Florida Tea Party Candidate's Plan For Illegals

If only most illegal immigrants were also gay Muslims as well, then the political right in this country could really concentrate their vilification and scapegoating on one group of people rather than having to spread it so thin across so many:


It's a good thing there's no unfortunate historical precedent from the 1940's for the government rounding up a minority group and putting them into camps or else this woman might appear a bit callous and ignorant as it concerns her fellow human beings. Oh wait... Of course the federal government only imprisoned 110,000 Japanese during World War II while the current estimates of the number of illegal immigrants currently in country are around 11 million, fully one hundred times that amount. That's a lot of internment camps. If only we had a source of cheap plentiful labor to help us build Ms. Barker's grand vision of detention. Oh wait again...

(via)

Something Reality-Based Someone Else Said

"We don't have the authority here in Arizona to turn off the lights." -Gary Pierce of the Arizona Corporation Commission, Your World with Neil Cavuto, on the mistaken notion that some on the political right have that a letter he wrote to Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was some type of threat to cut power to that city over its stated boycott of Arizona because of its new anti-immigration law (L.A. receives 25% of its electricity from power plants in Arizona).

"So why are you and I even talking then?" -Neil Cavuto, Your World with Neil Cavuto, on learning this apparently obvious fact on live television right after blithely asking Pierce, "What's the trigger point at which you turn off the lights?" whilst running a news banner that read "AZ THREATENS TO CUT OFF LA'S POWER OVER ECONOMIC BOYCOTT".

Of course, no one has ever accused FOX News of doing too much research for their "news" segments, have they?

McCain Wants To Complete The Danged Fence

In an attempt to out-right-wing his right-wing competitor for the Republican nomination in Arizona John McCain is trying really hard to get tea party Republicans to vote for him:


McCain's campaign insists that his enthusiasm for a border fence in this ad is consistent with his stated views on the issue in the past but this excerpt from a 2007 Vanity Fair article about him makes me wonder:

...in Milwaukee, in front of an audience of more sympathetic businessmen, McCain had been asked how debate over the immigration bill was playing politically. “In the short term, it probably galvanizes our base,” he said. “In the long term, if you alienate the Hispanics, you’ll pay a heavy price.” Then he added, unable to help himself, “By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the goddamned fence if they want it.”

So apparently he's now decided that pandering to that galvanized base is way more important than not alienating those Hispanics, at least in a hotly contested Republican primary. Remember when people used to talk about John McCain's integrity without laughing? Sad and pathetic.

(via)

Something Someone Else Said

"I don't know. I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like." -Republican Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, when asked what criteria will be used to establish reasonable suspicion of someone's legal status after signing a bill Friday that requires police in her state to determine whether a person is in the United States legally.

Now I'm all for securing our borders. As I've said before, both Republicans and Democrats have been dragging their feet on border and port security for years now and it's made us less safe as a country but I just don't see how this new law is going to work:

The bill requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect that they're in the United States illegally. It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.

The Republican governor also issued an executive order that requires additional training for local officers on how to implement the law without engaging in racial profiling or discrimination.

"This training will include what does and does not constitute reasonable suspicion that a person is not legally present in the United States," Brewer said after signing the bill.

"Racial profiling is illegal. It is illegal in America, and it's certainly illegal in Arizona," Brewer said.

The rules, to be established in by the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board, are due back to her in May. The law goes into effect 90 days after the close of the legislative session, which has not been determined.

Now of course race will be one of the most important components of AZPOST's criteria for identifying illegals. We know that the vast majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona are Mexican so the police are obviously going to be looking for people with dark skin and black hair but beyond that what else can they possibly do? Short of constraining their search to people who are actually caught in the act of climbing over the border fence and to anyone else wearing a sombrero or colorful wrestling mask there's pretty much no other way to determine who's here legally and who isn't just by looking at them. The aforementioned stereotypical headgear aside, illegal immigrants look just like legal immigrants and American citizens of Hispanic descent and I highly doubt that instituting a "know 'em when I see 'em" policy of differentiation will fly legally. So what other criteria can they possibly use that constitutes a "reasonable suspicion"? Is this essentially just giving the police the power to harass and racially profile brown people for being brown people or am I missing something here?

