settlements, (2) conventional deportations, and (3) the creation of incentives for self-deportation by denying employment opportunities to the illegals.
This is a suitable model because, properly administered, it could be very effective. It is fair because it incorporates the same general rules under which citizens, who have a much higher degree of entitlement, must work.
Even Ruben Navarrette, columnist for the San Diego Union and the darling of the pro-illegals, has conceded the need for some if not all of these measures.[2] He says by way of enforcement that we need to stiffen penalties on employers. This certainly is a way of denying employment opportunities to illegals particularly if those penalties are on an escalating scale. Moreover, he agrees that the word “knowingly” must be removed from any future reform proposals because that loophole permits employers to escape punishment merely by claiming they “didn’t know” an employee was illegal. The elimination of this single word is therefore of vital importance.
Navarrette is serious about enforcement. He would add an identification card, better tools for the border patrol, continued workplace raids, accelerated deportations, arrest of an employer once in a while, and an extension of the deployment of the National Guard at the border. These are all good ways to help enforce the law.
On the other hand, Navarrette wants to legalize those aliens who can prove they have been here 5 years or longer. This is not an unreasonable proposal when it is coupled with his other requirements: irrefutable proof of length of time in the U.S., fluency in English, a $5,000 fine, and a criminal background check. In addition, illegals would have to initiate and process applications for legal entry in their homelands and then accept a position at the back of the line of all prior applicants. Navarrette would also impose a lifetime ban on welfare, food stamps and Medicaid but allow those whose applications are approved to collect whatever they had contributed to Social security.
Krikorian’s “conventional deportations” could be construed to be applicable only to the illegals who have been here less than five years. Limiting deportations to more recent arrivals would be consistent with Navarrette’s recommendation. But since many deportees are back in the U.S. within 24 hours and since 97% of those who attempt to violate the border are ultimately successful, simple deportation is not a solution. Without some additional penalty, deportation is not much of a disincentive for the illegal who wishes to return.
Many will disagree with Navarrette regarding his proposal to increase the allotment of green cards, including H1B visas for highly skilled workers and triple the number of legal immigrants admitted annually to 3 million. The former might be reasonable if that increase is precisely tailored to the demonstrated needs of our economy and approved by local unions and professional organizations. Of course, citizens must be assured first dibs on all jobs at the standard wage rate for citizens with equal credentials and experience.
The proposal to triple the number of legal immigrants ignores all the changes in our society, economy, government, education, technology, natural resources, demography and lifestyles that have occurred since the previous immigration waves of the 19th and early 20th centuries. When proposals of this nature are made there is never any reasonable rationale whereas there is an ample rationale for reducing the number of annual legal immigrants allowed. Declining natural resources, congested highways and streets, and environmental damage are only a few of the many reasons to reduce that number to more like the 200,000 per year. This was the level just a few years ago. According to the UN, the annual output of pollutants by Americans is 20 metric tons per capita. This means that as our population increases by another 300 million people before the end of this century, we will produce another 6 billion tons of pollutants annually at the present rate. Even if we were to be able to reduce our annual output to 10 metric tons per capita (the output of Mexico) we would still be unable to reduce our total annual production of green house gases below the present level, leaving us with the status quo ante.
Labor demands are certainly important as Navarrette suggests but families should be required to apply as a group to avoid the family reunification ploy. Nevertheless, in a competitive world, education and skills cannot be ignored and are certainly far from “silly” as Navarrette has condescendingly called them.
No democratically-elected government, however firm the demands or wishes of their constituents might be, has been able to move quickly to solve problems that profoundly affect the country they are sworn to protect against enemies, foreign and domestic.[3] Often, in its attempts to act, government is unable to avoid policies that have unintended consequences because policymakers rarely understand the scope and long term impact of their actions. Likewise, although members of Congress and the President may understand the need for action they may not fully appreciate the danger or cost or long term effect of further delays. As a result of this lack of a sense of urgency, they fail to expend the energy necessary to achieve compromise on bipartisan solutions to the important problems facing our country. Moreover, they tend to evaluate new proposals in terms of the here and now rather than what those proposals, if enacted, might mean to the long term viability of the American culture, language, ideals, environment, natural resources and prosperity. Their prodigious myopia leads to another set of unintended consequences later when it may be too late to correct their errors.
