Good Fences Make Good Neighbors
While its focus may slowly be shifting, our debate on immigration continues. When he asked the following question, Henryk A. Kowalczyk shifted the focus.
Could you focus on one issue, how reasonable immigration policy, as the FMA, could harm National sovereignty, as you claim? (from here)
I answered Henryk’s question here. I explained new immigrants should not come here to be a drain on our society. I explained we need to make certain new immigrants learned English.
Henryk countered with this.
At the beginnings of the U.S., besides Englishmen, large number of Germans settled here. For decades, German language was practically an official language in many small communities from Pennsylvania to Dakotas and from Minnesota to Texas. It is over.
In some neighborhoods in Chicago, I know people who where born there, attended Polish schools and Polish churches and never learned to speak English.
The same, I made an extra effort to make sure that my children maintain knowledge of the language of their ancestors; with very weak results.
I have Mexican immigrants in my close circle of friends. On social gatherings, I meet many Mexican immigrants that do not speak English. However, even their small children are perfectly bilingual.
People immigrate here to work, often more than one job, not to learn the new language. However, most of them realize soon that when knowing the language, they can make more money.
Can we agree on keeping government away form this language business, and let money play its role?
By the way, in how many languages can you communicate efficiently?
The whole world is learning English as today it is the language of business, and mass culture. Intellectuals all over the world are complaining that English pushes away many other national languages.
At the same time, many Americans make a big issue that some Hispanics pick up tomatoes, wash dishes or mow grass without learning English first. So pity. So out of touch with reality. (from here)
Henry does not see an immigration problem. He sees an imbalance of liberty. We deny illegal immigrants sufficient liberty to protect themselves. Does Henryk have a point? Is there an immigration problem, or are we making a problem out of immigration?
When we look around the world, we see many different kinds of societies, but there is always an elite grasping for power. In poor nations, the elite bind the poor and sap the poor for everything that might be gained from them. Only societies with large middle classes seem able to resist the might of human greed.
It took many strange accidents of history to create the liberty that Western Europeans enjoy today. How fragile is this liberty we enjoy? I don’t know, but we will never preserve it with ease.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. — Thomas Jefferson
Blood is not too high a price to pay for liberty. Men have paid it time and time again. From the perspective of history, we are our own worst enemy. Our civil wars destroy the most. When we Americans ever fought over slavery, we paid our highest blood price. Some were that determined to keep others enslaved.
The slave owners lost the Civil War. Try as they might, the slave owners could not spread their slaves to every state — but the devious never rest. There is always a new kind of slave, a new way to exploit human beings. New generations of slave owners created wage slaves, but the middle class fought that. The wage slaves looked too much like them. Now we have yet another form a slavery. The slaves look different. They speak an alien tongue. They volunteer for bondage and do not struggle to escape. Instead they spread themselves from state to state.
Illegal immigrants – cheap labor for greedy elites. Could we end the problem easily? Would it be enough to just have our leaders apologize for their huge mistake? Why not just declare illegal immigrants legal? What would be the cost? What could possibly go wrong?
Would endless hordes of uneducated poor stream across our borders. Could we afford to educate all their children? Would our nation be balkanized into Spanish and English speaking quadrants? Would the number of the impoverished in our nation grow by leaps and bounds?
What has experience taught us? When most of the immigration we have is illegal — ILLEGAL — what has experience taught us?
What is the logic, the reason and the legal foundation for making immigration illegal?
The strength of the country arrives from the sum of wealths of individuals free in their pursue of happiness. Freedom of migration is part of it.
The strength of the country does not arrive from some abstractive concept of the strength of the country itselt, imposed on the freedoms of individuals; in this case limitation of free migration of labor. This is pure socialism. However, this is the logic and reason behind our current immigration laws.
HenryK,
….This question: “What is the logic, the reason and the legal foundation for making immigration illegal?”….finished you with myself.
You obviously know nothing about current immigration law, or the multitude of legitimate reasons why those laws are in effect and you probably never will know or you would not be asking stupid (not ignorant) questions and conjuring up justifications for Freedom (wide open unlimited is your suggestion) of Immigration as you did in your post.
Dude, all anyone that wants to immigrate to the United States has to do is apply and wait in line like everyone else that applies until their turn comes in our very legal, “LIMITED” immigration process. Or would you Mr. Dufus prefer the U S A that has half the geographic area, to be turned into a human ant hill like at least twice the size of the U S A, China?
If the long term major droughts predicted for the mid America plains area by scientists due to the earth temperature rising just two degrees centigrade become a reality like like last century’s dust bowl decade, everyone in this nation had better be prepared to go onto a strict limited diet. The whether or not that event will ever happen is still a moot subject I’ll leave up to the anti ultra conservatives and the pro ultra liberals to haggle over.
Your last paragraph is absurd pure poppycock!
Here is a reasonable start to a solution I just read on Anti-Bvbl:
–Turn PW Blue, 23. July 2008, 10:05
OK, this is going to be long–not apologizing, just warning…
This issue, like so many others facing our nation today, has been brought down to a sound-bite level that does none of us any good. We want to boil it down into simplistic terms and arguments–you either “get the problem” or you’re an illegal alien sympathizer…if you question cracking down on illegal immigrants, you’re racist…you’re either with us or you’re against us.
Well, folks, it’s not that simple. There are shades of grey and nuances of position.
I have a problem with illegal immigration. I don’t think it’s right. I don’t believe there should be a blind eye to what is, after all is said and done, an illegal action. But I also don’t believe that rounding up everyone without proper documentation is the answer. I empathize with those who have risked an awful lot to try to make it to the United States simply on the ideal that a better life will await them. Isn’t that, after all, the message we try to send about America? It’s the land of boundless opportunity. Further, the economist and free-marketer in me sees the value of the ready flow of labor in the economy.
So I’m torn.
On one hand you have a group that has violated the law. They are here illegally. The law and order side of me says all else is not germane to the discussion. They broke a law. They should not be here. But the human side is not irrelevant. In fact, it is the very core of who we are as a nation. Are we not a nation of immigrants? Were we not founded by people seeking to escape persecution and to live free? Is that not the very premise upon which we founded this great republic?
So here’s my plan…my modest proposal, if you will.
One, our current immigration laws are broken. The quotas we have established are arbitrary. The process to become a legal citizen is overly complex and too restrictive. We need to reset our quotas and institute comprehensive immigration reform that includes temporary worker programs. We can look to the EU for some ideas on how such programs might work.
Second, we need to establish a path to citizenship for those who are already here and have been productive, law-abiding members of our society. It is all well and good to say that they are tainted by their first act of lawlessness and not fit for citizenship, but let’s be realistic. There are at least 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. It is neither rational nor feasible to even ponder a course of action that does not include some way to legitimize those who, except for the “original sin” of entering the country illegally, have lived model lives. We cannot deport 12 million+, so let’s not muddy the waters by even trying to contemplate how we can do that. So who qualifies? One, longevity counts. Show proof you’ve been in the country more than five years and you can enter the program. Been here less than five years? You can apply for a temporary worker visa or go home. Two, law breakers are out. Drive drunk? You go home. Steal? You go home. Any misdemeanor or felony is a ticket to deportation. Three, pass the naturalization exam.
Third, in conjunction with reform to our immigrations laws, we need to put some teeth in our immigration enforcement. So long as a viable worker visa program exists and quotas are set reasonably, there is no reason not to tighten up the border and crack down on those who attempt to enter the country through illegal means. Additionally, we need to go after those who provide the very incentive for people to risk everything to come here–employers. As part of our immigration reform, we need to put in place substantial penalties for those who hire and exploit undocumented workers. Large fines and jail time are appropriate for the most egregious and habitual violators. Eliminate the demand for cheap, immigrant labor and the supply will dry up. Put in a system to check immigration status that actually works (the current eVerify is a disaster).
