July 3, 2008
Immigration, Again
We can't all go off to our Fourth celebrations as indivisible, proud Americans, can we?
I wonder if the forces at ThreeSources who are -- shall we say -- less tolerant of illegal immigration than I am -- are you disturbed that Senator McCain is spending the Third in Mexico? Mickey Kaus sure is:
So the Fourth of July newspapers will have John McCain in ... er, Mexico plotting how to achieve comprehensive immigration reform with Felipe Calderon. ... And some people say the McCain Team has a tin ear!
I've heard some good points made around here -- I like the prosperity that they bring to us and am more willing than most around here to shrug off some of the problems. I'll agree that it is complicated, and I will cede that the other side has honest interlocutors.
But Kaus -- whom I admire greatly -- is not one of them. I feel a little sorry for him -- a Democrat yearning for Tancredoism has a tragic side to it.
I would think that one thing we might agree on is that the government of Mexico will continue to be mui importanto to future immigration concerns. I think this episode exposes the flaw in the Kaus theory. Why is the candidate holding talks without preconditions with Calderon? The solution is to be found on the north side of the Rio Grande. It's 14 feet high, has barbed wire on top and a lot of armed people in its shade to ensure its integrity.
Sorry, Mickster, a real solution involves Mexico. To deny that is to expose your thinking as being too small for the problem.
Happy Fourth!
June 17, 2008
Kumbaya Time
ThreeSourcers have had our best fights over Immigration, but I have a feeling we might all come together on Rep Wiener's special Visa for models.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A New York congressman who has been romantically linked by tabloid newspapers to several high-profile, beautiful women, is one step closer to creating a special work permit for foreign fashion models.Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner, a 43-year-old bachelor, has proposed legislation giving international beauties their own U.S. visa category, rather than have them compete with computer analysts and scientists for the non-immigrant H-1B visa for skilled professionals.
For the record, it is not that hard to tell models and computer professionals apart. All the same, as the pro-Immigration guy around here, I'll take more fashion models however it works.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
March 31, 2008
Let Them Eat Corn!
The evil, populist Kaus-Reynolds axis is at it again. (Mickey & The Professor?) I have the highest respect and admiration for both Mickey Kaus and Glenn Reynolds, but their position as Lou Dobbs of the Blogosphere always gets me down.
Today, Kaus writes about a Pennsylvania farmer who is no longer planting tomatoes because of labor concerns. Kaus points out that tomatoes are not rotting in the fields (sad news in an election year), but that the farmer has chosen a less labor-intensive crop:
But note that no tomatoes are rotting in the fields in this story. Eckel has just decided to plant another, less labor-intensive crop: "45 acres of sweet corn, and 1,200 acres of corn for grain." Is this a tragedy, or a surprisingly painless transition away from a business that used illegal labor to a business that uses legal labor? We will buy fewer Pennsylvania tomatoes and more Pennsylvania corn. So? ...
So we are poorer, Sir, instead of using trade and comparative advantage to enrich our lives, we are choosing self-sufficiency. Enjoy your Bacon, Lettuce and Corn sandwich!
February 8, 2008
The Worst Thing You Can Find?
Rep. Tom Tancredo is back. His Presidential campaign is over, he is not seeking reelection, he can now worry full time that somewhere an illegal alien is happy.
I get emails from the Center for Individual Liberty. I think I signed a pro war or support-the-troops petition once and I have been on the mailing list for some time. I guess we see eye-to-eye on the war, but I haven't agreed with anything they've included in their emails. Today's subject is "Warning Illegals May Still Get Rebate Checks Under Stimulus Plan" And it seems Rep. Tancredo is unhappy. Even though they amended the bill to not purposefully send checks to illegals, there might be a slip up or two:
Here's what else Tancredo has said of the Ensign Fix:"Unless language is added to the package that both expressly prohibits the issuance of rebate checks to illegal aliens and directs the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security to share information and work together to prevent these payments from being made to illegal aliens, we will not address this glaring deficiency in the stimulus legislation."
I will shock and astound ThreeSourcers when I say that I am not seeking direct subsidies to the undocumented. But this stimulus bill is nonsense on stilts. In quicksand. With a plate-balancing monkey on your back.
The depreciation provisions may actually help a little, but the rebates are bad from every angle. They won't help, and the deficit they exacerbate will preclude extending tax cuts that do help. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
But to single out immigration as the problem with this legislation highlights the depravity of the Tancredo crowd. It's like worrying whether burning your house down is an efficient use of matches.
Everybody whacks at me for my immigration position, AtWC, feel free.
I cannot see the map when I follow the link.
I have no problem with anyone, citizen or legal resident or illegal, getting tax money back. Whoever gets money back will either spend it or save it in the real economy. Ideally that's less money in the hands of government, but as we know, government won't cut spending...
Forget illegals. They're a red herring. The problem is when *anyone*, citizen or legal resident or illegal, gets a rebate check when the amount exceeds whatever the person paid in taxes.
There's no equivocating: it is patently absurd for those who pay no income taxes to receive (more) money from the rest of us, whether welfare or the "rebate" farce.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 8, 2008 1:29 PMjk, not pointing my finger at you, but somebody voted these #$%^##@ into office.
Perry Eidelbus, I have the same issue thanks for bringing it up. As it made me think about the head of household credit (which I believe acts like a credit to the money you paid in) ... I think people on welfare get it. I am using welfare loosely to include everybody who gets a check from the state without doing work, people who have no documents do get those.
Posted by: At The Water Cooler at February 8, 2008 1:45 PMTaking it a step further, even if one's "stimulus rebate check" does not exceed his tax payments for that year it is still income redistribution unless it's in the same proportion as his taxes paid. But as Ragnar Danneskjold taught us, any chance you have to get ANY of your money back - take it!
"Nonsense on stilts" yes, but I'll take mine please. Thank you very much. Now, would I turn it down if it meant none of these abominous checks would be mailed? Yes, but if we're making up such wondrous notions why would we stop there?
Posted by: johngalt at February 8, 2008 3:33 PMPerry and jg are a little too sanguine here. Swell to get some taxes back, but you're paying for them to write and mail the checks, you're paying for all the fraudulent ones, and you're paying for all the ones paid to those who did not pay that much in taxes.
And if you're over the income limit, you not gettin' nothin'. I don't think Ragnar is quite down on this.
I think you misunderstand my point, jk. I'm only saying there's no problem with anyone getting tax money back -- provided they had paid taxes. This whole "illegal" thing is a red herring, to mask that retirees and welfare recipients.
Don't let my previous comment deceive you. I accept no redistribution whatsoever, even to the point that I think a "flat" percentage-based tax is wrong. If you saw me in real life, your hair would blanche white in a second, once you heard my ranting about the bleepity bleep bleep bleeping taxes that are being stolen from me, and given to bleepity bleep bleep bleeping bleepers.
Each year of my adult life, I grew angrier as my income grew and the percentage stolen (euphemistically called "taxation") grew. I am positively livid over what I paid last year, and that people who aren't working are literally living off my hard labor. Last year, I paid as much in taxes as a person can earn all year round, and I'm not talking about someone making minimum wage. Yet with the taxes, I feel like I'm not advancing in salary.
Remember, even the Mafia charges either just a head tax or a flat tax.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 11, 2008 1:21 PMJanuary 21, 2008
HB's Immigration Plan
Nothing gets the folks at Three Sources as riled up as a conversation on immigration. With that in mind, here is my immigration solution:
Do Nothing.
Okay, that is a bit facetious. In actuality, what I mean is that we should "do nothing" in terms of legislation. Here is why:
- The sheer magnitude of the task of removing 12 million people from the United States makes any attempt to do so nearly impossible. This should not be the focus of any immigration policy. We need to treat the problem, not the symptom.
- Secure the borders. There is no need for legislation. The United States government already has the authority, they have simply failed to do so.
@#$^%& ^&*^(* , HB!!!
Seriously, the Prosperitarian in me likes your plan a great deal, and it is probably going to draw more ire from some others 'round here. As with all government enterprises, it is much better to do nothing than the wrong thing. And my animation about the issue is driven out of the assumption that the government will (surprise!) likely do the wrong thing.
At the same time, I'd have to point out a few very serious problems with the status quo ante:
1) Breakdown of rule of law.
2) Capricious enforcement (I know you're a Bastiat fan. I don't think Frederic would find current law "understandable and avoidable.")
3) Barbaric treatment of workers we need and should encourage. These workers must give money to "coyotes" to get them across the border and then are completely at the mercy of these people. They are subjected to rape, torture and further extortion because our government cannot connect willing employers with willing workers.
4) I think the terrorism card is wildly overplayed by the nativists, but a controlled border would provide more safety than an intentionally porous one.
Again, I ask, why do we limit the number of immigrant visas in this country?
HB says we need to treat the problem, not the symptom. As I see it the problem is that our immigration laws since 1952 have criminalized individual pursuit of the American dream for those not born in America. Like Fred! said, we need "high walls and wide gates."
Citizenship is a different matter entirely, but I doubt you'd see widespread fraud to obtain citizenship (i.e. citizenship by marriage) if simple and lawful procedures existed for aliens to come here and enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those who want to vote or hold office could pursue a separate citizenship process.
But enough talk of pie in the sky immigration dreams. Let's talk about something that has a greater probability of happening, like Fred Thompson winning the Republican nomination.
Posted by: johngalt at January 21, 2008 3:14 PMI have to agree with Harrison except I would add one more change and that's make it easier to cross legally when you have no skills
I don't want to see specific work visas for hard laborers because then you have a permanent underclass who will never Americanize because we'd suck purposefully bring in serfs.
