http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Thu, 16 Jun 2005 02:29:05 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/16/022905.php Lowell BrownMy post below, referring to a Doug MacEachern editorial in the Arizona Republic, brought a lengthy response from Douglas G. Rivlin, Director of Communication for the National Immigration Forum based in Washington, D.C. Mr. Rivlin strongly advocates for passage of the Secure America Act, whose principal Senate sponsors are John McCain and Ted Kennedy. (If that gives you heartburn, bear in mind that other sponsors are Republicans Sam Brownback of Kansas and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina.) The text of the bill, S. 1033, is here.As those who read my immigration posts know, I am a conservative Republican who takes a "middle route" approach to illegal immigration. We have to control the borders, but we also have to be smart about developing a solution; "deport them all and seal the borders" is simply not a serious response to this growing problem. The nativist solution will never work; neither will the free immigration espoused by many (and to which such big business-supporting organizations as the Wall Street Journal editorial page are quite sympathetic).I don't have a position on the Secure America Act yet, but it looks interesting. It likely will not pass in its current form, but we need something. The President needs to get involved in this issue, big-time. If he does, we might see a bill enacted.What about the Immigration Forum? I was not familiar with the Forum prior to receiving Mr. Rivlin's e-mail. Some Googling led me to the Forum's Board of Directors, which is listed here. At first glance the Board appears to be a collection of individuals and organizations whom one would expect to support more open immigration. Here are the Board's officers:Lee Culpepper, Chair. Mr. Culpepper is the chief lobbyist of the National Restaurant Association, a trade association whose members presumably hire hundreds of thousands of recent immigrants, perhaps often illegals. This is an organization interested in preserving a steady supply of cheap labor willing to work as busboys, waiters, waitresses, cooks, and the like.Cecilia Munoz, Vice-Chair; from National Council of La Raza, which describes itself on its web site as "the largest national constituency-based Hispanic organization and the leading voice in Washington, DC for the Hispanic community." Ms. Munoz' title is Vice President, Office of Research, Advocacy, and Legislation. She is also apparently the chief lobbyist of the organization. A list of La Raza press releases bearing Ms. Munoz' name is here.Thomas Snyder, Treasurer; from UNITE HERE International Union, which describes itself on its web site: "UNITE (formerly the Union of Needletrades, Textiles and Industrial Employees) and HERE (Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union) merged on July 8, 2004 forming UNITE HERE. The union represents more than 450,000 active members and more than 400,000 retirees throughout North America."Angela Sanbrano, Secretary; from CARECEN Los Angeles. CARECEN is the Central American Resource Center, whose web site describes the organization's vision: "For the Los Angeles region to become a place where Central Americans and all other communities can live in peace, with dignity, and enjoy economic well-being, social justice, and political empowerment."I have to admit that the strong support for the Secure America Act by an association with such officers worries me just a little, but I will keep an open mind. The Act is at least a start, with credible bipartisan sponsorship.With that background, here is Mr. Rivlin's e-mail: I've never blogged before, so I leave it up to you to determine whether this is appropriate comment for your blog. If you do decide to post, please use the following e-mail address: mailto:media@immigrationforum.orgas the source. I strongly agree with the second question in the MacEachern op-ed, but feel the first question is dealt with squarely by the McCain/Kennedy legislation. On the second: the American people have evolved beyond the "let 'em in vs. keep 'em out" debate that has dominated immigration for a decade or so. They aren't as anti-immigration as anti-immigrant or fence sitting politicians like to think. Rather, they want a controlled, orderly, legal system where the government does its job of securing our borders. The American people, at this point, understand that a mass deportation program is unrealistic and that a slow attrition deportation program ignores the immediacy of the security and humanitarian crisis a thoroughly dysfunctional legal immigration system creates. [I think Mr. Rivlin is exactly right here. --Ed.] They want a practical solution that can pass Congress and will work on the ground to regulate immigration. Because the Secure America Act (McCain/Kennedy) is bipartisan, it can pass. Because it