Minor Thoughts from me to you

Welcome to the Great Immigration Debate. Over the next couple of days (weeks?), Jenna and I will be discussing the immigration issue, both legal and illegal. As Jenna pointed out, immigration "is a very complex issue that crosses many standard lines". While most Republicans agree on most issues, many Republicans disagree on how to handle illegal immigration.

As I listen to talk radio and read blogs, I see a lot of heated rhetoric. I see a lot of statements that, frankly, go beyond rational argument straight into frothing anger. I see a lot of polarized opinions and people talking past each other. I'd like to make a small step towards changing that. Immigration is a complex issue and it needs to be treated as such. I don't believe there is one "right" answer or easy answer to the question. So, let's talk about it. Let's talk about what makes it such a big problem and let's talk about all of the ways (good and bad) to handle this problem.

I think the best place to start would be a quick summary of where we're each coming from. I'm a life-long Republican (whatever that means when you're as young as I am). I grew up in Norfolk, Virginia, rejoiced when the South turned Republican, and was glued to the television for Election Night 2000. In my younger days, I breathed fire and brimstone towards any and all who would break the law. During my early teenage years, I once advocated sending in the SEALs and Rangers to deal with the inner city drug trade.

I say all of this to establish my conservative bona-fides or, at least, to demonstrate that I once was a "law and order" Republican and understand the mind set. More recently, I've been drawn towards libertarianism. I've seen that politicians rarely act in the nation's best interests. I've seen that many laws are unfairly written or unfairly enforced. I've developed an aversion to using government power unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.

So, I have a lot of questions about illegal immigration. I think the first and most prominent one is: why is it such a big deal? Why do people care so much about Mexicans crossing the border, looking for a better life for themselves and their families? Is it just because there is a law prohibiting that? (That is, would the issue go away if the law were changed?) Or is there a reason for the law. If so, what is it?

Yes, it's a rather basic question. But in this case, I think it's best to start with the basics and move on from there.

From Boston Gal's Open Wallet:

Today's Christian Science Monitor explains: Why the rich get the most tax goodies.

He suspects one reason Americans tolerate tax cuts favoring the wealthy is that many anticipate becoming rich themselves and thereby benefiting.

It is true that when I made the most (as an independent contractor) was also when I paid the least in taxes (write-offs, write-offs, write-offs!) Sometimes I wish the tax code could be written to heavily tax people like Paris Hilton - we could call it the "stupidly wealthy tax". Money generated from the Paris Hilton tax would directly fund educational programs with the goal to produce as many anti-Paris Hilton's as possible.

Well, the Fair Tax would certainly accomplish that goal. Err, the goal of taxing Paris Hilton, not the goal of funding educational programs to produce anti-Paris Hilton's. Still, by taxing consumption rather than income, the Fair Tax would certainly make rich playboys/ playgirls actually pay taxes for the first time in their lives.

Fortunately, the Fair Tax wouldn't just tax Paris Hilton. It would make all of us better off by removing all federal taxes (income, investment, capital gains, business income, etc) and replacing them with a single consumption tax. It would simplify the entire tax code and increase the tax base (tax everyone, not just those earning an income). It would make American exports cheaper. American made products and foreign made products would -- finally -- be taxed at exactly the same rate.

What's not to like?

I've been closely watching the entire debate over illegal immigration. I have a lot of thoughts, a lot of links that I've been collecting, and a few things that I want to say. Sometime tonight or tomorrow, I'll publish a post that it will outline my thoughts on the debate. For now, however, I'd like to focus on the latest entrance to the debate.

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions has issued a press release claiming that the new Senate immigration bill could bring in as many as 217 million people in the next 20 years. 217 million. That's a huge number. The Heritage Foundation agrees with him. They think it would allow 103 million persons to immigrate within the next 20 years. Again, a huge number.

Well, I think they're both full of it. The current population of Mexico is around 108 million people. So, if Senator Sessions and the Heritage Foundation are claiming that over the next 10-20 years somewhere between the entire population of Mexico and twice the entire population of Mexico will be immigrating to the United States.