The reasons people cross over to work here in labor is because it's a heck of a lot easier and possible than coming across legally.
Continue to prosecute folks who knowingly hire illegals, secure the border and make it easier to cross with papers.
That would fix the problem.
jg, I will concede that I would repeal all legislation that limits the number of immigrant visas. I am much closer to being an open borders guy than an immigration hawk. However, my main point is that if we are not going to open the border, we should at least enforce it. I wholly support high walls/wide gates.
Posted by: HB at January 21, 2008 9:37 PMFred!'s candidacy seems up in the air as I type this, but he has united ThreeSources with a single phrase.
I suspect that if we dug a little deeper, we'd find that I want wider and jg wants taller, but we're all on board for "tall fences with wide gates." I hope the nominee adopts that line.
January 18, 2008
Carlos Mencia Call Your Office
On his Comedy Channel TV show, Carlos Mencia got big laughs when he riffed on the border fence. "Just who do you think will build it?" "You'll have to tell them to go over to the other side to check it out and then shut the gates."
Mary Anastasia O'Grady may or may not be getting laughs with the same riff. In Political Diary today, she says:
It turns out that to build barricades to keep "them" out, we might need to let "them" in because the construction companies building border fences need illegal workers.Just ask Mel Kay, who runs a company called Golden State Fence and was busted two years ago for hiring undocumented migrants. On January 12th the Associated Press chronicled his path to arrest, explaining that he gave employment to illegals whose job it was to build fences along the U.S.-Mexico border and at two immigrant jails.
Mr. Kay says that over the years much of the output from Golden State Fence was produced by illegals. He hired them, he says, not because they were cheap, but because he relied on referrals from his Mexican employees as the only way to get reliable, stable help.
A prospective candidate's status with immigration authorities wasn't nearly as important, he said, as whether a potential employee's connection to family and friends meant he was "trustworthy and more apt to stay long term." A building boom in California made it hard for him to find workers any other way, even paying a starting salary of $35,000 that increased to $60,000 after three years. Full-time employees also got medical benefits, sick leave and two weeks vacation.
But I've used that argument around here and nobody has been convinced. So, here's her second point. I saw it in a FOXNews crawl a few days ago. To build this fence will require vigorous exercise of the hated "takings clause." ¿Kelo no beuno, anybody?
But that's only one barrier to building a wall to keep out illegal migrants. A second is resistance from property owners along the border who don't want a Berlin Wall in their backyards. Many are now vowing to fight the government. Texas's Rio Grande Valley has lately become flush with "No border wall" signs.Does all this mean that Texans don't care about the rule of law? Not at all, says Mayor Richard Cortez in the border town of McAllen. "Our fight with the government is not over their goals, it's how they go about them." He says Washington should deepen the river, clear brush for better vigilance and create a program to allow for legal workers to cross the border. Then, U.S. law enforcement could spend its time going after real criminals rather than tracking down and deporting bus boys and construction workers.
So because people can't find labor, the answer (in the all important free market) is to
a) increase legal immigration and make it easier
or
b) continue to allow illegal immigration to grow
Jk, you're still wrong by choosing b no matter how many ways you say it.
Posted by: Terri at January 18, 2008 5:39 PMActually, I want whatever combination of a plus b plus c -- allow guest workers will fill the labor pool.
I wondered if some of the property rights crowd around ThreeSources might be concerned by the eminent domain requirements to build the fence.
Yet 'a' wasn't part of the bill, and 'c' would all of a sudden be unfair competition for 'b' , just like 'b' right now is unfair competition for 'a' and citizens.
You can't have guest workers and illegals. Allowing for legal immigration in a faster way and increased amount while no longer easily allowing and hiring of illegal workers is the only answer to this problem.
Posted by: Terri at January 18, 2008 6:31 PMDecember 14, 2007
Regulation Isn't Free
Justice Brandeis, call your office! States are indeed "laboratories of Democracy" and in the absence of a Federal immigration solution, states are passing their own legislation.
The Wall Street Journal news pages -- not my wingnut buddies on the Editorial board -- report on the business community's preparations for a new law
PHOENIX -- Arizona businesses are firing Hispanic immigrants, moving operations to Mexico and freezing expansion plans ahead of a new law that cracks down on employers who hire undocumented workers.The law, set to take effect on Jan. 1, thrusts Arizona into the heart of the national debate on illegal immigration, which has become a hot topic on the presidential campaign trail. Republican candidates, in particular, have been battling to show how tough they are on the issue.
Arizona's law, believed to be the strictest in the nation, is shaping up as a test of how employers will react when faced with real sanctions for hiring undocumented labor. It is being closely watched by businesses across the country. While proponents say the crackdown will save the state money on services for illegal immigrants, some businesspeople fear Arizona's economic growth may be at risk.
Businesspeople should fear. The law is having its intended effect. Immigrants are leaving the state and employers are very cautious about the status of new hires. But my Friends at ThreeSources (F@TSs) who would rightly scream about unintended consequences for subsidies or CAFE standards, still do not recognize the massive consequences of such a crackdown:
A University of Arizona study released earlier this year concluded that economic output would drop 8.2% annually if noncitizen foreign-born workers were removed from the labor force. Researchers estimate about two-thirds of the workers in that category are in the state illegally."Getting rid of these workers means we are deciding as a matter of policy to shrink our economy," says Judith Gans, an immigration scholar at the university's Udall Center. "They're filling vital gaps in our labor force."
Sheridan Bailey, president of steel-beam manufacturer Ironco, said he has fired several Hispanic employees in anticipation of the sanctions law. "This law has the potential of sinking a business," he said. Mr. Bailey, who has formed a business group to address the issue, said Congress's inaction has allowed "policies to be generated on the fringe."
Ironco recently sealed a deal to outsource some production to a Mexican company. "The labor market is tight, and I face fines if I don't meet my commitments," said Mr. Bailey. Pacing his company's steel-fabrication bay, where welders and fitters build columns, he asked rhetorically: "Who will work here in 112-degree heat, come the summer?"
Dora Cardenas, who owns a small Mexican restaurant in Phoenix, has lost six out of 12 employees since late November. They moved to other states. "They say they were afraid to be here," said Ms. Cardenas. "I'm even afraid to be here, and I am a legal resident." She said business is down almost 40% since the summer at her restaurant, which caters mainly to a Latino clientele.
Jason Levecke, the grandson of the founder of the Carl's Jr. fast-food empire and the state's biggest franchisee, has put on hold plans to open 20 more outlets statewide. "That's $30 million that could blow up in my face," he said. "The risk is too great."
I do not claim that my F@TSs are inconsistent, hypocritical, or fat. The country has a legitimate right to regulate immigration which it lacks for energy mix, toilet water use, or washing machine design. And F@TS is just an unfortunate acronym.
But I'd ask them to consider these consequences and to refrain from calling for a crackdown until there is some method to ameliorate these effects.
I'll find the link to my own post later, but I've said for a while now that there's no point to the law distinguishing between one man as a "legal resident" and another man as an illegal alien. The difference is whether one works and the other leeches via the state.
I don't care if the Guatemalans in Brewster (a town in the county north of me that's known for an increasing Hispanic population) are living here legally or illegally. In warmer weather, there are usually a bunch on the Metro-North train by the time it gets to my stop. I don't care why they're riding it, which is always for day-labor jobs in Mount Kisco or Chappaqua. I *do* care if they're living off my tax dollars.
Conservatives often use "the rule of law" but have no goddamn idea what it means. It only means that the law must be applied equally to everyone. It doesn't mean the law must always be obeyed: there have been laws saying you'd lose your head for not swearing allegiance to the crown, so should those have been enforced? What about when HillaryCare is passed, must it be enforced because "it's the law"?
Laws can be wrong, and just because an illegal "broke the law" doesn't inherently mean anything bad.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at December 14, 2007 4:39 PMI'd love to see the link if you can dig it up, Perry. I'm a lonely voice around here on immigration. (Then again, I'm feeling a bit lonesome on "New Monitarism" as well...)
Posted by: jk at December 14, 2007 6:44 PMOctober 29, 2007
Rep. Tancredo to Quit House
I suppose he'd have to give up his seat when he's inaugurated.
I know that other ThreeSourcers are closer to Tancredo's views on immigration than I am, but I think we might all maybe sorta agree that his extremist positions do not do the GOP any good. (I still remember when he wanted to deport the class valedictorian). John Fund, in the Political Diary, hammers him for blocking comprehensive immigration reform:
The 61-year-old Congressman certainly had a rabble-rousing impact on his fellow Republicans. While the comprehensive immigration bill proposed by a bipartisan group of Senators earlier this year turned out to be hastily written and deeply flawed, Mr. Tancredo had no effective alternative in mind. He simply wanted to kill the bill, pouring cold water on efforts by members such as Rep. Mike Pence to craft a compromise that would deal in a practical way with aliens already in the country and businesses that desperately need a reliable guest-worker program.
Fund then speculates on his political future:
But while Mr. Tancredo is leaving Congress, don't think you've heard the last of him on his pet subject. He plans to continue speaking and writing and (for now) pursuing his presidential bid. Then there's the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Colorado, when Democratic Senator Ken Salazar, whom Mr. Tancredo sees as 180 degrees opposite him on immigration matters, will be running for re-election. The problem is, Mr. Tancredo thought long and hard about running for the same seat in 2004, only to discover that polls showed he would have trouble winning even the GOP nomination statewide.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, Congressman. (I may have promised no more nasty comments like that about Rep. Tancredo -- but this is a special occasion.)
