Why Immigration Is THE Issue - Again

I was challenged on Twitter yesterday as to why immigration is my number one issue.  So I thought that a little recap is in order.

1. It's about fairness and the rule of law.  The culture of this country is sliding towards conditions that foster dictatorship.  Specifically, how one is treated before the law depends on one's circumstances.  Whether it is Hillary getting away with blatantly illegal activity on her server or Obama unlawfully granting amnesty to millions of illegals; were on a path where consequences for illegal activity is determined by a political elite ruled by a donor class.

2. The public wants the border enforced and the politicians won't do it.  The failure to control illegal immigration is indisputable evidence that our system of government has become rigged against the interests of the people as a whole.  Unlike the courts ramming through gay marriage, which never won any popular votes; there is not even a fig leaf of constitutionality in this question.  The Congress has the power to set immigration policy and the President the duty to enforce it.

3. It is an assault on the standard of living and even the lives of the working class.  Kurt Schlichter said it best:

Amnesty was a great idea for bubble people who think illegal immigration satisfies some sort of libertarian ideal, or who only experience its impact by being able to hire a cheaper nanny. It’s a pretty great idea for the illegals too. But leave your nice neighborhood and go where a high school grad who was born here can’t get a job as a roofer since any general contractor who doesn’t hire illegals is going to go broke because his competition will. Tell somebody whose daughter is shot dead in front of him by an illegal who got arrested five times but never got deported that it’s an act of love.

. . .

Immigration and free trade are generally good, but they impose real costs and our base is getting handed the bill. These folks have been asking us for help, and what was our response? Shut up, stupid racists.

4. We have a right to expect assimilation of our culture and ideals.  The current failure to enforce the border is leading to a ghettoization of Spanish speaking illegals who are not assimilating. We have lost the national will to demand assimilation of sub-cultures within our society as a prerequisite to group success.  Until this changes, we have the right to call for an end even to legal immigration if we so desire, in order to ensure that new immigrants share our dedication to freedom, limited government and rule of law.  Further, it is our right to restrict immigration to countries that cherish those values, so that we might preserve our own.

5.  Unlimited Immigration Does Not Benefit AMERICANS as a whole.  I keep having to say this.  We are demanding that the government of the United States operate in a manner that benefits all Americans, not just the few who benefit from illegal competition for wages.

You may view my long history of discussing this topic.  It is comprehensive.

Unlimited Immigration is the Enemy of Freedom and Prosperity

The most recent winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics is Angus Deaton, a British-American Princeton economist known for his focus on data to explain sources of economic growth.  In his book, The Great Escape, he attempts to explain why some nations escaped the grinding poverty that has been the condition of most of mankind since the dawn of history.  In my opinion, part of the trick is asking the question properly, not "Why are so many nations so poor?" but "What sets the rich nations apart that they escaped poverty?"  In The Great Escape he summarizes the answer:

Perhaps the best answer is that poor countries lack the institutions—government capacity, a functioning legal and tax system, security of property rights, and traditions of trust—that are a necessary background for growth to take place.

Ronald Bailey notes in his review that this explanation, while well supported by the facts, doesn't explain why some countries have these institutions; just that they are important.  I believe that the European culture which combined both Greek and Christian tradition provided the societal stability and freedom of inquiry to produce a stable society that valued the innovation adequately to reap its benefits.  Whether or not I am correct, we can still look at the world and see which countries have adopted or are adopting similar cultural values to ours which allowed us to escape poverty.

This matters to the immigration and refugee questions.  As a nation, it is our right to ask for and the duty of our leaders to implement policies that benefit the citizens of our nation.  Unrestricted immigration from countries that don't share our values undermines our prosperity.  When I look at the so-called "Syrian" refugee crisis; I see two key sets of facts.  First, the refugees seem to be neither Syrian nor refugees, in large part.  Second, even when legitimate, they come from a society that doesn't share our values.  Contra Obama, there are no shared universal values.  If there were, there would be democracies all over the Arab world.

With regards to immigration from Latin America; the main sources of migrants continue to be from countries with little respect for the rule of law.  It is not coincidental, that as Mexico has improved its internal governance through reform, the number of migrants from Mexico has declined.  Now, dictatorships trans-shipping people through Mexico are increasingly the problem.

On twitter, someone compared the so-called Syrian refugees to the Jews we admitted during World War II.  For brevity, my response was that the Jews were culturally European and therefor worthy of admission.  In other words, they were ready to support and understand our institutions, security of property rights and "traditions of trust" in ways that Syrians are sadly incapable of.

We should limit immigration based on country of origin in order to not dilute the cultural underpinnings of our society.

Fences Prove Popular

Who'd a thunk it?  Hungarian President is restoring his party's standing by building fences and closing off Hungary's southern border to so-called refugees. 

With an anti-immigrant campaign and razor-wire border fence Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has reversed a slide in his party's popularity, emerging at home as a winner in the crisis that has divided Europe.

The fence seems to work as well:

I won't support any Republican Presidential candidate that won't build a fence on the southern border.  This is within our ability.

Illegal Immigration is THE Issue

Why has immigration become THE issue?  I am not certain, but one reason might be that the native born, and especially white people feel under assault.  There is certainly some evidence here:

The U.S. death rate has been falling for decades, but researchers have detected one group in which the rates have been steadily ticking up - middle-aged white people. Suicides and deaths from drug overdose and alcohol abuse are being blamed.