Just as often it means that Congress and the Administration have failed to comprehend the import of the dramatic changes that have occurred in our country over the last 100 years. Many of them are still living in the past. Their thinking is still constrained by the false idea that since America was once a nation of immigrants with seemingly unlimited natural resources, it should or can always be. They are deluded into thinking the status quo in that regard is in the national interest.
Does this sound like they have changed with the times? Does it sound like they have fully digested all of the changes in our government, economy, population, natural resources, education, technology, demography and lifestyles that should affect their thinking about major problems like immigration, illegal aliens, birthright citizenship, and population growth. The present Administration and the Congress have neither responded to these changes nor to the exigencies of long term population growth occasioned by excessive legal immigration and the uncontrolled, unarmed invasion by illegal aliens, some of whom would do us great harm.
Many proclaim the importance of secure borders but at the same time propose a mass legalization of the illegals already present in the U.S., granting to them what many call, with some justification, an outright amnesty not unlike the failed one of 1986. The 1986 measure assumed that once amnesty was granted to those already here, the borders could then be secured to avoid future problems. Instead, that amnesty gave a green light and extended an open invitation to millions of additional illegals. Obviously, the borders should have been secured before any amnesty was granted and yet, in spite of the aftermath of the 1986 measure, a significant number of those in Congress want to repeat that mistake. It doesn’t matter whether there are some conditions imposed for legalization, this approach will still be perceived as an open invitation for additional millions of illegals. Those who cannot meet the conditions will simply stay on illegally while their progeny acquire birthright citizenship.
The greatest perfidy of many of those who claim that they support secure border is that they offer only lip service and continue to deny the DHS the tools it needs to achieve that goal. Anyone with knowledge about horrendous amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and the others circumstances at the borders knows that only the most stringent measures have any hope of success. Improvements in staffing and infrastructure at the borders are bound to fail unless they are buttressed by changes in the rules of engagement and a defense in depth.
The rules of engagement must permit hot pursuit and the use of lethal force against drug runners and other violent criminals encountered in the immediate environs of the border. Other illegals who are apprehended must be detained and required to work on border infrastructure projects at minimum wage for an appropriate time before they are released with the admonition that if they ever return illegally they will do hard time for two years for the first repeat offense and five years for each subsequent offense. No form of catch and release can be permitted even for those apprehended immediately at ports of entry. If illegals are simply escorted back across the border, they will try again and again, sometimes in the same day, with an ultimate success rate of 97%. Obviously, a policy of immediate expulsion is utterly useless and ineffective.
Defense in depth means a program of vigorous and continuous internal enforcement using mandatory E-verification of work status as one of its most important tools. Both employers and employees that violate the rules must face an escalating schedule of penalties sufficient to deter future violations. To be effective the cost of breaking the law must always dramatically exceed the benefits.
Other features of the failed comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) proposals of the past include new forms of visas, major increases in the number of visas granted, and a huge temporary worker program without any teeth to assure that these workers are indeed temporary and that they promptly return to their homelands when their visas expire.
While no one wishes to deny employers the labor they need, immigration policies must assure that foreign workers are paid at the same rate as their citizen counterparts and that they are provided with full family health care coverage so that that cost is not offloaded on the unsuspecting public. Employers must demonstrate that they have been unable to meet their needs by offering their jobs to qualified citizens at a living wage. Otherwise, the importation of cheap foreign labor would constitute unfair competition with citizen workers.
There is a broader issue related to our ability to assimilate large numbers of legal immigrants and illegal aliens or foreign workers. Krikorian has pointed out how the changes in American society have made it much more difficult if not impossible to achieve the kind of assimilation that occurred following past waves of immigration.[4] Trans-nationalism, a cousin of globalism, facilitated by modern communication, is only one of several factors that reduce the probability of assimilation.
The characteristics of our newest immigrants are not that different from those of a century ago. Their faces and their languages may be different but their aspirations, work ethic, and desire to improve their lives and those of their families are not much different from those of the earlier immigrants. They are not necessarily the poorest of the poor but now they come from what many of us would call third world countries. The earlier immigrants from Europe were often poor but they came from countries that were never considered third world. Those countries were the font of learning and scientific achievement.
