There seem to be three primary arguments put forth when discussing the issue of immigration; whether legal or illegal. Perhaps I'm wrong, but here they are:
1. Illegal immigration cause significant real-wage deflation which becomes more pronounced as one descends the economic ladder.
2. Illegal immigration increases the cost of social / civil programs to American taxpayers.
3. Illegal immigration is illegal and proposals to provide some sort of amnesty program for illegal immigrants is tantamount to condoning illegal activity and therefore would invite more illegal activity.
I'd like to address each of these in some brevity and then request that others riff off these ideas in a constructive manner.
A preface...
We are a nation of immigrants. My own forebears arrived on the shores of this country less than 100 years ago (1910 to be precise, or at least the Polish side). The argument that America is for Americans ignores our own history in this regard and taken to an extreme would require that anyone not here when the first Europeans arrived by wooden ship vacate the premises in favor of the children of those millions of idigenous peoples many of our American ancestors slaughtered on their way to Manifest Destiny. So my preference is to put this angle of any ensuing argument to rest.
On to the three arguments and some commentary...
Sure, this is a lot of data. What to do about it remains the question. I propose the following:
1. Illegal immigration cause significant real-wage deflation which becomes more pronounced as one descends the economic ladder.
2. Illegal immigration increases the cost of social / civil programs to American taxpayers.
3. Illegal immigration is illegal and proposals to provide some sort of amnesty program for illegal immigrants is tantamount to condoning illegal activity and therefore would invite more illegal activity.
I'd like to address each of these in some brevity and then request that others riff off these ideas in a constructive manner.
A preface...
We are a nation of immigrants. My own forebears arrived on the shores of this country less than 100 years ago (1910 to be precise, or at least the Polish side). The argument that America is for Americans ignores our own history in this regard and taken to an extreme would require that anyone not here when the first Europeans arrived by wooden ship vacate the premises in favor of the children of those millions of idigenous peoples many of our American ancestors slaughtered on their way to Manifest Destiny. So my preference is to put this angle of any ensuing argument to rest.
On to the three arguments and some commentary...
- Illegal immigration cause significant real-wage deflation which becomes more pronounced as one descends the economic ladder.
- A recent study by Harvard economists found that illegal Mexican immigrants undercut wages for U.S.-born high school dropouts by 8.2 percent from 1980 through 2000. That's 40 cents an hour (less) as a result of 20 years of Mexican migration.
An offsetting set of stats indicates that the average cost of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables would rise by 2.5% if current rates of illegal immigration were stemmed. This would result in a decrease of the 8.2% affect on real-wages to approximately 7% affect on real wages.
- However, the severe drop in the value of minimum wage over that same period of time explains represents significantly higher deflationary pressure on real wages. The real-value of minimum wage compared to the average hourly wage has been slashed by over 40% since 1950. This drop cannot be attributed to illegal immigration but to legislative indifference (or more darkly, legislative catering to the demands of the employers who pay for elections).
- The massive shift from high-paying manufacturing jobs to low-paying service industry jobs explains another significant portion of real-wage deflation.
- The Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that with current trends, by 2020 the US will face a shortage of over 1 million healthcare professionals. It is likely therefore that within 15 years the majority of workers staffing hospitals and clinics will be foreign born.
- According to the Aspen Institute’s Domestic Strategy Group, the result of trends in job demand growth and labor pool contraction is a projected gap of 14 million skilled workers by 2020 and nearly 25 million total workers in the US alone.
- Over the next 30 years, the ratio of the number of workers to the number of social benefits recipients will shrink by 36% causing massive disruptions in the financial security of millions of Americans voting today.
Does illegal immigration deflate wages? Yes, but not nearly as significantly as any politician would have you believe. Is immigration causing the slow death of the lower-middle class and placing significant pressure on the lowest rungs of our economic ladder? Not really. Those effects can be laid at the doorstep of your local Congressperson and employer.
"Should I hate a people for the shade of their skin Or the shape of their eyes or the shape I'm in Should I hate 'em for having our jobs today No I hate the men sent the jobs away" -- James McMurtry in the lyrics to "We Can't Make it Here Anymore"
- A recent study by Harvard economists found that illegal Mexican immigrants undercut wages for U.S.-born high school dropouts by 8.2 percent from 1980 through 2000. That's 40 cents an hour (less) as a result of 20 years of Mexican migration.
