Been watching more sex offender stings on TV. Dateline and the local station with John Mercure. I really feel sorry for the wannabe sex offenders who have to get lectured on air by that fatuous scumbag. To lose a battle of wits to John Mercure -- how humiliating!
Some observations:
1) You really have to wonder whether these stings are reeling in real perps or just creating new criminals by their existence. You constantly hear of the NIH study claiming that child sex offenders are super-recidivists who on average claim scores and scores of victims. If the sting operations dipped their lure in this pool, then they should be coming up with a high proportion of repeat offenders. After the sting, the cops should be able to get warrants and find out that the internet hookup represented by the sting was, for the average person caught, number thirty in a series of attempts, of which a dozen were successful, and that the sting is leading to multiple charges. It appears, however, that this is almost never the case. The broadcasts loudly exclaim that one or two of their captures appear to have previous records, while the fact that they trumpet these exceptions so loudly itself suggests that scores apparently do not. Add this to the fact that the captures are often young and contrite, and that the bait is exceptionally alluring, and you really wonder how many of these guys, if nature had been left to its natural course, would have gone about their lives without ever being tempted to arrange a hookup with an underage girl. Don't mistake me -- some of these guys are clearly creeps. But as to the proportion that would actually, left to their own, have committed criminal acts? It may be under fifty percent.
2) Some of these guys travel hundreds of miles for the date. What does that say about the logic of laws that require past sex offenders not to live within 2000 feet of a school? The real threat is coming from farther away, right?
3) A friend of mine observed that not a lot, but a significant minority of sting victims appeared to be younger men of foreign background who seemed genuinely confused about what they had done wrong. Recall that the age of consent at common law was 10, that it remains in the low teens in many places (and under certain conditions in the U.S. -- locally, for example, I believe the law is that with parental consent, a 13-year-old can marry and have intercourse). Most cultures have a taboo against going after extremely young boys or girls sexually, but their view of teenage sexuality is not as ostrichlike and they have nothing approaching the current mass hysteria over supposed sexual predators (and neither did we a few short decades ago). Whether or not as a matter of law these captures can be prosecuted, they clearly lack any real felonious intent. You almost expect these guys to ask the pretty face from Dateline, "What, you never had sex with a 15 year old? And also, at what age did you lose your virginity?"
Also, just a little more on that smug asswipe Mercure. When he says, "what he said on the internet then was so graphically disgusting, we can't say it on TV," well, first of all, I don't trust that it's even true. You can say a lot on TV. In part, I think the failure to air the details is an acknowledgement that Mercure is a hack whose tone is too cheap and sensational to let him air what could be aired in a tone of seriousness. In court room dramas, you hear sex crimes described in graphic detail, but the censors let it go because the presentation is so fraught with high tension and seriousness. Mercure smirks through every broadcast like a corrupt hawker of patent remedies, which essentially he is. Also, is it "disgusting?" I doubt that, too. Throughout his broadcasts, he feels he has to remind the audience, "Remember, he thinks he's talking to a 14-year-old girl." If you're prone to forget that the subject of a sex act is a juvenile, then what is left from the description of a sex act that supposedly makes it so disgusting? Is the guy into scat or something? My bet, based on how they treat other sexual descriptions on these broadcasts, is there's nothing particularly gross about what was said online. Probably Mercure is just titillated himself and has to remind himself, "John, this girl is 14." In fact, it's somewhat ironic that with his plump goofy face, Mercure looks like the stereotype of the kind of guy who would lure little girls or boys with free cotton candy. He's actually quite creepy. If I were as into the whole pedophile panic as the rest of the country seems to be, I'd worry about his little boy. Anyhow, the claim that what was said was so disgusting looks to me like a way of sensationalizing and inserting Mercure's protesting-too-much value judgments instead of just telling us the facts, which as I noted, if they were really graphic, would force John to stop smirking and seeming to almost giggle through his broadcasts. I can't believe this bozo pulls in journalism awards for his crap spectacles. The awards judges could be collectively ashamed. What happened to journalism?
