Politics: A new beginning

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Right on, brother.

Comrade, Ty, comrade.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Comrade, Ty, comrade.

Sorry, I keep forgetting. Say, when is the next meeting of our cell?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This is an interesting piece, and ought to spur some back-and-forth:

Open-and-Shut Society

By Anne Applebaum
Wednesday, November 12, 2003; Page A23

Last week, in the middle of the day, traffic ground to a halt on Interstate 10, the highway that runs south from Phoenix. Rival gangs of "coyotes," the criminals who smuggle illegal immigrants over the Mexican border, had started shooting at one another through the open windows of their trucks. The trucks were packed with people. Five died, three were wounded and 27 others were detained.

On that same day -- a few miles up that same interstate -- the Mexican president, Vicente Fox, was visiting businessmen and politicians in Phoenix, talking a little trade and a lot of immigration reform. When asked, he insisted that the United States and Mexico "are talking about migration," which is no doubt true. Ideas are "developing," he explained, which is no doubt true as well. Secretary of State Colin Powell himself recently told a Spanish-language television program that immigration reform remained high on President Bush's agenda -- adding, "I don't want to over-promise." Indeed. It is always a good idea to lower expectations when immigration reform is being discussed.

Of course, this non-conversation about immigration reform has a lot in common with other non-conversations -- about Social Security reform, say, or health care reform -- that happen in Washington all the time. What makes it different is the deeper level of absurdity into which immigration policy has lately sunk. Consider this: Violent gangs of smugglers regularly cross the Mexican border into this country, where they conduct shootouts in broad daylight. At the same time, a whole new, post-Sept. 11 visa bureaucracy now regularly prevents distinguished scientists and pianists from visiting this country at all. In other words, you can get in if you're a gun-toting thug, but not if you're a visiting professor of neurology.

And consider this, too: American agriculture is now utterly dependent on the labor of millions of illegal immigrants. As a result, business lobbies have recently persuaded both right-wing Republicans and left-wing Democrats to back bills that would make it easier for companies to get temporary visas for their migrant workers, without whom they could not function. Yet this logical method of legalizing a huge swath of the underground economy -- which would be extremely useful from a "homeland security" point of view too -- is considered so politically explosive that few in Congress believe it can even be discussed so close to an election. Millions of illegal immigrants are here, in other words -- and 11/2 million more enter every year -- helping to keep food prices, restaurant bills and leaf-raking costs low, yet it's considered "controversial" even to admit that they exist.

But immigration is also different from the myriad other national dilemmas because it hits dangerously close to some of our most cherished myths. As a nation, we continue to celebrate our immigrant origins. Children learn to recite "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" in school. Advertisers sell products using photographs of happy, multicolored customers. Presidents appoint Cabinets that "look like America," meaning, in part, that they contain people from recent immigrant backgrounds.

At the same time -- contrary to popular belief -- we have extremely stringent immigration laws. Not only are our borders theoretically closed, we set up other barriers of bureaucracy and inconvenience for many foreigners who want to enter legally, even for short visits. Soon we will require many visitors -- including many coming from countries where we are supposed to be promoting democracy -- to be fingerprinted and photographed before entering the United States, procedures that will no doubt keep many of those proto-democrats away.

Finally, having passed these strict laws that offend so many people, we then fail to supply our immigration services with the resources necessary to enforce them. Illegal immigrants operate with almost complete freedom, and no one arrests them or deports them. The immigration bureaucracy is notoriously inefficient and capricious. The border remains porous, although it is more dangerous than it used to be. Knowing that it is possible, in theory, to get across -- and knowing there will be jobs once they arrive -- large numbers of people venture into the Arizona desert every year, often with the help of smugglers. Many die trying.