recognizes the mistakes of 1986, it can work to establish long-term control and regulation of immigration. In 1986, we gave amnesty and a direct path to a green card (permanent residency) to illegal immigrants of a certain class (been here for years, no criminal record, etc.). Then we instituted employer sanctions to enforce the new "zero tolerance" regime. It didn't work. We did not reorganize our legal immigration system to account for the fact that our economy was creating jobs for immigrants but that we had insufficient legal channels for immigrants to be employed legally. Tripling the size of the Border Patrol, quintupling its budget, and giving them all manner of technology to enforce the border has not decreased illegal entry (it has coincided with an increase). The demand for legal immigration by employers, families, and immigrants was unchanged, and the trend towards higher demand for legal immigration continued (unaffected by the 1986 reforms), while the supply of legal immigrant visas remained essentially unchanged. Employer sanctions failed because there were two significant "outs" for employers: 1) they could call the Congressman or Senator to whom they had donated vast sums of money to call off the INS if their business or industry was targeted (there is the famous Vidalia, Georgia case, where big-money onion farmers called their senators and congressmen and stopped the INS in its tracks); and 2) they only needed plausible deniability to escape prosecution. In other words, if they used a labor contractor they were not actually employing the unauthorized worker. More commonly, they had to make a judgment that a piece of identification presented to fill out an I-9 work authorization was legitimate enough to be able to blame the immigrant if he/she was later determined to be unauthorized to work. What has dominated the debate over the past decade or so have been policies to further restrict legal immigration, while pursuing a political strategy to stir animosity against the resulting illegalities. But after a decade of political gamesmanship, our immigration policies and reality have collided and reality is winning. The Secure America Act improves on the failed Reagan-era policy in significant ways. It creates a fair but rigorous path for immigrants to come forward and register with authorities, gain temporary legal status if they qualify, and pay hefty fines, fees, back taxes, and pass other criteria, but are not given an advantage over those who have been waiting years and decades for a legal immigration visa. The deal has to be good enough for the immigrants to self-report, but fair enough to not alienate those who chose to play the unrealistic rules, and the Secure America Act gets this balance about right. Secondly, it addresses the incentives created by an underfunded and unwieldy immigration bureaucracy that makes illegal immigration more attractive, and more lucrative for smugglers, document forgers, and unscrupulous employers. It will address the backlogs in our family immigration system and reorganize our employment visa system so that playing by the rules is more practical. Currently, a U.S. citizen mother waits typically four years for a visa for her minor child to join her legally. If the child is in Mexico, the wait is nine years; the Philippines, 13 years. With those kinds of disincentives to play by the rules, other market forces (smugglers, forgers) have stepped in to fill the breech. Thirdly, the Secure America Act ties future legal immigration to the ebbs and flows of the economy, adjusting the annual caps accordingly. In other words, unlike 1986 which only dealt with immigrants already here, the Secure America Act would also account for immigrants coming in the future. Fourthly, the Secure America Act creates an employment verification system that eliminates the plausible deniability of the employer sanctions in 1986. The new system provides for an electronic and instant verification system that will indicate that employees are employable. The new system will employ updated technology that will make the cards harder to counterfeit, and will eventually replace the paper-based system of green cards, Social Security cards, multiple immigration documents, birth certificates, and driver's licenses, all of which are easily forgeable and readily available on the black market. For employers that still find themselves unable or unwilling to play by the rules, the Secure America Act not only makes them stand out in the crowd, it doubles the fines they will have to pay. Fifthly, the Secure America Act beefs up border and interior enforcement. The Border Patrol, relieved of a good percentage of the illegal flow because there are now legal channels to accommodate it, can be more efficient in zeroing in on those who still need to sneak in because they cannot stand U.S. Government scrutiny. This reduces the flow across the ranches of Douglas, AZ, and