So what is different today that justifies a more critical view of the newest immigrants and illegal aliens? It is the changes in America itself more than the differences in the immigrants. The society, economy, government and technology of the past, which were so fundamental to our success in dealing with the waves of immigration extending from the middle of the 19th century to the early 20th century, no longer exist. The changes that define modern America mean we can no longer depend on what once worked to assure the assimilation of millions of foreign-born immigrants and illegal aliens.
A vast unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers and their successors. Its natural resources were virtually untapped and appeared limitless. Arable land and water were abundant. Family farms were scattered across the landscape and farming, hunting, fishing and herding employed more Americans than any other occupation. Now thirsty cities are buying up water rights to serve their burgeoning populations leaving behind the land made unproductive by the lack of water resources. The ranches and farms will no longer be able to produce the food needed to feed the growing numbers of Americans as our population doubles again by the end of this century to 600 million people.
When one young leader spoke eloquently and passionately in 1933 about the need for change and denounced the old system, the people were receptive.[5] Elsewhere, in 1950, another such leader sounded a similar note. The press fell in love with both and never questioned who their friends were or what they really believed in, until it was too late and the moment had passed. When they said they would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, the adulation was predictable. When they promised to restore lost power and bring justice and equality to all, the people said, Heil!” or “Viva Fidel”. When these leaders said, “I will be for change and I’ll bring you change” the cheers were unending. Does that sound familiar?
But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the concentration camps were set up and the executioner’s guns rang out, the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they had no rights and equality was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late because it was now controlled by the government or the propaganda ministry. The endings of these stories are well-known. Millions died, treasuries were depleted, and more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes to escape the tyranny of change.
Luckily, in America, we would never fall for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America? How is the change you offer different from the change all politicians offer? And the free media would never be seduced by political rhetoric of change. Instead it would examine all of the consequences of proposed changes and ask the hard questions about how these changes would be paid for while paying down the national debt, balancing the budget, restoring the value of the dollar, and repairing America’s decaying infrastructure. No, we wouldn’t do that in America, would we?
To suggest that the main reason for the opposition to excessive legal immigration and the flood of illegal aliens is the fact that they are not from Northern Europe is at once an error and a gross oversimplification. Nevertheless, this is the chief argument of those like Ruben Navarrette who refers disdainfully to those who disagree with him as “nativists”.
Immigrants in the past were largely white, but now they are not; they used to want to assimilate, but now they don’t; they used to be self-sufficient, but now they seek out government assistance. We’ve all heard those laments and they are largely true. But the America of our ancestors no longer exists and that is a fact. Change, of course, is inevitable. Some changes will be good; other changes will be bad as they were in the Germany of the 1930s and the Cuba of the 1950s and beyond. We all welcome the spread of cheap communications and transportation but mourn the weakening of our communities; the establishment of trans-national communities; acceptance dual citizenship; the failure to enforce, language, citizenship and immigration laws; the use of drugs; the spread of fast foods; the dumbing down of our schools, the excessive cost of education and health care; and the inactivity and increasing obesity of our children.
Certain changes have been embraced by some but not by others; the growth in government, for instance, is seen by the Left as recognition of our social responsibility to the poor and the marginalized but feared by the Right as likely to erode liberty and personal responsibility and require confiscatory taxes. One presidential candidate promises higher taxes, the other advocates making the present tax rates permanent. Neither discusses paying down the national debt, balancing budget, fixing our decaying infrastructure or restoring world confidence in the dollar as the international medium of exchange. One proposes various alternative energy initiatives coupled with a new push for conservation but opposes development of known oil fields and nuclear power. The other sees offshore drilling as essential to provide oil during the lengthy transition period to alternative energy sources and for the other uses of oil and petrochemicals that cannot easily be replaced.
