Immigration Policy

I've been of this opinion for some time, but I have to credit this guy, Ron Guhname, for pulling together a great sweeping analogy to dramatize it:

 

 

 

INDUCTIVIST 

Employers who hire illegals are like drug dealers: When debating illegal immigration, folks on both sides of the political aisle focus on the immigrants. Conservatives argue that aliens are lawbreakers. Moderates and liberals contend that undocumented workers are just that--workers who are vital to the economy. Radicals claim that Mexican immigrants coming to western states are not really immigrants because those states rightly belong to Mexico. They just moved, and the only difference is that instead of driving the U-Haul, they rode in back.

So, everyone argues about the whether the immigrants are a good or bad thing, but all this talk is about the little fish. All to often the big fish get off the hook. This is a big mistake since, in this immigration drama, the employer is the drug dealer and the illegal is only a junkie. The drug dealer gets fat while the neighborhood goes to hell. The politicians are the cops who close their eyes to the transaction in exchange for a dirty money payoff. And the ACLU who sues the employer for investigating the legal status of his workers is the fellow gangbanger who threatens you if you are even thinking about leaving the gang and going straight. Now, none of us likes a junkie, but he is just the little guy. American save their rage for the guy peddling the dope. He is the one who needs to serve some serious time.

Yes, illegal immigration is a serous problem, but so is illegal hiring. We need to shine the light on this issue.

For one thing, focusing on the employers can help us around one major difficulty. In a debate between Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter, O’Reilly asked if it was possible to invade the neighborhoods of illegals with paddy wagons, round up 11 million people, and dump them at the border. She insisted that the issue is about what it right, not what is realistic. But any reasonable person will agree that it’s always about what is realistic. And the only realistic way to send 11 million people packing is to dry up the damn jobs. Dry up the jobs, and illegals will deport themselves. The solution here is simple: we need legislation to go after the real felons--the employers.

Ron Guhname

On the moral origins of PC

http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2008/03/rule-to-live-by-wwho-did-you-read-story.html
I think this is a good stab at the question.
It may decode some of the apparent irrationality and inconsistency of these people.
Of course, they're also keen to oppose anything they might imagine an old-fashioned redneck would support.
To allow one's enemies to define one's positions is to play a weak hand.

On Popularity and Soft Power

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/michael_gerson/
The Myth of America's Unpopularity

Mr. Gershon's analysis of his first two premises is reasonable. However, he gives short shrift to the impact of soft power in international affairs (though I agree that it is harder to be at once popular and decisive). The preeminent recent example of the influence of soft power was the erosive effect we produced in the Soviet Union: we projected strength, as he mentions, but we also projected success and optimism and the conviction that we were morally right and that the Soviet system was morally bankrupt. One of Reagan's enduring achievements was precisely his professional competence in so projecting our character and values into the minds and hearts of those living (and not only those ruling) behind the Iron Curtain. Reagan's command over the tools of soft power was probably as important as his vigorous counters to Soviet military machinations. And why in hell do you think Deng Xiaoping instituted his radical reforms in China circa 1979? Military pressure? Insofar as he faced any (which wasn't very far), the more serious source was the USSR. He could see how sclerotic the Soviet system had become and how dynamic ours remained. In this latter instance we did not need to project our success as aggressively because Deng was possessed of sufficient intelligence to make his own decisions; yet the underlying example we presented remained necessary to the effect. Beyond all this, though, among historians the really grand example of soft power's potential is still the French Revolution and the endless aftershocks propagated in its wake, especially in Europe, but of global extent. Note, though, that the ideas generated do not correspond with any exactitude to the actual facts--and one may argue that the ideas that produced the Revolution had more long-term consequence than the example of the Revolution itself (being a complicated, bloody affair).

It is a question of the power of ideas and how their power is influenced by the character, position, actions of those who attempt to extend their reach.

The American Health Care Dilemma

I tend to disfavor universal healthcare for several reasons.  Imposing a government run command and control economy upon the healthcare sector will by definition distort incentives within the system and thereby render it less efficient; also, it will probably increase the corruption which is already pervasive in the Medicaid/Medicare programs and associated health programs. In addition to this inefficiency and corruption, individual liberty and rights will certainly be constrained by the massive bureaucratic machine managing the system. And if private care is squeezed out altogether, as may well happen by one means or another, we will be deprived of a basis for comparing the efficacy of the governmental sector with that of the private sector. I have long assumed that the private health care sector has one other major advantage: it provides a much more fertile soil for all types of innovation, from the development of new procedures to the creation of new pharmaceuticals and the invention of new medical devices--it provides ample rewards to the innovators and sufficient flexibility to experiment with new ideas and opportunities.
 

There are also arguments of consequence that may be set forth for the other side. There is the moral argument that citizens ought to have a right to decent health care provisions regardless of income. Also, certain specific efficiencies can be achieved more readily under a government controlled system than under our hybrid model (esp. more thorough preventive care and a greater emphasis upon it, elimination of private companies' bureaucracies, and reduction of pay for some health workers).  Another substantial advantage, one which sways many intelligent Republicans, is the disburdening of our corporate sector of a major obligation not faced by their international competition--this is a problem which will only worsen without some type of reform in future.
 

