As noted before, Donald J. Trump achieved the Republican nomination for President while breaking almost all of the rules for politicians that have been developed over history.
Having done so, he failed to recognize that once he was nominated, the strategy and tactics used during the primaries would no longer work. Once he got in the big arena, the mainstream media put him in their sights, and proceeded to parse every word he said and use them to beat him up.
And he provided them plenty of ammunition in the first weeks. It cost him a month in which the media and the Democrat they serve did their best to brand him however they wanted. In those weeks, his poll numbers fell accordingly. No surprise there.
In August, he has seemed to get things under better control, and he has stopped making the undisciplined statement and tweets that we saw during the primaries. This appears to have helped with the poll numbers.
To have a chance of winning the election, he is going to have to get the branding the media and his opponent have done to him reversed. This is difficult to do now. One cannot do it with rallies, however well attended. There he is preaching to the choir.
To reach the biggest part of the electorate, he is going to have to do it with media. During the primaries, he got free media from everyone. Now, only Fox and a few others report on him positively. The rest of the media, best described as Democrat operatives with bylines will only report him in a very negative way.
That means he will have to buy advertising, and therefore do a lot of fundraising. He has taken some pride in self funding much of his campaign so far, though he has been raising money since the nomination.
He will need to do much more in order to buy the advertising he will need.
Perhaps his biggest issue from the beginning has been illegal immigration. During the primaries, he was able to get by with generalizations. We are going to deport all illegals is very easy to say, and appealing to many, but again ugly reality raises its head.
Trying to deport 12 million illegals immediately is just impossible to do. Even if that is what is wanted, the resources to do so do not exist, nor will they. We have a system of laws in place that deal with the procedures for doing so, and although they are not being used by the current administration they would have to be followed by a Trump administration. The hope that the laws could be changed to facilitate mass deportation is not justified because Democrats would filibuster it in the Senate even if Republicans would pass it.
Trump appears to have realized that, and is modifying the policy a bit. We do not know how much change there would be, but he has said that he would follow the law. That is at least something that Democrats have failed to do for many years.
Some Trump supporter will be critical of any change, but my view is that the change is necessary and proper. Of course, many of those critics are people who would drive the bus over the cliff to stand for "principle." A good leader would not do that.
Trump is meeting today with Enrique Pena Nieto, the President of Mexico, in what is a very interesting development. That will be followed shortly with what is billed as a speech giving details about his immigration policy going forward. These things could very well make or break his candidacy.
Whatever he says and does today, Trump must face the reality that in order to get his ideas into the body politic, he cannot rely on the media for free publicity. He has to raise the money and buy ads.
So, we will see how it goes.
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Saturday, December 25, 2010
New Year's Resolutions
Christmas has passed and we approach the New Year, so it is time for some resolutions.
Not for me. For Uncle Sam.
Mine are the same old ones: lose weight and avoid going broke.
Uncle Sam needs a lot more than that, so here goes with what I think they should be (in part):
1. BALANCE THE BUDGET!
Now. Not 10 years from now; not 5 years from now. Do it NOW!
How to do it? Cut spending. How about cutting the budget to where it was on September 1, 2008? That was before the bailouts started. A good start. But not enough.
Restore Federal employment to the level of September 1, 2008, then cut it 10% across the board, except for the uniformed military.
Taxes? Tax rates don't need to be raised. Just do away with all of the tax shelters that the very wealthy use to avoid paying taxes.
No more tax subsidies for anything. If it is not profitable without tax breaks, then let the resources go to something that is. (this would include the oil and gas depletion allowance, something dear to my heart, among other things).
Stop subsidies as well, for the same reason. (this would include farm subsidies, and the ethanol subsidy, also very dear to close friends).
If that has not insulted everyone, I could continue. The point is that nothing should be sacred except preserving our economy and our freedom. Everyone will have to pay up. It has to be an equal opportunity cutting contest, with no sacred cows. Everything must be on the table.
It has to be done, so get started..
2. Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget every year unless a super majority of Congress and the President declared a national emergency. There needs to be teeth in it so the politicains can't ignore it. 'Nuff said.
3. Do away with Too Big to Fail.
If a financial institution or large corporation is that big, the law should require that they be broken up. Think Teddy Roosevelt.
A corollary to that would be to reenact the Glass-Steagall Act, or something that accomplishes the same thing.
The big banks and bankers are getting fatter and fatter, while our middle class shrinks.