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
The State Capitols Test (English Only)
I've taken down the text of this post to see if I can get it published elsewhere. It'll come back if I can get permission from the publisher. Nobody reads this blog but me and the NSA anyway.
©2006 by
Pholidote, all rights reserved.
©2006 by
Pholidote, all rights reserved.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Resign, already!
George Bush should resign.
Duh.
I should mention that many options have been floated. Plenty of others favor impeachment, which might take place under a wide variety of grounds. A few outposts of the blogosphere have raised suspicions of Bush suffering from brain damage, alcoholic relapse, or other debilitating mental conditions that cause him to act erratically, cling monomaniacally to filed positions and attribute his policies to divine instruction, which would justify a petition to have him removed for mental incompetence by the cabinet. Kevin Phillips thinks impeachment or 25th Amendment removal is inappropriate to this circumstance and we should have a Constitutional Amendment to allow a recall election. Still another proposal, which I've not actually seen, but must be out there is to radically reverse the policy of 1 USC 3, eliminating the safe harbor to protect the finality of votes for electoral college, and actually allowing the college to be reconstituted now to un-elect the President. Unelection, impeachment, psychiatric removal, recall, all have their logic.
I have a great idea for a petition. At the top is a title and general description and a place for signatories to print their full names and contact information. The petition then says: "whereupon I have signed my name next to each step which I favor in this regard." Then in three columns are about 150 provisions set out in fine print: president to be impeached for this reason, that reason, another, and another. Vice president to be impeached. To be recalled, unelected, removed on psychiatric grounds, censured. Secretary of defense to be fired or resign, etc. The great thing is, you could circulate 500 petitions at an event and wind up with 75,000 signatures. It may be my best cockeyed organizing innovation since the "secret protests" I organized against the Patriot Act. The sponsors and locations were undisclosed, but bases on the press they received, they were very effective!
Anyhow, beyond the obvious reasons of criminality, corruption, incopetence and political extremism, we have a new basis to ask Bush and his lackeys and cronies to vacate their positions of authority -- unpopularity.
There are plenty of fictional stories of presidents, and one real life story -- that of Richard Nixon -- where the protagonist has been mortally politically injured and decides that the only path is to leave for the good of the country. Of course Nixon had the incentive that he was destined to go in any event, but within that context, he still had a decision whether to fight to the end or give it up. In the premiere episode of Commander in Chief, Geena Davis' character Mackenzie Allen is set upon resignation (until she isn't). Where the leader is a noble hero, nothing seems to better display that nobility than the willingness to sacrifice the personal holding of the office for the protection of the office itself.
A president with a 29% overall approval rating is severely hampered in ability to govern. Those whose support is necessary to govern are inclined to distance themselves from whatever the leper of the White House says or does. What used to be a reverse Midas touch only for implementation of policy (the cronies placed in charge can't make anything work) has become a reverse Midas touch politically. Since the problem is personal unpopularity, the obvious solution is to lose the face-in-chief and let someone else use the bully pulpit.
There is moreover the simple fact that in a democracy, being vastly disliked signals illegitimacy. It's hard to justify remaining when departing would be viewed by the majority as a gift. The illegitimacy is also seen abroad and damages the credibility of the nation, just as foreign leaders see these numbers and can fairly presume that the President, speaking for the US in foreign policy matters, speaks only for a lame duck government and not for a nation.
As the Bush presidency unravels and new depths of incompetence and corruption are exposed, the office of the presidency takes some of the brunt of the exposure.
Bush's unpopularity misses the national record by only about the combined margins of error of the two polls. State by state, he retains his positive polarity only in Idaho, Nebraska, Wyoming and Utah, which if I'm not mistaken, is three more states than those with majorities approving of Dead-Eye Dick.
