Outsourcing Immigration

No cool links here. Just pondering, while watching another GOP debate, the immigration issue. Long time readers of the H-blog (Hi Ma!) know that I'm pro immigration. Not that I'm a pro at immigration, honestly I've never even immigrated before, not once. More that I'm all for free trade and that I'm all for allowing people to pull an Eddie Murphy.

But what made me stop and say, "STOP THE PRESSES!" is "Outsourcing." Remember when that was the big danger facing our country? Remember all those books? How it was destroying the economy, killing off jobs here, making the poor, poorer and the rich, richer? How if it kept up America would fall into ruin and we would be owned by India? Funny how none, and I do mean none of that happened. Funny also, how during this Presidential Election Cycle I can't find a single candidate staking his (sigh, or her) election on this most pressing issue. This catastrophic event was something like two years ago, and now its dead. We're all OK, no bill were needed, no new laws, no...nothing.

Could it be that the same thing is happening with Immigration? I'm pretty sure that there's some saying about "those who don't learn good from history* stuff, make it all bad again."

Could it be that we're a nation of lemmings? Following whatever latest "America Destroying Danger" the politicians come up with to run on?

Nawwwwww?


*How come the feminists haven't jumped all over HIStory like they did Womyn?

McCain cirlces the drain

The information in this post should not be new to any long time reader of the H-Blog (Hi Ma). But for the rookies, it looks like John McCain is real trouble after raising just $11.2 million in the second quarter (H-Blog called him "Dead Man Walking" in February). Yes $11.2 million is a lot of jack, but not when it puts you third in fund raising. See, its all about perspective and the perspective is all bad for McCain right now. Ron Paul would be thrilled with $11.2 million as it would signal upward momentum, but for Mr McCain, $11.2 is a big signal of downward mo'. Also, everyone likes to back a winner, and the perception that you're stallin' and fallin' only makes it harder to raise money. Mr McCain is on the edge of the dreaded downward spiral, where things are going bad, and things going bad only makes more bad things happen. Disappointing fund raising ($24.8 million so far on a $100 mil year end goal) and layoffs are a huge signal that bad things are happening (the bad event). Now, who's going to rush in and support that camp (the more bad things event)?

So the question is why? And that dear readers is why you come to the Hblog. Yahoo and CNN blame the two I's Iraq and Immigration, where McCain finds himself on the wrong side of public opinion on both issues. "Wrong" on Iraq with the general population, where Mr McCain used to be the belle of the ball, and "wrong" on Immigration within the GOP where Mr McCain plays Carrie.

But that's not really the issue. CNN Political Editor Mark Preston gets closest,

"He's going back to what he did in 2000. He realizes that the way he is going to win this nomination is not by getting the establishment votes but rather a grassroots campaign."

And there you have it. Mr McCain sold out. Sold out big, and sold out early. The cult of his particularly personality was built on "Maverick Senator John McCain." But immediately after he withdrew from the 2000 election he went from the voice of the people and supposed King Maker, to chief lap dog for the guy who blew him up. It killed him with his public. The man that fell victim to push polling suggesting he had a black baby, kissed the feet of the man who ordered the poll. Nothing maverick or heroic about it. A man who had the reputation of being a "man of principle" sold that principle to win. And that's just not his gig.

Two types of people win elections. People who will live and die by their conviction (W) and people with no conviction (Clinton). People will respect the first for their principles, and respect the second for their effectiveness (if they ever even notice it). But if your gig is that of conviction and you publicly sell out, well, it makes people gag. Its the worst of both. And that's John McCain. And Mr McCain's biggest "gag" moment was selling out on the Torture bill. It was a sad, sad moment. It was also when he lost this election. Everyone kept waiting for him to rise and champion something that should be so close to his heart. But everyone forgot that he sold his heart in 2000. Once his supporters, and his opponents realized this, he was done. Mr McCain was publicly played, and no one, not one single American, can vote for someone who was so badly manipulated in public.

So when Mr McCain says that he tried the maverick route last time and he lost, so this time he's going to court the right and suck up to his old opponents, it tells you a lot about the man and why he's destined to lose again.

For the record, I do believe that if he stayed with his Straight Talk Express persona (and that's clearly what it was), and repeatedly challenged the White House, then he would be the front runner. Now, not only will he badly lose the primary, but he cannot fall back to the "I'll run as an Independent" line. In 2000 he alienated the GOP core chiefmakers but won the hearts of the independents, some Republicans and a lot of Democrats. Feeling stung (aka panic), he spent the next eight years alienating all those R's, I's and D's. And what's that spell? RID, and that's exactly what the public is doing. They're getting RID of McCain (No? Too cute?).

So now its about layoffs and falling well short of his fund raising goals. Next it will be about falling well short of the White House (Was that better?).

The Real Mystery: Who Voted for Her?