Go back and strengthen the extraordinarily weak regulation of financial institutions that was passed last year. Congress let the perps write their own rules. Ridiculous!
With the above, outlaw bailouts of corporations (and states, and municipalities) that go broke.
4. Enact a Sunset Act which would subject every Federal agency and program to expiration if not renewed every 10 years. No exceptions.
Texas has one that is pretty good. Model it on theirs, but stronger.
5. Reform Social Security.
Gosh, where to start? Begin by extending the age of eligibility to 70 years gradually, like it was previously extended to 67. Then index the eligibility age to life expectancy in the US.
Remove the Social Security tax from the general revenue budget, and restore the trust fund ( really too late. That horse is out of the barn.).
Establish a way to begin changing Social Security to a defined contribution plan rather than a defined benefit plan, like the private sector is doing.
6. Reform Medicare and Medicaid.
I have to admit that I do not have a clue about these.
Obviously, the benefits will have to be reduced. There just have to be limits, particularly on end of life payments. Tough choices there, but they have to be made. It needs to be made the right way, by doctors, patients, and families, not bureaucrats. Although the right is critical of Medicare supporting end of life counselling, my view is that it is necessary to encourage families to plan ahead for that eventuality. My family has. We have medical powers of attorney, living wills, and the like. Everyone should.
Premiums and deductibles for Medicare will have to be raised. The same for Medicaid.
While we are on health care, Obamacare needs to be replaced with something less intrusive. Some reform was needed, but the bill went WAY too far.
Other suggestions are quite welcome.
7. Bring the boys (and girls) home.
No great power has ever pacified Afghanistan, and we can't do it now. If we did, what would we accomplish? There is nothing there that is worth the expenditure of lives and money that is required. Declare victory soon, and bring them home.
Keep the carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf, however. We will need them when Iran makes their first nuclear weapons. That could be another resolution, but I will resist.
8. Secure the borders now.
When that is accomplished, and only then, we can make some strides on a humane way to deal with the illegal immigrants that have been here for a good while. But there should be no blanket amnesty.
We can also then reform our immigration policies to make immigration more available to other than those who come illegally. Our current rules are way too restrictive. We need to be a bit picky about who we let in as well, but based upon skills and education, not race.
Before anything else the borders must be well secured first. And soon.
This is just a few of many things that are needed. Both political parties have contributed to a terrible situation that is a real threat to our country in many ways.
They have both sold out to the big money folks and the big labor unions. Campaign contributions are far more important to our elected officials than doing the right thing.
The big banks, labor unions, and politicians are thriving, while the middle class and the lower class is suffering.
It is time for a change, but for the RIGHT change.
This is not a complete list of what I think should be done, and I am not married to all the details. But the overall resolutions are quite necessary, in my opinion.
Clearly, the economy is not singled out for a resolution. The government just needs to get out of the way of the economy, and the other resolutions will help that quite a bit.
Other suggestions are welcome, either on this site or on Facebook.
Fire away. Let the conversations begin.
Not for me. For Uncle Sam.
Mine are the same old ones: lose weight and avoid going broke.
Uncle Sam needs a lot more than that, so here goes with what I think they should be (in part):
1. BALANCE THE BUDGET!
Now. Not 10 years from now; not 5 years from now. Do it NOW!
How to do it? Cut spending. How about cutting the budget to where it was on September 1, 2008? That was before the bailouts started. A good start. But not enough.
Restore Federal employment to the level of September 1, 2008, then cut it 10% across the board, except for the uniformed military.
Taxes? Tax rates don't need to be raised. Just do away with all of the tax shelters that the very wealthy use to avoid paying taxes.
No more tax subsidies for anything. If it is not profitable without tax breaks, then let the resources go to something that is. (this would include the oil and gas depletion allowance, something dear to my heart, among other things).
Stop subsidies as well, for the same reason. (this would include farm subsidies, and the ethanol subsidy, also very dear to close friends).
If that has not insulted everyone, I could continue. The point is that nothing should be sacred except preserving our economy and our freedom. Everyone will have to pay up. It has to be an equal opportunity cutting contest, with no sacred cows. Everything must be on the table.
It has to be done, so get started..
2. Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget every year unless a super majority of Congress and the President declared a national emergency. There needs to be teeth in it so the politicains can't ignore it. 'Nuff said.
3. Do away with Too Big to Fail.
If a financial institution or large corporation is that big, the law should require that they be broken up. Think Teddy Roosevelt.
