I keep hearing the left say that Obama's problems have to do with the debts and wars he inherited. I keep hearing the right say that Obama has spent more money than all the previous presidents combined. I heard a pundit on talk radio say that Obama is like a young teenager with a seemingly endless credit card, spending the nation into a debt it can never repay, and seemingly unaware of the consequences of his expenditures, while rationalizing his payments with all the cool stuff he's getting, and how popular he is.
Which is true?
I looked up Wikianswers:
"Did Obama spend more money than all the presidents of the US combined?"
"No. But in less than two years he has doubled the federal deficit, accumulating as much debt as all preceding administrations combined."
Since Obama is only half-way through his presidency (not quite half-way through) is his spending not profligate?
It seems to me that it is, and it seems to many that this is the real reason for the Tea Party's refulgence. Just as in the American Revolution which was about the excessive taxation without representation, and led to a full-scale break with mad King George, so the revolt against Obama has been caused by his excessive spending that is moreover not aligned with what Americans want: he thinks that because he won the election he can just spend money on anything he wants.
The left says the Tea Parties are mad hatters who have no relevant concerns and are just white men mad that a black man has power. The Tea Parties say that Obama is like a drunken teenager with a credit card, and we have to get the credit card back, pay off the profligate expenditures, and get our credit rating as a nation back under control.
Isn't the Tea Party, finally, all about the money that BO is spending? This is America, and I think that in America, no one really cares about anything except money. Money is useful, and our credit rating as a nation seems to be at risk. I think this is why the Democrats are going to get kicked out in November.
Communism is expensive. Mugabe's administration has all but collapsed, as has Kim Jong-Ils, and that of Cuba. They are beginning to think again about capitalism since after all, it is how the world runs. I think the Tea Party is an attempt to sober up the administration, and get in people who are not drunk with idealism, close the borders, pay off our debts, get jobs back into the country, and begin a process of accountability that makes us solvent.
76 comments:
Kirby,
Fortunately, the questions you ask can be answered. I'll do a quick budget analysis.
There's a nice CBO graphic up on wikipedia. CBO Forecast changes for 2009-2012
It tracks the changed prediction for 2012 from a $850B surplus $1,215B deficit, assigning various causes.
It assigns the following costs to GWB's Presidency. Note that some of these are policy related, and some are historical contingency.
$290B, Early 2000 economic downturn
$673B, Tax cuts, Iraq War, Medicat Part D
$480B, 2008-9 Recession
For a total of $1,443B of the annual deficit.
It assigns the following costs to GWB programs continued by BHO
$185B, Wall Street Bailout
$232B, Iraq War, AMT patch
For a total of $417B of the annual deficit
And it assigns the following costs to programs enacted into law during the BHO Presidency
$145B, Stimulus
$56B, Obama Programs
So the contribution to the annual deficit from BHO's programs alone is an even $200B. If we assign GWB and BHO 50/50 responsibility for the middle items, we end up with $1,651B assignable to GWB, and $409B assignable to BHO. [N.B., Since 417 is not divisible by 2, I assigned 208 to GWB, and 209 to BHO, which makes GWB's numbers slightly better, and BHO's slightly worse.]
To a first approximation, there have been three issues: economic downturns (which increase the deficit primarily by reducing income) and associated interventions (e.g., the similes, and the Wall Street Bailout), adjustments to the tax code (primarily the Bush tax cuts, set to expire), and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Stu, why then is there this massive discrepancy between what the left and what the right is saying about Obama's budget?
Do you think the right is bringing in a worst case scenario with regard to what they think Obamacare is really going to cost?
Where is the divide in numbers exactly? Does it have to do with Obamacare, or is it the cost of the war, or some other split that one side attributes to W. and the other to H.?
Would you say that W and H ARE responsible for spending more between them than all the other presidents since George Washington?
Is part of the trick to not account for inflation so that the real dollar amounts of the Revolutionary War are not adjusted for inflation?
Why do we keep hearing that meme, from rather good sources, if there is no credibility to it?
Is it like the idea that Obama is a Muslim?
Is it like the idea that GWB was stupid?
That is, something one side insists upon against all evidence to the contrary, and it ends up taking on a reality of its own?
Is it something that people merely want to be believe? what is it actually based upon?
There is all this stuff that one side or the other desperately wants us to believe.
That Palin is completely nuts, and a lowlife, which she obviously isn't.
That Obama is a Muslim,which he obviously isn't (he doesn't pray five times a day, or at all, probably, and if he does, it isn't to the guy from Medina -- it's more likely to be to the girl from Ipanema).
There are all these "things that are true," like Brett's desperate belief that the Red States actually have more divorce in them (statistics can be manipulated and you know that almost everything we know is a lie).
Here's another one going around: that drinking a few drinks a day is good for you.
A better underlying argument is probably that something in red grapes is good for us, so if you drank grape juice it would have the same effect?
Kirby,
In the current budget debate, I see the right as being farther from the truth than the left.
A huge part of this is denial and special pleading. There is a denial that the Bush era tax cuts (which the right favors on the mistaken belief that revenue cuts will reduce the size of government, when it should be clear to all that only spending cuts can accomplish this) played a substantial role in moving the government from surplus to deficit. Next, consider the wars. I'd argue that we had to intervene in Afghanistan, given 9/11. Whether we intervened wisely or not is a separate question, but the fact of intervention itself must be viewed as a historical contingency. No such necessity, however, attaches to the war in Iraq, which has been by far the more expensive. The right tries very hard to conflate these wars under the heading of the "war against terror." Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no. So it denies that the financial burden of the Iraq war is a policy choice, rather than a historical contingency, and so excuses GWB for the impact of the Iraq war specifically on the deficit. The third issue is the economy. The right is quick to note the 2000 economic downturn, and plead that this was not the result of Bush's policies. I agree. But at the same time, they seem intent on hanging the 2008-9 recession on Obama.
Let me note that at some level, the response of both GWB and BHO to economic problems they inherited amounted to stimulus -- in GWB's case, via tax cuts, in BHO's case, via a temporary increase in spending. But approaches work on the same basic economic theory, which is that to get out of a deficit, more money needs to be pumped into the hands of consumers. I'd like a more detailed breakdown, but it appears that these two stimuli were of equal magnitude, although BHO faced a far worse economy than GWB. The differences in approach reflect ideological beliefs: the R's prefer private decision making, and so went with a tax cut; the D's prefer targeted interventions, and so went with deficit spending; but the underlying arithmetic is similar in both cases.
HCR seems not to be a part of this analysis. I don't know why the 2012 date was chosen (it's just what I came across). HCR doesn't kick in until 2014 in any serious way. The long-term budgetary impacts of HCR are widely debated, of course. I don't think we'll be in a position to understand whether HCR has increased or decreased the deficit until 2020 or thereabouts.
Would you say that W and H ARE responsible for spending more between them than all the other presidents since George Washington?
No. Sure, it's possible to cook the numbers (e.g., don't consider the effect of inflation, don't consider the growth of the economy) so that this is so, but clearly the US spent far more relative to its size in the Revolutionary, Civil, and Second World War. [N.B., yes, I understand that it's a bit of an oxymoron to speak of the US in the Revolutionary war, but given Hamilton's choice to assume Revolutionary war debts, I believe it is far.] There's always a tendency to believe that the events of today are somehow of greater significance historically than they actually are. The current debt/GDP ratio is still relatively low by post WWII standards, although it is worsening.
As for Brett and divorce statistics, he's correct, and simply Googling "divorce rate by state" reveals that divorce rates tend to be substantially higher in Bible-belt states than in the supposedly more libertine liberal states.
Well, I hope someone with a better head for numbers than me will jump in on this. Picklesworth is busy on his own church's budget, no doubt. Maybe George Grady will resurface, as he sometimes does, in his Yoda-like fashion, as needed. Maybe Barghest, maybe James will weigh in. I find math unappealing because it gives everyone the same answers.
I prefer that each person get their own answers.
Which, in politics, when you mix it with numbers, seems to be the case.
Because numbers become (or so it seems) another form of propaganda.
The left seems to never find that their candidates are costing the country billions, and the right always thinks it's saving the country trillions.
I rather like that, but since the two SIDES seem to always come up with similar numbers (Brett and Stu seem to find that the divorce rates are always worse in Red States even though Christians are thought to divorce less than secularists, which means that it might be secularists who are divorcing in Red States, but I don't have ten years to trace down this particular controversy).
Drink the wine, and pump the alcohol, and the economic wheels spin, and you might live longer, and you might not, nobody cares.
But I AM interested in how people explain these numbers. Thanks to Stu for his explanations.
Nope Kirby, the benefits from drinking a few glasses of alcohol a day don't matter on the kind - Wine is Better than beer, but those who drink a few a day simply live longer than those who don't.
yipyip.
A lot of people think that TARP bailouts were Obama's gig -
Look, the reason people are so wrong about stuff is a mixture of things - the news media are sucking more now than ever, and the right puts forth all sorts of ideas that are patently false.
People think that Obama has raised taxes - he hasn't. He's cut them. The only thing he's doing is talking about how he's going to let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire...
But people out there believe that their taxes have Already been cut.
Both parties play on ignorance...
And the reason I believe that the highest divorce rates are in red states is because the highest divorce rates are in red states.
"Christians are thought to divorce less than secularists"
What is thought is not what is.
HCR is being blamed for a poor business climate, in turn responsible for the 12% unemployment rate in places like Elkhart, Indiana.
I think it would help if BHO gave illegals the boot, and worked at creating a better business climate.
Instead of imposing burdens on businesses, and screaming at fat cat bankers, he should be mollycoddling successful entrepreneurs and trying to ballyhoo entrepreneurial talent, and lauding it wherever he can find it at the WH.
I don't know what he's doing.
He was tied up with the BP disaster for months, but now people claim that's over and that bacteria have eaten up all the excess oil.
Of course it's on the ocean floor in reality, and is killing a whole layer of the ecosystem, but none of the media outlets want to emphasize that. There are enough problems for the BHO administration.
My thinking is that the house and senate will change and the business climate will improve by 2012, and BHO will take credit for it, and win another four years, at the end of which the country will be nearly extinct.
I still can't explain the huge discrepancies between the Demo and the Repo realities.
Given that neither one can deliver any kind of utopia (I'll wait for the City of God for that), I just want a decent business climate, as well as law and order, and good national security.
All those things take money, but crucial is the business climate.