More importantly, no president has been rated so low for so long. This is no temporary bump that can be fixed by perseverence. The presidency is dead in the water with no momentum, no credibility and no ideas. It's hard to imagine why anyone would stay in the job.
The press corps should be asking Bush 1) can you think yet of any mistake that you've made in office? 2) have you considered resigning for the good of the country? 3) have any of the members of your inside circle brought this option to your attention? 4) why on earth are you still in office when there's so much brush left to clear back at the ranch? 5) Is there anything you plan to do before January 2009 that someone else couldn't do better? 6) By staying, aren't you putting your own selfish interests ahead of the national interest and the wishes of more than 200 million Americans who do not support you?
Oh, just go already.
Duh.
I should mention that many options have been floated. Plenty of others favor impeachment, which might take place under a wide variety of grounds. A few outposts of the blogosphere have raised suspicions of Bush suffering from brain damage, alcoholic relapse, or other debilitating mental conditions that cause him to act erratically, cling monomaniacally to filed positions and attribute his policies to divine instruction, which would justify a petition to have him removed for mental incompetence by the cabinet. Kevin Phillips thinks impeachment or 25th Amendment removal is inappropriate to this circumstance and we should have a Constitutional Amendment to allow a recall election. Still another proposal, which I've not actually seen, but must be out there is to radically reverse the policy of 1 USC 3, eliminating the safe harbor to protect the finality of votes for electoral college, and actually allowing the college to be reconstituted now to un-elect the President. Unelection, impeachment, psychiatric removal, recall, all have their logic.
I have a great idea for a petition. At the top is a title and general description and a place for signatories to print their full names and contact information. The petition then says: "whereupon I have signed my name next to each step which I favor in this regard." Then in three columns are about 150 provisions set out in fine print: president to be impeached for this reason, that reason, another, and another. Vice president to be impeached. To be recalled, unelected, removed on psychiatric grounds, censured. Secretary of defense to be fired or resign, etc. The great thing is, you could circulate 500 petitions at an event and wind up with 75,000 signatures. It may be my best cockeyed organizing innovation since the "secret protests" I organized against the Patriot Act. The sponsors and locations were undisclosed, but bases on the press they received, they were very effective!
Anyhow, beyond the obvious reasons of criminality, corruption, incopetence and political extremism, we have a new basis to ask Bush and his lackeys and cronies to vacate their positions of authority -- unpopularity.
There are plenty of fictional stories of presidents, and one real life story -- that of Richard Nixon -- where the protagonist has been mortally politically injured and decides that the only path is to leave for the good of the country. Of course Nixon had the incentive that he was destined to go in any event, but within that context, he still had a decision whether to fight to the end or give it up. In the premiere episode of Commander in Chief, Geena Davis' character Mackenzie Allen is set upon resignation (until she isn't). Where the leader is a noble hero, nothing seems to better display that nobility than the willingness to sacrifice the personal holding of the office for the protection of the office itself.
A president with a 29% overall approval rating is severely hampered in ability to govern. Those whose support is necessary to govern are inclined to distance themselves from whatever the leper of the White House says or does. What used to be a reverse Midas touch only for implementation of policy (the cronies placed in charge can't make anything work) has become a reverse Midas touch politically. Since the problem is personal unpopularity, the obvious solution is to lose the face-in-chief and let someone else use the bully pulpit.
There is moreover the simple fact that in a democracy, being vastly disliked signals illegitimacy. It's hard to justify remaining when departing would be viewed by the majority as a gift. The illegitimacy is also seen abroad and damages the credibility of the nation, just as foreign leaders see these numbers and can fairly presume that the President, speaking for the US in foreign policy matters, speaks only for a lame duck government and not for a nation.
As the Bush presidency unravels and new depths of incompetence and corruption are exposed, the office of the presidency takes some of the brunt of the exposure.