- Illegal immigration increases the cost of social / civil programs to American taxpayers.
- A recent study done in California contends that the average Hispanic immigrant household takes in $5000.00 more in state and federal and local services that they pay in taxes with the lion's share of this being spent on public education.
- An argument could be made that today's Hispanic children in today's public schools will be tomorrows consumers and tax payers. Education is either an investment in the future of America or it ain't.
- A recent study done in California contends that the average Hispanic immigrant household takes in $5000.00 more in state and federal and local services that they pay in taxes with the lion's share of this being spent on public education.
- Illegal immigration is illegal and proposals to provide some sort of amnesty program for illegal immigrants is tantamount to condoning illegal activity and therefore would invite more illegal activity.
This in my mind is the most compelling argument for stemming illegal immigration. Either we are a nation of laws or we are a nation goverened by corporate convenience.
Sure, this is a lot of data. What to do about it remains the question. I propose the following:
- It does no good to sound-bite the argument into "America for Americans" or Lou-Dobbs the argument into "close the borders, illegal aliens are destroying our way of life". We need immigration and lots of it.
- Simply providing amnesty for law breakers will only encourage more law breakers (although a growing economy and pletiful jobs is providing all the encouragement needed at the moment, thank you very much).
- The way forward is I think four-fold:
- Provide tighter border security to slow the flow of illegal immigration.
- Put teeth into the enforcement of work-place rules governing the use of illegal immigration.
- Increase legal immigration significantly to attract and keep high-value skills.
- Strongly support and if necessary fund economic changes throughout Latin America that would encourage indigenous peoples to stay home. If the economy in Mexico worked for the average illegal immigrant, then the need or desire to leave would be lessened. The corollary to this approach has already been espoused in the "War on Terror" in which America chooses to take the fight to the source so the fight doesn't end up on the streets of American cities.
- Provide tighter border security to slow the flow of illegal immigration.
A friend recently pointed me to comments made by Winston Churchill regarding Islam. The quote begins thusly:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy."
...and it doesn't get much more flattering from there. I presume the point that was this friend was trying to make was that what is done in the name of fighting radical Islam is morally right and can be aligned with an ethical world view given the obvious decadence of the Islamic world view.
Here is an open letter in response to this assertion, and to Mr. Churchill's 116 year old wrongheaded views:
Steve:
I'm finally getting back to the question you pose regarding our current clash between civilizations; to the provocations entwined in Churchill's view of Islam (penned over 100 years ago at a time no one would call "enlightened") and to my own view of the challenges that face us as Americans in an undeniably unsettled world.
I think to begin, I would like to posit that the market on "fundamentalism" or "radicalism" is not cornered by those who follow Islam. If "fundamentalism" is characterized by a desire to return to a "taken-for-granted" body of beliefs, a desire to achieve or impose a set of (locally) homogeneous moral or ethical cultural strictures; then there are plenty of fundamentalist examples in our own history. The Christian Right or "moral majority" (which is neither strictly moral nor in the majority except when one considers the majority of flapping lips driven by vapid or bankrupt ideals) of our time; the Christian fundamentalists of late 19th and early 20th century; the dark ages of the Church; the Puritanical movement of the 16th through the 18th centuries are all "fundamentalist" in nature and have, at varying levels had the same negative impact on the local population in which they were practiced.
I would further posit that "relativism" is a form of fundamentalism; or perhaps more accurately they are two sides of the same coin and function much like matter and anti-matter in the old Star Trek series; mix them and say goodbye to the universe as we know it. If relativism says "let's agree to disagree" and fundamentalism says "you simply don't understand", there can be no bridge between them. Furthermore, if the outer edges of relativism were reached (the 16 year old boy has has his narrative and the Congressman has his narrative and each are equally valid); or the outer reaches of fundamentalism were reached (achieving compliance at the point of a gun and the threat of death) on a wide enough scale we would all be working out our self-actualized rim-jobs as we prepare to kiss our asses goodbye.
I start here to be clear that neither a fundamentalist view nor a relativist view can hold a valid or workable response to the current struggle between America (or more accuratele "the West") and Radicalizeed Islam.