To put it bluntly, I don't trust any analysis that determines that an entire country will be left entirely unpopulated within a decade. You shouldn't either.

I received another e-mail from Dr. Rick Scarborough today. Once again, I find myself wanting to challenge something he said. He started out today's e-mail by talking about the heretical "Da Vinci Code" movie:

After a brief run of celebrated films portraying the truth about Christ, The Chronicles of Narnia and The Passion, Satan has raised is impish head and initiated the production of a movie that is blasphemous.

Full disclosure here: last week, I read the entire novel. Frankly, it's highly overrated. The writing is pedestrian, the plot is predictable, the ending is childish, etc. Secondly, I wasn't surprised by anything in the novel. Anyone who is familiar with the Gnostic heresies (info from Wikipedia, info from the Catholic church) will be familiar with most of the "revelations" in the book. Given that Gnosticism has been around almost as long as the Church itself, every Christian should be familiar with these heresies. Every Christian should be; unfortunately, most are not.

How does Dr. Scarborough recommend that Christians prepare for this movie?

It is absolutely essential that every Pastor who reads this email alert get familiar with this blasphemous film and prepare your people to refute it while exhorting them not to see it.

How can anyone properly refute something that they are not familiar with? I had read about the heresies in the book before reading the movie, but I wasn't really ready to refute it until I had actually finished reading the book. If no Christian reads the book or sees the movie, how can anyone be prepared to refute it? Obviously some Christian, at some point, had to read the book or else the Christian community wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Is Dr. Scarborough suggesting that Pastors read / watch the story, but that their congregations refrain from doing so? If that's the case, I find it highly ironic. (The central theme of gnosticism is that some people know special, "hidden" knowledge that redeems them. Those that are inducted into the "club" receive salvation, everyone else is left behind.)

Ultimately the message that Dr. Scarborough communicates is that ordinary Christians are not strong enough to face heresy and need to be protected from it. I strongly disagree. The army trains soldiers by exposing them to every hazard they'll face in battle. Soldiers study the combat doctrines of their enemy, study the enemy commanders, and practice fighting every day. What kind of "Christian soldiers" are we preparing if they must be constantly sheltered from the enemy? What kind of "Christian soldiers" do we have if one 2 hour engagement with the enemy will overwhelm their defenses? Finally, what kind of "Christian soldiers" do we have if they're not even familiar with the enemy's oldest stratagems and doctrines?

Hiding from the enemy won't help the Church and it certainly won't help those that we are supposed to be reaching. Read the book. Read The Da Vinci Opportunity (part 1, part 2, part 3). Watch the movie and be ready for the enemy.

Instead of using our oil ourselves, we may soon be watching Cuba use them on behalf of China and India. Does something about that sound wrong? It sure does to me.

We can do something about the potential encroachment on our oil fields by lifting the bans on off-shore drilling and increasing the domestic production of oil and natural gas. The Times notes that we could become self-sufficient for energy for the next generation just on the known oil and gas reserves off our shores, and that does not count the ANWR preserve. The commodities market for oil would deflate with the US running on its own energy production, greatly reducing the revenue to potentially dangerous regimes. At the least, we can shed our trade with Venezuela and the Middle East, focusing on imports from Canada and Mexico instead, and extending the life of our reserves in the process. That would send a message that we have the will to reach self-sufficiency as well as remind some regimes how much they rely on American petrodollars and the inflated price of oil for survival.

Instead of providing for our own needs -- thus lessening our dependence on Venezualen oil and Iranian oil -- we're content to "protect the environment" and ignore our energy needs. While I have my (large) differences with the Republicans in Washington, the Democrats increasingly seem to be bent on stupidity.

Instead, we will probably continue to dream up conspiracy theories about greedy oil companies which have few investment choices, given the restrictions on drilling and refining that the US has imposed on the domestic industry. And while we travel through the fascination of paranoia, we will allow our economic and military rivals to steal our reserves out from underneath us -- literally -- and pretend that their drilling somehow doesn't carry the same environmental problems as our drilling would.

