It's easy to skewer David Frum, as I have done myself on foreign policy issues — a neocon deluxe who has but lightly modified that since becoming a Never Trumper as well, and thus ardently defending The Blob/Deep State.
Domestic policy? Well, even blind hogs find acorns, and while his new long read on immigration isn't all right, it's not all wrong, either.
White maladjustment to the changing face of America is not a good moral reason to reject "open borders" or anything close to it — though it may indeed be a good political reason.
Wage undercutting by illegal immigrants — who spread from replacing their legal Latinx brothers and sisters in farm work to moving into housekeeping, gardening and construction work (many Southwestern big cities, it's hard to get a new residential development built without them) IS arguably a good moral reason.
Before we go further? The Flaws of Frum, just a few.
Yes, more people ever are making $2 a day globally. But, making a 20-year-old comparison without adjusting for inflation is a huge fail. That's reason No. 1 life is NOT "all well" whether in Honduras or Haiti, Zambia or Zimbabwe, Ukraine or Uzbekistan.
Second, speaking of Honduras? And Latinx? Frum (of course) ignores how we have repeatedly destabilized most countries in Latin America. And yes, most countries. (The map is actually wrong in not coloring Honduras red as well.)
And thus, Hispanics who DON'T have a better life in front of them come north. If we were honest, Frum, we'd call these people refugees.
Third and related? Frum doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal immigration.
Fourth? Frum also ignores that many Hispanic illegal immigrants normally plan to move home eventually. But, Trump's wall makes that harder.
Fifth, Frum engages in stereotyping by pretending that the vast majority of illegal immigration is Latinx, and that they're new arrivals. Neither is true.
The shorter David Frum? Ignore American coups, less wall and more law enforcement bodies on the border, and ignore realities of immigration.
Now, per the above?
Liberals is really, anymore, just a term for left-neoliberals. They do exist, and per Michaels, one distinguishing mark is not wanting to call themselves neoliberal on the issues where they ... are neoliberal.
Left-liberals are those who admit there are at least some problems with market capitalism, especially in conjunction with a deregulatory state, but don't want to discuss just how bad the problem is, and also in the US don't want to walk outside the Democratic party.
Leftists are those who go beyond that. (And, I don't care if you claim to be a leftist; if you won't put even one toe outside the duopoly, you're a left-liberal.)
Back to immigration.
Liberals, if not favoring totally open borders, lean in general toward more open borders than the other two groups. Why? They're neoliberals at end. Open borders lets them boost both neoliberal market capitalism with cheap labor, and boost diversity by changing the demographic face a bit more. They may think this demographic change boosts Democratic electoral chances, a claim about which they should be much more circumspect. As for the jobs being an economic boost? Hell, many conservatives, while being careful with phrasing, will admit cheap labor does goose the economy, and it can be either legal or illegal. And, speaking of, liberals often are no better than Frum at distinguishing the two.
And, librul Deadspin shows this (love calling it out at times) by getting Frum's character right and his motivations at least semi-right but going semi-wrong on its call-out of his call-out of Joaquin Castro et al. Castro is not offering amnesty per se. BUT, if he were? An amnesty for all illegals IS the functional equivalent, at least, of abandoning border control, especially when the Reagan amnesty, we were told, was a once-off.
Left-liberals and leftists have less unity on the issue. (The Nation found this out a decade ago when it wrote a semi-open borders piece and got flamed by a number of readers in letters to the editor.)
Leftists will generally, as I did above, point out the US imperialism that has caused the immigration push. Left-liberals may not go that deep; leftists will also point out the capitalist tsunami behind all this more ardently. Both will also generally distinguish between legal and illegal immigration and will likely express different strategies for both. And, left-liberals and lefists, more than liberals, know that African-Americans are no more immigration friendly than whites, if that much.
For this leftist, addressing illegal immigration begins with addressing American right-wing coups.
Second, this skeptical leftist will agree with Frum on cutting, or even ending, the family reunification portion of today's immigration law and reframing the law on skills.
Related to this, leftists will reject that the US has some shortage of gray- or white-collar STEM or similar jobs that need filling via legal immigration. That's not true.
A skeptical leftist will also note that we can't solve the world's problems; we can do what we can to not make them worse. That means no more coups. And no more lying about coups.