A corollary to that would be to reenact the Glass-Steagall Act, or something that accomplishes the same thing.
The big banks and bankers are getting fatter and fatter, while our middle class shrinks.
Go back and strengthen the extraordinarily weak regulation of financial institutions that was passed last year. Congress let the perps write their own rules. Ridiculous!
With the above, outlaw bailouts of corporations (and states, and municipalities) that go broke.
4. Enact a Sunset Act which would subject every Federal agency and program to expiration if not renewed every 10 years. No exceptions.
Texas has one that is pretty good. Model it on theirs, but stronger.
5. Reform Social Security.
Gosh, where to start? Begin by extending the age of eligibility to 70 years gradually, like it was previously extended to 67. Then index the eligibility age to life expectancy in the US.
Remove the Social Security tax from the general revenue budget, and restore the trust fund ( really too late. That horse is out of the barn.).
Establish a way to begin changing Social Security to a defined contribution plan rather than a defined benefit plan, like the private sector is doing.
6. Reform Medicare and Medicaid.
I have to admit that I do not have a clue about these.
Obviously, the benefits will have to be reduced. There just have to be limits, particularly on end of life payments. Tough choices there, but they have to be made. It needs to be made the right way, by doctors, patients, and families, not bureaucrats. Although the right is critical of Medicare supporting end of life counselling, my view is that it is necessary to encourage families to plan ahead for that eventuality. My family has. We have medical powers of attorney, living wills, and the like. Everyone should.
Premiums and deductibles for Medicare will have to be raised. The same for Medicaid.
While we are on health care, Obamacare needs to be replaced with something less intrusive. Some reform was needed, but the bill went WAY too far.
Other suggestions are quite welcome.
7. Bring the boys (and girls) home.
No great power has ever pacified Afghanistan, and we can't do it now. If we did, what would we accomplish? There is nothing there that is worth the expenditure of lives and money that is required. Declare victory soon, and bring them home.
Keep the carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf, however. We will need them when Iran makes their first nuclear weapons. That could be another resolution, but I will resist.
8. Secure the borders now.
When that is accomplished, and only then, we can make some strides on a humane way to deal with the illegal immigrants that have been here for a good while. But there should be no blanket amnesty.
We can also then reform our immigration policies to make immigration more available to other than those who come illegally. Our current rules are way too restrictive. We need to be a bit picky about who we let in as well, but based upon skills and education, not race.
Before anything else the borders must be well secured first. And soon.
This is just a few of many things that are needed. Both political parties have contributed to a terrible situation that is a real threat to our country in many ways.
They have both sold out to the big money folks and the big labor unions. Campaign contributions are far more important to our elected officials than doing the right thing.
The big banks, labor unions, and politicians are thriving, while the middle class and the lower class is suffering.
It is time for a change, but for the RIGHT change.
This is not a complete list of what I think should be done, and I am not married to all the details. But the overall resolutions are quite necessary, in my opinion.
Clearly, the economy is not singled out for a resolution. The government just needs to get out of the way of the economy, and the other resolutions will help that quite a bit.
Other suggestions are welcome, either on this site or on Facebook.
Fire away. Let the conversations begin.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Bills coming due
It is the New Year, and everyone has been reviewing the old year. There are a lot of different views, some good, some bad. Perhaps the one I like the best was written by Victor Davis Hanson, entitled 2007The Bills That Came Due. He noted that everything comes at a price, and went through a number of things that brought that home to us. I recommend that you follow the link and read the whole article.
This post, however, is not about the past, but the future. What bills are going to come due this year?
THE CAPITAL MARKETS
This problem really started coming home to roost last year, but the bill will possibly come this year. Years (since the early 1990's) of freewheeling lending, then dividing pieces of each debt up into pieces (derivatives), getting greedy rating agencies to overrate the debt issues, and then selling them to the public and to each other, all of it subject to little or no regulation, has gotten the worlds financial institutions and capital markets in a bind. Once the sub-prime mortgages started losing value, it was discovered that there was really no easy way to put any value on a lot of this paper that was issued. This has led to a serious impairment of the capital of most of our large financial institutions, in the US and worldwide. The central banks have added huge amounts of new reserves (created out of thin air) to the markets, and the financial institutions and the banks have been writing down their reserves and selling stock to raise new capital. So far no panic has set in. But it is only the beginning. When one dances to the music, one must pay the Piper. This may well be the year that the Piper demands payment. If so....well, it won't be pretty.