(A tip o' the hat to Captain Ed. The analysis is his, I'm just passing it along.)

Michael Yon posted a new dispatch on his blog. In it, he talks about the "forgotten war" in Afghanistan, the recent attacks on Secretary Rumsfield, and the importance of listening to the soldiers who are fighting the war.

On Rumsfield:

And when these old veterans talk, we should all listen. They know war. We should listen more to our veterans than to politicians. We are more likely to get straight answers about war from warriors than we are from politicians and most of the media.

Like it or not, "Rummy" is a politician. He's a good one. He's an effective administrator. But he's just an administrator, when all is said and done. If he hasn't been personally involved in a battle, he can't have the same perspectives and understandings that the people in the field do.

Joe Galloway (the reporter from "We Were Soldiers") had this to say about Secretary Rumsfield:

I can wish that your boss [Donald Rumsfeld] had surrounded himself with close advisers who had, once at least, held a dying boy in their arms and watched the life run out of his eyes while they lied to him and told him, over and over, "You are going to be all right. Hang on! Help is coming. Don't quit now".

Such men in place of those who had never known service or combat or the true cost of war, and who pays that price, and had never sent their children off to do that hard and unending duty. I could wish for so much. I could wish that in January of this year I had not stood in a garbage-strewn pit, in deep mud, and watched soldiers tear apart the wreckage of a Kiowa Warrior [helicopter] shot down just minutes before and tenderly remove the barely alive body of WO Kyle Jackson and the lifeless body of his fellow pilot. They died flying overhead cover for a little three-vehicle Stryker patrol with which I was riding at the time. I could wish that Jackson's widow Betsy had not found, among the possessions of her late husband, a copy of my book, carefully earmarked at a chapter titled Brave Aviators, which Kyle was reading at the time of his death. That she had not enclosed a photo of her husband, herself and a 3 year old baby girl.

On the character of those attacking Secretary Rumsfield:

And some highly respected officers such as recently retired Major General John Batiste have been calling for Donald Rumsfeld to resign. When John Batiste was leading the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, he was not a stay-in-the-palace general. Like many of our top military leaders, Batiste was frequently on the battlefield. He lost more than 100 soldiers in Iraq. I would see the General personally attending the memorials for his soldiers.

General Batiste knows the face of war, and his voice should be heard by Americans. Some people have called Generals like John Batiste "traitors" because they speak out in retirement against civilian leadership. Batiste and Galloway might be a lot of things, but they are both patriots to freedom and brave men. They are also both very smart about war.

On Afghanistan:

The Canadians are fighting more and more although few people seem to notice. Hopefully, Bill can help change that. No matter what anyone says, the Afghanistan I just left is easily as dangerous as the Iraq I spent almost a year in. But whereas we are beating back the enemies and winning in Iraq, the enemies in Afghanistan are getting stronger as the seconds tick. We need to listen to our military experts and to our young soldiers, too. Like Ernie Pyle once noted, nobody is more plainspoken than combat soldiers. The ones I met in Afghanistan call that the "forgotten war" but unless things change dramatically, 2007 will be a year everyone remembers in Afghanistan.

On listening to the military:

Soldiers, you are fighting a war that is becoming the Great Undocumented War. We at home need to know what is happening, what you are doing right, wrong. Good or bad, tell us what you need. We are listening. Send us your stories.

Read the dispatch. Then go read the stories.

There's a very simple way to demonstrate that high taxes are a bad idea. Rich people have lots of money. The best thing possible for everyone else is that rich people spend that money. Every dollar spent by a rich person is a dollar that helps employ someone else. If buying a car, auto works are employed; if buying a suit, textile workers are employed; if buying a house, construction workers are employed; if buying a yacht, dock workers are employed.

The more government taxes someone, the less likely they are to put their money in places where it can be taxed. If they stop spending, the entire economy suffers. If government lowers their taxes, they will be more likely to spend their money, thus creating jobs for everyone else.

