It is never too late to be what you might have been.
George Eliot
Earlier: One-Off Post: Bill O'Reilly, President Obama, and the Race Problem
The Grumpy Economist Vents On Immigration
For the most part I agree with Cochrane's piece (HT Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek), In particular, I love his discussion of what got him to publish his op-ed in the WSJ:
Boiled down to one sentence, where this all started. Grumpy reads the news. Reaction: "You guys want every American to have to ask the permission of the Federal Government in order to get a job??? Have you lost your minds? How many founding fathers are rolling over in their graves?"He's talking, of course, about E-Verify. I've mentioned similar sentiments, like the employer becoming an INS agent. A basic point, though, John: isn't the federal government already doing this through I-9 paperwork, etc.? They are only automating and securing the process:: of course, a biometric ID card is, as Cochrane suggests, the first step down a slippery slope which limits our freedom to act anonymously and it would be only a matter of time NSA was able to fold that information with communications metadata to track citizens.
There are a couple of interesting points he raises:
The Senate bill promises higher caps for "guest workers." Ponder what "guest worker" really means. Come to America, pick our vegetables, clean our bathrooms and tend our gardens at the invitation of a powerful employer. Pay taxes. And when your visa runs out, go back where you came from—there is no place for you here. This is how Middle East sheikdoms treat Filipino maids and Palestinian construction workers. Is this America?First of all, Cochrane seems to be oblivious of the facts that (1) labor protectionists (particularly unions) have opposed working visas from the get-go, and why this blog, among other voices, advocates liberalized guest worker programs to alleviate one of the main reasons for unauthorized entry, (2) not all workers intend to immigrate (I worked for a client in Brazil in 1995 for a few months, but I had no intent or desire to become a Brazilian citizen); some types of work are seasonal (e.g., harvest), and (3) it seems odd for a free marketer to make value judgments about work: aliens are willing to work at agreed wages--and the pay may be far better than for comparable work in their homeland if they can find it (it's possible Cochrane sees this as zero-sum with immigration opportunities for low-skilled workers; I endorse liberalized immigration quotas for all types of workers, including low-skilled). I'm looking for ways to open labor markets to foreign workers, and a work visa is one of those options. I have no objection for an alien with prior work history in America applying for immigration.
Here is the crucial question for genuine immigration reform: How do we respond when someone says, I have heard of your freedom. I am tired of the corrupt police in my country, the bought-off courts, the oppression of rulers, the tyranny of the religious or ethnic majority. I want to join the one country on earth defined by an idea, not by conquest, religion or ethnic identity. No, I don't have a special skill or a strong back useful to your politically connected employers. I want to come, drive a cab, open a convenience store in a poor neighborhood, work long hours, pay taxes, send my children to school and, eventually, vote.I absolutely agree. My ancestors immigrated to New England during the nineteenth century, among other things, working in textile mills, timber and farms; they weren't necessarily college-educated or healthcare/high tech workers with politically connected employers.
In the current vision of immigration reform, millions will still be trying to sneak in, and millions more will remain here working illegally. E-Verify and the border security wall prove it. If people could work legally, there would be no need for a system that endangers everyone's liberty to "verify" them. And there would be no need to build a $45-billion monument to imperial decline— our bid to outdo the walls of Hadrian, China and Berlin—to stop them. [Only the ruins won't be pretty enough to attract Chinese tourists a few centuries from now.]I do think there is a legitimate concern about open borders in a post- 9/11 world; we cannot rely on the Mexican government to enforce our immigration policies. For instance, I would not like other countries to release their prisoners at unprotected sections of our borders. I do think providing a liberalized legal access path would alleviate the problem of illegal crossings, an underground economy and criminal activities in smuggling people across the border, etc. However, I do suspect Cochrane is correct in his view that the Senate bill (not to mention prospective House legislation) doesn't liberalize immigration enough to fix the problem of unauthorized entries. Neither side really wants an expansion of immigration; Democrats are mostly concerned about legalizing currently unauthorized workers, whom they hope will be attracted as voters to social programs. And I have to say, every time I write something pro-immigration, my readership takes a hit.
