The US Immigration Conundrum

The US Senate is currently debating the 2007 "comprehensive" immigration reform bill.

We could easily substitute the word "comprehensive" for either "controversial", "confusing", "confounding" and/or "compromise" and it would have fit to a T, also.

It’s a bill that almost everyone can find a piece to hate which probably means it’s just about right.

The passions flare high whenever buzz words like "amnesty" and "reform" are used in the same sentence.

Is it fair to reward illegal behavior to an individual who broke the law by overstaying his “Visitors” visa and is now working "illegally"?

Well, what if the individual does work an American would not do?

What if I told you, the only reason that an American would not do that job, is because another "American" Business owner did not want to pay the higher prices it would take to hire an American over the "illegal" individual?

The higher wages could also add to wage inflation, making business less competitive because American consumers would not tolerate the (higher) price as a result of higher wages.

And what if the "illegal" individual has three children who were born in America (at no fault of their own) and the kids are hence American citizens attending high school and one could eventually become a scientist at say NASA or a US Senator or even a President one day?

Where does the American dream begin and where does it end and is having the “correct” papers a pre-requisite to pursue it?

These questions are just the tip of the immigration iceberg. It’s an iceberg that needs to be gently addressed or it may one day (or night) bring the Titanic (great American economic tanker) down.

It’s easy for people that are "legal" to pass judgment on this hot issue since they are in already (and also to be closed (maybe even xenophobic) on this issue).

It’s also easy for the "illegal" people to claim discrimination and use their American kids as pawns while continuing to send billions of dollars outside America while refusing to be fully assimilated (speak fluent English or fly “Old Glory”).

May I politely remind all that that we live in an ever small planet (especially with the internet) and this issue will need to be addressed every 21 years (1986, 2007 ) or so.

At the end of the day, I would rather live, work and raise a family in a country where people are dying to come in rather than one from which they may be dying to leave...

Political Third Rails

There used to be a time in the beltway when there was only one “third rail” in politics. Sadly, after 50 years plus, that title stands no longer. It has been at the behest of the Bush Political machine that the useless lexicon of monikers favored by all those covering the DC beat has been reduced to the trash heap. I really didn’t things could be politically worse so many times—just think—“heckuva job Brownie,” Dubai controlling our port security is a good idea, Harriet Miers paralegal turned brilliant legal mind, the insurgency is in its last throes… you get my drift. Its not that policy wasn’t sound necessarily, its simply the way it was served to the public gave the opposition and the media a friendly-fire, sound-bite heavy diatribe making these guys look like a bunch of amateurs.

I realize the “real deal” is that Bush doesn’t care about polls and he’s too caught up in the business of “governing” to worry about these petty nuances and nuisances. Here is the thing—looking back, this government was handed a mandate on a silver platter and in return torpedo an entire agenda. The public wanted it. Pollsters wanted. Republicans back in the oval office wanted. I almost feel violated

Now I feel violated. This mishmash of legal-ESE disguised as law passing as comprehensive immigration reform is not worth the paper it was printed on, even if it wasn’t recycled and Al Gore cut down the tree while Leo DiCaprio operated the wood chipper. The funny thing is, every initiative that the Bush Administration lost in the public realm was lost to the conservatives, but the democrats were the winners by default. I don’t know what back room back slaps and winks were given out during the pre-negotiating period (read: a very long time and guaranteed at least a vote, i.e. testing the waters).

The Bush administration threw its weight behind the bill before the public even had a chance to weigh in. For anyone who knows anything about cards, it’s like going all in before being dealt whilst confined to a sensory depravation chamber. Here is the skinny on this one: this ONE time you didn’t screw up, you didn’t write it! Why take credit for this train wreck unfolding frame by frame on every 24 hour cable news channel?

For the record, the old third rail was Social Security. That looks more doable now than organizing a press conference in the Rose Garden. I’ll talk about content when something with a content level approaching “garbage” makes it out of committee. Unbelievable.

You say Goodbye (and I Say Hello)

We already greeted our new pal “Sarko the American” a few blogs ago, now its about time we witness another changing of the guard, one with far more at stake for America’s National Security (a synonym for Global Security if I dare say). Today, we begin to say goodbye to perhaps America’s greatest friend since Margaret Thatcher (and before that Winston Churchill), a magnificent politician, a man of tremendous conviction and an invaluable leader not only in the Anglophile relationship, but to the world.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced he will leave Downing Street after dedicating 10 years of his life to public service at the highest level. He will officially resign on June 27^th, likely (sorry I had to write that) passing on the parliamentary PM reins to his long-time colleague and ally, current Chairman of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown. Give ‘em Hell Gordo.

Throughout his tenure, PM Blair has surrounded himself with the brightest and best minds in Britain. His selection of Mr. Brown was perhaps the single best candidate to steward the economy, via monetary and fiscal policy. While tax rates soared (something I disagreed with whole-heartedly), the housing market stayed strong, trade soared and London found itself the new financial capital of the world (I didn’t like that part either). Very in touch with the tenets of the Labour movement, it was the Keynesian policy toward tax policy which allowed the Blair government’s ambitious social agenda.

In addition, Mr. Blair took a page from President Clinton’s political playbook and wrested the expertise on crime and punishment from the Tory opposition.

In terms of foreign policy, the United States could not have a stronger ally or friend. Whether in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, the Afghanistan campaign or the War in Iraq; no other country stood shoulder-to-shoulder with us, both diplomatically and militarily.