A New Hope: Parody vs. Reality

I was watching the original Star Wars last night when I came to this disturbing conclusion: I can't watch the original Episode IV anymore without imagining and subsequently obsessively repeating every one of the lines from the Family Guy double parody episode Blue Harvest. One of my happiest memories of childhood has been subsequently replaced by one of the most entertaining videos of my adult lifefime and I barely batted an eyelash. I'm either becoming very old or else reality seems a bit too false for me at this point.

Urine Tests To Receive Welfare Checks

Last month I got an email that's been widely circulated around the web from a friend that I had to disagree with. In lieu of original thoughts during my current domestic transition I reproduce that email for you here:

Now here's an idea that just seems too simple........

THE JOB - URINE TEST
(Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me...
I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.
In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test
with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the
distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
So here is my question. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a
welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their
feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone
sitting on their rump doing drugs, while I work.Can you imagine how much
money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a
public assistance check?
I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'.

Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all
will pass it along, though. Some thing has to change in this country --
and soon!!!!!!!

And now my response (and no, I didn't simply delete when I disagreed):

I realize that you didn't write this yourself Tami but the reason this seems too simple is because it is. All requiring urine tests for receiving a welfare check would do is punish poor people for personal behavior that shouldn't be any of the government's business in the first place, not to mention punishing any children whose parents didn't pass the tests. Also, the vast majority of welfare recipients must meet certain work requirements in order to be eligible for aid. While the popular perception of the average welfare recipient is that of a terminally lazy drug addict the reality is that most recipients (not including the elderly, children and the handicapped) are employed at least part time and leave the welfare rolls within twelve months of joining. If the use of illegal substances and being gainfully employed were each mutually exclusive situations as this person seems to be saying then over 40% of Americans would now be jobless.

Welfare recipients and other poor people are obvious targets when people start talking about social engineering through the distribution of government funds (this post about illegal immigration similarly addresses this type of populist demonology) but the truth is that most middle and upper-class Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Should we require everyone who receives any of these government benefits to be similarly tested as well? We're trying to save money by denying it to those who use illegal drugs and those tax dollars are worth the same no matter who receives them. And do we really want to give the government that kind of power over our bodies and personal/private recreations?

If this person really wanted to save tax dollars we should have urine tested the CEOs and boards of directors of every investment company and automobile manufacturer that has received any amount of bailout funding and subsequently withheld said funding from any company that didn't pass (do you doubt that these millionaires might have a few illicit substances in their own systems?). While we were at it we could have done the same for every private contractor doing business in Iraq. The government spends $324 billion a year on all welfare and unemployment. The banking industry alone received over twice that much in bailout money while the total cost of the Iraq war is estimated to be seven times that.

I suspect that the person who wrote this is not so much concerned with saving the government money as they are with trying to control the behaviors of others that they disagree with by picking on a group of people who are easy targets and can not easily defend themselves. And incidentally, this person doesn't have to pass a urine test in order to earn a paycheck that will be taxed by the same government that distributes welfare benefits. They've chosen to work for a private company that has this policy, which of course is that company's right. But as I said, giving that power to a government that is the only source of welfare (at whatever level it's being distributed) would be oppressive and dangerous as to our individual liberties and privacy rights. This person may not have any qualms about government intrusion into their own life but I for one do not want to have to piss in a cup to receive my tax return or get a student loan, which is the path down which this course of logic would invariably lead.

Whether you agree or disagree with my take on this, I of course welcome all comments.

Joe Legal vs Jose Illegal

Some of you might recognize this email with the same title as this post which attempts to address the problem of illegal immigration here in California. It was forwarded to me without comment yesterday by a friend and I subsequently wrote up a reply to its various declarations. First the email:

Joe Legal vs.. Jose Illegal


You have 2 families... "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have 2 parents, 2 children and live in California.

"Joe Legal" works in construction, has a Social Security Number, and makes $25.00 per hour with payroll taxes deducted.

"Jose Illegal" also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".

Joe Legal... $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week = $52,000 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax. Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal... $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week = $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays for Medical and Dental Insurance with limited coverage ... $1000.00 per month = $12,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $19,231.00.

Jose Illegal has full Medical and Dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal makes too much money to be eligible for Food Stamps or Welfare so Joe Legal pays for food... $1,000.00 per month = $12,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for Food Stamps and Welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,000.00 per month = $12,000.00 per year. Joe Legal is now in the hole -<$4,769.00>.