September 27, 2007
Did I mention This Was a Big Loser?
Tancredoism might be popular with the talk radio crowd and the right wing fever swamps of the blogosphere (like ThreeSources when jk is out to coffee), but it is not an electoral winner.
Larry Kudlow links to an evaluation, on the America's Majority site of Projected Impact of “Enforcement Only” on Hispanic Presidential Vote, 2008. Larry calls it A GOP Recipe for Electoral Disaster.
The foundation’s newest study, involving 145 precincts and 175,000 votes, analyzes actual vote shifts in Hispanic portions of six congressional districts in the 2004 and 2006 elections.Nadler finds that border security is not the key issue affecting the Latino vote...“Participants in the immigration debate needn’t like this conclusion. But they had better understand it.”
Bad politics. Bad policy.
September 19, 2007
Immigration, Part MCLXIV
Awesome interview in TCSDaily today between Nick Schultz and "British author and economist Philippe Legrain." Schultz serves up, pretty astutely, the bulk of legitimate questions about legal and illegal immigration. The author of Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them politely, but convincingly answers them.
Schulz: Can we know what the right level of immigration is? How do we know?Legrain: I don't think that "we", whoever that "we" might be, can determine the "right" level of immigration, any more than we can know the right level of international tourism, the right number of foreign business trips that should be taken or the right number of children people should have. What we can say is that because immigration controls restrict people's ability to move freely and companies' and workers' ability to reach mutually advantageous employment contracts, the current level and composition of migration is "wrong", in the sense that arbitrary controls stop some people from moving, cause others to migrate illegally, result in many people staying in the US longer than they would otherwise choose to do, and prevent the labor market operating efficiently and fairly.
It's a great, serious discussion without the name calling and ad hominem attacks we have around here. It is well worth a read in full.
August 22, 2007
Rudy's Immigration Pander
The WSJ Ed Page (or, as Michelle Malkin would call them, the "Open Borders WSJ Ed Page") asks whether Mitt! and Rudy! are "competing for the Republican Presidential nomination, or for the job of vacation replacement for Lou Dobbs?"
GOP Immigration Meltdown (free link)Both candidates, however, ignore the reality that more security measures will have limited effect if not paired with a guest worker program that gives foreign nationals more legal ways to access job offers in the U.S. The same goes for the Bush Administration's recently announced plans to step-up "interior" enforcement. Taking U.S. employers to the woodshed won't fix the illegal immigration problem, and it could do real economic harm.
Then again, maybe Hugh Hewitt is right. Trashing the economy and alienating the fastest voting block in the country really is the path to big Republican sweeps in 2008. Yaaay Team!
August 20, 2007
Down, the Republican Party
"Immigration will be to the Republicans what Iraq withdrawal is to the Democrats," says Jeff Birnbaum on FOX NEWS's The Beltway Boys. It is August and the folks at FOX could not round up a liberal to fill Morton Kondracke's seat.
But both conservatives -- I emphasize the word "conservative;" these guys are both more conservative than I -- see the approaching electoral train wreck. They don't blame the other ThreeSourcers directly but...
UPDATE: YouTube is a great forum for nuanced debate. The comments I drew to my posting on Speaker Pelosi made we want to join her side. Today I get this:
The Beltway Boys are for Open Borders. Screw them!
I have NEVER found Jeff Birnbaum to be a conservative.
Posted by: johngalt at August 21, 2007 3:07 PMOkay, Fred Barnes and Karl Marx say the GOP is in trouble from immigration. The point holds.
Posted by: jk at August 21, 2007 4:18 PMAugust 16, 2007
Rudy! Immigration!
I can't sit on bad news. John Fund writes a troubling item in Wednesday's Political Diary:
Rudy Giuliani has decided to become very tough on immigration. Stung by criticism from Mitt Romney that he presided over a "sanctuary city" in the 1990s when New York refused to report the immigration status of illegal aliens, Mr. Giuliani gave a speech in South Carolina yesterday in which he announced: "We can end illegal immigration. I promise you we can end illegal immigration."The former New York mayor backed up his words by announcing he would push for a "national database of foreigners," an increase of 20,000 border patrol agents to deport illegal immigrant felons, and the erection of a fence along the U.S. border.
All this tough talk amuses anti-immigration forces, which have been critical of Mr. Giuliani ever since he opposed the 1996 welfare reform bill in large part because of its treatment of illegal immigrants. "It sounds like an effort by Giuliani to make himself seem like a hawk on immigration when, in fact, he's been a dove all along," Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies told the New York Sun.
Advocates for immigrants are appalled at Mr. Giuliani's new tack. They point out that while mayor he created the mayor's office of immigrant affairs and also sued the federal government for trying to allow city employees to turn in illegal immigrants who applied for government help.
Indeed, in 1996 Mr. Giuliani gave a speech at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government in which he declared: "The reality is, people will always get in. And the reality is, the federal government does not deport them... So illegal and undocumented immigrants are going to remain, and even increase. And nothing that is now being proposed in Washington would realistically change that very much."
Everyone is allowed to alter his or her position on issues, and Mr. Giuliani says he remains firmly committed to more legal immigration than is now allowed. But nonetheless his current attempt to remake himself into a "Border Patrol" champion is one of the more dramatic and surprising transformations of the presidential race so far. It is further proof of just how much the politics of immigration have changed in recent years.
I'm still on board, but this is easily the most disappointing thing I have read about Giuliani. His position has "evolved" from right to wrong.
You expected, perhaps, a pro illegal immigrant speech? Your assessment of Rudy's evolution is, in a nutshell, the reason you and Bush and Ted Kennedy can't get any support on the this issue; you don't want border security, legal immigration or an honest guest worker program. You want open borders, a legalized version of the chaos we have now. You cover yourself with rhetorical fig leaves but they fall to the ground when you equate a desire to end illegal immigration with a move from "right to wrong".
Posted by: sugarchuck at August 17, 2007 9:33 AMNo, I was talking to Senator Kennedy the other night, making big plans for the future, and he said...
Seriously, I begged for a guest worker program for years around here. The rough riders of talk radio rose up in a populist revolt and killed it.
Mayor Giuliani was eloquent in the FOX News GOP debate when Rep, Tancredo was suggesting a moratorium on legal immigration. I'd say the 1996 described above is about right: admit the exigencies of a lengthy border and open society and seek a more political solution. Fair point on the pro-illegal speech, but Giuliani has pushed free market, classical liberal ideas on heath care, regulation, and taxation. I'd have loved him to propose something a little more nuanced than a fence.
Lastly, my concern is not just immigration. This is the first time I see (my) candidate choosing politics over principle. That never ends well.
If you're saying that "right" is all the illegal immigration that is possible and "wrong" is increasing the numbers of legal immigrants allowed, then I'd say you have it wrong.
Posted by: Terri at August 17, 2007 11:19 AM
The guest worker program you begged for years ago, without a muscular enforcement of our borders, would be that fig leaf I was talking about. You can't have one without the other, and enforcement has got to come first. As to Rudy picking the political over the principal, isn't that precisely the kind of pragmatism he'll have to embrace if he wants to save us from Hillary? Just askin'....
Posted by: sugarchuck at August 17, 2007 11:52 AMRight is having enough free labor to expand our economy and create wealth. I want to do that in a legal context where we know who is here and can keep out those who do not abide by our laws.
I do not join my blog brothers to say that an illegal border crossing under the current circumstance is enough of an infraction to call someone illegal. That would be like Barney Fife putting everybody in jail if they drive five mph over the speed limit.
Millions came here to freely trade their labor and create contract with employers who require them. It is insane that we force people to pay criminals and risk their lives.
I have always held that enforcement and a guest worker program are complimentary. The guest worker program keeps the pressure off the fence. Enforcement pushes people to use the legal method.
Gotta have both. Ergo, comprehensive reform.
July 27, 2007
Immigration Redux Remix
Let the record show that I didn't start it this time.
Former Deputy Editor of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, George Melloan, has a guest editorial today (paid link). He contrasts the arresting of workers in Arizona against news that potatoes are rotting in the ground in Idaho because of insufficient labor to harvest them. It's all my arguments that have not convinced anybody around here yet:
Still, the $13 trillion American economy demands labor. Mexico has had a high birth rate (although it is rapidly slowing) and can supply the needed workers, with benefits on both sides of the border. But the U.S. political class can only talk of new barriers. Why is this such a hard equation for politicians? The longer this problem festers, the more likely it will push the Mexican polity to turn away from being an uneasy friend of the U.S. to becoming a troublesome enemy.
But there was a new twist I enjoyed:
The fundamental mistake, one that American politicians have made over and over again, is the belief that the government's police powers can overwhelm powerful market forces. Richard Nixon and the Congress attempted this feat in 1971 with wage and price controls, stalling American growth for a decade. Simpson-Mazzoli was a similar effort to strong-arm a key market -- for labor -- by threatening something that proved to be unenforceable, jail sentences for employers of illegal aliens. Luckily, that didn't shut off the labor supply from Mexico, it just drove it underground. Estimates are that there at least 12 million illegals in the U.S. and that may be far lower than the actual number.
Nixon wage and price controls. Blanket government interference in opposition to market forces. Why not institute a guest worker program instead of a fence?