OIL AND ENERGY
Oil and energy prices will fluctuate, with an upward bias, unless the capital markets crash and cause a recession worldwide. The United States and China, along with Europe, will compete for ever more scarce petroleum this coming year, and well into the future. The inability of the United States to agree upon reasonable efforts to adopt alternatives to petroleum will make it extremely vulnerable to cut offs of its supplies from abroad. As China races to build a "blue ocean" navy which could interdict our supply someday, we twiddle our thumbs and do little but subsidize the use of food to power our cars. This enriches corporate farmers and politicians at taxpayers' expense, but does nothing to address the energy problem. A new policy encouraging research and development of alternatives including nuclear is imperative. Don't anyone hold his or her breath.
IMMIGRATION
We are beginning to see some effects of the current immigration policy. The crackdown, though insufficient to secure the borders, is having some effect. However, the politicians are playing games with us all. They authorized the border fences, but didn't appropriate the funds to do it right. There still are not enough new Border Patrolmen to do the job. Of course, what we need is a new immigration law, but there is no consensus on how existing illegal immigrants already here should be treated. The whole system is broken, and needs to be fixed. Don't hold your breath on this one, either.
POLITICS
This is where I suspect things may really get interesting. There are at least two aspects to the upcoming elections that need to be looked at. First is the methodology of the nominating process, and the other is the public's reactions to the candidates and the political parties.
The last few election cycles we have seen the winners in Iowa and New Hampshire get anointed by the media as frontrunners, and the momentum generated by that have led to their nominations. Those early events have had a far larger effect on the process than deserved, particularly since neither state is really very representative of the whole.
Ronald A. Cass has a piece out today that discusses this phenomenum over at RealClearPolitics, entitled Is This Any Way to Pick a President? Madison's Nightmare. This is a good read that explains the problem.
This year, I get the sense that this is not going to be the case. Oh, the media will try to spin these things one way or another, but it looks like we may have a longer, harder process than usual. We need it.
One reason we need a longer process before the nominations are sewed up is that we don't really know much about most of the candidates, in spite of the length of the race so far. All we get is soundbites from the media. Those that spend a lot of time on it and don't just rely on the mainstream media for the sound bites they choose for us may know more about some of the candidates, but none of us knows enough. Bill Katz has a post over at Powerline that says it all. He says there is a distance between the candidates and the public that prevents the public from really getting to know about them, and gives three reasons:
".....First, the TV myth. Television, we're told, brings us closer to events. No, it doesn't. It brings us closer to the coverage of events, and the staging of events. But the very staging of something for TV separates us from the candidate. That, of course, is the purpose – to create illusion, not reality......"
"....The second reason for the distance between public and candidate is a routine demeaning of the American voter. Voters, we're told, are impatient, they won't listen, they're not interested, so let's reduce everything to sound bites.........."
"....The third reason for the distance, and the most important, in my view, is that the concept of "knowing" the candidates has changed, in part because the selection process has changed...."
Go there and read the whole thing.
My prediction is that the public won't be happy this year with the rush to nomination. Both of these races may go to the conventions. It will be interesting to see.
As for the candidates, well, my thought is that the public isn't really attracted to any of them. Oh, sure, each has his or her supporters, but looking at the overall public reaction leaves me thinking that "none of the above" might win it all this year if that were on the ballot. This probably ties in with what Katz had to say....we just don't know that much about most of the candidates. Perhaps we know too much about Hillary. Who knows?
What is very clear is that after months of soundbite campaigning and several meaningless "debates" we are still in the dark about what the candidates really think about the issues.
What seems to have occurred is that the general public has lost it's trust of the government, the politicians and the media. We know about the spinning of soundbites and the "gotcha" journalism. We would like to hear some real debate on the real issues, and not canned responses to soft and non-threatening questions.
A lot of people have a justifiable feeling of unease about the direction the country is taking. There are some serious threats out there, and our government does not seem to be responding well to what is occurring. I think we would all like to hear the candidates talk honestly to us about those things. Instead, we are only getting soundbites and canned BS.
So, who is going to win when its all said and done? There is no way to tell. Two of the most interesting candidates, in terms of how they are performing, are Obama and Ron Paul. These guys have virtually nothing in common, but Obama seems to have gotten the lead in the Democratic race, and Paul certainly has raised a huge amount of money, although he doesn't show in the polls that well. I think the one thing they do have in common is that they are different from the usual candidates. Is their showing a reflection of a public dissatisfaction with the "same old politics?" Will the public surprise us when the voting begins? Stay tuned.