Or maybe it all makes sense: Perhaps in the end we really do have the immigration policy we deserve. We don't want the disruption and dislocation that an uncontrolled influx of foreign citizens would bring, not to mention the terrorist threats, so we create strict laws. We do want the benefits of cheap immigrant labor, as well as the satisfaction of thinking ourselves an open society, so we don't enforce those laws. All of our contradictory desires are simultaneously satisfied and everyone is happy. Meanwhile, a shadow, illegal America, a world of fake documents, cash payments and smuggler gangs, grows larger every year -- even showing itself occasionally on the interstate at midday.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Say, when is the next meeting of our cell?

Date and time TBA. Keep your eye on the bong parts swap board at the Peet's at Walnut & Vine --- Subcommandante Bustamante will post a 3x5 with the 411. If the fuzz catches on, we'll scramble and rendezvous at the Cheese Board on Shattuck. The password is "Kucinich."

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
This is an interesting piece, and ought to spur some back-and-forth:

Yup, the system sucks but I'd love to hear any suggestions on how it could be improved. The author makes none that I remember reading.

Like just about anything else, I'd rather see illegal immigrants documented and regulated and, perhaps, denied state benefits while being forced to pay taxes.

The current state is just another example of how hypocritical this nation (our populace) can be. We demand laws and enforcement. Our unions scream whenever they get the chance. But ask someone to pay for 2 million border guards and people suddenly start clamming up.

I think the better answer is, e.g., national identity cards for everyone so that we can start keeping track of people a bit better.

Hello

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
. But ask someone to pay for 2 million border guards and people suddenly start clamming up.

Or ask for farming cos. to pay minimum wage to Americans instead of below-minimum to illegals. Too much to ask.

What of our farm products would be competitive on the world market without subsidized water and workers? Ty, especially in California.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Date and time TBA. Keep your eye on the bong parts swap board at the Peet's at Walnut & Vine --- Subcommandante Bustamante will post a 3x5 with the 411. If the fuzz catches on, we'll scramble and rendezvous at the Cheese Board on Shattuck. The password is "Kucinich."

Y'know, we'll get a lot better turnout if we get Zachary's to cater it.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Y'know, we'll get a lot better turnout if we get Zachary's to cater it.

We're basically fucked in that department. The GOP meets at the Krispy Kreme, and who can compete with that?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Sorry, I keep forgetting. Say, when is the next meeting of our cell?

among the long list of failures of you communists, is that you have now lost "cell." Sorry, cells are now reserved for Al Queda. Maybe you could try cabal, or shoot, maybe ask Atticus, but you've got to come up with a new. Sorry.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Or ask for farming cos. to pay minimum wage to Americans instead of below-minimum to illegals. Too much to ask.

What of our farm products would be competitive on the world market without subsidized water and workers? Ty, especially in California.

That is a great question. I'm all in favor of ending subsidies for just about everything you could name, but I have to wonder if anyone does wheat or corn like we do.

It might be that we skew the supply upward (no, actually it is that we skew the supply upward), but if the supply dropped, I wouldn't be surprised to see prices rise from the subsidized levels, such that we might still be competitive in a few areas. At least in part due to the fact that we consume so flippin much that its otherwise hard to tell where supply and demand meet without our governmental subsidies.

As for the below-minimum, that applies to a whole lotta businesses in America outside of farming. It would be nice to see them kept in line if for no other reason then that the equilibrium might just see some of our neighbors (Mexico) become a bit more competitive, what with their low low low prices.

What do people have against a national ID card anyway? Couldn't concerns be addressed by safeguards?

Hello

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Or ask for farming cos. to pay minimum wage to Americans instead of below-minimum to illegals. Too much to ask.

What of our farm products would be competitive on the world market without subsidized water and workers? Ty, especially in California.

It is my understanding that the federal minimum wage does not apply to non-supervisory farm workers. States can set a minimum wage for these workers, but it tends to be significantly lower. I think in TX the rate is like $3.35 per hour.

Does anyone know about this for sure? It's consistent with stuff I see from a tax perspective; most of the wage stuff I look at has carve-out for farm workers. I've never had to look at any of it directly because either I don't have clients who have farm workers, or any clients that do don't ask questions that implicate this. I'm pretty sure it's the former.