This is to say that I reject the assertion that there is a valid "point of view" for someone who would use airplanes to kill innocent people. I furthermore reject that there is a valid "point of view" for someone who would willingly participate in the wholesale slaughter of tens of thousands of Iraqi non-combatants under the excuse that "we're at war with Islamic Fundamentalism" or "our way of life is under siege".
The thought that America can simply encourage Islam to "moderate" itself at the behest of the West (given enough money or enough televisions and air conditioners or through the application of enough gun-barrel democracy) and come to appreciate our obviously more modern thoughts on equality and political expression and familial culture and economy is hopelessly naieve and misses the point entirely of those who fight modernity and westernization.
It occurs to me that the point of the fury broiling in the Middle East is precisely that the west (led by America and its allies) refuses to understand that to demand the sort of cultural changes we blithely attempt to impose throughout the Middle East is to strike at the very heart of belief within Islam. In many off-handed and potentially unintended ways, we Americans are asking Muslims to abandon their faith and values for our faith and values. Where Islam prizes most highly piety and in fact believes infidels to be impious and therefore beneath Islam (concepts admittedly foreign to Westerners which carry, in our world view, some morally or ethically repugnant baggage such as the inequality of women and the lack of respect for personal or individual freedoms), Westerners prize most highly individuality and material progress (concepts admittedly foreign to Islam which in the mind of the Muslim carry morally or ethically repugnant baggage such as a demonstrated lack of respect for God above commerce, lack of respect for the "Godly" order of family life and a lack of respect for stable community structure). The West simply doesn't get that imposing its value structure on those who follow Islam might strike at the very heart of its belief system and is shocked when the reaction is a violent attempt to protect an Islamic world view?
I am not saying these things as an apologist for heinous acts of barbaric men, but instead to point out that there is a fundamental difference between the wars we are fighting. America believes it is fighting an ideology (radical Islam's hatred of modernity) and radical Islam believes it is fighting a war of religion (jihad and the battle against the impious interloper on native lands). Until either America removes from its fight the language of conversion (politically and culturally) and essentially drops its demands that the acceptance of Democratic ideology is the only way to win a just and lasting peace, portions of Islam will continue to be radicalized in defense of its core belief structure.
Finally, I would completely reject that Americans or Christians have a corner on access to the ear of God and point you to a quote:
..."each prays to the same God and each invokes His name against the other. The prayers of both cannot be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."
Yes, the quote is Lincoln's, from his 2nd inauguration address. Yes the quote concerns the Civil War. However, the point quite clearly can be applied to the current rantings regarding the rightness of our cause and the evilness of Islam (as expressed by Churchill's words to which you sent me a link). God cannot be on both sides at once and indications are that he is tilting neither east nor west in this fight.
There is no value in demonizing a population of humans who believe differently from you or I. There is no value in dehumanizing the suffering we inflict on the world with a defense that essentially whines "but they started it" and there is no future in continuing to support the very institutions (partnerships between the politically corrupt and dictatorial and the business of oil extraction) that offer convenient excuses for the fury and hopelessness which leads men to acts of utter barbarism.
You (and my friend Chris whom I've included here in this distribution list) have mentioned that Germany and Japan are good examples of how America can remake societies at the point of a gun. I could not disagree more. While WWII was fought to the very doors of power in each country, winning the peace was accomplished by removing those circumstances that gave rise to the xenophobia and aggression that welled up in "the man on the street" in both Germany and Japan. Economics and a sensitivity to local culture (an understading that Germany was to retain its ethnic German center or Japan would retain its emperor) played large roles in pacifying these two countries. Populations jobs to do and possessions to defend AND with their core belief structure intact don't go looking for trouble. We can support economic and some political reform, but only as far as the nations or cultures allow it to go within the strictures of their underlying shared morality.
In the end, safety from radicalism cannot and will not be accomplished through hate or violence or a refusal to understand that, yes, the Muslims love their children too and Muslims pray to a God they revere.
kacz
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy."
...and it doesn't get much more flattering from there. I presume the point that was this friend was trying to make was that what is done in the name of fighting radical Islam is morally right and can be aligned with an ethical world view given the obvious decadence of the Islamic world view.