The scientists in the article tried to blame the increase on increased use of painkillers, which even if proved, is more like pointing to a symptom, not the disease.  In my view, the economy has not been getting worse for those people in this group (middle-aged white people without college degrees.)  People under strain have always intuitively turned against more immigration in times of stress.  It makes sense to think that if our economy doesn't have work for the native-born, then how can there be work for new arrivals from other lands.  And basic economics tells us that an increased supply of labor will lead to lower wages.  You can argue whether, in a global economy that increased supply couldn't be tapped anywhere.  But to the person struggling, seeing immigrants, and especially illegal ones, doing below minimum-wage work that benefits business, but not them, it has got to be depressing.

For my part, immigration issue has become a test of whether the nation is willing to preserve the rule of law and the our constitutional heritage.  The failure to deal with the problem is subverting our institutions.  Obama, in typical Caudillo-fashion is looking to bypass the courts and Congress on immigration.

Further, there is good evidence that the intent of the left is to flood our electoral system with immigrants, beyond our ability to assimilate them, who lack our common language and cultural traditions of respect for liberty, freedom and markets to thereby fundamentally transform America.

I am only voting for those who will stand up to this nonsense.  Right now that looks to be Messrs. Trump and Cruz.

Easy Answers to Left Wing Idiocy on Immigration

The Donald has shown that the public is hungry for a candidate who takes their issues seriously and won't bend to pressure from left-wing media like Fox News.  The illegal immigration debate isn't complicated, it is just made so by those who benefit from it whether leftist politicians or business interests that hire the illegals.

I used to have a complicated immigration plan.  Nobody cared.  Here is a simple one that takes me less time to ascertain that no one cares:

1. Build a fence.
2. Deport illegals who break the law.
3. Repeat offenders get hard time.

On to the Q and A.  In order to help Republican candidates avoid looking like these low-T wussies, I am putting together a handy crib sheet.

 Q. Aren't you against illegal immigration just because you're racist? (Takes many variations.)
A. How did YOU get to be so racist? I thought reporters were supposed to check their biases.  Mexicans aren't even a majority of the immigration problem, I have a rule against responding to racist questions.

Q. A fence won't work. A fence will cost $XX billions.
A. You fence your pit bull don't you?  It's cheaper than housing all the illegals and other countries have proven it works.

Q. Won't your stance hurt you with Hispanic voters?
A. I'm leading in the polls with Hispanics.  (Or if you're not Trump.) Hispanics are very happy with my plans, its clear that as I get better known I will be leading in the polls with them.  Hispanics know that illegal immigration hurts their community. Every Hispanic I've talked to, and I've to talked to hundreds, agrees with me on this.

Q. Will you deport native-born children with their parents?
A. How is that a question?  Do you even understand the law?  We deport the illegal immigrants who have violated the law. Period.

Q. Are you going to round up and deport millions of illegals? Won't that be expensive?
A. Compared to what, the cost of housing them and having them serve prison terms at taxpayer expense?  I will get the best deal possible for the American taxpayer.

Submit your questions in the comment section to help out our low-T GOPers.

As a service to the RNC, I am repeating my easy to remember immigration platform:

1. Build a fence.
2. Deport any illegal who commits a crime.
3. Hard time for repeat offenders.

End all this stupid talk about e-verify, which just punishes businesses and have government do its job.

What You Should Be Reading:

• KTCat explains why we have reached #peaksecularism (my term, not his).
• Steve Sailer on the cool high tech fence Saudi Arabia is building (German technology of course) to keep out fellow Arabs.
• How Israel's fences are working.
• Scott Adam's Blog, because he explains Trump's success very well.

Immigration and The National Interest

I have always been a strong proponent of nationalism when it comes to the United States.

The notion of American nationalism is an ideal worth defending. We are a nation of nations, ironically enough, bound together not by the traditional fascist symbols of nationalism, race, ethnicity, or empire; but by ideals embodied in the greatest political documents ever written, the Declaration and the Constitution. The left sees our riches and feels guilt, assuming they are the result of plunder. In fact, they are the result of trade, invention and industry.

So what are to make of the left's desire for unfettered immigration and the business class' desire for working class immigration? How do they accord with the national interest? I submit that they do not.  While some immigration of skilled workers is in the national interest, wholesale immigration that undermines national values, strains our infrastructure and depresses wages does not help the nation.  We have built the most stable wealthy and freest nation in the world. We are under no obligation to allow centuries of work to be undone by unfettered immigration and a generous welfare state.  I am certain that the left looks to mass immigration to change the character of the nation for that very reason, out of their resentment at the success that liberty and a strong constitutional order have wrought.

Take a look at Sweden, where immigrants from war-torn countries in the Middle East are never turned away.  The presence of so many immigrants is leading to a vast increase in crime and especially rape (actual rape, not imaginary frat house rape.) It is also causing the erosion of legitimate political debate as the parties of both right and left have cut a deal to prevent any debate on immigration at all.  CDR Salamander has the story:

As large boats drift throughout the Mediterranean Sea, waiting to come ashore; as open borders to the east and south minimize barriers to entry, and a political elite who are tuning out the concerns of its own people - and more importantly - want to make sure no one calls them a nasty name - well, where does this go?. . .For immigration to work where the people lack education, technical skill, and cultural literacy; if they come to work hard and contribute to society, most of the friction will come only from the indigenous population who are on the lower side of the economic spectrum whose wages are depressed (another reason to keep unskilled immigration at low levels, it impacts most your nation's most economically vulnerable). However - what if they come to only take? 

. . . 

It doesn't have to be this way. Smart, humane, and economically sound policies are out there to keep things manageable without asking a people to commit cultural suicide or to turn to their darker natures to preserve their unique culture.

Sultan Knish argues that both the left and the business class take their cues on immigration from the concept of empire, which is the opposite of nationalism and that only nationalism can beat back the forces of empire.