Kirby,
I know Elkhart. Recreational Vehicle capital of the world. The unemployment rate is driven by the cratering of the RV market. The notion that HCR is relevant is laughable. At best a convenient excuse. Try the global economic downturn, the price of fuel, and the disinvestment of state governments in parks, forests, etc.
I think this thread shows something that's kinda a general truth -
The right has ideas, and then fights to make the facts fit them (or they ignore the facts).
The left is more likely to look at the facts, and then draw conclusions therefrom.
Okay, those are generalizations - but if you replace 'right' with Kirby and 'Stu' with left, it's definitely true..
This week's Time magazine has a focus on Elkhart and how the citizens there went hogwild for BHO in 2008 and now are turning from him in droves. Oddly, they didn't mention RVs, or did so only peripherally.
I like Indiana as a test case.
I've never been there.
I don't even believe that it exists.
roads are more important than the business climate
it's really all about roads
i think that should be our foreign policy
nothing else
roads we will build roads
and nothing else
i think chief barak hussein obama noble and fearless warrior of fierce african power inveterate chieftan of the invinceble truth
purveyor of all that is good and noble in his people watchdog of a million bad moons
white stampedeing horse of heavenly dreams
hawaiian born boddhisatvah of the success of the world
doctor for our intrepid illnesses
healer of the world's wounds
king of all righteousness
lord of generosity and fairness and justice kind and dedicated leader of hearts the warrior who takes his people to the mountain and asks them to see
ah yes
barak
see he's doin this here thing where he knows he needs to like be spendin money to make money he's at least going to agree with wall street at that level but he wants discipline you see he wants the money to go where it needs to go
so it's like ablood and a oh you know like a transfusion you know just getting the blood to the right places so things can grow when it gets spread around like manure in a field
i still want him to make detroit into the train center for the 20th century...bring on the trains obama
screw those belligerent stubborn republicans
thanks stu for the budget analysis
in terms i can read
and understand
and brett for seering analysis of your own
i'm aclippidy cloppin out montana wahay
won't be back till the month of mayhay
ridin the wind west
ridin the way west
adios
jh
Kirby,
This week's Time magazine has a focus on Elkhart and how the citizens there went hogwild for BHO in 2008 and now are turning from him in droves.
I'm not surprised. Indeed, the only thing I find the least bit surprising is that the unemployment rate in Elkhart, per your claim, is only 12%. It was surely much higher than that in 2008, and any material reduction in unemployment would be a function of people moving out of the city and/or workforce, rather than jobs moving in. The RV industry is still in a bad place, and likely will be for at least five more years.
I don't doubt that people in Elkhart voted for Obama out of a desperate desire for change. And I don't doubt that they're frustrated that the change they hoped for, i.e., jobs, has not come quickly.
Oddly, they didn't mention RVs, or did so only peripherally.
If you didn't get the idea that Elkhart's economy is strongly dependent on the strength of the RV industry, you were played by the author. A big part of this is that Elkhart is in Amish country, and in particular in a swath of Amish country where furniture building is as important to the economy as farming. Those master furniture builders are the backbone of the RV industry, and they're not going anywhere. When the RV market returns, those highly skilled laborers will still be there, and they will be able to rebuild.
I like Indiana as a test case.
No doubt. Indiana is a historically "red" state, and it took a historically bad political context for the R's for my side to win in 2008. Indeed, Indiana is the one state that Nate Silver of 538 predicted incorrectly -- he thought it would go for McCain, and Obama won there by a hair. I think it is fair to claim that Indiana is the least industrialized, and least urbanized per capita of the former Union (vs. Confederate) states. [Note that Wisconsin has more forests than farms, which was the point of my "per capita": forests don't vote.]
But realistically, this is like me saying that I'd like Massachusetts as a test case -- a historically blue state that goes for an occasional red candidate. Odds are it will go back to being blue next time, and there's not much to be learned about national trends if it does.
I think what we've learned is that 2008 wasn't a realigning election, as many on my side (myself included) hoped, the magnitude of the rejection of the Republican party at that time not withstanding.
I don't even believe that it exists.
It does. I guess this is just further evidence for the general disconnect between your beliefs and objective truth :-), per Brett's thesis.
And actually, I'd quibble a bit with Brett: the right has beliefs and/or ideologies, but I'm not so sure that I'd credit the contemporary right with having ideas. The distinction here is that "idea" to my mind has a whiff of originality, or at least newness. Simply believing the same old stuff, evidence not withstanding, does not constitute having an idea.
Consider GWB and tax cuts. Sure, it can be argued (as I did above, for the sake of showing how ridiculous the right's arguments about Obama's supposed profligacy are) that GWB tax cuts were intended as stimulus. But the underlying reality was that tax cuts were a fixed idea for GWB -- it was his fiscal prescription for all economic states, and the "stimulus" argument was simply a way of justifying that prescription in the context of a recession. Note here that a "fixed idea" is not an "idea," but rather is a euphemism for a primary motivating ideology.
Stu, the writer of the article is someone named Michael Scherer. I don't know his tendency, or whether or how he'd want to play the reader. I felt the article was fairly even-handed, even though it's called Mr. Unpopular (September 13, 2010, Time Magazine, pp. 30-33).
The article opens,
"The Barack Obama that most Hoosiers remember voting for can still be found on YouTube. He stands before a cheering Elkhart high school gymnasium in August 2008, tireless, aspirational, promising a new America of jobs and hope. 'We can choose another future,' says the newcomer with the funny name. 'So I ask you to join me.'"
It goes on to discuss an employment fair 12 miles west of Elkhart.
"With the unemployment rate above 12% and rising again this summer, about a third of the employer display tables stood empty. Julie Griffin, who voted for Obama in '08, sat down at the room's edge, well dressed and discouraged. After 23 years as a payroll administrator at a local RV plant, she got laid off 18 months ago. 'Really, what has he been doing?' she said when I asked about Obama's efforts to help people like her. 'I guess I don't know what he's doing.'"
There's your RV question, right up and straightforward, and it comes up again later in the article, I realized.
I'll put just a bit on that later.
"When Obama arrived in office in January '09, his Gallup approval rating stood at 68%, a high for a newly elected leader not seen since John Kennedy in 1961. Today Obama's job approval has been hoverin ghte mid-40s, which means that at least 1 in 4 Americans has changed his or her mind. The plunge has been particularly dramatic among independents, whites and those under age 30."
So part of the article is an attempt to understand this shift of perspective, with particular emphasis on the situation on the ground in Elkhart (maybe the writer has something to do with Elkhart).
Part of the problem is that the same people Obama turned out in record numbers (people under 30, especially the very young, "had suffered the most from the recession,") are now turned off to Obama's politics, because they perceive that he has hurt them.
"Back in Indiana, the evidence of Obama's political failure is particularly glaring. During his early, heady days in office, the President decided to make Elkhart a personal cause. A once thriving manufacturing center of 50,000 on the Michigan-Indiana border, famous for its musical instruments and recreational vehicles, the Elkhart region saw the steepest jump in unemployment of any metropolitan area in the nation during the economic crisis" (33).
"He's not what I voted for," said Matthew, who runs a plastic-injection-molding shop in town. "It's a shame that they led us to believe one thing," said Frances, "and then everything changes."
The perception that the article is trying to convey is that Obama's numbers are down, because people who wanted his upbeat message to turn into a personal economic uplift feel betrayed. The numbers are down among every part of his constituency.
Most want tax cuts, but Obama prefers to to dole out money as government investments, perhaps so that he can be personally responsible for shots in specific economic arms. Polls have consistently shown that most people don't want "government spending solutions for the economy" (32).
the good news is that Obama's numbers aren't much further down than Clinton's at this point in his first presidency.
Maybe if he pulls back, and gets a sense that he's going too far, he can get back to some kind of higher ground before the next election.
It seems that most people are thinking about the economy.
"Like Obama, Reagan was facing rising discontent at the midterm, driving by huge unemployment numbers that peaked at 10.8% at year's end. But as the economy rebounded, Reagan's governing philosophy, 'Stay the course," was vindicated. He won relection by an enormous margin" (33).
So, who knows.
Elsewhere in Time Magazine, British Prime Minister Tony Blair weighs in on Bush and Obama, and says they are both smart, steely characters. He says about Bush:
"George Bush was straightforward and direct. And very smart. One of the most ludicrous caricatures of George is that he was a dumb idiot who stumbled into the presidency. No one stumbles into that job, and the history of American presidential campaigns is littered with political corpses of those who were supposed to be brilliant but who nonetheless failed because brilliance is not enough. to succeed in US politics -- or in the UK -- you certainly have to be clever, otherwise you will be eaten alive; but you have to be more than clever" (44).
"Then there is Barack Obama, who stepped into the aftermath of the financial crisis and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. .... The personal character, however, is clear: this is a man with steel in every part of him. .... He is under no illusions as to the scale of the economic or security challenge and, in his own way, every bit as tough as George" (44).
I've been listening to the political debates between left and right for the last ten years, and thought: most of the people who think W is dumb have to themselves be dumb, and therefore if they think H. is smart, they must be wrong, he must be dumb.
But here is Blair saying they are both smart, and both tough. This made me feel better about Obama. I think he reads W.'s character correctly, so it may be that he also reads H.'s character correctly.
It allowed me to take a deep breath.
Blair also goes on to tell a heart-warming story of A Jewish woman who kept her US citizenship papers locked in a safe, because they were the most precious things she had, and he felt that that is how US citizens should feel about their country, and their papers.
It's nice to hear this from a European.
I wanted to open another conversation. About walls.
Finland's eastern border with Russia had an enormous wall (built under Stalin, I think). No one got over this wall. Well, maybe some did, but there were dogs, electricity, and landmines, in addition to the wall itself, and few got over.
Finland's eastern border must be at least as long as the Mexican border.
If not longer.
Walls do work.
Israel has walls, and they work. The Israelis are basically not having to worry about th ePalestinians, an another article says.
The Berlin Wall did work, too, right?
Walls work.
Why does Obama refuse to build a wall? Is it just the Hispanic vote? That's the meme that keeps coming up.