At the local government level, get out of the immigration debate. All Corey Stewart has done is pawn off the problem on someone else, create a sense of ill-will with surrounding jurisdictions, and paint PWC as intolerant (at best) and bigoted (at worst). Local government should be dealing with local issues. With all the talk about illegal immigration and the time and effort expended on this issue, other core responsibilities of local government have been ignored (to our peril). Our roads are crowded and our schools are bursting. Our tax base is too reliant on residential. Far too many of our citizens are on the road 30 minutes to several hours a day commuting outside of PWC to find gainful employment. You want to make a name for yourself in PWC politics? Find a way to fix those issues and stop looking for cheap publicity by latching on to the newest “hot topic” in confrontational governing.
Notice that no where in this proposal do I talk about language or culture. We are a nation in constant flux. Our culture is an agglomeration of the cultures of our own ancestors with some homespun spice. You cannot legislate culture. You cannot legislate acculturation. Our “American” culture has survived past influxes of immigrants (who were, at the time, considered “undesirable” and a “threat” to the American way of life). We will survive and prosper through this one as well.–
CTom,
You’re beating a dead horse debating with two people that haven’t a lick of common sense.
It seems their sole purpose posting here is to distract with an unending line of stupid questions in effort to put the justification ball in our court and propose the most ridiculous conjured up out of thin air justifications for turning this nation into a third world country I ever heard of because they have no valid arguments.
I wish to hell both of them could and would go to China or India and see first hand what they are wishing for here…our nation so dense in population you can’t stir them with a stick. And if that’s the liberal American Dream, they better pray that it’s only a dream and never realized because I don’t want to hear them whining about “there’s too many people” and rest assured these never satisfied about anything fools would be the first to whine.
If I could I would make entries for debate on the oil situation and why oil wells that have been sitting idle for the last three and one half decades all over this country aren’t being pumped NOW to give our consuming citizenry immediate relief. And then extend the debate as to why our elected lawmakers aren’t doing something about the private sector oil speculators that cause the price of oil to double or more than double.
Because as long as these oil speculators are allowed to act with impunity driving up the cost of everything period, it doesn’t matter a whit where crude oil originates; here in the U S or anywhere else.
I’ll give you one for instance CTom…the average consumer in the U S A hasn’t a clue as to how much fuel derived from oil it takes to produce one gallon of ethanol fuel.
Take it from an ole boy that made his living off the land half of his life and take it to heart farmers just don’t toss seed on the ground and watch them spring up as crops and jump into trucks all by themselves to be taken to the ethanol plants. And this brings up another entirely different set of speculators that drive up farm to market grain prices.
I can’t wait for the two know it all liberals comments on this.
Kgottt,
You say you have a problem with illegal immigration?
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION” just people that have been brainwashed into falling into the pattern of using that false two word phrase.
You liberals always like to have questions answered so here’s one for you.
Either define what illegal immigration is with your own definition or produce VALID and it must be valid government law documentation defining the term. This ought to keep you busy for quite a while…because an illegal alien IS NOT and immigrant defined in federal law or the laws of any state. An illegal alien is just that…illegally entered and an alien in any country they illegally enter into. Prove me wrong.
Forgot to add…. if you wish to define an illegal as “a wanna be immigrant” then I could agree with that even though it doesn’t change the fact of their illegality or being an alien.
CTom,
Pardon my missing your reply about being mean spirited. I call it “growing intolerance” for people than overtly support lawbreakers and are desirous in giving a free ride to everyone on the planet desiring to come here and turn this nation into a dump ground as process and ultimate end.
Iterated…I don’t support lawbreakers period citizens or not, and find U S Citizens that even hint at it repugnant enough to be treated with disdain.
And professing sliding illegal aliens onto a “forgive and forget you’re a lawbreaking illegal alien” straight line path to citizenship is more than a just a hint of supporting lawbreakers.
I say this because there are more than a few other available options for problem resolution in this area to consider.
It’s fairly obvious that “they” are about as likely to change your opinions, or mine on the subject as you are changing their opinions on it…nil or more appropriately for this topic, “NADA.”
All my life and long before I was born, honest people from other nations have applied for and received permission to enter this nation as seasonal migrant workers, that returned to their homelands when the jobs were finished and I see no reason whatsoever as to why that process should be discontinued in favor of outright ceding any form of permanent resident status to an unending flow of humanity that can’t or won’t cut it in their own nations.
I shudder to think what this land almost all of us take for granted, would like today be had not the people we know and call the founding forefathers of this nation had not had the courage to stand up against tyranny and tyrants in revolt establishing our homeland as an independent sovereign nation. And I won’t apologize now at this late date for wanting to see the nation I fought for spurning illegal actions.
As a combat veteran of foreign war I’ve seen first hand people living in nations under the thumbs of tyrants that starve them and murder them as if they were so much garbage.
This nation has been repeatedly called up on and our leaders felt compelled to go to the aid of I don’t know how many nations in wars over the 230+ years we have existed and only until the latter part of last century were successful in helping right the wrongs of murderous warmongering tyrants and get rid of them.
The only things I’m against about the present war this nation is involved in is that it was based upon manipulated intelligence data and lies then entered into on a preemptive basis which has never been done before; not even when the U S invaded Mexico or when Admiral Dewey invaded the Phillipine Islands.
The outcry of “better to fight them over there than over here” if nothing else can be found to resolve issues, should cover non specifically to every nation where people live in oppressive tyranny and/or oppressive government officials.
By allowing anyone and everyone fleeing their homelands entry into this or any other nation does not resolve the problems in the nations from which they are fleeing, In actuality, by our not intervening “over there” when diplomacy fails and there are no other choices available, aids in perpetuating the problems “over there.”
Myanmar, formerly Burma, and the people living under tyranny, being slaughtered piecemea, is the epitome example for extreme measures and military intervention, or should the United States as well take those millions of oppressed people into our nation and under our protective umbrella.
History proves that periodically our world and the nations upon it come to the same disasterous point we see evolving all over the globe today that twice in modern history led to global conflict, with millions upon millions dying.
We humans are returning to a crux, an essential point requiring resolution, where we have the choices of, minding our own business when its prudent to do so, and putting out brushfires as they arise and as necessary, or facing the real probability for failure in those two aforementioned areas of a third global war as product.
The United States can continue on its present course trying to save the world alone, and continue making enemies in process, or through skilled diplomatic actions once again be a forceful uniter and peacemaker. As example MAD or mutually assured destruction was a nasty and expensive way to meet threat with counter threat but it worked…global nuclear holocaust never occurred. Unfortunately we now face new threats that if not stopped here inside our nation. Searching for less than make war solutions to these problems is and will be a monumental task for this or any other nation to undertake.
Just before the U S was attacked without warning, even Admiral Isoruko Yamamoto the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack stated to the Japanese head of state just days before that event, in hopes war with the United States could be avoided, that “there is no end word in diplomacy.” Then after the Pearl Harbor attack, with the full knowledge that Japan would lose a war with America, Yamamoto who had lived and studied in the United States uttered “I fear all we have done is to waken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” My bet was that Yamamoto hated being right, right up to the time his plane was shot down by U S pilots flying P-38′s.