The argument between the establishments of the right and the left is over two different kinds of empires. The Republican establishment in America and its various center-right counterparts abroad have attached themselves to the liberal vision of a transnational empire of international law so much that they have forgotten that this vision came from the left, rather than from the right.
This Empire of International Law proved to have some uses for global trade and security, particularly during the Cold War. These practical arrangements however are overshadowed by the fact that it, like every empire, sacrifices the interests of its peoples to its own structure. This is true of the structure at every level, from the EU to the Federal structure of the United States. The system has displaced the people. And the system runs on principles that require cheap labor leading to policies like amnesty.

While I agree that immigration of skilled workers will help our economy, we have a right and duty to control who and how many to ensure that the interests of the American people are upheld.  This is why Obama's policies, which have only encouraged a new flood of illegal immigration are so treacherous.  His message to Central America was almost explicitly a call to violate our borders.  He did so in the very best leftist tradition.

Our only hope is that the forces driving immigration from across the borders are subsiding.  For the first time in quite a while, Mexico did not supply the majority of illegal border crossers into America.  I predicted over a year ago that illegal immigration from Mexico would slow.  Now that it has, it makes it easier to secure the border and get on with overall immigration reform.

Deny Obama Entry to Congress for SOTU Address - UPDATED

Under the concept of separation of powers, the President is invited annually by the Congress to address the "State of the Union."  While it is a constitutional requirement that the President provide a report or address as to the State of the Union, there is no requirement as to the form it takes.  In 2013, Speaker Boehner invited the President to deliver the address:

Dear Mr. President:
As we round out the first session of the 113th Congress, we look ahead to the new year and with it the annual tradition of the president’s State of the Union address.  In the coming year, Americans expect Washington to focus on their priorities and to look for common ground in addressing the challenges facing our country.  In that spirit, we welcome an opportunity to hear your ideas, particularly for putting Americans back to work.  It’s my honor to invite you to speak before a Joint Session of Congress on Tuesday, January 28, 2014 in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol Building. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
JOHN BOEHNER
Speaker of the House

However, under the current circumstances of the President's unprecedented extra-legal usurpation of powers, especially, but not only with respect to illegal immigration; Speaker Boehner and soon-to-be Majority Leader McConnell should send a letter to the President that reads something like this:

Dear Mr. President:
As we look forward to the first session of the 114th Congress, we look ahead to the new year and with it the annual tradition of the President providing the Congress a report on the State of the Union address.  In the coming year, Americans expect Washington to focus on their priorities and to look for common ground in addressing the challenges facing our country.  However, through your executive actions that have exceeded the authority provided you under law, you have failed to include the Congress in addressing the nation's challenges.  In the spirit of Constitutional observance, we welcome an opportunity to hear your ideas on addressing these issue, but not through personal appearance, rather in the form of written correspondence to be delivered by January 28, 2015. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
JOHN BOEHNER
Speaker of the House

Such action is entirely within tradition and legitimate constitutionality.  The Congressional Research Service documents that:

Between 1801 and 1913, Presidents fulfilled their constitutional duty by sending their yearly report as a formal written letter to Congress. These written messages contained information about the state of the nation, and also included policy recommendations.

This action would underscore Congressional prerogative in the face of the President's unprecedented and unilateral usurpation of power.  There will be howls from the left; but no one can claim that anything other than Obama's feelings would be hurt.  However, that would hit him where he lives, because, like any would be dictator, he loves the trappings of power.  Indeed, the delivery of the SOTU was discontinued for a long period for just such a reason:

Likening it to a “speech from the throne” reminiscent of monarchy’s vestiges, Thomas Jefferson changed course and instead submitted his Annual Message in writing.

Obama can just get used to his coming retirement a little early by losing this perquisite due to his own arrogance.

Not Barack Obama, in any way. (Thomas Jefferson if you didn't know.)

UPDATE

Andrew McCoy (@DrewMTips), writing in the Ace of Spades blog, echoes my thoughts and adds this:

Yesterday, Boehner said, "The president had said before that he's not king and he's not an emperor," Boehner says. "But he's sure acting like one." 

Why would the Speaker invite such a man to address "the people's house"? All Obama would do would use the time to lecture members of a co-equal branch on what they must do and what he deems acceptable work product for them. Members of the United States Congress are under no obligation to sit mutely while the President brow beats them. 

Obama has said he doesn't feel compelled to listen to the voters who showed up to the polls a little over two weeks ago. The Representatives elected by those people should make it clear they are simply acting in kind, they will not listen to him.

Seize the Initiative on Illegal Immigration

Republicans need to seize the initiative on illegal immigration and propose a plan before Obama takes executive action this December.  It won't stop the President from making yet another extra-consitutional move, but it would serve to highlight his unwillingness to to abide by the law and work with the Congress.  The GOP needs to deal with the issue because it will hurt them in the long run.  I am under no illusion that somehow dealing with the issue will make them suddenly popular with Hispanics.  I am also certain there are no votes to be gained if current illegals are granted citizenship.  However, the issue still hurts the party.

• As more illegals continue to cross the border, they eventually spawn Democratic votes.  They either vote illegally, or eventually their children cast votes for Democrats.  This isn't to say that Republicans can't make inroads among descendants of illegal immigrants, its just not the way to bet.
• The failure to solve the problem continues to eat away at the respect for the rule of law.  It sets an environment that makes it harder for Republicans to win elections.
• Its bad for the country.  A country with a larger proportion in the middle class will vote more conservatively.

Unfortunately, the Republicans have no coherent policy to propose, because they did not campaign on this issue.  You could argue that that position served them well, but it makes it harder to govern.  What they shouldn't do is over react to the problem.  Massive deportation would be a horrible idea both in the short and long run.  Do we want the DHS to get in good practice with identifying and rounding up millions of undesirables?  Think of that power in another Democratic President's hands in the mold of Obama.  