increases the anti-terrorism/anti-drug/anti-smuggling capacity of our Border Patrol and other law enforcement resources. Finally, the Secure America Act recognizes and addresses the costs associated with new immigrants settling in communities with already stretched budgets. It will not only require English language proficiency, but deploy the resources needed to make it a reality in communities, while also addressing added costs for health care and crime prevention/incarceration. So, in my opinion, the Secure America Act is light-years beyond the short-sighted law of 1986 and while I don't love every aspect (it is a compromise between two parties that don't see eye to eye on this issue or much else), it stands the best chance of passage and effective implementation. If you see a better alternative that really controls immigration and can garner bipartisan support, I'd love to know about it. Douglas G. Rivlin Director of Communication National Immigration Forum 50 F Street, NW, #300 Washington, DC 20001 USA www.immigrationforum.org media@immigrationforum.orgThanks again to Mr. Rivlin. Readers, your comments are welcome.UPDATE: Mark in Mexico has some thoughts (and many links) about all this. He gets hit with the usual blinkered nativist comments from some of his readers, too. Politics31093@blogcritics.org Thu, 16 Jun 2005 02:29:05 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/13/133737.php Lowell BrownIn a must-read editorial, Doug MacEachern of the Arizona Republic nails down the two questions that truly must be answered if there is to be a real solution to the problem of illegal imigration:1. How will your plans provide a result different from the last great "answer" to illegal immigration, the amnesty of 1986?MacEachern notes that "John McCain, President Bush and Ted Kennedy have failed, so far, to provide an answer" to this question. I agree. In Bush's case perhaps the problem is, as the President recently acknowledged to Republican leaders, he has not done a good job of communicating his policy plans to the people. I again agree. A MacEachern excerpt: "Since 1986, an estimated 8 million foreign-born non-citizens who by law should not be in the United States live illegally in the United States. At the very least, whatever becomes the new law - if anything ever becomes law - must credibly address what the '86 amnesty obvious did not." "If immigration legislation does not help stem the human tide rushing across the ranches of Douglas in the dark of night, its sponsors really need to ask themselves why they are even bothering."Yep.2. How do you deal with the human-scale reality of the millions of people living in this country now?MacEachern argues, correctly, I think, that this question is "one that Pat Buchanan, Mesa Rep. Russell Pearce and serious policy analysts like Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies have failed to answer." More from MacEachern: "People who play the snotty game of illegal-alien sanctimony - 'what part of illegal don't you understand?' - apparently believe illegals exist in isolation in some fanciful land called "Mexican Holler.'"It's a great piece. Read it all.ADDENDUM: For a collection of my posts on the illegal immigration issue, go here. If you're a nativist you'll hate my posts. If you're a free immigrationist, you'll hate them too. If, however, you are a wise, thoughtful, fair-minded person, you'll agree with me. (Just kidding. Comment away!) Politics30958@blogcritics.org Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:37:37 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/27/111813.php Lowell BrownIt's Memorial Day weekend, when our thoughts should turn to those who have served and sacrificed. In that spirit, here is the text of an e-mail I sent to friends and family last Memorial Day, just a few days before I started this blog. __________________________________________________________________In the spirit of the day I wanted to share with you all an experience from this Memorial Day weekend.Saturday morning, for the sixth year out of the last seven, my sons (aged 18 and 14) and I put on our Scout uniforms (I am a former Scoutmaster and now serve with the volunteer Scouting commissioners in my area) and drove to L.A. National Cemetery to participate in the annual decoration of the veterans' graves there. We take a group from our LDS Stake every year. There is always a short patriotic program of remembrance. Then, several thousand Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Girl Scouts swarm over the grounds and plant flags on over 82,000 graves. At the end of the process the sight of all those acres of little American flags flapping in the breeze is breath-taking, thought-provoking, and downright beautiful.This year, one aspect of the event stands out in my mind. It is how much my own two boys and other young men their age wanted to do this. They are normal teen-agers, and to participate in this