And then there is Fred Thompson. His campaign is certainly non-traditional, and I think that is intentional. What is his plan, if any? Will it work? At least he has released detailed position papers, but, of course, the media has not covered them....no "soundbites" there. We will just have to see.
The rest seem to be going about things the same old way. The polls ebb and flow. Nobody can hold a lead. Personal attacks seem to be escalating. That won't work this time.
And then there is the strong possibility of a third (and fourth?) party. Mayor Bloomberg seems to be positioning himself for a run. If he does, who will it hurt? Will Ron Paul run as a Libertarian? It is going to be interesting, and scary.
One thing is for sure. We will have to pay the bill for whom we choose this year when it comes due. A mistake may be very costly.
This post, however, is not about the past, but the future. What bills are going to come due this year?
THE CAPITAL MARKETS
This problem really started coming home to roost last year, but the bill will possibly come this year. Years (since the early 1990's) of freewheeling lending, then dividing pieces of each debt up into pieces (derivatives), getting greedy rating agencies to overrate the debt issues, and then selling them to the public and to each other, all of it subject to little or no regulation, has gotten the worlds financial institutions and capital markets in a bind. Once the sub-prime mortgages started losing value, it was discovered that there was really no easy way to put any value on a lot of this paper that was issued. This has led to a serious impairment of the capital of most of our large financial institutions, in the US and worldwide. The central banks have added huge amounts of new reserves (created out of thin air) to the markets, and the financial institutions and the banks have been writing down their reserves and selling stock to raise new capital. So far no panic has set in. But it is only the beginning. When one dances to the music, one must pay the Piper. This may well be the year that the Piper demands payment. If so....well, it won't be pretty.
OIL AND ENERGY
Oil and energy prices will fluctuate, with an upward bias, unless the capital markets crash and cause a recession worldwide. The United States and China, along with Europe, will compete for ever more scarce petroleum this coming year, and well into the future. The inability of the United States to agree upon reasonable efforts to adopt alternatives to petroleum will make it extremely vulnerable to cut offs of its supplies from abroad. As China races to build a "blue ocean" navy which could interdict our supply someday, we twiddle our thumbs and do little but subsidize the use of food to power our cars. This enriches corporate farmers and politicians at taxpayers' expense, but does nothing to address the energy problem. A new policy encouraging research and development of alternatives including nuclear is imperative. Don't anyone hold his or her breath.
IMMIGRATION
We are beginning to see some effects of the current immigration policy. The crackdown, though insufficient to secure the borders, is having some effect. However, the politicians are playing games with us all. They authorized the border fences, but didn't appropriate the funds to do it right. There still are not enough new Border Patrolmen to do the job. Of course, what we need is a new immigration law, but there is no consensus on how existing illegal immigrants already here should be treated. The whole system is broken, and needs to be fixed. Don't hold your breath on this one, either.
POLITICS
This is where I suspect things may really get interesting. There are at least two aspects to the upcoming elections that need to be looked at. First is the methodology of the nominating process, and the other is the public's reactions to the candidates and the political parties.
The last few election cycles we have seen the winners in Iowa and New Hampshire get anointed by the media as frontrunners, and the momentum generated by that have led to their nominations. Those early events have had a far larger effect on the process than deserved, particularly since neither state is really very representative of the whole.
Ronald A. Cass has a piece out today that discusses this phenomenum over at RealClearPolitics, entitled Is This Any Way to Pick a President? Madison's Nightmare. This is a good read that explains the problem.
This year, I get the sense that this is not going to be the case. Oh, the media will try to spin these things one way or another, but it looks like we may have a longer, harder process than usual. We need it.
One reason we need a longer process before the nominations are sewed up is that we don't really know much about most of the candidates, in spite of the length of the race so far. All we get is soundbites from the media. Those that spend a lot of time on it and don't just rely on the mainstream media for the sound bites they choose for us may know more about some of the candidates, but none of us knows enough. Bill Katz has a post over at Powerline that says it all. He says there is a distance between the candidates and the public that prevents the public from really getting to know about them, and gives three reasons:
".....First, the TV myth. Television, we're told, brings us closer to events. No, it doesn't. It brings us closer to the coverage of events, and the staging of events. But the very staging of something for TV separates us from the candidate. That, of course, is the purpose – to create illusion, not reality......"