Bush's unpopularity misses the national record by only about the combined margins of error of the two polls. State by state, he retains his positive polarity only in Idaho, Nebraska, Wyoming and Utah, which if I'm not mistaken, is three more states than those with majorities approving of Dead-Eye Dick.
More importantly, no president has been rated so low for so long. This is no temporary bump that can be fixed by perseverence. The presidency is dead in the water with no momentum, no credibility and no ideas. It's hard to imagine why anyone would stay in the job.
The press corps should be asking Bush 1) can you think yet of any mistake that you've made in office? 2) have you considered resigning for the good of the country? 3) have any of the members of your inside circle brought this option to your attention? 4) why on earth are you still in office when there's so much brush left to clear back at the ranch? 5) Is there anything you plan to do before January 2009 that someone else couldn't do better? 6) By staying, aren't you putting your own selfish interests ahead of the national interest and the wishes of more than 200 million Americans who do not support you?
Oh, just go already.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Venezuela smeared in WaPo
Monte Reel’s May 10 article on the crime issue in Venezuela was enlightening, even if it took some reading between the lines to see just how well the facts support the government’s position, which was unrepresented by any quotes in the article. In fact the entire article was an interesting exercise in propaganda. The facts supporting the current government’s policy were mostly there, albeit buried in dependent clauses and otherwise disjointed over the span of the article.
As the article notes, opponents of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias have tried to make an issue out of Venezuela’s homicide rate, which the article notes peaked three years ago at roughly 44 per 10,000 capita-annum in 2003, and has since come down. The United Nations figures cited in the article, readily available online, are restricted to gun homicides but show only 22.15 deaths per 10,000 capita-annum in 2005. Hence, though we are not told how much the homicide rate has come down, it is possible that Chavez has succeeded in reducing it by as much as half.
The article notes that Chavez has prosecuted police, promised reforms of corrupt police departments (which remain mainly holdovers from the pre-Chavez era), has initiated programs to get guns off the streets, and has committed his energies to attacking inequality, which is the single factor that correlates best with homicides worldwide (the second greatest factor is democracy, which has also increased, and the third is prominence of young males in the population, something beyond government control). It may also be noted that his government has covered the bases by also increasing sentences for most crimes.
The article quotes an expert, Rafael Muñoz, as saying that “historically,” Venezuela’s leaders have tolerated crime because it generated fear and made people easier to govern. Muñoz does not specifically name Chavez, however, since his presidency has apparently seen the first sustained decrease in violence in many years.
As a close student of the Americas in the ‘80s and ‘90s, I recall reading a 1996 report of how Venezuela’s homicide rate nearly doubled in the first half of the ‘90s – to less than it is now. Combining this information with that presented in the article, it appears that most of the current crime problem came into being well before Chavez was president, and has declined since. Specifically, the article states that the 1990s saw homicide rates that averaged less than half of the 37 per 10,000 capita-annum averaged over recent years. Assuming they came close to half, then for the ‘90s, which began with so little crime, to have reached this average, I estimate that it must have been about 30 in 1999. In other words, it had already reached crisis levels when Chavez came to power. It continued rising at first, but has since leveled off and has fallen to lower levels than seen in many years.
Chavez’s opponents also apparently believe according to the article that he has stimulated class violence against the rich; but the only named source which the article cites relating to this idea is a psychoanalyst for the rich who has noted the collective increased fear of class violence among the élite; the article presents no evidence that the fear are rational, and in fact its discussion of the fear as a treatable psychological problem suggests it isn’t, but then the article separates the accusation from the therapist’s account by several paragraphs, dissociating the irrational claim from the evidence of its irrationalism.