If liberals are really left-neoliberals who don't like that name, then many neocons are, aside from Israel, a hybrid of paleocons and neoliberals in some way.
Showing posts with label U.S. immigration policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. immigration policy. Show all posts
November 28, 2014
#TeaParty type person behind Austin shooting
 |
| Larry Steven McQuilliams, from his Facebook page. |
Knowing that Austin's federal courthouse and Mexican consulate had been targets of gunfire and possible explosive devices, just a week after President Barack Obama's speech on immigration, that wasn't too hard a guess to make.
And, now we know something about Larry Steven McQuilliams, who was wearing a vest suspected of either being a bulletproof vest or a suicide bomber's one, fired more than 100 rounds and started a fire at the consulate.
That's him in a Ren Fest costume. Doesn't take a lot of imagination to picture a tea bag tacked to that hat, does it?
The Austin American-Statesman (third link) reports that a neighbor and his Facebook page confirm antigovernment leanings. The Statesman notes that he spent time in the federal pen in Texarkana; on what charges is not yet known. He also reportedly had a 1992 arrest in Austin for aggravated robbery.His Facebook page also has a photo-poster with a quote from the Dalai Lama advocating gun usage at times. (Yes, on the quote being real.) That's it, on the left.
BreitbartUnmasked has dug up several Facebook comments of his.
McQuilliams doesn't seem like a common last name.
And, Facebook turns up other people with that same name, from Wichita, where Larry lived before Austin.
However, none of them list him as a Facebook friend or vice versa. (It's possible they could have mutually scrubbed each other, of course.)
Let's take Virgil McQuilliams, the "prize" of the bunch, first.
A copy of that photo poster was on his Facebook timeline on Nov. 23. (Facebook permalink to McQuilliams post.) There's other stuff on his feed talking about Obama's immigration amnesty program, claiming Obama is a secret Muslim, etc. You get the picture.
Virgil looks about the right age to be his brother, assuming that Aryvella is their mother. (Intellius lists her as male, for some reason.) Landon appears to be Virgil's son, and has nothing extraordinary, at least publicly visible, on his timeline.
Robin appears to be Virgin and Steve's sister. She has nothing the likes of Virgil, but both she and Aryvella do have a number of conservatively religious Facebook posts.
On Nov. 30, the Austin PD confirmed that his parents lived in Wichita and refused to talk to them. Given what I've mentioned above, I could assume that's Aryvella and husband Larry. And given everything we're learning (see updates, below), is that a surprise? But, I've not seen Steve, whose given first name is Larry, called "junior." At the same time, US Search, like Intellius, lists all these people as related, so, I'll stand by calling Aryvella and Larry his parents, and on the judgment call about the rest of the family tree.
USA People Search lists a Deana Hudson, 48, as a relative of Steve. Could have been his wife. Or, like Robin Hughes, a sister.
Another possible relative of his, an Eric Tyler McQuilliams, possibly either son or nephew, has both a state of Texas and federal history of drug charges.Other than a state habeas petition, though, I can't find anything about Steve in the federal court system; the Statesman noted his federal information was incomplete. Eric's name came up with his in federal records. However, Intelius does NOT list him and Steve as directly related. So, it may be a nephew, or a cousin, or a first cousin once removed or something.
Meanwhile, at least one Breitbart commenter (I posted this link in comments on a story of theirs that was trying to soft-soap his seeming anti-government stance) called this "propaganda." Yep, that's where wingnuts are at: truth = propaganda.
Update, Dec. 1: Without commenting on anything they've found on his family history, Austin police are confirming Steve McQuilliams had anti-African American views, along with conservative Christian anti-immigrant views. Wonder if he was involved with specific white identity groups.
Actually, per the Washington Post, it appears he WAS involved with just such a group, or a movement that wasn't organized enough to be called a group. Wikipedia has more on the Phineas Priesthood.
Note especially this part, from Wikipedia's page on the Phineas Priesthood:
Members of the Priesthood are considered terrorists for, among other things, various 1996 abortion clinic bombings, the bombing in Spokane of The Spokesman-Review newspaper, bank robberies, and plans to blow up FBI buildings. Four members of this organization were convicted of crimes including bank robbery and bombing, with each sentenced in 1997 and 1998 to life in prison.