History also dictates war is an end result born and borne out of failed diplomacy. Our nation must keep up diplomatic communications with all nations and especially nations that oppress their citizenry. For if not, we can expect Bible prophesy to come true to the effect that “there will be wars and rumors of war as long as the Earth shall stand.”
My only question is this: “Should we assist in aiding the oppressed in this world, including our southern neighbors, by giving the oppressed a demonstrative hand up where they live in different if not better ways to live in their own nations, bringing America to them where they live, or should we continue giving handouts here within our borders that does absolutely nothing to stop oppression from continuing in those other nations; where if continued it will ultimately lead our nation into more and more conflicts and wars?”
You see there are no easy or even inexpensive solutions and resolutions on large international and global scale problems and outside spending money, spilled blood, lost lives and massive destruction of property have been the price paid to live in freedom and periodic harmony. Surely if mankind thinks we are smarter than animals that other ways can be found to resolve issues than the ones we’ve utilized in the past.
Does anyone have any quibbles with that?
Tom,
You say that I know nothing about our immigration laws.
I think that I did my homework on this subject. Nevertheless, there is always a possibility that I missed something big.
Could you in one paragraph tell me what it is that I missed the most in my knowledge and understanding of the current immigration laws?
To get the whole picture of my shortcomings in understanding of our immigration crisis you can check several my texts on the subject. Here is the link http://www.henrykkowalczyk.com/immigration.htm
If you like to watch, I have videos as well, http://www.youtube.com/user/hak1010 , some about immigration.
For HenryK
********************************************
The CURRENT U S immigration laws ARE the immigration laws and illegal aliens NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR SKIN COLOR IS, NO MATTER WHAT LANGUAGE THEY SPEAK, NO MATTER WHICH NATION THEY ORIGINATE FROM break the law with their first illegal step into this nation and AND ANY argument beyond this fact is just that, argument, without foundation or validity.
*******************************************
Is that an easy enough to understand, short, clear, concise paragraph for you?
I said it before…if you want to have congress change the immigration laws to your liking go for it and rotsa ruck to ya.
Then, if you are able to get the immigration laws changed, “I WILL,” very much unlike yourself, abide by the new laws without argument whether I like it or not…the same way as I support and abide by those immigration laws now in place, in effect, in their current status…but not one second before.
I honestly wish that you would ask me why I think marijuana and other drugs now declared by law as illegal, should be reversed and made legal. And I can almost state for a fact you have no clue as to the myriad reasons as to why I would want to have those laws reversed.
I know those drug laws will not be changed in my lifetime and I can give clear valid reasons as to why I can say it.
Tom,
You did not tell me what I am missing in my understanding of our immigration crisis.
Our immigration laws are as good as Prohibition was, and should be revoked as Prohibition was.
When I was growing up in Poland, many people believed that nothing could be done about overwhelming power of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, some of us did whatever we deemed right in curtailing Soviet influence over our everyday lives. We did it despite knowing that we might never be able to see the fruits of our work. The rest is history.
If you know that nothing can be done, please step aside and leave a space to work for those who know otherwise.
HenryK sir,
A. You made my point for me..”you want the immigration laws changed.” Again I say good luck.
And B. If you can’t understand what “you are missing” is the fact that “the current immigration laws are the current immigration laws and should be obeyed, whether or not you like or agree with them and until the laws are changed to where they suit you, you are beyond my help and for that matter beyond anyone else’s help explaining the issue any further to you.
In regard to your final sentence why won’t you please step aside and let us, the people oppose any changes in the immigration law other than stircter laws than we have now, and get off our backs. There are plenty, believe me plenty of left wing liberal blogs and bloggers for you to have your say in, where no one will argue with you instead of you being here stupidly thinking you can change minds by ramming your drivel down our throats every day and then whine when someone like me lays it on the line to you in no uncertain terms.
Tell ya what pal. I’m a native born U S Citizen of the United States of America, that fought in a war agains communism for over three years and a staunch member of supporting sovereignty in this country. Singularly, the U S A that did more to bring an end to Chinese and and in fact brought an end to USSR communist occupation and domination of other nations, including Poland where you say you grew up, than any other nation on the planet; America the nation that took you in as an immigrant and gives you not the right, but privilege to shoot your mouth off like you’re doing here… so stop bitching unless you want to hear MY thoughts on the issues! And if you don’t like our laws buddy, Poland is still available and there’s nothing to prevent you from leaving here in a place where you find laws so evidently shameful and distasteful. You make me sick.
Tom, what you have said does not represent you or our nation well. Your comments indicate you have trouble distinguishing between casting insults and serious debate.
You are not welcome here.
Tom,
Immigration now is a bigger mess than it was before 1986, when the latest major immigration reform took place. Similarly, in 1986 immigration was a bigger mess than in 1965, when the previous major reform of the immigration was implemented. Almost half a century of government trying to improve immigration proves that Reagan was right, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem”.
My point is not in advocating disobeying current laws, but in noticing that our current laws induced illegal immigration and by this harmed wellbeing of the country. I present vast argumentation supporting this point of view. Please visit http://www.henrykkowalczyk.com/immigration.htm
You disregard all my arguments but do not bring any arguments explaining why keeping our current immigration laws is beneficial for the country. You want to continue doing what has being failing for the last forty years, but you want to do it with greater determination. Could you elaborate what kind of measures would you like to take in order to enforce our current immigration laws?
Citizen Tom,
I disagree with your position on Tom. From my participation in immigration debates on many internet forums, I see Tom as a representative of the mainstream America. His positions and his political culture are akin to represented in major media by Lou Dobbs and alike; Tom just is not as eloquent.
You like it or not, Tom is America. Deal with it; do not push him away.
I don’t think Tom represents mainstream America in the least. He represents a portion of extremism that really is not the majority (though they would like you to believe they are). I say this because I live in PWC and we have a small group of people who talk like Tom (and talk much worse than he does). They like to present themselves as the majority, but it’s an illusion to create a sense of authority and power. We know this because to get the “immigration resolution” passed, these people had emails sent in from non-residents across the country to show support. If they were the county majority, they would not have had to do that. Furthermore, there were thousands of dissenters protesting outside the day the immigration resolution was passed. These people were ignored because the numbers of bogus emails seemed to scream louder than the thousands outside the building. The BOCS listened to the wrong people and to bogus emails.
Tom seems to forget that there are immigrants and illegal aliens fighting our wars for us right now in Iraq. There are immigrants being used as pawns in our economy. There are hard working people out there trying to get fair, just policy passed, policy that will not jeopardize our national sovereignty or security but will create a viable economy and positive international relationships. They and we deserve more respect than Tom seems to want to give.
kgotthardt
Tom along with other Americans sharing his views, effectively blocked a few immigration reform attempts. They elected, twice, our current President. They support the war in Iraq. They effectively block any reform of the health care system, the same as our educational system.
If this is not mainstream America, please tell me what mainstream America is.
I barred Tom from this blog because his level of maturity made it too difficult to have a rational discussion with him. While most of us are not nearly as mature as we would like to believe, we can at least avoid descending into name calling.
Henryk, I do not pretend to know what in particular is in your head. I have no idea why you would want to immigrate to America and still think Tom is representative of America.
What is mainstream America? Henryk, you are part of it. Many of the people who come to the United States with the intention of staying do not stay. They go back where they came from. You stayed, you became a citizen, and that makes you part of the mainstream.
As far as our political system is concerned, mainstream is almost everyone who takes the time to participate. Mainstream America are the people who elected the politicians who wanted to sneak amnesty pass us into an immigration bill, and mainstream America are the people who saw through the sham.
