- Permanent War versus Peace; Professor Angelo Codevilla elaborates
- Law professor at Fordham deceptively carries on the tradition of censorship-cheerleading; Ken White elaborates (Senior Editor Warren Gibson has also touched on this before)
- What if Mengele cured cancer? Bryan Caplan (who else?) asks the question
- Another law professor from Fordham, Nicholas Johnson, has a great post on The Bad Gun Dumpster
- Negroes and the Gun: Non-violent Winchesters and the fine art of concealed carry in the modern civil rights movement; Another, newer post by Mr Johnson elaborating upon one of the concepts in his new book
- Ezra Klein in the Washington Post
- Ed Krayewski in Reason
- John Allen Gay writing in the National Interest
- Daniel Larison in the American Conservative
- Stephen Walt has a great piece in Foreign Policy
- Angelo Codevilla on the Liberty Law blog
My own reaction is “great!”
This is fantastic news for everybody, including the Israelis. If the Israelis were smart, they’d jump on the opportunity and start forging ties with the Iranians again. Saudi Arabia, the state Israel is nudging closer and closer to, is the real terrorist factory in the Middle East and I don’t see how Israeli long-term interests would benefit from an alliance with the most vicious regime in the Arab world.
With that being said, I don’t know too many details about the deal. I know Tehran promised not to build a bomb (yeah right), but will sanctions end? If so, how soon?
To me sanctions are the most important issue here. Tehran getting a nuclear bomb is understandable given her neighborhood, so it’s not really a big deal when it gets the bomb. However, if sanctions are still around when Iran gets the bomb then you can bet Tehran is going to be much more bellicose than it is, and the people of Iran will give the regime the legitimacy it needs to wield its newfound power.
- Ken White has the best post of the year (so far) on free speech
- Angelo Codevilla on the US’s god-awful intelligence apparatus
- Reclaiming fairness as a precept of commerce. Bart Wilson argues that we’ve been a-travelin’ down the wrong path.
- Contra Dr Delacroix‘s thoughtful argument, Jon Harrison thinks the GOP is terminally stupid
- Imagining a remapped Middle East: Robin Wright muses about how 5 countries could become 14 (and a map for context)
- A ‘comments’ thread on a libertarian blog in which a lone libertarian takes on some of the neo-reactionary elements that Andrew has been blogging about.
Nobody is happy with the current immigration reform package being shoved through Congress at the moment. I don’t know too much about the specifics of the bill, or even about immigration itself (except that immigrants make good drinking buddies), so I’ll just outsource some ideas and arguments I’ve read elsewhere. First up is our very own Jacques Delacroix, an immigrant from France, who writes:
The main objective of the bill is to install in this country an unbeatable Democratic majority for the foreseeable future. The intent is to turn this polity into a one-party system. Everyone assumes, of course, that the electoral benefits of the bill will redound to the Democratic Party. If you don’t believe it, conduct a simple mental experiment: Tell yourself under what circumstances the implementation of the present bill, or of one similar to it, would cause a net increase in the number of Republican voters?
At best, at the very best, the admission of ten million formerly illegal immigrants and of their dependents would have no effect on American electoral politics. There is no scenario whereas it would help the conservative cause.
New immigrants vote Democrat. Immigrants from societies with authoritarian traditions vote Left unless their societies have gone through violent purging convulsions such as happened in “communist” Eastern Europe in the nineties. The idea that the government should leave people alone is a sophisticated one. It does not grow naturally out of the experience of oppression.
Indeed. Is this analysis wrong? If so, feel free to elaborate why you think so in the ‘comments’ section. I highly recommend reading the whole thing. Angelo Codevilla, an immigrant from Italy (and one of Dr Delacroix’s fellow academics), also elaborates on the bill:
Beginning in the 1960s, increasingly dandified native youths shunned agricultural and service jobs. So did the new legal immigrants. This made room for a growing number of laborers from Mexico who came and went freely and seasonally across a basically un-patrolled 2000 mile border. These were not “immigrants,” but rather mostly young men who yearned to get back to their families. They did not come to stay, much less take part in American politics. America came to rely on them to the point that, were a magic wand to eliminate them, whole industries would stop, including California agriculture.
US labor unions however, supported by the Democratic Party, pressed the US government to restrict this illegal flow. While until the 1980s, the US-Mexican border was patrolled by fewer than 1000 agents – nearly all at a handful of crossing points – that number has grown to some 25,000 in our time. As the border began to tighten, making it impossible for the Mexicans to come and go, many brought their families and stayed put in the US between work seasons […]
The controversy over illegal immigration did not touch the core of the immigration problem, namely the Immigration Act of 1965 and our burgeoning welfare system. Nor did it deal with the fact that the illegal flow of Mexicans was really about labor, not immigration, because most Mexican “illegals” had not come with the intention of staying. A well-crafted guest-worker program would give most of them what they want most [emphasis mine – bc].
Hence the “illegal immigration problem” is an artifact of the US political system: The Democratic Party wants the Mexicans as voters, the labor unions want the Mexicans as members rather than as competitors, and the Chamber of Commerce wants them for as low a wage as it can enforce.
Codevilla has much, much more here. Codevilla attributes the US immigration system to the corporate state, but I am unsure if Dr Delacroix feels the same way.
Delacroix’s piece, like Codevilla’s, also brings attention to an alternative guest worker program. Delacroix, in an article for the Independent Review, points out that the guest worker program has worked extremely well in the pre-central bank European Union (I am unsure if this is still the case).
A guest worker program would eliminate the political implications associated with “illegal immigration reform” and, as a result, enhance the economic benefits of seasonal labor flows coming from Mexico. The Cato Institute has recently come out with a policy report detailing how a guest worker program might be implemented. As I’ve stated before, the Cato Institute is one of three think tanks I actually trust (the other two being Brookings and Hoover).