Immigration: So Now What?

With the death of the immigration bill, most people are left with a simple question: So now what? The plight of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in our nation is a very real situation, and this bill tried to do too much at one time and everybody on the fringes got so mad it really isn't a surprise it failed. Now that the Bill is dead, pundits say nothing significant is going to be done until 2009. Unfortunately, we now have 4% of our nation's real population left in limbo. Their status may not be legal, but it doesn't change the fact that they're here.

There was a tremendous amount of disappointment from our Senator Bob Menendez, a champion of the reform. Our Representative Scott Garrett loved this outcome, and seems to believe any reform must punish the undocumented. The Economist had an accurate take on the stance taken by him and many other Republicans.

That most Republicans would be against reform was a given: although a handful of them helped to craft the bill, most Republican legislators, and the bulk of Republican voters, saw it as an “amnesty” for those who broke the law by sneaking into the country. They were not persuaded by yet more promises to fix the border. Nor, however, did they propose any alternative measures for dealing with the people already working in America.

For many Republicans, it seems, this is a good issue for them to rally the base and raise money; a solution is not as beneficial to them as the problem existing. It's estimated that in the 1990's, the number of illegal immigrants increased a net amount of 500,000 a year (incoming; less deaths, returns, legalization, etc.). With the INS's estimate of 7 million illegals here in 2000, and an estimate of 12 million illegals being reported last year, the net increased to over 800,000 a year while the Republicans held a grip on Washington.

By the end of 2009, that means we're looking at roughly 14.5 million people. We were already talking about a population larger than that of New Jersey and Connecticut combined; we might as well throw on New Hampshire while the politicians in Washington twiddle their thumbs and raise campaign cash.

So what do we do?

With an estimated price tag of $41 billion a year, a mass deportation program (finding, jailing, deporting) is off of nearly everyone's table, except for people like Garrett (how else do you punish an illegal alien?).

Relying on the Feds to come up with some sort of meaningful ID system seems dicey. There's already a 3 million passport backlog they're dealing with; coming up with 12 million more IDs seems unlikely.

Building the "fence" is a giant waste of taxpayer money, that does little more than let Congress say "Look, we built a fence. We're doing something." Meanwhile, people will go around and under the boondoggle.

Going after the employer seems to make sense, but with so many people working for so many different places, it seems unlikely enforcement will be effective.

So what do we do?

The 14th Amendment might have a clue:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

States already must provide equal protection of the law to anyone within their borders; would the States be within their rights to grant residency to illegals if they choose?

Granted, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution vests the power to come up with a uniform law of naturalization to Congress. However, I'm not talking about citizenship or a path to citizenship, I'm talking about non-transferable residency. There isn't anything in the Constitution that says States couldn't determine residency, at which point the Tenth Amendment defers to the State. After all, the States seem to be the ones who benefit and suffer the most from the presence of the undocumented.

On the positive side, States receive sales tax from the individual (if it applies), income tax from those they buy things from, and taxes from those who employ them. On the negative, States pick up the tab to fund schools, medical care and social services for the undocumented. So wouldn't it make sense to let places like Texas, California, and New Jersey craft a workable solution for ourselves? It could go either way, throw them out or let them stay, but at least there would be something.

There are more questions than answers with this issue, but while Washington is in a state of self-inflicted paralysis over immigration, why not give the States a shot? Communities have started taking their own steps anyway, ranging from housing crackdowns to creating worker centers, what would the States do? On many policy issues States have been the experiment lab, where a Federal policy is then crafted on their best practices, so why not now?

At the very least, it would make for one heck of a Supreme Court case.

Garrett: Earmark Blogging with Murder Fantasies

I was intrigued today to read the blog by Representative Scott Garrett about the earmark debate over at Townhall.com. Not once did he say how pleased he was about the reforms he voted against being passed earlier in the year. I suppose he only saves that kind of misleading language for his constituents.

One thing that is a point of concern with Garrett's piece is where he chose to post it. I realize my cross-posting on other sites can put me in with some folks that say some outlandish stuff in the comments section, but I appreciate the dialogue and passion for beliefs. That being said, each site has a certain standard when it comes to their primary content and comments, and I've seen it enforced more than once.

In contrast, Townhall.com is currently playing host to an ongoing story about a group of "Patriots" running around the country hunting "socialists." This group roams around the country and kill US Attorney Johnny Sutton, torture Keith Obermann and Chris Matthews, kill Senator Arlen Specter and other current members of Congress, and mock the Constitution.