Call it trickle down economics. Call it Reaganomics. Or call it psychology. Whatever you call it, it works. Tax someone more, they'll spend less; tax someone less, they'll spend more. I'm better off when they spend more. Aren't you?

Compare this:

Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men. And they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, 250 chiefs of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men. They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said to them, "You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?" When Moses heard it, he fell on his face,

with this:

You arrogant jerks! How dare you go around accusing everyone of being sinners? Don't you know that most people are basically good and we're all God's children, every one us? Why do you try to make yourself better than everyone else?

That second one isn't (quite) a direct quote, but it is something that I heard a lot while in college. I'm not saying that this is likely to happen on a college campus anytime soon, but I did find the similarities in rhetoric to be interesting.

I'm always quick to criticize the Department of Motor Vehicles. After all, I've spent more time in their lines than I have anywhere else. Still, fairness requires me to praise them when they actually do something right. The Wisconsin State Journal wrote today about the DMV making it tricky to get fake driver's licenses:

Getting a fake state-issued driver's license in Wisconsin now requires more than stolen or forged documents. It might take a plastic surgeon.

Every night, after the cameras have been shut off and the staff has gone home, computers quietly scan the roughly 5,500 images captured at state Division of Motor Vehicles field offices that day and compare them to some 6 million photos from driver's licenses and state identification cards on file.

They look at the shape of the nose, the arch of the eyebrows, the crease in the forehead. If the person photographed that day has had a picture taken for a state ID since 1997, chances are, the computers will find it.

Since the system was implemented it has caught more than 630 attempts to get false ID's -- including attempts by a child molester and a drug dealer trying to establish new identities. This is great news. If a driver's license is to have any validity at all as an identifier, it must be difficult to establish a false ID. While this system won't prevent other people from creating false ID's on their own, it will help make sure that the DMV isn't handing out "official" fake IDs.

Good job -- that's praise-worthy.

Republicans in the Assembly and the Senate failed to pass the Taxpayer Protection Amendment. Owen looks at what went wrong.

The bottom line is, the Republican leadership in Madison failed to step up, fight hard, and actually promote conservatism. If we want to pass this thing, we'll have to keep fighting at the grassroots. The only way our "representatives" will pass this is if we force them to.

Owen passes along pictures of one impressive wedding cake.

The California Legislature thinks you're too dumb to own an ultrasound machine. Here's why:

"I've seen the images, and they are amazing," Mr. Lieu, referring to ultrasound pictures, said in a telephone interview after the Assembly vote. "I could watch for hours. That's the problem. Someone could leave it on the belly all day long and do harm without even knowing it."

Some studies have shown that when used improperly, the ultrasound machine can heat internal organs and the fluid inside a womb, possibly causing neurological damage to a fetus, Mr. Lieu said.

Is Mr. Lieu afraid that he's a moron or that the voters are morons? I trust that the American populace is smart enough to use ultrasound machines responsibly. Mr. Lieu just thinks you're an idiot who will strap one on and leave it running for the next 8 hours.

Fortunately, one California legislator actually uses his brain:

"We can't legislate everything, and this is certainly one of those things that we're going down the path of just really binding our society with a billion little laws," said Assemblyman Dave Cogdill, a Republican from the Central Valley.

Would that the rest of the legislators took a hint. Wouldn't it be simpler to just outlaw everything and force voters to ask for permission before doing anything? It sure looks like that's the road we're headed down.

George Lucas is releasing the original theatrical version of the original Star Wars trilogy. This is the best news I've heard all day:

Even though George Lucas adamantly declared 2004's digitally restored Star Wars Trilogy DVDs the definitive versions of his movies, fans have held out hope for DVDs of the originals.

Their wishes will be granted Sept. 12 when Fox releases new two-disc DVDs ($30 each) of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi that include the films as they first appeared in theaters, along with the new, restored versions (now available in the four-disc $70 Star Wars Trilogy).

The individual DVDs will be taken off the market on Dec. 31, a strategy that Disney uses on many of its classic releases.

