It is never too late to be what you might have been.
Farmer's Almanac, 1995
Chart of the Day
 |
| Courtesy of Reason |
Cops Need To Focus On Violent Offenders, Not Victimless Crime
Image of the Day
 |
| Courtesy of Rand Paul |
Rand Paul on Obama's Prospective Executive Order on Immigration
The Ends Don't Justify the Means: Obama's Executive Order on Immigration
Some comments on Obama's speech:
But today, our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it..And over the past six years illegal border crossings have been cut by more than half. Overall the number of people trying to cross our border illegally is at its lowest level since the 1970s.He's first trying to argue that the immigration system is broken, but then he's arguing that he's doing everything under his power to stop it. He then argues that he is "forced" to act because the House leadership refused to put the Senate bill, which did not have the support of the GOP caucus. (This is rich given the way Harry Reid has refused to act on dozens of House bills and routinely has arbitrarily limited GOP amendments.) He's done a poor job explaining why federal immigration policy has failed since Reagan signed reform in 1986; he hasn't pointed out that his union constituency has routinely rejected temporary work visas (in fact, were responsible for dismantling the Bracero program); that the Mexican drug cartel has been lured by our dysfunctional War on Drugs; that a lot of reverse migration has happened, not because of Obama's enforcement but because of the great recession and an improving Mexican economy.
He has done a bad job trying to explain why he waited until a second devastating midterm election leading to a GOP-controlled Congress to act and hasn't even tried to negotiate with the new leadership, even though both Boehner and McConnell have explicitly talked about the need for some form of immigration reform, how his current action is inconsistent with past public acknowledgments he had no such authority to do exactly what he's doing now; the GOP wanted more of piecemeal approach and a pathway to legalization vs. citizenship (note that Obama's executive order does NOT include a pathway to citizenship). He furthermore has no popular mandate with only a third or so of Americans supporting the executive order and having just rebuked Obama's policies in the midterm elections.
Obama also provides a weak reference of precedence in the cases of Reagan and GHW Bush, which was debunked in a recent piece in The Atlantic. (Their actions were different in scale and context; Obama is talking about changing policy dealing with 5 million people.)
The first 2 steps Obama discussed (improving border security and high-skill immigration) could easily pass a bipartisan Congress. The issue deals with his third:
Third, we’ll take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already had live in our country...But even as we focus on deporting criminals, the fact is millions of immigrants in every state, of every race and nationality still live here illegally. And let’s be honest, tracking down, rounding up and deporting millions of people isn’t realistic.Obama is purposefully conflating high-skilled foreigners whose visas have expired with those, primarily from south of the border who entered the country illegally. And he makes passing reference to the rule of law, but unilateral de facto legalization of illegal entry flies in the face of the rule of law; how does this not set a precedent? You need to have policies which make family reunification earlier than later, which expand overly tight quotas that don't crowd out skilled immigrants, temporary work visas, etc. I favor legalization of otherwise lawful long-term residents, but this policy needs to be passed into law by Congress.
Meanwhile, don’t let a disagreement over a single issue be a deal breaker on every issue. That’s not how our Democracy works, and Congress shouldn’t shut down our government again just because we disagree on this.I don't think the GOP will shut down the Congress over this. But make no mistake: Obama just declared war on Congress, and the executive order might very well have scotched any attempt to have a cooperative working relationship with Congressional leadership. This will now be an issue in 2016 which will dog any Dem nominee, because Obama's lawlessness, disrespect of the Separation of Powers, is salient. I suspect that there will be a court challenge; Wikipedia notes 5 executive orders by FDR and one by Clinton set aside by federal courts. It's almost impossible to overcome a repeal veto, so I suspect 2016 GOP Presidential candidates will vow to repeal Obama's orders. I don't think most Congressional Republicans want to respond in a knee-jerk fashion which Obama would try to use politically against them. But I think Congressional Democrats, even if they embrace the policies, will not be pleased that this executive order undermines their own Constitutional mandate.
Facebook Corner
(Lew Rockwell). Writing in a conservative Catholic journal, two prominent Protestant ministers have called on ministers and priests to refuse to perform government marriages:
"Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates. We will ask couples to seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings. We will preside only at those weddings that seek to establish a Christian marriage in accord with the principles articulated and lived out from the beginning of the Church’s life. Please join us in this pledge to separate civil marriage from Christian marriage by adding your name."
Like homeschooling, this is an important act of personal secession. Indeed, it can have a huge and salutary social effect, especially if civil marriage is rejected entirely, as it ought to be.
Civil marriage is a sham that was instituted to prohibit people of different races from marrying. For the vast majority of human history, marriage was a private contract.
Moron trolls. Thousands of years of traditional marriage had nothing to do with anti-miscegenation laws. Whereas there are and have been some cultural biases against interracial marriage, these were not necessarily reflected in marriage laws (consider England during the Middle Ages). I guess you never heard about the marriage of Pocahontas to Rolfe in your limited education. Various wars and colonizations over history made native women a viable possibility for marriage, especially given limited emigration of ethnic women from the soldiers' homeland.