Several Republican bloggers have called to have the storyline removed, as well as others in the comments section of the fantasy's posts questioning the legality of it. As of this writing, Townhall has yet to remove the piece. Here's how the Sutton segment ends (remember, this is a current US Attorney):

As a group, we entered the room at approximately 2215. Sutton was hunched over a table studying a map of the region. When he looked up and saw us, his eyes widened into saucers and he blanched, sweat popping out on his forehead. He threw up his hands and started babbling unintelligibly – a huge disappointment coming from a “great” attorney – and at my signal we all fired simultaneously. His head exploded like a ripe melon, thankfully shutting him up for good.

The comment sections on all of the installments I looked at were rather, um, interesting. The Sutton piece includes such things as bonfires fueled by the bodies of liberals convicted by Chief Justice Ann Coulter (who later takes a recurring role) and what caliber bullet you need to effectively kill liberals so they don't live and charge at you like a "RINO".

Whether or not Garrett knew about this is kind of irrelevant. Townhall is very popular with a certain segment of the population, and obviously Garrett's reaching out to them. There are many notable conservatives who contribute to the site, driving traffic and helping them sell advertising. Aparantly, all of that comes without any sort of moral compass or ethical standard. There is a moral and ethical line, and Townhall has crossed it. Until Townhall either removes that story line or Garrett pulls his content from the site, Garrett's sitting right there with them.

My TiVo's Name Will Be SCOTUS

For those that missed it, the Supreme Court dealt a blow yesterday to those of us who want to remove money from politics. At issue was whether or not a special interest group was allowed to run an "issue ad" within 60 days of an election without complying with federal election law reporting requirements. Finding that the election law was a hindrance of speech, special interest groups (corporations, unions, advocacy groups) joined hands with shareholders of DVR manufacturers in rejoicing the SCOTUS.

This decision has a number of negative consequences for the vast majority of Americans. First and foremost is that a lobbyist will once again be able to walk in to a legislator's office with the unregulated expense report regarding how much their client spent to get the legislator in office. I work for one of the best television commercial production houses in the world, and people don't hire us because we're nice people (we're very nice). They hire us because we're damn good at what we do and they're expecting a return on their investment (a great ad to help them sell product). When it comes to election expenditures, special interests expect the same: votes for dollars spent. A few hundred thousand in exchange for a multi-million dollar earmark is a pretty good return on investment. A few hundred million for a multi-billion dollar no bid contract is even better.

Another issue is accountability for the ads. By declaring the 60 day rule unconstitutional, special interests won't have to identify who is paying for the ad. While many groups will want to have their name put on an ad (because it helps fundraising); those putting out false attack ads can come up with fluffy names for their vitriol, and if the truth ever comes out as to who did the ad the election will likely be over. It now rests on the Quality Assurance departments of the networks to determine if an ad is true or not, as they will be liable for running false advertising and also liable for bias for not running an ad even if it's patently false. I have a friend that handles that for a network, and they just "loved" it when I pointed that out last night.

This decision also bolsters the power of incumbency and aspirations of corrupt challengers. On one hand, an incumbent will no longer have to raise gobs of cash to compete, as they'll be able to place a call to a special interest group that loves them and say they need some ads. That's illegal; as it is coordinated communication, however don't think it doesn't happen. On the flip side, a challenger who has already sold their soul will be able to do the same in the event the incumbent doesn't play ball with the special interests.

Probably the most frustrating aspect of the decision, for me personally, is this virtually eliminates the ability of Independents to compete. Before my fundraising collapsed last year, we had a workable fundraising target to get a run or two of ads on basic cable. I have most of the equipment needed to shoot and edit ads, and had volunteers to direct and crew them. Renting a sound package and the media buy would have been the only expenses, and the media buy was surprisingly affordable. I would have been able to place a hold on advertising time, and then paid for the ads before they ran. All of this would have cost less than $40,000.

I fear that if I did decide to run again next year, and can raise money this time, with every imaginable special interest group now being able to bid on the same time, it will drive prices beyond what a modest Independent campaign can raise. What happens to my speech and that of my potential donors and supporters? How are we protected? The only Independent who may benefit from this ruling is Bloomberg, as now he can spend his personal fortune on organization and his corporation's money on ads.

If you think I'm overstating the consequences, remember that these were all the things that were going on in the 90's that prompted Washington to include the 60 day rule in the McCain-Feingold bill to begin with. The good news is, Congress can now revisit the issue and attempt to make it Constitutional within the SCOTUS ruling. My hope is they have the moral fortitude to get to work on this and they'll take care of it before the end of the year. However, I'm not going to hold my breath, and in the meantime I'm going to find out more about DVRs.

