Category Archives: ethics

Yet More Thoughts on Immigration

Posted on by
Reply

I want to comment a bit about one leg of our immigration policy, that of what to do about the illegal aliens currently present in the US.

Roberto Suro has a recent piece in The Washington Post that bears on this; although he talks primarily about a second leg of our immigration policy, one that also must be solved: how we let aliens into our country (an immigrant is someone who intends to settle permanently, so I’ll stick to aliens in this post).  All three legs (entry, border security, the existing population of illegal aliens and immigrants), though, must be handled together, or the totality of our immigration policy will continue to be the failure that it is today.

Suro noted,

Along with the many [immigrants] looking to make a permanent home in the United States came those who had no intention to stay, and who would make some money and then go home.   Between 1908 and 1915, about 7 million people arrived while about 2 million departed.  About a quarter of all Italian immigrants, for example, eventually returned to Italy for good.

Today, we are much more rigid about immigrants. We divide newcomers into two categories: legal or illegal, good or bad. We hail them as Americans in the making, or brand them as aliens fit for deportation.

And

To start, we can recognize the new birds of passage, those living and thriving in the gray areas. We might then begin to solve our immigration challenges.

…

If we accept that there are spaces between legal and illegal, then options multiply.

The second part, though, is simply wrong.  There can be no gray area between legal and illegal; that would only perpetuate the limbo in which the illegal aliens currently exist.  Instead, we need to broaden what constitutes legal, and make it easier for these folks to comply.

Who are these folks living this shadow existence?  They are crop pickers, violinists, construction workers, entrepreneurs, engineers, home health-care aides and particle physicists.  These folks are active participants in a global economy driven by the flow of work, money, and ideas; they wish to come and go as opportunity calls them. They manage to have—they often are forced to have—a job in one country and a family in another.  Thus, they are forced to straddle—or avoid—the laws of multiple jurisdiction, with particular emphasis in this context US law on the part of the worker.

Nevertheless, we need them in the US being productive while they’re here, and it’s unnecessary to force them to choose to be here permanently, or to lie about their intent to be here permanently as a precondition for being here legally at all in order to achieve that.

Thus, I propose the following for the current population of illegal aliens.  I’ve proposed a general idea elsewhere, and Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D, IL) and Senator Marco Rubio (R, FL) have ideas that bear on this.

We should issue a “green card lite” for those who come and go at a relatively high rate—migrant workers, for instance, but not exclusively.  Such a card would be good for an extended number of years, allowing the holders to cross the border multiple times as their (seasonal, perhaps) work requires, without having to go through the entry bureaucracy—or risk coyote depravations—each time they want to reenter.  The folks who are here already and want such a card, though, must provide documentation to support their claimed work history.

Additionally, in support of that documentation requirement, I suggest a one year amnesty for employers of (potentially, from their perspective; I assume the good intentions of the vast majority of employers) immigrants, illegal or legal, so those employers can provide their documentation supporting the (illegal) immigrant’s application without fear of government reprisal.

Moreover, a regular green card, for those who aver a longer duration/steadier residency should be far more easily requestable and far more quickly issued, with a similar requirement for work history documentation from those who are already here and want to come out of the shadows.  The employer amnesty should be extended to employers of this group for the same reason.

Note, though, that I’m not proposing amnesty for the illegal aliens themselves.  As many have suggested, these must pay a penalty, variously including a fine and/or a requirement to leave the country and then to reenter legally.  I believe that both penalties should be applied.  The fine, though, must be sized to the illegal alien’s ability to pay, and it must be large enough to sting but not so large as to be an impenetrable barrier.  The requirement to leave the country and return, though, I hold can be satisfied by traveling to the nearest consulate in the US, paying their fine, and applying for their green card from within that consulate.

On the other hand, those who’ve used falsified or stolen documentation (e.g., a false or stolen social security number) to facilitate their getting hired must pay a sterner penalty.  These must leave the US voluntarily for some period of years before applying for a green card (lite), and they must apply as though they have no work history to claim (they’d a first-time immigrant, now).  Failure to leave voluntarily should result in deportation, never to be allowed back in.

Finally, notice that there is nothing in this that presupposes the now legal immigrants wanting to become citizens.  Nor need there be.  As demonstrated by those immigration statistics at the beginning, when folks are in our country openly and freely, our country sells itself.