As an interim solution I favor raising the age of Medicare eligibility to 70 by 2025. Also, I would impose rationing upon Medicaid recipients and initiate a program to emphasize preventive care. Those in government programs may simply have to accept rationing at some point--otherwise there may be a tax revolt or the possibility of governmental bankruptcy. I think tax deductions for private health care and health insurance costs should also be increased for both corporations and individuals--this to increase our international competitiveness.  I realize this encourages more health care spending as a whole and merely shifts the burden of spending away from the export sector. Already the government pays for 60% of health care costs in this country when tax benefits are accounted for.  But, all of these contingencies are interim and the future of scientific progress cannot be forecast. Probably we will do what we usually do with problems: we will exchange old ones for new ones.  

Bio-boondoggle

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?em&ex=1202706000&en=d42cfa6f14c01268&ei=5087%0A

My suspicions about the knock-on environmental effects of biofuels were always my main reason for scepticism about the government subsidies in this area.  After all, subsidies sometimes function to level the playing field, and our economy is heavily interlaced with all sorts of subsidies anyhow. But, this reminds me of the boondoggle that half-destroyed the Everglades and enriched our homegrown Cuban sugar mafia, those Faggello brothers or whatever their name is: sugar subsidies.

Is It Possible to have an Entrepreneurial Government?

Certain Israelis affirm it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/world/middleeast/21israel.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

As to the strategic argument that reducing oil demand will lower oil prices and choke off the material resources of Islamic extremists--I think arguments could well be made that impoverishing the Arabs would also encourage extremism, especially since such impoverishment would be all the more painful and humiliating following a period of relative wealth.

"Freaky observers" and Other Cosmological Pranks

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin

 

What has driven these poor fellows to win the crazy prize once again is the maddening problem of infinity--of both time and space. Starting from baseless assumptions, they invent a rigid, highly intricate superstructure of rules, then extrapolate out to the infinitely possible. It reminds me of scholasticism. Calculating probabilities about a universe whose size and nature you do not understand? What? They're trying to put the cart before the horse, when they have no cart. Or horse.

Amusing, though, from a certain viewpoint.
 

Fortunately, in science, accidents are notorious ambushers--in theory the cosmologist-metaphysicians may yet be ambushed by a useful accident. But, accidents only happen if one takes the risk of experiments, and these fellows are too clever to stoop to mere experimentation. Their only risk gathers itself from the unlimited competition summoned by a system of "science" that erects no barriers to entry. Then the question becomes, on what basis do theories overcome the competition? Aesthetics? Propaganda? Temporal priority? Fortunately, the losers can always invent another mad scheme.

The Pakistani Way

http://economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10424283

 

The book reviewed revisits the Pakistan-nuclear proliferation nexus managed by Mr. Khan. This is one of America's great foreign policy failures in recent times. If the book's interpretation is accurate, it begets some wonder concerning what other activities our political and intelligence leaders may have decided to let pass as they let Khan's network pass for all those years. Presumably we remain vigilant at least with respect to our rivals--but have we allowed other supposed allies to proceed with WMD programs under cover of our willful ignorance? And doesn't such a policy stance severely diminish our moral standing on counter-proliferation issues? Is this a certain reward now on offer for any nation that allies itself with us--however temporarily? It is difficult to conceive of a more foolishly short-term approach. Also, why did we let Khan run unfettered through the 90's? Pakistan was then less important strategically.

But, of course, the book may be wrong; maybe we just didn't know about Khan--wouldn't that be a relief? Then, our only problem would be somehow to correct our monumentally wasteful and incompetent intelligence services.  

In Defense of the Rich

Here is a gift courtesy of The Economist:

http://economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328935

 

This ought to be sufficient to shoot down those misguided Democrats if they dare question the justice of America's income distribution. Though the argument leaves a few openings for potential adversaries to rent asunder, few of the Democratic persuasion have eyes to see or strength to tear.

 

You have consumption inequality level for decades, ever less inequality in "life satisfaction," and an ever greater gap in working hours (with the rich working ever more, the poor ever less).

 

Of course, money still buys a lower stress level (in theory), longer life expectancy, and various forms of power and freedom.

The Moroccan Way

There is an article today in the NY Times on the Moroccan strategy for handling incarcerated terrorists and radicals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/world/africa/31prison.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

After reading it, though disgusted by the brutality of both sides, I considered that these terrorists are really a non-threat to the government of Morocco (and most other Islamic nations). In virtually every respect they are marginal types, lacking centralized, coordinated organization and competent leadership. Their relatively high profile is disproportionate to their limited power and absence of a coherent strategy to actually overthrow the King. Yet, they do exert some influence. The question is to what effect. From the government's perspective they're a chronic, but manageable, disease of the body politic. Further, it may be a disease that justifies more severe control over that body, the rest of which may then be pacified by the justification of "disease-control." Most of the Muslim world is a prison, one whose strictures are all the more defensible as a result of certain elements of resistance. In other words, these incompetent extremists (who appear by their actions, as opposed to their words, to be more like anarchists than theocrats) form a (witless) pillar of support for these dictatorial regimes. Anarchism is indeed a game at which the police can beat you. And if the dictators are happy enough to retain their power in despite of the forms of democracy available, the terrorists do not generally seem to view this as a less attractive state of affairs than a democratic option might offer--democratic government poses the threat that it might muster up such a degree of popular legitimacy as a dictator could not sustain in our time and thereby the more effectually block their theocratic ascendance. Thus, the two mortal enemies and the two most powerful forces in many Muslim nations conspire by disparate actions to thwart political and social liberalization.

---