Most political ads are junk, both in production value and content; Elliot Spitzer & Michael Steele are recent exceptions. As much as I love watching a good commercial, is as fast as I change the channel when the average political ad comes on. The idea of the airwaves being over saturated with this pollution is nauseating.

Garrett's Earmark Deception Widespread

As noted yesterday, Representative Scott Garrett has continued making it sound like he voted for the earmark reforms he voted against. In catching up on the week's news, I've discovered just how far Garrett's going to misrepresent the truth.

It's safe to say that the readership of this blog, and Garrett's Garrett Gazette, are probably no where near the combined readership of the Express Times and the Herald News. Both papers reprinted Garrett's statement on earmarks earlier this week as an opinion piece with the following phrase:

Earlier this year, I was pleased that the House adopted many of the earmark reforms that I had pressed for in the previous year. The entire process of spending should be open and transparent — all spending should be subject to full public scrutiny and debate.

Garrett could be pleased as punch the reforms passed, however, the way that statement is wordsmithed it explicitly implies that he voted for the earmark reforms he voted against. I wouldn't be surprised if this misrepresentation goes into a mailer in the near future, if it hasn't already shipped.

For those who have criticized my going after Garrett, because you see him as "honest", by all means explain this one to me.

BCRO Looking for a Leader

The Record reported on the race to replace inept Guy Talarico as Chairman of the Bergen County Republican Organization. Here's how they summed up each candidate's reason to pick them.

More than 100 county committee members assembled at party headquarters in Hackensack to hear briefly from the early favorite, 35-year-old Ridgewood lawyer Rob Ortiz, as well as two party veterans, 57-year-old political consultant Bill Thomson of Washington Township and 64-year-old Ben Focarino of Garfield, who owns a leather-coat business.

[snip]

All three candidates for county chairman pledged to jump-start the party's anemic fund raising and to reunite its factions.

Focarino said he would do that by getting back to the basics, making better use of technology and fielding candidates who can run in every community.

Thomson cited his grass-roots experience and his track record for raising money and mobilizing the votes of such groups as the Christian Coalition.

Ortiz said he had raised a lot of money for both national and state Republican candidates and would do the same in Bergen.

As the early front runner, Rob Ortiz is racking up the endorsements. He has all of the candidates for the legislature in the 40th, current County Clerk Kathe Donovan (the only county wide Republican), former Freeholder Lisa Randall (who Talarico primaried out of office), and former County Executive Pat Schuber (on par with Roukema in terms of wide respect) just to name a few.

It should be very interesting to see how this plays out, and what impact it has in the fall.

Garrett Misrepresents Again

In Monday's post, Lest We Forget, I brought up the fact that Representative Scott Garrett is still making it sound like he voted for the earmark reforms he voted against. On Friday, as part of a House floor speech given after the conclusion of regular business, Garrett did it again.

Just an aside on the whole issue of earmarks. The debate on that topic goes to whether or not the Congress has the authority, and no one really questions this, but the authority to make, the issues of spending money on particular projects, and I don't think anybody debates that too much. The debate we have had on that topic is the transparency issue and whether or not Members of Congress and the American public are able to see exactly what individual Members are requesting that the American tax dollars go to. That is an appropriate debate and one which I supported, and I supported openness and transparency and to shine the light of day on what we do here.

Unless Garrett forgot he voted against the earmark reforms, Garrett continuing to make it sound like he voted yes is nothing less than an intentional misrepresentation of the truth.

Now This is Just Cool

An article in today's New Jersey Herald has pointed out the power public education can have on the lives of students, and how fun it can be.

Being submerged in 20 feet of water in order to pilot a submarine with a propulsion system modeled after an exercise machine may seem like a daunting task. However, for instructor Chris Land and his Engineering Technology class from the Sussex Technical School, it is the culmination of a year-long project in which the students designed and constructed their own underwater vehicle.

"We're the only high school in the world to design, build, and operate a human-powered submarine," Land said. "We've been working since the absolute beginning of school."

On Sunday, Land and his class will set out for Bethesda, Maryland, where they will compete in the 9th International Submarine Races; Sussex Tech is the only high school entered, and will face competition from universities and independent builders. This is the third time that Land will bring a submarine to the biennial competition, which will take place at Maryland's Naval Surface Warfare Center from June 24-29.

I had the privilege of speaking at Sussex Tech last year as part of the campaign, and it is an amazing institution with amazing students. I wrote about the experience here, and it still ranks as one of my favorite stops last year. Congratulations to the kids in the program and good luck.