To "M-M-M-M-M-MY SIROTA![1]": Your solutions are....?

6 thoughts on “To “M-M-M-M-M-MY SIROTA![1]”: Your solutions are….?”

1. Regarding immigration: the reason the immigration bill died a horrible death was that too many people didn’t like it – Democrat and Republican alike.  Admittedly, the Democrats saw more in it generally than did the Republicans, but the bill was flawed in so many ways that I for one am happy it died as it did.

   There are a lot of Democrats that have a really good grasp on the scope of the immigration issue; that they had to deal with a White House with a pre-defined notion of “immigration reform” in order to get something done was what gave us this bill, not a lack of deep thinking in the party.  I don’t think we’ll be starting from the same place the next time we have this debate.

   First, we need a better system for validating IDs.  I’m not a proponent of a National ID card system – we don’t need it, we don’t want it, and it was passed largely as an earmark to a few well-connected companies selling RFID chips.  But our Social Security ID system is showing its age – it’s running short on numbers, and when a hash grows densely populated, it’s easy to pick a value at random that is valid.  I don’t know much about Green Cards, but my guess is they’re similarly antiquated.  Most importantly, there’s apparently no good system for validating IDs given vs. IDs on record (and IDs fraudulently in use in two places at once…); that’s the first requirement in getting a handle on the problem – setting up a system that can actually handle the requested task.

   Second, we need enforcement of the law.  Thanks to years of Republican budget control, our government agencies have been largely stripped of enforcement personnel.  Inspectors are so few and far between – and punishments for corporations so minuscule – that corporations pay only minimal attention to hiring laws.

   Third, we need to re-evaluate our immigration needs.  There is a number – somewhere between none and the current number of illegal immigrants in the country – of needed working immigrants required to keep this country fully employed and smokin’ along.  Before we kick all of the illegal immigrants in this country out, we need to figure out what that number is.  Then we need to figure out if breaking the law to come across the border, working hard supporting American businesses and earning money for the family is a crime so heinous that we want to kick them out without offering them the opportunity to continue working legally with some mixture of penalty and legal recognition.  I think our current citizenship goals are sufficient, but some kind of work visa – more lenient than the current visa but not a path to citizenship on its own – is necessary to cover these workers.  This leads back into point number one: it needs to have a strong ID system, and we need to be able to track it somehow without entering into the realm of a fascist state.

   Finally, we don’t need a fence.  Better surveillance and response, yes; walls, no.  Walls are for East Germany, not for the greatest democracy in the world.

   How’s that from a Democratic POV?

   Log in to Reply

   1. Now if you could just point out the Democratic candidate that is espousing those same views, they might get my vote.

      Log in to Reply

      1. Barack Obama: Better ID system, check.  Better law enforcement, check.  Better border security, check.  Re-evaluation of immigration needs, check.  Retain current citizenship rates, not-so-check.  Bonus points for adding in the reward of citizenship for foreigners who fight in our armed forces.

         John Edwards: First, negative points to Edwards for not having an issue page up for immigration and making me have to scour the web for his various responses.  Better ID system, not-so-check.  Better law enforcement, check.  Better border security, kinda check.  Re-evaluation of immigration needs, check.  Retain current citizenship rates, definitely not checked (Edwards favors “earned citizenship” for immigrants.  Extra negative points for immigrants must learn English first idea.

         Hillary Clinton: Again, negative points to HRC for making me go to her Senate website to find campaign issues.  Better ID system, check.  Better law enforcement, check.  Better border security, check.  Re-evaluation of needs, not-really-check.  Retain current citizenship rates, kinda-check.  Extra negatives for thinking about supporting a national ID, and for staking out the most vague positions of the lot.

         Bill Richardson: Better ID system, check.  Better law enforcement, check.  Better border security, check.  Re-evaluation of needs, check.  Retain current citizenship rates, kinda-check.  Extra points for realizing that a fence isn’t a solution, and more extras for realizing that the Mexican economic system is part of the problem; negative points for desiring a national ID.  Finally, extra points for being the candidate who is doing the most about the situation.

         There’s the top four, as it were.  Anyone want to round out the field?  I’ll note that, excepting John Edwards, those who got negative checks for retaining current citizenship rates all support the same basic position: penalties for illegal entrants, but some limited expansion of citizenship with a (usually more) difficult path to obtain it.

         Log in to Reply

      2. Rudy Giuliani:  Starting off poorly – no issue position on his campaign website; I’m getting this from web sources.  Better ID system, not-so-check.  Better enforcement, maybe-check.  Better border security, check.  Re-evaluate immigration needs, check.  Retain current citizenship goals, not-so-check.  Extra points to Rudy for being a realist while mayor and valuing results over symbolism – his interview with O’Reilly was informative.

         Mitt Romney:  Better ID system, too-much-check.  Better enforcement, kinda-check.  Better border security, too-much-check.  Re-evaluate immigration needs, check.  Retain current citizenship goals, check.  Negative points for wanting too much ID for non-citizens, no verifiable ID for citizens; also for wanting a fence, and for not pushing employer enforcement much.  Kudos for trying to find ways to enforce the law using local police forces, but take them back for apparently failing to realize that they have no enforcement authority.

         John McCain: Better ID system, check.  Better law enforcement, kinda-check.  Better border security, too-much-check.  Re-evaluate immigration needs, kinda-check.  Retain current citizenship goals, kinda-check.  Negative points to McCain for championing the fence and not saying much about employer enforcement, but more for a position statement as vague as Clinton’s.

         Fred Thompson: Sen. Thompson isn’t officially in the race, but he’s the fourth leading contender for the GOP nod, so he’s on the list; he also doesn’t have a website yet apparently.  Better ID system, N/A.  Better law enforcement, N/A.  Better border security, check (and use the extra checks here, too).  Re-evaluate immigration needs, no.  Retain current citizenship goals, check.  Thompson’s stand on immigration “reform” appears to be 110% border security, fence and all.  I’d give him kudos for recognizing that Mexico’s economic structure is part of the problem, except that he blames it on socialist policy and not the corrupt oligarchs collecting all the money at the top.

         Again, for those getting negative check-offs on the citizenship goal, it’s because they support something resembling the penalty/legal path to citizenship goal of the most recent immigration reform bill.

         Log in to Reply

      3. Last time I checked, most of the candidates are in the Congress.  But, in spite of their policies and positions on immigration have done NOTHING that has produced an actual change in our immigration laws or enforcement.  The litmus, in my view, is not what a candidate claims they will do IF elected, but what they actually accomplished while in office.  BTW, making a speech and espousing a position or claiming your opponents are wrong for various reasons is not actually doing anything constructive.

         I also believe that the alleged problem of insufficient resources for federal immigration enforcement agencies is a red herring.  Those agencies spend large $$ on pointless activities and then claim that they do not have enough money to do the substantive job they were established to do.  For example, if, instead of spending the billions to build a wall/fence on the Mexican border, we spent the money on employer enforcement programs, the impact on illegal immigration would be far greater in my opinion.

         Log in to Reply

         1. My guess is, perhaps one Republican and maybe two or three Democrats running for the highest office in the country really want to spend the money on employer oversight.  A fence is easier to point to and causes less harm to our corporations.

            However, don’t overlook the ID issue; IDs are so ridiculously easy to fake right now that employers really do have a hard time figuring out just how legit their potential employees are.

            Log in to Reply