Here is what should be proposed and why:

• Secure the border with more technology, fences and the like.  But also make expedited deportation far easier.  You can have great border security, but once an alien born child sets foot on U.S. soil, he or she now has due process rights that adds time to the deportation process.  In the meantime, the illegal is released, often never to be seen again.
• From a previous post: To keep the DHS accountable, if illegal crossings weren't reduced each year, the Congress should cut the budget for the immediate staff of the Secretary of DHS, and impose a hiring freeze on all portions of the DHS budget except border control.  Such ruthless tactics work; I know, because I work for the government.  But the Congress is never willing to hold agencies accountable. And frankly, part of the problem is that government is so huge.  Obviously its size needs to shrink.
• From Newt Gingrich in 2012: "We must reconcile the goal of legality with the reality that there are millions of immigrants currently here outside the law, some with a long set of family and community ties, and some with no ties. A system has to be established that establishes legality but no citizenship for those with deep ties, repatriates those with no family or community ties in a dignified way, and quickly sends home those who have committed criminal and other destructive acts."  But the practical difficulties of such a program are immense.  I would prefer to the let those without criminal records come forward and legislation that aggressively deports those with felony convictions.
• A guest worker program, but maybe later.  The supply side of this equation is changing rapidly.  New statistics will soon be released that show that Mexico is no longer accountable for most of the illegal immigration. Mexico's fertility rate has continued to fall to just barely above replacement at 2.2 births per woman.  Having skilled workers is good with good education is helpful to the economy.  The unskilled? Not so much.  

Mexican fertility rate from 1960 to 2012.

That downward trend has continued.  In some ways, I think that the problem of illegal immigration may solve itself, but not soon enough to prevent more damage from working into the body politic.  Republicans have an opportunity to upstage Obama on this issue.  As Krauthammer points out, his narcissism always gets the better of him, so why not use it to help the country and further disadvantage his party?

What You Should Be Reading

• Left Coast Rebel has a nice score card of worthy candidates for whom he urged donations.  Well done.
• KTCat excoriates DeMaio for his relentless negative campaign.  I still have a Carl DeMaio yard sign out front, but admit to feeling queasy about his attack ads that made Carl sound like a Democrat, complete with Mediscare tactics.  If DeMaio was a tea party favorite, why did he end up turning off so many of that persuasion?  KTCat wasn't the only one of my conservative or libertarian friends who abandoned DeMaio.

Compassion and Leftist Lies About the Children's Immigration Crusade

WSJ headline: Few Children Are Deported.  Yeah, we knew that, but good to see some investigation into the truth.  The reason I knew, those to whom that information was most valuable; parents who also want to enter the U.S. were already acting on that information, sending their kids by the hundreds of thousands to the border.  Leftists are invoking "rule of law" to say that we can't just deport them.  How about preventing their entry in the first place?  We have a right, well recognized in international law, to prevent persons from walking across our border.

The other leftist plaint is that we should be compassionate.  How is it compassionate to send kids to wander through Mexico unescorted to our border?  The dangers, both man-caused and natural, are too obvious to enumerate here.

I saw a tweet from a leftish sort of dude that said that we should accept these kids because of . . . Darwin.  Somehow these kids represent the survival of the fittest.  News flash, these are not the skills you are looking for.  The fact that their parents risk their lives and the fact that they lack useful economic skills means that they are unlikely to become productive to our society.

Obama keeps talking about immigration reform as the only way to fix this problem.  Another lie, of course, because the root of the problem is the perception that the children will be allowed to stay.  Ramp up deportation, don't let them cross in the first place.  Maybe even fund Mexico to secure their border.

What You Should Be Reading

• CDR Salamander, if you care at all about what is happening to our military and the Navy in particular.  He is particularly adept at deconstructing the ludicrousity of the diversity bullies.  But their latest antics leave him speechless, the comments are very funny to this Navy vet.  My favorite: A collection of the most intelligent non-PC minds in the universe COULD. NOT. POSSIBLY. MAKE. THIS. SHIT. UP.--even if they tried for a thousand years--yet it all comes naturally, automatically, reflexively to the PC crowd.
• Dalrock shows that divorce continues to plague America, despite what some people are asserting. I applaud his close look at the actual census numbers.
• In much better news, Carpe Diem reports that there are over 3000 breweries in America today.   The majority of Americans live within 10 miles of a local brewery, and with almost 2,000 planning breweries in the BA database, that percentage is only going to climb in the coming years.

Immigration Insanity

This article is part of a continuing series on the insanity of many of our national policies.  As immigration reform is debated in Congress, one has to wonder how we ended up with a policy whose chief results are:

• Most immigrants come here illegally with low skills and consequently contribute little in taxes for both reasons.
• Difficulty in bringing in skilled immigrants.  
• Border enforcement that funnels the illegals to the most inhospitable climates resulting in many deaths.

Before we think that just changing this policy is easy, we should head the words of Machiavelli:

“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones. ”
― Niccolò Machiavelli

I have analyzed the forces arrayed against border security and immigration reform before.  Fortunately, however, it seems that reform is in sight, but the sticking point is over enforcing the border.  Given that lack of enforcement undermines the rule of law, and results in immigrant deaths, I can see why conservatives and libertarians would be in favor of this as part of any deal.  However, I wonder if it won't be a moot point soon.  First, an expanded guest worker program would reduce the number of laborers who would be finding work when they crossed the border illegally, as more of those jobs would already be filled.  Second, Mexico's fertility rate is plummeting, which should soon be relieving pressure on the border.  