Yes, this is what we should do, following the European custom of a civil ceremony before a civil magistrate and a sacred ceremony before a minister/priest/rabbi/imam.
Actually, I think the state has basically recognized religious ceremonies, a form of privatization. I scanned a number of state laws; any duly ordained clergyman simply files a certificate with the state; in some states, the clergy must be registered or licensed. But usually the state is usually looking for witnesses, and there are non-religious options available. What the ministers are suggesting here is a protest against the state which would require a separate step for legal recognition.
(Reason). "Any night the government decides to stop ruining people's lives for not obeying absurd laws is a good night for libertarians." http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/20/obamas-speech
I agree that we need to make the process of immigration more transparent, but let's be clear: this President had a supermajority 111th session of Congress and did not prioritize immigration reform, and Obama explicitly tied his executive order to partisan differences on immigration: a President using the threat of executive orders as a means of extortion has no regard for the rule of law or the Constitution. His role is to faithfully execute, enforce the law, not pick and choose which part of the law he agrees with to enforce. Unlike the author here, I see this action as poisoning the well for long-overdue liberalized immigration reform in the upcoming GOP-controlled Congress.
(Stossel). Tonight on STOSSEL, right after President Obama’s immigration speech, we’ll debate his plan from a libertarian perspective. I think his plan is probably illegal, but if it legalizes more people, that’s good! I invite you to tell me why I’m wrong. I will read one of your posts on air tonight. That’s LIVE at 9PM ET on Fox Business.
John, as usual, you are spot on, and the right-wing authoritarians are going to spam this thread. The majority of commenters are not familiar with the reality of our overly restrictive immigration laws, the lack of a viable temporary worker system, and the indisputable win-win economics of immigration. One of my best friends is a naturalized citizen who emigrated from India, and I worked with him during the period of several years before he earned his green card, a tedious, expensive process; he was tethered to an exploitative employer which arbitrarily reneged on compensation issues. We need to appreciate the contribution of immigrants to our country's economy and we need a liberalized immigration system, one that is transparent and more immigrant-friendly and removes the profit motive behind the existing black market, one that recognizes the contribution across all segments of the higher-growth economy.
(Reason). Read this before you watch President Barack Obama's primetime immigration reform announcement this evening.
The question is not of discretion but its abuse thereof in nature and extent. In particular, this President has openly and repeatedly refused to enforce immigration policy he does not personally agree with, and it's part of a pattern of behavior: he has used enforcement (or lack thereof) as a political weapon--and I would submit this is a violation of his oath to faithfully execute his duties--unconstitutional and illegal. As a libertarian-conservative, I strongly support liberalized immigration laws, including temporary work permits, and this unilateral authoritarian abuse of power may well kill off Congressional reform efforts. The fact that a plurality of the electorate opposes his action undercuts his claim of a mandate; in fact, Obama made no attempt to reform immigration when he had a Congressional super-majority.
Excuse me but altering laws is not legally granted to the president. You can't call it "changing policy" b/c the "change in policy" is in direct violation of the law. Only Congress can change a law or write a new one. Stop apologizing for this idiot.
He's no altering. Just not enforcing. But it is really splitting hairs. He's not honoring his oath to faithfully execute.
He's abusing discretion. It's one thing to say, for instance, I have funds to prosecute one unauthorized alien, and I'll pursue the one who has engaged in violations of local laws; it's another thing to say, "We are not going to enforce immigration policy against aliens who do not fall under said checklist." This assumes a priori said contingencies are ongoing. It's one thing to go to Congress and argue not enough funds to enforce immigration; it's another thing not to faithfully execute immigration law. We saw this, for example, when after Arizona passed alien legislation, the Administration all but said it would not pursue subsequent Arizona referrals.
(IPI). The logic of a minimum-wage increase is that paying the lowest-wage workers more per hour will increase their incomes.
But, for many, it will actually destroy their current job or shut them out of entering the workforce completely.
Illinois lawmakers should not pick economic winners at the risk of creating economic losers. But that’s exactly what a minimum-wage hike, which the Illinois General Assembly is currently considering, will do.
This argument, has been around forever. When the minimum wage is finally raised, what happens ? Nothing !
IPI is very tolerant of economically illiterate trolls. First of all, only about 2% of jobs are minimum wage. Second, employers cope with wage mandates in different ways; keep in mind that wages are one component of compensation. An employer can cut benefits or training costs, for instance. They can cut head count or reduce hours; they can raise hiring criteria, performance standards, do more with fewer people.
The troll is completely clueless about the law of supply and demand. Of course, when the cost of labor increases, there's less demand. Prohibition on work paid below an arbitrary rate doesn't help those with minimal skills/experience attract gainful employment; the troll doesn't see the employment at a point below the minimum wage, but we see it indirectly in higher unemployment rates in those demographic groups. The bottom line is that an employer won't hire a worker if he perceives the cost of that worker exceeds the benefit.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Dana Summers via Townhall |
Glen Campbell, "Where's the Playground, Susie?"