My friend Robert Halbrook, a retired lawyer living in Tucson, Ariz., is aware that politics are not always logical or even rational, but offers a logical solution nonetheless: Legislators must do away with all the threats and penalties that drive labor and its employers underground. It must be made possible for illegal workers to achieve legal status without fear. That way Mexicans can come to the U.S. to fill jobs and go home safe in the knowledge that when their work is demanded they will be able to come back again. Many will go back with skills learned in the U.S., enabling them to earn a living at home. Most, he believes, do not crave U.S. citizenship. Why should they want to cope with a new language and culture, if they can return home without penalty? They just want to feed their families and try to move up the economic ladder.Is it too much to ask of Congress that it employ some of this clear logic? Apparently so, judging from the paralysis in Washington.
Why not institute a guest worker program and a fence!
Posted by: sugarchuck at July 27, 2007 1:12 PMThat's what I suggested in November of 2005...
Posted by: jk at July 27, 2007 3:50 PMJuly 26, 2007
Immigration Redux
Admitting you have a problem is usually the first step.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he's floating a plan that would grant legal status to the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants, but offer no path to citizenship."It might be the equivalent of a green card," Specter said Thursday. "The main thrust is to bring the 12 million out of the shadows," and eliminate the fear of arrest or deportation.
Specter said conservatives who last month derailed a comprehensive immigration bill might accept his plan because it would not allow the 12 million to seek citizenship status.
"We litigated amnesty and that lost," Specter said.
Amnesty? Did he say Amnesty? I thought the previous bill specifically was not amnesty!
Fred! & the Hazelton Decision
Fred Thompson is the first non-Presidential candidate with an exploratory committee to comment on the Hazelton decision.
Let’s be clear about what’s going on here. No matter what some groups may be trying to do to muddy the water and portray Hazleton’s law as something playing to an uglier agenda, this law is not about legal immigration. This law is about dealing with the illegal immigration problem in Hazleton. The town’s mayor and city officials made this clear from the beginning, and it seems like they took a common sense approach.Our constitutional system allows cities to take reasonable steps to protect their citizens. When the federal government is unwilling to enforce immigration laws effectively, then cities need to be able to act, and take reasonable steps to secure their citizens from the social, financial, and criminal costs of illegal immigration.
No doubt, this ruling will be appealed. And it should be.
The decision sets up the situation where a city or state wants a law enforced but federal law prohibits it, leaving it to the federal government, who don't want to enforce it.
An interesting exercise in the 10th Amendment, if nothing else.
Sadly, it'll be years before it gets in front of the Supremes, where Justice Roberts SHOULD stick to his stare decisis (sp?) philosophy.
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at July 26, 2007 10:13 PMHere we go again...
I don't think the Hazleton law is a good idea. And I think it is a bad case for enforcement types to "get behind."
Let me, humbly, suggest how your side should proceed (you're welcome).
Those seeking stricter enforcement should "Know thy enemy" and should champion legislation and tactics that meet their goals and arouse the least opposition and suspicion from those who see it the other way. Like President Bush goes too far toward praising Islam so that he is difficult to attack as being anti-Muslim, I would suggest that y'all are very cautious on two fronts.
First, you should bend over backwards to demonstrate that you are not racist and would accept no law that interferes with legal immigrants and Hispanic citizens.
Second, you should assure the business community (and its toadies like me) that you do not want to disrupt the economy nor place onerous regulations on business.
You should find laws and tactics that support your goals and are good politics. Instead, the "enforcers" I know immediately hop on any proposal that they feel will harm illegal immigrants. Let's pardon the border guards who misbehaved (because they were shooting at an illegal); let's protest the pizza parlor that accepts Pesos ('cause that would be a convenience to illegals); let's all get behind the Hazleton law ('cause then illegals won't have any place to live or work).
You cover the Pennsylvania beat, ac, and if I am missing subtleties in the Hazleton law, I look forward to elucidation. But you're asking every landlord and employer to be an INS agent. How can you be sure whom you're renting the basement to? I don't want to be fined, I better not rent to any Latinos. It seems to punish employers and landlords for something that is not their problem.
July 6, 2007
So, it's a feature, eh?
As regulation scares companies away from our capital markets, protectionism pushes trade away, our overly restrictive immigration policies are reducing our competitive advantage in technology. The WSJ reports (paid link)
TORONTO -- Microsoft Corp. plans to open a software development center in Canada this fall to attract talent and avoid U.S. immigration issues.The Vancouver, British Columbia location will be one of only a handful development centers outside the company's headquarters in Redmond, Wash., the software company said Thursday. It previously announced plans to build sites in Boston and Bellevue, Wash.
Microsoft said the Vancouver location will "allow the company to continue to recruit and retain highly skilled people affected by the immigration issues in the U.S."
Good for Canada. But America becomes just another overregulated, socialist nation and there is no place left for classical liberals and innovators.
June 29, 2007
Epilogue
Or is it denouement? Post Mortem.
My brother in law called me last night for a quick gloat on the death of comprehensive immigration reform. While I had purported to give up last week, I cannot lie. This loss stung. I got a little grouchy and told him "that's okay, a lot more people will die but they are poor and brown, so who cares?"
Regaining my composure, I saluted President Bush for standing up to do what was morally and economically right against vocal opposition. It's the kind of Profile in Courage behavior we are always clamoring for at ThreeSources. The WSJ Ed Page joins me: (paid link)
As for the politics, the press will call this a defeat for President Bush, but he deserves credit for trying. This late in his term and with his low approval rating, he simply lacked the political capital to persuade Republicans spooked by talk radio and cable TV hosts. Mr. Bush was also trying to do his fellow Republicans a favor by forging a new relationship with Hispanic-Americans, even though he'll never be on another ballot. We look forward to seeing how GOP candidates win elections as Democrats grab a larger share of America's fastest growing voter bloc. Perhaps Lou Dobbs has some campaign tips.As for Democrats, their cynicism has rarely been so obvious. Senate Majority Harry Reid pulled the bill earlier this month when GOP leaders wanted only another day or two for amendments. Then when he brought the bill back to the floor, he doomed it with faint support and by letting his party add amendments he knew would drive Republicans away. Now he and his fellow Democrats will tell Hispanic voters that they could have passed reform if not for those bigoted Republicans.
Mark it down: Chuck Schumer will use this against GOP Senators next year. And should they win more Senators and the White House, Democrats in 2009 will be in position to pass their own immigration reform that will be far less restrictive than this one. The conservatives who "won" this week will deserve much of the credit.
I'll lick my wounds and move on but this is a disappointment.
Brother-in-law? Do you have a conservative relative, is he one of the 50% of democrats who opposed the bill, or is he just a sadistic SOB?
As for the WSJ ed page, what a bunch of crap, er cr*p.
President Bush gets "credit for trying" but the "fellow Republicans" who stood in the way of this bad legislation didn't bring it up, so why do they get the blame for protecting Americans from it? I don't know about the rest of y'all, but "dems might do worse IF they win more senators and IF they win the White House" isn't a very persuasive argument with me.
And it would have been more difficult for talk radio and cable TV hosts to "spook" Republicans if the bill had gone through a normal legislative process with plenty of debate and transparency. John McCain's continuing penchant for secrecy and back-room deals is precisely what Republicans do NOT want - in a landmark bill, in a senator, or in a presidential candidate.
Where's the WSJ's lament that our congress behaves more and more like the soviet politburo?
Posted by: johngalt at July 1, 2007 10:23 AMSaid Brother in law is extremely conservative. I can't quite go as far as SOB but there was a little sadism involved. Even Sugarchuck’s email was subjected “Salt in the wounds…”
Nobody in the planet has done a better job at attacking back room machinations from both parties than the WSJ Ed Page. There are some things you can accuse them of, suggesting they are silent against politburo tactics is unfair.
They WSJ and I and the President and Larry Kudlow and Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes and Jack Kemp and John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell thought that comprehensive immigration reform was a good idea and are disappointed that it is dead. You've heard all my arguments for it.
I find it surprising that you, whom I've heard eloquently rail against "the tyranny of the majority," now want a talk-radio plebiscite to determine policy in this country.
It was always about a committee/conference bill. The Senate needed to pass a bill, the House would draw and pass a different bill and the legislation would come out of conference: with lots of yummy enforcement for you and enough wholesome and nutritious legal labor for me and my beloved growing economy.
I think last year's bill was better and that last year's process was more open. But the talk radio populists and O'Reilly-Dobbs axis spiked it then. They tried a "streamlined" (I really should work for a campaign) a streamlined process to circumvent a noisy minority.
I salute the President for trying and salute the WSJ Ed Page for their intelligent commentary. Sorry I folded on you in the last week, guys.
Preventing a new set of laws and programs is a far different accomplishment than imposing them. One generally protects individual rights, while the other is virtually guaranteed to assault them.
Posted by: johngalt at July 2, 2007 3:09 PMJune 28, 2007
Once they heard jk folded...
Senate blocks immigration bill
WASHINGTON - The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.
After the stinging political setback, Bush sounded resigned to defeat.
Now, I suppose we will agree on everything around here.
Quote of the Day
Speaking about the Senate immigration “process”
You can’t tell the will of the American people simply by those who call or object.
US Senator Arlen Specter, proudly serving my home state of Pennsylvania, on the day the Senate phone system is overloaded with phone calls.
And your illustrious Senior Senator was the only Republican to vote for legalized union extortion.
Had I not given up the other day, I might point out that a majority of Americans, poised to profit from comprehensive immigration reform, are unlikely to call their Senator while a vocal minority is pulling out all the stops. I saw Tamar Jacoby speaking on the topic this morning and I think she is exactly right.
Arlen Specter,..he'll do for Aricept what Bob Dole did for Viagra!
BTW - Someone call his office and ask him if he still believes the single bullet theory?
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at June 28, 2007 9:12 PMHeh. Had to look up "Aricept." He's a great choice.