Brett--
That certainly doesn't hold true wrt hard sciences.
o yeah
i guess we did the 20th century already
fast trains
that's what will save the country
fast trains
let's hire the french and
the japanese
and make all kinds of work for the hispanics
and anyone who wants to work
a big train works project
shut down some of the airports
trains train trains
that will cure the country
i think a big great wall of north america project would put a lot of people to work
we need to build something in north america that can be seen from outer space
but i do believe they should start making designer walls walls that really look sharp long walls made of brick and stone and interesting wood designs classy walls walls that make you stand back and say whoa hey that's one beautiful big wall
thing about walls is that the pole vault is placed into the equation as the wall extends into the fabric of our society so does the pole vaulting ability of humans to get over the wall they practice and practice and sooner or later you have all these people pole vaulting over 25 ft walls
but if you make beautifull walls perhaps the people would just build little huts nearby and sit around and admire the wall for what it is
we're all trying to get over walls of one sort or another
wall eyes
jh
stu, some of "same old stuff" includes the administration's dubious claims for the efficacy of the Keynesian multiplier model of government spending (i.e., Team Obama's claims that one dollar spent = one and a half dollars generated income for the economy) as a cure for the current economic contraction.(Not to mention the even more dubious administration "pie-in-the-sky" claims about "jobs saved or created," and there's nothing new in politicians' making unverifiable claims about bogus achievements) According to this view, redirecting money from the private economy to the public sector for government spending projects (like payoffs to support unsustainable union pension funds) "stimulates" demand and consumer spending and thus leads to business expansion. But this view fails the test both in practise and theory, according to economists like Robert J Barro of Harvard, who've studied the want of historical evidence for such claims and styled them as "voodoo economics." On the contrary, says Barro (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258618204604599.html), we should be reducing marginal tax rates and even eliminate the federal corporate income tax to obtain a true multiplier effect on GDP for our stagnant economy.
Elimination of the federal corporate income tax (in favour of an 8 1/2% "business consumption tax") is also one of a host of new proposals in Congressman Paul Ryan's "Roadmap" for economic growth and stability (for a cursory look at it, see "http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0913/outfront-economy-taxes-obama-ryan-highlights-of-ryanism.html). While I haven't studied his proposals in detail, there are definitely some new and interesting ideas there, stu, and certainly newer than the Keynesian multiplier model.
Kirby,
Some miscellaneous reactions.
1) The article may seem even handed, but I do see a bias (at least in the fragments you've shared). Clearly, the author wants to use the local situation in Elkhart to exemplify what he sees as a national trend. But if this is indeed his intent, I think he owes it to his readers to talk about ways that Elkhart is atypical. And I'd identify the following factors: (1) Indiana is an (R+5) Republican state, (2) Elkhart is more of a one-industry town than Detroit, and it's one core industry has been hit harder than the automotive industry, and (3) its very large and visible Amish population.
I'd have been much happier with an example drawn from state in the D+1 to R+1 PVI range, e.g., Iowa (D+1), Colorado (0), or Ohio (R+1). I'd have been happier with a town choice where there was not a single dominating industry. These are not heavy constraints, and the author should have had little difficulty finding a local situation which better exemplifies national trends.
To put this in a context you might find comprehensible, Washington is a D+5 state, which is to say that it is as Democratic as Indiana is Republican. How impressed would you be with an article that talks about how well Obama has retained his popularity with Seattleites? And presented them without comment as a model of the typical US voter? Wouldn't you think this was a bit of a special case?
2) I find the Blair assessment of GWB and BHO to be interesting. I'm a bit taken aback that Blair had nothing to say (or at least, you didn't report him as having anything to say) about the extent to which the evidence was bent in the run-up to the Iraq war, and how this affects his assessment of GWB's character. This was a major issue in the UK. Like you, I've also taken the part of his testamony that I like (in my case, his assessment of BHO) as a reason to reconsider the character I don't.
3) As for walls. Do we really want to be using East German and Stalinist Russia as our models? This is what you're proposing, just in case you haven't noticed. Part of the deal here is that the walls in question would work in very different ways. The communist walls were heavily manned (at least in urban areas) by cheap conscripts, with cleared fields of fire and shoot to kill orders. There is no doubt this can be effective, but at what cost? We have a very long border with Mexico, there are no internal transportation barriers in Mexico (so we'd have to defend the entire length of the border), the cost to our government of training, equipping, feeding, sheltering, and paying a soldier is much more than the cost was to the USSR, and we're not about to provoke international outrage by routinely murdering the citizens of a neighboring state. Note that the USSR and GDR were really only murdering their own citizens, something that is generally speaking much easier for nation-states to get away with.
I won't get into the Israeli walls here, except to make the point that the Israeli walls are not intended to be defensive, whatever the Israelis might say in public.
The Finnish-Russian border is about 1300 kilometers in length:
se2.isn.ch/serviceengine/Files/ESDP/92091/.../EB89D515.../wp57.pdf
There is more on the border here. Once in conversation in Finland someone told me that the border had an enormous fence on the Russian side, to prevent people from getting out -- somewhat like the Berlin wall.
I never saw it.
There are probably photos of it, but I am not sure if this wall or fence still exists.
The Mexican American border is about 3000 kilometers. I understand that 700 miles of the border is already walled.
Which means that more than half of it doesn't have a fence or wall?
The Soviet Union built an enormous system of walls to keep people in.
It is now called the Russian Federation, and the borders are more porous. I went to Russia in 1998, and found the experience very unpleasant. Guard dogs on the train were sniffing for drugs (dogs have an amazing ability to smell minute things -- their noses flap shut which keeps in their elaborate nostrils what they have just smelled, while they can still breathe).
I don't know how many escapees got from the Soviet Union into Finland over that border back in the day (before 1991, when the USSR crumbled and began to become the Russian Federation).
But it wasn't many.
In Finland the Russian population was estimated at about 30,000 in 1998 (I have this number in my head from some guidebook somewhere that I've probably put in storage).
Most of these were relatively wealthy Russians, and Russians who had managed to marry a Finn (good-looking Russian women were marrying many hard-up Finnish men back in the day as a mode of escape from the USSR, much as it still is a mode of escape today).
At any rate, part of the meme with Obama is that he doesn't want the border closed with Mexico. Most in the southern states do want it closed, and Arizona passed a law that closed it, but Obama immediately wanted it opened, and filed suit.
Arizona has complained that they are spending 700 million dollars educating illegal children for which they are not remunerated. Kidnapping, etc., is a common practice now in Arizona where cartels steal children and get ransom payments.
Finland had a much better border than this, so never had much problems with the Russians. There are 1800 Finnish border agents who continue to monitor the border.
If a little country like Finland with a population of 5.4 million can monitor their border with horrible Russia, then we can do it with horrible Mexico.
But Obama wants votes. But doesn't this mean that he loses a lot of other votes? If he gets the Hispanic vote but loses white and black votes, does he gain appreciably in numbers, or lose?
Has Obama lost all political sense, or does he have some canny steely notion in mind?
One of the funny things about the Finnish-Russian border is that Finns could go across the border and buy Finnish goods at half the price they'd pay in Finland (back before the collapse -- now the prices in Russia are creeping up again).
What good does it do to keep the border open with Mexico? It's something I don't understand.
Every country needs to guard its borders. Why doesn't Obama want the Arizona border guarded, or monitored?
Why didn't Bush do anything either?
why does McCain flip-flop on this issue?
Stu, yes, my only point is that walls can and do work. The ethical problems of machine gun nests, guard dogs, land mines, heavy voltage, and perhaps the aesthetics -- is another matter.
I know we don't want to be using Stalinist models, but I would note that Stalinist models worked.
The Finnish side of the border still works, even post-glasnost, and is being used as a model for the entire EU border with the Russian Federation.
The eastern part of Finland that was smack up against the wall suffered because of the lack of economic penetration during the USSR period. Now things are moving better, apparently, and that's good for both sides, and creates friendliness.
Russian mafia really hasn't penetrated the border area much. I think this has a lot to do with the Finnish character (there is no underworld of criminality in Finland for the Russian mafia to connect with, or to do business with).
Speaking Finnish is almost impossible, and it presents another wall of a certain kind. It's apparently as hard to learn to speak as Chinese.
To really assimilate into Finland means having to learn to speak Finnish. Some did manage this.
I could say simple things, read headlines, and even have short conversations, but I would never get to the point of comfort with the language, I think, even if that's all I did.
English presents a smaller border with regard to those coming from elsewhere. We listen from consonant to consonant, and so it's ok to mangle a vowel in English (five in the deep south is pronounced with a soft a, as fav, while in the north it's f-eye-v, and yet we can all understand).
Mangle a vowel in Finnish, and you are saying your mother in law is a naked owl. Vowels determine everything, and I couldn't even distinguish the different vowels (they have four or five we haven't got).
In France, too, where I'm much better, they listen from vowel to vowel, and you have to get it just right or you annoy the heck out of everybody because you are simply incomprehensible.
I don't know why the author chose Indiana for his case study. I don't like it because it's a Republican state, but because I don't know anything about it, and because I read that strange book about Brown County a few months back.
As for the WMD, these are excerpts from Blair's new memoir.
I don't know if Blair believes that there was WMD, but it was hidden (it might be that the stories of centrifuges were true?), or that he thinks we've all moved on.
Or was he possibly in on the ruse?
The reasons for the Iraq war I think had something to do with surrounding Iran with democratic regimes. This may have backfired. But I think that that's the real reason, but it's a national goal that I don't think GWB wants to talk about.
The idea was to flip the entire Islamic world from a 12th century viewpoint to a 21st century viewpoint, so that we can do business with them, and get past this Islamofascist thing.
That said, there were strategic reasons to invade Iraq that had nothing to do with Iraq but had everything to do with Iran.
There have been some spontaneous uprisings within Iran.
Had McCain been in the WH, he would have stood with the students, and perhaps seen it as a reason for intervention and perhaps we would have had throughout the Islamic world the equivalent of the caving in of the communist regimes in the early 90s.
Then, the whole world could have moved forward peacably toward universal human rights and pluralism.
Obama balked, and backed the Ayatollahs, or at least said so little, that they tightened their grip, and now continue to build up WMD.
That said, I don't think many Americans care about Islamic countries or what's going on there.
They just want a good job that offers a decent retirement package, as well as a modicum of safety within our borders.
That Blair thinks Obama is up to this job helped me breathe better.
To Brett,
I think Stu and I both believe in God. Therefore, neither one of us is beginning with facts. We are both beginning with God -- who I think we'd both agree cannot be proven at least in positivist terms.
(Can anything?)
What we think about the world frames facts (this is basic).
Stu wants originality and novelty.
I want to be more conservative, and to stick with the Ten C's, and other Judeo-Christian values that have worked, and to stay the Course.
I want norms.
Even in Darwinism, norms work, while novelty and originality doesn't (generally speaking).
