| May 2008 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
July 2007 Stats for The Big Picture.
(By the way - I'm seriously jonesing to get back to more frequent blogging. I'm working mega-hours on a business project. In the meantime, this is too good to miss.)
Technology writer Robert X. Cringely has a column this week on the use of credit reporting data to get a fix on the number of illegal aliens in the U.S.:
While politicians and the U.S. Census Bureau may disagree on how many illegal aliens are living in the United States, the big credit reporting agencies have a pretty solid handle on the number and it is 17 million. That's 17 million adults of unproved nationality who have ongoing financial relationships with businesses or - believe it or not - governments. It's likely that there is some duplication in this total number, that is an illegal alien who is counted twice because he has, for example, a different relationship with his electric utility than he does with his phone company. But since the 17 million figure doesn't include children, the two are likely to wash out and 17 million is probably pretty darned close to the real number.
...A lot of this sleuthing comes down to a surprising artifact, the Social Security number. One would think that surprising for an economic class of people best known for not having Social Security numbers. Ah, but they do have Social Security numbers, just not their own. You need a Social Security number to sign up for utility services, for example. No Social Security number, no electricity, gas, phone, or satellite TV. So what's a poor alien to do? They go down to some local hangout and BUY a Social Security number to give to the utility. This has to be a legitimate number or it won't fly with utility computer systems, but does it have to be the customer's own number? Good question.
Here's where we have an interesting business ethics issue. Say you are the electric company and someone tries to set up service using a Social Security number that already exists in your database and is clearly borrowed, bought, stolen, or simply made up. What do you do? Most utilities go ahead and set up the account, because to them what counts is whether the new customer will actually pay that bill and it turns out that people operating on such borrowed numbers are more reliable bill payers than the rest of us. They can't afford to get in trouble with the electric company because that would draw attention to them. So there is a tacit agreement between the parties that a Social Security number must be provided because that's the rule, but if it happens to be someone else's Social Security number, well that's okay.
The funny thing about this is the impact it has to have on the person who was originally assigned that Social Security number by the U.S. government. Rather than hurt their credit it actually helps because there is so much evidence that they are good at paying their bills.
Of course the credit bureau notices something and that's why they are so able to estimate numbers in the first place. They know what Social Security numbers are being overused and can probably even trace the genealogy of that number as it makes its way across the country. Here's an amazing fact: some individual Social Security numbers are in use right now by UP TO 3,000 PEOPLE and it isn't at all unusual for a borrowed number to be used by 200-1,000 people at the same time. Remember that most of these folks AREN'T illegal aliens.
Meanwhile we have an AP report today that plague - the freaking plague disease, that for U.S. citizens has been a thing consigned to the dark ages of history - is making a resurgence:
Health officials in Arizona warned in September that the plague appeared to be on the rise and that more cases were likely after an Apache County woman was infected with the disease.
That case, the first human infection reported in Arizona since 2000, followed the discovery of an outbreak of the disease in prairie dogs in Flagstaff in August.
Arizona health officials have been wary about a plague outbreak because of greater activity in New Mexico and other nearby states in the past year.
A.P. tries to spin this as if plague comes from animals:
Plague is transmitted primarily by fleas and direct contact with infected animals. When the disease causes pneumonia, it can be transmitted from an infected person to a non-infected person by airborne cough droplets.
But if that's the case, why is it coming back now, after being considered a thing of the past within the living memory of today's citizens?
The answer may be in illegal immigrants who avoid health checks as they enter the country. Chris Burgard reports in his excellent film, "Border," that illegal immigrants are entering the country with diseases such as tuberculosis and leprosy.
The film is available on DVD. You can read my review of it here.
From radio station KHTS:
LA County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich has announced that a new report shows illegal aliens and their families in Los Angeles County collected over $35 million in welfare and food stamp allocations in July.
In the report, illegals are said to have collected nearly $20 million in welfare assistance for July 2007 and an additional $15 million in monthly food stamp allocations for an estimated annual cost of $440 million.