No one knows what to think about our immigration problems. Not only does an elected city councilman from LA not understand what to do about the problem..she didn't even know she was part of it. For some reason a person deemed competent enough to lead her fellow Americans didn't realize that not being born here may actually effect her resident status. Now, I don't expect Mrs. Meyer to know everything, but isn't it a no-brainer that you would want to look into what restrictions apply to you knowing you weren't born in the country where you are running for public office? And trying to scare up sympathy with the old, "If they can do this to me they can do it to anybody" nonsense is just pathetic. I think most other people would have had the sense to make one call to the immigration office at some point in their life to check on the rules.

I really don't want Mrs Meyer to be deported because she clearly didn't violate the intent of the law. And I wouldn't mind having her as a neighbor because she is probably a very nice lady. However, I do hope the people of LA are sharp enough to realize that if someone can't manage something so simple in their personal life, they have no business managing a city.

Immigration Idea

Much like Muscles For Justice in Drives Ed, the Immigration Bill failed. Not much to add, only that I continue to be surprised by how quickly this issue became a hot button and how emotional it is. As always, I think that the "immigration crisis" is a created phenomenon.

However, looking at it, I do have one question. Why is the ability to work tied to citizenship? Seems like we can have a guest worker program (I'm for open borders on working, but I'll take this as a step) that has nothing to do with citizenship. This way the US can have the benefit of cheap labor that expands the market of available goods and services or all Americans and the benefit of taxing that labor (which in theory lessens the burden on all of us, but in reality just means more moolah for the feds to spend), while letting immigrants keep their original citizenship. This means less worry for us and allows a country like Mexico to actually grow its middle class and strengthen its own economy. I know that the argument is that all foreigners want citizenship, but I'm not sure that's the case. I think they want citizenship so they can have access to jobs. If you could travel freely across the border, you could live well in Mexico and work in the US, and I bet most would choose something like that. I could be wrong, but bifurcating the two will prove it.

The GOP should accept this idea as it helps business but doesn't add to the Democratic Party's voter rolls. Loosening the worker restrictions would also allow the government to keep better track of immigrants and immigrants are incentivised to take this legal route over the illegal one. There is not threat of "Amnesty" because this has nothing to do with legalization. And just for kicks, the GOP could still rally around blowing billions on a wall to keep out those workers without permission to work here (and now use some of the new tax revenue to build said boondoggle).

Sometimes deconstructing thing makes them more plausible. We don't always need 15 volume laws that try to accomplish everything to everyone. Simpler is better.

Bite Someone Else's Hand

You could almost respect the opinions of those throughout the world who spew all their frustrations at the US. Almost. Right up until the point when they present their begging bowls and admit that they have no solutions, only complaints.

It makes perfect sense to hate the Yankees when every year they beat your team (and everyone else's). To root against them with all your might is almost a requirement for every other team's fans. And to use that as motivation to get even better so you can unseat them is one of the most admirable drivers of human behavior. However, once you show up at Yankee Stadium and demand that they send their coaches to improve your players and spend their championship winnings to improve your team's position you've admitted to being a loser...and from then on you will always be a loser.

A man has a right to criticize anyone else when he has a better way. And if he thinks one way is evil he has a moral duty to disassociate himself with it. But when the little countries of the world surround the American limo and jockey for the best positions in line to get their handouts they don't reveal their bankruptcy until they huddle in the alley devouring their charity and bemoaning how evil the people in that limo are.

Mexico says they don't want to lose vital, working citizens to immigration yet condemn the wall. Europe slashes military budgets to just above zero and then complains about American unilateralism. Chavez calls Bush a fascist and warmonger (to many cheers) as he steals industries and starts his military build up. And "leaders" like John Kerry say we need to change our ways so these same people won't criticize us any more.

In a room full of madmen, the sane guy will be the least popular.

Why any border fence will fail.

The Denver Post just ran an article on the Border Fence and given the last post on the H-Blog, I thought I'd comment.

The article shows the flaws in the border fence, either as the GOP favored physical wall or the Dem favored high-tech wall. Basically for the GOP wall, you can ask any prison warden how effective walls are without people manning them. For the Dems, this ain't a movie, technology just isn't there yet, and yet may be a looooong time coming.

But what's staggering is the cost, $7.6 billion (initial cost, I've seen nothing on recurring expenses, improvements, maintenance, etc), and no one in their right mind thinks that that cost is anywhere close to the real cost (if it's ever built, I'm thinking at least $20 bln).

The solution to the illegal immigrant debate isn't a wall of any kind. It may make people think that somethings being done, but in reality its the ultimate red herring. As the wall fails to "fix" the illegal immigrant problem, the solution will inevitably become to keep "fixing" the wall. The solution is political, economic. and legal. Allow more legal immigrants, focus on the big ticket offenders, work to get Mexico more economically viable (pie in the sky I know), and figure out what kind of crime illegal immigration really is and enforce it accordingly. Is someone coming to America and working as a dishwasher the equivalent of murder? Kidnapping? Grand Larceny? Petty Theft? Jaywalking? Seriously. We keep hearing that illegal immigration is bad, and we're clearly ready to spend billions, but what kind of crime is it? How does should it rank on our enforcement priority given the damage it causes? This is one topic I've heard nothing about, and to me, its kind of key.