The root cause for the failure to compromise is that we just don't trust the federal government and the different branches of the federal government have good reason not to trust each other.  One solution to the border control issue was to tie citizenship for current illegals to a certification of border security; but we have seen the administration choose not to enforce provisions of the ACA, so who believes in this option?  Another Republican idea is a "border-surge" which would put additional resources into border security. Since when do more resources equal better results when it comes to the feds.  Ideally, the DHS should be held accountable by the Congress for border enforcement against actual performance measures.  But as we saw in the IRS targeting of tea party and conservative groups, apparently no one can hold any part of the government accountable, it's just too damn big.  At least that's what Obama says.

In fact, government can be held accountable, but the Congress has to do its job and must do so, year after year.  To keep the DHS accountable, if illegal crossings weren't reduced each year, the Congress should cut the budget for the immediate staff of the Secretary of DHS, and impose a hiring freeze on all portions of the DHS budget except border control.  Such ruthless tactics work; I know, because I work for the government.  But the Congress is never willing to hold agencies accountable. And frankly, part of the problem is that government is so huge.  Obviously its size needs to shrink.

In the mean time, we still need to reform immigration policies.  We are going to have to accept a bill that improves border security, but without guarantees.

What You Should Be Reading

• KT at the Scratching Post has the latest in a series of posts about Detroit.  In my view there is a theme of passivity and learned helplessness that permeates each article.  How does that happen to a whole community?
• Dean posts the video clip of the day in which a twelve year old is more articulate than me.  The basic conundrum in Egypt is that the Islamists are unwilling to concede that anyone has rights that cannot be abrogated by Sharia.  Until the Islamists are willing to tolerate freedom of speech and the checks and balances of a constitutional democracy, there will continue to be bloodshed.
• Who knew that social security's disability fund would be the first entitlement account to run out of money?  Apparently Michael Boskin does.  Interestingly, it is benefits per person, not demographics driving this fund to bankruptcy.

Supreme Court AZ Ruling Explained

Fellow blogger and frequent commenter drozz, has a great post today giving a full airing to the issues that the Supreme Court ruled on in Arizona v United States. I liked his notes as well, although I will not fully quote them, check out his blog yourself:

• Three of four sections struck down. All four ruled upon the same way in the majority opinion.
• Justice Sotomayer concurred to uphold section 2(b) (as did the other 7; Kagan recused). Guess she's now a wise white person, because that was the most racist-y racist law to every racist a racism. Or something.
• Justice Kennedy relied heavily on past precedent to draw a clear line in state vs. federal powers. His logic was clear and sound in this opinion.

All That's Wrong With Obama's Policy on Dreamers

The President's back door amnesty plan is is filled pitfalls. I'm glad he rolled it out now, because it gives time for all voters, including Latinos, to see how flawed it is. Here is a brief summary of what I can think of with a few minutes of reflection:

• It violates the statute for granting work permits to aliens, undermining the rule of law.
  
• It can be rescinded by the next President.
  
• It could be a trap that would allow the identification of these aliens for deportation in the future.
• It could be a trap that would allow the identification of the aliens' parents for deportation in the future.
  
• It will increase the reported unemployment rate to the extent that the nonresident undocumented aliens seek work. (Yes, illegal immigrants, but I'm keeping to the legal language.)
  
• It will put more pressure on legal residents looking for work, because of added competition from this group.
• Did I mention that it undermines the rule of law?
• It encourages more illegal immigration, because parents want good for their children most of all. Getting their children eligible for work in the U.S. is a powerful incentive for further law breaking, given the miserable conditions in most of Latin America and especially Mexico; where the majority of illegal immigrants hail from.
  

That's what comes immediately to mind. I am sure my readers can add more. More interestingly, is how Romney should respond. His initial response that the executive order makes it more difficult to achieve lasting reform because it poisoned the discussion struck the right tone. It reminds the Hispanic voters that Obama had the chance to pass whatever he wanted in 2009 and 2010, but chose to ignore the issue. Romney would do well to incorporate some of what Newt Gingrich has said on this subject. Specifically, he should emphasize control of the border as a down payment for solving our immigration problems. Next, he should put forth proposals to create what Newt Gingrich calls a "21st Century visa program" and expanded H-1B visa program. Solving this problem is in the best interest of America, because drawing talented immigrants and even unskilled laborers balances out our demographic and employment deficits. The President, through his extra-legal maneuvering has made the problem harder to solve. That's not leadership, that's demagoguery.

Affront to the Rule of Law - Obama Hating on Illegals

The President's announcement today that he would grant work permits to young immigrants who were not in the country legally is an affront to the rule of law. The President himself had said that he couldn't take unilateral action a year ago. Here are excerpts from the relevant statute, 8 CFR 274a.12.

(a) Aliens authorized employment incident to status. Pursuant to the statutory or regulatory reference cited, the following classes of aliens are authorized to be employed in the United States without restrictions as to location or type of employment as a condition of their admission or subsequent change to one of the indicated classes. Any alien who is within a class of aliens described in paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6)–(a)(8), (a)(10)–(a)(15), or (a)(20) of this section, and who seeks to be employed in the United States, must apply to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for a document evidencing such employment authorization. USCIS may, in its discretion, determine the validity period assigned to any document issued evidencing an alien's authorization to work in the United States.

. . .

(3) An alien admitted to the United States as a refugee pursuant to section 207 of the Act for the period of time in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(4) An alien paroled into the United States as a refugee for the period of time in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

. . .

(6) An alien admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant fiancé or fiancée pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(K)(i) of the Act, or an alien admitted as a child of such alien, for the period of admission in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(7) An alien admitted as a parent (N–8) or dependent child (N–9) of an alien granted permanent residence under section 101(a)(27)(I) of the Act, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(8) An alien admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant pursuant to the Compact of Free Association between the United States and of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the Republic of Palau;

. . .