We are all familiar with the inherent characteristics of our modern society and how they affect the way we live. Fewer understand or even think about how immigration undermines many of the objectives that our modern, middle-class society sets for itself and exacerbates many of the problems brought on by modernization. As Mark Krikorian put it, “…mass immigration is incompatible with a modern society”. John Fonte, a Hudson Institute scholar, stated it even more succinctly, “It’s not 1900 anymore.” Those who keep haranguing us about our immigrant past fail to see how changes in our society make it a whole new ball game that needs fresh thinking rather than remaining mired in the past.
The process of Americanizing immigrants was tumultuous and wrenching for everyone involved but eventually successful. Those prior immigrants have indeed become one people because American nationality is not based on blood relations, like a biological family, but is more like a family growing partly by adoption, where new immigrants attach themselves to their new country and embrace the cultural and civic values of their native-born brethren as their own. Instead of rejecting the moral underpinnings of our republic as the archaic thoughts of some crusty old men, the earlier immigrants earned the right to claim those moral principles as their own as though they were blood of blood, and flesh of flesh of the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and so they are.
This was illustrated poignantly in 1920 when Japanese American children in Honolulu’s McKinley High School referred to “our Pilgrim forefathers” and were able to recite the Gettysburg Address from memory. And they had every right to do so because they had adopted those moral principles on which our country was founded and which were totally foreign to the country of origin of their parents.
The changes in America since the mid 1800s and early 1900s are many. Some examples of those changes are as follows:[6]
Economy: A century ago, what economists call the primary sector of the economy (farming, fishing, hunting, and herding) still employed more Americans than any other, as it had from the dawn of humankind. Today only 2 percent of our workforce occupies itself in this way. Meanwhile, the tertiary sector (service industries) now employs 80 percent of working Americans, and the percentage is climbing.
Education: Along with the change in the economy, education has become more widespread. Nearly a quarter of American adults had less than 5 years of schooling in 1910; as of 2000, that figure is less than 2 percent. Likewise, the percentage that had completed high school increased six fold, from about 13 percent of the totals to 84 percent. And the percent of college graduates increased tenfold from 2.7 to 27 percent. Another way to look at it is that in 1900, only a little more than 10 percent of high-school age children were actually enrolled in school; in 2001, nearly 95 percent were.
Technology: In 1915, a three-minute call from New York to San Francisco cost about $20.70 (about $343 in 2000 dollars); the same call in 2000 cost 36 cents. In 1908, a Model T cost more than two years’ worth of the typical worker’s wages; a Ford Taurus in 1997 (a much better car) cost eight months’ work. A thousand-mile airline trip in 1920 would have cost the average American 220 work hours; by 2000, it cost perhaps 11 work hours.
Demography: The birthrate fell by half during the past century, while infant mortality fell by 93 percent. In 1915, sixty-one out of 10,000 mothers died during childbirth; in 2001, only one out of 100,000 did. Life expectancy went from 47 years in 1900 to 77 years a century later, while people 65 and older have tripled as a share of the nation’s population, from about 4 percent to more than 12 percent.
Government: In 1900, total government spending at all levels equaled about 5.5 percent of the economy; by 2003, it was more than 36 percent. Total government employment (federal, state and local) went from little more than 1 million in 1900 (about 4 percent of the workforce) to more than 22 million in 2000 (more than 16 percent of the workforce).
Lifestyle: America’s population was still 60 percent rural in 1900; in 2000, only 21 percent of Americans lived in rural areas (and only a tiny fraction was involved in farming). The average household went from more than 4.5 people to a little more than 2.5, while the number of people per room in the average house fell from 1.1 in 1910 to 0.4 in 1997.
These major changes require new policies and outlooks regarding immigration and our ability to maintain the cohesiveness of our country through effective assimilation and the discouragement of trans-national enclaves and communities. The original ideal of our country are timeless but the willingness of legal immigrants and illegal aliens to accept them is in doubt
This is not to say that the national goal should be zero net immigration. Again Krikorian has the right idea.[7] He suggests a zero-based budgeting approach. This would mean that rather than dealing with reductions from the previous level of immigration we should start with zero immigration and then work up. “From zero we must then consider what categories of immigrants are so important to the national interest that their admission warrants risking the kinds of problems…” [8] inherent in excessive immigration numbers. The three major categories that must be considered are: family-based, skills-based, and humanitarian immigration. Navarrette again agrees with Krikorian that family-based immigration makes no sense except for spouses and minor children. “The others are grown adults with their own lives, for whom “family reunification” is a misnomer.[9] Navarrette would abandon the skills-education criterion and shift it to a needs basis. In other words, if we need nurses, our immigration policies should enable a fast track for the admission of those with skills and credentials in this area. I would add fluency in English as a criterion for those professions, like medicine, where this is important. In fact, I would give special consideration and priority to all applicants who are fluent in English. Krikorian suggests that aliens of extraordinary ability and outstanding professors and researchers should also be admitted quickly with a minimum of bureaucratic delay.