If I am correct and this is the case, it makes the illegal/citizen thing just an issue of price sensitivity -- on the whole, illegals are more willing to accept lower prices than citizens are.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

It might be that we skew the supply upward (no, actually it is that we skew the supply upward), but if the supply dropped, I wouldn't be surprised to see prices rise from the subsidized levels, such that we might still be competitive in a few areas.

very possibly. But it would cut into the profits of the farm industry. If they produce at low cost but sell at high cost, and you take away the low costs, well, that squeezes profits. I'm reasonably confident in asserting that american farms are the most efficient in the world (on the whole), subsidies aside. Presumably that means that US farms aren't setting the world market-clearing price, and are, in fact profitable, unlike teh marginal farmers in other countries. So, really, it's just a question of how much producer surplus the availability of subsidized inputs to production provide.

(Note this is a macro assessment, not an assessment of whether US subsidies keep inefficient farms in the US in business).

As for the below-minimum, that applies to a whole lotta businesses in America outside of farming. It would be nice to see them kept in line if for no other reason then that the equilibrium might just see some of our neighbors (Mexico) become a bit more competitive, what with their low low low prices.

True, but you can't move Nebraska to Mexico.

What do people have against a national ID card anyway? Couldn't concerns be addressed by safeguards?

We already have one: a SS card (plus drivers license). Identity theft isn't a problem though.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

True, but you can't move Nebraska to Mexico.

That makes for great imagery, but there is no doubt that a village of Mexicans can move to Nebraska. Make Mexico more competive and maybe they wouldn't have such an incentive to come here.

As for the national ID card issue, its not like people are required to have one or the other within reach/a bus ride in this country. Heck, you don't need a DL whatsoever, and I know a few adults who refuse to have one. The social security card? Ha ha, right? People sell those en bulk in many places in this country.

Which is exactly why I'd suggest an on-demand national picture ID (with very, very limited circumstances in which anyone could "demand" production of such) would go a long way towards curbing the abuse.

The verification would never be more than a phone call away.

Hello

[Atticus Grinch]

HELEN THOMAS: Scott, there are 17 former POWs from the first Gulf War who were tortured and filed suit against the regime of Saddam Hussein. And a judge has ordered that they are entitled to substantial financial damages. What is the administration’s position on that? Is it the view of this White House that that money would be better spent rebuilding Iraq rather than going to these former POWs?

MR. McCLELLAN: There is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime. That’s what our view is.

Q White House is standing in the way of them getting those awards, those financial awards, because it views it that money better spent on rebuilding Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there’s simply no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering —

Q Why won’t you spell out what your position is?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m coming to your question. Believe me, I am. Let me finish. Let me start over again, though. No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of a very brutal regime, at the hands of Saddam Hussein. … But again, there is simply no amount of compensation that could ever truly compensate these brave men and women.

Q Just one more. Why would you stand in the way of at least letting them get some of that money?

[snip]

MR. McCLELLAN: That’s why I pointed out that that was an issue that was addressed earlier this year. But make no mistake about it, we condemn in the strongest possible terms the torture that these brave individuals went through —

Q — you don’t think they should get money?

MR. McCLELLAN: — at the hands of Saddam Hussein. There is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate those men and women who heroically served —

Q That’s not the issue —

MR. McCLELLAN: — who heroically served our nation.

Q Are you opposed to them getting some of the money?

[snip]

MR. McCLELLAN: This issue was addressed earlier this year, and we believe that there’s simply no amount of money that could truly compensate these brave men and women for what they went through and for the suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein —

Q So no money.

Link. White House transcript; subject to editing.

I'll be using this theme if I ever wind up defending a PI case. God forbid.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Link. White House transcript; subject to editing.

I'll be using this theme if I ever wind up defending a PI case. God forbid.

That's quite funny. He needs to learn to mix up the word order, use some synonyms, etc.