"....The second reason for the distance between public and candidate is a routine demeaning of the American voter. Voters, we're told, are impatient, they won't listen, they're not interested, so let's reduce everything to sound bites.........."
"....The third reason for the distance, and the most important, in my view, is that the concept of "knowing" the candidates has changed, in part because the selection process has changed...."
Go there and read the whole thing.
My prediction is that the public won't be happy this year with the rush to nomination. Both of these races may go to the conventions. It will be interesting to see.
As for the candidates, well, my thought is that the public isn't really attracted to any of them. Oh, sure, each has his or her supporters, but looking at the overall public reaction leaves me thinking that "none of the above" might win it all this year if that were on the ballot. This probably ties in with what Katz had to say....we just don't know that much about most of the candidates. Perhaps we know too much about Hillary. Who knows?
What is very clear is that after months of soundbite campaigning and several meaningless "debates" we are still in the dark about what the candidates really think about the issues.
What seems to have occurred is that the general public has lost it's trust of the government, the politicians and the media. We know about the spinning of soundbites and the "gotcha" journalism. We would like to hear some real debate on the real issues, and not canned responses to soft and non-threatening questions.
A lot of people have a justifiable feeling of unease about the direction the country is taking. There are some serious threats out there, and our government does not seem to be responding well to what is occurring. I think we would all like to hear the candidates talk honestly to us about those things. Instead, we are only getting soundbites and canned BS.
So, who is going to win when its all said and done? There is no way to tell. Two of the most interesting candidates, in terms of how they are performing, are Obama and Ron Paul. These guys have virtually nothing in common, but Obama seems to have gotten the lead in the Democratic race, and Paul certainly has raised a huge amount of money, although he doesn't show in the polls that well. I think the one thing they do have in common is that they are different from the usual candidates. Is their showing a reflection of a public dissatisfaction with the "same old politics?" Will the public surprise us when the voting begins? Stay tuned.
And then there is Fred Thompson. His campaign is certainly non-traditional, and I think that is intentional. What is his plan, if any? Will it work? At least he has released detailed position papers, but, of course, the media has not covered them....no "soundbites" there. We will just have to see.
The rest seem to be going about things the same old way. The polls ebb and flow. Nobody can hold a lead. Personal attacks seem to be escalating. That won't work this time.
And then there is the strong possibility of a third (and fourth?) party. Mayor Bloomberg seems to be positioning himself for a run. If he does, who will it hurt? Will Ron Paul run as a Libertarian? It is going to be interesting, and scary.
One thing is for sure. We will have to pay the bill for whom we choose this year when it comes due. A mistake may be very costly.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Immigration, Part II: Why we must secure the border
Now that the "comprehensive" immigration bill appears to be dead, the aftermath seems to show that our government still doesn't get it. It was not about racism, as some would have it. It was always about trust. The American people, seeing an obviously flawed bill, did not trust Congress or the Executive to do the proper enforcement. They did not for the last twenty years, so why would they be expected to do so now? It was clear that the resources to implement the law as written did not even exist, and were not going to be deployed. It was going to be another amnesty without security.
A couple of news reports the last couple of days have caught my eye, and they dovetail nicely into why we still need action on border security
First, there was the release of the National Intelligence Estimate. One of the assessments according to the AP story was:
A couple of news reports the last couple of days have caught my eye, and they dovetail nicely into why we still need action on border security
First, there was the release of the National Intelligence Estimate. One of the assessments according to the AP story was:
"Of note," the analysts said, "we assess that al-Qaida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland."
So now al Qaeda is seeking to infiltrate Iraqi al Qaeda into the US for attacks on our citizens.
The other story from ABC leads as follows:
"The FBI is investigating an alleged human smuggling operation based in Chaparral, N.M., that agents say is bringing "Iraqis and other Middle Eastern" individuals across the Rio Grande from Mexico.................."
This fits with another ABC report from July 10, 2007:
"Senior U.S. intelligence officials tell ABC News new intelligence suggests a small al Qaeda cell is on its way to the United States, or may already be here..........."
In other words, we know that Iraqis and other Middle Easterners are being smuggled into this coutry from Mexico.
We have the knowledge that they want to attack us and that our border is porous enough that they can do so.
The next question has to be: "Why does not the Congress and the Executive put more interest on border security?" A full implementation of existing law would be very helpful, but the effort drags.
