Category Archives: immigration

Structure and Assimilation

Posted on by
Reply

A commenter on a blog I follow talked briefly about this as part of a larger comment. The thrust of the aside concerned the ink spilled arguing about government structure, but that while structure is important, what’s at bottom is “an increasingly complex and heterogeneous society” that’s hard to manage.

I think that proceeds from a false premise.

Our society need not be “increasingly complex and heterogeneous.” Certainly the technology we use in our society grows more complex, and even more heterogeneous (recall the hoops being jumped through to get Microsoft Windows-based programs to run on an Apple PC, or the hoops requiring satisfaction to get Linux-based systems and Microsoft-based systems to play nice together, to take just one small area). The training and education needed to operate our technologies also grows in depth, breadth, and length of time to achieve operational capacity (just try to let your Ford or Chrysler be all it can be without reading a multi-hundred page tech manual first).

But our society, our interactions with each other and our government need not be more complex or more heterogeneous. Our nation was founded on some simple principles, with personal responsibility and a personal duty to look after those who cannot look after themselves at their core. These are not complex principles. We just over-engineer them as we try to get government to do more and more for us while demanding ever greater and greater precision in execution.

Our current…heterogeneity…also results from an overemphasis of the value of other ways, other moralities, at the expense of our ways and the Judeo-Christian morality at the heart of our nation. That overemphasis flows from, among a number of causes, a lack of effort at assimilation—by us of those who come into our country and by those who come here from other countries. Too many immigrants value their old ways and morals over the ways and morals that created the environment here that contains the very opportunities for which those immigrants and visitors came. And we let them not assimilate, we don’t encourage them or help them reconcile their ways with ours and live with our ways in our house. That failure comes from the nonsense of moral equivalence.

“Must Pass” Legislation

Posted on by
Reply

Alan Blinder, he of Princeton University, has a piece on this subject in The Wall Street Journal. Among other things, he wrote

The resolution funding the Department of Homeland Security expires at the end of this month. Both parties want DHS to remain fully operational, but the bills passed so far include provisions that would roll back the president’s executive actions on immigration. Mr Obama has threatened a veto. If neither side blinks, members of the Coast Guard, the TSA, and the border patrol might soon see their paychecks suspended, though they would be required to continue working.

His entire piece went on in this vein, castigating Republicans for attaching such “extraneous” provisions to a number of bills, past and future in this Congress. He did so while ignoring the fact that the Democrats have done this in the past; both parties have. Good, bad, or indifferent, it’s a hoary old way of getting lesser matters enacted: on the backs of larger ones.

He also ignored an underlying critical item. If the thing truly is “must pass,” then Senate Democrats must stop their filibuster, allow debate (on, for instance, the DHS funding bill), offer amendments, and then allow an up or down vote in the Senate. Following which the thing would go to conference (since it would then differ from the House-passed version) and an agreed compromise voted on in each house of Congress. Filibustering is the very sort of thing the Harry Reid Faction decried Republicans for doing the prior six years (and which both parties have done for the last century or so), and the very sort of thing that provided the excuse for the Harry Reid Faction to cancel the filibuster where it was inconvenient to the then-majority Democrats.

No. If the Democrats continue to block debate on must pass legislation, if they insist on their filibuster, the consequences are entirely on them. In the present case, if the DHS goes unfunded, then those Senate Democrats will owe their own paychecks to the members of the Coast Guard, the TSA, and the border patrol for whom Blinder shed his copious crocodile tears.

It’s Time

Posted on by
2

…for the Party of No to get out of the way and let legislation happen. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) had this to say through her spokesman Drew Hammill about her fellow Democrats’ insistence on shutting down DHS* in favor of protecting President Barack Obama’s unconstitutional “executive actions” concerning immigration:

With only four legislative days left until the Republican Homeland Security Shutdown, Speaker Boehner made it clear that he has no plan to avoid a government shutdown. The speaker’s reliance on talking points and finger-pointing was a sad reflection of the fact that the Tea Party continues to hold the gavel as they insist on their futile anti-immigrant grandstanding.

Government shutdown. Not DHS shutdown. No exaggeration there. Pelosi’s proxy statement more honestly reads

With only four legislative days left until the Senate Democrats’ Homeland Security Shutdown, Minority Leader Pelosi made it clear that neither she nor her Senate colleagues have a plan to avoid a department shutdown. The Minority Leader’s reliance on talking points and finger-pointing was a sad reflection of the fact that the Democratic Party insists on its futile illegal immigrant grandstanding and vote pandering.

