Virginia Libertarian

Jim Webb for U.S. Senate: On the Issues

Reading through Jim Webb’s speech on Iraq, which actually appears to cover all of foreign policy, I can see that he mouths the Democrat talking points of the Iraq war being wrong.  He lays out a two step plan for Iraq, but I find those two steps sorely lacking in detail, and can be boiled down to this:  1. Say we don’t plan to occupy forever, and 2. get other nations in the region involved..  I don’t see any concrete ideas on what we need to get out.  What are our goals before we leave?  What do we want the other nations to be doing?  He does appear to have some good ideas concerning foreign policy and the rest of the world.

In terms of the rest of the world, ultimately the entire global community must address the issues of failed states, world regimes, and underdevelopment, which are the breeding grounds of such issues as terrorism. In our own hemisphere, we need to improve our homeland security and to guard against the terrorist threat, at the same time coming up with a sensible, fair, and enforceable policy on immigration. And we need to think about that in the larger context of our relations with Latin America which has been backsliding toward authoritarianism and illiberal economies. We shouldn’t allow the rest of the Americans to become anti-Americans, even as we ourselves become more Latino in our makeup. A true vision for national security must also encompass non-military challenges. We need to wean ourselves off our dependence on foreign oil. It goes without saying that we are too dependant on Middle Eastern regimes today and if we are not careful we may be heading into a clash with China tomorrow over energy resources.

While much of this sounds good, I don’t hear anything other than “we need a good plan”.  The candidates need to say what their plan actually is.  What is a good immigration policy.  How would he address the issue of failed states.  How do we improve homeland security.  How do we guard against terrorist threats.  How should we wean ourselves off of foreign oil.

On Immigration, Webb again cops out with this:

The immigration debate is divided into three separate issues. How can we secure our border? What should we do about the 11 million undocumented workers? And, lastly there is the guest worker question. It is necessary to separate out the 3 issues. The primary concern must be securing the border. Immediate action is needed to stem the flow of illegal border crossings. Approaching the issue using an omnibus bill that attempts to solve all three issues simultaneously creates a political stalemate that delays the border security solution. There is a consensus that our border security must be improved and we should act on that consensus as soon as possible. Once the border is secure we can develop a fair solution to other immigration issues.

Ok, great, we can see 3 issues, what are you going to do about them?  How are you going to secure the border.  What are you going to do about the current 11 million illegal aliens (and no bolt of lightning struck me when I typed that).  What is your plan for the guest worker program.  What is your “fair” solution to the other issues?

The rest of his stances on the issues I find to be anathema to me.  On “Economic and Social Fairness” he plans to reinstate notions of “fairness”.   I can only assume that means soak the rich to redistribute wealth, continuing to punish those who work hard and succeed to get where they are, and reward those who continue to fail.  On education he appears strongly in favor of our current public schooling system, along with the worthless NCLB testing.  On the health care issue he is for a government run medical program, pushing us into Socialized medicine even as Canada is figuring out that doesn’t work.  He blames infrastructure failures in New Orleans and other areas of the country on the federal government, when this is really the responsibility of the states, and he is for bringing home the bacon for transportation costs:

As Virginia’s junior Senator I will work with Gov. Kaine and the legislature to implement their transportation priorities by fighting for greater federal funding.

I cannot see myself ever voting for someone like this, even if he got the War on Terror issue completely correct (whatever that might be)

A Flood of Bad Immigration Numbers
by Daniel T. Griswold

Daniel Griswold is director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies.

The debate in Washington over reforming America’s immigration laws has produced not only heated rhetoric but a few fantastic claims. Few are wilder than a prediction from a well-known think-tank that the reform bill just passed by the Senate will result in 103 million legal immigrants to the United States during the next 20 years.

By John D. Fonte

Since its creation generations ago, the United States
has been a destination for immigrants looking for a chance to pursue the
“American Dream.” While this has not changed, the manner in which
foreigners assimilate into American culture has. John Fonte, a senior
fellow at the Hudson Institute, argues in the December
2000 issue of TAE that “ethnic consciousness”
is now promoted over “Americanism and individual rights.” This
is a dangerous trend, one that has negative consequences for those attempting
to live the American Dream, illustrated by a pronounced lack of patriotic
identity.