A strong border security bill with proper appropriations could still be passed by this Congress, but there appears to be no interest on the part of the leadership of either party to attempt to do so. Can we ever trust them to do right? Don't answer that question!
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Immigration, Part I
I suppose that I started this blog to muse about various aspects of policy here in our country. Clearly, immigration is one of the most serious and divisive issues that we face as a country at this time. It is a very complex, multi-faceted problem, and does not lend itself to easy solutions. Our politicians are failing us again, for they are trying to pass "comprehensive" immigration law without really explaining it to the people. I guess they think we are too dumb.
Obviously, we have a problem, and it is a large one. There are millions of illegal immigrants already in our country, and more waves of them are coming in every day through porous borders. We don't even know how many of them are already here. Twelve million? Twenty million? Who knows?
That question presents the first problem to solve. How do we identify the illegals? We know kind of where they are: in the American Southwest, for the most part; but also in almost every other state. Is there a way to identify them without establishing a police state? Probably not, unless we can get them to come forward on their own. It just will not be practical to do it any other way.
How can we get them to do that? Well, of course we have to offer them something that they will accept. Deportation, jail or permanent exclusion from the United States are certainly not going to get them to come forward. Anybody have another idea? Please post it in the comments.
Assuming we can identify the illegals, what do we do with them? Deport them? Jail them, then deport them? What happens if we do those things?
We are talking about deporting 12 to 20 million people. What will this cost interms of additional manpower and jail space? What does this do to our economy? Most of these folks came to this country to follow the American Dream. Most work, and many even pay taxes and vote. Almost all are pretty good people. What kind of hole will this create if they are suddenly gone? What jobs will go undone in an economy with virtually full employment?
I don't hear any of our politicians talking about these questions. We do see a provision in the proposed law that would give these people a pathway to seek to become legal immigrants. All of the discussion seems to be over the code word of "amnesty." Of course, that is what it is. Why do not the proponents to this law defend it rather than deny that it is amnesty? My thought is that it is defensible under the circumstances, but only if a credible program to establish effective border security is accomplished first.
There is no real hurry to deal with those already here, other than potential terrorists. But there is a real necessity to establish security on our borders now.
My thought is that Peggy Noonan had a pretty good approach a week or two ago:
"...A little love would go a long way right now. We should stop putting newcomers in constant jeopardy by blithely importing ever-newer immigrants who'll work for ever lower wages. The ones here will never get a sure foot on the next rung that way.
We should close the border, pause, absorb what we have, and set ourselves to "patriating" the newcomers who are here. The young of AmeriCorps might help teach them English. Those reaching retirement age, who happen to be the last people in America who were taught and know American history, could help them learn the story of our country. We could, as a nation, set our minds to this...."
Close the borders now. Don't let anyone else into our house without our invitation. Then deal with those already here. Good idea.
Why do a comprehensive law now? Why not keep the promises made with the last comprehensive law in 1986...the last time we granted amnesty?
Secure the borders, then deal with the other issues.
UPDATE:
Mark Steyn weigh in this morning with another column that deals with immigration. "Immigration Bill is a Fraud" gives us a blunt view about the bill from an immigrant, and, as usual, does not mind getting right to the point (emphasis mine ):
"....Back in the real world far from those senators living in the non-shadows of their boundless self-admiration, the truth is that America's immigration bureaucracy cannot cope with its existing caseload, and thus will certainly be unable to cope with millions of additional teeming hordes tossed into its waiting room. Currently, the time in which an immigration adjudicator is expected to approve or reject an application is six minutes. That's not enough time to read the basic form, never mind any supporting documentation. It's certainly not enough time for any meaningful background check. Under political pressure to ''bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows,'' the immigration bureaucracy will rubberstamp gazillions of applications for open-ended probationary legal status within 24 hours and with no more supporting documentation than a utility bill or an affidavit from a friend. There's never been a better time for Mullah Omar to apply for U.S. residency.
America has an illegal immigration problem in part because it has a legal immigration problem. Anyone who enters the system exposes himself to an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical bureaucracy: For example, one of the little-known features of this bill is that in order to ''bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows,'' millions of legal applicants are being hurled back into outer darkness. Law-abiding foreign nationals who filed their paperwork in the last two years would be required to go back to their home countries and start all over again. Not only does this bill reward law-breaking, it punishes law-abiding......."