event they have to get up at 6:00 a.m. on a holiday weekend morning. But the same two teen-agers who are sometimes so hard to rouse out of bed on a weekday got up last Saturday morning at 6:00 without any prodding. It is like that every year.I am not the only parent who experiences this; others report the same phenomenon. Another young man in our LDS ward (who just finished his freshman year at college) heard about our plans and joined us. He is one of my former Scouts and a veteran of several past Memorial Day excursions to L.A. National.When we got to the cemetery two other troops from our Stake joined us. We put flags on graves with names like Munemori (a Medal of Honor winner), Sadowski, Harvey, Cohen, and McCoy. There are Buffalo Soldiers buried at L.A. National (black freemen who fought in the West), as well as Tuskegee Airmen (black pilots in World War II).After all the boys had planted flags at various graves, we held a brief ceremony at the grave of a Medal of Honor winner and remembered his heroism. (The Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force which can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Services of the United States.)Why this eagerness to participate in such an event? I'm proud, of course, of my boys' commitment to this type of service and of their patriotism, but there is more to this story.We are not a military family and have no special connection to veterans. What happened is that we took part in this event one year, and afterwards most boys who do so seem to want to take part again and again. My guess is that there is simply something compelling to them about the connection to the past and to the sacrifices of those who have gone before, and about the idea of America.Every year the boys want to go. This year I was tired from a busy week of travel and could easily have passed on this event. But Friday night, as it is every year, it was "Hey Dad, what time are we leaving tomorrow for the cemetery?" So we pulled ourselves together and went, and have another year of great memories-- and deeper appreciation than ever before.So happy Memorial Day to you all. And if you want to add some new awe-inspiring true stories to your collection, visit this web site:http://www.cmohs.org/medal.htmIt is the site for the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, and includes the citation for every Medal of Honor ever awarded. You will find gems like this one: _____ HERRERA, SILVESTRE S. Rank and organization: Private First Class, U.S. Army, Company E, 142d Infantry, 36th Infantry Division. Place and date: Near Mertzwiller, France, 15 March 1945. Entered service at: Phoenix, Ariz. Birth: El Paso, Tex. G.O. No.: 75, 5 September 1945. Citation: He advanced with a platoon along a wooded road until stopped by heavy enemy machinegun fire. As the rest of the unit took cover, he made a 1-man frontal assault on a strongpoint and captured 8 enemy soldiers. When the platoon resumed its advance and was subjected to fire from a second emplacement beyond an extensive minefield, Pvt. Herrera again moved forward, disregarding the danger of exploding mines, to attack the position. He stepped on a mine and had both feet severed but, despite intense pain and unchecked loss of blood, he pinned down the enemy with accurate rifle fire while a friendly squad captured the enemy gun by skirting the minefield and rushing in from the flank. The magnificent courage, extraordinary heroism, and willing self-sacrifice displayed by Pvt. Herrera resulted in the capture of 2 enemy strongpoints and the taking of 8 prisoners._____According to the web site, Silvestre Herrera is still living. He was in his 20's when he lost his feet fighting for our freedom. Let's all think about him today. Lowell Culture30230@blogcritics.org Fri, 27 May 2005 11:18:13 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/21/023329.php Lowell Brown My post below about the panel debate in San Diego brought this response from Eric Isaacson, one of the panel members and presumably an attorney representing the ACLU in the legal wrangling that is the subject of the panel. For some reason I cannot get Mr. Isaacson's comment to open in the comments section below the post, but I did receive the comment separately by e-mail, so I am posting it here for review.Mr. Isaacson does not mention in his comment that he was one of the panelists in the May 18 discussion of the San Diego controversy. Here's the entire panel: * Professor Alan Brownstein, University of California Davis School of Law * George Davidson, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP * Professor John Eastman, Chapman University School of Law * Eric Isaacson, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins * Dean Kenneth Starr,Pepperdine University School of Law * Dean Daniel Rodriguez, University of San Diego Law School (moderator)(I am not suggesting that Mr. Isaacson intended to avoid mentioning his involvement