Like our president, I want to build a wall along the border with Mexico. But I don't want to build a wall that separates our peoples, but builds links of friendship across the border.
- - - - - -
There is a famous play about two men who build a fence between their properties. They both wanted their children to want to get to know each other, and they figured that the fence would get their kids interested in knowing each other. It's a famous musical, and one well worth seeing if you get the chance. But I'll be darned if I can remember the name of that play now.
Since this wall is to be built for purposes of friendship, I propose using both Mexican and American children (of various ages, all under adult supervision) to build this wall as play, using Legos as their prime building material. The wall would be 50 Meters long, by 1.5 Meters high, and 20 Centimeters thick. At the center would be an American hand shaking a Mexican hand in friendship. This wall would be the first wall built to bring people together, and not keep them apart from each other.
- - - - - -
Our current president wants to force Mexico to pay for a wall that its people do not want. He has just suggested that he is thinking of sending our troops South of the border to deal with "Bad Hombres" in Mexico. Is this the way to make friends? I doubt it. Our Southwest was settled by people of both Anglo and Mexican heritage. And it's about time we stopped being the bully, and treated our next door neighbor with respect.
Something that most people don't realize is that there is already a wall along parts of the USA/Mexico border. It hasn't solved out problems with Mexico, it has only made them worse. If we were to build Trump's wall along the border, we'd spend at least $25 billion for materials alone - and that doesn't account for the cost of labor. Is it worth the price?
One might say, what about all those people crossing the border? We have a right to keep them out. And this is a valid point. But many Mexican illegal aliens are moving back to Mexico for reasons of opportunity. NAFTA has helped Mexico develop, and we no longer have as big a problem with illegal immigrants crossing that border as we once did. Instead, we're being infiltrated by illegals flying in from overseas, then overstaying their visits. And our President's proposed wall does absolutely nothing to stop them. Instead, he's making a symbolic gesture which will accomplish little in the long run.
- - - - - -
Another person might focus on drug smuggling and other crimes which involve border crossing. And to them I say that we should rationalize our laws. Making recreational drugs illegal has only served to act as a price support. Berkeley Breathed (of "Bloom County" fame) made a point of this when a "hair growth tonic" was made illegal, and h ad Opus say "thanks for the price support". He then made jokes about all the ways drugs could be smuggled in, and showed how stupid many of these laws are. To me, the only way to beat a narco mafia is to legalize and regulate such substances, killing off the profit margins.
How many people know that the laws against Marijuana were written to deny Mexican Americans their presumed drug of choice? In the early days of the 20th century, Opiates were banned to deny Asians a recreational drug. And in the 1930's, Marijuana was banned to deny Blacks and Mexicans their fun. Booze was made the only recreational drug available to the masses after prohibition ended - and we suffer from that decision today.
The Narco Mafia understands that drug bans only serve to increase their profit margins. But they have had a perverse side benefit. They now take people from South of Mexico, move them through Mexico, and use these people to deliver their drugs into the USA. They have taken over the "Coyote" trade, and have little interest in delivering people safely across the border to their final destinations. They have found another business where government provides them with price supports.
- - - - - -
If the problem is with the illegal alien, then we must do two things. First, we must deal with the 12 million illegals already here. And for them, I want one last amnesty using the model established under Reagan's presidency. But I do not want these people to ever become American citizens. Instead, I want them to be "green card" holders, so that they do not disrupt American politics in my lifetime. Second, we must prevent new illegals from finding work, making it a criminal offense to hire (or otherwise employ) people who are not citizens or green card holders. And we must mandate the use of technology that would allow an employer to verify that a person has the legal right to work here. (We could also offer a bounty for those who lead the government to a successful prosecution of employers who violate this law.)
Americans need to feel secure. And Trump's wall only provides an illusion of security. However, true friendship can provide the security we need, as friends can and will look out for each other....
Obamacare. The GOP promises that we'll have something bigger and better. With all the rhetoric that has been spewed to the party loyalists, I doubt that they can deliver anything that is half as good as what they pledge to destroy, if only because they never have worked to design something that can replace Obama's signature accomplishment. It saddens me that the only thing unifying the GOP has been a pledge to destroy healthcare for millions. Yet, it could be much worse. We don't know what the "new normal" will be in the near future.