This is absolutely true, and is why Americans do not support the current bill. The politicians have never kept the promises made in the years before. How can we expect them to keep them now? They cannot or will not even enforce current law. They should do this, secure our borders, and then talk about a comprehensive bill.
UPDATE 2: June 18, 2007
US News says we are making progress. It sounds good, if true. Read the whole thing.
Obviously, we have a problem, and it is a large one. There are millions of illegal immigrants already in our country, and more waves of them are coming in every day through porous borders. We don't even know how many of them are already here. Twelve million? Twenty million? Who knows?
That question presents the first problem to solve. How do we identify the illegals? We know kind of where they are: in the American Southwest, for the most part; but also in almost every other state. Is there a way to identify them without establishing a police state? Probably not, unless we can get them to come forward on their own. It just will not be practical to do it any other way.
How can we get them to do that? Well, of course we have to offer them something that they will accept. Deportation, jail or permanent exclusion from the United States are certainly not going to get them to come forward. Anybody have another idea? Please post it in the comments.
Assuming we can identify the illegals, what do we do with them? Deport them? Jail them, then deport them? What happens if we do those things?
We are talking about deporting 12 to 20 million people. What will this cost interms of additional manpower and jail space? What does this do to our economy? Most of these folks came to this country to follow the American Dream. Most work, and many even pay taxes and vote. Almost all are pretty good people. What kind of hole will this create if they are suddenly gone? What jobs will go undone in an economy with virtually full employment?
I don't hear any of our politicians talking about these questions. We do see a provision in the proposed law that would give these people a pathway to seek to become legal immigrants. All of the discussion seems to be over the code word of "amnesty." Of course, that is what it is. Why do not the proponents to this law defend it rather than deny that it is amnesty? My thought is that it is defensible under the circumstances, but only if a credible program to establish effective border security is accomplished first.
There is no real hurry to deal with those already here, other than potential terrorists. But there is a real necessity to establish security on our borders now.
My thought is that Peggy Noonan had a pretty good approach a week or two ago:
"...A little love would go a long way right now. We should stop putting newcomers in constant jeopardy by blithely importing ever-newer immigrants who'll work for ever lower wages. The ones here will never get a sure foot on the next rung that way.
We should close the border, pause, absorb what we have, and set ourselves to "patriating" the newcomers who are here. The young of AmeriCorps might help teach them English. Those reaching retirement age, who happen to be the last people in America who were taught and know American history, could help them learn the story of our country. We could, as a nation, set our minds to this...."
Close the borders now. Don't let anyone else into our house without our invitation. Then deal with those already here. Good idea.
Why do a comprehensive law now? Why not keep the promises made with the last comprehensive law in 1986...the last time we granted amnesty?
Secure the borders, then deal with the other issues.
UPDATE:
Mark Steyn weigh in this morning with another column that deals with immigration. "Immigration Bill is a Fraud" gives us a blunt view about the bill from an immigrant, and, as usual, does not mind getting right to the point (emphasis mine ):
"....Back in the real world far from those senators living in the non-shadows of their boundless self-admiration, the truth is that America's immigration bureaucracy cannot cope with its existing caseload, and thus will certainly be unable to cope with millions of additional teeming hordes tossed into its waiting room. Currently, the time in which an immigration adjudicator is expected to approve or reject an application is six minutes. That's not enough time to read the basic form, never mind any supporting documentation. It's certainly not enough time for any meaningful background check. Under political pressure to ''bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows,'' the immigration bureaucracy will rubberstamp gazillions of applications for open-ended probationary legal status within 24 hours and with no more supporting documentation than a utility bill or an affidavit from a friend. There's never been a better time for Mullah Omar to apply for U.S. residency.
America has an illegal immigration problem in part because it has a legal immigration problem. Anyone who enters the system exposes himself to an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical bureaucracy: For example, one of the little-known features of this bill is that in order to ''bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows,'' millions of legal applicants are being hurled back into outer darkness. Law-abiding foreign nationals who filed their paperwork in the last two years would be required to go back to their home countries and start all over again. Not only does this bill reward law-breaking, it punishes law-abiding......."
This is absolutely true, and is why Americans do not support the current bill. The politicians have never kept the promises made in the years before. How can we expect them to keep them now? They cannot or will not even enforce current law. They should do this, secure our borders, and then talk about a comprehensive bill.
UPDATE 2: June 18, 2007
US News says we are making progress. It sounds good, if true. Read the whole thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)