I'm against any kind of freak show, or leaving aside the norms that God has given us (and that St. Paul and others clarified for us).
I think it's still possible to be friends with people who think otherwise. Otherwise, what would we have to laugh about, or joke about, or kid each other about?
Plus, I have a policy, like Reagan, of constructive engagement with people who I think are basically wrong, but who I still basically like (even though they are dead and obviously wrong).
I enjoy discussing things with people who think unlike how I do, because now and then I learn something new, and that's fun. Learning is the best of all things, Aristotle said somewhere. I would have to agree!
You can only sharpen your awareness of the elephants in the room by talking to the other blind men, and seeing what they think it is.
Even if walls, for instance, have a bad reputation and remind us of the USSR, the Finnish side of the wall continues to exist, and Newsweek says that Finland is the best country in the world.
Part of that is a sensible immigration policy, and a good fence with the Russian Federation (if they let those corrupt freaks in, Finland would be Russian in about two weeks, and would lose their status as the best of all countries).
I don't know if the Finnish side has dogs and landmines, or whether they use less sensitive modes to maintain their border.
We should study their border system, and perhaps use it to defend ourselves from the Mexican push to capture American through illegal immigration.
Kirby, of course stu's likening a wall on the Mexican border to those on the old Soviet or East German/East Berlin borders with free-fire zones is absurd. And as you allude, the purpose of such a wall-fence-sensor-protected barrier is to keep illegals out, not to keep citizens in on penalty of death.
Hoo, boy. This has become a busy thread.
1) Sorry about the double post. I nuked the old version, but apologize as well for the detritus.
2) JADL -- yes, Keynesian economic multipliers are an old idea. I remember learning about them in a mandatory high school econ class a very long time ago. I don't doubt you can find economists who doubt the Keynesian argument behind the stimulus, just as you can find scientists who will advocate creationism. But keep in mind that GWB advanced Keynesian multiplier arguments in the context of making the tax cuts. Indeed, GWB claimed a multiplier of 3, per the google beast. If the Keynesian argument made sense then, it makes sense now, and conversely, modulo quibbles about the actual multiplier value (note that these are actually quibbles about savings rates and monetary velocity). In that regard, a nominal multiplier of 1.5 seems pretty modest, as this amounts to an effective savings rate of 67%, and that seems pretty high even in this economy. [Note here that "savings" in the current economy is tantamount to debt repayment, and I'm assuming infinite velocity for the sake of computational simplicity.]
3) Kirby, walls.
The Mexican American border is about 3000 kilometers. I understand that 700 miles of the border is already walled.
Which means that more than half of it doesn't have a fence or wall?
Right. And this has been the case forever.
If a little country like Finland with a population of 5.4 million can monitor their border with horrible Russia, then we can do it with horrible Mexico.
Not necessarily. Finns are very homogeneous, and their language is a pain. A typical Russian will speak exactly no Finnish, and will stick out like a sore thumb. They don't need a fence, they just need ears. Whereas, the US (especially the regions that were formerly a part of Mexico) have always been at bilingual (at least). An inability to speak English doesn't prove that you don't belong.
4) Kirby, Iraq.
The reasons for the Iraq war I think had something to do with surrounding Iran with democratic regimes. This may have backfired. But I think that that's the real reason, but it's a national goal that I don't think GWB wants to talk about.
Exactly right. And the reason he didn't want to talk about it is that it is not a legal cause for war.
5) JADL, walls. I didn't raise the East German and Russian walls, Kirby did. I was noting that they're absurd models, just as you are. So whether you intended it or not, you're agreeing with me and disagreeing with Kirby. Maybe you want to go back and review the bidding?!
Kirby,
Your 2:32 comment deserves a separate reply.
First off, I was a bit uncomfortable with Brett's claim:
The left is more likely to look at the facts, and then draw conclusions therefrom.
Okay, those are generalizations - but if you replace 'right' with Kirby and 'Stu' with left, it's definitely true..
I appreciate the vote of confidence, of course, but I recognize that I approach the world with prior beliefs, just like everyone else. If there is a difference, it is just the healthy skepticism that a scientist has for all "truth." We need to be open minded, and we need to be willing to abandon beliefs (even particularly dear and deeply held ones) in the face of adequate adverse evidence.
So, yeah, I approach the world with both a belief in God, and the knowledge that this belief rests on personal experiences and relationships, rather than publicly accessible and reproducible observations.
Stu wants originality and novelty.
First and foremost, I want the truth. My understanding of "the truth" is, trivial contexts excepted, our ability to grasp "the truth" is at best approximate. Thus, better approximations to the truth are always dependent on originality and/or novelty.
Even in Darwinism, norms work, while novelty and originality doesn't (generally speaking).
Right. But it is the exceptions that drive evolution, and which have made life so rich and varied.
No, Kirby, it's just that when it comes to politics, Stu uses Two Kingdoms thinking, and you don't...
I think I do, but I basically get rid of the other kingdom, and postpone it to the next, while Stu for reasons I haven't understood thinks that we are under the compulsion to try to act in a decent way in this world. We're actually only called to act in a lawful way in this world.
You can act saintly if you like, but the government can't be saintly, and when it tries to be saintly, it screws itself up. It should just maintain the law.
Anyone who goes further is betraying the national trust.
This is wrong.
Any president for instance who doesn't maintain the borders is a jerk. I recognize that Bush and Obama are alike in this regard, and that McCain flipflops.
None of them understand the public trust.
When Obama and Biden applauded the Mexican president for saying that they had a right to illegally emigrate to America, I thought those two should be arrested and tried for sedition or put into a reeducation camp for traitors, and if they didn't get it, have their citizenship stripped.
If this were ancient Athens, they would have been banned from the city for life.
I don't understand all the pussyfootin'.
Law is law.
A wall would help the border patrols. People should also carry identification.
Anyone who says this country belongs to Mexico (or that any part of it does) should be stripped of their citizenship, and sent back to Mexico. Even if they were born here.
Or something legal should be done. Laws should be passed if they are not already in place.
If you're an American, and your primary allegiance is not to America, you should not be a public official because you've broken your oath. That should go all the way down to kindergarten teachers.
Anyone who teaches the superiority of another culture, or another nation, should lose their positions. It's ok to do this on your private time, but you shouldn't be allowed to do it in your official capacity.
Arizona to its credit did disallow this.
Arizona and Brewer are on the right page.
Obama and Bush have both been traitors, and should be in a reeducation camp.
I think Sarah Palin gets it.
She's not ashamed to drape herself in the American flag.
People should go and live elsewhere for a year, and if they don't like this place better, they should stay there.
Oh, and anyone who says they are ashamed of this country should be deported to Zimbabwe.
stu, likening economists who challenge the Keynesian multiplier effect to natural scientists who are creationists is glibly thin--presumably that also includes the 250 academic economists who signed a petition publised by the Cato Institute against the now-failed big stimulus proposal at the beginning of the year--including at least two Nobel Prize winners. Sure.
James, if it weren't for you, I might feel I was crazy. Thanks to you, I know I am sane.
Thank you for your help.
Brett and Stu have been hitting me with a tag-team for about three days, and I'm dizzied.
It helped that Stu backed off a bit, and said that Brett had gone too far. But I still felt nuts.
The funny thing about Stu is that he does use elbows, but they're hidden down in his logic in such a way that they're hard to call.
Thanks for doing the flying wedge with me. I like how you can play the numbers game.
I think the numbers always lie.
In the most recent round, Stu admitted that paradigms come first, and then said that he's only interested in the truth. My head spun twice trying to follow the logic.
If the paradigm comes first then we can't help but see all numbers through that prism.
It's interesting to me though that Stu was equally moved by Blair's admission that he liked both of the last two presidents.
It was a healing moment.
Many Americans think all the English hate us and look down on us. As do the French.
But Blair likes us, as does Sarkozy.
Sarkozy is now in trouble for pushing the gypsies out of France. He's being compared to Hitler.
Everything ends up as "you're Hitler."
"No, you're Hitler."
"No, you."
Having an immigration policy and sticking to it, is not Hitlerian.
I think it's also good that Sarkozy is making the Muslims not wear Burkhas. This helps the moderate Muslims out of the dark ages.
How is it that this crisis has suddenly gotten so far toward the forefront of our miseries?
Is it just because there's nothing else right now, and the blasted communists are finally done with everywhere but at Penn State and in North Korea?
Or is there really some new push from the Islamic world and Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban?
What exactly has made this whole mess such a priority?
Islam is a human rights disaster. If Obama was Reagan, he'd say this. But he speaks in euphemism, and ducks hard questions. In many ways, he was like Bush.
Bush went into Iraq without the law on his side.
Obama is using drones inside of Pakistan.
It's like we have two presidents who don't understand the law, or use it to their own ends.
I personally didn't like the dimpled chads.
I don't like the crummy appointments of the new cad, either.
It's like something is falling apart.
People keep saying to me but that doesn't mean you like Palin, does it?
I don't know. Is Palin for real? Does she have authentic principles, or will she just grandstand in public and run all kinds of illegal and semilegal activities behind everyone's back?
I want a person with actual principles in office.
Someone like George Washington or Lincoln, please.
Do we still have people like that in America?
JADL,
likening economists who challenge the Keynesian multiplier effect to natural scientists who are creationists is glibly thin
No, James, it is kind. These same economists applauded the supposed Keynesian multiplier of 3 for the Bush tax cuts. For them to deny it now is simply dishonest.
Look, most economists are Repubican -- it's a selection effect, just like most English Profs are Democrats. There are exceptions: Kirby and Austan come to mind. But they are exceptions. What I see here is a triumph of partisanship over scholarly integrity. I.e., dishonesty. If you think otherwise, point me to any of these 250 economists who objected to the Bush tax cuts on the same ground.
stu, as for the walls issue--in reviewing the "bidding," as you call it--Kirby didn't advocate ("I know we don't want to be using Stalinist models," he says) using lethal communist methods of border control, but more effective ones, including a wall. I agree.
So what's your proposal for securing our borders, then? Or is this just some footnote in the Obamaite dream of world redistribution of wealth and the prospect of a permanent Democratic political hegemony?
Kirby, I think Sarah Palin a good publicist and populariser for conservative ideas, but perhaps not the best candidate for president in 2012. Surely we can come up with a more electable (and delectable) candidate to beat the Obama hope-and-change (yeah, sure) gang by then. Let's hope, huh?