Here is an open letter in response to this assertion, and to Mr. Churchill's 116 year old wrongheaded views:
Steve:
I'm finally getting back to the question you pose regarding our current clash between civilizations; to the provocations entwined in Churchill's view of Islam (penned over 100 years ago at a time no one would call "enlightened") and to my own view of the challenges that face us as Americans in an undeniably unsettled world.
I think to begin, I would like to posit that the market on "fundamentalism" or "radicalism" is not cornered by those who follow Islam. If "fundamentalism" is characterized by a desire to return to a "taken-for-granted" body of beliefs, a desire to achieve or impose a set of (locally) homogeneous moral or ethical cultural strictures; then there are plenty of fundamentalist examples in our own history. The Christian Right or "moral majority" (which is neither strictly moral nor in the majority except when one considers the majority of flapping lips driven by vapid or bankrupt ideals) of our time; the Christian fundamentalists of late 19th and early 20th century; the dark ages of the Church; the Puritanical movement of the 16th through the 18th centuries are all "fundamentalist" in nature and have, at varying levels had the same negative impact on the local population in which they were practiced.
I would further posit that "relativism" is a form of fundamentalism; or perhaps more accurately they are two sides of the same coin and function much like matter and anti-matter in the old Star Trek series; mix them and say goodbye to the universe as we know it. If relativism says "let's agree to disagree" and fundamentalism says "you simply don't understand", there can be no bridge between them. Furthermore, if the outer edges of relativism were reached (the 16 year old boy has has his narrative and the Congressman has his narrative and each are equally valid); or the outer reaches of fundamentalism were reached (achieving compliance at the point of a gun and the threat of death) on a wide enough scale we would all be working out our self-actualized rim-jobs as we prepare to kiss our asses goodbye.
I start here to be clear that neither a fundamentalist view nor a relativist view can hold a valid or workable response to the current struggle between America (or more accuratele "the West") and Radicalizeed Islam.
This is to say that I reject the assertion that there is a valid "point of view" for someone who would use airplanes to kill innocent people. I furthermore reject that there is a valid "point of view" for someone who would willingly participate in the wholesale slaughter of tens of thousands of Iraqi non-combatants under the excuse that "we're at war with Islamic Fundamentalism" or "our way of life is under siege".
The thought that America can simply encourage Islam to "moderate" itself at the behest of the West (given enough money or enough televisions and air conditioners or through the application of enough gun-barrel democracy) and come to appreciate our obviously more modern thoughts on equality and political expression and familial culture and economy is hopelessly naieve and misses the point entirely of those who fight modernity and westernization.
It occurs to me that the point of the fury broiling in the Middle East is precisely that the west (led by America and its allies) refuses to understand that to demand the sort of cultural changes we blithely attempt to impose throughout the Middle East is to strike at the very heart of belief within Islam. In many off-handed and potentially unintended ways, we Americans are asking Muslims to abandon their faith and values for our faith and values. Where Islam prizes most highly piety and in fact believes infidels to be impious and therefore beneath Islam (concepts admittedly foreign to Westerners which carry, in our world view, some morally or ethically repugnant baggage such as the inequality of women and the lack of respect for personal or individual freedoms), Westerners prize most highly individuality and material progress (concepts admittedly foreign to Islam which in the mind of the Muslim carry morally or ethically repugnant baggage such as a demonstrated lack of respect for God above commerce, lack of respect for the "Godly" order of family life and a lack of respect for stable community structure). The West simply doesn't get that imposing its value structure on those who follow Islam might strike at the very heart of its belief system and is shocked when the reaction is a violent attempt to protect an Islamic world view?
I am not saying these things as an apologist for heinous acts of barbaric men, but instead to point out that there is a fundamental difference between the wars we are fighting. America believes it is fighting an ideology (radical Islam's hatred of modernity) and radical Islam believes it is fighting a war of religion (jihad and the battle against the impious interloper on native lands). Until either America removes from its fight the language of conversion (politically and culturally) and essentially drops its demands that the acceptance of Democratic ideology is the only way to win a just and lasting peace, portions of Islam will continue to be radicalized in defense of its core belief structure.