Finally, Chavez’s opponents argue that he needs to do more thoroughly revolutionize policing, taking on the police as an institution root and branch. The complaint is an odd and contradictory one: generally, the opponents of the Bolivarian Revolution have been negativists who favor the status quo ante. On this issue, however, they have suddenly, without any record of past advocacy, begun to demand revolutionary change. Anyone familiar with the problem of entrenched corruption in police departments, as we have in many American cities, knows just how intractable such problems can be. Chavez has shown more inclination and infinitely greater capacity to attempt such a Herculean task than any of his predecessors or opponents. Hence what his opponents demand is now ironically misguided and opportunistic. If they were serious about police reform, the best bet would be to move to strengthen Chavez, not tear him down.
Here's a drastically reduced version of this post to be sent as a letter to the Post:
Monte Reel’s May 10 article on the crime issue in Venezuela was enlightening, even if it took some reading between the lines to see how the facts support Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. As the article notes, his opponents have tried to make an issue out of Venezuela’s homicide rate, which your article notes peaked three years ago at roughly 44 per 10,000 capita-annum in 2003, and has since come down. (In fact, the United Nations figures cited in the article reflect only half as many deaths in 2005.) Chavez has prosecuted police – something expert Rafael Muñoz calls historically rare, promised reforms of the corrupt police departments left from the previous era, has initiated programs to get guns off the streets, and has attacked inequality, (the factor that correlates best with homicides worldwide). As facts in the article ironically demonstrate, Chavez is the leader best poised to execute the revolutionary reforms championed by his (misguided and opportunistic) opposition.
As the article notes, opponents of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias have tried to make an issue out of Venezuela’s homicide rate, which the article notes peaked three years ago at roughly 44 per 10,000 capita-annum in 2003, and has since come down. The United Nations figures cited in the article, readily available online, are restricted to gun homicides but show only 22.15 deaths per 10,000 capita-annum in 2005. Hence, though we are not told how much the homicide rate has come down, it is possible that Chavez has succeeded in reducing it by as much as half.
The article notes that Chavez has prosecuted police, promised reforms of corrupt police departments (which remain mainly holdovers from the pre-Chavez era), has initiated programs to get guns off the streets, and has committed his energies to attacking inequality, which is the single factor that correlates best with homicides worldwide (the second greatest factor is democracy, which has also increased, and the third is prominence of young males in the population, something beyond government control). It may also be noted that his government has covered the bases by also increasing sentences for most crimes.
The article quotes an expert, Rafael Muñoz, as saying that “historically,” Venezuela’s leaders have tolerated crime because it generated fear and made people easier to govern. Muñoz does not specifically name Chavez, however, since his presidency has apparently seen the first sustained decrease in violence in many years.
As a close student of the Americas in the ‘80s and ‘90s, I recall reading a 1996 report of how Venezuela’s homicide rate nearly doubled in the first half of the ‘90s – to less than it is now. Combining this information with that presented in the article, it appears that most of the current crime problem came into being well before Chavez was president, and has declined since. Specifically, the article states that the 1990s saw homicide rates that averaged less than half of the 37 per 10,000 capita-annum averaged over recent years. Assuming they came close to half, then for the ‘90s, which began with so little crime, to have reached this average, I estimate that it must have been about 30 in 1999. In other words, it had already reached crisis levels when Chavez came to power. It continued rising at first, but has since leveled off and has fallen to lower levels than seen in many years.
Chavez’s opponents also apparently believe according to the article that he has stimulated class violence against the rich; but the only named source which the article cites relating to this idea is a psychoanalyst for the rich who has noted the collective increased fear of class violence among the élite; the article presents no evidence that the fear are rational, and in fact its discussion of the fear as a treatable psychological problem suggests it isn’t, but then the article separates the accusation from the therapist’s account by several paragraphs, dissociating the irrational claim from the evidence of its irrationalism.