Recently Meryl Streep came out and protested the president elect's style in a recent speech at the Golden Globe award show. She didn't even have to mention him by name. Was she justified? She decried the bullying that passes for strength nowadays, and attacked a subculture that wants power for its own sake, and not to do something good with it. What is wrong with that?
There is a rush to undo the gains made in society over the past 8 years. We have a president who is likely owned by the Russian government. He is already breaking some of his many promises, pledging to build a wall along our Southern border with our money, then convincing Mexico to pay for it. Does anyone really believe that they will do so? I doubt it very much. Strangely enough, some of his nominees have more class than Trump has, including Jeff Sessions. Sessions is willing to say that Waterboarding is torture, something that Trump can't bring himself to say. Why is that? Could it be that many Trump supporters only care about their rights, and not the rights of humanity? Could it be that they have no empathy for others, and like Trump, are on a narcissistic ego trip?
It is troubling how extreme how today's GOP seems for a centrist. Abortion should have been a question settled 40 years ago, and it is still in play because of cultural politics. White supremacists have cleaned up their message, and use phrases such as "Southern Heritage" when they fly the Confederate Battle Flag. (Heck, most of these people don't know that the "Stars and Bars" referred to a different flag, the flag the South wanted to use for its national standard.) Centrists fear a government led by people who would shut down polling places heavily used by poor people. Centrists fear a government who would take rights away from the GLBT community because it angers a small religious minority. Centrists fear a government run by people who can not compromise in any way. And now, we will get to see what a "Right Wing" government will do.
There is a big problem in America, and it is the Urban/Rural divide. Maybe it is about time that we think of dividing this nation into three separate nations: (1) States along the Pacific Coast, (2) States along the East Coast, and (3) The "Heartland" states. Each would inherit the US Constitution, but would make its own laws following the dissolution of the America we once knew. Only then would we be able to see which nation's laws makes the most sense. But until then, we have this social conflict that can not be resolved, and can result in a second civil war. Hopefully, we will not see that happen....
Joe Scarborough is a conservative host on a network that has leaned to the left. And he has said that he can not support Donald Trump because of Trump's refusal to disavow the endorsement of David Duke, former head of the KKK. Sadly, Joe's outrage, and the outrage of the GOP elite is too little, too late. The only chance that Trump can be stopped is if the Democrats put up a winning candidate.
Sadly, Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate. Even worse, in an election where the public (for the most part) wants to vote to "throw the bums out", Hillary represents the interests of the ruling elite. In the past 30+ years, the elite of both parties have praised the benefits of globalization, without providing a safety net for the structural unemployment that this trend would create. Neither political party has given a damn about the growing inequality between the working class and the wealthy elite. In fact, people like Trump have said that our national minimum wage is too high. Too high?!?!?!? When I was young, minimum wage was enough for a person to feed his/her family and put a roof over their heads. Now, a person working minimum wage would be lucky to be able to take care of one person's needs while working 3 jobs!
Where was the outrage in the GOP when Trump insulted Mexican-Americans? Where was the outrage when Trump insulted Muslims? Where was the outrage when he acted like a bully, destroying healthy political discourse? Sadly, the GOP reaps what it sows, and may possibly fall apart as the Whigs did in the 1800's. And this would be a healthy thing, if centrists were to regain control of the party. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.
Recently, Chris Christie came out in support of Trump. What will he get for his endorsement? We now have bombastic blowhards who have seduced a large part of society in the hope that a "fearless leader" can "Make America Great Again." We've seen what happened in Central Europe did this in the 1930's.
Why do I mention Central Europe? Two things happened today that give me pause for concern. At my office, two people were having a political conversation (both moderates) about Trump, and got concerned about my overhearing their chat - as if I were a Trump supporter. They were pleasantly surprised to find out that Jimmy Kimmel, Matthew Broderick, and Nathan Lane did a spoof of "The Producers", and that I had a sense of humor. Instead of being worried about being open around me, they became relaxed because they found out I may have the same sense of shock that Trump is a viable candidate for the GOP nomination. And then, on the way to the railroad station's parking lot (on the way back to my car), one woman and I had a more serious conversation, both of us seeing the parallels between the USA and Weimar Germany.