Mr. Blair, it is my pleasure to compare you to the great Prime Minster Churchill, in recognizing many great dangers—whilst the storms were still gathering. We can only hope that your successor, our next successor and our respective populaces receive the gift that is your clarity. God bless the United Kingdom and the United States of America, may his grace see to the longevity and strength of the trans-Atlantic alliance.

Hello Old Friend

At one time, the Franco-American bond was the strongest tie we had to any other nation. The French have stood shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. in battle from the early 19^th Century (at which time our relations with the British were quite sour), WWI and the Maquis (French Underground resistance) in WWII.

President John F. Kennedy was perhaps the last U.S. President to truly enjoy a strong relationship with the French head of state, at the time Charles De Gaulle (though he was somewhat put off at the First Lady’s fluency in French while standing idly by). Under President Johnson, the Vietnam War started stretching that bond that had been forged over 200 years. We opposed French Colonialism as a matter of policy in Indochina and presented the French occupiers with a host of troubles by not only supporting a democratic “third force,” but by not delivering supplies to their troops as promised.

Relations hit a boiling point in 2001 over the invasion of Iraq, during the UN’s Security Council sessions. French Representative DeVillepin gave the U.S. pause as he seemed to be allied with our position up until the last second, forcing the Coalition to vacate the vote (which would have failed or been vetoed). President Bush and the State Department saw that gesture for what it was—a slight. Had the French been opposed outright since the beginning of the debate, it would not have resulted in the same backhand—forcing the U.S. and U.K. into a potentially embarrassing position on the global stage. Foreign affairs between Paris and Washington finally iced over.

Pressure on our relationship had not only mounted from a foreign policy standpoint, but from an economic one as well. Inheriting the title “the sick man of Europe” from Germany, the French economy has been stagnating whilst the rest of the globe has been booming. Their economy is bogged down in protectionism, union red tape and sadly, a true lack of innovation. In addition, social policy has only furthered the divide, which led to rioting and chaos on the streets for weeks in 2005.

Fast forward to yesterday, when Nicolas Sarkozy was given a mandate with an 85% turnout gave him a 53-47 victory over his socialist rival Segolene Royal. The conservative candidate, Sarkozy was an unorthodox choice as he is the descendant of a Hungarian immigrant. He also represents a “law and order” approach to governing and freer markets—though he has taken some protectionist bylines in campaigning. He will most likely attempt (and I think will be successful) in beating back labor and the 35 hour workweek.

Most importantly, Mr. Sarkozy announced he is looking forward to stronger relations with Washington, telling the world that the U.S. “can count on his (France’s) friendship,” which is a vast departure from his 74 year old predecessor Chirac’s position.

We wish “Sarko the American” the best of luck and look forward to a renewal in Franco-American ties.

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Comic Book Guy

For all of you avid “Simpsons” watchers out there, you know the Comic Book Guy—and you know him well. If he watched the Republican Debate last night, I have a feeling he would have said “worst….debate….ever.”

I place the blame firmly on the shoulders of MSNBC and their “Golden Boy” Chris Mathews. Too many questions, not enough time to answer. Nothing posed to the candidates to give them an edge to differentiate themselves from their colleagues and so forth…

The only participant whom actually got on the board was Ron Paul, a republican with a libertarian bent whom basically called for the abolition of the IRS. Good for him.

Giuliani didn’t seem to do anything for me. McCain was McCain, but to me—McCain being himself is a good thing. Mitt Romney didn’t pick up too much “MoMittum,” in my opinion, but some major news outlets crowned him the victor. Also worth mentioning, his hair was impeccable as usual.

So I am going to wimp out and wait until I hear something that rings true before making my endorsement. So the three people that read this blog (including myself and the compliance dept—that have to) can wait until the next shin-dig to hear my proclamation.

I must say, I was very disappointed with the Party of Lincoln and the Party of Reagan last night. As the bumper-sticker on the “Comic Book Guy’s” car reads, “the truth is in here.” Take it for what its worth.

The Party of Ideas

Instead of 8 democrats competing to get out of Iraq faster, this evening you will be treated to an actual debate, complete with ideas, proposals and collegiality. There will not be name calling or any hate mongering. To my knowledge, all of the participants adhere to President Reagan’s famed 11^th commandment, “thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow republican.”

McCain is arguably the most conservative of the bunch (at least via his track record), although he did oppose President Bush’s tax package because it didn’t come with matching spending cuts—fair enough.

Romney and Giuliani have esteemed records themselves, considering the hostile environments which they governed. Both Massachusetts and New York bleed democrat blue and the fact that a Governor and Mayor; respectively from across the aisle were both elected to multiple terms speaks volumes about their ability to get deals done.

I wouldn’t count out Governors Tommy Thompson or Mike Huckabee, lest we forget the history of the man from “hope,” whom coincidentally made a name for himself in this early first debate.

The interesting thing to see will be the Wall Street reaction, as the base of the party is more in tune with social and cultural conservatives than fiscal ones the past few elections. Tax cuts from the right are a given and surely everyone will vow to constrain spending, but beyond that is really unknown. Perhaps we will get a glimpse of a new energy policy proposal? Who knows?

Stay tuned as I will update tomorrow with my conclusions and possible endorsement.

CLICK TO ENLARGE