Posted by: jk at June 29, 2007 10:56 AMJune 26, 2007
jk Folds on Immigration
-- and begins addressing himself in the third person. Both are scary.
Instapundit links to a post on the Influence Peddler blog that asks "Has Bush Squandered the Last of His Political Capital on Immigration?" Professor Reynolds says "I'd say the answer is pretty much yes, which is unfortunate with more war-funding battles coming up soon."
I still think that the President's immigration views are 100% right. I think he understands the economic needs of the nation and, as a border state Governor, understands the human cost of the present system. I do not share his religious convictions, but I am guessing that they play a part here as well. He is doing the right thing for all the right reasons, and exhibiting political courage.
BUT
This President has been called to deal with Islamist terrorism and has been forced to preserve the Enlightenment. He wanted to do Faith Based Initiatives and Guest Worker Programs and limn out the Ownership Society. I wanted to keep playing hockey and riding my bike. He got 9/11 and I got MS. Tough titties all around, Mr. President.
I don't know why I was wrong when I called it a big GOP win in 2005. It still makes sense to me but I was wrong. I misunderstood the electorate. This is too hard and the President should concentrate, instead, on the war. It is one thing to see Rep Tancredo and a bunch of uber-Conservative talk show hosts stand so firm on this topic. I'm used to disagreeing with those folks. I lost my ties to National Review when they put the FMA on the cover.
I'm quitting because we couldn't get Glenn Reynolds. He is the one human with a nuanced approach to Global Warming. If he cannot or will not see the arguments for more liberalized immigration, it's over. In the same post, he links to Laura Ingrahm and to a Gateway Pundit posts that expresses anger that Senators Kennedy and Martinez are seen...wait for it...laughing together at a press conference.
Jk folds, Mr. President, and suggests you keep your few remaining chips for the war.
64-35!
Posted by: AlexC at June 26, 2007 2:39 PMJune 25, 2007
Immigration Station
So, I was cruising the PhillyHistory.org website looking for old pictures of the waterfront from the 1950s, which I plan to dutifully recreate in HO scale in the basement.
I came across this picture from 1919.
I guess it's from the era when documentation was still part of the process.
Just for me, I'll hope you 'll have a few 3/4" Poles and Italians sneaking under the fence...
Posted by: jk at June 25, 2007 7:06 PMMore like, "back when people did it the legal way, before the Dumb-o-crats left the barn door open and said 'come on in!'"
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at June 25, 2007 9:12 PMAs a great-grandchild of an immigrant who farmed, we take offense to the barn door analogy. My farmer parents would load their hind-quarters with buck-shot if we caught them within a mile of our barn. Perhaps, we should take a page from my predecessors and introduce them to what a pain in the rear an unhappy constituency can be.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at June 25, 2007 9:33 PMHuman beings. Come here to improve their lives. And make us rich. Shoot them?
Posted by: jk at June 26, 2007 1:07 PMJK: I was referring to the politicians snooping about our barn, not the hired help.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at June 26, 2007 1:12 PMI misunderstood. Mea maxima culpa! Consider me on board. Mix a little rock salt in with shot.
Posted by: jk at June 26, 2007 2:05 PMJune 19, 2007
Well, That's Scientific
A blog ad on Hugh Hewitt's Site:
Amazingly, 18% chose "I Like Amnesty" from this cartoonish "survey"-- on Hewitt's site no less. I picked it, of course, and they're "sorry I feel that way" but provided some links to straighten me out. And it's not too late to change my vote.
UPDATE: Warning! clicking that link counts as an "I Like Amnesty" vote. I can't quite crack the url to just view the results. At least I'm honest.
June 6, 2007
Conservatives for the Immigration Bill
A open letter to conservatives, asking them to band together on the Immigration Blill in today's Dallas News.
Border security, the rule of law, national interest, economic competitiveness — these are the conservative concerns at the heart of the agreement. Yet conservatism is also, as Ronald Reagan reminded us, about optimism and self-confidence — about an America sure enough of itself to be a big tent and a beacon.The Senate framework will allow us to go on attracting immigrants and maintain the rule of law, too. The benefits of the bill far outweigh its shortcomings. We believe it offers the only realistic way forward, and urge conservatives — and all Americans — to embrace the promise it holds out.
Signers include:
- Jack Kemp, former New York congressman
- Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida
- Ken Mehlman, former chairman, Republican National Committee
- Tamar Jacoby, senior fellow, Manhattan Institute
- James Q. Wilson, professor of public policy, Pepperdine University
- Bill Paxon, former New York congressman
- Michael Gerson, senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
- Hector Barreto, chairman, The Latino Coalition
- Ken Weinstein, CEO, Hudson Institute
- Lawrence Kudlow, economics editor, National Review Online
- Linda Chavez, chairman, Center for Equal Opportunity
- Charlie Black, chairman, BKSH & Associates
- Mike Murphy, Republican strategist
- Francis Fukuyama, professor of political economy, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies
- Max Boot, senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
- Richard Gilder, partner, Gilder Gagnon Howe & Co., LLC
- Jeff Bell, principal, Capital City Partners
- Steven Wagner, former director, Human Trafficking Program, Department of Health and Human Services
- Gregory Mankiw, professor of economics, Harvard University
- Donald J. Boudreaux, chairman, Economics Department, George Mason University
- Philip I. Levy, resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute
- Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies, American Enterprise Institute
- Jerry Bowyer, chairman, Bowyer Media
- Clint Bolick, senior fellow, Goldwater Institute
- Robert de Posada, president, The Latino Coalition
- Gary Rosen, managing editor, Commentary
- Joseph Bottum, editor, First Things
- John McWhorter, senior fellow, Manhattan Institute
- Larry Cirignano, Catholic activist
- Pancho Kinney, former director of strategy, White House Office of Homeland Security
Hat-tip: Greg Mankiw (one of the signers)
June 3, 2007
Riots!
If we decided to start sending illegals back home, we'll have riots.
At one point McCain went back and forth with one audience member, who said he was upset that the immigration proposal before Congress is not tough enough.The man asked McCain why the United States couldn’t execute large-scale deportations, as he had heard they did in France and other countries.
“In case you hadn’t noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France,” McCain replied. “They’ve got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can’t even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don’t want that in the suburbs of America.”
Tip of the hat to Allah, who notes the real lessons of the French riots.
perhaps the real lesson of the French experience is that citizenship doesn’t guarantee assimilation. Or perhaps it’s the idea that if you doubt your ability to assimilate people culturally, be sure you can control how many of them are coming in.
L'Affaire Noonan
Paul Mirengolf of Powerline pens an interesting defense of President Bush from Peggy Noonan's attacks.
Conservatives certainly have plenty to disagree with the Bush administration about. However, as I argue at the AOL blog, we have no right to consider ourselves victims. President Bush never presented himself as a traditional conservative. We supported him anyway, in large part I think because we understood that a traditional conservative would stand little chance of succeeding Bill Clinton, who had re-popularized activist government.
This excerpt rings of "damning with faint praise" but I think he is right on. One thing that conservatives have learned to like about our 43rd President is his consistency and steadfastness. The Powerline guys aren't exactly celebrating his dedication to comprehensive immigration reform, but I appreciate their pointing out that this is not betrayal, this is the long term effort of a former border state governor, doing what he thinks is right for the country economically and morally.
Hat-tip: Terri @ I Think ^(Link) Therefore I Err who highlights a great line in John Hinderaker's response: ”Bush is about two more noble actions away from being ridden out of Washington on a rail.”
May 31, 2007
Immigration: the Market Speaks
My right-wing crazy buddies at the WSJ Editorial Page deliver a little badly needed cover for the "liberal-on-immigration" Republicans today.
First is a guest editorial (paid link) by Gov. Jeb Bush and former RNC Chief Ken Mehlman supporting the current Immigration Bill.
Immigration reform is very tough. It's an issue that divides both political parties and, on the right, has led many close personal and ideological friends -- people we respect and whose criticism we take seriously -- to oppose new rules governing how people enter this country and how we handle those who are here illegally. But we hope our friends reconsider.We support the immigration reform compromise worked out in the Senate for a few simple reasons. It strengthens our national defense. It makes our economy more competitive and flexible. It enhances the rule of law and promotes national unity. And it also does these things in a fair, practical way.
Here's what the bill does not do. It does not grant amnesty to the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country and nor does it give a free pass to others who want to enter the country illegally.
The bill provides real border security for the first time, protecting us against the entry of terrorists and stemming the flow of illegal drugs. It doubles the border patrol, expands the border fence and informs law enforcement about foreign nationals in the United States. Because it requires foreign workers to carry tamper-proof identification, both law enforcement and employers will be able to identify and apprehend those who violate the law.The temporary worker program will reduce the number of people trying to sneak past the border patrol, allowing law enforcement to focus on those who pose a threat to the U.S. By putting border security first, this immigration reform adds a provision that many Republicans suggested last year. It adopts the "trigger" mechanism suggested by Sen. Johnny Isaacson, a Georgia Republican. Until and unless security improves on the border, the temporary worker program and "Z" visa provision for three-year work permits will not be implemented.
Second is Dan Henninger's Wonderland column (free link). Henninger suggests that the quantity and destination of the immigrant flow is a perfect example of market forces at work, and he challenged conservatives who champion the market to recognize this.
Conservatives and liberals will fight unto eternity over whose notions of the law, society and justice are right. But the one idea owned by conservatives is the market.For many Democrats in politics, the market--the daily machinery of the private economy--is a semi-abstraction. It's a barely understood thing that mainly sends revenue to the government, without which the nation is incapable of achieving social good. Liberals happily concede the idea of salutary "market forces" to their opposition. For them, markets are for taming.