Beyond that, he was found with a list of 34 locations, including two churches, that police believe he had targeted.
Update, Dec. 5: I don't do this often, because I'm not a Gnu Atheist, but I get tired of these "God put me in the right place" types of nuttery. Officer Johnson, if god were really involved, then why didn't he prevent Steve McQuilliams from getting his guns and bombs in the first place?
November 06, 2014
#KeystoneXL, Obama and the GOP
Faux News, in a half-correct piece (any talk that Mitch the Turtle has made about repealing Obamacare isn't real) says that the KeystoneXL pipeline will be front and center among talking points between President Obama and House and Senate GOP leaders tomorrow.
A final White House decision on Keystone was punted past Election Day, of course. Regular readers of this corner of the Interwebz know that that was no surprise to me either, of course.
So, what will Obama do?
1. I say there's a 40 percent chance he approves it straight up before the end of the year.
2. Or there's a 40 percent change he OKs it with some face-saving "concessions" from the GOP.
3. There's a 20 percent chance he kills it. And, that may be a high guess.
Your thoughts? Hit the poll on the right.
(Nov. 19: That "concessions" could include a straight-up OK of Keystone but with bargains on other legislation. That said, if I'm Dear Leader, I get some advance guarantee on those concessions.)
And, what will he do on other items?
Related to Keystone, he'll "double down" on his "all of the above" energy strategy, insisting on some crumbs still going to green energy. When red-state senators are reminded that many of them are in sunny areas, those who are OK with pork will agree. And, per the likes of Microsoft and Yahoo buying up green power as soon as it becomes available, there are things to show any GOP Congresscritter who's not totally in the nutbar tank.
After all, Google, Microsoft, Walmart and Mars (the candy folks, headquartered here) have bought green power in Texas. Google's bought green power in Jim Imhofe's Oklahoma.
Is that what he should do?
I'm actually of somewhat mixed minds.
First, tar sands oil will continue to be mined, and continue to be exported, anyway. Jobs on pipeline building aside, a fair amount of it will be exported to U.S. oil refineries.
That said, because Obama didn't do the Senate heavy lifting in 2009 on a carbon cap-and-trade program, which of course isn't enough by itself to control what's staring us in the face, it's doubtful he'll take a strong stand against Keystone.
Second, with all the worries about pipelines, if that oil is coming here, it's safer coming via pipeline, even with the risk of leaks, than via rail. Related to that? Building the pipeline would reduce some horrific freight rail congestion that affects not only Amtrak, but grain from farmers and other things.
Third? Stephen Harper's Conservatives don't look like they're leaving office any time soon. Either in Ottawa at the federal level, or at the provincial level in Alberta. Right now, they hold 161 of 305 seats federally. It's doubtful that the next Canadian federal election will cut the majority to a plurality; the Conservatives have lost five seats in by-elections since 2011. And, if it does, rather than letting Harper run a minority government, I have little doubt that Justin Trudeau would put his liberals into a coalition to get a few crumbs of power.
Short of a change in Canadian government plus a carbon tax and tariff in the U.S., the on-the-ground dynamics of Alberta tar sands aren't changing.
As this piece spells out, those dynamics are huge. They include the federal and provincial governments treating Canada's First Nations as badly, if not more so, than the U.S. has treated our Native Americans in the past. Tribal divisions result from that. And, the relentless tar sands mining continues.
And, unless somebody can point out to me a 2016 U.S. presidential contender within the Democratic party who will come within 100 miles of a carbon tax, that's not changing.
So, approve the pipeline with concessions is the best realistic choice.
Immigration?
Any executive actions he take will be weak tea.
And, environmental organizations asking me to sign petitions to ask Congress to block Keystone? IT won't work, of course, and this is really just baseball for environmentalist group fundraiisng.
A final White House decision on Keystone was punted past Election Day, of course. Regular readers of this corner of the Interwebz know that that was no surprise to me either, of course.
So, what will Obama do?
1. I say there's a 40 percent chance he approves it straight up before the end of the year.
2. Or there's a 40 percent change he OKs it with some face-saving "concessions" from the GOP.
3. There's a 20 percent chance he kills it. And, that may be a high guess.
Your thoughts? Hit the poll on the right.