That gives me a little over three months to buy all three movies. And I'll do it too. I don't like the changes George made in the original movies. It ruins my childhood memories. Seriously. When I first saw the updated version of the movies and saw Greedo shoot at Han first, I thought I was going insane. I had such clear memories of Han shooting first and, yet, that wasn't what I saw on film. So, I've been stuck with watching pirated copies of the Laserdisc edition. (Yes, I'm that pitiful.) So, a mere $90 to regain my childhood? Cheap at twice the price.

(Hat tip to Hit & Run.)

Senate Democrats are, apparently, in favor of making sure gas stays expensive. How else do you explain this FoxNews story:

Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne's nomination for interior secretary could run into trouble from Senate Democrats who want to use it as a bargaining chip to stop more oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

[Sen. Bill] Nelson [D-Fla], citing the potential for environmental damage, said Wednesday he would "keep all my options open" for delaying the nomination. "I have nothing personally at all against Governor Kempthorne," Nelson said after meeting with Kempthorne, a former senator.

When we need as much oil as we can possibly get, the Senate is more concerned with making sure we can't use any of our own.

From today's Wisconsin State Journal (Federal health insurance bill draws wide opposition):

Senate Bill 1955 would let small businesses and trade associations band together and offer group health coverage on a national or regional basis. No law precludes them from doing that now, but a patchwork of state insurance mandates makes it cost-prohibitive and logistically impractical, said Craig Orfield, spokesman for Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., the bill's lead sponsor.

Currently, each state decides which benefits insurance companies must offer. In Wisconsin, the mandates include mammograms, alcoholism treatment, child wellness services and chiropractic care.

Some people are opposed to the bill:

The cancerous tumor in Nancy Restivo's breast was no bigger than a grain of salt when a routine mammogram discovered it in 1994. She credits the mammogram - paid for by her insurance company - with saving her life.

"I'd want that kind of coverage for as many people as possible," said Restivo, 59, a retired Janesville teacher.

I have a question for Ms Restivo. Your health insurance is more expensive because it covers all routine mammograms. For some people, that extra coverage makes their health insurance too expensive to afford. Do you want that kind of coverage mandated for everyone with health insurance if it means that some people will not be able to afford health insurance? Would you prefer that more people have basic health insurance or that fewer people have comprehensive health insurance?

I'm not sure yet whether or not I support this bill. On the whole, I'd prefer that the Federal government stick its fingers into as few pies as possible. I think regulation is best done by the states, not by Washington. On the other hand, this may be one of the few Senate bills that is actually permitted under the Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause.

Rick Scarborough just made another statement about immigration:

Increasingly, conservative Christians are being drawn into the illegal immigration controversy. Over the past few weeks, illegal immigrants and their supporters have taken to the streets to demand their "rights" -- including a blanket amnesty for an estimated 11 million who are in the country illegally.

On the one hand, some Christians (including those usually associated with conservative causes) are saying that the Bible's call for compassion to the stranger should shape the Christian position here.

But others note that God does not require us to treat the innocent and the guilty alike. While God's mercy is available to all, the Bible also says that He has put the sword of justice in the hands of the civil authorities to punish wrongdoers.

Whether they are a burden or an asset to society, it is self-evidently true that illegal immigrants have broken our laws. How can we expect respect for the law if we condone law-breaking?

I have a counter-question: how can we expect respect for the law if we have laws that are nearly impossible to follow? The United States currently limits the number of people that can legally immigrate every year. Anyone who wants to immigrate needs to go through multiple offices, file many, many different forms, pay multiple fees, wait, wait, and wait some more. Is it any wonder that many poor Mexicans choose to slip across the border illegally? Especially when the well being of their families is one the line?

There are two ways to restore respect for the law: harshly punish those who break the law or reform the law so that it is more just. I can't speak for all Christians, but this particular Christian would rather reform the laws. It is my belief that reforming the laws and helping our poverty-stricken neighbors is more in keeping with Christ's examples than all-out enforcement and punishment would be.