Finally, Chavez’s opponents argue that he needs to do more thoroughly revolutionize policing, taking on the police as an institution root and branch. The complaint is an odd and contradictory one: generally, the opponents of the Bolivarian Revolution have been negativists who favor the status quo ante. On this issue, however, they have suddenly, without any record of past advocacy, begun to demand revolutionary change. Anyone familiar with the problem of entrenched corruption in police departments, as we have in many American cities, knows just how intractable such problems can be. Chavez has shown more inclination and infinitely greater capacity to attempt such a Herculean task than any of his predecessors or opponents. Hence what his opponents demand is now ironically misguided and opportunistic. If they were serious about police reform, the best bet would be to move to strengthen Chavez, not tear him down.
Here's a drastically reduced version of this post to be sent as a letter to the Post:
Monte Reel’s May 10 article on the crime issue in Venezuela was enlightening, even if it took some reading between the lines to see how the facts support Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. As the article notes, his opponents have tried to make an issue out of Venezuela’s homicide rate, which your article notes peaked three years ago at roughly 44 per 10,000 capita-annum in 2003, and has since come down. (In fact, the United Nations figures cited in the article reflect only half as many deaths in 2005.) Chavez has prosecuted police – something expert Rafael Muñoz calls historically rare, promised reforms of the corrupt police departments left from the previous era, has initiated programs to get guns off the streets, and has attacked inequality, (the factor that correlates best with homicides worldwide). As facts in the article ironically demonstrate, Chavez is the leader best poised to execute the revolutionary reforms championed by his (misguided and opportunistic) opposition.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Immigration II
So I was in a 70,000+ person protest Monday (Well, May 1 -- this post has been sitting in the hopper). But something really needs to be done to advance the message beyond the one that illegal aliens don't like the Sensenbrenner bill.
The Family Research Council, always a pseudo-Christian front for anti-Christian values, found it necessary to poll its members on the immigration issues, and found that its members hate undocumented Mexican laborers almost as much as they do gays who won't submit to curative electroshock therapy. Now that Christian Right leaders know what to think from the science of polling, they will work hard on fixing the intelligence to support the policy, reading new anti-immigration messages into the book of Romans, and making sure the apostles of questionable parentage have their papers in order. Exception: Immigrant fetuses can only be deported to countries allowing abortion once they have been brought to term and birthed; until then they are refugees making a continual, albeit silent scream for asylum.
What are the arguments we need to advance against stupid anti-immigrant legislation? Here's a start:
1) The burden of proof would be on those seeking change. If what we got ain't broke, don't fix it. If we convince people of this obvious fact, we can sit down, because dummies like Senselessbrenner shoot themselves in the brain every time they open their mouths.
2) Immigration benefits the receiving country in almost every measurable way. It's not us versus them. It's us versus stupid legislation. There are a few problems associated with illegal immigration, but they're small compared to the benefits. Immigrants promote and support the economy as workers, consumers, taxpayers, and innovators. Because they are disproportionately willing and able to work, they especially contribute to keeping social security solvent. They benefit us culturally and through their contribution of diversity. Capitalist economic theory supports the notion that the influx of immigrants is a net good to both the sending and receiving countries. To achieve maximum efficiency, labor must be able to flow freely to meet demand. Immigrants receive more than they would at home, and can send back surplus as remittances. But their contribution of productivity is to the receiving country, and they also generate part of its internal market.
3) Immigrants are people. Penalizing them arbitrarily is just harm for harm's sake. I would not reflexively call it racist, but if it has a rational basis it is the burden of advocates to state what that is. So far, they look pretty damned racist. The argument that they are here illegally and that alone should justify punishment is actually a pretty lame argument. Illegal immigration is a wink-wink crime, like speeding. The fact is, and I've said this before, prosecution of crimes is both discretionary and rare. If all crimes were enforced and punished, there would be no one left to keep the country going, because we'd all be in prison. There's always something. Most criminals don't even know they're criminals. Of course, in the case of immigration, we frequently enounter families, and we always encounter communities, whose members differ in status and would be arbitrarily sundered by enforcement. To the extent one is pro-family and pro-community, this is a particular value of staying the hand of enforcement. Moreover, immigrant status is already disadvantaged in so many ways, it seems bizarre to go out of one's way to attach additional disadvantages.