At any conference on immigration these days, someone will
typically rise and quote Henry James, Henry Adams, Henry Cabot Lodge, or
some other old Anglo-Saxon fuddy-duddy worrying circa 1900 that immigrants
would never assimilate to American life. The speaker will then ridicule
the designated Henry, remind us he was wrong, and declare, “We have
been through this debate before, but today’s immigrants will Americanize
just as they did in the past.”

This is good sport, guaranteed to get a few laughs. But
it is grossly misleading. For the fact is, today’s assimilating forces
are much different than those that prevailed in the early twentieth century.
To put things simply: It’s not 1900 anymore.

During our earlier immigration wave one century back,
we had self-confident patriotic elites in politics, education, business,
religion, and civic associations who insisted that new immigrants Americanize.
Now, we have diffident and divided elites who are either actively promoting
anti-Americanization policies such as “multiculturalism” or doing
little to encourage assimilation. In 1915, Democrat Woodrow Wilson and
Republican Theodore Roosevelt explicitly and forcefully called for the
“Americanization” of new immigrants. In 2000, Democrats and Republicans
alike talk mostly of “diversity,” rarely if ever of “assimilation”
or “Americanization.”

Back then, the federal government promoted Americanism
and individual rights. Now it promotes ethnic consciousness and group rights.
Group preferences in employment that were originally designed for black
Americans who had suffered historical discrimination now include special
treatment for most newly arrived immigrants from Latin America and Asia,
and for non-citizens as well as citizens.

Back then, the United States had control of its borders.
Now the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that every year
the number of illegal immigrants grows by 275,000.

Back then no foreign government (not Italy, not the Austro-Hungarian
empire) was on our border, or anywhere else, promoting bilingualism, biculturalism,
and dual nationality. Now the Mexican government openly undermines the
patriotic assimilation of our new citizens. Mexico is promoting dual nationality
for American children of Mexican ancestry, and in many schools in the Southwest,
American students of Latino descent are taught by Mexicans and Mexican-trained
teachers and use Mexican textbooks. The Los Angeles Times reported that
some American classrooms even fly Mexican, instead of American, flags.

Back then the Oath of Citizenship, in which newly naturalized
Americans promised to renounce all prior allegiances, was taken seriously.
Now the spirit of loyalty to the American Constitution embodied in this
oath is openly flouted. In 1998, a naturalized U.S. citizen, Jesus Galvis,
a city councilman in Hackensack, New Jersey, who had taken the Oath of
Citizenship renouncing all “allegiance and fidelity” to any foreign
state, ran for the Colombian Senate and planned, if elected, to serve both
“constituencies” and, apparently, to be “loyal” to
both the U.S. and Colombian constitutions simultaneously.

Back then we insisted the schools teach in English. Now
litigators ensure many Latino children are mostly taught in Spanish. Although
bilingual education has produced poor results in teaching English to immigrant
children, there is no serious support within our nation’s political leadership
for ending this flawed program (though the improved results seen in California—which
recently ended most bilingual classes after the citizenry passed a statewide
referendum—may erode this apathy).

Back then we conducted government business in English
and encouraged new immigrants to learn our language so they could fully
participate in American life. Now foreign language “rights” are,
as of this August, included as official “civil rights” in U.S.
law. On August 11, 2000, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13166,
which requires all programs using federal funds to “assure” that
“language barriers” do not “exclude” non-English speakers
from “participation” in all “benefits and services.”
This new directive does not simply apply to Spanish, but all immigrant
languages from Urdu to Khmer. Failure to comply, according to the Justice
Department, may be “invidious discrimination on the basis of national
origin and race.” This notion of a “civil right” to use
a foreign language in all federally funded activities has been established
with little or no resistance from either the current Congress or opposition
candidates.

Back then, ocean travel and long distance communication
were slow and expensive. Now, air travel and modern telecommunications
are fast and cheap. Leading sociologists tell us that advanced communications
at the dawn of the twenty-first century have resulted in a new “transnational”
or “postnational” world in which newcomers to America can no
longer be considered “immigrants” in the traditional sense, who
assimilate to their new country and become loyal Americans. Instead they
should be considered “transnational migrants” who move back and
forth between nations and cultures and retain their old loyalties, including
political ones, such as voting in their old homelands, as well as in the
U.S.