Palin is a quitter, opportunist, and a professional taker of the victim-stance.
She may have other positive qualities, but those are two easily supported claims.
She does a good job of saying 'I'm the victim, just like you guys are the victims!' Of the media, Alaska, McCain campaign, etc. -
Our righties have taken the outdated RGC tactic of playing the victim, and it's going well for them.
I wish they'd just pull themselves up by the bootstraps, do some research into the issues, and get a job...just stop complaining so much!
Just wanted to point out that my grandmother was born and raised about five miles north of Elkhart, Indiana, and spent most of her 90 years in or around South Bend. She wasn't Amish, but she was Pennslyvania Dutch.
If you want to see Elkhart at the beginning of the 20th century take a look at the 1902 Price Family Reunion photo on my blog. Most of Elkhart is kin to me.
More than three decades of free immigration is the price America paid for delaying Philippine independence until 1937, when it was clear Japan had all the air and naval power it would need to scoop the Philippines up at will.
The Project for the New American Century in Iraq bears a striking resemblance to the project for the old American century when Dewey practiced shock and awe on what was left of the Spanish galleon fleet and made America an empire.
The problem with Bush is that he used 9-11 to buy into the hare-brained PNACker's ill-advised scheme for the Middle East.
The Rio Grande is perfectly adequate as a boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. Google Earth and take a gander at Brownsville, Texas. Click on the minus button once or twice to get a little wider view. Brownsville is all still ranches, parks, golf courses, watered lawns and haciendas. Now look south of the river at Matamoros. Don't tell me there aren't any jobs in Mexico.
Ninety percent of the population of Brownsville is Hispanic or Latino. The population increased from about 25,000 in 1970 to something substantially over 100,000 in 2010. The population of Matamoros is nearly half a million.
It's all one city. The landed gentry live north of the river in the U.S.; the working poor live south of the river in Mexico.
JADL,
So what's your proposal for securing our borders, then? Or is this just some footnote in the Obamaite dream of world redistribution of wealth and the prospect of a permanent Democratic political hegemony?
Let me say that I'm skeptical of static defenses. You'll remember the Maginot line, I'm sure, and see that my skeptism isn't mere partisan posturing.
As I see matters today, the D's are insisting that there should be a path to citizenship for individuals who are illegal, but who have proven themselves to be productive members of their communities, and the R's are insisting otherwise. So there's an impasse, even though both sides believe that the status quo is unacceptable. Do you believe the facts to be otherwise? This is not an issue about whether or not the Democratic caveat (or the Republican refusal to accept it) is reasonable.
My belief is that the Democratic caveat is reasonable, and moreover it is in our national interest. Moreover, I believe that static defenses (i.e., the wall) are always going to lose in the long run. [I'm reminded in this of a comment on sci.military.naval, that sailors in battleships confronted with 8" pentrators "might try prayer" as a defense, because those 5" AA guns and 16" armored decks aren't going to make any difference at all.] People are just too clever, and Mexicans are people too. And once one person figures out a way to defeat the wall, the jig is up. "Information wants to be free," to repeat a Slashdot mantra.
The right solution is to engineer an increase in Mexican income that removes the incentive to immigrate illegally. Do I know how to do this? No. But I know that "the wall" is an expensive "solution" that doesn't actually solve the problem, and therefore it is not fiscally responsible. So who here is fiscally conservative? Not you.
Your serve, sir.
JADL,
tu, as for the walls issue--in reviewing the "bidding," as you call it--Kirby didn't advocate ("I know we don't want to be using Stalinist models," he says) using lethal communist methods of border control, but more effective ones, including a wall. I agree.
Right. After I made the point that this was exactly what he was doing.
SAK, 1:03PM:
Do we really want to be using East German and Stalinist Russia as our models?
Kirby, 2:00PM:
I know we don't want to be using Stalinist models, but I would note that Stalinist models worked.
Kirby's claim that "walls work" was justified only by citing Russian, East German, and Israeli models, even after being challenged on exactly this point. I blew up all three as unworkable in the US/Mexico context. Kirby's concession (which you quoted only in part) acknowledged this. We're left with nothing but an unsubstantiated hope that walls might work. This is very different from your claim. Or do you have evidence (that does not depend on Stalinist models) that walls work? If so, bring it forward.
Brett, if the major media "hitsters" could just accuse Sarah Palin of witchery (beats bitchery 'n snitchery, eh?)--considering the time they waste gabbling on now about Christine O'Donnell's teenage dabbling interest in it--what a coup! I read a typical hit-piece this morning on O'Donnell by some smarmy punk called Stephen Stromberg of WaPo that faintly gestures towards excusing youthful indiscretions in general BUT leaves no doubt at the end what impression (well, prejudice) he wants his readers to have about O'Donnell "when a politician's indiscretions fit into a broader narrative about his or her unsuitability for office, as they do in O'Donnell's case."
This ties in well with his hackery ('r quackery, 'r wackery) on Sarah Palin in a little pulpy puppy pile he served up last year in publicly grieving about Palin, who "publicly nurses an unjustified sense of grievance," but really who's "just in it for the money and the fame -- and whatever influence she can wield." Maybe he thinks this sort of stuff will get him into covens like the Journolisters where the real political toxins flow.
stu, I don't think accusations of dishonesty, partisanship, and abandonment of scholarly integrity against such a large number of economists (including at least three Nobel Prize winners, and, in your own U of Chicago economics department, five--John Cochrane, Christopher Culp, Eugene Fama, Michael Gibbs, and Sam Peltzman) are convincing.
Robert J Barro of Harvard (not listed on the Cato Institute petition mentioned above) has published specific studies on the multiplier effect that differentiate between its operant effect in government spending and in marginal rate tax cuts. His studies indicate that tax cuts are generally more efficacious than targeted government spending.
Of course there's a difference in economic ideology between economists of the right and left (best example of the latter may be the brazen name-calling partisanship of Paul Krugman, whose honesty seems literally "untempered" by discretion). At any rate, Cato has published a short article on economists' petitions and the ideological divide among economists here:
"http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12152"
I thought perhaps this evidence might temper your occasional claims that "most economists . . ." (i.e., agree with me and other liberals, though you'll probably bring in a few crack-brained academic strays and claim they represent legitimate dissent . . .).
Hm.
A candidate for 2012.
Well, there's really no way to get around the fact that the Republicans are going to run a woman.
Or at least that more than one woman will run in the primaries.
I think Jim's right--Palin's a non-starter. So who do we have remaining?
Jan Brewer
She'll play well with the anti-immigration crowd, but her signature of the Arizona law won't play well in the general election.
Judy Martz
Fun, funny, and solidly conservative BUT lots of skeletons. Probably a no.
Linda Lingle
She's Jewish, she's from Hawaii, she's conservative, and she's been divorced twice. So she's a no from the Dobson-wing of the party but a yes from the neo-cons. She'd be an interesting choice for sure.
Jodi Rell
A solid governor with a record that will appeal to moderates, Rell's a good choice, if she wants it. The fact that she's not running for re-election this year may be a hint.
Lisa Murkowski
A long shot, since she lost her bid but if she's someone who considered a libertarian run she can probably ride the tea party wave.
Susan Collins
A moderate republican, she might have a time hurdling the tea party. The fact that she's unmarried will raise eyebrows. Still, however, electable with moderates.
Kay Bailey Hutchinson
If the US can stomach another president from Texas, she'd be a good choice. I don't see it though.
Who else can run under the R ticket?
GM, this is a neat list of women. I didn't know most of them, and just googled through. Of this group, I liked Jodi Rell best. I hadn't ever heard of her, but liked that she has reinstituted the death penalty in Connecticut.
I think the death penalty should be much more commonly used.
Again, thanks for the list.
Do you think we absolutely have to have a woman?
Is there any chance that Condoleeza Rice would run?
Romney is a pretty good candidate.
Huckabee won the south hands down. He's not as telegenic as Romney (especially now that he's turning into Humpty Dumpty again) but he's funny as heck when he wants to be, which is folksy.
I think the better humorist has a huge advantage.
Obama can be funny.
We need someone funnier.
Huckabee is far funnier than Obama.
I think any Republican who's pro-choice is a bad choice. I personally want abortion to remain legal, but I think it's always a bad thing to do it (although it may be the lesser of two evils in some cases such as in rape).
Here's my list of wants:
I want someone who wants a very strong wall along the Rio Grande.
I want someone who is pro-America, but can speak at least one other language.
I want someone who can read and write and speak.
I want someone who looks nice on television (you have to look at them for four years at least).
I want someone who can use a normal tone of voice and doesn't hector when speaking. (I can't stand Obama's preachy quality, and really liked W.s normal speaking voice.)
I want someone with a sense of humor: a good warm sense of humor.
I want someone with business and military experience. I think they are both important in running this country.
I want someone who cares about universal human rights, but who won't intervene in other countries and get nuclear missile exchanges going -- at least not on a daily basis.
I want someone with good posture.
I would like someone with modest habits. I don't want to read about lobster dinners, or expensive trips with a hundred advisors to Spain (for instance).
I don't want anybody with a serious drug habit, or anybody whose wife or husband has same. I would like a Protestant, preferably a Lutheran.
I would like someone with a consonant as the last letter of their last name, preferably an -n.
I would like someone who has read Shakespeare and understood it.
I want someone who is on the side of the Jews in all things, but won't unnecessarily aggravate the Arab world.
Can play golf, but doesn't do it all the time when there are disasters afoot.
Can speak in clear sentences and I know what he or she is talking about.
Believes in stronger jail sentences for all crimes, and believes in the death penalty for perpetual offenders.
Wants a strong military, and a strong espionage system.
Will try to pass laws against trade with countries like China that perpetuate human rights abuses both inside and outside their country.
(Should be on the side of the Tibetans.)
Some of the people who have brought up who I liked have included Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney. I would vote for any Republican including Sarah Palin, but would prefer someone who doesn't go blank when tossed a hard question.
The left will try to kill any Republican candidate, so this person has to be very quick on their feet, mentally speaking. Huckabee, for instance, can deflect and turn just about any question. Giuliani could, too, but his last name ends in a vowel.
Huckabee also ends in a vowel. I guess I have serious misgivings about vowel endings. They just sound ridiculous to my ear.