Why, then, would Republican politicians and conservative writers want to run the risk of undermining, perhaps for a long time, their core belief in the broad benefits of free-market economic forces in return for a law that hammers these illegal Mexicans?
If I'm a liberal or progressive Democrat, I'm gleeful to see conservative foes who have preached "the market" at me since the days of FDR now arguing that these millions of workers are an artificial, "unskilled" labor force whose presence merely prevents "the market" from replacing them with machines.
Conservatives also argue, with considerable force, that any conceivable path to citizenship or guest-worker status for these workers--no matter how long or arduous--would be "amnesty" and so make a mockery of the rule of law. But so massively setting aside years of principled, market-based argument--the environment, pharmaceuticals, labor, antitrust--to thwart these movements of immigrants is a risky proposition.
Immigration is down this year without a post hole for a fence having been dug. Immigrants come when their relatives tell them there is work, Henninger is right.
I've argued in the past and I think it's only right that if business gets to cross borders without barriers (ala NAFTA), then so too should workers.
BUT - it should all be on the up and up. Just like we know what American businesses are in Mexico and which Mexican businesses are here, we should know which workers are in either country too.
This can't be done if the border is non existent.
I agree. I think a regularized border that provides enough workers with safe, legal crossing is the best way to know who's here.
Posted by: jk at June 1, 2007 1:49 PMI so dearly wish to comment on these assertions, and I won't have just one "little flaw" to pick on, yet I haven't had the requisite spare moments in the past 24 hours. Stay tuned.
(And even if brother AC beats me to it, I'm sure I can push his pile even higher.)
Posted by: johngalt at June 1, 2007 4:19 PMFirst Jeb Bush -
"It strengthens national defense" by hiring x more government border agents to enforce the same flawed policies on the border?
"It makes our economy more competitive and flexible" by adding dependents to the welfare state?
"It enhances the rule of law" by eliminating laws that don't rule "and promotes national unity" by splitting the Republican party?
"It does not grant amnesty to the 12 [or whatever] million illegal immigrants already in this country" but it does, somehow, make them legal. Curious.
"The bill provides real border security for the first time" because this time, we mean it!
And then Henninger -
Who is picking "one little aspect" now? The particular anti-illegal immigration argument that Dan chooses to assail happens to be the one that is used principally by unions and their members, not by mainstream conservative thinkers.
I personally don't see the urgency to change the status of illegal workers (unless your goal is to "bring them out of the shadows" and into the great society.) Let them stay. Let them work. Don't let them collect $200 for passing go or stay in this country if they commit a violent crime. Biometrically ID them and deport them. That option goes away when they all become "legal."
Posted by: johngalt at June 2, 2007 11:09 AMMay 21, 2007
Valid Critique
No, not my shoes. A very legitimate complaint is surfacing on the new Senate immigration bill. Bill Kristol said it yesterday on FOXNews Sunday, and it goes something like this: last year, the McCain Kennedy bill was debated thoroughly on the Senate floor (and on ThreeSources). Kristol and I expect that this bill is similar, and I have a predilection toward supporting it. But this bill is being rammed through in the dark of night; neither the Senators nor their constituents are getting any opportunity to review this complex and important bill.
John Fund carries the theme today on OpinionJournal (free link):
Many immigration experts say they can't know if they support the current compromise until they've absorbed the entire 1,000 page bill. They are concerned that Mr. Reid seems determined to bypass normal committee review and hearings and rush the bill to the floor. "That's like trying to eat an eight-course meal on a 15-minute lunch break," said former senator Fred Thompson on ABC Radio Friday.Why the rush? Because, to be blunt, the senators don't trust the American people to make sound judgments on such emotional issues as family reunification and national sovereignty. But the proper response to this is to engage the public in the discussion, not to short-circuit the deliberative process. One of the reasons the American people are cynical about government is that they don't believe its officials take the time to discharge their duties properly. Now a 1,000 page immigration bill is being put before senators for a vote without anyone having the time to study its details. Many will merely be leaning on talking points prepared by their staff.
The partisan hack in me has to point out that this is just the sort of thing the Democrats weren't going to do if we elected them. Leader Reid has managed to turn me off a bill I really wanted.
I'm still tentatively supporting this bill. I think it does most of what I want. Unlike Kristol, I think a confusing bill is better than no bill. But when even I can't get fulsomely behind it, they have --if I may use legislative jargon -- "boogered it up" pretty badly.
UPDATE:
WASHINGTON - Senate leaders agreed Monday that they would wait until June to take final action on a bipartisan plan to give millions of unlawful immigrants legal status.
May 19, 2007
Back Taxes
The Bush administration insisted on a little-noticed change in the bipartisan Senate immigration bill that would enable 12 million undocumented residents to avoid paying back taxes or associated fines to the Internal Revenue Service, officials said.An independent analyst estimated the decision could cost the IRS tens of billions of dollars.
A provision requiring payment of back taxes had been in the initial version of a bill proposed by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat. But the administration called for the provision to be removed due to concern that it would be too difficult to figure out which illegal immigrants owed back taxes.
There was another Kennedy who said, "we choose to go to the moon not because it is easy, but because it is hard."
Getting illegals to pony up on back taxes. Harder than a moon mission.
This bill is at least 326 pages, by the way.
(tip to HotAir)
May 17, 2007
Fair and Balanced
Speaking of hyperventilation.
Michelle Malkin carries a post called "It's here: The Bush-Kennedy amnesty Report: Potential cost = $2.5 trillion." With an online poll which asks "Will you support a GOP presidential candidate who supports the Bush/Kennedy amnesty?" The three choices are Yes, no, and "hell No!"
I hate to be humorless. But I like to think that the right wing blogosphere is a little more thoughtful and intelligent than the left wing "netroots." Malkin frequently proves me wrong.
Lastly, I'd make the comment that I made about Hugh Hewitt. Can you not broach any intra-party dissent on this topic? Are we going to chase out all the free traders that support liberalized immigration? Honest people can disagree -- well, no, I guess they can't. Michelle and Hugh will tell us what Republicans think.
BTW, thanks to ThreeSources enforcement fans for their respectful and intelligent debate.
What is amusing is that the immigration debate features a unique dichotomy in which Democrats complain the policy is too conservative and Republicans complain that it is too liberal. As Mickey Kaus pointed out this morning, that is very clearly a contradiction.
I do not know why I would expect any different. The current state of political discourse is deplorable -- and I have low expectations.
Posted by: Everyday Economist at May 18, 2007 11:46 AMThose who've been publicly critical of the new legalization proposal have been accused of "hyperventilating." I think it's fair to say those who rush to assure us "It's going to be okay" are being pollyannish.
Posted by: johngalt at May 18, 2007 3:02 PMYou can call me Pollyannaish. As I'm generally supportive of legislation which hasn't even been fully written, you are on solid footing.
I was trying to separate differences from tactics.
I disagree with you and AlexC and Hugh Hewitt and Michelle Malkin and my brother in law, fine. I took exception to Malkin's and Hewitt's assertion that every good Republican agrees with them.
I take double exception to their using the language and tactics that were employed to buck up the Republican legislators who were going to vote for surrender in Iraq. Hewitt has taken that successful play and done a search replace for "Amnesty." That equates voting for comprehensive immigration reform -- which is supported by a lot if not a plurality of serious Republicans -- with a withdrawal schedule in Iraq, which is supported by only a fringe.
Malkin takes emotional stands on a variety of issues. it may not be fair to accuse her of hyperventilating. But ol' buddy Hugh has really turned the crank up to 11 on this. I don't think I am wrong for pointing that out.
GOP Caves to Good Economics
Hugh Hewitt has been hyperventilating all morning that the GOP Senate was about to "cave" on immigration reform. I resent this, because the language and tactics were taken from efforts to bolster the GOP House and Senate in supporting the troops and the war. Hewitt commandeers this pitch, implicitly comparing Immigration with the war.
I don't mind calling the war Dogma de Fide for the Republican Party (See, I learned something in Catholic Schools, Dogma de Fide, "of faith," is what you must believe to be Catholic.)
But there is a large body of intelligent opposition to Hewitt's immigration views, including Larry Kudlow, William Kristol, President Bush and me. If the four of us are "not Republican enough" you have a losing party. The Senate has passed a compromise bill. I don't know all the particulars but I applaud it. AP
WASHINGTON - Key senators in both parties announced agreement with the White House Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border.The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S. A separate program would cover agricultural workers. New high-tech enforcement measures also would be instituted to verify that workers are here legally.
The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush's Cabinet officers to produce a highly complex measure that carries heavy political consequences.
Take a deep breath, guys, it's going to be okay...
Citizenship. What about citizenship? The franchise?
"They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed."
OK, but what is this "path to citizenship?" Permanent residency I'm less concerned with.
Posted by: johngalt at May 17, 2007 4:04 PMOne more day and some introspection later, I'm now more concerned with permanent residency.
Once these illegal immigrants become permanently and irrevocably legal we'll have a genuine two-tiered society split between those who can vote and those who cannot. What will be the persuasive argument that prevents granting the franchise to non-citizens? "They were't born here? They don't speak our language? They don't pay taxes?" Wait. Scratch that last one. This is a major argument in support of the legalization push. These lame reasons won't stand a chance against "No more taxation without representation" and "Non-citizen permanent immigrants are the new emancipated slave class - equal rights for the unfairly downtrodden!"
If the 12 to 30 million existing illegal immigrants are granted residency then their ability to vote themselves an ever increasing basket of goodies at public expense (read: wealth creating taxpayers) is a fait accompli.