"Illegal immigration continues to have a devastating impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers,"said Antonovich. "In addition to $220 million for public safety and $400 million for healthcare, the $440 million in welfare allocations bring the total cost to County taxpayers that exceeds $1 billion a year -- this does not include the skyrocketing cost of education."
People often imply that illegal aliens aren't hurting anyone when they break our laws. It's useful to remember that the illegal aliens are ripping off a billion dollars a year from the legal residents of LA County alone.
Republicans want workers to increase the labor supply.
Democrats want more voters they can try to get to vote Democratic.
U.S. citizens don't want to have to compete in the labor force against illegal immigrants who have the unfair advantage of not paying taxes or for health care.
U.S. citiizens want to control the borders.
U.S. citizens are want immigrants who follow our laws, are disease free, don't traffic in drugs, pay taxes, and who don't treat our hospital emergency rooms like an HMO (causing the closings of dozens of overburdened hospitals).
There seems to be an impression that there's no way to resolve all this to everyone's satisfaction. In fact, there's nothing mutually exclusive about any of these goals.
Nobody actually needs the immigrants to be illegal in order to accomplish their goals. Democrats, in fact, need the immigrants to be legal, so that they can vote. Republicans will find it far easier building the work force with immigrants who are legal and pay for taxes and health care.
So all that's left is a feasible way to control the border and get the immigrants to be legal. There is a very straightforward way to do this, and it doesn't require waiting for years and spending billions of dollars on a porous wall. It's got three parts:
Part One: Controlling the Border
Per Chris Burgard, maker of the documentary film Border, station 40,000 U.S. National Guardsmen or troops on the border. That's it - that's the end of illegal immigration. No fence needed.
It could be done in two weeks: in two weeks, the troops could be in place, and our border would be secure -- as opposed to the many years it would take to build a porous fence. The incremental costs are zero, since we already maintain the troops. Looked at in absolute dollars, the costs would be far less than the $12 billion Burgard estimates would be required to build the fence.
Part Two: Getting the Cooperation of the Legal Migrant Workers
Again per the film Border, the way to do this is to require each legal migrant worker to make a deposit in a bank account upon entry into this country - in an amount that would be a lot less than what they pay to the "coyotes" who currently lead them over the border at risk to their lives. A percentage of each legal paycheck would also go into the same account. Legal migrant workers would be required to pay for their health care. At the end of their authorized time, each legal migrant worker must leave the country to collect those moneys. With, for example, $10,000 at stake, the migrants will leave. They can see their families. And they can return here, safely and conveniently, to work again. The savings in human terms to these migrant workers, who endure terrible danger and hardship to come here under the current system, would be enormous.
Part Three: A Path to Citizenship
Like all those who wish to immigrate and become citizens of the U.S., there would be a path to full citizenship for these migrant workers who follow the rules and obey the law. This would let the Democrats achieve their goals of having more voters they can try to get to vote Democratic.
And there you have it. Everybody wins. Everybody gets what they want. Republicans get more workers to help build the economy. Democrats get more voters they can try to get to vote Democratic. U.S. citizens get safer nation to live in, and a fair labor market.
It's a win-win-win.
Chris Burgard and Larry Elder
With the engaging film, "BORDER," Chris Burgard emerges as one of America's most watchable and compelling new documentary filmmakers. The film effortlessly mixes laughs, outrage, and compassion, as it presents what for most viewers will be revelations about the state of our southern border.
It's a border where American ranchers are afraid to leave their homes unattended, or to take walks on their own property, because of the armed "coyotes" (guides of illegal immigrants) who frequently come through, and who frequently raid unattended ranch homes.
It's a border where many American ranchers, on a nightly basis, see bands of 20 - 30 men and women illegally cross into the U.S., often backpacking in drugs worth up $90 million -- just in the backpacks of those 30 individuals.
It's a border where there have been hundreds of documented armed paramilitary incursions into our territory.
It's a border where many American ranchers commonly find dead bodies of the illegals who were betrayed and abandoned by their "coyotes" within a few hundred yards of their property.