Finally, I would completely reject that Americans or Christians have a corner on access to the ear of God and point you to a quote:
Yes, the quote is Lincoln's, from his 2nd inauguration address. Yes the quote concerns the Civil War. However, the point quite clearly can be applied to the current rantings regarding the rightness of our cause and the evilness of Islam (as expressed by Churchill's words to which you sent me a link). God cannot be on both sides at once and indications are that he is tilting neither east nor west in this fight.
There is no value in demonizing a population of humans who believe differently from you or I. There is no value in dehumanizing the suffering we inflict on the world with a defense that essentially whines "but they started it" and there is no future in continuing to support the very institutions (partnerships between the politically corrupt and dictatorial and the business of oil extraction) that offer convenient excuses for the fury and hopelessness which leads men to acts of utter barbarism.
You (and my friend Chris whom I've included here in this distribution list) have mentioned that Germany and Japan are good examples of how America can remake societies at the point of a gun. I could not disagree more. While WWII was fought to the very doors of power in each country, winning the peace was accomplished by removing those circumstances that gave rise to the xenophobia and aggression that welled up in "the man on the street" in both Germany and Japan. Economics and a sensitivity to local culture (an understading that Germany was to retain its ethnic German center or Japan would retain its emperor) played large roles in pacifying these two countries. Populations jobs to do and possessions to defend AND with their core belief structure intact don't go looking for trouble. We can support economic and some political reform, but only as far as the nations or cultures allow it to go within the strictures of their underlying shared morality.
In the end, safety from radicalism cannot and will not be accomplished through hate or violence or a refusal to understand that, yes, the Muslims love their children too and Muslims pray to a God they revere.
kacz
08/10/06: A Brief Segue Into More Superman Lore
So a friend and I were talking about Superman; trying to come up with his greatest super-power. Was it super strength? Super-sonic speed? X-Ray vision (for my single friend, a definite plus)? Imperviousness to bullets? While all of these are great strengths, we decided that the greatest strength of all of Superman's abilities is the Super-Kiss(TM) as demonstrated in Superman II.
In Superman II, Lois Lane finds out who Clark Kent really is, falls in love with Superman (gets impregnated as it turns out (more here)) and is heart-broken when she realizes she can never really have the relationship she wants with Superman. So, to ease Lois' pain, Superman plants a big sloppy on her lips. A few seconds later she forgot all about her feelings for Superman; her feelings of abandonment; her feelings of loneliness.
Wow. Kiss a woman and she forgets all about her feelings. Damn...
(After 14 mostly happy years of marriage, I can tell you, this would be a good power to possess)
In Superman II, Lois Lane finds out who Clark Kent really is, falls in love with Superman (gets impregnated as it turns out (more here)) and is heart-broken when she realizes she can never really have the relationship she wants with Superman. So, to ease Lois' pain, Superman plants a big sloppy on her lips. A few seconds later she forgot all about her feelings for Superman; her feelings of abandonment; her feelings of loneliness.
Wow. Kiss a woman and she forgets all about her feelings. Damn...
(After 14 mostly happy years of marriage, I can tell you, this would be a good power to possess)
06/16/06: Providing for the Common Defense
Clearly, given the dangers presented by organized and energized terror organizations in action around the world (including our own home-grown varieties) providing for the common defense is a sober and serious mission. Americans cannot fully enjoy the liberty promised by our Constitution and our shared national sacrifice if they cannot be free of fear.
However, it is interesting to note that the framers of our Constitution and for most of our history the protectors of our Constitution, from civilian governing leadership through the rank and file of our nation's military, considered "defense" to be the operative word in the pact between our government and its citizens.
Now, America is engaged with a concept of "Pre-emptive Intervention", the policy of the current Administration, suppported by a wide margin in both houses and along both aisles of Congress, that clearly lacks historical or Constitutional support. In fact, pre-emptive intervention is not a new concept, but it is associated with some of the darkest stains on the record of America's foreign and domestic dealings. Stretching from the wholesale slaughter of indigenous populations on the North American continent to territorial wars with Mexico and Spain (in the Phillipines and Cuba) to Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq, offensive and pre-emptive intervention has from time to time been a policy of America and its people. However, history will note that in each case the trauma caused by each of these adventures far out-weighed the realized benefits, and again, in each case, it is doubtful that pursuit of these policies contributed to the common defense of the American enterprise.