(Nov. 19: That "concessions" could include a straight-up OK of Keystone but with bargains on other legislation. That said, if I'm Dear Leader, I get some advance guarantee on those concessions.)
And, what will he do on other items?
Related to Keystone, he'll "double down" on his "all of the above" energy strategy, insisting on some crumbs still going to green energy. When red-state senators are reminded that many of them are in sunny areas, those who are OK with pork will agree. And, per the likes of Microsoft and Yahoo buying up green power as soon as it becomes available, there are things to show any GOP Congresscritter who's not totally in the nutbar tank.
After all, Google, Microsoft, Walmart and Mars (the candy folks, headquartered here) have bought green power in Texas. Google's bought green power in Jim Imhofe's Oklahoma.
Is that what he should do?
I'm actually of somewhat mixed minds.
First, tar sands oil will continue to be mined, and continue to be exported, anyway. Jobs on pipeline building aside, a fair amount of it will be exported to U.S. oil refineries.
That said, because Obama didn't do the Senate heavy lifting in 2009 on a carbon cap-and-trade program, which of course isn't enough by itself to control what's staring us in the face, it's doubtful he'll take a strong stand against Keystone.
Second, with all the worries about pipelines, if that oil is coming here, it's safer coming via pipeline, even with the risk of leaks, than via rail. Related to that? Building the pipeline would reduce some horrific freight rail congestion that affects not only Amtrak, but grain from farmers and other things.
Third? Stephen Harper's Conservatives don't look like they're leaving office any time soon. Either in Ottawa at the federal level, or at the provincial level in Alberta. Right now, they hold 161 of 305 seats federally. It's doubtful that the next Canadian federal election will cut the majority to a plurality; the Conservatives have lost five seats in by-elections since 2011. And, if it does, rather than letting Harper run a minority government, I have little doubt that Justin Trudeau would put his liberals into a coalition to get a few crumbs of power.
Short of a change in Canadian government plus a carbon tax and tariff in the U.S., the on-the-ground dynamics of Alberta tar sands aren't changing.
As this piece spells out, those dynamics are huge. They include the federal and provincial governments treating Canada's First Nations as badly, if not more so, than the U.S. has treated our Native Americans in the past. Tribal divisions result from that. And, the relentless tar sands mining continues.
And, unless somebody can point out to me a 2016 U.S. presidential contender within the Democratic party who will come within 100 miles of a carbon tax, that's not changing.
So, approve the pipeline with concessions is the best realistic choice.
Immigration?
Any executive actions he take will be weak tea.
And, environmental organizations asking me to sign petitions to ask Congress to block Keystone? IT won't work, of course, and this is really just baseball for environmentalist group fundraiisng.
July 22, 2014
#WendyDavis: alleged #BorderCrisis another "track right" opportunity
There's the old cliche that the Chinese ideogram for "crisis" is "danger" plus "opportunity."
Hence the headline, as Texas' Democratic gubernatorial nominee has rarely missed an opportunity to track right in her campaign, pandering for conservative voters that wouldn't toggle her name in a voting booth even if Davis got a Texas Open Carry nutbar to stand at the polling place.
This started last fall back in Waxahachie, as I documented in depth here.
Her unprecedented, and arguably arrogant, pre-primary endorsement of David Alameel in the U.S. Senate race was the next big step.
At about the same time, she started playing dodgeball with the word "abortion," even though it was an abortion-related filibuster last summer that catapulted her to the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.
And now?
She wants to out-wingnut the GOP on the alleged "border crisis." Yes, there has been an uptick in illegal crossings, especially of minors, but the only "crisis" is the shabby treatment on our side of the border:
Great.
We have two "mainstream" political party candidates who are both lawyers, and who both either don't know the basic legal fact that immigration is either a civil issue and a federal one only, or else don't give a damn. (I've just written about Greg Abbott on this issue, along with Rick Perry, here.)
We have a Libertarian candidate who is also a lawyer and who flat-out lies about this issue:
Article I, Section 8, where it says "The Congress shall have Power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" has always been interpreted by courts as arrogating specifically to Congress power over all aspects of immigration. (You don't naturalize native-born people, after all.)
