Arizona, Immigration, and Common Sense

Arizona's recently enacted immigration law seems to have really stirred up lots of people.  Consider:

• AP: MEXICO CITY -- Mexico's government is warning its citizens about travel to Arizona because of a tough new immigration law there.
  
  The travel alert from the Foreign Relations Department urges Mexicans in Arizona to "act with prudence and respect the framework of local laws."
  
  It says that the law's passage shows "an adverse political atmosphere for migrant communities and for all Mexican visitors." 
  
  This from the same Mexico that published a pamphlet showing how to enter the United States illegally never mind that the law concerns illegal immigrants not US citizens or legal visitors.  But hey, if you're exporting hundreds of thousands of your own illegally why not!

• April 27 (Bloomberg) -- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told U.S. lawmakers her agency has “deep concerns,” about a new immigration law in Arizona and said the U.S. should pursue a comprehensive overhaul of its immigration policies.
  
  
  Attorney General Eric Holder, at a news conference in Washington, said he also has concerns and said the Justice Department is considering going to court to challenge the Arizona statute.
  
  
  The new Arizona law “will detract from and siphon resources that we need to focus on those in the country illegally who are committing serious crimes, in addition to violating our nation’s immigration laws,” Napolitano told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee today.
  
  
  This bit of nonsense by Ms Napolitano is really priceless.  She suggests that we a) "pursue a comprehensive overhaul of immigration policy."  Lets not wonder that having had several serial amnesties over the years in the name of immigration reform and consistently not enforcing the immigration laws hasn't worked.  No.  Instead lets do it again!  She goes on to suggest b) that we "focus" on those committing serious crimes.  Perhaps it's just me bit isn't illegal immigration a crime, isn't the Federal Government responsible for border security, hasn't the Federal Government failed in that responsibility, isn't Ms Napolitano's agency responsible for border security, didn't Ms Napolitano while governor of Arizona not only not deal with the problem but twice veto similar bills?  Perhaps Ms Napolitano needs to go to common sense camp.  As to Mr Holder, I wonder if he understands that the Federal Government failed in its responsibility.

Common sense suggests that notwithstanding the dangers inherent in the Arizona law, illegal immigration is a serious problem and the Federal Government has utterly failed in it's duty.  It would of course be better if stated didn't have to resort to state law in this matter.  But given that Arizona and many other states have been invaded by hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and the Federal Government has failed to act, common sense requires that something be done.

Today's idocy in the Senate: Let's replace the children with adults!

San Francisco Chronicle: Senate Republicans united Monday to block debate on legislation that would make the most far-reaching changes in financial industry regulation since the Great Depression - slowing but probably not stopping a bill that has been propelled by angry voters who want a crackdown on Wall Street.

The 57-41 vote marked the first Senate showdown over the issue. Sixty votes were needed to end GOP delaying tactics. But no Republicans voted to debate the bill, and they were joined by Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

...

Their principal aims are to close loopholes they believe will allow government bailouts of failing firms, add restrictions on the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, limit the power of the consumer agency and ease proposed regulations on derivatives - complex financial instruments that contributed to the 2008 financial collapse.

So the republican notion seems to be that the existing proposed bill isn't strict enough, at least, that's what they say.  Their fix for this lack of control is to limit the power of government and to ease restrictions on derivatives!  Common sense has clearly left the Senate, if it was ever there.  As I have noted previously lack of regulation as a result of repeal of existing regulations in the name of financial reform was at the heart of the recent banking failure.  Derivatives, which many have regarded as the toxic nuclear bombs of finance, were a major factor in the collapse.

Common sense also suggests that it's time for the existing Senate to be replaced.  We have an election coming up so how about if it's an incumbent voting for the other candidate?

Common sense suggests that serious regulation is long overdue and that derivatives should be closely regulated.  But, hey, that's just common sense and the Senators we employ don't seem to feel the need for common sense.

Will congress ever grow up and behave like adults that care about the countrie's needs?

Washington (CNN) -- A climate-change bill that was scheduled to be unveiled at a news conference Monday is now up in the air after Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina walked out of talks.

Graham had worked with Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, independent from Connecticut, to unveil details of their "tri-partisan" climate-change legislation.

But Graham declared Saturday that he was walking out of talks because of Democratic efforts to bring up an immigration reform package.

"Moving forward on immigration -- in this hurried, panicked manner -- is nothing more than a cynical political ploy," Graham wrote in a sharply-worded letter sent to business, religious and conservation leaders that he has been working with on the climate-change legislation.

This is all to typical of Congressional behavior.  Here we have Senator Graham, who rather sensibly worked with his colleagues on a very important issue for America, deciding that since everyone else won't play by his rules he'll just kill the whole effort.  It strikes me as rather like a kid getting in a snit and taking his ball and going home so no one can play! 

