Thursday, December 29, 2011
The first chapter in Moore's book is a bunch of rehashed babble about how Bush stole the 2000 election. **Yawn.** I'm so tired of hearing that nonsense. If the Electoral College didn't result in the popular vote being thwarted once in a while, it would be useless. The whole purpose is to ensure that the election isn't always dominated by a few overpopulated states. It's the same principle by which the bicameral legislature operates. I don't expect liberals to comprehend all of this, so I can forgive Michael Moore's ignorance on the subject. Still, the whole first chapter is tedious. Skip it.
Moore goes on to deal with the state of education in the United States. I found myself agreeing with him much of the time in this section. My mom just gave me a fifth-grade reader from 1857--most college students would have a difficult time comprehending any of it. We're graduating a bunch of (functional) illiterates, largely because the system is geared toward pampering the underachievers. Yes, we spend very little on education compared to the rest of the industrialized world, and we aren't at the top of the heap in international measures, nor have we been for quite a while. Personally, I attribute this more to the lack of student accountability in the system than to the amount of money being spent, but I must admit that the amount of what we spend that actually makes it to the classroom is appallingly low. According to the California Chamber of Commerce, roughly 57% of what is spent in California makes it to the actual teaching of students, including teacher salaries, materials, extracurricular activities, and etc. The rest is eaten up by administrative overhead, which means that between state, county, and district bureaucracies, 43% of the money spent is not being used to educate a single child. I doubt things are much better across the country. I would contend that we are spending a decent amount, but managing that money terribly.
Michael Moore still suffers from the delusion that teachers are capable of solving every ill of society. This is nonsense. Fools seek to change lives by changing the environment. Wise men seek to change men, who will then change their own environment. This is the key difference between my views on education and those of Michael Moore. Still, I agree with quite a bit of what he has to say on the subject, which was quite surprising to me.
The rest of the book consists of diatribes about how stupid we Americans are, how we engage in wanton violence, how our support of Israel amounts to genocide, how SUVs are melting the polar ice caps, blah, blah, blah. He made some interesting points when comparing Clinton's agenda to Reagan's, arguing that Clinton actually moved the country further to the right than Reagan had, at least in terms of policy. He makes some very similar points to Michael Savage, noting that there isn't much of a divide between establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats. (He voted and campaigned for Nader in 2000.) While I felt he was blaspheming the memory of Reagan, he did demonstrate that Clinton governed largely as a conservative. Personally, I attribute that to the 1994 Republican revolution, as do most conservatives, but at least Moore got the net result right.
I still think of Moore as a moron (Moore-on?), but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. It's useful to see what passes for thinking on the Left. It's also a relief to see that their arguments are indeed as weak as we have always supposed. We'll always have a need for liberals; they're quite entertaining. As long as we keep in mind that they're a vapid bunch of troglodytes, there's no harm in hearing them out.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
As a father, if my family were facing starvation or murder by drug cartels, the impulse to flee would be incredibly strong, especially if the nation to which I was fleeing was the United States of America. Sociologists call this a "push factor," the things pushing people out of their native lands. I understand this. I have family in Mexico, and have visited quite a bit as a youth. I've seen what people are fleeing from.
The United States also offers many "pull factors." We have a generous welfare state for citizens as well as immigrants. The use of health care in hospital emergency rooms is free in the United States; there are bright, large-type notices in several languages to that effect. Granted, you are asked for a name and address, as well as insurance information. However, it is widely known that it is impossible (and illegal) for hospitals to ensure the accuracy of this information as a prerequisite for giving care. All children born on U.S. soil are granted citizenship, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, and are thus entitled by law to social services. In most states, this results in the parents of said children gaining access to those same services. Jobs are much more plentiful here than in Mexico. The work Americans "just won't do" is just the sort of work to which most immigrants are accustomed. All of these act as enticements making relocation, legal or illegal, that much more attractive.
The issue at stake is not whether illegal immigrants are evil or immoral. I'm quite sure most of us would do whatever we had to in order to feed our children and care for our families. Neither is the issue one of race or ethnicity. In my not-so-humble opinion, raising the spectre of racism every time immigration is discussed is simply a way of avoiding debate. Moreover, immigration is not a question of race but of nationality. (Technically there are only three, possibly four races: Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and depending on the current academic climate, Native American.) Thus, those who oppose open immigration policies are not generally motivated by hatred, but by self-interest, which is essentially the same motivator as those who embrace open immigration.
My criterion for immigration policy is quite simple, much simpler than the volumes and volumes that have been written on the subject by so many distinguished experts. The only factor that should have any weight in deciding immigration policy is what is in the interest of the citizens of the United States of America. Yes, by citizens I mean actual legal-to-vote citizens, either native born or legally naturalized. While it is "nice" to think of immigration as a way to help the world's needy, such an attitude is detrimental to the national interest. I would favor a policy in which the following steps were mandatory:
1. All employers must run potential employees' identification through E-Verify. While there have been a few isolated cases in which mistakes have been reported, such mistakes can be remedied through the proper channels. (For more information, click here.)
2. Local and state police authorities will not only be authorized to enforce federal immigration law, but will be required to do so on penalty of treason against the laws and government of the United States. While it has been widely criticized in the media, the Arizona law to this effect takes stringent measures to ensure that unjust discrimination is avoided. (To see the specific details, click here.)
3. A defensible border wall will be constructed within one year. Approximate measurements would be twenty feet high by three feet wide, with a rounded top to make it difficult to scale. Considering that we have fabricated thousands of miles of "sound walls" along our freeways and busy streets at the taxpayers' expense, there is no excuse for not securing our borders. (Click here for more.)
4. A Constitutional amendment should be passed specifying that only those children born of at least one citizen or permanent legal resident on American soil have the right of natural-born citizenship. The United States and Canada are the only developed countries in the world still practicing jus soli citizenship, or the policy that any child born on national soil is an automatic citizen. The rest of the world has moved away from the practice out of necessity. (This is one of the few times you will find me using foreign nations' policies on any issue as an example we should emulate.)
5. Immigration for any other reason than the unification of the spouse and/or legally recognized children of a current citizen will halt any time the national unemployment rate climbs above five percent. When demand for labor is down, it is foolhardy to increase the supply. Anyone who has studied basic economics (or has an ounce of common sense) will understand why this is necessary.
I would like to re-emphasize here that I am pro-immigrant. I have several relatives who have immigrated to this country. I enjoy the diversity of culture and especially cuisine that immigration brings. However, let us never forget that the government of the United States exists to serve the interests of the citizens of the United States. Immigration policy is no exception.