And, related to that, the now-obsolete Article I, Section 9, about slavery, says:
So, nice try, Kathie Glass, but that would be a big #fail.
And, we have a Green candidate who might as well be in fucking Timbucktu for all I know, having not even posted on his Facebook page since February.
It's times like this that, as much as it undercuts the idea of democracy, and as much as plutocrats in both mainstream parties plus the Libertarians like to hear this, that I defend not voting, when done as a reasoned choice, as one's right.
Reality? Greg Abbott, Wendy Davis and Kathie Glass should all have their law licenses revoked. Brandon Parmer should be shipped off to the actual Timbuktu.
Hence the headline, as Texas' Democratic gubernatorial nominee has rarely missed an opportunity to track right in her campaign, pandering for conservative voters that wouldn't toggle her name in a voting booth even if Davis got a Texas Open Carry nutbar to stand at the polling place.
This started last fall back in Waxahachie, as I documented in depth here.
Her unprecedented, and arguably arrogant, pre-primary endorsement of David Alameel in the U.S. Senate race was the next big step.
At about the same time, she started playing dodgeball with the word "abortion," even though it was an abortion-related filibuster last summer that catapulted her to the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.
And now?
She wants to out-wingnut the GOP on the alleged "border crisis." Yes, there has been an uptick in illegal crossings, especially of minors, but the only "crisis" is the shabby treatment on our side of the border:
And state Sen. Wendy Davis, a Democrat campaigning for governor, responded to Perry’s announcement by calling for a different border surge: adding more sheriff’s deputies to the region.Sheriff's deputies can only act specifically on immigration enforcement, versus checking one's country of origin when stopping a person for some potential criminal offense, when deputized by the federal government.
“If the federal government won't act, Texas must and will,” Davis said. “However, we should be deploying additional deputy sheriffs to the border like local law enforcement is calling for.”
Great.
We have two "mainstream" political party candidates who are both lawyers, and who both either don't know the basic legal fact that immigration is either a civil issue and a federal one only, or else don't give a damn. (I've just written about Greg Abbott on this issue, along with Rick Perry, here.)
We have a Libertarian candidate who is also a lawyer and who flat-out lies about this issue:
Our Constitution grants the federal government jurisdiction over naturalization, but not over immigration.Wrong.
Article I, Section 8, where it says "The Congress shall have Power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" has always been interpreted by courts as arrogating specifically to Congress power over all aspects of immigration. (You don't naturalize native-born people, after all.)
And, related to that, the now-obsolete Article I, Section 9, about slavery, says:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit ...Now, that's passive-voice "importation," but the idea of immigration is clearly there.
So, nice try, Kathie Glass, but that would be a big #fail.
And, we have a Green candidate who might as well be in fucking Timbucktu for all I know, having not even posted on his Facebook page since February.
It's times like this that, as much as it undercuts the idea of democracy, and as much as plutocrats in both mainstream parties plus the Libertarians like to hear this, that I defend not voting, when done as a reasoned choice, as one's right.
Reality? Greg Abbott, Wendy Davis and Kathie Glass should all have their law licenses revoked. Brandon Parmer should be shipped off to the actual Timbuktu.
January 21, 2014
Patterson mixes Alamo with appeal to "Tejanos"
Why do I say exactly that about Texas Republican Lite Guv candidate Jerry Patterson? Because he doesn't use the word "Hispanic" or "Latino," but rather, "Tejano," in this press release email, and that's not all:
Anyway, next comes a bit of untruth.
And, I wasn't joking about the Alamo part.
Jerry gets some b-roll Alamo (or perhaps San Jacinto, but let's still pretend it's the Alamo) footage in his video of the announcement. Unfortunately, no pix of him unstrapping his hogleg from inside his boot, while at the Shrine of Texas Mythology:
Hey, I guess giving us a laugh factor helps us non-GOPers get entertained by the Repubs in the Lite Guv primary, what with the weird psyches of Dudley Dewless and the Three Blind Mice.
That said, I do know a reason why he uses that particular word. Due to the GOP's voter ID law, panty-knotting worries over voter fraud by illegal immigrants, more panty-knotting worries about keeping a brown tide on the other side of the border, etc., Jerry can't appeal to "Hispanics" or "Latinos" without coming under the guns of Dewless and the other two of the Blind Mice as being soft on immigration.