Jose Illegal receives a $500 per month Federal rent subsidy, which entirely pays his rent of $500.00 per month = $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays and gets a part time job after work to make ends meet.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.

Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get free government sponsored lunches.

Joe Legal's children go home after school. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program which, again, is provided free of charge.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same Police and Fire Services, but Joe Legal paid for them and Jose Illegal did not pay.

And now my response:

It seems to me that the more substantial problem here is not so much illegal immigrants coming to this country so much as it is the companies who hire them in order to save money and boost their own profit margins. If there were no under the table jobs available I suspect that far fewer people would be coming here illegally looking for work. And while I won't dispute the actual numbers included in this comparison (rent, food costs, insurance, etc.) I would take some exceptions to the assumptions made about their application.

If the state and local clinics are comparable to Joe's own doctor and dentist then why doesn't Joe just use them instead? I'd posit that he doesn't do this because they are not nearly as competent and efficient as his own medical professionals, hence Jose gets the level of treatment he pays for but no one is stopping Joe from doing the same.

Jose is also most definitely not eligible for food stamps nor welfare because he is an illegal immigrant. If his children were born in this country (and were therefore citizens) he could apply for food stamps only for them, yet even so millions of illegals who qualify for such do not avail themselves of the program because they either don't know or understand that they qualify or they're too afraid of being caught and deported by the government. But since Jose's kids are taking ESL classes they obviously came here from another country so they would not be eligible either.

Of the 7.1 million people living in federally subsidized housing, an estimated 29,570, or 0.4%, are "ineligible noncitizens." Concurrently, that means that only 0.29% (barely one quarter of one percent) of the estimated 10 million illegals in this country do so.

Working on Saturdays and weekends sucks for Joe but if he had gone to college or some kind of technical school (and he still can, of course) he would most likely have been able to get a higher paying job than construction, and as a U.S. citizen he would be eligible for federally subsidized student loans and grants that Jose would not be. Also, do you know many illegal immigrants who only work during the day Mon.-Fri. and not also at night and on weekends? Because I sure don't.

Jose's children would indeed get subsidized school lunches whether they were illegal or not because that falls under the aegis of the human rights programs we enacted as a country as part of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. And while Joe's kids may not qualify for free lunches there are also many reduced price lunch programs (like I used when I was a kid) that he can apply for.

Are Joe's children barred from studying foreign languages at their school, or from participating in the many after-school programs available to them, or from even joining a sports team that has after-school practices? There are a myriad of free after-school activities that are provided by schools and local neighborhood programs that they could avail themselves of. If they choose to go straight home after school then that is exactly what it is: a choice. And isn't it a benefit to the country as a whole for everyone who lives here and does not speak English to learn the language? I would think that even those vehemently opposed to illegal immigration would agree with that line of thinking.

Since Joe pays rent he obviously does not pay property taxes (which subsidize police and fire departments) so technically he did not pay for those services but if his landlord is making a profit renting out his dwelling (if he isn't, then what's the point in doing so?) then his rent (as well as Jose's) does contribute to the taxes being paid on the property and thus both men indirectly help to subsidize the aforementioned public services they both receive.

Now I freely admit that illegal immigration is a problem that we must deal with as a nation. Millions of undocumented workers pour across our borders every year and despite the extremely expensive and at times draconian security measures that were put into effect following 9/11 the vast majority of the shipping containers entering our ports still go uninspected. And the blame for not taking action on these problems falls equally on both of our major political parties.

The Democrats won't crack down on illegal immigration because Hispanics are the fastest growing demographic in the country and make up a significant portion of their voting base, while the Republicans won't crack down on illegal hiring practices or insist on thorough inspections of cargo containers because it would hinder and disrupt the business interests of their lobbyists and donors (and each of these reasons also applies to the opposite party, to a certain extent).

The question of how to handle the problem of illegal immigration thoroughly yet realistically is highly complicated and calls for much more nuanced reasoning than this fictional comparison would have you believe. It's pretty easy to blame illegals for most of society's problems (and many do) but the reality of the situation is that we're a vast and populous nation with a highly complicated and interrelated network of commerce, industry, society and culture that makes the impact of one minority group of people rather insignificant as it relates to the comprehensive problems of the whole. I think that despite all of his hardships even Joe Legal would agree with me on that.

