Thursday, June 24, 2010
Political Mayhem Thursday: Cruseturner on Immigration
[You can make the image of this immigrant to Arizona bigger by clicking on it]
One of my favorite political writers, Ashley Cruseturner, had an excellent piece in Sunday's paper on immigration. You can read the whole thing here. (Our last discussion of immigration policy here at the Razor was back in April and concerned the Arizona law on state enforcement of immigration statutes).
I found part of what he had to say particularly compelling:
The vast majority of immigrants are hard-working taxpayers with surprisingly conservative values. Ironically, they seek precisely the American life that conservatives are so eager to preserve. These unassuming souls are not looking to pilfer services from an overly charitable American-style welfare state. In reality, our so-called social safety net is an inhospitable patchwork of inefficient bureaucracies ineptly disbursing meager amounts of aid.
These immigrants are generally too proud, too self-reliant and too intelligent to rely on our ham-handed government agencies as a pathway to improvement.
Like the myriad pilgrims before them, these modern “huddled masses yearning to be free” leave their families and hometowns to risk everything on the hope of a better life. They come to work. In general, they occupy the lowest rung of the societal ladder and toil diligently at dirty jobs under dismal conditions at desperately low wages. Some will go back to the old country. But those who take root are enthusiastic converts. They’re industrious citizens who inevitably produce a succeeding generation of loyal Americans, good Marines and ambitious achievers with a prodigious work ethic.
Immigration offers an infusion of what we need the most: belief and investment in America as a City on a Hill.
From what I see, he is right, and that does affect and change the way I look at immigration.
However, what does this mean about the unemployed people who are not taking the jobs that illegal immigrants are filling? My theory has always been that we should attack illegal immigration by going after those who employ illegal immigrants. However, that assumes that the resulting rise in wages will pull unemployed people into the workforce. Perhaps, though, slightly more pay will not have that effect-- and it also could be that many of the native-born unemployed in the United States do not share the "American" attributes that Cruseturner (properly) ascribes to immigrants.
In the whole are immigrants, even illegal ones under the current law, good for the country?
Comments:
<< Home
I think there is some fiction in that account. Many illegal immigrants commit crimes, including major drug crimes. Here in Dallas, it seems like most of the big-time criminals are immigrants. That is not living the American ideal!
# posted by 
: 12:30 AM
: 12:30 AM
Anon 12:30 -- many Americans are big-time criminals as well.
Look everyone, I live along the border. I can go out of my front door right now, climb in my car, and in less than the time it takes you to get to the grocery store, be in Mexico. I prosecute people for a living, American and immigrant, legal or otherwise. Crime is a systemic problem that will always exist; it is not merely an expression of akrasia or evil (thought it can be), but is also a sociological and psychological phenomenon.
Crime and poverty are directly correlated, and immigrant communities, because of the nature of immigration, and particular features of our system, there will always be crime associated with immigrant and other high-poverty communities.
Many of the countries immigrants come from have corrupt officials and large amounts of organized crime. So does the United States, but we turn a blind eye to homegrown crime because it's politically expedient to attack foreigners because it's easy to drum up nationalistic fervor against them.
Illegal immigrants are no more prone to crime than Americans, or legal immigrants. That is to say, many of them commit crimes, but many don't. Their reasons for doing so are identical to Americans in all regards except one: for an illegal immigrant, legal means of earning money do not exist. The idea that they should "come in through the front door" is misleading, because the front door is closed, locked, and covered in spikes. It is really difficult and expensive to immigrate legally. And when the "illegal immigrant" is a parent or child with the majority of their family living or working in the United States, it is difficult to ask someone to move to a foreign country for a few years while they try to emigrate.
There needs to be a way to change one's status even if one is here illegally. That's step one. That way, illegals that want to become productive members of society can. Step two needs to be to penalize domestic employers that use illegal labor to circumvent US labor laws. Step three needs to be a way for those employers to hire back skilled and unskilled immigrant labor to provide them with good, safe jobs that provide a path to citizenship. Step four needs to be education to remove the nascent xenophobia in the American populace: most illegal immigrants aren't scary criminals. They're likely your friends and neighbors.
Look everyone, I live along the border. I can go out of my front door right now, climb in my car, and in less than the time it takes you to get to the grocery store, be in Mexico. I prosecute people for a living, American and immigrant, legal or otherwise. Crime is a systemic problem that will always exist; it is not merely an expression of akrasia or evil (thought it can be), but is also a sociological and psychological phenomenon.