Rice is ok. Her name ends in a vowel, but it's a silent vowel, which I think is ok.
stu, I agree with Kirby that we should continue work on the long wall on the border with Mexico (but fat chance 'til the Obama presidency is done). If it continues to reduce illegal immigration (the US Border Patrol avers that the present 650 mile wall, "virtual" fences, and barriers have cut illegal traffic by one-quarter in 2009), then good. And if so, then we'll certainly also reduce the heavy social service, medical, prison, and other economic costs of illegal immigration by continuing to build it, as well as better protect our own citizens.
One legal measure that may have aided the Mexican economy is the NAFTA treaty that permits an increased sale of legal Mexican goods in the US. But what we don't need to abide are Mexican politicians' and officials' endless complaints about our heretofore half-hearted attempts to enforce our national borders.
The Maginot Line, in comparison, as a line of fortresses to deter a direct assault by an invading land army (as it did, whereas the Germans outflanked it by invading through neutral Belgium) is hardly applicable in this case. But perhaps you were only jesting.
A viable comparison is the Israeli wall, which seems to be working well in preventing car-bomb terrorists from perpetrating massacres of innocent Israelis. Even liberal "Time" mag (I'd say "rag") editor Richard Stengel had to lament over its success: "[The Israelis] haven't had a car bombing in two and a half years and the sad truth, really, is that the wall with the West Bank has actually worked." The "sad" truth that Israeli lives have been protected or saved from terrorist outrages. Right.
Also, the GERMAN ARMY was an ENTIRE ARMY, and had all the resources of the GERMANY ARMY -- tanks, maps, etc., and had no intention of following immigration law.
Individuals are different than armies and lack those resources, and can in fact be dealt with by law enforcement. BO doesn't want Arizona to deal with the issue, apparently, because he wants Hispanic votes.
But the cost-benefit ratio is going to go the other way. People are very fed up with this president partially because they see him as so partial, and so self-interested.
He said he'd be everybody's president.
He's out for votes, and doesn't care about the Arizonans who are getting killed and kidnapped. He just wants votes.
Or so that's the perception.
The Maginot Line failed to take Belgium into account.
France is a hexagon, and only sealed off one side.
There were five others, that it didn't seal.
We only have one border with Mexico.
Seal it, with a wall, and dogs, and it would stop 90% of the traffic.
But maybe the Maginot Line was a joke. I wasn't certain, either.
Are you suggesting, Stu, that the French shouldn't have attempted a defense, because their defenses failed?
Should they have nationalized the German Army, and just accepted defeat?
Should America just roll over and accept defeat?
Isn't this defeatism?
Should Europe have not fought back against the Nazis? Because their armies were so good?
Are you kidding here, Stu?
Kirby and JADL,
I am serious about my distrust of static defenses. Let's put this in some perspective here. There are currently about 670 of the 2000 miles fenced. The areas that have already been fenced include areas in and around heavily urbanized areas, and around ports. The total cost of doing this was $3.6B, or about $5M/mile (note that this is a higher figure than is often cited, presumably because it includes the cost of land acquisition, rather than just the cost of construction.)
Here is my source: US-Mexico Border Fence
Working on the thesis that the Bush-era DHS chose the segments to fence based on greatest efficacy per dollar expended, it seems reasonable to posit that each additional mile of fencing will produce a smaller marginal benefit.
In the meantime, the article cited above also reports the discovery of more than 40 distinct tunnels, all of which may reasonably be assumed to be going under existing fencing. It seems reasonable to suppose that there are many other tunnels not yet discovered, and more being dug all the time. The static defense of the wall has already been partially defeated. This is not to say that the wall is completely ineffective, just that its efficacy is less than 100%, and moreover is likely to decline over time.
What I'm not seeing the the current debate, really from either side, is a reasonable engineering estimate of the effectiveness of the fence, e.g., in dollars expended per illegal immigration prevented. Instead, the debate seems to be framed very stupidly -- as if the fence will be 100% effective once it's completed, and 0% effective until it is. Clearly, both of these are false.
Just to give a sense of how a rational argument might proceed, let's suppose that the existing fence stops 100,000 illegal immigrations/year. [JADL claims that the fence cuts illegal immigration by one-quarter -- yet this is actually higher than the statistic that the Border Patrol claims for all of its enforcement and barrier approaches collectively, per the article above, so his claim cannot be correct. I'm assuming here that the JADL has misinterpreted an article from an unknown source which claimed that 1/4 of all interdicted immigrations were interdicted by the fence, that 1/4 of all intended illegal immigrants are prevented, and that 1.6M attempted immigrations occur per year. These are all estimates that I believe err in the direction of overstating the fence's actual effectiveness.]
Let's assume (again, favoring the effectiveness of the fence) that it will retain its current effectiveness indefinitely, so the amortized cost of construction will be taken as 0 (again, favoring the effectiveness of the fence) and we only need to account for ongoing maintenance and staffing costs, which I'll estimate collectively as 1/8th the construction cost per year. If this is so, the average effectiveness of the existing fence is $4500/immigrant stopped. (That's $3.6B/8/100K, for anyone still following along). But remember, we're making the assumption that the most cost effective sections have already been done, so it seems reasonable to assume that the marginal effectiveness of extending the fence is around $10K/immigrant. At this point, it is probably more cost effective to spend marginal enforcement funds in other ways, e.g., more border patrol agents, or even economic development grants for Mexico.
What I find frustrating is the apparent inability of the US electorate en masse to comprehend an argument like this. For better or worse, I think Kirby really is near the median of the population in his ability/willingness to follow a quantitative argument, and I suspect I've lost him here. This means that questions that ought be addressed by a rigorous cost-benefit analysis instead are dealt with by gross oversimplification, and an emotive appeal.
The costs of the wall are high, but they have to be compared to the costs of illegal immigration. Arizona estimates 700 million just on the expense of educating the illegals' children.
The wall is expensive, and it's porous. The tunnels underneath, and people going over, and sometimes through them (there are holes in them) can be reinforced with dogs, drones, and other dillywoppers yet to be invented.
I think if we tried, tunnels could be found.
The Finnish-Russian border is actually 5 to 15 kilometers of no-man's land, which means that there are in two walls.
This is obviously crucial.
At the present time, two adjacent communities played volleyball over the wall, making fun of the very idea of nationalism. I find this profoundly upsetting.
Dogs and landmines would prevent this kind of ludic antinationalism at the expense of the very notion of the border.
Two walls, 15 miles apart, or at least a mile apart, should be sustainable.
The problem then would be that there are so many people living in that area, and can you provide for a 2000 mile sustainable no-man's land?
In Finland the northern two-thirds of the border with Russia are virtually uninhabited (it's frightfully cold in that area) so it's no problem to retain a no-man's land between the two countries.
Even a half a mile would be ok. But it would have to have dogs and drones and dillywoppers.
I think I can understand the statistics Stu presents, and I think all Americans can too (the meme that the right is stupid and that the Tea Party is a bunch of dummies is a leftist meme that was blown out of the water by the national media six months ago -- better educated, and in general better paid than the national average).
The elephant in the room is the Hispanic vote. The left desperately needs that, but by courting it through a pathway to legality for illegals they risk alienating the rest of the country, who by and large want a wall, a card check, and other monitoring means.
The left generally doesn't like this country, and don't care to fight for it. That's been true since Vietnam (the notion that the military industrial complex should be junked in favor of everybody having sex, and then tossing the foetuses in the garbage).
The right is still patriotic. We still think this is the best country in the world, and that we shouldn't roll over for any invader that attempts to come up through the sagebrush.
Both sides mount false statistics, and push their numbers as high as they can go. But I think at bottom this is a symbolic discussion, and has to do with the left wanting to give America away as if it's something they're ashamed of (note Michelle Obama's phrase) and the right who think this is a great country whose walls and laws are still worth fighting for, even at a high cost.
the left weighs the cost, and thinks: but this country is worthless, why should we bother to defend a racist creep nation that is only imperialistic. Let's give it to Mexico: a wonderful groovy third-world nation that has no problems whatsoever.
If one-third of the wall was done at 3.6, the other two-thirds should be do-able at about another 7.2 billion. If you compare Obamacare which will cost in the hundreds of billions (and which nobody seems to want), then you have a sense of the comparable worth of the country's priorities.
Republicans by and large want the wall, and to get rid of the illegals.
Democrats by and large don't want the wall, and want to retain the illegals, and provide them with citizenship.
This goes down to the purchase of their votes, and the possibility of a permanent majority for the Democrats.
So what we have to think about is why don't the Democrats value the country as it is? I think this is a shame about race, gender and class that Democrats feel and which has been inculcated in them by their reeducations.
It would be a shame ot have a wall, because it would mean we were using the police and military, and it wouldn't be groovy. The Democrats want the Sermon on the Mount feeling.
because at the bottom of any worth, is a feeling. Without a feeling, there can be no worth to anything.
The Democrats feel bad about America. They want to give it away.
Republicans feel the other way.
Democrats feel if they give the poor and the illegals stealthcare, then they can feel better, since this country is so rotten. They might also make us share our social security.
Then we can feel better, and plus they'll have the extra votes needed to continue to destroy and divide the country, until it can no longer defend itself.
A thousand Mogadishus.
Republicans on the other hand want a sensible capitalism where legal citizens can build a future that they can count on, and that their children can count on.
Emotions are a huge part of this.
stu, I looked at your figures and estimates with interest. In rereading my previous post, however, I note that my claim for the effectiveness of established fencing did include "virtual" fences (electronic sensors), and (vehicle) barriers, not fencing alone. And I presumed that agents' monitoring and responding to sensor breaches were understood.
I know these measures are costly, but I think compared to the costs the current administration is willing to incur for record stimili, lavish earmarks, questionable grants and such, continuing the fence project is not prohibitively expensive. I agree that more border agents and national guard units be dispatched to the border in addition to other disincentives to illegal immigration, like stiffer penalties for employers hiring illegals.
All these measures, however, depend on an administrative and congressional co-operation that will be wanting until there is greater official resolve to act on the clear majority view that favours securing our borders before reforming immigration laws.
Kirby,
If one-third of the wall was done at 3.6, the other two-thirds should be do-able at about another 7.2 billion.
This is grossly naive. The 1/3 that is already constructed is in or near urban areas, where transportation is relatively straightforward, and labor is readily available. The increased costs in less accessible areas will more than offset the reduced land acquisition costs. Look at the maps -- most of what remains unfenced is really out in the sticks, where there are no roads, no electricity, no hotels. Nothing but sand, saguaros, mesquite, scorpions and rattlesnakes, for miles and miles and miles.
Republicans by and large want the wall, and to get rid of the illegals.
Really, now.