On this particular piece of legislation, you are in the minority. Are you always in the minority? I doubt it. Do you really want to demonize most of your fellows just to score a point on one issue?
Mainstream also varies by region and population, which is why some candidates have difficulty “taking” some states than others. States have reputations. For example, MA is known as a liberal state. VA is known as a conservative state. Others are more mixed.
As far as Bush being voted in twice, there are people who now regret they did that. And just because we vote for someone doesn’t mean we agree with all his/her ideas. Bush’s administration, for example, has turned off a lot of people with what is perceived as a twisted version of extremist right-wing values. Obama turns off many people because he is perceived as wet around the ears and to some people, part of a secret Islamic extremist/terrorist plot to take over the U.S.
My personal opinion is that most people are more centrist or completely lost than we hear they are. That’s why it’s so important our media remains balanced (see Tom’s post on “The Scary Thing About Media Bias”).
Me? I’m tired of being labeled a liberal, leftist, socialist. I’m just someone who wants humane, fair treatment of the people we have right now in our country, people who have invested themselves in our system of government, our economy, and our infrastructure. And I want to live in a safe nation. I think we can have it both ways. Getting others to believe that is an entirely different thing.
BTW, Congress and the War are both fairly unpopular at the moment if you read the studies. Some surveys are fairly helpful in identifying political trends and opinions, but again, you will always have the followers who just believe what they hear. You might think about “mainstream” in terms of these studies as well. However, mainstream is one of those terms people use when they want you to believe they are part of a popular clique. Beware the term.
kgotthardt – War is rarely popular. People may find the solution attractive at first, but as soon as the coffins begin to appear….
The Bush administration has played the hand fate gave it competently. Because Bush played to win, his opponents denigrated his performance. The Democrats wanted his job, and the news media wanted to give it to them.
The Democrats and the news media did succeed in complicating Bush’s task. Winning a war eventually becomes an act of will. Such is particularly true when fighting an insurgency movement. So long as insurgents detect a possibility of winning, that their opponents may give up, they will fight on.
Our military forces understood all of what I just said. The Bush administration and Congress went into Iraq with open eyes. We as a People certainly debated the matter long enough. We went into Iraq expecting worse than we got. Even so, our national will has only barely been up to the task. After our initial victories, because they counted on us giving up, the terrorist insurgents in Iraq would not give up. That left the Bush administration with the grueling task of building up the nation of Iraq in the middle of an insurgency.
Ultimately, the Iraqi People must demonstrate the will to win. Ultimately, the Iraqi People must take the task of defeating their enemies upon themselves. Thanks to the perseverance of President Bush, it is possible that when the time comes they will be ready.
Unless the Iraqi people step up to the plate, this war will go on and on. We can’t win it FOR them. We can intercede in other ways, but to keep sucking our nation dry to keep that effort going is foolhearty.
We need to end it…smartly, of course. But right now, that doesn’t seem like it will be done, and we all suffer for it. Domestic policy has gone unaddressed, we are in a recession, we are internationally frowned upon, and we are drained.
Enough is enough. Let’s focus on our borders and domestic security. Leave Iraq with trainers and a skeleton crew. Let’s stop killing each other.
This is why I won’t vote for McCain no matter how much I appreciate his immigration and other policies. He is too pro-war IMHO. If we end this war, we can focus on the other important problems which will make us stronger to be able to defend ourselves against any internal or external attack.
kgotthardt – The Iraqi People are stepping up to the plate. Most of our military forces will be slowly withdrawn, and we will have to cross our fingers and hope for the best.
The mistake, assuming there was one, was made years ago in the aftermath of the first Persian/Arabian Gulf War (There is an argument over what to call that oily puddle.). We committed to depriving Saddam Hussein of his WMD toys, but our “allies” only went through the motions. Slowly, they drifted away. Then they started buying oil from Hussein and smuggling stuff to him.
We made the mistake of assuming that we can be friends with other nations.
“Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” — Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston
We did not follow a policy that took into account the possibility that Saddam Hussein might survive. When he did, we and the Brits found ourselves deserted.
Citizen Tom,
Barring Tom was a mistake. However, this is your show; you can do here whatever you deem right.
On the immigration issue, I am in the tiny minority. What is common in your and Tom approach to this issue, and – I sense – any political issue, it is a belief that the truth can be voted in. If majority of Americans want more restrictive immigration, it means that this is good for the country.
Politicians are voted in and out. The truth should be searched for. If you were able to wash out all your preconceived notions coming form misinformation, feelings, or – simply – the blue sky, and if you analyzed the immigration crisis in the systematic scientific manner, you would arrive with a solution identical to the Freedom of Migration Act proposal. However, as most mainstream Americans, you are not able to do so. Using the same thinking scheme, Tom
arrived with slightly different conclusions that you did, and he was more blunt in taking gloves off when dealing with his opponents.
I have a one-minute video addressing this subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfOR-MRPIG8
Returning to the immigration issue. Tell me what is wrong with the Freedom of Migration Act proposal? Would it work? If not, tell me what bad would arrive from the implementation of the FMA?
Kgotthardt,
I welcome you to answer the same question; what is wrong with the Freedom of Migration Act proposal? Would it work? If not, tell me what bad would arrive from the implementation of the FMA?
Citizen Tom,
I appeal to you for giving Tom one more chance, and – if he chooses to do so – letting him answering the same question as well.
On Tom—I’m all for banning Tom. His dialogue is not useful IMHO, and he can never come back with a civil response even when I am civil to him. Just my two cents, though I respect CT’s and Henryk’s. Your call CT.
Henry, I don’t think this country is “ready” for freedom of migration. Immigration reform is going to a be slow (and sorry to say, painful) process. It won’t happen in a day. Until the US can stop reeling from 9/11 there will be far too much fear from the majority to even consider free migration. Part of reducing the fear is ending the war in Iraq.
We have extremism in the immigration debate now;FMA would probably push us into another civil war.
If we can prove in the next 7 years that we are safe, that immigrants are not hurting us, that we are better off economically and politically with more flexible immigration policy, then the FMA might have a chance. Again, though, all of this takes time.
Like open borders, I see FMA as an idealistic plan “whose time has not yet come.” I can’t say the American people would EVER accept it. I do know at the momemt, FMA is perceived as far too radical and risky. We are already a frightened, insecure nation. FMA would make it worse.
BTW, I liked your video.
henryk – The video is interesting and relevant. I agree that people too often put their beliefs in front of defining a problem. What I object to is the assertion that I have done that on this particular issue. In fact, I have to wonder if that is what you are doing. Life does humble each of us with ironies.
Consider that you are proposing a specific solution. Consider that you are asking that we have faith in this solution. At the same time, unlike an engineer, we have not debated the definition or the parameters of the “problem”. Instead, we have leapt pass that point. What we have discussed is what we think of FMA.
Immigrants come to the USA from all parts of the world. They come in all shapes and sizes. Each has something to offer. Each makes demands.
We have borders. On one extreme, we can refuse entry to all comers. At the other extreme, we can have entirely open borders. Somewhere in the middle there lies an optimum solution.
Managing the immigration of each immigrant as a negotiated transaction would be ridiculous. Nonetheless, all of us want to set minimum criteria. We just differ over what those criteria should be. Some of us think the number of criteria for entry should be minimal. Some of us favor specific criteria that others think relatively less important. Our republic is about resolving such differences peaceably, not making everybody happy. Compromises do not make everyone happy. Fortunately, even bad compromises can be altered on the basis of experience.