Policymakers have not changed with the times. They have not have fully digested all of the changes in our government, economy, population, natural resources, education, technology, demography and lifestyles that should affect their thinking about major problems like immigration, illegal aliens, birthright citizenship, and population growth. The present administration and the Congress have neither responded to these changes nor to the exigencies of long term population growth occasioned by excessive legal immigration and the uncontrolled, unarmed invasion by illegal aliens, some of whom would do us great harm.
There is a broader issue related our ability to assimilate large numbers of legal immigrants and illegal aliens or foreign workers. Krikorian has pointed out how the changes in American society have made it much more difficult if not impossible to achieve the kind of assimilation that occurred as a result of past waves of immigration.[10]
The characteristics of our newest immigrants are not that different from those of a century ago. Their faces and their languages may be different but their aspirations, work ethic, and desire to improve their lives and those of their families are not much different from those of the earlier immigrants. They are not necessarily the poorest of the poor but now they come from what many of us would call third world countries. The earlier immigrants from Europe were often poor but they came from countries that were never considered third world.
So what is different today that justifies a more critical view of the newest immigrants and illegal aliens? It is the changes in America itself more than the differences in the immigrants. The society, economy, government and technology of the past, which were so fundamental to our success in dealing with the waves of immigration extending from the middle of the 19th century to the early 20th century, no longer exist. The changes that define modern America mean we can no longer depend on what once worked to assure the assimilation of millions of foreign-born immigrants and illegal aliens.
A vast unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers and their successors. Its natural resources were virtually untapped and appeared limitless. Arable land and water were abundant. Family farms were scattered across the landscape and farming, hunting, fishing and herding employed more Americans than any other occupation. Now thirsty cities are buying up water rights to serve their burgeoning populations leaving behind the land made unproductive by the lack of water resources. The ranches and farms will no longer be able to produce the food needed to feed the growing numbers of Americans as our population doubles by the end of this century. It appears no one is paying attention.
[1] Mark Krikorian, The New Case against Immigration, (New York: Penguin Group,2008),p. 217
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/23/navarrette/index.html
[3] [3] Adapted from Karen Kornbluh, “Families Valued”, Democracy, A Journal of Ideas, Issue #2, fall 2006, p.1.
[4] Krikorian, Op.Cit., p.10.
[5] Adapted from Manuel Alvarez, Jr.’s letter to the Richmond, VA Times Dispatch, “Beware of charismatic men who preach change”, July 7, 2008
[6] Krikorian, Op.Cit., pp. 2-4.
[7] Krikorian, Op.Cit., P.228.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Krikorian, Op. Cit., p. 227
[10] Krikorian, Op.Cit., pp. 10-45.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Study: Immigration to U.S. Increases Greenhouse Gas Emissions
WASHINGTON (August 13, 2008) — The findings of a new study indicate that future levels of immigration will have a significant impact on efforts to reduce global CO2 emissions. Immigration to the United States significantly increases world-wide CO2 emissions because it transfers population from lower-polluting parts of the world to the United States, which is a higher-polluting country.
The report, entitled “Immigration to the United States and World-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” is available at http://www.cis.org/
Among the findings:
• The estimated CO2 emissions of the average immigrant (legal or illegal) in the United States are 18 percent less than those of the average native-born American.
• However, immigrants in the United States produce an estimated four times more CO2 in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin.
• U.S. immigrants produce an estimated 637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually – equal to Great Britain and Sweden combined.