Common sense suggests that it's long past time for our Congressmen to grow up and behave like adults that care about the countries needs.  But hey, that's just a common sense adult view, not a political view!

Medical Reform? It's NOT about insurance! It's about cost!

(CNN) -- When Godfrey Davies learned he needed surgery to remove polyps blocking his nasal airways, the self-described bargain shopper set out on a mission to find an affordable surgeon. He quickly learned a good deal is hard to find.

"The total numbers they were throwing at me were just incredible. I couldn't believe it," he says.
Davies, who is semiretired from his real estate business and uninsured, says he received estimates from two surgeons. When hospital, anesthesia and incidental fees were all tallied, the cheapest price he could find in Indianapolis, Indiana, was $33,127 -- which he would need to pay out of pocket.

"I was speechless." Davies recalls. "It was absolutely out of the question financially for me to have this done under those circumstances."

Frustrated that his bargain shopping saved him so little, Davies called on family in the United Kingdom for assistance. When they told him they had found a private hospital in Wales that would perform the surgery for $2,930 [or £1,897], Davies didn't think twice.

He purchased a $768 round-trip ticket, and on March 18, he boarded a flight to the UK to have his polyps removed there at a savings of nearly $30,000. 

Common sense, it's NOT about insurance!  It's about cost! 

Davies, who is originally from Wales and has been a U.S. citizen since 2002, says he was disappointed about having to travel more than 4,200 miles for such a simple procedure. But ultimately money was the deciding factor.

"$33,000 versus $3,600 ... I can put up with a lot of inconvenience to save that kind of money."

Any questions?

Arizona: Getting serious about illegal immigration

So the Arizona legislature has passed a law designed to help address illegal immigration. Briefly the law does two things. First, it requires that immigrants carry their alien registration documents at all times. Second, it requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect that there are illegal immigrants. Third, it imposes penalties on those who hire illegal immigrants or knowingly transport them.

This law has caused something of a furor to say the least.

President Obama has indicated that the Justice Department would investigate civil rights violations that might arise from a new law. That said, he also observed that "Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Clearly Mr. Obama doesn't much care for the law. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion and he is entitled to use the Federal Government to monitor the law, or even challenge the law in federal court. It is, however, telling that even the President notes that the Federal Government has, in fact, failed to actually effectively enforce existing immigration laws. Indeed, the Federal Government has on several occasions acted to prohibit local and state governments from enforcing existing Federal immigration laws!

Understandably, Arizona and several other states are concerned by the continuing flood, I'm tempted to call it invasion, of illegal immigrants. Since the Federal Government has not enforced existing laws, Arizona, I'm tempted to say quite sensibly, decided to give police the power to take a very modest action - ask for proof of immigration status IF there is reasonable cause. On its face that seems an entirely common sense step.

It is, of course, as many have pointed out subject to abuse. That's a legitimate concern, particularly when law enforcement has a history of being abusive (one need only remember a woman traveling with her infirmed mother who was stopped by the Federal TSA over some baby food in a cooler for her mother then charged with assault over snatching her cooler out of the hands of a TSA agent after the offending baby food was already thrown away, arrested, strip searched, jailed, and subject to prosecution, but hey that's the TSA). While misuse is certainly an entirely sensible concern I'd note the following common sense observations. First, when I get a job, I need to provide proof of citizenship today. That's required under existing Federal law. Second, absent anything remotely like effective immigration enforcement, serious crime in border states has, in fact, increased. We might not like it, but as CNN is fond of point out, facts are neither red or blue.

Now some say what we need is comprehensive immigration reform including a path to citizenship for those currently in the country illegally. But wait, we've done that at least three times that I can remember in the last 50 years. Common sense suggest that we already have more than enough immigration laws. When we don't enforce them though, all we do is invite illegal immigration. Worse, we actively participate in creation of an underclass of workers that are far to often misused by employers as was the case recently in New England at a factory that, wait for it, made US military equipment. In my common sense view, it's not simply wrong to take advantage of illegal immigrants, it's immoral and certainly not Americana.

The Arizona law has a long overdue provision to punish those who employ illegal immigrants. That entirely common sense provision and enforcement of existing provisions is long overdue. Illegal immigrants come to the United States in large part for a combination of economic, read jobs, and civil, read a working society, reasons. Removing the economic incentive will certainly reduce the reasons to illegal enter the United States and thus the number of illegal immigrants. Additionally it will punish those who prey on illegal immigrants.

Finally, the Arizona law has a provision that sensibly punishes those who knowingly transport illegal immigrants. I have on any number of occasions seen illegal immigrants clustered at day labor sites waiting for someone to come along and offer them a below minimum wage cash job. It is simply wrong to allow this to continue.