Bottom line, of all the really stupid ideas I've heard recently, the wall is, by far, the most stupiderist. Really expensive and totally worthless.

CO puts farmers between immigrants and inmates

Colorado passed one of the toughest illegal immigrant bills in the nation last year. Which received many "huzzah's" from immigration hardliners nationwide. Even better, it like it worked, illegal immigrants fled the state (and maybe some legal ones too). Now the hard-liners song, "For Colorado's a jolly good fellow..." Two for two and on a roll. Now the stage is set for the final piece of the theory to be proven. With all those jobs that illegal immigrants took in agriculture that US citizens are pining away for available, citizens surely rushed in to fill the void. Right? Right?

Mmmmm, not so much. It looks like no one wanted those jobs after all, and crops rotted because there was no one to work the fields. Maybe as Meatloaf sang, "Two out of three ain't bad."

In any case, now CO farmers need a solution. And the survey says...Prison labor! That will get those fields tended to. Plus $.60 an hour (plus no unions!) can't beat that. But wait, wasn't that the problem to start with? How can any American, no matter how desperate work for $.60 an hour? I mean you'd have to force someone to work at those wages.

Which makes one wonder how serious the argument that illegal immigrants take jobs because they work at lower wages really is. I mean, if the solution is to use people who will work for less than 10% of the new minimum wage (at gunpoint), how does that help American workers get those jobs?

Two final points.

One. The "illegal immigrants take jobs argument" is false for roughly the same reasons as the minimum wage concept doesn't really help. The jobs II's (I squared?) take are jobs no one wants. These are the true "entry level" gigs. There are no third generation manual laborers. Sucking out supply won't bring in new American workers because there are no American workers looking to do the work. The jobs that are filled by II's can't pay more because the end product can't charge more, there's no way to pass on the increased cost. In fact, in most cases prices are going down. Get rid of labor supply and the industry just goes away, jobs are lost, product is lost, revenue is lost, and taxes are lost. Look at CO. The answer to this new supply of jobs is not a rush of labor, its Prison Labor. Doesn't this demonstrate anything? Bottom line, hardliners create lots of loses but no gains. Brilliant! But typical of government.

Two. When listening to the debate its important to look at who's talking (but not look who's talking too-terrible movie). Farmers and the like are very much against the hardliners. Makes sense, their livelihood, their homes, their land and homes depend on this supply of labor. Everyone wants to keep US agriculture alive, II's are the way, much better than subsidies. But who's arguing against? There's no group, American's Who Want to Work Crazy Hard for Low Wages (or AWWWCHLW-bless you), debating the point. Its politicians looking to gain points with the electorate. Or better put, people who have nothing at stake trying to gain favor from other people who have nothing at stake. No politician or voter against II's really touch the issue (nanny's exempted). The people who do touch this issue are uniformly against this new dance craze.

Beware politician's who smell votes...

H-Blog's first 2008 Crib Sheet

Here's the first in a potential series of quick hits on the 2008 Presidential Election. Looking at random candidates who are either in, or are strong potentials to jump in.

Democratic Party Candidates:

Former VP Al Gore: Not officially in. Here's a tip, Gore is binary. If he enters the race it will only be because he knows he'll win. You may not see it, I may not see it, but absolutely the only way he's in is if he's aware of something that all but guarantees him the win (not just the nomination, but the whole shebang). Bank on it. Unless that scenario presents itself, he won't run. Black and white. In, win, out lose. I know most people think there's no way, but remember this, he won the popular election. Not only did he win, but he "beat" someone who would go on to become a wildly unpopular President who's waging a wildly unpopular war, which to his credit Gore never backed. There will be some "what if Gore won" sentiment, and not just from the die-hards. Also, agree with it or not, Global Warming is reaching the tipping point, and Gore was way out ahead of that issue (granted he'll have real trouble describing exactly what he did to help during all his years as Senator and VP, ie nothing really). Those are two big things, but still not enough for him to risk losing again. Having said that, I think he would love to take Hillary out.


Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): Here's what's interesting about her. Her polling numbers (both favorable and unfavorable) are remarkably stable, going back to her time as First Lady (by the way, are we really at a point where First Ladies have polling numbers?). What this means for her campaign is that they know exactly what they're dealing with. They know her positives and negatives and can create strategies to address both with little guess work. However, the consistency and level of her unfavorable numbers, combined with such a small percentage of "don't know's" is a real problem for her. There's just not much room to work with. People know, and a lot of people know they don't like her. Looking into the future, even if she manages to win, she will find it very hard to govern with those negative numbers (See Bush, George W). Still, with her money, skill, high favorable marks, and high ability and willingness to fight, she's the current front runner for the nomination, but hard to imagine her winning it all.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): Nipping at Hillary's heels. The current media darling. The Audacity of Hope. Generally has negatives in the "What have you done?" category. I don't think this is a big deal, look at W, nondescript Governor, terrible business past, President (I don't bring this up to slam W, really, rather to point out that "resume" is often overblown in elections, sad as it is, it usually comes down to "likability"). But still, what has he done? What will he hang his hat on come election time? This will be the resounding issue for his candidacy, in these very tense times, what's he done? He's a great speaker, good looking guy, being African American helps, but all he's been is a candidate. Not only that, but he's never been tested. He walked into the Illinois gig, wasn't really blasted, what will happen when the heat gets turned up. I have to say, so far so good. When Fox ran their brief smear campaign against him (debunked, again, Fox hides and blames Hillary here, just good times all around), he handled it very well, so maybe he'll handle the heat (by the by, how come no calls for the heads of the Fox news folks who went with this "story?"). In any case, I think he passes Hillary and becomes the nominee. But can he win? Even if he doesn't he could be in fine position for a run in 2012.