Peaceably. That is why I banned Tom. Unless our discussions are peaceful, we cannot easily arrive at a compromise that everyone can accept. Instead of frankly discussing the problem and possible solutions, we spend all our time trying to maintain order.
Kgotthardt,
Why our country is not ready for the freedom of migration? Are there any other freedoms that our country is not ready for? For whom it will be to decide that our country is ready for freedom?
Freedom is like pregnancy, one cannot be 70% pregnant. We cannot have some freedom and accepted being denied others, as this is the straight slide to having no freedoms at all. It cannot be said better than in the conclusion of the video had you provided me link to, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuEGM_erDno . BTW, are you a speaker on this video?
When we are on this subject, I can answer question posted by both Toms, why people are arriving to America. They arrive not because of Americans, but because of the political concept of this country that freedoms are inalienable rights of an individual. I grew up in the system built on the opposite concept that individuals have no rights but some freedoms might be granted to someone sometime as a privilege, which can be taken away.
BTW, Kgotthardt, when I kept asking why there were no free elections, I was told the same answer, that the country was not ready yet for free elections. They were right to that extend, that when in 1989 finally they were nailed down and agreed to free election, they were voted out of power.
“Why our country is not ready for the freedom of migration? Are there any other freedoms that our country is not ready for? For whom it will be to decide that our country is ready for freedom?”
I think psychologically and intellectually, most people can’t handle the concept. It is too different from what we have now and people find change, especially drastic change, difficult. That’s why it took so long (and continues to take time) for certain minority groups to really be treated as equals even after all this time. Society doesn’t follow the sciences. You can’t give society an equation and say, “Here. It’s logical. Accept it.” People often are not logical because first, they are people, and second they are fearful. Change is scary.
Only we (the people) can decide when we are ready, and we do that by the vote. You have already acknowledged you hold an unpopular opinion. So you know you have an uphill battle, so to speak.
Strategically speaking, if you want FMA to become more acceptable, you have to start small–make changes that will lead you in the right direction. But trying to go from what we have right now immediately to FMA is like asking a baby to be born as soon as it is conceived.
(And no, the woman speaking in that video isn’t me. That’s Elena, one of the Admin. people on Anti-bvbl. She’s a kind of Wonder Woman.)
Citizen Tom,
You object to my assertion that you did not do your homework on the immigration issue. If you did, show me your facts, reveal your path of thought that led you to your conclusions. Instead, you do nicely what Tom did without white gloves, you bypass my reasoning and attack me personally.
You give me a lecture on humility, saying nicely that the Freedom of Migration Act comes from my arrogance. Following this, you make an extra effort not noticing my repeated requests for critique of the FMA and you imply that I evangelize my solution. I do not ask you or anyone else to have faith in my solution. I ask you to scrutinize it; I ask you for finding weak points in my reasoning; I ask you for pinpointing lapses in my logic.
If you will be able to do so, I will revise the Freedom of Migration Act proposal, as the objective on the table is not proving me right, but it is in finding the best solution to our immigration crisis.
If you will bring arguments proving that yours approach to immigration is better for the country, I will drop the Freedom of Migration Act proposal, and support your position.
Kgotthardt,
Sigmund Freud once stated: “Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.”
Your arguments put you in line with socialists. Who are “we” to decide on my freedoms?
Life is not a joke. It was not meant to be a pleasure. People who are not logical are eliminated in the natural selection. We make so much effort protecting individuals from the consequences of their own stupidity. This is wrong. People should have freedoms to make mistakes and carry consequences of it.
The same as CT you accuse me of prophesizing the FMA, and the same as CT you avoid pinpointing weaknesses of the FMA. Bring up your argument against the FMA. Or, show me a better immigration proposal; and tell why it is better.
Henryk – I did not intend to attack you personally, but that is why debate is difficult. We tend to think of our ideas and beliefs as part of us. So it is difficult not to take disagreement personally.
It was Socrates who said: “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Unless we are willing to examine what we believe — and accept criticism — we cannot progress. That is why objectivity important. We have to realize and remember that ideas and beliefs are things we can and must set apart from ourselves. We choose our beliefs. Our beliefs make a statement about us, but we choose them, not they us.
How we choose what we believe says something about our integrity. How do we go about evaluating ideas that differ from what we already believe? Do we take the ideas of others seriously? Can our ego take it when other reject our beliefs. Do we honestly consider the possibility we might be wrong?
There is a dangerous tendency in each of us. We each find it tempting to think the people who disagree us have something wrong with them. Most of us respond to this tendency in one of two ways: (1) we think the people who think us bad worse, and (2) we hide our beliefs and agree with whatever the crowd proclaims as truth.
When we adopt one of these options, there is, of course, a problem. We lead an unexamined life. Fortunately, there is a third alternative. The survival of any republic depends on it. The third alternative is the understanding that all of us are stupid. We all do the dumbest things, sometimes with the best of intentions.
That is why I said I like your attitude Henryk. I think it well that you have given serious thought to the immigration issue. Nonetheless, I disagree with your approach, and I have tried to explain why — just as you have tried to explain your reasoning.
Which of us is wrong? Well, when all is said and done, I would imagine that that fellow upstairs could come up with a much better answer than either of us. So it is not particularly important. What is important is that we do our best.
Citizen Tom,
As soon as the fellow from upstairs will make a post in this debate, her opinion (Dave Allen claimed that during the near death experience it was determined that she is black) will be considered.
I must have missed your post in which you tried to explain why you disagree with my approach.
“People who are not logical are eliminated in the natural selection.”
Actually, it’s the other way around. Illogical people start wars and kill both the logical and illogical among us. We never really know who is in charge–the doctors or the inmates. That’s the plight of humanity.
Your ideas are very lofty, Henryk, and they are theoreticlaly sound. However, I can’t reconcile the theory with our reality.
It’s not my intention to protect people from their own stupidity as you put it. People do make their own decisions. So I guess what I am asking is this. Let’s say you got FMA onto a ballot and no one voted for it. What would you do? How would you go about promoting it?
Henryk – At the end of this post I asked some questions.
I fear your FMA proposal involves unintended consequences. Have you addressed these possibilities? I imagine that you think you have. However, from my point of view, you have not.
Perhaps the problem is one of perspective. While you have experienced much I have not, the opposite is also true. When I was growing up, I took Spanish in high school. During the years that have passed since then, I forgot most of what I learn. There was no one with which I could practice. That is no longer a problem. In fact, I find myself confronted by signs in Spanish, the airwaves include Spanish language stations, and it is not that hard to find people who cannot speak English.
Henryk, though this is an idea that would have to be tweaked, here is an example of something I believe we could work with:
http://www.antibvbl.net/index.php/2008/07/23/turn-pw-blue-suggest-a-clear-concise-reasonable-and-humane-solution-to-immigration/
Citizen Tom,
I answered your objections even before you stated them, http://www.henrykkowalczyk.com/Migration.htm
Where I made mistakes in my analysis?
Kgotthardt,
I am not promoting the FMA. I am asking you to contribute to finding the best solution. If you have a better solution let me know. If you can find flaws in the FMA proposal, let us talk about it.
Henyrk – I read your plan. What is wrong with it? Nothing. The problem is people. We have laws because people do not behave as they should.
I have locks on my car and my house. When I go to the gym, I put a lock on my locker. And when someone misbehaves, we have police to arrest them. All this exists because people do not behave as they should. Without controls, they behave as they wish.
The people of this nation have certain expectations. Are those expectations reasonable? Not always. Do these expectations conform to the laws of supply and demand? No. Does enforcing our expectations require legal enforcement? Yes.