How can Trump be defeated? One can't do it by being mean. He's a mean person, and can out do any civilized person who has any sense of ethics. But he can be defeated - by humor. If people laugh at him, make fun of him, he will lose power each time a person laughs. One of my favorite spoofs at the expense of Trump came with a person echoing Trump's words from a South Carolina speech with a "gay voice". Once you hear these words coming out of someone else's mouth, you'll realize how insane these words sound. And the clip is funny - unlike Trump....
We have an important choice to make in November. But the work to make sure that dysfunctional leaders don't get elected starts now.....
I am not a fan of how Jorge Ramos acted at Trump's question and answer session. Would Ramos have treated the current president this way? Probably not. However, Trump is not the president yet, and he has to subject himself to the full onslaught of the press - some of which are actively (but covertly) agitating to end his run for the presidency.
- - - - - -
Since I am not a Spanish speaker, I do not watch Univision. I am told that Ramos has the reputation in the Spanish speaking communities that Walter Cronkite had in mine a generation or two ago. With this being said, I had to wonder - why was he cutting in front of other journalists to pose his questions to Trump? Why couldn't he wait his turn, like other journalists there?
There was only one easy to come up with answer to these questions - Trump's campaign people may have been avoiding Ramos's request for an interview with Trump, so that he could explain his positions on immigration to Ramos in detail. Trump is a bombastic demagogue whose message is more of style than of substance. He attracts angry old white men who feel that their nation has been ruined by newcomers. Yet, reality proves Trump otherwise. First world nations that actively accept immigrants usually outperform their peers.
Ramos is not innocent here. From what I understand, he has had a bug up his ass in regard to the issue of immigration for a while. The idea that a nation has a right to reject (and send home) uninvited, illegal immigrants may be abhorrent to him - which is the opposite of where Trump stands. But the people who watch Ramos' news reports have much to benefit from uncontrolled borders. So he can not have an objective viewpoint on this issue.
- - - - - - -
What is really happening here? The average Trump Supporter has no clue about the real nature of illegal immigration. Mexican immigration to the USA (illegal and legal) has fallen, now that there are greater legal opportunities to provide well for their families. Mexico is also helping the USA keep other foreigners from crossing the border to illegally work here. (Many of these people are illegally being denied asylum here because of the civil unrest in their home countries. Of course, the combined issue of the narcotics trade, illegal immigration, and American demand for both illegal drugs and workers never gets mentioned for the cause of their countries' unrest.) But the real problem is that the vast number of illegal immigrants simply overstay their visas and absorbed into the cash economy.
Trump supporters actually believe that a 40 foot wall and mandatory deportations for all illegal immigrants will keep unwanted foreigners out of the USA and keep them from taking jobs from Americans. This is complete B.S.! But what would happen if we were to develop a realistic plan to deal with the illegal immigrants already here? What would it look like?
- - - - - -
One of the complaints that many "conservatives" have with allowing the illegals to stay here is that they jump in the line for citizenship, and that this benefits the "liberals". This is not as true as it sounds, as most illegals prefer to stay out of sight of the government, and choose to avoid things like voting fraud - simply to keep as low a social profile as possible and avoid detection from the INS.
So I pose the question: "Why not give these people only 'American National' status, but not ever let the illegal immigrants gain full American citizenship?" The nationals would have the following rights:
- The right to work anywhere in the USA (and pay taxes)
- Eligible for a US Passport (in the same way as residents of American Samoa and Swains Island).
But they would have the following restrictions:
- No right to vote or hold public office.
- (In this case) permanently ineligible for American citizenship.
This way, they could not affect American voting patterns, nor do they gain much from jumping ahead of the immigration queue. But by being legal participants in the labor market, they can actively negotiate higher market rate prices for their labor, pushing labor prices up, not down as they currently are doing....
What about their children, you may ask? To me, this is a simple question. If the child came over the border before the age of consent, they could immediately become American Nationals. But after serving in the military or performing other appropriate community service, they could apply for citizenship at the age of consent.
Doesn't this reward people for breaking our laws?
Sadly, our economy has already done that - these people have often created their own jobs in the cash economy, and we have already been rewarded by lower priced goods and services they provided us for our cash.