It's a border that is permitting people to enter this country with dreaded diseases that have been unheard of here - like the mass killer of men, tuberculosis, and the ancient horror, leprosy.
How much more dangerous does a situation have to get before our government will act to protect us?
As Larry Elder said afterwards, our government isn't composed of leaders, but of followers, and it's up to us to lead them. As Burgard said, we don't get the government we deserve - we get the government we put up with.
Why does our government permit such a clear and present danger to the citizens of this country? The film includes footage of George W. Bush stating to Congress - to great applause - that the American economy cannot survive without immigrants. Fine. Let them be legal immigrants, who follow our laws, are disease free, don't traffic in drugs, pay taxes, don't treat our hospital emergency rooms like an HMO (causing the closings of dozens of overburdened hospitals), and who regularly return home to their families.
"BORDER" makes the case that the right way to do legal immigration is in just that way. Each migrant would make a deposit in a bank account. A percentage of each paycheck goes into the same account. At the end of his legal stay, he must leave the country to collect those moneys. With, for example, $10,000 at stake, the migrants will leave. They can see their families. And they can return here, safely and conveniently, to work again.
This would work.
In the Q&A, Burgard said (from my handwritten notes - not expected to be verbatim):
The "coyotes" are all part of the drug cartels now. The cartels have killed or driven out all the mom and pops. They run the migrants around for 7-8 days until they're just about dead. Then they say, you want water? That'll be $300. You want some MRE's [meals ready-to-eat - a military term]? It's $300. Afterwards, they say, now you owe me $5000. You have to make payments every week. If you don't, I know where your family lives, and I'll kill them.
In the Q&A Burgard also made a surprising statement: he's opposed to building a fence on the border. He said that the fence:
He said that the right way to do it is to station 40,000 U.S. National Guardsmen or troops on the border. He believes that this number would be sufficient. He has footage from a month in which troops with tanks were stationed along part of the border -- and he personally saw it work. It stopped the "coyotes." Then someone in Washington forced the troops to leave.
It could be done in two weeks: in two weeks, the troops could be in place, and our border would be secure -- as opposed to the many years it would take to build a porous fence. The incremental costs are zero, since we already maintain the troops. Looked at in absolute dollars, the costs would be far less than the $12 billion required to build the fence.
We must make sure that the next president of this country understands the terrible - and completely unnecessary - danger of the current situation, both to citizens of the U.S., and to those of Mexico. We have to take control of our southern border back from the drug cartels, for the safety and security and financial success of all.
Burgard has been screening "BORDER" to full houses, and is planning a 30-city tour, to be followed up with a DVD release. If you care about this issue, make sure to see this film. Click here for more information.
So much for the myth that illegal aliens do jobs Americans won't do.
From Newt Gingrich:
Pelosi voted:
- NO on the Border Security Bill
- NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent
- NO on eliminating the marriage penalty
- NO on eliminating the death tax
- NO on creating Health Savings Accounts
- NO on the Defense of Marriage Act
- NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization)
- NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance
- NO on banning partial-birth abortion
- NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote
- NO on the Patriot Act
- NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists
- NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist detainees
You know, I'd been starting to think that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are being responsive enough to the voters, and that maybe this needs to be reflected in the upcoming elections, to the detriment of the Republicans. Instapundit has an excellent rundown of the many errors of the Republicans - Terry Schiavo, Harriet Miers, the Dubai Ports deal, GWB's semi-amnesty approach to immigration, William Jefferson, and Foleygate.
But then I saw this video from Braden Barty and Larry Elder :
In this video, Barty and Elder provide a comparable list of the government's achievements. Here are quotes from the video:
( The video also debunks the vicious "Bush lied" argument with quotes from John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy, proclaiming the "need to disarm Saddam Hussein" due to the threat of his "weapons of mass destruction," "secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons", and efforts to "develop nuclear weapons." )
These are all huge, historic achievements - exactly the kinds of big wins we want from our most successful governments. They are wins on both national security and on the economy.