Immigrants too have certain expectations. Are those expectations reasonable? Not always. Some are disappointed to find the streets unpaved with gold. Their expectations too do not always conform to the laws of supply and demand. Will we have to use force to make immigrants conform to our expectations? Yes.
Even your plan includes certain expectations. Where is the enforcement? Where are the penalties for ignoring your system. What is the penalty for just walking across the border? What is the penalty for just walking across the border and getting a job?
“Henyrk – I read your plan. What is wrong with it? Nothing. The problem is people. We have laws because people do not behave as they should.”
Agreed. Again, it goes back to fear. We fear our security will be jeapordized through open borders and this fear will only be alleviated by years of proof that people can and will behave themselves as Tom implies.
Henryk–again, here is a good start from the link I posted above:
Turn PW Blue, 23. July 2008, 10:05
OK, this is going to be long–not apologizing, just warning…
This issue, like so many others facing our nation today, has been brought down to a sound-bite level that does none of us any good. We want to boil it down into simplistic terms and arguments–you either “get the problem” or you’re an illegal alien sympathizer…if you question cracking down on illegal immigrants, you’re racist…you’re either with us or you’re against us.
Well, folks, it’s not that simple. There are shades of grey and nuances of position.
I have a problem with illegal immigration. I don’t think it’s right. I don’t believe there should be a blind eye to what is, after all is said and done, an illegal action. But I also don’t believe that rounding up everyone without proper documentation is the answer. I empathize with those who have risked an awful lot to try to make it to the United States simply on the ideal that a better life will await them. Isn’t that, after all, the message we try to send about America? It’s the land of boundless opportunity. Further, the economist and free-marketer in me sees the value of the ready flow of labor in the economy.
So I’m torn.
On one hand you have a group that has violated the law. They are here illegally. The law and order side of me says all else is not germane to the discussion. They broke a law. They should not be here. But the human side is not irrelevant. In fact, it is the very core of who we are as a nation. Are we not a nation of immigrants? Were we not founded by people seeking to escape persecution and to live free? Is that not the very premise upon which we founded this great republic?
So here’s my plan…my modest proposal, if you will.
One, our current immigration laws are broken. The quotas we have established are arbitrary. The process to become a legal citizen is overly complex and too restrictive. We need to reset our quotas and institute comprehensive immigration reform that includes temporary worker programs. We can look to the EU for some ideas on how such programs might work.
Second, we need to establish a path to citizenship for those who are already here and have been productive, law-abiding members of our society. It is all well and good to say that they are tainted by their first act of lawlessness and not fit for citizenship, but let’s be realistic. There are at least 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. It is neither rational nor feasible to even ponder a course of action that does not include some way to legitimize those who, except for the “original sin” of entering the country illegally, have lived model lives. We cannot deport 12 million+, so let’s not muddy the waters by even trying to contemplate how we can do that. So who qualifies? One, longevity counts. Show proof you’ve been in the country more than five years and you can enter the program. Been here less than five years? You can apply for a temporary worker visa or go home. Two, law breakers are out. Drive drunk? You go home. Steal? You go home. Any misdemeanor or felony is a ticket to deportation. Three, pass the naturalization exam.
Third, in conjunction with reform to our immigrations laws, we need to put some teeth in our immigration enforcement. So long as a viable worker visa program exists and quotas are set reasonably, there is no reason not to tighten up the border and crack down on those who attempt to enter the country through illegal means. Additionally, we need to go after those who provide the very incentive for people to risk everything to come here–employers. As part of our immigration reform, we need to put in place substantial penalties for those who hire and exploit undocumented workers. Large fines and jail time are appropriate for the most egregious and habitual violators. Eliminate the demand for cheap, immigrant labor and the supply will dry up. Put in a system to check immigration status that actually works (the current eVerify is a disaster).
At the local government level, get out of the immigration debate. All Corey Stewart has done is pawn off the problem on someone else, create a sense of ill-will with surrounding jurisdictions, and paint PWC as intolerant (at best) and bigoted (at worst). Local government should be dealing with local issues. With all the talk about illegal immigration and the time and effort expended on this issue, other core responsibilities of local government have been ignored (to our peril). Our roads are crowded and our schools are bursting. Our tax base is too reliant on residential. Far too many of our citizens are on the road 30 minutes to several hours a day commuting outside of PWC to find gainful employment. You want to make a name for yourself in PWC politics? Find a way to fix those issues and stop looking for cheap publicity by latching on to the newest “hot topic” in confrontational governing.
Notice that no where in this proposal do I talk about language or culture. We are a nation in constant flux. Our culture is an agglomeration of the cultures of our own ancestors with some homespun spice. You cannot legislate culture. You cannot legislate acculturation. Our “American” culture has survived past influxes of immigrants (who were, at the time, considered “undesirable” and a “threat” to the American way of life). We will survive and prosper through this one as well.
kgotthardt — This is 1986 all over again. We tried amnesty once. We got amnesty from Congress, but we did not get the enforcement. There is no reason to do the amnesty again. Why let ourselves be fooled twice?
We need to demand enforcement. For our own benefit, we can scrap the infernal quotas. We should accept anyone with a clean record, a job and who can speak decent English (high school level) for citizenship. Otherwise, they go home or they cannot come except on a temporary visa.
When he is actually doing what he was elected to do, stop blaming Stewart. Blame the people who voted for him, like me.
Okay, Tom, I can blame you then
If Stewart would stop his spin and grandstanding, I could tolerate his position a little more. But it’s clear to me his ambition is political climbing and not serving our communities the way we need him to.
“We should accept anyone with a clean record, a job and who can speak decent English (high school level) for citizenship.”
Agreed, but right now, there is not anything in place to allow people to do this. The program is messed up. Enforcement only isn’t working and we can’t “deport them all.” Total amnesty won’t work either, but there must be a happy medium SOMEWHERE to get what we all need and want.
kgotthardt – If we do not go for total amnesty, we will be deporting large numbers of people. If we wanted to, if we forced our political leadership to do it, we could deport them all. It depends on how ruthless we want to be.
Every proposal I have seen involves deporting a large number of people. For example, have you any idea how many illegal immigrants are unable to speak high school English?
To make deportation simple, what we have to is make it so uncomfortable for employers to hire illegal immigrants, it is not worth the bother. In addition, both employers and law enforcement have to have an easy way to ID who is a citizen and who is not. Once we have a law it will take a couple of years to implement. That will give most illegal immigrants time to get out of the country on their own or to learn English.
I don’t think we should deport people whose green card has expired, people with no criminal record, people who want to learn English. A green card isn’t citizenship. They have time to learn. It’s cheaper and usually more humane than deportation.
Deportation is VERY expensive. Sure, we can be ruthless if we want, but we can also be stupid if we want. I sure don’t want to go bankrupt having mass deportations when English classes and paperwork will do!
It’s important for immigrants to learn English, but to do that, we must have English classes available. There is a shortage at the moment, and that doesn’t help.
Going back to “For our own benefit, we can scrap the infernal quotas,” I’m not sure what you mean by this. I DO think there should be some limit to the numbers of new immigrants we take in (not talking about the ones here already). That number must be dictated by the economy. I don’t know how they came up with the numbers to begin with, but obviously, they are way off. Any ideas?
“It’s important for immigrants to learn English, but to do that, we must have English classes available. There is a shortage at the moment, and that doesn’t help.”
Where is there a shortage? I work for a large school district who is constantly hiring adult educators for ESOL classes. There are classes offered at churches, libraries, homeless shelters – the list goes on and on.