Note, too, that the Democrats are willing to hold hostage American homeland safety against preservation of those “executive actions”—”hostage” being their term, not Republicans’.

 

*Never mind, in the Democrats’ panic mongering, that DHS won’t, in fact, shut down in any substantive way: all the protection forces, from TSA to border control will remain on the job. They just won’t be paid on time, courtesy of the Senate Democrats’ constant filibuster of the House-passed bill that fully funds DHS.

The Party of No

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Party obstructionism continues in the Senate. Recall that the Democrats refused to allow over 300 House-passed jobs-related bills even to come up for debate in the last session and how they shut down the Federal government over a House-passed spending bill that fully funded the government but that didn’t have an additional 2% of what the Democrats demanded.

They’re at it again. The House has passed a bill that fully funds the Department of Homeland Security for the year, which under the last session’s compromise passed in December, had only been funded through the end of this month. The bill also rolls back a number of President Barack Obama’s unconstitutional immigration “executive actions.” Obama’s minions in the Senate are vowing to block the bill, to filibuster it.

Obama has promised to veto the bill, should it make it past the Senate Democrats’ obstructionism. Obama and his minions are fully prepared to shut down HHS, to walk completely away from what little border security they’re willing to provide today, if they can’t have 100% of their way.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) has made the question clear:

It’s a debate that will challenge our colleagues on the other side with a simple proposition. Do they think presidents of either party should have the power to simply ignore laws that they don’t like? Well, will our Democratic colleagues work with us to defend key democratic ideals like separation of powers and the rule of law? Or will they stand tall for the idea that partisan exercises of raw power are good things? The House-passed bill we’ll consider would do two things. Fund the Department of Homeland Security and rein in executive overreach. That’s it. It’s simple….

Remember the Democrats’ behavior in 2016.

A Thought on Immigration and Human Progress

Posted on by
Reply

Over at AEIdeas, James Pethokoukis has an article titled Has human progress stalled? And if so, what can we do about it? In it he talks about the apparent stagnation in human technological progress, and mentions the fact that American “productivity growth averaged nearly 3% during the period 1947-1973,” and we haven’t approached that rate since.

He quoted Aeon:

Yet there once was an age when speculation matched reality. It spluttered to a halt more than 40 years ago. Most of what has happened since has been merely incremental improvements upon what came before. That true age of innovation—I’ll call it the Golden Quarter—ran from approximately 1945 to 1971. Just about everything that defines the modern world either came about, or had its seeds sown, during this time. …  The Golden Quarter was a unique period of less than a single human generation, a time when innovation appeared to be running on a mix of dragster fuel and dilithium crystals.

Then he quoted Aeon again by way of offering an explanation (that I think somewhat begs the question) of why we “spluttered to a halt more than 40 years ago.”

Could it be that the missing part of the jigsaw is our attitude towards risk? Nothing ventured, nothing gained, as the saying goes. …  In the 1960s, new medicines were rushed to market. Not all of them worked and a few (thalidomide) had disastrous consequences. But the overall result was a medical boom that brought huge benefits to millions. Today, this is impossible. ….

The solutions that Pethokoukis and others to whom he linked in his article, though, are governmental: “maybe too much government regulation.” He also points to demographics [links in the original]:

We are a decade older, on average, today than in 1970 and perhaps more risk averse for that reason. Younger societies tend to be more dynamic, creative, and entrepreneurial, as Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker has written. And economist Robert Gordon cites demographics as one big reason when he thinks the era of fast US economic growth is over.

I think he’s likely right on both scores, but I think government regulations, though hugely important, are the lesser of the two factors. Regulations, after all, even with political inertia, can be undone. Aging is irreversible.

Or is it? Contra Gordon, our rapid economic growth need not be a thing of the past. We can recover our nation’s youth and vitality and our ability and willingness to get out of our comfort zone and take risks, take big risks for big gains, to “land a man on a moon of Saturn and return him safely to the earth within this generation.” That’s what immigration does for us. It’s what immigration always has done for us. Keep in mind: immigrants already are risk takers, or they wouldn’t be here.