One very large problem plagues the two Democratic front runners and all Senators with Presidential hopes. A Senator hasn't won the Presidency since Kennedy. Obama can overcome this because he just doesn't have a lot of votes under his belt to attack (the good part of "just what has he done"). The "stain" of the Senate isn't quite set in. But for Hillary, this is a killer.

Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM): I think he missed his window. By playing it coy in 2004, he missed his chance. Had he made his move, I do think he would be President right now. However, he's Hispanic, he's a Governor (huge, huge position for running for President), solid resume (yes, I know I said that resume is overblown, but better to have it than not), and he's savvy. However, rumors plague him that he has some severe "negatives" in his past, NM doesn't bring a lot of electoral votes, and no one talks about NM unless its about illegal immigration. I think his best bet is VP, but if one of the two falters, and Hillary will, so all he really needs to hope for is an Obama stumble, he'll be a threat.

Frmr Sen. John Edwards: I'll sum up this way. No ones thinking that Kerry lost despite the great help he got from Edwards. He's going no where, the "Kerry Stain" is just too much. Sure is good looking though.

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE): Not a chance. Running just to run, get his name out, try to gain some power and influence in the Senate. Maybe looking for the VP gig, but I doubt it. Would be fun in the VP debates though.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT): Really needs to work to get known. Also don't see him using 2008 as a platform to 2012. Another VP candidate?

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Rev. Al Sharpton: They just like to take their act on the road. They do a good job of raising issues and getting attention. They're playing for speaking time at the convention.

The GOP:

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): Dead man walking. This almost a Shakespearian Tragedy. Straight Talking Maverick Republican gains national following, loses Presidential primary, spends next eight years becoming Conservative puppet, cozies up to those who destroyed him, they don't rebuild him, he loses all credibility with his national following, never gains credibility he so desperately sought with conservatives, gets blown out early in the process of the 2008 primary. At this point no one likes him. Essentially sold his soul for a lump of coal. If I'm right, this is the saddest story I've witnessed since I've been following politics. There will be books about how he was destroyed by others in 2000, and how he destroyed himself in 2008. Did I mention that he's a Senator with a looooooong voting record? Lieberman may want to watch this closely. Not because of a potential gig as VP, but because his career is looking remarkably similar. Both took the express train from rebel to pawn.

Former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani: At this point, while not in, the favorite, and the favorite with the best chance of winning it all. "America's Mayor." Perceived moderate, knows how to campaign, knows how to fight, knows how to win. Credited not only with cleaning up NYC (image, crime, economy, etc), but became real hero with the WTC bombing. Just cannot be attacked on any 9/11 issue and can take the high ground in that debate instantly. Has negatives, but they're well known and, more importantly, he knows how to deal with them. His main problem will be getting out of the primary. The moderate status that will help him nationally will hurt him with the GOP base. The question is, will they overlook his social moderation in favor of his untouchable 9/11 cred? Or has W mined 9/11 for all its worth, leaving Rudy without any cover?

Frmr Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR): Tough road when you're best known for losing over 100 pounds. Still, a Republican in a Democratic state, well respected Governor, and the weight loss is a great story. Part of the new breed Republicanism, deeply religious, favors big government on his issues, sort of a W before the wheels fell off. Hard to place in the race, I'm giving him dark horse status. Not sure about his VP cred. Possible, he's out of a job. AR doesn't have a lot of electoral votes, but if he can take some Blue in a close race he'd be worth it. Definitely worth watching.

Frmr Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA): Similar to Gore only not quite as drastic. He'll run on field weakness, while Gore will only go for the sure thing. Tons and tons of negative history. Hard to imagine that he'll really overcome them. More likely, Gingrich may take the Buchanan route. Run, get some press, get some props, then settle into a nice high paying pundit job and spit out a book every few years (at least this time he'll get to keep the proceeds). Not a chance that he's eying the VP gig.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX): The Libertarian. Which is Latin for "No Chance." Running to promote issues. A sane Dennis Kucinich. Hopefully will spark some memory of a GOP that was for small government, individual responsibility, and individual freedom. Best bet is a speaking gig at the convention.

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO): Here's the GOP answer to Kucinich. Pure issue push. I think they should go out and do a road show. Seriously, total opposites, passionate, nuts. I'd pay to see them debate.


Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NB): Gaining fast. I think he's Rudy G's biggest threat. Smart, has the Presidential look (white male, nice hair), working his way nicely through the Iraq debate. Hasn't been in the Senate long (but his "Senator" status can't be discounted), won an upset victory to gain the seat in 1996, and has been pushing back on the White House's handling of Iraq without coming across as whiny, disingenuous, or treasonous. Plus he's a vet. His post as deputy whip for the Republican Caucus gives him access to favors and connections. Personally, I think he's going to be the one who comes out of the primaries the winner. Watch him.

Frmr Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA): (By special request from the Comments Section). An enigma for the GOP. At first blush he seems like a great fit, deeply religious, conservative, comes from the NE where he can steal a lot of Electoral College votes, etc. Then you start peeling back the layers. His religion is Mormon which is a bit iffy with the Catholics and the Born Again set, at least in theory. The fact that he was elected Guv of MA, with its high concentration of Catholics tells me maybe this isn't as big a deal as some make it. But still, the national spotlight on The Church of Latter Day Saints may reveal some of the peculiarities of the religion, some of which may not play well with middle American voters. Personally, I think it's going to hurt him, but another famous politician with questionable religious tint did fairly well coming out of MA, so you never know. Also, Romney's moving fast towards the right, but his past is actually fairly liberal, speaking out in favor of Gay Marriage, for example. In the era of blogs and YouTube, you just can't get away with denying your past statements. I haven't heard him speak so I can't discuss his charisma, but again, white male, nice hair. He is a Governor, statistically a big leg up. Like Huckabee and other's he's at the end of that line. He can use the campaign to make a move for Senate. Kennedy's not going anywhere, but Kerry, if Romney runs a solid primary is vulnerable. He could also be a VP choice and I think he's an interesting one. If he can deliver EC votes from the heart of the Dem stronghold in the NE, that may take it in a close race. Plus as VP his Mormon religion gets muted, as does his "liberal" past. So while I think he has almost no chance for the big gig, I do think he can parlay a run into a longer career, and I think that's his goal. Look for him to run a cautious race, playing mostly to MA voters.

Final note on Senators. Obviously, if both parties nominate a Senator, which may very well happen, then the "Senate Anchor" is a wash.

Immigration quick hits

Two quick posts on the immigration front.

One, a California judge struck down Escondido's law forcing landlords to get verification of tenants immigration status and give that to the city for proofing. I'm not going to pretend to understand the legalese of the suit, but I want to take this chance to say that I think its a bad law. Again, we have law enforcement to take care of these things. Plus, I can't figure out how it works. Do landlords ask for status from everyone? I don't have any immigration proof. Or does she (I'm so progressive) only target those she thinks are immigrants? If it's everyone, does it make sense to have a city look over every applicant? Escondido has about 135,000 people, seems like a lot of forms to clarify.

The other is about flags. In Pahrump, NV you can't fly a foreign flag alone. Off the bat, this a gross violation of the First Amendment. What's also interesting is what does "fly" mean with respect to this law? Looking at the reason behind the law,

flag restriction was a reaction to nationwide demonstrations in May against a crackdown on illegal immigration. He said he didn't like seeing protesters waving Mexican flags and demanding immigrants not go to work that day.

it may mean just carrying a flag of another country. What about on a shirt? Or a bumper sticker? I love the sensibility of any law that starts from, "I don't like it when people..."

However I came around when I read this,

"In Pahrump, we had Mexican restaurants closed that day," he complained. "Only one restaurant stayed open."

Now that I understand. It's totally unacceptable to get between a man and his burrito. Why there oughtta be a law...

More dividends from the new regime

Looks like the Dems will scuttle the "Border Fence." Hooray, my bet is that most Republicans are glad too. The fence just seemed like more like a "get out the vote" move than a practical solution to illegal immigration. As a quick side note, it seems that this particular issue never caught fire. Not only was immigration not a big factor among voters, moderates (or those who favor a comprehensive solution, like W - a former border state governor) did much better in close elections than the radicals.

The problem with the GOP's wedge issue politics is the same as the Dems "we're not Republican's" strategy. Neither does anything. At some point the electorate wants action, at some point people just get emotionally drained, at some point you miss, or the other ceases failing, and at some point people just tune out until you deliver.

I think the GOP understands that now, I wonder if the Dem's have figured it out too?

Rush-ing to judgement (Long Version)

Avert your eyes Stalin.

Rush today says that GOP losses "liberated" him. Key points.

no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?" Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does. I believe my side is worthy of victory, and I believe it's much easier to reform things that are going wrong on my side from a position of strength. Now I'm liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it. I did not want to sit here and participate, willingly, in the victory of the libs, in the victory of the Democrat Party by sabotaging my own.

And,

here have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves -- and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs. I'm a radio guy! I understand what this program has become in America and I understand the leadership position it has.