Back then we had a “muscle-bound” industrial
economy that needed factory workers. Now we have a “brain power”
dependent high-tech economy. Nevertheless, our immigration policy continues
to favor low-skilled workers. Whereas nine-tenths of native-born Americans
have a high school diploma, one in three legal immigrants do not.

Finally, back then immigration was ultimately slowed by
congressional action. Now high immigration (legal and illegal) may be,
as the new president of the American Sociological Association exclaimed,
“perpetual.”

Despite all these differences, we are assured assimilation
will occur more or less as it did in the past. In Michael Barone’s words,
“we’ve been here before.” One of the standard analogies for
this view is the idea that today’s Latinos are similar to yesterday’s
Italians. Thus Barone tells us the Italians of yesterday, like the Latinos
of today, were hard-working, family-oriented immigrants who initially distrusted
civic institutions, including schools and political associations, but eventually
assimilated. There is some truth in Barone’s Italian-Latino analogy, but
it stops short of thoroughly examining the crucial differences between
then and now.

Italy in the 1900s, unlike Mexico today, did not share
a contiguous border with us, did not send about 30 percent of all immigrants
to America, and did not supply textbooks, teachers, and national flags
to American classrooms. There were no employment preferences, bilingual/bicultural
classes, or foreign language “rights” that encouraged group consciousness
among Italian immigrants. And of course, the overall number of Italian
immigrants was reduced with the restrictionist legislation of the 1920s.

Whatever the defects in the discriminatory Reed-Johnson
Immigration Act of 1924 (which kept many of my Sicilian relatives out of
the U.S.), we must recognize that such legislation was an important factor
in fostering the successful assimilation of record numbers of immigrants
into the mainstream of American life (along with other factors such as
elite attitudes, the lack of a single dominant language group among immigrants,
an emphasis on individual not group rights, national self-confidence, etc.)…

In the end, the type of assimilation is crucial. No doubt
assimilation will occur in some form. American mass culture is a powerful
integrating force and will exert a strong influence, particularly on the
young. But newcomers could also assimilate into the mindset of group consciousness,
ethnic grievances, and perpetual victimhood that is fostered by contemporary
elites.

The crucial form of assimilation is not mass cultural,
or economic, but what could be called “patriotic assimilation.”
This means newcomers leave a previous people, join the American people,
and “adopt” America’s civic heritage “as though,”
in Lincoln’s words, “they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the
flesh, of the men who wrote the Declaration [of Independence], and so they
are.”

Unfortunately, the evidence of patriotic assimilation
is troubling. The best evidence we have is a long-term study from the mid-1990s
of 5,000 children of immigrants, conducted by Professor Rub=E9n Rumbaut for
the Russell Sage Foundation. The study began when the children were in
the ninth grade (around 13 years old) and concluded four years later, when
the students were around 17. After four years of American high school,
the children of Mexican and Filipino immigrants were 50 percent more likely
to self-identify themselves as “Mexican” and “Filipino,”
rather than as “Mexican-Americans,” “Filipino-Americans”
or just plain “Americans.” Overall, there were major decreases
in students identifying themselves as either Americans or hyphenated-Americans
and increases in students identifying themselves either by a generic ethnic
category (Latino, Asian) or by national origin (Mexican, Filipino). Thus,
“patriotic assimilation” actually decreased dramatically for
the children of immigrants during one of the most impressionable periods
of a young person’s life, the four years of high school.

Today, we need serious assimilation initiatives in politics
and civil society. Although there are major obstacles to patriotic assimilation
that did not exist in the past, especially among elites, strong evidence
shows the American people strongly support assimilating newcomers in the
traditional patriotic style. Public Agenda, the respected research firm
directed by Daniel Yankelovich and Cyrus Vance, reveals in its latest report
that Americans today, from all races and ethnic groups, endorse patriotic
assimilation.