Crime and poverty are directly correlated, and immigrant communities, because of the nature of immigration, and particular features of our system, there will always be crime associated with immigrant and other high-poverty communities.
Many of the countries immigrants come from have corrupt officials and large amounts of organized crime. So does the United States, but we turn a blind eye to homegrown crime because it's politically expedient to attack foreigners because it's easy to drum up nationalistic fervor against them.
Illegal immigrants are no more prone to crime than Americans, or legal immigrants. That is to say, many of them commit crimes, but many don't. Their reasons for doing so are identical to Americans in all regards except one: for an illegal immigrant, legal means of earning money do not exist. The idea that they should "come in through the front door" is misleading, because the front door is closed, locked, and covered in spikes. It is really difficult and expensive to immigrate legally. And when the "illegal immigrant" is a parent or child with the majority of their family living or working in the United States, it is difficult to ask someone to move to a foreign country for a few years while they try to emigrate.
There needs to be a way to change one's status even if one is here illegally. That's step one. That way, illegals that want to become productive members of society can. Step two needs to be to penalize domestic employers that use illegal labor to circumvent US labor laws. Step three needs to be a way for those employers to hire back skilled and unskilled immigrant labor to provide them with good, safe jobs that provide a path to citizenship. Step four needs to be education to remove the nascent xenophobia in the American populace: most illegal immigrants aren't scary criminals. They're likely your friends and neighbors.
The most egregious error in Cruseturner's article was the statement that "conservatives watch CNN" (unless it's a conservative that frequents airport terminals).
Further, if AC's depiction of immigrant disdain for the nanny state is correct, why was CA's Prop. 187 so bad?
I also think it's ridiculous for AC to state that the government disperses "meager amounts of aid."
Finally, I'd like to see Lane's curriculum for curing all the "xenophobes" out there.
Further, if AC's depiction of immigrant disdain for the nanny state is correct, why was CA's Prop. 187 so bad?
I also think it's ridiculous for AC to state that the government disperses "meager amounts of aid."
Finally, I'd like to see Lane's curriculum for curing all the "xenophobes" out there.
Keep in mind, too, that there are some areas of the country where immigrant labor is vital because there simply aren't Americans available to work in those jobs. Any reforms in immigration policy need to take into account certain realities, such as that one.
Yes. That is the simple answer to your question. It really is that simple. And that simple truth, sadly, makes any solution infinitely more complex than reformers want to acknowledge.
And who is this "other" Kendall? That's what I'd like to know.
And who is this "other" Kendall? That's what I'd like to know.
Justin--
As I have said before, I think there is an important caveat to saying Americans won't take those jobs, which is that they don't take them at the wages and conditions offered when illegal immigrant labor is available. That means that if we go after employers who hire illegal immigrants, the price of some things will rise, but unemployment will go down and there will be more decent jobs for both legal immigrants and others.
As I have said before, I think there is an important caveat to saying Americans won't take those jobs, which is that they don't take them at the wages and conditions offered when illegal immigrant labor is available. That means that if we go after employers who hire illegal immigrants, the price of some things will rise, but unemployment will go down and there will be more decent jobs for both legal immigrants and others.
Lane,
I have no doubt that you will disagree, but I posit that all illegal immigrants are law breakers. I make this comment neither out of racism nor xenophobia (my least favorite phobia), but out of a strict personal obedience to Webster and his definition of “illegal”. When they choose to violate American law, they become trespassers in a sovereign nation.
Now, I realize that we live in an increasingly progressive society, where every criminal is really the victim of exploitation, no doubt perpetrated by a rich white man in the South, but before we can confront our issues with the unchecked atrocities that are streaming across our border, we have to come to terms with the fact that immigration and illegal immigration are not synonymous (that is, they are not to be characterized as one).
I believe very deeply that people share a common struggle and a common purpose. Some of us are endowed from birth by grace with more opportunity and privilege than others, but that gives us no right to deny the same to those less fortunate. We do, however, have the right to create and enforce the laws of our land. Presuming those laws are just (I will relent, a significant presumption), those who violate it should be dealt with accordingly.