I also know why there's no footage of him whipping out his pistol. A Mexican-American seeing a batshit-crazy white man talking about "Tejano" while he waves a gun is going to quickly be running like hell.
Besides, with the Alamo and concealed handguns? We know what's really behind that: Texas tiny-penis syndrome, something that infects about three-quarters of the likes of Jerry Patterson, I do believe.
More seriously? If he wants to make a real appeal to Tejanos? Jerry should support the school funding lawsuit.
Back to the Alamo schtick, though. At times, I wish a Texas wing of al Qaeda would blow the damned thing up.
I remember the first time I visited San Antonio. The John Wayne movie had me prepared for something about three times as big as reality. And that's the problem.
And, arguably, since the tiny-penis syndrome at San Jacinto was deliberately built taller than the Washington Monument, it, too, is some sort of Shrine to Texas Mythology, is it not?
I've been to Sonoma, where California's brief Bear Flag Republic was started. (California was one of three states besides Texas — ignore history that claims Texas was one of two states — to be an independent republic before joining the United States, along with Vermont and Hawaii.) There's a tasteful, reasonably-scaled monument on the courthouse square.
Today, Jerry Patterson launched "Tejanos for Patterson," a group comprised of Texans locally and statewide who support Jerry Patterson's candidacy for Lt. Governor.So, is he filming an announcement on Alamo grounds?
Anyway, next comes a bit of untruth.
"Tejanos represent over 1/4 of all the eligible voters in Texas. Most embrace conservative values. They should be Republicans," said Jerry Patterson, candidate for Lt. Governor. "That's why I'm launching Tejanos for Patterson. It is important for all Hispanics, or Tejanos, as they've proudly called themselves, to know that their voice is not only welcomed here, but sorely needed. My campaign is focused on including all Texans."Really, on the conservative values? Then why do they consistently lean Democrat in voting? And, do that many Hispanics in general, or Mexican-Americans in particular, really call themselves "Tejano"? I think that's three lemons, or three noes, Jerry!
And, I wasn't joking about the Alamo part.
Jerry gets some b-roll Alamo (or perhaps San Jacinto, but let's still pretend it's the Alamo) footage in his video of the announcement. Unfortunately, no pix of him unstrapping his hogleg from inside his boot, while at the Shrine of Texas Mythology:
Hey, I guess giving us a laugh factor helps us non-GOPers get entertained by the Repubs in the Lite Guv primary, what with the weird psyches of Dudley Dewless and the Three Blind Mice.
That said, I do know a reason why he uses that particular word. Due to the GOP's voter ID law, panty-knotting worries over voter fraud by illegal immigrants, more panty-knotting worries about keeping a brown tide on the other side of the border, etc., Jerry can't appeal to "Hispanics" or "Latinos" without coming under the guns of Dewless and the other two of the Blind Mice as being soft on immigration.
I also know why there's no footage of him whipping out his pistol. A Mexican-American seeing a batshit-crazy white man talking about "Tejano" while he waves a gun is going to quickly be running like hell.
Besides, with the Alamo and concealed handguns? We know what's really behind that: Texas tiny-penis syndrome, something that infects about three-quarters of the likes of Jerry Patterson, I do believe.
More seriously? If he wants to make a real appeal to Tejanos? Jerry should support the school funding lawsuit.
Back to the Alamo schtick, though. At times, I wish a Texas wing of al Qaeda would blow the damned thing up.
I remember the first time I visited San Antonio. The John Wayne movie had me prepared for something about three times as big as reality. And that's the problem.
And, arguably, since the tiny-penis syndrome at San Jacinto was deliberately built taller than the Washington Monument, it, too, is some sort of Shrine to Texas Mythology, is it not?
I've been to Sonoma, where California's brief Bear Flag Republic was started. (California was one of three states besides Texas — ignore history that claims Texas was one of two states — to be an independent republic before joining the United States, along with Vermont and Hawaii.) There's a tasteful, reasonably-scaled monument on the courthouse square.
May 10, 2013
We must KILL, KILL, KILL immigration reform
 |
| National Institutes of Health image |
Why? Somebody in our bipartisan Googly Senate overlords of DC has foisted this — a massive biometric data-mining ID provision — into the legislation.