(10) An alien granted withholding of deportation or removal for the period of time in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(11) An alien whose enforced departure from the United States has been deferred in accordance with a directive from the President of the United States to the Secretary. Employment is authorized for the period of time and under the conditions established by the Secretary pursuant to the Presidential directive;

(12) An alien granted Temporary Protected Status under section 244 of the Act for the period of time in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(13) An alien granted voluntary departure by the Attorney General under the Family Unity Program established by section 301 of the Immigration Act of 1990, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(14) An alien granted Family Unity benefits under section 1504 of the Legal Immigrant Family Equity (LIFE) Act Amendments, Public Law 106–554, and the provisions of 8 CFR part 245a, Subpart C of this chapter, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(15) Any alien in V nonimmigrant status as defined in section 101(a)(15)(V) of the Act and 8 CFR 214.15.

. . .

(20) Any alien in U–2, U–3, U–4, or U–5 nonimmigrant status, pursuant to 8 CFR 214.14, for the period of time in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by USCIS to the alien.

I believe the key issue will be paragraph (11) above. May the Presidential directive cover a class of individuals, or was the statute written to allow the President to grant clemency to individuals. The law specifies an alien specified by the President. This would seem to prevent the President to granting clemency to a class of individuals. This will probably become a court case. Regardless of its outcome, Obama is clearly using administrative fiat to thwart the plain intent of the law.

Further, how does this really help the illegal aliens in this category. Even if found to be legal, the directive will only be temporary. Put yourself in the shoes of the young illegal. Why would I sign up for this when next January, the USCIS and DHS now have evidence of my illegal entry, by my own admission, and can proceed with deportation. Obama must really hate illegal immigrants to set them up like this.

Backdoor Amnesty Through Change in Hardship Regulations?

The Department of Homeland Security intends to streamline the waiver application process for immediate relatives who have been unlawfully present in the United States for quite some time. The reason for this proposed change is that aliens who are present in the country illegally; but would be otherwise eligible for visas as immediate family members of American citizens must leave the country to process their visa application. Leaving triggers a disqualification for returning, because they were here illegally in the first place. The Obama administration is proposing to waive this legal barrier through a "provisional waiver for unlawful presence" in cases of extreme hardship for immediate family.

My issue is that this effectively grants an amnesty process for those who have immigrated illegally but have immediate family members present in the country. Why don't these people apply for their visas in the normal legal manner? Why hasn't the administration cleared the backlog of applications rather than propose a backdoor amnesty? They are certainly spending enough money on stimulus, but rather than solve this problem they seek backdoor amnesty to subvert U.S. immigration law.

Here is the proposed rule making with all legalize from the Federal Register:

On January 9, 2012, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced its intention to change its current process for filing and adjudication of certain applications for waivers of inadmissibility filed in connection with an immediate relative immigrant visa application. USCIS now proposes to amend its regulations to allow certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are physically present in the United States to request provisional unlawful presence waivers under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (INA or Act), prior to departing from the United States for consular processing of their immigrant visa applications. Currently, such aliens must depart from the United States and request waivers of inadmissibility during the overseas immigrant visa process, often causing U.S. citizens to be separated for extended periods from their immediate relatives who are otherwise eligible for an immigrant visa and admission for lawful permanent residence. Under the proposal, USCIS would grant a provisional unlawful presence waiver that would become fully effective upon the alien's departure from the United States and the U.S. Department of State (DOS) consular officer's determination at the time of the immigrant visa interview that, in light of the approved provisional unlawful presence waiver and other evidence of record, the alien is otherwise admissible to the United States and eligible to receive an immigrant visa. USCIS does not envision issuing Notices to Appear (NTA) to initiate removal proceedings against aliens whose provisional waiver applications have been approved.
. . .
DATES: Written comments should be submitted on or before June 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-
2012-0003, by one of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Email: You may submit comments directly to USCIS by email
at uscisfrcomment@dhs.gov. Include DHS Docket No. USCIS-2012-0003 in
the subject line of the message.

Mail: Sunday Aigbe, Chief, Regulatory Products Division,
Office of the Executive Secretariat, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20529-2020. To ensure proper handling, please reference
DHS Docket No. USCIS-2012-0003 on your correspondence. This mailing
address may be used for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions.

Hand Delivery/Courier: Sunday Aigbe, Chief, Regulatory
Products Division, Office of the Executive Secretariat, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security,
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2020. Contact
Telephone Number is (202) 272-8377.

While the DHS asserts that this proposed rule making conforms to the immigration law, that is not clear to me, but I am not expert. I encourage you to comment prior to the deadline.

Dealing With the Illegals Already Here

It is commonly believed that there are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. today.  Dealing with that in a rational manner is worth discussing, and I'm glad that Newt Gingrich brought up the subject.  I would like to caveat all discussions with my belief that securing the border is the down payment necessary by the Congress and the President to allow any other discussion to occur.  Depending on whom you believe, the number of border crossers may have already significantly decreased.  From the LA Times.

Arrests of illegal crossers along the Southwest border dropped more than two-thirds from 2000 to 2010, from 1.6 million to 448,000.

The article goes on to describe bored border patrol agents falling asleep on the job because there's "no action." The hyperbole leads me to believe that the article might be propaganda, and fellow tea partyers have anecdotal evidence that the border is not so secure. It seems likely that the increase in border patrol agents and the fewer border crossers are verifiable, but even at 448,000 apprehensions, and who knows how many get away, we can't really say the border is secure. Thomas Sowell takes exception to Newt Gingrich's ideas, and doesn't so much rebut them as make the case for securing the border. His key points.