As for solutions, amnesty is great, but it is not a solution. In truth, amnesty is just another set of problems, not that I think there is another reasonable option for those illegal’s already in country. What we need to do is secure the border, reform the immigration process, making it easier to both come and work (and pay taxes) temporarily and to gain citizenship, and disincentivize illegal employment (i.e. prosecute employers who shirk the law).
We need to all of these things simultaneously. Not one at a time like our ridiculous politicians would have us do—that is if they would have us do anything at all (cough, cough—Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama!).
Can we do all of these things at once? To borrow a phrase, yes we can! Can we make the Mexican border safe for American families while shutting down drug trafficking and human smuggling? Yes we can! Can we cut through bureaucratic red tape to allow willing workers and their families to immigrate legally? Well, I hope we can!
I have no doubt that you will disagree, but I posit that all illegal immigrants are law breakers. I make this comment neither out of racism nor xenophobia (my least favorite phobia), but out of a strict personal obedience to Webster and his definition of “illegal”. When they choose to violate American law, they become trespassers in a sovereign nation.
Now, I realize that we live in an increasingly progressive society, where every criminal is really the victim of exploitation, no doubt perpetrated by a rich white man in the South, but before we can confront our issues with the unchecked atrocities that are streaming across our border, we have to come to terms with the fact that immigration and illegal immigration are not synonymous (that is, they are not to be characterized as one).
I believe very deeply that people share a common struggle and a common purpose. Some of us are endowed from birth by grace with more opportunity and privilege than others, but that gives us no right to deny the same to those less fortunate. We do, however, have the right to create and enforce the laws of our land. Presuming those laws are just (I will relent, a significant presumption), those who violate it should be dealt with accordingly.
As for solutions, amnesty is great, but it is not a solution. In truth, amnesty is just another set of problems, not that I think there is another reasonable option for those illegal’s already in country. What we need to do is secure the border, reform the immigration process, making it easier to both come and work (and pay taxes) temporarily and to gain citizenship, and disincentivize illegal employment (i.e. prosecute employers who shirk the law).
We need to all of these things simultaneously. Not one at a time like our ridiculous politicians would have us do—that is if they would have us do anything at all (cough, cough—Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama!).
Can we do all of these things at once? To borrow a phrase, yes we can! Can we make the Mexican border safe for American families while shutting down drug trafficking and human smuggling? Yes we can! Can we cut through bureaucratic red tape to allow willing workers and their families to immigrate legally? Well, I hope we can!
# posted by : 10:03 AM
: 10:03 AM
Last-commenting anonymous, as I don't know you, I will forgive your presumption.
I am a prosecutor; I prosecute crime for a living, on a daily basis. I am well-acquainted with the reality of crime, its personal, ethical, and sociological dimensions. Your snideness is not appreciated.
Nor did I advocate amnesty; I wish there to be a path that productive people can use to change their immigration status while in this country. Under the current law, that cannot happen. If your status is in error, you must (1) voluntarily remove yourself to a foreign country and apply for a temporary visa or (2) be "voluntarily deported" by ICE/DHS and wait at least a year before you can apply again.
Being here illegally is not a crime in the sense of the word most people think of it as. "Illegal reentry" is. Falsifying travel documents or passports is. But just being here after overstaying a student visa or living here while not having gone through the proper channels of immigration is a status-based offense.
As to your solution, yes, we need to reform the immigration laws, but we also need states to work with the federal government, and that isn't happening either. The idea of needing to "secure" the Mexican border is likewise an odd thing to say to those of us that live along it. Drug and human trafficking happen because the profit to be made far outstrips the risks, risks that can be ameliorated by a little official corruption to the tune of lots of money. The drug cartels run their operations like a wildly profitable business. If you want to stop the illegal drug trade, you have to make drugs a legal business. And if you want to stop smuggling people in to this country, change the laws regarding re-entry.
The only thing I worry about with the border is that if I go across, I could be caught in the three-way struggle between cartels, local gangs, and the Mexican officials. Things are getting fairly heated, because the cartels just want money, the local gangs want cartel money but also to keep up the intimidation and violence, and the officials will side with whomever is paying the largest bribes.
But that is not a U.S. problem; it is a domestic problem for Mexico, and nothing we can do here will "secure" that border, nor will building this ridiculous fence (because it is not a turtle fence), nor will any amount of tough-guy posturing from Austin or Washington. The border is secure; the Border Patrol are by and large great agents, and law enforcement on this side more or less adequately responds to the crime (which is not to say that we couldn't use more funding).