As I’ve stated before – the problem isn’t just with ESOL classes. Parents of children with disabilities are being told to go to the US illegally by their doctors. Schools are forced to spend money on translating every document that is sent home into different languages. They have to hire translators and parent liaisons.
Ted Kennedy stated that it would cost $41 billion for deportation per year. The flip to that is the cost that local, state and federal governments have to spend each year on illegal immigrants. For example, the city of Los Angles ALONE spends $2 billion per year on education, welfare and health care on individuals who are here illegally. see http://www.tothecenter.com/news.php?readmore=3850
So let’s just estimate that each state spends $2 billion per year – this comes out to $100 billion saved versus $41 billion spent. Money lost? I don’t see it in the numbers.
The argument that deportation is expensive is moot – especially when you look at the money that state and federal governments will save not have to care for people that are here illegally.
And by losing cheap labor, we are forced to raise the minimum wage, thereby giving citizens a living wage. And this will not raise the cost of crops, as many state. In a research study done by UC Davis states that the difference would be 1 to 3 cents per pound, translating to a raise of $20 per year in fruits and vegetables.
CT,
You say: “What is wrong with it? Nothing. The problem is people. We have laws because people do not behave as they should.”
I agree with you, partially. The problem is with people like you who believe that unless instructed by governments and put under the fear of being punished, people would be immoral.
You ask: “Where are the penalties for ignoring your system. What is the penalty for just walking across the border? What is the penalty for just walking across the border and getting a job?”
When you ask this question, I know that you lied in your opening statement when you wrote “Henryk – I read your plan.” If you did, you would know that the ultimate goal is that it should be legal just crossing a border and getting a job.
Can we approach the problem from another angle? Can we list the major problems caused by the current immigration laws? This way we can define the problem first. After agreeing on what the problem is, we would be able to talk about possible solutions.
Henryk, start with the PWC allegation that “illegal immigration causes lawlessness.”
Concerned, if the policies are reformed at the Federal levels, then they need to include more monies for ESOL classes–or even better, education in general to be used as necessary. Bush, if you recall in his policy that was rejected, wanted to implement at least free online courses for ESOL students. This was a start.
What most people don’t understand is that ESOL is just one more way of teaching English. It’s an academic approach targeting specific skills. Adults, for example, can work on remedial skills and GED prep if they need it. They do this in a specific class. And many people, native speakers, NEED this because they didn’t get what they needed in the public school system for whatever reason.
Note high numbers, around 80% of adult learners, come to adult ed with learning disabilities, more often than not, undiagnosed and unaddressed.
Other students, including those in the general K-12 classroom, come in at different levels, all requiring instruction aimed at those levels. You can go into any elementary school class and see as many as 10 levels of readers all in one class.
Here’s my point: ALL students require specific instruction from professionals. ALL students require different approaches. The labels ESOL/LD etc. have given us the impression that these people are different and a hardship on our system when in fact they are just part of a diverse system. In fact, the budgets don’t even distinguish between ESOL funding and “regular” funding because of this. Academically, the distinction makes no sense except to people who want to make the distinction for whatever reason including bragging that we are chasing out immigrants and reducing our costs. Fact is, some students move to different level classes and have not left at all.
If we had smaller classes or more teachers in a class and we didn’t divide our funding the way we do, we wouldn’t even be having this argument because there would be no distinction or labeling of different needs. And I don’t believe there SHOULD be. Students are students and they are unique. Teachers try to teach them in ways that make sense to individual students, just as they do with more remedial and other level students. But one teacher doesn’t and cannot address individual needs of students, no matter what their levels.
Look at it another way. You have students called “gifted.” Would you suggest cutting the “gifted” program”? If so, would you expect the teacher or a co-teacher to teach to the “gifted” level of those students? I would. “Gifted” is just one more label we put on the general population, one more approach to teaching.
ESOL, an approach to teaching, has become inextricably mixed up with heated debates over illegal immigration and it should NOT be because the real argument is, “If we want immigrants or anyone else to learn, we need more Federal funding to get it done.” We can’t expect charities to do it–that’s how it’s done in those “third world countries” we criticize so much, remember? Education in all forms are not priorities of this country. Personalized, individualized instruction is not valued.
Want evidence that education is not valued? If it were, we wouldn’t have crowded schools. We wouldn’t have one teacher trying to take on 10 reading levels in a classroom. We would not have the majority of our college grads being hung with the albatross of out-of-control student loans.
I’ll be adding to this discussion on my own blog, as I think it warrants a separate thread. Sorry to have “hijacked” this one, CT.
I posted this on your blog, but it’s in moderation right now –
School Budgets DO separate ESOL funding from general ed funding. Look at the funding for FCPS and you will see ESOL broken down into a separate category. Please do research before you make grand statements. It’s painfully obvious that you aren’t familiar with how school districts are run and make assumptions.
As an educator, I’m insulted that someone saying that people who are “against” ESOL don’t know how to teach or care about individual learning needs. This quote in particular “ESOL funding is a straw man argument for people who do not want to acknowledge the learning needs of the individual” is incredibly offensive. I have never said I’m against ESOL. The argument is that schools are spending an average of $1 million per year just for Pre-k to 12 ESOL. If there are students who are here and their parents aren’t paying into the system, the argument is that money that could be used for students who are here legally.
Federal funding won’t help. The government has yet to fully fund IDEA, which has been on the books for over 30 years. Same with NCLB – it has never been fully funded. So the feds can say they will provide funding, but it’s an empty promise, because the funding will be limited.
We have crowded schools because the school systems have not been able to keep up with the population growth. It’s a lot faster to build a development of houses than a school. I’ve never seen or heard of “one teacher trying to take on 10 reading levels in a classroom” – first of all, this is academically impossible. You are saying that there are students who would have a reading range from kindergarten to 9th grade. Given that you are huge on special ed, if a student is reading 10 levels below grade level chances are they are in a self contained class. And just because you have huge amounts of student loans doesn’t mean that all students in college will have them – that is a moot point.
Students are no longer “separated” into classes – there has been a movement towards full inclusion and, for students of ESOL, full immersion. In fact, most ESOL classes are done on a “pull out” basis, meaning that the student is in general ed classes and the ESOL teacher pulls the student out of class for 30 – 45 minutes per day to give direct 1:1 instruction.
I’m starting to get the feeling that you have never been in a public school classroom as a teacher full time. Based upon the statements you have made here, you don’t even have a general working understanding of budgets, student distribution, inclusion/immerision and how educational systems are run in general.
Here is the link to the FCPS budget – which shows a separate budget for ESOL – it’s on page 173 http://www.fcps.edu/fs/budget/documents/detailedbudgets/proposed/2009/departments.pdf
kgotthardt
Illegal immigration results form making illegal a basic economic activity, as labor movement, and it causes lawlessness as much as Prohibition did. Solution should be the same. Revoke laws infringing of basic human activities, revoke laws violating basic freedoms of individuals, revoke laws disregarding basic laws of economics.
What PWC stands for?
CAA, I responded to you twice on my blog, so you should be able to see it now. Glad to have some budget expertise on this since I don’t have it!
Henryk, PWC is Prince William County, home of an infamous immigration “resolution” that has really divided our communities and contributed to the demise of our local economy. If you lived here, you’d be dealing with a whole lot of hate just because of your beliefs. It’s sad and unjust and hateful….what more can I say?
Henryk – Read this post. Please note the date.
I think your FMA goes too far. There is no such thing as an economy that exists without some form of regulation and the means to enforce that regulation. Consider the concept of private property. If there are no rules to enforce private property, private property does not exists.