on the panel. His post below seems very well-informed, and a Google search showed him to be a panelist on this page. For some reason the earlier link I had was to a page about the panel that did not show his name.)The web site of Mr. Isaacson's law firm states here that he is experienced in pro bono (public interest) litigation. His firm's biographical summary for him is here.Enough background. I am delighted that Mr. Isaacson took the time to respond. These are issues that need debate and full exposure. I hope to be posting more about this, but I want my posts to be as informative as possible.In that spirit, here is Mr. Isaacson's comment: The BSA operates its headquarters for a region covering nearly 9,000 miles of Southern California from the City of San Diego's Balboa Park - - paying one dollar a year rent for facilities where it employs twenty or thirty people to do the BSA's organizational business. Membership forms downloaded from these regional headquarters - - operated from offices owned by the City - - carry a Declaration of Religious Principle announcing that anyone who does not share the BSA leadership's theology about "duty to God" is incapable of becoming "the best kind of citizen." That theology led the BSA to ban a major denomination from its Religious Relations Committee in 1992, and to throw the denomination out of the BSA's Religious Awards program in 1998, because the denomination preached against discrimination, shunning, and exclusion. From Balboa Park, the BSA issues orders enforcing rules that those who do not share the its theology shall be shunned -- along with homosexuals who are ostracized on the basis that they are "not clean." The City of San Diego has, moreover, posted signs around the BSA's regional headquarters announcing that the City stands behind these policies, explaining that all this is a "joint operation" of the BSA and local government: "This property is owned by the City of San Diego and is being utilized for the benefit of general public through the joint operation of the city and the Boy Scouts of America." Now, it's true that the Boy Scouts are entitled to discriminate on the basis of religion, if they wish, and to ostracize others as spiritually "unclean" and as social inferiors - - or, "not the best kind of citizen," as BSA puts it. But the City of San Diego, as a governmental body cannot sponsor or endorse such activity, which it clearly has done in San Diego, thereby violating both the state and federal constitutions. This is a most interesting comment. I will admit that I could not listen to the May 18 web cast in which Mr. Isaacson participated, and I am no expert on the facts of the San Diego controversy. Thanks to Mr. Isaacson, I do intend to learn a lot more.For now, however, I can make the following responses to Mr. Isaacson's comment:1. ". . . anyone who does not share the BSA leadership's theology about 'duty to God' is incapable of becoming 'the best kind of citizen.'"It's interesting that Mr. Isaacson describes the BSA's position as a "theology," since the BSA is not a church. This sounds like a mere polemic to me. Also, I cannot find the downloaded membership forms he refers to, but I will; I suspect there is a good counter-argument here.2. "That theology led the BSA to ban a major denomination from its Religious Relations Committee in 1992, and to throw the denomination out of the BSA's Religious Awards program in 1998, because the denomination preached against discrimination, shunning, and exclusion."It would be interesting to know what "major denomination" was involved and what it did to get itself excluded in this manner. I have a hunch it was not merely expressing polite disagreement.3. "From Balboa Park, the BSA issues orders enforcing rules that those who do not share ... its s theology shall be shunned -- along with homosexuals who are ostracized on the basis that they are 'not clean.'"I have been in Scouting a long time and have never seen "shunning" or "ostracizing." Both are contrary to core Scouting principles. In fact, sexual orientation simply does not come up, in my experience, unless someone makes an issue of it. Nowhere in any BSA literature I have ever seen is any group, let alone homosexuals, pronounced "not clean."4. ". . . it's true that the Boy Scouts are entitled to discriminate on the basis of religion, if they wish, and to ostracize others as spiritually 'unclean' and as social inferiors - - or, 'not the best kind of citizen,' as BSA puts it."I would be interested in seeing any BSA statement calling anyone "spiritually unclean" or "social inferiors." I'd also like to know the context of the "not the best kind of citizen" statement attributed to the BSA.There will be more about this here. Stay tuned! And thanks again to Mr. Isaacson for his comment. Again, civil discussion of these issues is welcome and terribly important. Culture29880@blogcritics.org Sat, 21 May 2005 02:33:29 EDT