When you import people, you import cultures, including cultures that have been far less successful in providing decent lives and decent livelihoods. The American people have a right to decide for themselves whether they want unlimited imports of cultures from other countries.
. . .
Moreover, in an age of terrorism, everyone who comes across the border from Mexico is not Mexican. It is the height of irresponsibility to leave that border open and the people who cross it a protected group.

Fair enough, and even true.  But Sowell doesn't really address the issue of what to do with the illegals already in the country, which is what Gingrich was addressing.  

Pushing back against the charge that he supports “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, Newt Gingrich outlined another immigration reform proposal that would have “citizen juries” to decide whether illegal immigrants are fit to be granted legal status—but not citizenship.

On the trail in Florida on Friday, Gingrich explained that he would grant “path to legality” to upstanding illegal immigrants with deep family ties who could prove they could support themselves without federal welfare or other benefit programs.

I like two things about Gingrich's plan.  First, there will be no citizenship for those who have come here illegally.  Second, those here illegally will have to show their ability to support themselves and their families.  Gingrich's full immigration plan is here, like me, he starts with "secure the border."  He has sensible ideas that are worthy of examination by those in the tea party movement.

I'm not sure what those who oppose Gingrich's plan would do with the current illegals.  They need a legal status and deporting 11 million people is frankly impracticable.  Do conservatives really want a government powerful enough to round up 11 million people for deportation?  Do we really want the federal government getting practice at interning that many people?  If not, then we better deal with the situation at hand.  We need these people out of the shadows and paying taxes and drawn into a law abiding culture.  Isn't that a worthwhile conservative or libertarian goal?

Finally, from a political perspective, getting this issue fixed is in the long term interests of the Republican party.  When Hispanics see that we are willing to allow legal immigration, with proper controls, for workers from Latin America, the belief that Republicans are racists will disappear.  Peter Skerry has this to say in yesterday's WSJ.

Liberals may advocate the maximalist position of full citizenship rights for illegals, but they're content with the status quo. They know that keeping illegals in limbo works to the political advantage of liberals and Democrats. Republicans ignore this at their own peril. 
. . .
Whatever the plight of individual illegal immigrants, the problem of 11 million of them constitutes a blemish on the body politic that taints us all—and one that certainly won't be healed by the draconian policies most Republican candidates seem to advocate. Mr. Gingrich's proposal, or something like it, could actually address this genuine dilemma while acknowledging the legitimate anxieties that many Americans have about illegal immigration.

From Gingrich's web site.

1. No “comprehensive” plan can work. President Bush could not pass one during six years with a Republican Congress.  President Obama could not pass one with a Democratic Congress. Immigration reform can be outlined as a complete proposal but has to be passed in a series of steps, with each one understood and passed on its own merits.
2. Under no circumstance can a path to citizenship be created which would allow those who have broken the law to receive precedence over those who patiently waited to become residents and citizens via the legal process. Those who adhered to our immigration law cannot be usurped by those who violated it.
3. We must reconcile the goal of legality with the reality that there are millions of immigrants currently here outside the law, some with a long set of family and community ties, and some with no ties. A system has to be established that establishes legality but no citizenship for those with deep ties, repatriates those with no family or community ties in a dignified way, and quickly sends home those who have committed criminal and other destructive acts.

Obama Administration's Illegal Illegal Immigration Plan

The administration announced Thursday that it will cease deporting those identified as illegal immigrants who pose no threat to public safety or national security so that it can focus on catching and expelling criminals who do. That's the purported rationale. Let's look at the overall policy of the administration with a view to actual results.

Step 1. Don't enforce the border. (Too be fair, this was the Bush position as well.) Illegal immigrants continue to walk across a border that is only defended in urban areas, thereby falling prey to thirst, coyotes (the people), and coyotes (the animals). OK, I made up the part about the animals. Net effect, many illegal immigrants make it across the border, some die along the way.

Step 2. Step up enforcement of targeting employers of illegal immigrants. Destroy businesses and jobs by so doing. Note that if employers inquire too closely about immigration status based on race, appearance, or language, they can be targeted in discrimination lawsuits.

Step 3. Don't deport the illegal aliens identified in step 2, leaving them unemployed, but hanging around the U.S.

Step 4. Make sure that the families of the newly unemployed illegals who were not deported receive welfare benefits. This happens primarily because the children born in the U.S. of illegals are entitled to benefits as citizens.

Step 5. Make sure that the illegals receive health care benefits under Obamacare.

. . . a recent award of $28.8 million to 67 community healthcare centers around the country would inevitably end up benefiting illegal immigrants, contrary to Obama’s pledge.

Of that $28.8 million, $8.5 million is earmarked to target migrant and seasonal farm workers — a group that Wilson claims is comprised of illegal immigrants.

Net effect of failed policies: Permanent underclass dependent on government benefits, raising a follow on generation also dependent, destined to vote for the Democrats who provide these benefits. My libertarian friends who are in favor of open borders should look at this result.

Hmmm. Immigration policy leads to more Democrat voters. Government authorized gun running operations kill U.S. agents, leading to calls for more gun control. Obamacare subsidies and regulation appear poised to run insurance companies out of business which would lead to government being only insurer. If I were a cynic, I might say these were intended consequences, not unintended consequences of legally and constitutionally questionable activities of this administration. Good think I'm not a cynic, or I might get more than a little angry.

More Obama Fail - Immigration Reform

President Obama discussing immigration reform in June 2009, Official White House Photo by Pete Souza.

In a clear signal that Obama will demagogue any issue to help his re-election chances, we read this from the U-T.

President Barack Obama told about 70 national leaders in a private meeting Tuesday that immigration reform is still one of his priorities despite the failure of the DREAM ACT and the absence of movement on other immigration reform.