• The estimated 637 million tons of CO2 U.S. immigrants produce annually is 482 million tons more than they would have produced had they remained in their home countries.
• If the 482-million-ton increase in global CO2 emissions caused by immigration to the United States were a separate country, it would rank 10th in the world in emissions.
• The impact of immigration to the United States on global emissions is equal to approximately 5 percent of the increase in annual world-wide CO2 emissions since 1980.
• Of the CO2 emissions caused by immigrants, 83 percent are estimated to come from legal immigrants and 17 percent from illegal immigrants.
• Legal immigrants have a much larger impact because they are more numerous than illegal immigrants and because they have higher incomes, and thus higher emissions.
• The above figures do not include the impact of children born to immigrants in the United States. If they were included, the impact would be much higher.
• Assuming no change in U.S. immigration policy, 30 million new legal and illegal immigrants are expected to settle in the United States in the next 20 years.
• In recent years, increases in U.S. CO2 emissions have been driven entirely by population increases, as per capita emissions have stabilized.
Discussion: Some may be tempted to see this analysis as “blaming immigrants” for what are really America’s failures. It is certainly reasonable to argue that Americans could do more to reduce per capita emissions. And it is certainly not our intention to imply that immigrants are particularly responsible for global warming. As we report in this study, the average immigrant produces somewhat less CO2 than the average native-born American. But to simply dismiss the large role that continuing high levels of immigration play in increasing U.S. (and thus worldwide) CO2 emissions is not only intellectually dishonest, it is also counterproductive. One must acknowledge a problem before a solution can be found.
One can still argue for high levels of immigration for any number of other reasons. However, one cannot make the argument for high immigration without at least understanding what it means for global efforts to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Some involved in the global-warming issue have recognized immigration’s importance. For instance, chief U.S. climate negotiator and special representative for the United States, Harlan Watson, has acknowledged that high immigration to the United States is thwarting efforts to reduce the nation’s emissions. “It’s simple arithmetic,” said Watson. “If you look at mid-century, Europe will be at 1990 levels of population while ours will be nearing 60 percent above 1990 levels. So population does matter.” This research confirms Watson’s observation.
# # #
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Party Platforms
The DNC and Obama, on the other hand, seem to be embarked on the same tired old approach of allowing a select few to draft the platform. In fact, Karen Kornbluh, Obama’s policy assistant, apparently has been given the job of writing the platform all by herself. So much for a participative Democratic National Convention. So, the candidate of “change” has decided on business as usual as far as the platform is concerned. Similarly, rather than rely on nonpartisan public funding, the candidate of “change” has opted for private funding with all the baggage it brings with it, just as many of his predecessors have done. Some in the Democrat Party are pushing for a plank that will recognize the pro-lifers who are members of the party. Is this a “change” or is it just more of the Democrat’s schizophrenia?
Thursday, August 7, 2008
What's different about today's immigrants?
In the early days of our country, a vast and largely unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers and their successors. Its natural resources were virtually untapped and appeared limitless. Arable land and water were abundant. Family farms were scattered across the landscape and farming, hunting, fishing and herding employed more Americans than any other occupation. Now thirsty cities are buying up water rights to serve their burgeoning populations leaving behind the land made unproductive by the lack of water resources. The ranches and farms will no longer be able to produce the food needed to feed the growing numbers of Americans as our population doubles every 50 years. These and the other changes in our country and society are important in analyzing and understanding the current wave of immigration.
The characteristics of our newest immigrants and illegal aliens are not that different from those of a century ago. Their faces and their languages may be different but their aspirations, work ethic, and desire to improve their lives and those of their families are not much different from those of the earlier immigrants. They are not necessarily the poorest of the poor but now they come from what many of us would call third world countries. The earlier immigrants from
So what is different today that justifies a more critical view of the newest immigrants and illegal aliens? It is the changes in
Modern technologies like fax, prepaid phone cards, modems, video cameras, high speed internet, and frequent flier miles, foster the creation of transnational immigrant communities and undermine the rootedness needed to achieve emotional assimilation and national cohesion that characterized the outcomes with earlier immigrants. Such transnational communities make it easier for the inhabitants to make a living and communicate with their neighbors without having to learn the language of the host nation. They represent microcosms of the immigrants' homelands and enable the continuation of old ways and old customs without any need to assimilate.