I didn't have room to talk about the 11 million already here. One decent thing in the Senate bill is to recognize that we can't go on like this with 11 million people relegated to second-class status. However, making them wait another 13 years before they can become citizens... Didn't we once have a revolution about "taxation without representation?"This, I think, is a post-WSJ add-on comment. Cochrane makes an interesting point, but as I recall, the issue was British taxes imposed on colonists without their participation. The colonists were paying for their own governance through their own taxes. So the analogy would be more like us imposing a dedicated tax on non-citizen residents. Such residents do have access to schools, public safety, access to emergency health services and other benefits; they also aren't required to assume duties of citizens, e.g., conscription, jury duty, etc. I myself have no problem with shrinking the critical path for citizenship. But we often have waiting periods. For instance, I was 16 when I started college and I was paying for room-and-board from work-study--and I was paying FICA taxes on that income, Texas sales tax, etc. for years before I could vote. And ask Don Boudreaux about how meaningful one's vote is--and look at what people have done with their votes--they've elected people like Charlie Rangel, Richard Nixon, Willam Jefferson, Bill Clinton and, yes,--even Barack Obama!
The Boston Marathon Tragedy: A Reflection
Cochrane in the above commentary made reference to this excerpt from Mark Steyn
But it's the differences between the simulation and the actual event that are revealing. In humdrum reality, the Boston bombers were Chechen Muslim brothers with ties to incendiary imams and jihadist groups in Dagestan. In the far more exciting Boston Police fantasy, the bombers were a group of right-wing militia men called "Free America Citizens," a name so suspicious (involving as it does the words "free," "America," and "citizens") that it can only have been leaked to them by the IRS. What fun the law enforcement community in Massachusetts had embroidering their hypothetical scenario: The "Free America Citizens" terrorists even had their own little logo – a skull's head with an Uncle Sam hat. Ooh, scary! The Boston PD graphics department certainly knocked themselves out on that.Abandoned backpacks are not new security concerns; almost every airport I've been in cautioned travelers to report abandoned objects like backpacks; I even saw a Hallmark Channel movie about a husband whom evacuated his wife's shop when he spotted an abandoned backpack.
The fact that Boston police were simulating a backpack terror attack eerily contiguous with the real thing was ironic. But, as I pointed out through a recent Williams' quote (on useful profiling), over 95% of terrorist attacks originate from Islamic extremists. Yet the lawless Obama regime has continued to focus on right-wing and/or Tea Party groups, as Steyn so vividly relates above. Remember the Weather Underground from the 1970's? Not exactly a right-wing group, nor environmental terrorists, animal rights radicals, etc.
Tea Party But NOT Nativist Libertarian
I have a love/hate relationship with the Libertarian Republican blog; it seems about two-thirds of their posts have to deal with some aspect of Islamic radical stories (a number from Europe). They seem to be a fusion of military conservativism with libertarian/free market positions on domestic issues. and seem to regard a more limited military perspective "left-libertarian". I see a less interventionist perspective as philosophically consistent with the approach taken with domestic policies and don't see myself as soft on defense; it's more a pragmatic matter of learning to choose one's battles. I don't think spreading one's resources thin by focusing on the internal affairs of countries of little strategic importance is in the interests of a strong national defense.
I haven't even read the Daily Beast article "Why the Tea Party Is a Nativist Libertarian Movement", but the title itself I take to be a smear. But one of the LR editors wrote a post "Libertarian Nativists: Hey! That's us!!" If you go to the blog's principles, you see something like "protect the border first", but not anti-immigrant. "Nativist" groups have included the Know-Nothings, the KKK, etc. (I think the post author confused 'patriotism' with 'nativism'). I think the anti-immigrant populists have tried to co-opt the movement as part of the resistance to the Obama regime, but most libertarian-conservatives, like the Paul's, Amash and me, are anti-E-Verify/pro-immigration, and I think we reflect the philosophically consistent center of the Tea Party movement. The anti-immigrant right has been around at least since 2007, years before the birth of the Tea Party.
Political Humor
The White House approved an exemption in Obamacare coverage for Congress and members of their staff. Members complained that the Affordable Care Act will cost them thousands extra a year in premiums. Wait a minute. It's their bill. If it's too expensive, why did they name it the Affordable Care Act? - Jay Leno
[Because they thought the law didn't apply to them...]
Anthony Weiner has been on the Internet having obscene chats, and he uses the name Carlos Danger. When Donald Trump heard about it, Trump demanded to see Carlos Danger's birth certificate - David Letterman
[Donald noted that Carlos is an Hispanic name, and we have an illegal alien problem.]
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Glenn Foden and Townhall Fish story: Obama talking about the one that got away |
The Beatles, "Back in the USSR"