My question is: "Why don't we bring their labor efforts into the open where we can tax their income?" Conservative types have no answer for this. They think that an Albanian operating a food cart on 6th Avenue in NYC is taking work away from Americans. But what kind of native born American is willing to do this kind of work? We already know that much of the back breaking harvest time farm work is done by immigrants (legal and illegal). Would we see a rush of Americans to do this back breaking labor? I doubt it!
What will likely happen if we keep these immigrants in an "illegal" status?
As I see it, they will lose respect for more of our laws over time, and flow into the "illegal" economies - drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc. - where their experience of working in the cash economy is an asset instead of being a liability. Can we afford to risk this? I doubt it.
- - - - - -
So I have a question - when will the United States become serious in what needs to be done in regard to illegal immigration? Hopefully, it will be sooner instead of later....
One thing common to both illegal immigration and illegal drugs is that our total lack of realistic governmental policies has resulted in the growth of criminal activity along our border by gangs who would have otherwise remained petty thieves.
Drug smugglers, having perfected the art of transporting illegal substances across our border, are nor transporting people across the border. "Coyotes", having perfected the art of smuggling people across the border are now taking on higher profit drug shipments. In short, our demand for both illegal immigrant labor and illegal recreational substances has again created a rich "Mafia", not unlike what happened during Alcohol Prohibition in the 1920's.
The very people who gain most from our porous borders are not the illegal immigrants who simply want to feed their families and are not the people who consume the recreational substances imported by the smugglers. Instead, the criminal gangs, businessmen (of dubious ethics), and government bureaucrats (on both sides of the border) are the people who gain most from the porous border. According to the Daily Mail, it costs from $4,000-$10,000 to move one illegal immigrant to the USA. It is no coincidence we hear meaningless drivel coming out our political leaders saying that the voice of the people is wrong. They claim that Arizona is racist. But if it is, why are 30+ percent of Hispanics living in that state supporting a law which puts them at greatest risk of being profiled and hassled by the law? Yes, one can make the racism argument based on the percentage of Whites supporting this law. Yet, when the law has significant support among minorities, it means something else is at play - and must be understood.
As I am more familiar with the costs of educating a child, I'll use some slightly dated statistics to illustrate my points. Let's say that it costs $10k to educate a child in a high cost state such as New York. Special education (ESOL - English for speakers of other languages, Handicapped education, etc.) may double that price for affected students. What happens to a state that is burdened with educating large numbers of illegal immigrant children? Well, a rough breakdown for educational funding is - Local Government: 45%, State Government: 45% and Federal Government: 10%. In the mainstream class in which I student taught, 25% of the class required ESOL assistance. That's a lot more than 10% of the costs for the 20 kids in the class. Is the Federal government properly compensating the school systems for the added burden of educating these children? No!!! So who gets suck with the bill? The state and local tax payer. Is this fair? No!!!! The above noted situation is quite common in areas with large numbers of illegal immigrants - and the states are being crushed by the under funded mandates imposed by Uncle Sam....
But what should we do about this? The problem is not just illegal immigration, but it is a vicious circle of problems related to drug crime, people in need of jobs, and people on both sides of the border profiting from illegal trade. First, we must defang the drug cartels - legalize the controlled substances, tax them, and destroy the profit margin that makes it possible to ply their trades. Next, we need to slow down the rate of immigration of low skilled labor. I propose making Mexico a buffer zone, where these immigrants would be required to attend certified English language training schools before coming to the USA. All immigrants would be required to demonstrate a rudimentary knowledge of the Anglo-Saxon tongue before being allowed into the USA. But this would not be enough - they would have to bid for the right to come to the USA - market based visas. Instead of the money going to the Coyotes (and associated criminal enterprises), it would go to the US Government instead. And finally, all of this money gained from market based visas would need to be distributed to the states providing services for these immigrants.
Of course, there are political concerns. I'd want for the immigrants coming to the USA using these visas to be ineligible for US citizenship. They would have the protection of American law, but not affect American politics, as they could not vote. This would blunt the impact of immigration for at least one generation - probably enough to eliminate the fears from the states most affected by immigration.....
Please note that this is only an incomplete starting point for a thought experiment. We need better solutions than we have now, and our government is ill equipped to provide them without meaningful public participation in political debates.