Why do illegal immigrants come here? For jobs. And who hires them? Businesses. And which party most represents the interest of businesses, and is most dependent on businesses for monetary contributions? The Republicans.
The point here is analogous to my arguments regarding abortion. Politics runs on money and votes. The money interests that stand behind the Republican Party want illegal immigration, because it reduces their labor costs. But the voters that the Republican Party wants to motivate are most easily motivated by jingoist patriotism, and playing into and up anti-immigrant fears is part of that. So how can the Republicans best manage these sharply conflicting agendas?
1) Theater. It advocates strongly for things like "the wall," which creates business opportunities, and is most effective in stopping would-be immigrants who act as individuals (and therefore have no de facto business protectors). Large, organized groups (with pre-arranged jobs to receive them) aren't particularly affected.
2) Ensuring that the national debate is both raucous and unproductive, while managing to convince its voters that the lack of productivity is due to Democratic intransigence.
And what is actually happening at the national level? (1) and (2).
It's time to open your eyes.
The question, then, is what is the cost of an illegal immigrant?
Stu, the article you cited offers a comparative dollar amount closer to mine:
"A 2,000 mile state-of-the-art border fence has been estimated to cost between four and eight billion dollars. Costs for a wall that would run the entire length of the border might be as low as $851 million for a standard 10-foot prison chain link fence topped by razor wire. For another $362 million, the fence could be electrified. A larger 12-foot tall, two-foot-thick concrete wall painted on both sides would run about $2 billion. Initially it was estimated that the San Diego fence would cost $14 million -- about $1 million a mile. The first 11 miles of the fence eventually cost $42 million -- $3.8 million per mile, and the last 3.5 miles may cost even more since they cover more difficult terrain."
These numbers are big, but compared to Stealthcare, they are chump change.
The president of Mexico thinks he can deny us the right to build such a wall. Which might mean we go to war with Mexico. If their government is even getting their asses kicked by drug cartels, imagine how well they'd do against our military.
We could have a regime change in about four minutes.
It IS strange to me the way you link abortion and illegals. You are for killing our own children, and letting other people in. It's odd, but noted.
Emotions do run high, but they are not just Republican emotions. Democrats also want a wall.
I think the number is 71% in favor of a wall.
I can't understand why you say much of what you do. You say you are against "static" borders. So you want a border that does the watusi?
Or do you just want no border?
Yes, the Mexicans come to get jobs. Their average annual income is 4000. Ours is 30,000. So they come her to take our jobs. If they weren't here, all Americans would be employed.
By coming her illegally, they also undermine our minimum wage, which makes it harder for anyone to keep up the standard of living.
The costs are difficult to assess because there are so many people involved -- law enforcement (jails are quite costly), those who are injured and murdered by illegals, education costs for little illegals, healthcare, or now, stealthcare, costs, etc.
Compare that to a wall.
There ARE elaborate tunnels underneath the fence. Once those are found and closed, those who have built them will lose millions. Will they keep doing that?
Nope.
But James is right. We need a leader who can define a priority and stick with it.
For various reasons, the current president can't do that. He's the stealthpresident.
I opened a new thread on walls and laws.
I do think we should all read the article Stu hyperlinked in his post of 11:47 am.
It outlines many of the costs, and talks about the 150,000 NON Mexicans who slip across the border every year.
It is thought that among that 150,000 are Al-Qaeda operatives.
Surely they alone are going to cost us more than 3 billion.
When the Twin Towers went down the estimated cost was 500 billion dollars. That was just for the initial three days.
Add to that the trillions in lost revenue for NYC when companies moved out, plus the cost of lost tourist revenue, rebuilding, skyrocketing insurance costs, etc.
Three billion is like pocket change.
For national security porpoises, we have to build the wall, and we have to use dogs and other devices to check for tunnels.
If Mexico wants to try to prevent a wall, we should go to war with their country and let the cartels take over their government. They have, anyway. We would then at least be dealing with the real leaders of Mexico.
Meanwhile, anyone who smokes pot or takes an illegal drug is helping to fill the cartels' coffers, which in turn helps them to fill coffins with our citizens.
Kirby,
The costs of the wall are high, but they have to be compared to the costs of illegal immigration. Arizona estimates 700 million just on the expense of educating the illegals' children.
Shall we take $700M apart, and reason like educated adults?
1) Total state aid to education this past year in AZ was $4.4B. So somewhat less than $1 in $6 of AZ spending is going to educate the children of illegal aliens. This is significant, but does provide a useful perspective.
2) The term "children of illegal aliens" is cleverly engineered, because it does not distinguish UC borne children of illegal immigrants from children who are themselves illegal aliens. This is a crucial distinction, because the correct legal term for describing members of the first population is citizen, and as such they are covered by the equal protection clause.
3) A particularly nice consequence of this number is that it gives us a meaningful, independent estimate of the number of illegal immigrants resident in AZ. The state's burden is roughly $4500/pupil, which means that the underlying AZ estimate of the number of children of illegal students currently enrolled in AZ schools is 155K ($700M/year divided by $4500/pupil/year). If we further assume that 1/2 of all children of illegal aliens are enrolled in school (and the remaining 1/2 are picking strawberries at $1.20/hour), we arrive at an estimated "children of illegal immigrants" population of 310K. If you consider Hispanic age demographics, it appears that more than 1/5 of Hispanic population is of school age. This is actually quite pessimistic, because illegal immigrants are going to have a strongly peaked age distribution around 20-40, so the actual fraction is probably closer to 1/3. Thus, the total size of the underlying population from which these children (many of whom are citizens) come is at most 1.5M, or a little less than 1/4 of the total population of the state. So the total population of illegal aliens in AZ (subtracting out the citizens, which likely account for most of the children, and more than a few legal spouses of illegal aliens) is likely around 1.1-1.2M, or about 1/6 of the total state population. I'll leave it to people with a better knowledge of local conditions to comment on this, but this number does not seem wildly insane.
Let's try to reconcile this with the supposed national illegal immigration rate, and see the consequences. Arizona, IIRC, has the fourth largest number of illegal immigrants, after Texas, Illinois, and California. So AZ is getting at most 10% of the illegal immigrants. The national illegal immigration rate is generally estimated at about 1M/year, so let's say 1.4M just to be on the cautious side in what follows. So the illegal immigration rate into AZ is 140K/year. So the "average" illegal immigrant has been here for >8 years, and sizeable numbers have been here >20 years. The inescapeable consequence is that the vast majority of illegal immigrants to AZ have established themselves as productive members of society. After all, the entire AZ prison population is "only" 40K. This contrasts dramatically with the Republican caricature of the illegal immigrant as a recent, violent arrival. Those that come, come to work.
I'll also note that the reason the state invests in education is not to provide a benefit to the parents. States expect that their education expenditures will be repaid from the higher taxes that the students will pay over their lifetime of work because of the education they receive. Thus, after spending $54K to educate a student, the state looks forward to 40 years of enhanced income and other tax revenue from that student. That $700M/year is no less an investment in this sense than any of the other education dollars the state of Arizona is currently paying.
Kirby,
I think if we tried, tunnels could be found.
Tunnels are being found, therefore, it must be that we're trying. Again, the issue here is that investing more money into finding more tunnels will find more tunnels, but it mean that money can't be spent on other things. The problem here is in building a defensive system, not just on fixating on one piece (e.g., the wall, or tunnel detection) to the exclusion of other pieces (the number of border patrol agents, etc.). Your whole argument (which amounts to saying that Obama wants illegal immigration, because all of those Catholic, pro-life Hispanics who came here solely because of economic issues are going to somehow vote Democratic en masse) fails to account for material investments that BHO has advocated, and secured, c.f., The President's Record on Border Security. Note that this is a partisan source.
The Finnish-Russian border is actually 5 to 15 kilometers of no-man's land, which means that there are in two walls.
This is obviously crucial.
Exactly right. Depth matters in the design of defensive systems, and depth is horrifically expensive to obtain in urban areas. We're not like the East Germans, who can simply bulldoze down a block's worth of their own citizen's homes to obtain a bit of depth -- we have to compensate owners for any "takings." Have you ever been to a border town? Do you realize how densely built the US side often is? Downtown San Diego is 15km from Tijuana!
In Finland the northern two-thirds of the border with Russia are virtually uninhabited (it's frightfully cold in that area) so it's no problem to retain a no-man's land between the two countries.
Well, this is also true of large portions of the US/Mexico border, modulo the substitution of deserts and frightful heat for frightful cold. It's hard to imagine, e.g., that many illegal aliens cross at the "big bend" area, and that's why it's not worthwhile fencing.
I think I can understand the statistics Stu presents, and I think all Americans can too (the meme that the right is stupid and that the Tea Party is a bunch of dummies is a leftist meme that was blown out of the water by the national media six months ago -- better educated, and in general better paid than the national average)
Please note that I did not mention any political grouping in my lament. And if a meaningful is possible at the national level, might I ask your opinion as to why we're not having one?
Kirby,
Weird things are happening. In my first 2:54PM note, please read
The term "children of illegal aliens" is cleverly engineered, because it does not distinguish UC borne children of illegal immigrants from children who are themselves illegal aliens.
This sort of thing happens when you're doing too many things at the same time.
Also, please note that the 2:54PM comments were originally submitted *before* the 11:29AM comment, which explains some of the temporal oddities. They still seemed timely, however. This does raise the question though, of how far Blogger's comment system is from outright collapse.
Well, they are citizens (the UC born) but oftentimes they are somewhat like the children of certain birds who plant them in another's nest.
The French have outlawed this.
You can't fly into Paris, have a baby, and have a French kid.
We should outlaw it, too.
It's a sneaky thing. If robins find out that another bird has done it, they will drop the egg.
We should, too.
We should cut out all this nonsense.
I thought you meant these illegals were University of Californa system babies and was scrambling to try to figure out what that meant.
there's another discrepancy in your remarks. You are getting overly emotional on these issues, Stu.
You said the more remote desert areas would be more expensive to secure in one post because it's hard to get the materials out there.
but in urban areas it's actually more difficult because you have to work around private property, and buildings.
If we can't stop this problem, we are going to have to kiss our country goodbye.
A final solution might be to get Mexico to attack us, and then seize their country, and make it part of the US. And then, we'd have a much smaller portion south of that to patrol.
Meanwhile, we'd have all their oil, and would get some neat new monuments.
Plus, we could teach them English. We should have seized all of Mexico back in the day, anyways. I like their pyramids and beaches.