Forget the various Internet snooping bills that were sniffing around the edges of Congress last year. This is worse.
Buried in the more than 800 pages of the bipartisan legislation (.pdf) is language mandating the creation of the innocuously-named “photo tool,” a massive federal database administered by the Department of Homeland Security and containing names, ages, Social Security numbers and photographs of everyone in the country with a driver’s license or other state-issued photo ID.And, you're damned skippy there would be mission creep indeed. As Wired notes itself, it happened with Social Security numbers, which the gummint itself originally said would only be used for Social Security purposes.
Employers would be obliged to look up every new hire in the database to verify that they match their photo.
This piece of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act is aimed at curbing employment of undocumented immigrants. But privacy advocates fear the inevitable mission creep, ending with the proof of self being required at polling places, to rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account, acquire credit, board a plane or even attend a sporting event or log on the internet. Think of it as a government version of Foursquare, with Big Brother cataloging every check-in.
So, again, I don't care what you feel about immigration reform — the current bill must be killed.
Not weakened, killed.
We don't need anything like this in the bill.
That said, per Dear Leader's own idea about taxing or fining social media and related sites to get them to cough up more info, if this provision stays in the immigration bill, y ou know Obaam will sign it into law.
That's why this bill, and this portion, must be killed. Not weakned, but killed.
If that means larger immigration reform is dead for 2 years, that's what it means.
Period.
I don't care if it even means emailing Ted Cruz, for fellow Texas denizens. Tell him to kill this thing. That said, I'm sure he's already dead-set against it, so Cornyn's the one to be worked here in Texas.
The next worry is that, if this passed at the federal level, it would trickle down to states.
Let's not forget that a state governed by a wingnut like Rick Perry has a driver's license with digital versions of your thumbprints.
And, you think identity theft is a problem now, dealing with Social Security and such? It would be Kafkaesque indeed with this.
So, it's not just the current bill. If future immigration reform legislation has something even close to this tacked on to it, it's got to be killed.
September 26, 2010
Paul Babeu - The lying anti-immigrant liars
Now, let me state that I, too think we need to do more illegal immigration. And, I differ from some left-liberals in that I do NOT support things like "sanctuary cities."
That said ...
Did a deputy of pro-Jan Brewer Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu shoot himself to fake being attacked by drug smugglers?
A couple of forensic pathologists say yes. And, even if the debate over the bullet wound goes on, the whole background story looks more and more fishy.
A deputy out alone in a situation like that (hypothetically, for the sake of argument, assuming this really happened) would normally be sternly reprimanded and disciplined by his boss. In this case, I distrust Babeu even more than Brewer, enough to wonder just how much of a "mastermind" role he played in this.
I mean, the man has voluntarily appeared on white supremacist talk radio shows. And, he's so hung up on himself, he has his own website, SheriffPaul (I refuse to hyperlink) as well as the Pinal County Sheriff's Office site.
I think Arizona's state investigative bureau needs to get cracking on this, and now.
That said ...
Did a deputy of pro-Jan Brewer Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu shoot himself to fake being attacked by drug smugglers?
A couple of forensic pathologists say yes. And, even if the debate over the bullet wound goes on, the whole background story looks more and more fishy.
A deputy out alone in a situation like that (hypothetically, for the sake of argument, assuming this really happened) would normally be sternly reprimanded and disciplined by his boss. In this case, I distrust Babeu even more than Brewer, enough to wonder just how much of a "mastermind" role he played in this.
I mean, the man has voluntarily appeared on white supremacist talk radio shows. And, he's so hung up on himself, he has his own website, SheriffPaul (I refuse to hyperlink) as well as the Pinal County Sheriff's Office site.
I think Arizona's state investigative bureau needs to get cracking on this, and now.
May 19, 2010
This is not your momma's immigrant nation
An excellent article here about why baby boomers, especially the older ones, may be less tolerant of immigration than their children.
Boomers, due to changes in immigration law, especially in 1924, grew up in a low-immigrant America. But, then, LBJ liberalized immigration, especially non-European immigration, in 1965. Today? The percentage of immigrants in our society is about the same as it was a century ago. But, more than double what it was 45 years ago.