Posted by: johngalt at May 18, 2007 2:57 PMMay 16, 2007
Lou!
Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who gained national prominence by targeting illegal immigrants living in his small northeastern Pennsylvania city, cruised to the Republican nomination for a third term on Tuesday - and unexpectedly won the Democratic nomination, too.Barletta trounced GOP challenger Dee Deakos with nearly 94 percent of the vote. And he beat former Mayor Michael Marsicano for the Democratic nomination by staging a last-minute write-in campaign, all but guaranteeing himself another term, unofficial returns showed.
"I think the message is clear," Barletta said. "The people of Hazleton want me to keep fighting for them."
Whew -- I was afraid you were going to say Lou Dobbs.
Posted by: jk at May 17, 2007 12:59 PMMay 1, 2007
Penn & Teller on Immigration
It had to happen. jk proudly presents a link to Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" on immigration. Click over to YouTube to see parts two and three.
You'll be glad to hear they do not use the term "Comparative Advantage."
April 15, 2007
Tax Day Coffee Smelling
Officially, tax day isn't until Tuesday (due to the 15th being on a Sunday and the 16th being an official holiday in D.C.) but the well known and lamented date of April 15th mustn't go by without some discussion of the state of taxation in America.
"Work hard. Be faithful. You'll get your just reward."
Those words appear on a statuette my father was given on the occasion of the closing of the College of Engineering at the University of Denver, where he had tenure. (The statuette was of a conscientious gentleman with a giant blue screw through his torso.) They can just as well be applied to American taxpayers who have earned a high school diploma or better in their educational career.
The preceeding chart comes from a fascinating April 4, 2007 study report by Robert Rector et. al. of The Heritage Foundation entitled, 'The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer.' The report summarizes the chart this way:
Chart 7 compares households headed by persons without a high school diploma to households headed by persons with a high school diploma or better. Whereas the dropout-headed household paid only $9,689 in taxes in FY 2004, the higher-skill households paid $34,629— more than three times as much. While dropout-headed households received from $32,138 to $43,084 in benefits, high-skill households received less: $21,520 to $30,819. The difference in government benefits was due largely to the greater amount of means-tested aid received by low-skill households.Households headed by dropouts received $22,449 more in immediate benefits (i.e., direct and means-tested aid, education, and population-based services) than they paid in taxes. Higher-skill households paid $13,109 more in taxes than they received in immediate benefits.
OK, so you're probably wondering, what's new? What's new is the trend in dropout households in the U.S. According to the World Net Daily article that cites the study:
About two-thirds of illegal alien households are headed by someone without a high school degree. Only 10 percent of native-born Americans fit into that category.
I have advocated on these pages (and stand by it today) that immigration should be free and unlimited to non-criminal aliens, provided that citizenship (and voting rights) must still be earned and that entitlement programs that make immigrants a burden on the taxpayer are first reduced or eliminated.
The Rector report explains the realities we face.
Politically feasible changes in government policy will have little effect on the level of fiscal deficit generated by most low-skill households for decades. For example, to make the average low-skill household fiscally neutral (taxes paid equaling immediate benefits received plus interest on government debt), it would be necessary to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, all 60 means-tested aid programs and cut the cost of public education in half. It seems certain that, on average, low-skill households will generate deep fiscal deficits for the foreseeable future.
Hat tip: The Canadian Sentinel
Click continue reading to see the report's conclusion in its entirety.
Conclusion
Households headed by persons without a high school diploma are roughly 15 percent of all U.S. households. Overall, these households impose a significant fiscal burden on other taxpayers: The cost of the government benefits they consume greatly exceeds the taxes they pay to government. Before government undertakes to transfer even more economic resources to these households, it should have a very clear account of the magnitude of the economic transfers that already occur.
The substantial net tax burden imposed by low-skill U.S. households also suggests lessons for immigration policy. Recently proposed immigration legislation would greatly increase the number of poorly educated immigrants entering and living in the United States.[12] Before this policy is adopted, Congress should examine carefully the potential negative fiscal effects of low-skill immigrant households receiving services.
Politically feasible changes in government policy will have little effect on the level of fiscal deficit generated by most low-skill households for decades. For example, to make the average low-skill household fiscally neutral (taxes paid equaling immediate benefits received plus interest on government debt), it would be necessary to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, all 60 means-tested aid programs and cut the cost of public education in half. It seems certain that, on average, low-skill households will generate deep fiscal deficits for the foreseeable future. Policies that reduce the future number of high school dropouts and other policies affecting future generations could reduce long-term costs.
Future government policies that would expand entitlement programs such as Medicaid would increase future deficits at the margin. Policies that reduced the out-of-wedlock childbearing rate or which increased the real educational attainments and wages of future low-skill workers could reduce deficits somewhat in the long run.
Changes to immigration policy could have a much larger effect on the fiscal deficits generated by low-skill families. Policies which would substantially increase the inflow of low-skill immigrant workers receiving services would dramatically increase the fiscal deficits described in this paper and impose substantial costs on U.S. taxpayers.
Mmmm coffee.
Bastiat talks about "the seen and the unseen." With all due respect, you -- and my brother in law -- and a lot of other people whom I highly respect -- love to point to a datum in the "seen" category and say "See?"
Lower income households provide less revenue and use more government services. Who is surprised? Those without a diploma will earn less than those with; illegal immigrants tend to be less educated than native born citizens, yup.
I contend, still, that the "unseen" value that these workers and consumers bring to the economy more than compensates for the increased use of public services. The educated in your table are able to earn what they do, in large part, because there is a less educated work force (stop him before he says "comparative advantage" -- too late!).
To allow the educated (or ambitious dropouts like me and AlexC) to get ahead and innovate frequently requires allowing them to leverage less-educated labor. As Ricardo showed, both will be wealthier.
January 18, 2007
Man Bites Dog
I have written many a harsh word about Rep. Tom Tancredo on these pages. In fairness, I must admit that he was eloquent and charming in an appearance on "Kudlow & Company" last night. He opened and closed with humorous comments recognizing their differences.
I still think that he is wrong about the economics of immigration and the politics off immigration. I will refrain, however, from calling him "a yahoo" (William Kristol's term I think) or even "bombastic" (mine). He is a man with whom I disagree on his signature issue, but he is an elected representative from my home state in my political party. I will show him the respect he deserves.
At the risk of ending on a sour note, I'm glad he's looking at the Presidency in 2008. He could cause a lot more trouble seeking Senator Allard's Senate seat.
December 22, 2006
Now a Word Against Enforcement
Full of Christmas Spirit, I thought I mightn't start a squabble about immigration on December 22. Naaah:
The lead editorial (free link) questions the cost benefit ratio of the immigration raids on the Swift meatpacking plants.
Immigration restrictionists would have us believe that harassing businesses like Swift, the world's second-largest beef and pork processor, helps make America safer. But so far the Swift raids haven't uncovered any al Qaeda cells, merely a bunch of hard-working people trying to feed their families. The operation involved more than 1,000 federal agents in six states. And of Swift's 15,000 or so employees, a grand total of 144 have been charged to date with misidentifying themselves to get hired.Put another way, 1,000 federal agents that could have been focused on potential terrorists or other dangerous threats were instead focused on a meatpacking company that hires thousands of willing unskilled workers and pays them more than twice the minimum wage with full health benefits after six months. How's that for government efficiency?
I suppose that enforcing the law is its own good and I do not post this to criticize. I post this to rebut those who say that it should be the responsibility of employers to enforce our immigration laws. It seems that Swift tried.
There's a common notion that businesses seek out illegal aliens to employ. So it's also worth noting that since 1997 Swift has voluntarily participated in a government program for vetting new hires known as Basic Pilot. Under this system, the names and Social Security numbers of all job applicants are checked against a federal database. Which is to say that the presence of illegal workers at Swift is not the result of a company's indifference to the rule of law. It's the result of a flawed government system for determining who's eligible to work here. A few years ago Swift's management attempted to go even further than Basic Pilot to screen job applicants, only to be sued by the Justice Department for employment discrimination in 2001.
Full of hope for the season (that's twice he's said "full of it..."), this might be a big plus for having a Democratic 110th Congress.
On Wednesday, Mr. Bush reiterated his position that the most "humane" way to deal with illegal immigration is to combine enforcement with a guest worker program that would address the country's obvious labor shortage. "I want to work with both Republicans and Democrats to get a comprehensive bill to my desk," said the President. "It's in our interest that we do this."
Merry Christmas ThreeSourcers!
December 16, 2006
One more immigration defeat
It's December, and the GOP losses from immigration populism are still stacking up. Robert Novak thinks it was a negative factor for Rep. Harry Bonilla in the newly mapped TX-23 district.
The loss Tuesday of the 30th Republican House seat, representing a U.S.-Mexican border district in Texas, marked another political failure of hard-line immigration policies.Immigration was not the central issue when Democratic former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez upset seven-term Rep. Henry Bonilla, a rare Latino Republican in Congress. Bonilla, who supported a border fence while Rodriguez did not, lost border counties he previously had carried. He won Maverick County, 95 percent Hispanic, with 59 percent in 2004 but lost it with just 14 percent Tuesday.
A footnote: Six-term Rep. J.D. Hayworth lost in Arizona after stressing immigration. Randy Graf lost an Arizona border district where he made immigration his major issue. Six-term Rep. John Hostettler, chairman of a House immigration subcommittee, lost his Indiana district despite stressing his opponent's softness on the issue.