Oh, and Other Kendall, I suspect that most people's fear of immigrants isn't rooted in their dislike of foreigners, but rather a fear of the unknown. Even getting to know a few immigrants or learning about another nation's culture would help remove that fear. Once people realize that they are not so different I think that fear will (by and large) go away. There may be some recalcitrant cases, but there always will be.
I am a prosecutor; I prosecute crime for a living, on a daily basis. I am well-acquainted with the reality of crime, its personal, ethical, and sociological dimensions. Your snideness is not appreciated.
Nor did I advocate amnesty; I wish there to be a path that productive people can use to change their immigration status while in this country. Under the current law, that cannot happen. If your status is in error, you must (1) voluntarily remove yourself to a foreign country and apply for a temporary visa or (2) be "voluntarily deported" by ICE/DHS and wait at least a year before you can apply again.
Being here illegally is not a crime in the sense of the word most people think of it as. "Illegal reentry" is. Falsifying travel documents or passports is. But just being here after overstaying a student visa or living here while not having gone through the proper channels of immigration is a status-based offense.
As to your solution, yes, we need to reform the immigration laws, but we also need states to work with the federal government, and that isn't happening either. The idea of needing to "secure" the Mexican border is likewise an odd thing to say to those of us that live along it. Drug and human trafficking happen because the profit to be made far outstrips the risks, risks that can be ameliorated by a little official corruption to the tune of lots of money. The drug cartels run their operations like a wildly profitable business. If you want to stop the illegal drug trade, you have to make drugs a legal business. And if you want to stop smuggling people in to this country, change the laws regarding re-entry.
The only thing I worry about with the border is that if I go across, I could be caught in the three-way struggle between cartels, local gangs, and the Mexican officials. Things are getting fairly heated, because the cartels just want money, the local gangs want cartel money but also to keep up the intimidation and violence, and the officials will side with whomever is paying the largest bribes.
But that is not a U.S. problem; it is a domestic problem for Mexico, and nothing we can do here will "secure" that border, nor will building this ridiculous fence (because it is not a turtle fence), nor will any amount of tough-guy posturing from Austin or Washington. The border is secure; the Border Patrol are by and large great agents, and law enforcement on this side more or less adequately responds to the crime (which is not to say that we couldn't use more funding).
Oh, and Other Kendall, I suspect that most people's fear of immigrants isn't rooted in their dislike of foreigners, but rather a fear of the unknown. Even getting to know a few immigrants or learning about another nation's culture would help remove that fear. Once people realize that they are not so different I think that fear will (by and large) go away. There may be some recalcitrant cases, but there always will be.
Anon 10:03 continued…
Lane,
First let me apologize for my “snide” remarks. The veil of anonymity has left me without my usual sense of politeness, and for that I am sorry. Let me also say that I both respect and appreciate your role as a prosecutor. Furthermore, I willingly concede that you understand the true nature of crime and criminal behavior far better than I do as the result of your training and experience. Please do not take my comments as an affront to your personal (and informed) opinion.
I think we might generally agree on both the sources of, and solutions to, the immigration problem. I agree that the drug trade cannot be shut down at the border. I agree that human smuggling will not end as long as the economic incentives outweigh the risks. I agree that the process of legal immigration is absurdly inefficient, and that inappropriate legislative roadblocks are built into the “legal” system. I agree that illegal immigrants, for the most part, are not predisposed to a higher crime rate than their American counterparts of equivalent socio-economic status. And I agree that some Americans are responding to the crisis, at the behest of their political leaders, out of fear and nationalism.
I would challenge, however, your assertion that violence at the border is part of a three-way domestic problem for Mexico. Clearly the violence there is the result of an international struggle for dominance in the black-market and it has spilled, in more ways than one, to our side of the border. When the cartels literally have paramilitary commandos armed with AK-47s and sniper rifles perched on American hillsides to observe and report on the activities of our underfunded border patrol, we have a border security problem.
Furthermore, I do live in a border state (albeit closer to a grocery store than to the actual border). I am aware of the struggles that our ever expanding immigrant population faces. I do not fear them because we do not share a common language (fluently, anyway) or because we have distinct cultural identity. I have deep admiration for their determined work ethic, willingness to look forward to a better future, and simple decency. I want them to have the same access to this country as my ancestors, but I want them to respect our law as they assimilate.