Also,

t has been a challenge to come in here and look at some of the weaknesses and some of the missed opportunities and try to cover for them and make up for them

I agree with everything Rush said. My point to Stalin for years is that Rush is not the voice for truth, he's a GOP mouthpiece, a sort of cigar smoking cheerleader. To go to Rush for intellectual honesty is like going to a palm reader for advice about your future. She knows why she's there, and you know why you're there, so all sides agree. It's not about truth, its about feeling better. This is Rush. He's not about truth, he's about making his listeners feel better.

I don't think it was always this way. Like the GOP, his message became about staying in power. On the march towards power he could afford to be honest because the stakes weren't as high. It takes discipline to take power. If some random Republican steps out of line, punish him, keep the focus on the mission (to take power) and keep everyone locked in. That was the position he enjoyed up until 1994. However, once the his team took control, discipline meant the possibility of short term loss of power. Honesty risked loss. Rather than risk honesty, he took the path of "cover" and the GOP grew fat and lazy. Rush started playing the "relative" game.

Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does.

Relativism isn't discipline. Relativism is a path towards the continuing downward spiral. On election day, it spiraled past "loser."

I believe that Rush and the GOP faced the same dilemma, power v. integrity of the mission, and both chose power. However, it looks like Rush is geared up to be a real voice of conservatism, already turning on W.

The president during the campaign said that he was convinced that if the Democrats won power, that the war on terror would suffer a setback. They're not that interested in victory. He totally took that back today. He said (paraphrased), "Well, people say things on campaigns. You know, the campaign's over and the Democrats won, and so it's over. What do you want?" It was the "What do you want?" press conference. "You want immigration reform? Ha-ha-ha! You got it. You want a minimum wage increase? Yoooooou got it! You want Rumsfeld? Yoooooou got him!" Bush has seen this before, and this is how you get out of town in two years with an approval rating that is above the thirties and maybe into the fifties or the sixties. Stem cells are another thing. The whole point here is: "We're going to do everything we can to make everybody happy. We're going to do what we can to make everybody happy."

If Rush is really on the case, I think it's better for the country. I'm not a fan, but he has a large base, and if he focuses back on conservative ideals, and not partisan flattery, then maybe conservatism can make a comeback.

Sometimes you have to take a step back to take two steps forward.

Minutemen and the fence

Thought this was a solid response to a negative article from Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist (of border watching fame, not of Revolutionary War fame - that or he's using a heckuvalot of botox). Yes, he gets a little emotional at points, but he's responding to an article called "Minutemen have a right to be idiotic," not really a neutral, fact based starter article, see my post below 'bout morons. If someone were to write an article called, "Hydrabloggers have a right to be idiotic" I may get a tad emotional too.

Anywho, I honestly don't see all the hub-bub about the Minutemen. Thankfully, I have many, many, many, and well, many better things to do in my average day than sit out in the hot sun and hope to see someone breaking the law. But from what I've gathered its mostly peaceful, with MM just calling up the border patrol and reporting what they've seen. I haven't heard of anyone tackling any suspects, throwing rocks, playing cop, netting, vigilanting (viglilanticizing?), tripping, or giving wedgies to potential illegal immigrants. The way I see it, its more like a huge neighborhood watch program, and everyone loves those guys. Yeah its boring, and yeah I'd never do it, but so what? (Ed. note: Apparently I have 16 posts with the word "immigration" in them. If your bored, but not Minuteman bored, you can search the Hydrablog for my opinions - and yes 16 posts on immigration shows that I may have a touch extra-time in my day...smarty.)

If you boil the fat out of it, these folks are mad that other people are blatantly breaking the law and are lawfully doing something about it. Is that now a crime?

To me, the much more radical (dare I say "idiotic") move is to build a huge, massively expensive, totally useless wall. Thank you W for signing just such a bill today.

MINO's

Someone soon is going to jump on the concept of MINO's or Minority in Name Only. As the Hispanic popluation continues to grow, at some point they can't, as a group, be considered a "minority." According to this AP article, hispanics make up 14.5% of the population, and non-hispanic whites are a "minority" in four states plus DC. Clearly, no matter what, non-hispanic whites will never merit "minority" status, but when does a named minority group lose it's status. Is it nation wide? At the state level? Can you qualify for minority perks at the federal level, but not at the state level? Since Texas is one of the states where non-hispanic whites are a minority, I'm assuming that statistically hispanics are not a "minority." Does this affect hispanic preferential hiring agreements with fire and police departments? Like I said, whites will never get overt preferential hiring status, but should hispanics get to keep theirs when they're no longer a statistical minority?

My bet is that minority status is a forever lable, there's too much at stake to give it up. But while immigration is a non-sensical platform, a politician could get the same boost from his targeted base from taking up the more rational argument for taking away minority status from hispanics, freeing them of the lable, freeing up tax dollars, and getting rid of hiring/admission quotas. The obvious counter to this is to furhter segment "hispanic." "Cuban's aren't Mexican's" and will be the chant, and you will be called racist for grouping them together. Fun, fun, fun.

In any case I get the copyright on MINO's. You read the it here first.

CO immigration and Co's.