Let’s not forget, though, the other two legs of our immigration problem.  We also need to look at the difficulties we inflict on those who want to enter our country for legitimate purposes—to settle here, for instance, or to “make some money and then go home.”  And we also need to get serious about securing our borders so that we do a better job of filtering out the ones who come here with nefarious purposes so that only those who want to come here to settle and contribute, perhaps (but not necessarily) to become citizens, or to be here for a time and then go home, can do so.

Be Too Bad if Something Was to Happen to It

Posted on by
Reply

So, pay the vig.  That’s the extortion Senator Patty Murray (D, WA) is threatening us with.  Roll over, and give us our tax increase on those we don’t like, or we’ll raise taxes on everyone.

[If] we can’t get a good deal, a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share, then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013…. We will have a new fiscal and political reality….

Of course, she continues to insist that “fair” is whatever the Progressives say it is, at any moment.  She, like her fellows, have continuously refused to say what amount constitutes a “fair share,” for her hated rich or for her sainted poor.

Here’s her naked extortion threat:

If middle-class families start seeing more money coming out of their paychecks next year—are Republicans really going to stand up and fight for new tax cuts for the rich? Are they going to continue opposing the Democrats’ middle-class tax cut once the slate has been wiped clean?

She’s also taking our national defense hostage and demanding that it be ransomed with more taxes.  The article at the link cites her as adding

[If] Republicans don’t negotiate to her party’s liking on the automatic spending cuts—known in Washington as the “sequestration”—set to take effect at the start of next year, her party would let those cuts happen, too.

Can we afford four more years of this assault on our freedoms?  Can we afford four more years of bipartisanship meaning “do it the Progressive way, or else?”

As to the taxes themselves, to which Senator Murray and her fellows are so tightly bound, Murray and her fellows, as with so much of the legislation they’ve rammed through, are running against the wishes of Americans.   The latest McClatchy-Marist poll has found the following:

  • Registered voters want all of the tax cuts extended, including for those with incomes above $250,000, by 52% to 43% wanting the cuts reserved for those making $250,000 or less
  • Those making less than $50,000 per year supported tax cuts for all incomes by 53% to 41%
  • Voters in the age band 18-29 favor tax cuts for everyone by 69% to 29%

There’s No Voter Fraud

Posted on by
Reply

Nosirree.  But there is this AP story carried by Fox News with incidents like this reported.

The voter registration form arrived in the mail last month with some key information already filled in: Rosie Charlston’s name was complete, as was her Seattle address.

Problem is, Rosie was a black lab who died in 1998.

And this

A Virginia man said similar documents arrived for his dead dog, Mozart, while a woman in the state got forms for her cat, Scampers.

The AP story notes that residents and election administrators around the country have encountered a number of questionable mailings like this addressed to animals, dead people, noncitizens and people already registered to vote.  Voter Participation Center brags about having distributed 5 million forms in the last few months, intended to get “unmarried women, blacks, Latinos, young adults,” and so on registered.

The problem with such ad hoc systems is that there is no accountability attached.  VPC itself says it relies on the recipients to toss the bad forms; it doesn’t try not to send them in the first place.  Except that Rosie isn’t around to toss her bad form, and Scampers can’t read.  VPC, though, says it’s all someone else’s fault: they use “commercially collected information.”

More seriously, as New Mexico officials note, ineligible voters who complete the documents can make it onto the rolls.  In New Mexico, for instance, noncitizens can qualify for a driver’s license by simply proving residency—not even necessarily legal residency—and state elections officials have no way of verifying the voting eligibility status of those who file registration documents.  Further, the registration forms often arrive with information already filled in and with a pre-addressed (to appropriate local elections officials) envelope enclosed.

There really are a small number of fraudulent registrations compared to the overall legitimately voting population.  But keep in mind that Senator Al Franken (D, MN) was elected in 2008 by 300 votes out of nearly 3 million cast, and President George W Bush won Florida’s Electoral College votes in 2000 by 500 votes out of some 6 million cast.

Also keep in mind that Attorney General Eric Holder opposes voter ID laws, which would protect the sanctity of Americans votes by reducing the opportunity for election stealing through voter fraud even further.