Also, I am confused by your assertion that the states should work with the federal government. On its face, I wholeheartedly agree. But I have yet to see the federal government take action to address any of these issues, leaving states like Arizona to fend for themselves. Interestingly, I had a conversation with a Navajo woman who had been arrested in a grocery store in Arizona for failure to produce documentation, so obviously there are issues with the implementation of sb 1070.
One final point. I am continually frustrated by the seemingly paradoxical position of the political left which asserts that America has no business meddling in international political affairs or behaving as the “world police” while at the same time we have the responsibility of providing aid and opportunity to every needy population. It might not be the academically high-minded approach, but I think we have a responsibility to perform both functions insofar as our domestic security is involved.
Lane, thank you for dedicating your life to public service and I appreciate your candor in this discussion.
Lane,
First let me apologize for my “snide” remarks. The veil of anonymity has left me without my usual sense of politeness, and for that I am sorry. Let me also say that I both respect and appreciate your role as a prosecutor. Furthermore, I willingly concede that you understand the true nature of crime and criminal behavior far better than I do as the result of your training and experience. Please do not take my comments as an affront to your personal (and informed) opinion.
I think we might generally agree on both the sources of, and solutions to, the immigration problem. I agree that the drug trade cannot be shut down at the border. I agree that human smuggling will not end as long as the economic incentives outweigh the risks. I agree that the process of legal immigration is absurdly inefficient, and that inappropriate legislative roadblocks are built into the “legal” system. I agree that illegal immigrants, for the most part, are not predisposed to a higher crime rate than their American counterparts of equivalent socio-economic status. And I agree that some Americans are responding to the crisis, at the behest of their political leaders, out of fear and nationalism.
I would challenge, however, your assertion that violence at the border is part of a three-way domestic problem for Mexico. Clearly the violence there is the result of an international struggle for dominance in the black-market and it has spilled, in more ways than one, to our side of the border. When the cartels literally have paramilitary commandos armed with AK-47s and sniper rifles perched on American hillsides to observe and report on the activities of our underfunded border patrol, we have a border security problem.
Furthermore, I do live in a border state (albeit closer to a grocery store than to the actual border). I am aware of the struggles that our ever expanding immigrant population faces. I do not fear them because we do not share a common language (fluently, anyway) or because we have distinct cultural identity. I have deep admiration for their determined work ethic, willingness to look forward to a better future, and simple decency. I want them to have the same access to this country as my ancestors, but I want them to respect our law as they assimilate.
Also, I am confused by your assertion that the states should work with the federal government. On its face, I wholeheartedly agree. But I have yet to see the federal government take action to address any of these issues, leaving states like Arizona to fend for themselves. Interestingly, I had a conversation with a Navajo woman who had been arrested in a grocery store in Arizona for failure to produce documentation, so obviously there are issues with the implementation of sb 1070.
One final point. I am continually frustrated by the seemingly paradoxical position of the political left which asserts that America has no business meddling in international political affairs or behaving as the “world police” while at the same time we have the responsibility of providing aid and opportunity to every needy population. It might not be the academically high-minded approach, but I think we have a responsibility to perform both functions insofar as our domestic security is involved.
Lane, thank you for dedicating your life to public service and I appreciate your candor in this discussion.
# posted by : 1:15 PM
: 1:15 PM
Professor,
I am also talking about situations in which there literally aren't enough Americans to do the jobs that immigrants do. Some may scoff at this notion, but I use New Hampshire as a perfect example. The unemployment rate was at about 4% when I was working there, so there weren't a lot of people out of work to begin with. Certain seasonal businesses, like apple picking, ski resorts, and concrete layers, increase their volume tenfold in the appropriate season, and they need temporary workers to help out. At 4% unemployment, there simply aren't enough out-of-work people in the state to accommodate these businesses, especially on a temporary basis, so they rely on immigrant labor. However, when Congress limits the number of H2B temporary work visas to something like 64,000 annually, there's no way these businesses can get the people they need, so they turn to illegal immigrant labor (which is also, incidentally, not that easy to find in New Hampshire). It's either that or lose their businesses. While I realize that this paradigm doesn't really apply to much of the US, it is a type of reality that must be accounted for when proposing any sweeping changes to immigration law.