Other changes are hard to quantify but are just as real in marking modern society as a break from the past, a weakening of community and civic engagement, increased religious skepticism, a greater sense of responsibility for the less fortunate, a rejection of racial and religious discrimination, and concern for our stewardship of the natural world.
(adapted and supplemented from the well-research and carefully documented "The New Case Against Immigration" by Mark Krikorian)
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Charismatic Men Who Preach Change
When one young leader spoke eloquently and passionately in 1933 about the need for change and denounced the old system, the people were receptive. Elsewhere, in 1950, another such leader sounded a similar note. The press fell in love with both and never questioned who their friends were or what they really believed in, until it was too late and the moment had passed. When they said they would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, the adulation was predictable. When they promised to restore lost power and bring justice and equality to all, the people said, Heil!” or “Viva Fidel”. When these leaders said, “I will be for change and I’ll bring you change” the cheers were unending.
But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the concentration camps were set up and the executioner’s guns rang out, the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they had no rights and equality was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late because it was now controlled by the government or the propaganda ministry. The endings of these stories are well-known. Millions died, treasuries were depleted, and more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes to escape the tyranny of change.
Luckily, in America, we would never fall for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America? How is the change you offer different from the change all politicians offer? And the free media would never be seduced by political rhetoric. Instead it would examine all of the consequences of proposed changes and ask the hard questions about how these changes would be paid for while paying down the national debt, balancing the budget, and restoring America’s decaying infrastructure. No, we wouldn’t do that in
(Modified, adapted and paraphrased from “Beware of charismatic men who preach change” by Manuel Alvarez, Jr. in a letter to the Richmond Times Dispatch.)
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Navarrette's Third Proposal
"By way of reforming the system for those who immigrate legally -- increase the allotment of green cards and work visas, including H1B visas for highly skilled workers; triple the number of legal immigrants currently admitted from 1 million to 3 million, or 1 percent of the total U.S. population; abandon the current system of using family reunification as the main criteria for admitting new immigrants but don't adopt the silly and offensive idea of a point system that rewards education and skills; instead, let the market drive the process by making labor demands the major criteria so (how's this for radical?) we always have jobs for those who come here instead of admitting engineers and doctors if what we really need are teachers and nurses."
Where Navarrette goes astray here is in the tripling of the number of legal immigrants admitted each year. Instead we should reduce the level to a total of 200,000 per year for all categories except tourists and students. There is nothing silly or offensive about rewarding education and skills, including English language skills, if these rewards are additionally tied to legitimate labor demands demonstrated by evidence of full employment of citizen in each labor category. I agree family reunification should not be a criterion for admission. Families should apply as a unit rather than piecemeal under a reunification provision.
The legitimate labor demand should not be based on what employers want but rather what our country needs. For example, a case cannot be made for admitting foreign athletes except on a quid pro quo basis.
Navarrette avoids the question of birthright citizenship. This is too important to be overlooked in any immigration reform proposal. Admittedly, there are problems in devising an enlightened policy in this area because children who are born here and who have spent their entire lives here would be foreigners in some sense in the homelands of their parents. Yet, their parents were foreigners when they came here illegally so that obviously is not as big a test as one might imagine. A moderate position on this issue would suggest that to be considered for birthright citizenship a child should have at least one parent who is here legally. Those who do not may appeal for the award of citizenship at age 18 provided they agree to enlist in the armed forces for not less than four years.
In general, pregnant women should be inadmissible as migrant workers and must return to their homelands if they become pregnant while working in the U.S..
Where Navarrette goes astray here is in the tripling of the number of legal immigrants admitted each year. Instead we should reduce the level to a total of 200,000 per year for all categories except tourists and students. There is nothing silly or offensive about rewarding education and skills, including English language skills, if these rewards are additionally tied to legitimate labor demands demonstrated by evidence of full employment of citizen in each labor category. I agree family reunification should not be a criterion for admission. Families should apply as a unit rather than piecemeal under a reunification provision.