Thus 87 percent of foreign-born parents, and 88 percent
of all parents, say “schools should make a special effort to teach
new immigrants about American values.” Parents were asked, “What
should be a bigger priority”: teaching students “to be proud
of being part of this country and learn[ing] the rights and responsibilities
of citizenship,” or focusing on “instilling pride in their ethnic
group’s identity and heritage?” By 79 percent to 18 percent, parents
of all races and ethnicities favored emphasis on “pride in and learning
about America.” By nearly identical margins (80 percent to 17 percent)
Hispanic parents preferred “pride in America” over “pride
in one’s ethnic heritage.”

Foreign-born parents overall preferred “pride in
America” by 73 percent to 23 percent, African Americans by 66 percent
to 29 percent. And by 65 percent to 26 percent, Americans said schools
should “help new immigrants absorb America’s language and culture
as quickly as possible, even if their native language and culture are neglected.”

Patriotic assimilation can be achieved today as it was
in the past. What is needed is an organized, realistic, tough-minded strategy
that considers the different circumstances of the twenty-first century.
Wishful thinking that assimilation will happen automatically will not do.
Civic associations, foundations, government institutions, and corporations
should celebrate and affirm the ideals of patriotic assimilation. Group
preferences and bilingual education (which hurts immigrant children) should
be ended. When given a chance to vote, the American people have rejected
both group preferences (passing Proposition 209 in California and I-200
in Washington State) and bilingual education (Proposition 227 in California).

The executive order on language rights should be repealed
either by the next administration or by Congress. Civic education in our
schools should affirm, not denigrate or ignore, our American principles
and our history. Immigration policy, both the overall numbers and criteria
(high skill versus low skill, etc.), should be re-examined in the context
of our national interest in patriotic assimilation, instead of the special
interests of different lobbying groups like the Immigration Lawyers Association.

If the civic integration of immigrants is to succeed in
the twenty-first century as it did in the twentieth century, the same amount
of money and time that activists, fund-raisers, and politicians put into
promoting tax cuts, free trade, and school vouchers must be put into promoting
the patriotic assimilation of newcomers to America.

cgeorge wrote:

David, Don’t for a second believe these people are contributing to the economy. Some yes, but when 29% of all of our federal inmates are illegal immigrants, they are doing far more than becoming a productive member of our society. Do you remember the Mexican prostition ring that was busted up by the FBI at Harbor village Apartments, a few years back.

Of course they are contributing to the economy, they spend money, they buy things, that’s the economy, of course they send a lot of money home, as we won’t let their families in now. Look at the number of people that are in the federal prisons due to victimless “crimes” (your prostitution ring is a prime example). As long as everyone is a willing participant (i.e. the women weren’t forced into the job), then where is the crime? Drug users, as long as they aren’t breaking any laws that involve there being an actual victim, why are we prosecuting these people? The War on Drugs has been shown many times over to be an abject failure. If you make it easier for these people to come into the country legally, then they will be contributing to our economy even more.

Furthermore, are country does not have the infrastructure to support them at that rate they are crossing over. It becomes a supply and demand issue. Our country cannot accommodate the large number of people in such a short time. Our systems will go bankrupt.

Crap, we are already accommodating them. If demand exceeds supply, guess what happens, somebody steps in to make money and fulfill the demand, that’s how free markets work. The only time you end up with a shortage is when the government steps in and tries to “regulate” things.

As far as the wage issue, they are driving the American wages down. Screwing the legal American family. They are not all doing jobs Americans do not want to do. That is Bullshit. Plus the are contributing to the increasing cost of the housing market. 20 of them will pool their resources together and buy home, while the legal American family is out of another home. It is another supply and demand issue. Cost goes up because of limited supply and huge demand. It’s screwing legal American families out of everything they work for.

So? If they get paid less money, they won’t be able to buy as much, and either the price of goods will come down, as more people won’t be able to afford them (why do you think WalMart does so well?), or they will demand higher wages. If they choose to live 20 o a home, why should that affect me? I can still buy or build my own. You are correct, it is another supply/demand issue. There is plenty of land and plenty of resources to build houses for anyone that wants to come here. The only issue is goverment (local or otherwise, but usually local here) making ridiculous land use laws, i.e. what California has done causing the price of a 900 sq.ft. house to be $700,000 (open space laws and other stupidity)

Plus, they are infiltrating are hospitals and using the emergency rooms as the primary doctor. In LA, American citizens can not even use the damn hospital because of the illegals. But guess whose forting the taxes for it. The legal citizens.