I am also talking about situations in which there literally aren't enough Americans to do the jobs that immigrants do. Some may scoff at this notion, but I use New Hampshire as a perfect example. The unemployment rate was at about 4% when I was working there, so there weren't a lot of people out of work to begin with. Certain seasonal businesses, like apple picking, ski resorts, and concrete layers, increase their volume tenfold in the appropriate season, and they need temporary workers to help out. At 4% unemployment, there simply aren't enough out-of-work people in the state to accommodate these businesses, especially on a temporary basis, so they rely on immigrant labor. However, when Congress limits the number of H2B temporary work visas to something like 64,000 annually, there's no way these businesses can get the people they need, so they turn to illegal immigrant labor (which is also, incidentally, not that easy to find in New Hampshire). It's either that or lose their businesses. While I realize that this paradigm doesn't really apply to much of the US, it is a type of reality that must be accounted for when proposing any sweeping changes to immigration law.
Anon -- no real offense taken.
That aside, I find it amusing (well, sort of) to receive notes in this tenor on my windshield when I leave work:
"Hello Americans. This is the Gulf Coast Cartel. Please be advised that we will be attempting to terminate members of the Zetas gang this weekend. Please do not cross the border, but stay safe in your homes. We are drug sellers; we do not wish there to be violence, but occasionally we have to fight. If you avoid these bars on the weekend, and do not wear these colors, all will be safe, and we can get back to our business of selling you drugs."
I am not kidding; those letters routinely appear on vehicles in the RGV. The cartels would, I believe, switch to legal drug importing if the prohibition on such drugs were lifted. Of the many things that motivates man, I can always count on greed to be one of the strongest, and legal drugs would be as profitable, if not more so, than the current illegal scheme. I think legalization would go a long way toward ending these problems.
And as you are still unfamiliar with me, Anonymous, you will find that while I am a proud leftist, the "American left" is a frequent object of my scorn. The American left attempts to forge a consensus identity out of disparate groups of liberals, progressives, hippies, anarchists, and others that lacks the cohesion that might be seen in a true leftist party (in, say, Canada or Germany). I am a firm believer that America, as a nation, ought not to meddle in the affairs of sovereignty of other nations. Aid should be given (and given with a charitable heart) when requested or necessary. That said, there are some times when it would be unjust of us to act to prevent terrible events from occurring or to remove threats to our own national security (I have remained a supporter of the necessity of the Afghan War, even if I think it has been continually badly managed since 2003). But the problem of the Mexican drug/human trade is not something I think we should concern ourselves with as a part of border security, or at least, we appear to be going about it in the wrong way. Stigmatizing immigrants, dividing families, and hampering federal immigration reform are bad options.
That's why I say that states ought to cooperate with the federal government, rather than snub them (a la Arizona and Texas). But our federal government is currently hampered by a national conversation that assumes that federal action is costly and ineffective, and that States are better equipped to deal with these cross-border problems. A more mature approach to federal appropriations and spending is necessary than the current "YOU CAN'T FUND THAT!" "YES WE CAN! WE'LL HAVE UNICORNS CRAP MONEY!" approach going on right now.
That aside, I find it amusing (well, sort of) to receive notes in this tenor on my windshield when I leave work:
"Hello Americans. This is the Gulf Coast Cartel. Please be advised that we will be attempting to terminate members of the Zetas gang this weekend. Please do not cross the border, but stay safe in your homes. We are drug sellers; we do not wish there to be violence, but occasionally we have to fight. If you avoid these bars on the weekend, and do not wear these colors, all will be safe, and we can get back to our business of selling you drugs."
I am not kidding; those letters routinely appear on vehicles in the RGV. The cartels would, I believe, switch to legal drug importing if the prohibition on such drugs were lifted. Of the many things that motivates man, I can always count on greed to be one of the strongest, and legal drugs would be as profitable, if not more so, than the current illegal scheme. I think legalization would go a long way toward ending these problems.
And as you are still unfamiliar with me, Anonymous, you will find that while I am a proud leftist, the "American left" is a frequent object of my scorn. The American left attempts to forge a consensus identity out of disparate groups of liberals, progressives, hippies, anarchists, and others that lacks the cohesion that might be seen in a true leftist party (in, say, Canada or Germany). I am a firm believer that America, as a nation, ought not to meddle in the affairs of sovereignty of other nations. Aid should be given (and given with a charitable heart) when requested or necessary. That said, there are some times when it would be unjust of us to act to prevent terrible events from occurring or to remove threats to our own national security (I have remained a supporter of the necessity of the Afghan War, even if I think it has been continually badly managed since 2003). But the problem of the Mexican drug/human trade is not something I think we should concern ourselves with as a part of border security, or at least, we appear to be going about it in the wrong way. Stigmatizing immigrants, dividing families, and hampering federal immigration reform are bad options.