Colorado just passed a wave of immigration bill's all expected to be signed by the Guv. These merit attention as CO is concidered a preview of what state's may do nation-wide.

Most are harmless, "get money owed by feds," some that aren't exactly "look out for our fellow man" types with the potential to cause more harm than good, mandating that CO only provide those services that are federally mandated, one that officially complains to the feds for the immigration problem. All of these are boiler plate bills. I do like the ones that make it a crime to extort from illegals, or threaten documents that allow workers to be here. Nice touch, I hope these also serve as a model for other states.

There are a few that really rankle me. These are the the bill's that place the onus on business to prove that they don't have any illegals working for them, and to vet each employee for legal/illegal status. One, I'm no expert on any document. If someone hands me a forged doc, am I responsible? Do I have to hire extra people, or incur additional expense to insure legal status? Thanks for the new taxes guys. Especially because I already pay the tax that's supposed to enforce these laws. Why do I have to pay more because someone else isn't doing their job. What's next, mandatory employee drug testing at my expense? How about verifying that no employee commits a crime. Not only that, but I get peanalized if I hire someone who I think is legal. Why is it my business' duty to enforce the laws? Shouldn't I just be able to hire people and let the enforcement agencies do their job and tell me when someone's illegal? Actually, why must I presume guilt on all of my employees? Isn't "innocent until proven guilty" something of a cornerstone of our American society. As this law is written, if I hire Muscles for some rescue work, eventhough I've know him for decades, I have to verify his legal status.

I don't like this trend of pushing enforcement onto business. Government should do their job and leave me free to do mine. Hitting my profitability with a "back up the government's ineptitude" tax just adds insult to injury.

Illegal Alien

"Boy let me tell you that its no fun (its not much fun) being an illegal-eagle alien." Genesis. GENESIS RULES!!!-sorry, the 17 year old version of the blogger came out for a sec...all better now.

Now that immigration is the hot button issue of the year I'm going to have to start paying attention to it.

So where what have I learned. Well listening to the political shock-jocks (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc) illegal immigrants are clearly destroying the country (I thought gay marriage was, but I guess that's so yesterday). Not only that, but
ordinary citizens are constantly bombarded with pushy, cheap working, criminally inclined. non-English speakers. Listening to some of the callers and the sympathetic shock-jocks it sounds like just walking downt the street in America is akin to walking down the barrio in Mexico City. With emotions running so high I keep waiting to wake up to a call to boycott Taco Bell, lousy Mexican fast food taking jobs away from good ol' American fast food companies. No wonder Burger Queen failed. I have to be honest, having lived in Florida, Texas and Colorado for more than thirty tres el decades I can honestly count on one hand the number of times I've run across anyone who didn't speak any English, and at least two of those fingers go to Greeks (but not the middle one-the Unknown Blogger is a known Greek). So when I hear stories of people being surrounded by all these folks who can't speak English, I have to wonder where they're standing. Or maybe, just maybe, they do speak English, but have figured out that pretending not to let's them escape having to talk to you. Believe me, I've tried that before, but pretending to speak just pig latin only takes you so far in this world.

In the spirit of fairness, I'm going to hanlde the main issues devoid of facts, with counter arguement devoid of facts.

First, some fun with math. 12 million illegal immigrants, 300 million Americans. Roughly 4%. Keep this in mind when you hear of all the damage being caused. All this hullabloo surrounding 4 in 100 people.

No speaka the Englaise. Yes, some small percentage of immigrants can't speak any English. But this is a small percentage. English is the most widely spoken language on earth, even when I travel abroad, it's rare that I find someone who doesn't speak any English-so unless countries are making the concerted effort to send us those that don't, it's safe to assume that most immigrants speak the language. Not only that, but to get around, even in a well protected sub community, you have to speak some English. However, the second generation speaks English, period. By the third generation, the first generation is now complaining that the grandkids don't speak any of the native tongue and that the culture is lost. This is no different from any non-English immigrant, legal or illegal, for the entire history of the nation. The melting pot works. Also, when people say they "constantly come acrosse people that don't speak English" think of this. If the full alotment of illegal immigrants didn't speak a lick of English, that's still only 4 in 100 people. And since we know that the illegal immigrants are not dispersed evenly, the chance of encountering anyone who doesn't speak any English is extremely remote. My bet is that a lot of these anecdotes are like when my friend told me that his cousin knew the "Hey Mikey" kid, and he was dead.

Crime. Oddly, with more than 12 million depraved illigal immigrants in the country, crime has stayed near it's hisoric low levels.