So what does common sense suggest about the Arizona law. Is it a good law? Well, that depends on how/if it is enforced. Is it subject to abuse? Absolutely, but it hasn't been abused yet and there are provisions to address abuse if/when it occurs. Does illegal immigration need to be controlled? Absolutely, we are being invaded. If you don't think so just checkout the six illegal Hispanics that were working for cash for a contractor to the cable company in Charlotte that I ran into in my parents back yard. Is the Federal Government, they after all are responsible for immigration, enforcing existing immigration laws? No, not even close. Should they? Yes.

Congress for sale

Reuters: The political action committees of six Wall Street banks spent the first quarter of 2010 giving handsome donations to Republicans and Democrats who are critical to passing legislation that could determine the future of the U.S. financial sector.

The banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs -- gave about $106,000 to 12 members of the Senate and House of Representatives who sit either in leadership positions or on the committees that forged the measures.

The sum is 40 percent of the $272,000 that the same institutions donated overall to political campaigns and committees between January and March.

But it is only a tiny fraction of the more than $30 million that has flowed into campaign coffers from the PACs and employees of banks, securities firms and finance companies since the 2010 election cycle began on January 1, 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the non-partisan watchdog that tracks the role of money in U.S. politics.

Wall Street lobbyists this year have hosted fundraising events for at least 10 senators who sit on the banking and agriculture committees, which have advanced separate pieces of financial regulatory legislation, according to the Sunlight Foundation, another money in politics watchdog.

Here's a common sense suggestion: If it can't vote in an election it can't give money to a candidate.  No exceptions!

This might seem a bit radical, but think about it just a bit. 

According to a recent Supreme Court decision, money is speech.  It's not, but that's a separate issue.  Further, under existing election laws, anyone, anywhere, including non-US citizens and foreign companies, can contribute to an election.  The inevitable result is that elections are all about who has the most money and can run the smoothest campaign, read distort the truth is the way most enticing to voters.  Wall Street is not the only offender to be sure, just the one in today's news.  The net effect is little more than selling of elected offices.

Common sense suggests that the underlying principal of a representative democracy is that elected officials represent the people that can vote for them.  But with money coming from business (they can't vote) and elections reduced to who can raise the most money the election process is anything but representative.  Our elected officials don't represent the people that could vote for them.  They represent the people and companies that helped them get elected! 

There is no real surprise then that a Congress bought and paid for by Wall Street undid the banking protections in the name of 'financial reform' and 'making banks more competitive.'  The entirely foreseeable and inevitable result was a financial crisis and financial collapse only averted by taxpayers spending several trillion dollars.

Under a common sense arrangement that limits campaign contributions to those who can vote in an election our representatives wouldn't be beholding to Wall Street or other interests.  They would, arguably, be more inclined to represent the interest of there constituents.  They might now be inclined to restore some of the financial regulations they undid at the behest of Wall Street and big banks.  They might prevent another trillion dollar financial collapse.

But hey, that's just common sense.

Arizona House: common sense not in the house

PHOENIX -- The Arizona House approved a bill Wednesday that would require presidential candidates to show his or her birth certificate in order to be on the state's ballot.

The House approved the measure on a 31-29 vote after four Republicans joined all of the Democrats in opposing it. The measure still faces a Senate vote.

It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the Arizona ballot to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

So-called "birthers" have contended since the 2008 presidential campaign that President Obama was born abroad, even after his official Hawaii birth certificate was made public along with birth notices that two Honolulu newspapers published in August 1961.

The Constitution says a person must be a "natural-born citizen" to be eligible for the presidency. Skeptics suggest Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate is fake and say he was actually born in Kenya, his father's homeland.

Where to begin?  I used to live in Arizona.  It is, indeed, conservative - read Republican.  If you'd ever lived in Arizona, particularly before air conditioning, you'd understand why this is so - harsh environments breed a very wide and deep vein of self reliance, independence, and a disposition to dealing with things as they are.  While I unequivocally believe these are positive traits, this bit of silliness has noting do do with much of anything other than pandering to the radical right, dare I say lunatic, fringe. 

That Mr. Obama is in fact a US citizen qualified under the constitution to be president is indisputable short of believing in things that are, well, unbelievable.  Why then this silliness from the Arizona legislature?  Do they believe otherwise?  That seems rather unlikely given the facts.  Are they afraid of the lunatic fringe?  Perhaps.  Are they concerned about the Tea Party?  Certainly.  Is this good law?  No!  Is it yet another example of appallingly bad politics?  Certainly! 

Common sense suggests that this kind of behavior by elected officials does not advance reasoned effective governance.  Common sense suggests that politicians that engage in this sort of behavior have no business in government and ought to be removed at the next available election, even in Arizona, particularly given it's historic disposition to reality.