The matters of Schiavo, Miers, the Dubai ports, William Jefferson, and Foleygate, are all serious political blunders, harming the rapport of the government with the people. Yet in comparison to these historic achievements, isn't it apparent that these matters are, by comparison, trivialities?
Instapundit's list also included GWB's semi-amnesty approach to immigration, an issue of the greatest importance to this country. But with the passage by Congress of the bill to build a 700-mile fence, there has been movement on this issue in the direction of enforcing the laws against illegal immigration.
Consider the following oddly similar current stories:
I just don't believe that YouTube, the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, or MySpace has an official policy biased against Conservatives. So what's going on here? What's the explanation?
Let's start with YouTube. With 65,000 new videos uploaded daily, there's no way for YouTube to inspect each one and even consider censoring it. In fact, the company's official policy is for the site's community to be self-policing:
YouTube said it does not monitor the content of video submitted by users, though it prohibits videos that are violent. The site relies on users to alert the company to offensive videos, and YouTube reviews requests for removal.
So if Conservative videos are being blocked on YouTube, it means that users are emailing YouTube claiming that they find the videos to be offensive. The Libs have cleverly found that they can shut down YouTube distribution of videos that show a point of view they want to suppress. All they have to do is claim that the video is offensive.
Given that this is surely happening in the case of YouTube, it appears to be a likely explanation for the similar events at the U.S. Dept of the Interior, and at MySpace. Libs are emailing to say that sites they disagree with are offensive, leading the proprietors to shut down those sites.
And of course, at Columbia University, the students left no doubt at all that they want to prevent people they disagree with from speaking, even though the views being expressed by Gilchrist are shared by so many Americans, that Congress has recently voted to build a 700-mile fence on the border with Mexico.
So this is the latest tactic of the Left. While claiming to support free speech, in fact, they oppose it for those who disagree with them. Using this new tactic, they are seeking to keep people from hearing, views that they disagree with.
The greatest weakness of the GWB administration, is that it's very rare for Bush to speak to the public about his views. We're left wondering what, if anything, he's doing on issues like energy and immigration. When there's good news, we rarely hear about it from him.
Finally, that seems to be changing:
Bush is spending more time on the road this summer _ and less time vacationing on his Texas ranch _ as part of a public-relations effort aimed at boosting his low standing in polls and GOP chances in this fall's midterm elections.
"It might do me some good," Bush said.
Following a government report showing unemployment holding steady at 4.6 percent in June, Bush also praised the U.S. economy. "Productivity is high, people are better off, people are working," he said.
Bush said immigration was one of the top issues in this midterm election year. "The system we have now isn't working," he said.
Commenter David posts:
Culturally my family and my wife's family are as American as anyone could be with ancestral immigrants from England, Germany, Scotland, Italy, Ireland, and other lines that fade into the histories of the Choctaw, Cherokee, and Peoria peoples.
Our children are generation number five from the last immigrant in either of our families. We have documented ancestors that fought in the Revolution against England and every war since including our war against terror.
With that background I unashamedly assert to the world that the United States was built primarily through immigration into the single most powerful nation in the world.
Also I assert that the United States will only remain this powerful if it demands that new immigrants lay down their previous citizenship, patriotism, and the flags of their countries of origin upon earning American citizenship. That includes having a respectable command of the English language whether that language is used in their home or not.
This is exactly what all of our family immigrant ancestors expected to do when they arrived here to become American and I expect nothing less of anyone arriving here today that wants to become American.
In speaking to new immigrants I say: Do not expect a reception from my family if you immigrate here illegally as a criminal or expect to legally and indefinitely borrow OUR nations jobs or want only to nurse the finances of our humans services system until it collapses. Seek to become a legal citizen, an American, and respect MY nation! I will respect you for it and gladly offer my hand in help and friendship.