You are again bringing up supply and demand in a different form, the reason they use ER is because that’s what they can get. Make them legal and they will be using the same services you and I do, and they will have to pay for it instead of getting a free ride in the ER from the system. This is just as much a problem with people who are on welfare as it is with immigrants. When they have to start paying for the care they receive, they will stop going for the frivolous reasons they are now.

Same thing goes for the schools. They are filling up the classrooms, overwhelming the teachers, and further degrading the level of education for the legal families who are paying for all of this through taxpayers.

Don’t even get me started on the government indoctrination centers they call public schools. The teachers aren’t overwhelmed because of immigration, the entire public school system is broken, vouchers and private schools are the solution, phasing out government funding for education entirely.

Plus dont get me started on welfare. They come here drain are welfare systems that are already bankrupt anyway. But yet every check we get, you and I pay for their welfare. They get away tax free.

Welfare needs to go away completely as well. Charitable private organizations, such as churches, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and countless others are far better at performing this kind of service than goverment is.

Furthermore, we now have wonderful dieses again that were eliminated years ago. Thank you Turbuculois. I can send you a list if you want. The fact the communist party is so behind this doesn’t that bother you? What do you think their agenda for America is? I believe they understand what they are doing.

Of course they do, but communism has failed everywhere it has been attempted. I am hopeful that we will realize this before we have to go down that road, but I don’t know if we are smart enough to realize it.

If you want more information, I will gladly share it with you. If you want to know how we will end up, just take a look at the country they come from. Corrupt government, corrupt judges, corrupt police, no citizen rights, and only the ruling class and the peasants. That is what is coming.

What, you think we don’t already have all of that here?!?! Have you not seen all the scandals that both major parties have been party to the last couple of years? Are you not familiar with the activist judges that have been making law from the bench since the ’60’s? We’re already there, and it’s not due to immigration, it’s due to socialist liberals.

Even if we grant these illegals working rights and force them to pay taxes, infrastructure and resources can not support it. Systems will go bankrupt and resources will be depleted.

What systems? The poorly planned and executed government socialist systems, i.e. welfare, social security? Good, let them go broke, hopefully we’ll be smart enough to realize they were a bad idea to begin with

Personally, I’m ecstatic, about the bill the House passed. If give them a temporary work permit, then all of their families can come here with them. We will go from an estimated 20 million illegal immigrants to nearly 80 million instantly. Not to mention, the ones that will continue to bring their families. Are infrastructure cannot support this. That is increasing our population growth by about 26% instantly, not including the ones that want to come here. It sad this is even a debate, because I do believe you and I pay for legal ways for immigrants to join are country legally. I’m not opposed to that at all. If give these illegals the opportunity to work here legally, we will encourage a population shift unforeseen in US history.

Yes, we do pay for legal ways for them to enter, but we make it prohibitively difficult for people to get in that way. We need to be facilitating the naturalization process, not punishing the people who want a chance at a better life. That is what they are coming here for, part of the American Dream. They WANT to participate in our country, contribute to our economy, and bring their culture to us and participate in ours, we just need to let them do so.

Finally, do you know what President Fox of Mexico has done with his southern border? He has the military guarding it to keep illegals from South America from entering his country.

Don’t care about Mexico’s problems

It’s a Constitutional issue, a legal issue and economic issue. How can they give me a summons for breaking the stupid county and state laws, and protect and defend these felons against the Constitution and the immigration laws of this country?

It’s not a Constitutional issue, this is a country of immigrants, almost everyone here had ancestors that immigrated here not that long ago. The economy will take them in and prosper.

Finally, as far as tax reform. Wasn’t this on Bush’s mandate last year during his state of the union. 47% of the people do not pay federal income tax already. If the number gets to 51% you can kiss tax reform goodbye.

Amen there, that’s 100% true.

Talk to you soon.