All Immigrants Look Alike

That’s what Republicans say when they attempt to block immigration reform on the basis that all those new immigrants—whether newly arrived or newly legalized—will vote Democratic and change the dynamic of American politics, if not the fabric of American society.

These Republicans, apparently, also so much lack confidence in the Conservative message that they won’t get off their dead a*es and go talk to the new immigrants about the wonders of conservatism.  But, then, they won’t even leave their Congressional offices to go talk to present Americans about the strengths of Conservative values, preferring instead to hold the odd press conference on the Hill, or to toss a speech over the podium at some high-minded Center for This or Library of That, or to summon the plebes to an audience at a “Town Hall” meeting.  At which they blather on in vague glittering generalities.

You know, it’s just barely possible that the folks who run the high stakes risks for the high stakes payoffs just to get here, and then pick our crops or clean our houses or work in our factories (such as they are) or start their businesses from scratch are the sort of folks we actually want in our country: conservative, hardworking, self-reliant, responsible future citizens.

Maybe Republicans should get out of their way, and welcome them.  Yes, there are deadbeats and criminals who come in on the flood.  That’s what border security and visa controls are for.  However, a filter only works when it lets stuff (and people) through, and it’s only practically useful when it lets the flow run (generally) freely.  So Democrats and unions need also to get out of the way of these future citizens, and let visa caps be eliminated and serious border security be implemented.  (Or are they afraid of the Conservative message, too?)

The primary problem, though, is those Republicans who insist, as they did of the monolithic nature of Communism during the last century’s Cold War, on the monolithic Democrat nature of immigrants.  And fear them for that.  The competition of ideas is not a thing a Conservative fears.  Neither should Republicans.

Our Founders insisted on treating people as the individuals they are.  Our modern Republicans should do the same.

Debt, Taxpayers, and Morality

President Barack Obama wants to forgive another batch of debt, this time owed by America’s youth.  This is another of those tidbits buried in his latest pseudo-budget proposal.

Obama wants to

increase the number of borrowers eligible for a program known casually as income-based repayment, which aims to help low-income workers stay current on federal student debt.

Borrowers in the program make monthly payments equivalent to 10% of their income after taxes and basic living expenses, regardless of how much they owe.  After 20 years of on-time payments—10 years for those who work in public or nonprofit jobs—the balance is forgiven.

Noticed that: “stay current.”  Not “pay off.”

That this would cost American taxpayers billions of dollars, in the middle of a very long failed recovery, doesn’t bother Obama at all.  After all, it’s only MonopolyFed money.

This would make all lending riskier.  This precedent would let every group of borrowers with a “good reason” (and they all will have good reasons) to be allowed to walk away from their debts.  There’d be no incentive left at all to borrow carefully and responsibly.  Dishonoring a promise would be destigmatized.

It also ignores the morality of the thing.  It removes all incentive to honor commitments solemnly made—indeed, it would condone “commitments” made for the most frivolous reasons, by eliminating the consequences of failing to satisfy them.

The US, Russia, and Syria

In an article on the related topic of Arab nations asking the US to finally, please, get involved in the Syrian situation instead of hiding out on the sidelines, there appeared this gem:

Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced on Tuesday a plan to host a new international conference on Syria, possibly by month-end in Geneva.

Let me see if I understand this.  Lavrov told Kerry, “We’ll talk later.”  Or did Lavrov, instead, tell Kerry, “Let’s talk later?