Commenter David refers us to this speech given by Former Colorado governor, Richard Lamm, on multiculturalism in 2005. If you haven't yet seen it, it's well worth reading. An excerpt:
I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that america is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, lets destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that "an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide." Here is my plan:
I. We must first make america a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way:
The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon-all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.II. I would then invent "multiculturalism" and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.
Read the whole thing.
Who can advise us better on the dangers of Islamist non-assimilation, than Libyan dictator Mu'ammar Qadhafi?
We have fifty million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.
... Europe is in a predicament, and so is America. They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time, or else declare war on the Muslims.
(via JihadWatch.)
Most of the blogosphere is finding that GWB's immigration speech last night was unimpressive at best. However, Dick Morris thinks it was excellent:
Arguably America's most prominent American political consultant, Dick Morris tells NewsMax that President Bush's key national address on immigration reform Monday night was "a great speech."
"It included all the elements it had to," said Morris, who noted the president is living through record low approval ratings.
But Morris conjectures Bush's border plan may help lay the ground work for a comeback.
Morris is almost universally credited with piloting Bill Clinton's stunning comeback re-election victory in 1996 after the Democrats lost Congress to the Republicans two years before.
The presidential plan to beef up the southern border fence in both real and virtual terms is both the "key to securing the border and securing the president's base," Morris opined.
As to Bush's vital guest worker proposal, Morris sees it as "the key to keeping the GOP competitive with Hispanic voters."
And leaving open paths to citizenship for those already in the country, albeit illegally, will serve to make "Latinos a GOP stronghold," Morris advised.
The bottom line is where this is all going to shake out. GWB has shown enough leadership that there's a possibility that Congress will take the ball and run with it to the finish line. From last night's interview of Glenn Reynolds, by Hugh Hewitt:
Hugh Hewitt: ...Glenn Reynolds, do you see the Senate getting something done before Memorial Day?
Glenn Reynolds: I think they almost have to.
Hugh Hewitt: And will it be acceptable to Republicans, generally?
Glenn Reynolds: My guess is yes. My guess is they're going to split the difference between the House and the Senate bill, and it will be good enough.
GWB has shown leadership. Now we have to keep up the pressure on GWB and Congress to get the job done.
This site has been out in front on the Conservative exhaustion debate, with one of the first blog posts on the subject last Friday. Yesterday's follow-up post, based on reader's comments, was again in the forefront, anticipating today's thoughts by Jim Geraghty. From yesterday's post:
Commenter jim ... proposed the approach that he himself uses for this purpose:
For myself, I won't stay away, I'll vote.
But to send a msg, I only donate to selected candidates. All the letters from GOP committees and RINOs get a response--
1) Win the war
2) Secure our borders
3) Cut spending
4) Confirm the judges
5) Then get to me about a donation
It's perhaps a small step but it's one that any of us can do.To summarize, when jim gets a fundraising request from GOP committees and elected officials, he responds that he's only donating to those who take care of the key goals he has listed. At the same time, he makes sure to go to the polls and vote.
Commenter ast posted, supporting this same approach.
And from Jim Geraghty today:
Frustrated with the GOP as a whole? Then support the guys you do like. I roll my eyes when somebody says, 'Ah, they're all a bunch of crooks.' That just says that the complainer hasn't bothered looking for a member of Congress that represents their views. If you're mad as heck about immigration, there's Rep Tom Tancredo and the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus or Sens. Jon Kyl, or Jon Cornyn. If you're mad about pork, there's Sen. Tom Coburn.
If you don't want to send money to the RNC, NRSC, or RNCC because they support too many 'Republicans-in-name-only,' then fine; send money to the lawmakers who you see standing up for the conservative policies you want to see enacted. The rest of the GOP will notice if candidates like Tancredo and Coburn suddenly get a deluge of small donations for their stands. They probably won't need it for their immediate reelection efforts; they'll be able to distribute it as 'seed money' to like-minded candidates elsewhere in the country.
So this seems to be the leading tactic evolving in the blogosphere for expressing Conservative revolt while not turning the government over to the Dems.
Read the rest of Geraghty's article for more powerful strategies that can be used to address this.