The legitimate labor demand should not be based on what employers want but rather what our country needs. For example, a case cannot be made for admitting foreign athletes except on a quid pro quo basis.
Navarrette avoids the question of birthright citizenship. This is too important to be overlooked in any immigration reform proposal. Admittedly, there are problems in devising an enlightened policy in this area because children who are born here and who have spent their entire lives here would be foreigners in some sense in the homelands of their parents. Yet, their parents were foreigners when they came here illegally so that obviously is not as big a test as one might imagine. A moderate position on this issue would suggest that to be considered for birthright citizenship a child should have at least one parent who is here legally. Those who do not may appeal for the award of citizenship at age 18 provided they agree to enlist in the armed forces for not less than four years.
In general, pregnant women should be inadmissible as migrant workers and must return to their homelands if they become pregnant while working in the U.S..
Navarrette's Second Proposal
Navarrette's second proposal: "By way of legalizing the undocumented -- make it contingent on meeting enforcement goals, or "triggers"; establish a cutoff so that only those who can prove that they've been in the country for five years or more are eligible to apply for legal status and deport more recent arrivals; require applicants to learn English, pay a $5,000 fine, undergo criminal background checks, return to their home country to be processed, and take their place in the back of the line behind all those who are trying to enter the country legally; and, for those who are eventually given legal status, institute a lifetime ban on receiving welfare, Medicaid or food stamps but allow them to collect what they've contributed to Social Security."
This is a reasonable proposal. However, requiring applicants to learn English may be unenforceable so, instead, he should endorse the idea of English as our national language and official language to be used for all government proceedings and publications at all levels of government, with an interpreter to be provided only for those who cannot afford one. A health exam would also be a useful tool to assure those considered for legalization do not have conditions inimical to the public health. The $5,000 fine should be deducted from the applicant's social security account before they are allowed to collect what they have contributed. Employers who wish to support the applications of illegal aliens should be required to present evidence that they have provided full family health care insurance and that they are paying the applicants at the same rate as they pay citizen workers in the same types of jobs with the same levels of experience.
This is a reasonable proposal. However, requiring applicants to learn English may be unenforceable so, instead, he should endorse the idea of English as our national language and official language to be used for all government proceedings and publications at all levels of government, with an interpreter to be provided only for those who cannot afford one. A health exam would also be a useful tool to assure those considered for legalization do not have conditions inimical to the public health. The $5,000 fine should be deducted from the applicant's social security account before they are allowed to collect what they have contributed. Employers who wish to support the applications of illegal aliens should be required to present evidence that they have provided full family health care insurance and that they are paying the applicants at the same rate as they pay citizen workers in the same types of jobs with the same levels of experience.
Navarrette's First Proposal
Navarrette says, "By way of enforcement -- stiffen penalties against employers with a "three strikes" law (first offense, a warning; second, $10,000 fine; third, 10 days in jail); revise the 1996 Immigration Reform and Control Act by removing the word "knowingly," as in employers only face punishment if they knowingly hire an illegal immigrant; create an identification card; instead of adding more border patrol agents (the agency can't meet hiring goals as it is), give the agents already on the line better tools, including tunnel detection equipment; extend the deployment of the National Guard on the border, now set to expire on July 15; continue workplace raids but, for heaven's sake, arrest an employer every once in a while; and speed up deportations."
He is on the right track here. I would add: mandatory use of E-verification, all deportations classified as involuntary, jail time for repeat offenders and the first time offenders caught in the immediate environs of the border (6 weeks for the first strike, 6 months for the next and 2 years for the third strike, i.e. the third attempted illegal border crossing).
He is on the right track here. I would add: mandatory use of E-verification, all deportations classified as involuntary, jail time for repeat offenders and the first time offenders caught in the immediate environs of the border (6 weeks for the first strike, 6 months for the next and 2 years for the third strike, i.e. the third attempted illegal border crossing).
Navarrette: Darling of the Pro-illegals
Ruben Navarrette, the darling of the pro-illegals, has suggested some immigration reform ideas which are worth considering or modifying. How many of the pro-illegals will now step forward and endorse these ideas and recommend them to their representatives in congress and in La Raza?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/23/navarrette/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/23/navarrette/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)