4) Various sources of hypocrisy. Apart from the real First Nations, we all came here from elsewhere, as settlers and invaders. We took 1/3 of Mexico, and many Mexicans migrated freely before the Mexican War between these lands, and those to the south, so that many immigrants have longer ties to the land than those born here. We have promoted immigration to America by propaganda claiming to offer greater wealth and opportunity and fewer social problems than is true. And we promoted it by NAFTA, which destroyed the Mexican agricultural economy, forcing Mexicans out of their traditional occupations, and homes.
Well, this is just a few points. Someone needs to do the research and come up with a big ten list of points. C'mon somebody, I wanna see it.
The Family Research Council, always a pseudo-Christian front for anti-Christian values, found it necessary to poll its members on the immigration issues, and found that its members hate undocumented Mexican laborers almost as much as they do gays who won't submit to curative electroshock therapy. Now that Christian Right leaders know what to think from the science of polling, they will work hard on fixing the intelligence to support the policy, reading new anti-immigration messages into the book of Romans, and making sure the apostles of questionable parentage have their papers in order. Exception: Immigrant fetuses can only be deported to countries allowing abortion once they have been brought to term and birthed; until then they are refugees making a continual, albeit silent scream for asylum.
What are the arguments we need to advance against stupid anti-immigrant legislation? Here's a start:
1) The burden of proof would be on those seeking change. If what we got ain't broke, don't fix it. If we convince people of this obvious fact, we can sit down, because dummies like Senselessbrenner shoot themselves in the brain every time they open their mouths.
2) Immigration benefits the receiving country in almost every measurable way. It's not us versus them. It's us versus stupid legislation. There are a few problems associated with illegal immigration, but they're small compared to the benefits. Immigrants promote and support the economy as workers, consumers, taxpayers, and innovators. Because they are disproportionately willing and able to work, they especially contribute to keeping social security solvent. They benefit us culturally and through their contribution of diversity. Capitalist economic theory supports the notion that the influx of immigrants is a net good to both the sending and receiving countries. To achieve maximum efficiency, labor must be able to flow freely to meet demand. Immigrants receive more than they would at home, and can send back surplus as remittances. But their contribution of productivity is to the receiving country, and they also generate part of its internal market.
3) Immigrants are people. Penalizing them arbitrarily is just harm for harm's sake. I would not reflexively call it racist, but if it has a rational basis it is the burden of advocates to state what that is. So far, they look pretty damned racist. The argument that they are here illegally and that alone should justify punishment is actually a pretty lame argument. Illegal immigration is a wink-wink crime, like speeding. The fact is, and I've said this before, prosecution of crimes is both discretionary and rare. If all crimes were enforced and punished, there would be no one left to keep the country going, because we'd all be in prison. There's always something. Most criminals don't even know they're criminals. Of course, in the case of immigration, we frequently enounter families, and we always encounter communities, whose members differ in status and would be arbitrarily sundered by enforcement. To the extent one is pro-family and pro-community, this is a particular value of staying the hand of enforcement. Moreover, immigrant status is already disadvantaged in so many ways, it seems bizarre to go out of one's way to attach additional disadvantages.
4) Various sources of hypocrisy. Apart from the real First Nations, we all came here from elsewhere, as settlers and invaders. We took 1/3 of Mexico, and many Mexicans migrated freely before the Mexican War between these lands, and those to the south, so that many immigrants have longer ties to the land than those born here. We have promoted immigration to America by propaganda claiming to offer greater wealth and opportunity and fewer social problems than is true. And we promoted it by NAFTA, which destroyed the Mexican agricultural economy, forcing Mexicans out of their traditional occupations, and homes.
Well, this is just a few points. Someone needs to do the research and come up with a big ten list of points. C'mon somebody, I wanna see it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