That said, the percentage of illegal immigration is higher today. At the same time, there were plenty of ship stowaways who came her illegally a century ago.
Boomers, due to changes in immigration law, especially in 1924, grew up in a low-immigrant America. But, then, LBJ liberalized immigration, especially non-European immigration, in 1965. Today? The percentage of immigrants in our society is about the same as it was a century ago. But, more than double what it was 45 years ago.
That said, the percentage of illegal immigration is higher today. At the same time, there were plenty of ship stowaways who came her illegally a century ago.
March 12, 2010
Immigration, health care and reconciliation
So, Lindsey Graham thinks he has a good immigration bill but, in essence, is holding GOP support for it hostage to Democrats' possible Senate use of reconciliation procedures to pass a health care bill.
And Graham is supposed to be a "sensible" conservative?
Besides, co-sponsor Chuck Schumer already can't get any GOP sponsors besides Graham. The refusal of whites in the Texas GOP to even vote for Hispanics of their own party, here at the state level, is emblematic, eh?
That said, is the bill really that good?
While it may toughen up border security, it appears to have some sort of "amnesty" without using that word, while also launching a guest worker program.
I'm in favor of "tagging" those already here illegally, to give them first shot at such guest worker jobs, after they're already deported, though. And only with that.
I also think we need to put an automatic COLA on the minimum wage to encourage more of these jobs to be filled by citizens first.
And Graham is supposed to be a "sensible" conservative?
Besides, co-sponsor Chuck Schumer already can't get any GOP sponsors besides Graham. The refusal of whites in the Texas GOP to even vote for Hispanics of their own party, here at the state level, is emblematic, eh?
That said, is the bill really that good?
While it may toughen up border security, it appears to have some sort of "amnesty" without using that word, while also launching a guest worker program.
I'm in favor of "tagging" those already here illegally, to give them first shot at such guest worker jobs, after they're already deported, though. And only with that.
I also think we need to put an automatic COLA on the minimum wage to encourage more of these jobs to be filled by citizens first.
July 08, 2009
Immigration reform still volatile
Even the trick of punting immigration reform to a national commission hasn’t lessened Republican-Democrat or business-labor wrangling over the issue.
Nonetheless, some lines of agreement are emerging. “Earned legalization, not amnesty” is one. Some freeing of quotas on work-related visas is another.
Beyond that, though, it’s still tough sledding.
Nonetheless, some lines of agreement are emerging. “Earned legalization, not amnesty” is one. Some freeing of quotas on work-related visas is another.
Beyond that, though, it’s still tough sledding.
June 08, 2008
A Euro heads-up to U.S. immigration policy
Eurozone countries that have tighter skill-restrictive immigration policies actually end up with a less skilled mix of immigrants than countries with more open immigration.
A Fistful of Euros, the best left-of-center overview blog of European issues I know of, has its overview of this paradox. As AFOE notes, there’s enough variation among Eurozone countries in immigration policies that an answer to this paradox may ultimately spit itself out.
Is it an English-language issue? Spain is getting more immigrants from Latin America, while both the UK and Ireland are getting an influx from current and former Commonwealth countries.
For the nonce, though, it seems clear the next president of the U.S. needs to lighten up on the drastic post-9/11 tightening of immigration.
Of course, as one commenter to the AFOE piece notes, Americans don’t even have to look across the pond: Canada has both looser immigration standards and, arguably, less xenophobia than the U.S.
For example, 45 percent of Ireland’s foreign-born residents and 34 percent of Britain’s have a university degree, compared with only 19 percent in Germany and 11 percent in Italy.
A Fistful of Euros, the best left-of-center overview blog of European issues I know of, has its overview of this paradox. As AFOE notes, there’s enough variation among Eurozone countries in immigration policies that an answer to this paradox may ultimately spit itself out.
Is it an English-language issue? Spain is getting more immigrants from Latin America, while both the UK and Ireland are getting an influx from current and former Commonwealth countries.
For the nonce, though, it seems clear the next president of the U.S. needs to lighten up on the drastic post-9/11 tightening of immigration.
Of course, as one commenter to the AFOE piece notes, Americans don’t even have to look across the pond: Canada has both looser immigration standards and, arguably, less xenophobia than the U.S.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)