To gaze at history for a moment longer, the framers of the Constitution were quite clear about the powers of war and the use of military assets to secure the common good.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
-- The US Constitution: article 1, section 8
the whole power of raising armies was lodged in the legislature, not in the executive;
-- Alexander Hamilton: Federalist Papers #24
However, the last war declared by Congress occurred between December 8, 1941 (the day America declared war on Japan, followed 3 days later by a declaration of war on Germany and Italy) and September 2, 1945 (the day Japan formally surrendered to allied forces, preceded some 5 months by the surrender of German forces on May 8, 1945). Korea, VietNam, Desert Storm, Afghanistan and "Mission Accomplished in Iraq" were all undeclared military actions.
So, in providing for the common defense, we find our country engaged in pre-emtive aggression which aim has morphed from "a mandate to sieze heinous weapons of mass distruction" to "battling a new front on the war on terror (and if opening a new front while creating a larger population of terrorists was the aim, then America has been wildly successful on this count) to "the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the world". And yet, again, it is doubtful that with nearing 3,000 American and countless tens of thousands of Iraqi non-combatants dead, America's protectors have truly provided for the common defense of our country.
So, what's the point? Providing for the common defense of America cannot include mindless and thoughless crusades for a Democracy that cannot be arrived at through use of force nor grow where the prerequisites for Democracy do not exist (cultural respect for the rule of law, a society willing to accept defeat on the political battlefield, working institutions of governance and a judiciary and a free and vigorous press).
America cannot provide for the common defense, while subverting the Constitution (through the use of Executive fiat to engage troups) or abdicating Constitution responsibility (Congress' refusal to accept its role in committing troups).
America cannot provide for the common defense by ignoring our history or failing to understand the true source and nature of the challenges it now faces.
America cannot fight a battle for Democracy by undermining the very principles on which our Democracy is based.
America cannot effectively fight a war on terrorist organizations without clearly understanding the motivations and goals of these organizations.
America cannot fight a war on terrorist organizations by supporting the very systems of economic and social inequality that gave rise to and feeds these organizations.
Providing for the common defense means a rethinking of our policies and actions. America speaks best when it speaks truth. America leads best when it leads by example. When America does fight, it must do so in defense of its people and not as an imposition of its ideals or economic will.
See also: The Social Contract
However, it is interesting to note that the framers of our Constitution and for most of our history the protectors of our Constitution, from civilian governing leadership through the rank and file of our nation's military, considered "defense" to be the operative word in the pact between our government and its citizens.
Now, America is engaged with a concept of "Pre-emptive Intervention", the policy of the current Administration, suppported by a wide margin in both houses and along both aisles of Congress, that clearly lacks historical or Constitutional support. In fact, pre-emptive intervention is not a new concept, but it is associated with some of the darkest stains on the record of America's foreign and domestic dealings. Stretching from the wholesale slaughter of indigenous populations on the North American continent to territorial wars with Mexico and Spain (in the Phillipines and Cuba) to Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq, offensive and pre-emptive intervention has from time to time been a policy of America and its people. However, history will note that in each case the trauma caused by each of these adventures far out-weighed the realized benefits, and again, in each case, it is doubtful that pursuit of these policies contributed to the common defense of the American enterprise.
To gaze at history for a moment longer, the framers of the Constitution were quite clear about the powers of war and the use of military assets to secure the common good.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
-- The US Constitution: article 1, section 8
the whole power of raising armies was lodged in the legislature, not in the executive;
-- Alexander Hamilton: Federalist Papers #24
However, the last war declared by Congress occurred between December 8, 1941 (the day America declared war on Japan, followed 3 days later by a declaration of war on Germany and Italy) and September 2, 1945 (the day Japan formally surrendered to allied forces, preceded some 5 months by the surrender of German forces on May 8, 1945). Korea, VietNam, Desert Storm, Afghanistan and "Mission Accomplished in Iraq" were all undeclared military actions.