That's why I say that states ought to cooperate with the federal government, rather than snub them (a la Arizona and Texas). But our federal government is currently hampered by a national conversation that assumes that federal action is costly and ineffective, and that States are better equipped to deal with these cross-border problems. A more mature approach to federal appropriations and spending is necessary than the current "YOU CAN'T FUND THAT!" "YES WE CAN! WE'LL HAVE UNICORNS CRAP MONEY!" approach going on right now.
RRL, you've got to feed them on sweetness, gentle forest sunlight, and the laughter of virgins. Living in Waco, it's understandable that these natural comestibles of the unicorn are in short supply.
So, you're saying that my unicorn's steady diet of Bud Light, cigarette butts, and the wrath of my anger may not be ideal for money crapping?? Huh, who knew...
# posted by : 4:04 PM
: 4:04 PM
Is that a joke Anon. 7:05? Free and subsidized govt. education, Medicaid, CHIP, Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, WIC, govt. housing, unemployment, disability, child care, etc. Add some of that to a minimum wage job (or two) and it can be a pretty good living...especially when compared to dumpster-diving for food in a 3rd world country. I lived in Argentina for 2 years just before its economic collapse and saw first-hand what "meager" looks like.
This reminds me of my visit to a WIC center in South Phoenix as a new govt. employee shortly after obtaining my undergrad degree. My co-worker, a real estate employee, drove a fairly new government issued Chevy Cavalier to the center to address some issues with the space. I was amazed, though, that when we arrived, the govt. vehicle was the cheapest car in the parking lot. I'm not saying that everybody using these services is a free-loader, but U.S. govt. aid these days errs on the side of excess and waste.
Lane, who is saying that “States are better equipped to deal with cross-border problems”? That’s a new one.
JT, the John-McCain-lettuce-picker argument is so tired even he has dropped it. You can’t discuss supply and demand without price. Why does NH need to transport workers from thousands of miles away instead of Detroit or Cleveland?
I agree with diadelwannabe (while apologizing that my parents invaded his name-turf) and AC that this is a complex issue. I love the latin american people, but think we need prudent limits to avoid the expansion of the welfare state.
Sorry to break up the unicornapalooza.
-"Other" Kendall
This reminds me of my visit to a WIC center in South Phoenix as a new govt. employee shortly after obtaining my undergrad degree. My co-worker, a real estate employee, drove a fairly new government issued Chevy Cavalier to the center to address some issues with the space. I was amazed, though, that when we arrived, the govt. vehicle was the cheapest car in the parking lot. I'm not saying that everybody using these services is a free-loader, but U.S. govt. aid these days errs on the side of excess and waste.
Lane, who is saying that “States are better equipped to deal with cross-border problems”? That’s a new one.
JT, the John-McCain-lettuce-picker argument is so tired even he has dropped it. You can’t discuss supply and demand without price. Why does NH need to transport workers from thousands of miles away instead of Detroit or Cleveland?
I agree with diadelwannabe (while apologizing that my parents invaded his name-turf) and AC that this is a complex issue. I love the latin american people, but think we need prudent limits to avoid the expansion of the welfare state.
Sorry to break up the unicornapalooza.
-"Other" Kendall
Other Kendall (sorry, I know diadelkendall) -- I didn't say states are better equipped to deal with cross-border issues. We are (to put it bluntly) not. There's not enough money, we don't have the training, our state and municipal police forces don't have the training that CBP agents do... it's a mess. But there is a lot of talk among right-wingers in the wake of Arizona's new laws that think that States are better-equipped.
Personally, I think a partnership between sovereigns is the best idea, but that's neither here nor there.
What, exactly, are we going to do about unicorn abuse in Waco?
Personally, I think a partnership between sovereigns is the best idea, but that's neither here nor there.
What, exactly, are we going to do about unicorn abuse in Waco?
Hold on, hold on. Unicorn abuse seems a bit strong. At most we are talking about Unicorn neglect here.
"I love the latin american people..."
Wait, we are talking about Italian immigrants? I thought we were discussing Canadians. This changes everything!