We would add their whole population which would be a pain, but we could also have their stuff, so at least we get something out of the deal.
Mexico is just another part of the Spanish empire that exploded under the weight of the Catholic church into sheer dumbness anyhoo. We could Protestantize them, and get the Enlightenment going south of the border.
Birth control, better water systems, better education. They want to be Americans anyway.
Many of them seem to have a work ethic. I think NAFTA is the first step toward this.
We should seize Canada, too.
Canada has so many polar bears and stuff, and has a lot of fun islands. Then we would stop dumping our pollution over their borders, which would cheer them up a bit.
I see now down sides to seizing Canada. Oh, but first we would have to make them attack us, so we could have some kind of legitimate security reason to take over their country.
Think of all the new forests we would get.
I remember when, under Bush, the Republicans argued that deficit spending was just another economic tool to manage our budget. As long as Republicans wanted to over-spend--on war materiel and welfare for the rich--it was all sensible and fine.
Then, when the Democrats started spending on social programs and medical coverage and infrastructure and propping up our corrupt banking and finance system, they were castigated for "runaway" deficits.
Understand, I'm not advocating deficit spending. I just wish we could find a common ground on budgetary discipline. You can't have a war economy and a social welfare economy at the same time--there isn't enough lucre in all the world to pay for it. At some point, you have to draw a line.
Either we stop mounting foreign wars of choice, or we give up on the idea of Cadillac health coverage for "everybody." Or both!!
Kirby and stu, actually, the question of illegal aliens' children (so- called "anchor babies") born in the US sdeems not to have been conclusively decided by the courts. The 14th Amendment obviously was not intended to do anything but make full citizens recently emancipated native-born African-Americans.
In any case, there is a legal review of this question here in a question/answer format:
http://www.kentuckypoliticalreview.com/?p=2168
Very helpful, James. Thanks so much.
JADL,
the question of illegal aliens' children (so- called "anchor babies") born in the US sdeems not to have been conclusively decided by the courts
There is tremendous amount of precedent that says that the children of illegal immigrants are citizens, c.f. Wiki: Fourteenth Amendment... and Wiki: Plyler v. Doe.
Now this is not to say that it is impossible to imagine that a future SCOTUS might overturn all of this precedent, but it that really is what you mean here, then there is no general question of law that is well settled, since every question is in principal reversable.
But back in the real world, precedent matters, and this issue is about as well settled as any question. Of course, so to was the core question of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which in a way both makes your point (i.e., that what the SCOTUS grants, SCOTUS can also take away), but simultaneously destroys it by making it independent of the question at hand.
Kirby,
there's another discrepancy in your remarks. You are getting overly emotional on these issues, Stu.
You said the more remote desert areas would be more expensive to secure in one post because it's hard to get the materials out there.
but in urban areas it's actually more difficult because you have to work around private property, and buildings
Both are true. The question is which will dominate. I believe that the cost of transporting material to, and sustaining labor in, a remote location will dominate the savings due to trivial land costs. I might be right in this, and I might be wrong, but this is not a discrepancy.
If we can't stop this problem, we are going to have to kiss our country goodbye.
I don't think so. Part of the issue is that illegal immigrants and/or their descendents eventually assimilate into our culture, just as legal immigrants have. What matters here is the ratio between the rate of illegal immigration and the size of our assimilated population, because this is going to determine the extent of cultural friction. Moreover, having a large unassimilated population may actually reduce the rate of assimilation, bringing other problems.
But I see little evidence that the rate of illegal immigration is rising faster than the size of the assimilated population. Indeed, the rate of illegal immigration is decreasing, and therefore the crisis (if it ever actually was a crisis) is already past.
We should seize Canada, too.
We tried. Twice. It didn't work out so well for us either time, c.f., the Battle of Quebec (1775) and the Battle of the Chateauguay (1813).
Stu,
The third time's the charm.
stu, a couple of points:
I didn't see a precedent justifying Hollywood superlatives like "tremendous" (or stupendous, colossal, etc.) for the precedent of the 5-4 decision for the liberal majority in Plyler vs Doe.
And it seems not at all part of the intention of those who designed and passed the 14th Amendment.
And as yet SCOTUS has not granted illegal aliens legal standing to sue for protection under federal civil rights laws nor to seek to invalidate a state law relative to their illegal presence in the US for their own behalf.
But there also may be legislative remedies outside the courts (though likely to be tested there), such as implied in the following contention, e.g.:
"Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution grants power to the Congress to uniformly regulate 'naturalization,' which is the process involved in a foreigner obtaining citizenship. However, since the power to regulate 'immigration,' the relocation of foreigners into the U.S., is not granted to the federal government, this power, by default, belongs to the States. As such, Arizona and all other States in the Union, have the right and obligation to establish and enforce their own immigration laws."
stu, a couple of points:
I didn't see a precedent justifying Hollywood superlatives like "tremendous" (or stupendous, colossal, etc.) for the precedent of the 5-4 decision for the liberal majority in Plyler vs Doe.
And it seems not at all part of the intention of those who designed and passed the 14th Amendment.
And as yet SCOTUS has not granted illegal aliens legal standing to sue for protection under federal civil rights laws nor to seek to invalidate a state law relative to their illegal presence in the US for their own behalf.
But there also may be legislative remedies outside the courts (though likely to be tested there), such as implied in the following contention, e.g.:
"Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution grants power to the Congress to uniformly regulate 'naturalization,' which is the process involved in a foreigner obtaining citizenship. However, since the power to regulate 'immigration,' the relocation of foreigners into the U.S., is not granted to the federal government, this power, by default, belongs to the States. As such, Arizona and all other States in the Union, have the right and obligation to establish and enforce their own immigration laws."
JADL,
I didn't see a precedent justifying Hollywood superlatives like "tremendous" (or stupendous, colossal, etc.) for the precedent of the 5-4 decision for the liberal majority in Plyler vs Doe.
The adjective "tremendous" was intended to refer to the number of cases and the consistency of interpretation. Plyler is not the greatest, just the latest.
And as yet SCOTUS has not granted illegal aliens legal standing to sue for protection under federal civil rights laws nor to seek to invalidate a state law relative to their illegal presence in the US for their own behalf.
This isn't about illegal aliens. It is about US born children of illegal aliens, i.e., citizens. And citizens have standing, and can pursue claims under federal law. So what you say may be true, but it is also irrelevant to this situation under existing precedent.
As for your interesting theory of states rights vs. immigration, it will undoubtly be tried. Paragraph 4 is not the only potentially applicable paragraph in Section 8. I'd certainly use paragraph 3 if I were playing defense.
If you look at the Wiki article on the 14th amendment cited earlier, it's clear that the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was important in the debate you mention, e.g., it is this clause that rules out automatic birth-right citizenship to children of ambassadors (because they retain diplomatic immunity, i.e., they are not subject to our jurisdiction), as well as Indians who maintained tribal alliances (because tribal lands are legally reservations, i.e., regions in which the tribe as retained sovereignty, and the residents thereof are not under US jurisdiction). I see this as being a key clause, and to the extent that the framers of the 14th amendment wanted to avoid automatic birthright citizenship, it is this clause that must bear the weight of all their reservations.
For what it's worth, I see the issue here fairly simply (which is not to say that the courts will likewise). There are a number of situations in which it makes sense to think about citizenship. In these cases, a crucial distinguishing factor is whether or not the person in that situation accepts the obligations and privileges of citizenship. The choice to live under a foreign country's laws (as is the case in a diplomat's family) is tantamount in this case to rejecting citizenship. Likewise, prior to 1924, retaining a tribal association and remaining under tribal (rather than US) jurisdiction was also understood as rejecting citizenship.
But the children of illegal immigrants do not usually live on reservations, and they never enjoy diplomatic immunity. They can be arrested, they can be drafted, their income is taxed. They have no choice but to accept our jurisdiction, as indeed, your make clear in your attempt to apply states rights in this case. So the amendment applies to them, by the clear and unambiguous language thereof.
I've a good solution!
Deport their parents, and put the kids into orphanages. There's probably 100 prospective adoptive families for every waiting child in this country.
If they're going to be American citizens, let's give them American parents, too!
/sarc off
All this Constitutional law discussion puts me to sleep.
I believe our laws and regulations governing immigration are out of date--antiquated.
They were designed to facilitate rapid and efficient immigration, during a period in our history when the country was sparsely populated, and we needed bodies to work in factories, and to settle our empty Western frontiers.
This condition hasn't been true for at least 50 years, if not 100. Population expansion is now a problem throughout the world. The Third World has been designated for two centuries as a "burden" to be "brought forward" into the knowledge and prosperity which fostered "civilization" in the West. But we know that that paradigmatic presumption was based on false premises. Most of the rest of the world now understands how hollow the colonial bargain was. Third World nations (and peoples) now either resent us, or envy us. Capitalists will tell you you can build bridges to foreigners through trade and intellectual exchange, but that isn't happening anywhere on the planet. I'm not sure you can spread democracy anywhere there isn't fertile historical ground for it. And economic prosperity can't simply be "wished" into existence.
So there is this enormous pressure to get into America before the vestiges of its once-proud prosperity decay into memory. But the immigrants bring nothing with them. The net affect of excess immigration is economic and social stress.
People using child-birthing to anchor themselves to citizenship, who can't qualify in any other ways--legal or illegal--shouldn't be rewarded for finding clever loopholes. We are a sovereign nation, and have every right to protect our interests, over and above other nationals. Whatever you may say, the welfare of Mexicans, for instance, does not take priority over our own privileges as citizens.
Citizenship achieved through birthing by foreign nationals needs to be reinterpreted, to fit the conditions of our time.
Emmy--
Nice Solomonic solution!
"100 prospective adoptive families for every waiting child"
Source please...And numbers go up when you let gay people adopt, something lots o' righties get all in a tizzy about.
Jus' sayin'.
And CF "Capitalists will tell you you can build bridges to foreigners through trade and intellectual exchange, but that isn't happening anywhere on the planet"
WRT international relational stuff, it'd be nice if Republicans were like Democrats and believed in deporting more people (yay obama!) and punishing companies who send jobs over seas (yay Obama!) and rewarding companies that bring jobs here (yay Obama!)
But the Repubs tend to just do whatever's best for their monied interests while playing to the social-issue crowd.
CF - I never answered what I quoted.
India. Thing is, though, that when you build those bridges, after a while they stop being 3rd-world.
Like India which is, what, second world now?
Post a Comment