DoJ and…Racism

Posted on by
1

Speaking to the NAACP in Houston last Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder had this to say about Texas’ attempt to protect Americans’ voting rights by implementing a voter ID law that would help ensure that only eligible voters got to vote:

Many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to get them—and some would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain them.  We call those poll taxes.

The racism in Holder’s remarks is apparent.  As the WSJ pointed out

The Texas law stipulates that voters can use several kinds of ID to vote, including a driver’s license, passport, a US military ID, and (this being Texas) a handgun permit.  As for the “poll tax” canard, the law says the Texas Department of Public Safety will issue a free Election Identification Card if requested.

When was the last time Holder’s Jim Crow had a poll tax of $0.00?

But this is the new Jim Crow, Eric Holder style: anyone who votes Democratic (as opposed to democratic) should be allowed to vote, regardless of eligibility.  Never mind that the Supreme Court upheld a substantially identical voter ID law in Indiana just three years ago.  But Holder can’t attack Indiana; that state isn’t under his personal thumb, courtesy of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Texas is.

This is also the same Attorney General that, shortly after he assumed the position, threw out a case of New Black Panther voter intimidation of white voters that the Federal government already had won—at the end of the previous administration—and concerning which it was, literally, all over but the sentencing.  That case eventually led to the resignation of career Federal Prosecutor J Christian Adams.  This case also led to then-active Federal Prosecutor Christopher Coates’ testimony in front of the US Civil Rights Commission about the new DoJ’s policy of not seeking enforcement of voter laws when the victims weren’t people of color or when the suspected perpetrators were.

It would be interesting to hear Holder give the same speech to a more balanced audience.

Motives Followup

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote about motives a bit ago.  Here’s a followup on that.  From Fox News comes two items of interest.

First, the Department of Agriculture has been even more actively pushing its food stamps onto the non-needy than I had earlier written.  The Obama administration is trying harder and harder to pull Americans into government dependency, this time with a series of advertisements—paid for with your tax dollars—aimed at getting even those who don’t need food stamps to avail themselves of the “benefit.”  These advertisements are in the form of a 10-part miniseries called “Hope Park.”

The target of these vignettes is Diana, whose husband works (!) and who doesn’t think she needs the food stamps, as she notes in the 4th vignette:

I don’t need help from anyone.  My husband makes enough to take care of us.

By the last episode, though, Diana has been hooked, and she’s singing the praises of the stamps she didn’t need—but now needs badly.

As Senator Jeff Sessions (R, AL) describes this program,

It has become increasingly clear that, in recent years, the mission of the food stamp program has been converted from targeted assistance for those in need into an aggressive drive to expand enrollment regardless of need. … Read as a whole, USDA’s activities suggest that the program administrators take personal offense when people who technically qualify for their largesse decline to accept—and see it as an obstacle to overcome.

The other item of interest is this.

The Department of Health and Human Services has chosen to waive the work requirement that is part of the eligibility requirement for the Federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and it carefully has done so without fanfare.  The directive through which HHS does this can be read here, and a copy can be read here.

Governor and Republican Presidential Candidate (presumably) Mitt Romney correctly noted

[T]he linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life.

But as Congressman Jim Jordan (R, OH) said,

President Obama just tore up a basic foundation of the welfare contract….

It’s true enough that the directive insists that

Waiver requests must include an evaluation plan.  …the preferred evaluation approach is a random assignment methodology, unless the Secretary determines that an alternative approach is more appropriate….

and

The Secretary will not approve a waiver for an initiative that appears substantially likely to reduce access to assistance or employment for needy families.

But notice carefully.  What constitutes adequate evaluation by the states is carefully left unspecified, except that if HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius decides she doesn’t like a state’s evaluation methodology, she’s free to substitute her own, whose criteria also are carefully left unspecified.  Moreover, “substantially unlikely” to reduce access also is left to the unspecified whims of the Secretary.

There’s more in that last phrase, too.  “[A]ppears substantially likely to reduce access to assistance or employment” clearly means that access to assistance is to be maintained independently of access to employment.  The directive doesn’t require access to assistance and employment.

Without a work requirement as an eligibility criterion for TANF assistance, though, there is only eligibility for TANF dependency.

Again, I ask: what are we to make of the motives of government officials who do these things while knowing full well the outcomes of their actions?