Lane, I lost my manual, so I just looked one up on Huffington Post. It told me that it didn't matter what I fed my unicorn as long as I allowed it to discover its sexual orientation at its own pace and accepted whatever choice it made without judgment. In retrospect, this may have been a mistake.
I also demand that the two Kendall's battle it out physical challenge style to determine which one can use the Kendall moniker on this website. I will be rooting for diadelkendall, obviously, but I gotta say I like new Kendall's style.
"I love the latin american people..."
Wait, we are talking about Italian immigrants? I thought we were discussing Canadians. This changes everything!
Lane, I lost my manual, so I just looked one up on Huffington Post. It told me that it didn't matter what I fed my unicorn as long as I allowed it to discover its sexual orientation at its own pace and accepted whatever choice it made without judgment. In retrospect, this may have been a mistake.
I also demand that the two Kendall's battle it out physical challenge style to determine which one can use the Kendall moniker on this website. I will be rooting for diadelkendall, obviously, but I gotta say I like new Kendall's style.
# posted by : 5:11 PM
: 5:11 PM
i'm still educating myself on a few things, so i'll not put forward an argument just yet.
however, i have come across (and some of you may have seen it before, too) a speech given by former colorado governor dick lamm at a conference in D.C. in 2004 that offers an interesting perspective.
it can be found easily through google, but here is a link: http://www.safehaven.com/article/4837/how-to-destroy-america
also, i looked it up on snopes and lamm confirmed that he did give such a speech, even providing the text himself, and said he was "proud" that the speech has gotten the publicity and distribution it has enjoyed in the years since he gave it.
it's very interesting. some points are surely debatable.
however, i think that people who ignore the lessons of history are stupid and deserve what they get. it's kind of a 'survival of the fittest' line of thinking.
hugs.
however, i have come across (and some of you may have seen it before, too) a speech given by former colorado governor dick lamm at a conference in D.C. in 2004 that offers an interesting perspective.
it can be found easily through google, but here is a link: http://www.safehaven.com/article/4837/how-to-destroy-america
also, i looked it up on snopes and lamm confirmed that he did give such a speech, even providing the text himself, and said he was "proud" that the speech has gotten the publicity and distribution it has enjoyed in the years since he gave it.
it's very interesting. some points are surely debatable.
however, i think that people who ignore the lessons of history are stupid and deserve what they get. it's kind of a 'survival of the fittest' line of thinking.
hugs.
# posted by : 5:31 PM
: 5:31 PM
Kendall said: Why does NH need to transport workers from thousands of miles away instead of Detroit or Cleveland?
Because no one lives in Detroit anymore. I can't speak for Cleveland.
Because no one lives in Detroit anymore. I can't speak for Cleveland.
No dance contest necessary...I'm ok with "other" Kendall. I'm pretty sure diadel is older, surely wiser, and has a very intimidating avatar.
Lane, I don't think I misunderstood your comment. I agree that the feds are "better equipped" to handle border enforcement. Right wingers have been saying for a long time that the feds have been derelict in that duty, so increased state involvement is necessary...at least that's my understanding of the argument.
Christine, touche. I guess 30+% (unemployed) of very little is still very little.
RRL, apologies for the multicultural faux pas...replace with "people from Central and South American countries." Although, I'll be hating on Mexico for the weekend. Yes, I know Maradona is a commie-nut-job, but...
Lane, I don't think I misunderstood your comment. I agree that the feds are "better equipped" to handle border enforcement. Right wingers have been saying for a long time that the feds have been derelict in that duty, so increased state involvement is necessary...at least that's my understanding of the argument.
Christine, touche. I guess 30+% (unemployed) of very little is still very little.
RRL, apologies for the multicultural faux pas...replace with "people from Central and South American countries." Although, I'll be hating on Mexico for the weekend. Yes, I know Maradona is a commie-nut-job, but...
Kendall, I agree 100% about where our hatred should be focused this weekend, and my hate laser is engaged and focused squarely at the Mexican national team. Hate at all-time high. I hope Maradona snorts a few extra lines and unleashes his socialist program all over those whiny diving cheaters from the south.
Due to your hatred of Mexico this weekend I wont even address the state v. federal government issue. More important things at stake here.
Post a Comment
Due to your hatred of Mexico this weekend I wont even address the state v. federal government issue. More important things at stake here.
# posted by : 11:56 AM
: 11:56 AM << Home