Except in safe Republican seats, hard-line, enforcement only Republicans are all footnotes now. To be fair, Novak himself says in his e-mail report that the loss was complex but was hurt more than helped by his immigration stance.
Texas-23: Rep. Henry Bonilla (R) was crushed in the special election runoff after receiving 49 percent in the first round on November 7. The reasons are complicated, and they go back to a controversial Supreme Court decision earlier this year demanding a re-map of his district.For one thing, Bonilla was at fault in many ways. He did not spend enough money to get himself over the 50 percent mark on Election Day, leaving $1.4 million in his campaign account on November 8. Bonilla had harbored ideas of running for statewide office -- possibly a Senate seat if one opened up. The saving of money that could have gotten him the few thousand extra votes he needed to pass the stake on November 7 proved costly. He only turned out 60,000 voters in the first round, just half of what 50 percent equals in many districts in a midterm election. Part of this is because of the number of illegal immigrants in the district, but there were enough votes in the district to put him over the top in the first round.
Democrats also acted cleverly in the first round with a calculated strategy. They fielded three semi-credible candidates in the race in order to appeal to different parts of the newly constituted district, knowing that none of those Democrats would have a serious chance of a first round victory. This would force a second round race with just two candidates by law and no chance that Bonilla could win with a plurality.There was little reason to believe that yesterday's victor, former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D), could come out on top after taking just 20 percent in the first round. But the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee carried Rodriguez, a poor candidate in his own right, over the finish line, driving a powerful early-voting operation in advance of the election. The Hispanic group LULAC pressed for three extra days of early voting, which helped Democrats. Many Republicans did not think Bonilla could lose and, therefore, failed to help.
Bonilla, meanwhile, continued running positive ads for too long after November 7, but then suddenly launched a series of ads that overreached in their extreme negativity, asserting that Rodriguez had ties to Islamic terrorists. Bonilla also focused his entire voter turnout operation on Bexar County, his home base of voters that had saved him from a strong challenge in 2000. But there just weren't enough votes there -- his vote total on December 12 was just half of what it had been a month earlier, and he lost by almost 10 points.
Bonilla was also slightly harmed, and certainly not helped, by his embrace of the conservative position on the border security and immigration issue. Once again, it proved woefully ineffective in bringing out white voters, and whatever-sized effect it had among Hispanic voters -- who make up more than 60 percent of the new district -- it was a negative effect. Bonilla lost counties in the second round that he had never lost in any previous election.
Hat-tip: ThreeSources friend Sugarchuck, who used to be thought highly of by JohnGalt.
Just passing it along... not agreeing with it.
Posted by: sugarchuck at December 16, 2006 1:59 PMUnnerstood.
Posted by: jk at December 16, 2006 3:37 PMSince securing the border is (supposedly) unpopular with voters, it should be abandoned?
There's a point where pragmatism compels one to slit his own throat.
Just to get the fires burning again, http://www.immigrationcounters.com/
Posted by: johngalt at December 18, 2006 3:08 PMNo. I think enforcement only is wrong economically, morally and politically. I have made all three points.
It's difficult to prove the economic argument. There are many many variables and I have referenced both Bastiat's Seen vs. the Unseen (your link captures and magnifies the "seen" half) and the wealth effects of comparative advantage.
Morally, I have made the case that, while crossing the border is illegal, I can't bring the whole Jovert down on one who crosses to feed his family. The torture and loss of life visited on simple workers by coyotes is not in keeping with a welcoming America.
The reason I brought it all up again is that it is so clear that this issue was a political loser fir the GOP in 2006. Pretend you cannot see if you must but if you examine who lost where, this issue is not a winner.
...while you continue to pretend that war issues were not the single dominant electoral factor.
Posted by: johngalt at December 19, 2006 3:27 PMDecember 4, 2006
Rep Tancredo
I know my blog brothers hold immigration views that are closer to Rep. Tom Tancredo's than mine. I would ask how much they like his bombastic style. I think he frequently goes over the top and sets not only his party but his cause back. Add Florida Governor Jeb Bush to his lengthy Republican enemies list. John Fund in the OpinionJournal Political Diary:
Take Tom Tancredo - Please!Republicans don't know what Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, the nation's leading anti-immigration spokesman, plans to do in 2008. Some think he will launch a Pat Buchanan-like run for president while others point to the likely retirement of GOP Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado, creating an open seat for Mr. Tancredo to run for.
In any event, controversy is sure to dog the publicity-savvy Mr. Tancredo. He recently stirred the pot when he said ethnically-diverse Miami resembled a "Third World country" and that "you would never know you were in the United States of America." That prompted Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who lived in Miami before his election, to defend the city. Mr. Tancredo promptly accused Mr. Bush of being "naive" and said he was trying to "create the illusion of Miami as a multiethnic 'All American' city."
The Florida governor then called a halt to the exchange. "What a nut," the president's brother told reporters. "I'm just disappointed that he's a Republican. He doesn't represent my views." What worries Republicans, including many who believe that secure borders are important, is that Mr. Tancredo's in-your-face approach to immigration could either overshadow other candidates in the early 2008 primaries or lead to the loss of yet another Colorado Senate seat.
Brother, can you not smell spin by the likes of Bush (Jeb) and John Fund? I know it doesn't help that they're spinning in your direction but please, we're objective here right?
From Tancredo's response to Governor Bush:
http://tancredo.house.gov/Media/file/TancredoresponseGovBush.pdf
"...it is neither naive nor insulting to call attention to a real problem that cannot be easily dismissed through politically correct happy talk."
"...Miami-Dade School District's 45% graduation rate tells us that the majority of Miami's new arrivals have not yet assimilated this culture of academic excellence."
"Unfortunately, fewer and fewer Miamians think of themselves as Americans."
"By the way, you should also pick up a copy of this week's TIME in which Miami is described as a "corrupt, exorbitant mess" where locals are fleeing in droves."
"Governor with all due respect, I have simply said something most people -- even in Florida if our calls and emails are a measurement of sentiment -- belive is true. I have no doubt that people of wealth can still lead a comfortable and pleasant life in Miami, but ask yourself why ordinary middle class citizens are leaving in such high numbers."
Posted by: johngalt at December 4, 2006 4:07 PMI see. The Governor and John Fund are "spinning," yet Rep. Tancredo is being objective. No doubt he quotes Time magazine's editorial positions all the time and not just when it serves a narrow purpose.
My point, and I think Fund's, was that Rep. Tancredo's style of politicking may be good in a safe House seat, or as a panelist on Bill O'Reilly's or Lou Dobbs's show, but might not translate well to statewide or national ambitions.
A serious presidential contender might not be well served by insulting a large American city in a swing state which happens to be populated with many Republican-leaning Cuban-Americans. I could be wrong; I won't know for sure until I read it in Time.
Rep. Tancredo has alienated Republicans such as Paul Gigot, John Fund, Larry Kudlow, William Kristol, John McCain, President Bush, Governor Bush, Fred Barnes, and me. That seems to be a problem. Should he run for Allard's seat, I will cast my first non-Republican vote since 1980. (I spent the summer of 1980 just north of Miami, but I digress.)
Discounting the Bush-Miami-contretemps, there are many other examples of his bombastic style. His move to deport the high school valedictorian is one of my favorites, I'm sure we'll relive many of his hits should he seek larger office.
And you illustrate once more MY point: You attack Tom for his "bombastic" style of politics, yet it only sounds bombastic when related by a third party such as "Paul Gigot, John Fund, Larry Kudlow, William Kristol, John McCain, President Bush, Governor Bush, Fred Barnes, and" JK.
Ad hominem doesn't persuade me that a 45% graduation rate (that's 55% dropout rate, folks) and an urban populace that increasingly feels "no pressure to be an American" is just peachy.
Posted by: johngalt at December 5, 2006 3:40 PMI guess I don't my own strength, jg. I accuse Rep. Tancredo of having a bombastic style. I'd be surprised if he himself would run from that label.
You answered my question. You clearly do not think Rep Tancredo to be too bombastic or impolitic to receive your continued support. That's great, I like a guy who speaks his mind -- I just happen to disagree drastically with Tancredo.
Politics is about addition, however, and I would call his enemies list worrisome. Except for that jk fellow, I'd call most of the Republicans on my Tommy's enemies list pretty cool heads.
Add one more: Arthur Laffer. On Kudlow & Company last night, he said that the loss of Congress to the Democrats is worth it because of the defeat handed to the naturalist wing of the GOP. Dr. Laffer seeks lower tax rates that prove his famous curve but he fears the Tancredo wing more than he fears Reps. Dingell, Rangel and Pelosi holding gavels.
As to the troubles facing Miami, when I was there in 1980 a popular bumper sticker said “Will the last American leaving Miami please bring the flag?” Time Magazine’s opinion of assimilation ambitions of its populace do not interest me. The dropout rate is bad but I find it disingenuous to blame immigrants for failures of the public schools. Public schools are broken because of an incorrect incentive structure and the inflated political power of their public service unions.
Perhaps Rep. Tancredo’s wall can be extended through the Gulf of Mexico and the Carribean Sea. Then we can fill the Miami public schools with good ‘mericans and get those test scores up.
Hey, you're right! It says right here on his very own "About Tom" page that he's a "bombastic nut."
http://tancredo.house.gov/about/
Okay, you win that one. I don't really consider "bombastic" to be too pejorative. Were I the Rep's press secretary I'd say " The Congressman just believes in clear honest speech. If some blogger nobody's ever heard of wants to call it 'bombast' he can."
Then I'd day "JK -- do those initials sound Mexican to you? Jose Something..."
Posted by: jk at December 5, 2006 7:07 PM