My wife and I own a house. We regulate who goes in and out. We don’t own our house to be economically efficient. We own our house to ensure our comfort.
Communities live in cities. To ensure the comfort and security of the inhabitants, we have zoning laws. Communities define what is public property both for the purposes of commerce and for public parks.
Nations have sovereignty, and the citizens of each nation have the right to enforce that sovereignty to protect their own best interests. People do what they do both because it makes them prosperous and because it makes their lives more pleasant.
What you are primarily disputing is that part that some believe will make their lives more pleasant.
Henryk, you also made what seems to me an odd request.
Do you want me to make your argument for you? As I see it the major problem with our immigration laws is that we do not enforce them. I seriously doubt that is your perception. If you want a list to that serves your purposes, why don’t you make it yourself?
Concerned about Amnesty – I did not find anything in moderation. Sometimes the spam filter is hard to please. However, if I turned it off, nobody would bother with the comments. They would be buried in spam. So thank you for your comment and taking the time to post it again.
Henryk, Concerned about Amnesty just listed one of the problems with unregulated immigration. Others include what a flood of poor immigrants can do to the integrity of a neighborhood, crowding on roadways, increased costs for providing medical services for the poor, …. Poor immigrants simply do not have the capacity to pay for the public services they use. Admittedly, we could change how public services are provided so that we use a less socialist method, but what is is.
There is also increased crime. Imagine a policeman picks up a drunk driver. The drunk has no identification. In a “sanctuary” city, what happens? In Prince William County, we find out who he is. If he is an illegal immigrant, we kick him out of the country. I like that solution.
The current immigration laws can be effectively enforced only in the Soviet style political system, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2wE0IBmh_Q . The laws are bad, not our ability to enforce them.
You have a choice, enforce our current immigration laws and transform the United States of America (USA) into the Soviet Union of America (SUA), or you can opt for repealing our absurd immigration laws and keeping the Unites States of America as it has been so far.
Our immigration laws are not enforced because we still do not have a Soviet style political system here.
However voices like yours boil down to advocating for abandonment of those anarchistic ideas of the free market and the freedom of individual and for converting the United States of America into the Soviet Union of America. Soviets had the guts and the methods to keep borders secure.
Please remember that the evil empire was created not by Martians but by people of good intentions, exactly as you are.
Referring to your house example, you are free to do whatever you want in your house. The same, as I should be free to do the same in my house, including hiring Mexicans to cut my grass.
Henryk – I find the issue you raise interesting, but I still do not agree.
We cannot explain everything from the viewpoint of economics. The nature of a society and its government is not all about economics. What makes life worth living is not about economics.
The free market is based upon people greedily pursuing their own self-interest. However, I think you will agree that without at least some form of morality the free market does not work. Neither does any other kind of economic system. Morality, not the nature of its economic system, provides the basis for any successful society.
With that thought, let’s consider the example of your Mexican grass cutter. Why would your neighbors find the whole idea disgusting? When I was growing up, my summer job involved mowing lawns. In fact, even when I was in junior college, I worked as a caretaker at the home of a wealthy elderly couple. They had six acres, and I kept the place up. I also did jobs like bussing tables in a restaurant. My brothers and neighbors shared similar experiences. Now most such entry level jobs are taken by illegal immigrants. This may good for some employers, but it is shortsighted. Our young people need such experiences. Our own poor need such jobs, but the influx of illegal immigrants depresses wage scales. Because of their numbers, illegal immigrants take most entry level jobs. Due to their desperation, illegal immigrants also depress the working conditions of all unskilled American laborers.
As the economies of other nations catch up with our own, the freedom of migration you so desire will eventually occur. Now, however, the economic disparity is too stark. We really should not put ourselves in the position of employing people to do “work Americans will not do”. As I see it, it is a moral, not an economic issue. And it is a matter of taking care of our own.
Citizen Tom,
You take as given that pursuing someone best personal interest is immoral. Consequently, the free market is immoral. You do not state it explicitly, but only logical conclusion from your statements is that whatever is opposite to the free market is moral; hence socialism, as a opposition to the free market is moral.
I guess you did not read anything by Ayn Rand.
Evidently, you did not read my text about Smiths and Joneses either, http://www.henrykkowalczyk.com/Smiths_vs_Joneses.htm
Citizen Tom,
I guess you started reading “Atlas Shrugged”
Henryk – I read “Atlas Shrugged” decades ago. I saw my father reading it, and I got curious.
People tend to focus on their differences, and we are different. Nonetheless, on the issue of immigration I think we agree more than we disagree.
Relatively few Americans dislike immigrants. Since most of us have don’t have to go back that far to recall an immigrant ancestor, we have some empathy. Although they did not bother to pass on any stories about it, I suspect my Irish forebears, for example, experienced discrimination. Once there was enough open land to get away from one’s more obnoxious neighbors. Perhaps that is why my great grandfather did not stop moving his family west until they reached Wisconsin.
Consider that the free market is never entirely free; it is regulated. Consider pollution. If I operated a paper mill and dumped my waste into a river, what would you do? If you lived downstream, would you not be upset about what I had done to your drinking water? By “cheaply disposing” of my wastes I would keep my operating costs down. You might even want to buy my paper. Nonetheless, I suspect you would be unappreciative of what I had done to your water.
We have always regulated immigration to some degree. That is because with every good comes bad. When employers hire “cheap” labor from overseas, they can easily impose part of the cost of this labor on the rest of us. In part, we bear such costs due to our own stupidity — our welfare state. To larger extent, however, problems arise from the difficulty of assimulating huge numbers of foreigners. If we do not want our nation balkanized, these people must learn English, and we must ensure that they do.
Can either of us suggest a tried and true solution? No. We have history books and books of wisdom, but we do not have an operating manual. Have you, I, or anyone else ever demonstrated how one solves the immigration problem? All any of us can do is give the problem our best effort, hope for the best, and pray that God will save us from our ignorance and foolishness.
On July 28th I suggested:
“Can we approach the problem from another angle? Can we list the major problems caused by the current immigration laws? This way we can define the problem first. After agreeing on what the problem is, we would be able to talk about possible solutions.”
Can we just define one problem caused by illegal immigration and try to determine reasonable remedies?
Henryk – It seems to me like we have already attempted your suggestion (see here).
I have two interests: encouraging a healthy interest in politics and getting conservative Republicans elected to public office. I do not think I will accomplish those objectives if I spend all my time debating one issue. However, I think the subject is important and that people find it interesting. If you want to initiate further debate on this subject, you can send me a note (citizen_tom@hotmail.com), and I will most likely post it (without alternation). You just have to meet the standards on my ethics page.
Citizen Tom,
I appreciate your offer, but this will not change much. I have extensive writing on the immigration issue http://www.henrykkowalczyk.com/immigration.htm, so I could only paste and copy here some of my previous writings.
As we have a difference of opinions, we can turn it into a worthwhile experience. One of the ways of doing so is by focusing on one aspect that is pivotal for the whole immigration issue. Then by scrutinizing this one point, we can find errors that one of us made when conducting analysis and forming conclusions.
When commenting on the value of a picture for example, we may have different opinions, and both be right, as a value of an artistic product is in the eye of a beholder.
On immigration, as on any other political issue, if we have different opinions, we both can be wrong, or only one of us can be right, as there is somewhere objectively the best solution to this problem; however, we might be able to find it with greater or lesser accuracy.
So, who is closer the ultimate the best solution to our immigration problem?