The meeting focused on how to engage Americans in a discussion around immigration reform and Obama asked the leaders to use their influence to shape the public conversation.

That would be code for, "accuse the Republicans of being racists so this issue can kept alive as a wedge for the next election cycle." The article goes on to quote Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice Education fund, as saying the President is willing to spend his political capital on this cause. Bunk. First, as if he has any. Second, if that was true, the President would have already spent the capital to pass the poorly named DREAM act in the first place. Third, if the President were serious, he would enforce the border.

So what can we do to fill the vacuum left by Obama's leadership on the issue. I think comprehensive immigration reform is too important to let the Democrats take control of the issue. But the American people want the rule of law enforced, so the down payment has to be a real commitment to enforce the border. But the GOP should make this promise, once the border is secured, we will work to establish a guest-worker program of sufficient magnitude to meet the real labor demand in this country. We will provide a path, not to citizenship, but normalcy for those here illegally who are willing to return to their country of origin and enter the country legally. Further, we will be open up the H-1B to millions more workers as part of an effort at reform.

Such an effort would be good for the country and good for the Republican party. Many of these legal guest workers will be Hispanics and Asians, giving the lie to the slander that Republicans are racist. Further, the country needs younger workers to help solve the structural deficit, as I have outlined before.

Note the U.S. baby boomer bulge moving into retirement causing strain on the economy. India, by contrast has a large, young population, facing no such challenge.

Skilled immigrants, like those that come to this country under the H-1B, can help the country compete globally, as discussed here. By advancing a comprehensive agenda that will include respect for the rule of law, but at the same time help solve some of our countries most pressing issues, the GOP will help the country and itself.

After We Secure the Border

Some day, a President is going to enforce the laws of our country and take the action needed to slow cross-border flows of illegal immigrants to a trickle. It might involve completing the fence and use of technology, but will eventually get done. It will never be 100%, because we will always have creative people, overstay of visa, and other means by which persons gain residence illegally. However, the problem will be reduced by two orders of magnitude.

When that happens, we still need a serious debate about immigration policy, because the cost of maintaining such a state of border security will be burdensome and because we need immigrants to strengthen our economy. Here are B-Daddy's fearless proposals for a new immigration policy for the United States.

1. Vastly expand the H-1B visa program for skilled workers. Bringing skilled workers to the United States has multiple benefits. It reduces the temptation to outsource work. Also, the skilled workers also help keep U.S. workers employed, because businesses know that work groups are more effective when teams are geographically co-located. There is a fear that the foreign workers will displace native Americans, but in fact, there presence will increase the overall number of jobs here in America. Currently the cap is 65,000 per year. A Heritage Foundation review concludes these are highly skilled workers that are an asset to the nation.
   
2. Vastly increase the investor immigrant category of visa (EB-5). Immigrant investors are far more likely to start up new companies than native born Americans, and start ups create jobs. Lowering the threshold for this category, to anyone who could show they have $250,000 in venture capital would also be a pro-growth and pro-jobs policy. More on this idea in the WSJ.
3. Increase the guest worker program for low skilled occupations in agriculture, food services and janitorial services. I think we also need a sub-minimum wage for these guest workers and a requirement to return to their country of origin when they are not employed. The lower labor costs would benefit those who employ them, freeing up wealth for other uses including job creation. This is not exploitation, these workers will be far better off than they would be in their home countries such as Mexico. Meanwhile, we economically benefit from their labor.

Once the labor markets were normalized with these reforms, the pressure at the border would certainly subside, making it easier to patrol. We should continue to have security controls for entry, to prevent terrorists from coming to the United States, but the effort to protect the border would be made much easier with a reduction of economic pressure.

The other reduction in pressure for cross-border flows would be to end the drug war, but that is an article for another day.

And One More Thing About Meg

Apparently, Meg Whitman's billboard is part of an overture to Spanish speaking voters emphasizing the economy and jobs, to peel enough of them from the Democratic camp to win the governorship. So far, so good. But this servile catering to the worst elements in the Latino community will backfire. A principled approach that respected both her previous position and the intelligence of Spanish speaking voters might take on the following arguments. First, emphasize that illegal immigration reduces job opportunities for poorer Hispanic citizens, because the illegals often work below the minimum wage and put downward pressure on wages for those who do have work. Second, the backlash that brought Proposition 187 and the Arizona SB 1070 into being would have never started if the Federal government had enforced the border. She should promise to pressure the federal government to enforce the border so that these state laws would be unnecessary.

She will never win over those Hispanics who believe in identity politics and just want to increase the Latino presence. They are a minority. The majority of Hispanics want to work at good jobs, send their kids to college and generally live the American dream. A principled stand that ties together support for American dream because of the rule of law will respect the intelligence of Hispanic voters and still make serious inroads in peeling them away from the Democrats.

I am asking Meg Whitman to change course now, before she loses all my respect. I have emailed her campaign asking for an explanation and registered my protest on her website. I await her reply. In the meantime, take our poll.

Meg Whitman - Turncoat Outrage on Illegal Immigration Issue

I was never excited about my Republican choices for governor in the primary. Both Poizner and Whitman seemed bent on trying to outdo each other by turning up the volume on illegal immigration, hypocritically I might add. Regular commenter Road 'Dawg alerted me to this little gem from the Whitman campaign.

Image courtesy of SFGate: Politics Blog

I'm not going to translate, it's too disgusting considering the ad campaigns during the primaries. Listen to the following clip and enjoy the irony of hearing Pete Wilson, the force behind Prop 187, endorse Meg.



So we have a conundrum, do we let left wing moonbat Jerry Brown take the governor's mansion or do we let another hypocritical, ruling class Republican, disappoint us? As your unofficial chief ideologist, I need your input. The comments section is open, except for roy_b.