My friend is a pretty reasonable and level-headed guy so I doubt that he sent this to me with any kind of malice or prejudice, but rather more likely just to gauge my response (interestingly enough, this exercise very much reminded me of my inaugural post for this blog). And speaking of which: BD, I just saw the comment you left there at the time of this site's one year anniversary. FIRST! I vaguely remembered reading it some time back (alcohol was most likely involved in the level of vagary) but I couldn't find it again. Because of this I never thanked you for the compliments (which I always love) that you wrote at the time but I really do appreciate the words, amigo.

The Jobs Americans Won't Do

I know I said I didn't have time to blog today and I don't but I was just watching Neil Cavuto on FOX News while I was eating lunch and his guest said something that caught my ear. I missed the beginning of the segment but the gist of the piece was that Cavuto was claiming that ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids were good for American workers based on a new study that just came out. Now I didn't catch the name of the study so I can't address it here but Cavuto offered up this softball comment to his guest at the end of the segment, "Alright but the argument is that American workers won't take the jobs that illegals had and do, you find at least judging by this, to be specious."

And here was his guest's reply, "Yes, that is an argument frequently made, that American workers won't do these jobs so these industries must be allowed to depend upon an unauthorized illegal work force. We not only found that to be not true but the Congressional Research Service found it not to be true. They said that Americans will not do jobs if they're poorly paid and they have to operate under miserable conditions. They said that if these industries would improve the pay and the conditions American workers would do these jobs."

Full disclosure: I've known many illegal immigrants who were in this country to work and they are some of the hardest working people you'll ever meet; every one of them had at least two jobs and many of them had three. Also, I am a big supporter of worker's rights and would never advocate unsafe working conditions nor unfair wages. That said, it seems to me that people like Cavuto who are anti-illegal immigrant in their sympathies while also pro-laissez-faire capitalism want to have their cake and eat it too.

Now as I said, if these jobs are paying unfair wages or have unsafe working conditions then one would assume that the federal government would step in and enforce the specific laws that are being broken. But if we are to assume that everything about these jobs is above board then it's safe to say that American workers will indeed not do these jobs. Example: an illegal Mexican worker goes to a dish washing job that pays six dollars an hour in which he has a steady stream of dirty plates coming at him for a six hour period with the minimum amount of breaks allowed by law. That's a shit job no matter how you look at it (well OK, compared to not working at all in Mexico it's actually not so bad).

Now I come along as a legal American worker and say, "Hey, I'll do that Mexican's job as long as you pay me forty dollars an hour, increase the number and duration of my breaks and set a limit on how many dishes I have to clean per hour." We're both still washing dishes for a living but it's hardly the same job and that's the point: if you're going to allow the Invisible Hand of the free market to determine what a job should entail and how much that job should pay you are going to consistently have millions of jobs that Americans simply will not do. Yes, you can make just about any job desirable to almost any American if you pay enough money and make the working conditions comfortable and easy enough but as I said, it is then hardly the same job and people like Cavuto who ignore this fact are being either ignorant or dishonest when discussing this issue.

Sweden, To Mexico: Buy Vodka!

This is the latest Absolute vodka ad causing a stir in the overly-emotional and, in what often seems to be the case, any-excuse-to-hate-foreigners immigration debate. It re-imagines the U.S.-Mexico border lying where it was before the Mexican-American war of 1848 and was created by a Mexico City-based advertising firm in what appears to be an attempt to capitalize on Mexican nationalism and hurt pride over their war losses in the past.

The ad was only meant to run in Mexico but since the web is indeed world wide, that just doesn't happen any more. So of course now all the right-wing, anti-immigrant groups are howling about how it was deliberately written in English as a provocation to the U.S., some kind of attempt to promote the so-called "Reconquista" agenda for the American southwest.

Now I highly doubt that Absolut decided that it would be a good marketing idea or increase their sales to foment a war for territorial rights between the U.S. and Mexico, and I certainly don't think that many American Absolut drinkers will interpret this ad in that way. This just seems to be controversy for controversy's sake; it's how smart advertising works. Poke the groups that enjoy hating brown people with a stick and then sit back and reap the free press and Internet buzz that their unpopular ranting creates for your product.