Is the reporting out of Afghanistan and Iraq accurate? It's hard to say. Sometimes you need to hear from an independent voice -- someone who's been there, but who isn't associated with the Mainstream Media. Today, Michael Yon fact checked the Wall Street Journal:

I've never posted a rebuttal to a news story. Today is an exception. Last week I participated on a panel at the Marine Command General Staff College in Quantico, Virginia. The dais was stacked with distinguished journalists -- I was the baby in the room -- who addressed a large group of military officers. I traveled from Afghanistan just to speak there after a scheduling conflict with their first choice, Joe Galloway, resulted in his recommendation that I fill his seat. When Joe Galloway talks, people listen. I was honored by his recommendation and privileged to join the panel in a vigorous debate of the symposium theme: "Selling the Truth: Media Portrayal of Insurgents, the Government, and the Military."

As the day opened, a Marine officer was asked to pick a story about current events and comment on it. He held a copy of the Wall Street Journal, a paper I first started reading as a teenager. The WSJ is a reliable source, and so I've stuck with it through the years. The Marine was holding a WSJ in front of this distinguished group of military officers that also included DEA and FBI officials, not to mention the representatives of CBS, CNN, Al Jazeera and others. As the Marine opened the paper, I said something like, "That's yesterday's Wall Street Journal? That's easy. Turn to page A16 and there is a commentary about Afghanistan. It's pure bullshit." There was a microphone in front of me, but luckily, the crowd was mostly military and they laughed off the language.

...

In fact, the media is not up-playing the danger in Afghanistan but seems to be grossly missing it. Unfortunately, I predict NATO and other forces will lose increasing numbers of soldiers in Afghanistan. The place is bad. Really bad. And it's getting worse. Yesterday an Indian engineer was murdered. They cut off his head. Also, yesterday, the car bomb in the photo above exploded close by some employees of a friend. I was close by two bombings in just six days in Lashkar Gah, a place they used to call "safe."

Joseph Fischer:

Sex is hereditary. If your parents never had it, chances are you won't either.

Let me share two jokes with you. The first is from the Soviet Union:

Three prisoners in the gulag get to talking about why they are there. "I am here because I always got to work five minutes late, and they charged me with sabotage," says the first. "I am here because I kept getting to work five minutes early, and they charged me with spying," says the second. "I am here because I got to work on time every day," says the third, "and they charged me with owning a western watch."

The second is from America:

Three prisoners were sitting in a U.S. jail, found guilty of "economic crimes" and were also comparing stories. The first one said, "I charged higher prices than my competitors, and I was found guilty of profiteering, monopolizing and exploiting consumers." The second one said, "I charged lower prices than my competitors, and I was found guilty of predatory pricing, cutthroat competing and under-charging." The third prisoner said, "I charged the same prices as my competitors, and I was found guilty of collusion, price leadership and cartelization."

Here's my question for you: should we be concerned that American citizens can now tell the same "it's only funny because it's true" jokes as Soviet citizens?

(Hat tip to: Hit and Run)

In most areas of the country, the highway speed limit is 55 miles per hour. In most areas of the country few people actually follow that speed limit. What would happen if a small group of people decided to obey the law? I present for your viewing pleasure: A Meditation on the Speed Limit. Several Atlanta area college students decided to drive -- four abreast -- down a busy highway, at exactly 55 miles per hour. The results are somewhat frightening.

Law and order Republicans like to hammer home the importance of obeying the law. I think this video hammers home the importance of having good laws. After all, what's the point of having a speed limit if no one obeys it? What's the point of obeying the law if that obedience puts you at risk?

It's no good saying "That's the law! You have to obey it!". The simple fact of the matter is that the speed limit is not a physical law (like gravity) or a moral law (like "Thou shalt not muder"). It is a man-made civil law. It can be changed at any time and the actual content of the law doesn't matter. What does matter is that the law is one that people can respect and obey. Few people either respect or obey current speed limit laws.

Why leave a law on the books that only serves to make us contemptuous of that law and, by extension, contemptuous of all laws?