"Lousy Mexican's taking all our jobs." Just to be clear, these immigrants, who can't speak English, are taking jobs away from Americans. Apparantly the vast resevoir of wealth that is the non-speaking, non-understading, completely unskilled section of our economy is in danger! Clearly we need 500 bills at the state level this session to deal with this. PS, unemployment is near the historical lows. Here's my example. When I was growing up, before the Dukes of Hazzard came on I had to mow the lawn. I didn't know anyone who had a lawn service, and I don't think I ever saw but one Lawn Service truck, and I grew up in Florida. No one could afford it. Now, just about everyone with a lawn can afford to hire someone to mow it. The question is this, are illegal immigrants taking lawnmowing jobs from Americans? Nope. If you take away the immigrants, the cost of the service goes up, and less people can afford it, meaning less work, meaning less jobs, meaning I risk missing Dukes of Hazzard re-runs, which means I miss the hilarious hijinx of Cooter and Cleatus. Immigrants are creating their own jobs. Since they're poor, they spend nearly 100% of the deneros the earn, the economy expands and more jobs are created. Thanks Pepe. And Pepe is lonely, again what kind of job damage can be caused by 4 in 100 people.

Illegal Immigrants suck up all our services. Apparantly while being so hardworking that they will take the absolute crap jobs for almost no money, they are also so lazy that they suck up all our assistance spending. This while being terrified of being deported if they report anything. These are truley advanced people.

Education. "They're killing the education system, kick them out!" I agree, the best way to deal with people who are poor and uneducated is to keep them that way. And yes, they're the cuprits behind the failling US education system. Vote Pedro.

And one of my favorites as heard by one of the shock-jocks (I honestly don't remember which one, they all sound the same to me). Paraphrased-"If I hear one more automated prompt, you know from a bank or something, asking for English press 1, or Spanish press 2, I'm going to blah blah blah." Dude, I feel the same way. When I'm at Disney World and the monorial voice tells me to be careful in English, and then tells me to take the nino's by the hand, man that ticks me off. I don't care if they are a business making a business decision, it bugs me so they must stop. Same with Starbucks and their "vendi lattes." I think their ought to be a law making them call it a "medium milk," and if I go to Taco Bell I don't want to hear any talk of "Taco's el Grande," I want to order a "Large Mexican sandwhich."

This is America, el go-o el homo.

PS, I'll try to put together some fact for my next foray.

Cick here to read "speak english only" in spanish.

GOP immigration hardliners who take the "english only" stance, apparantly don't mean it for those who read their websites. Maybe it's intended to be used as a learning tool?

I remember Muscles for Justice being a star pupil in spanish back in the day, is the spanish option a direct translation of the the english site?

Good news/Bad news for the GOP

First the good. The Republican won the "predictor" race in CA. It was close enough, 49.5% to 45% or 5000 votes, that the the dems can say, "This was a victory. We came within 5000 votes in a heavily GOP district of winning and were outspent more than two to one. See, we have the momentum." Or at least, that's what I would say. But the GOP can claim the victory, and in the end, that's what really matters. There's a reason you never h ear the winning side claiming a moral victory.

Now the bad. The Senate rejected the FMA vote 49 for, 48 against, well shy of the 60 needed to take it to vote. Interestingly, the GOP, while they knew they would fail hoped to pick up on the 48 positive votes they had last time. The GOP knew that since the last vote, the dems lost 5 votes against to 5 Republicans that supported the FMA. Math says that the vote should have had 53 votes to take it to vote. But they only came up with 49. Now the math says they lost support the biggest issue facing the country today. "I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one," said Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican.

I know I go through periods of paying attention, and not really paying attention, but did we catch Binny? Is Iraq now a stable state? Is health care fixed? How about Social Security? The deficit? The War on Drugs? Oh, I know, what about the new kid on the block, immigration? Must have been a really busy week leading up to the FMA vote for it to move to the head of the class.

Jackass.

Sniff, Sniff. Ahhhh, the sweet stink of election season

It must be election season. Facing an increasingly unpopular war, unrestrained spending, the fact that after 6 years Binny is still on the loose, scandals at every turn including big issues for Rove and Cheney, W's forced...to...reach...for...the...Bat...Base...Rallier. First it was immigration, but that's kind of backfired, so it was back to the old stand-by. "Hey, look over there, gay people!" The good news is that passage of a constitutional amendment against US citizens looks to have less chance of passing then two years ago, the bad news is that the issue is still in play.

W say's, "As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity." Just not with equality.

I really hope we've weathered the storm on this issue, but you never know. Immigration wasn't on anyone's radar until the GOP made an issue out of it and gays are a much easier target. Once the Rove Hate Machine gets rolling, it's very possible that tide could turn again.

Again, I think W gets immigration (at least pre-compromise).

While I disagree with walls and guardsmen at the border, to me "protecting our borders" happens at the ports. It is the ports where most figure that something nasty will come in (here's some fun reading on how serious we are-no way anyone's getting throug THAT), I like the speeding ticket analogy.

The problem with poll politics

When you try to please everyone, you wind up pleasing no one. Take immigration. Bush is trying to appease his radical base, and fair, brilliant minds like myself. He's doing neither. Between, Malkin, "his plan is stupid" to my "his plan is stupid," one thing is becoming clear, W is a uniter afterall.

Watch his poll numbers on this (he who lives by the poll, dies by the poll). While he did have pretty words last night, by the time each side of the issue bashes him for his mollycoddling to the other side, most Americans will just remember one thing, "his plan is stupid." At least until he caves further and just focuses on enforcement.