So, in providing for the common defense, we find our country engaged in pre-emtive aggression which aim has morphed from "a mandate to sieze heinous weapons of mass distruction" to "battling a new front on the war on terror (and if opening a new front while creating a larger population of terrorists was the aim, then America has been wildly successful on this count) to "the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the world". And yet, again, it is doubtful that with nearing 3,000 American and countless tens of thousands of Iraqi non-combatants dead, America's protectors have truly provided for the common defense of our country.
So, what's the point? Providing for the common defense of America cannot include mindless and thoughless crusades for a Democracy that cannot be arrived at through use of force nor grow where the prerequisites for Democracy do not exist (cultural respect for the rule of law, a society willing to accept defeat on the political battlefield, working institutions of governance and a judiciary and a free and vigorous press).
America cannot provide for the common defense, while subverting the Constitution (through the use of Executive fiat to engage troups) or abdicating Constitution responsibility (Congress' refusal to accept its role in committing troups).
America cannot provide for the common defense by ignoring our history or failing to understand the true source and nature of the challenges it now faces.
America cannot fight a battle for Democracy by undermining the very principles on which our Democracy is based.
America cannot effectively fight a war on terrorist organizations without clearly understanding the motivations and goals of these organizations.
America cannot fight a war on terrorist organizations by supporting the very systems of economic and social inequality that gave rise to and feeds these organizations.
Providing for the common defense means a rethinking of our policies and actions. America speaks best when it speaks truth. America leads best when it leads by example. When America does fight, it must do so in defense of its people and not as an imposition of its ideals or economic will.
See also: The Social Contract
06/05/06: The Fight Over Gay Marriage
I recently engaged in a heated conversation with one of the persons helping me out with Running about the brewing battle over gay marriage in the US. To be sure, this is an issue fraught with all sorts of cultural, religious and societal potholes and thus, in some ways, only a great fool would wade in too deeply. However, in other respects, a candidate for leadership must be able to articulate a position that is sensitive not to the howling masses of predjudice or political expedience but to the nature and direction of our democracy and the needs of our citizens. So, here goes...
The history of marriage springs from ancient religious belief about the nature of relationships between persons (admittedly persons of differing sexes). Our government's intrusion into the marriage contract is relatively recent in this context and consists mostly of ensuring that the marriage contract is valid across state boundaries while also providing a legal framework for rights of survivorship and inheritance, rights of guardianship over the partners to- and offspring of the union and making some tax consideration for marriage. The legal basis for recognizing marriages is founded on the concept of common-law partnership.
Now, the libertarian view is that given "marriage" is not primarily of a civic, but religious history, the term marriage could not be co-opted to support those unions that those religions that spawned our modern term marriage find out of step with the nature of marriage. This is not to say that I believe gay union is out of step with nature or our culture, only that "owners" of the term "holy matrimony" or "marriage" have a defensible claim to it's meaning and application.
The argument for the use of the term "marriage" as applied to the union between two persons of the same gender, at least within the Running campaign team, follows the logic of extending all rights and protections of citizenship to all citizens as demonstrated during the civil rights battles of the 20th century. The argument states that civil rights legislation can thus serve as a model to support the extension of the meaning of "marriage" to include anything the state deems necessary or appropriate. However, the counter argument (my arugument) to this is that Dr. King, as the most recognizable leader of this civil rights movement, did not (primarily) try to appropriate religious symbols of his day to support his demand for equality and justice and racial peace. He was demanding full access to civil rights previously guaranteed him by the Constitution of the United States, a social contract to which we Americans are all a party. Religion provides no such universal rights to the word or spirit of the term "marriage".
Instead, the libertarian viewpoint should be that the government's responsibility is to provide an equal legal framework for recognizing the union between two people regardless of religion or gender, effectively extending the rights of guardianship, survivorship, ownership and taxation to all.
It is unconscionable to expect that honest people of honest faith give up their symbols (including the term marriage) simply because the culture or the government says they must. This would be tantamount to State sanction and compulsion of the use of the Star of David for neo-Nazi demonstrations.
What the State can and should do is provide the same protections and benefits to all citizens regardless of gender or persuasion (something to which Dr. King no doubt would agree). Therefore, if one wishes to change the use of the term marriage, it must be done not through the courts or the Congress or the Constitution, but in the jurisdiction from which this term has been given life; that is in the churches, synagogues and mosques of the religions that spawned the concept and it's religious meanings.
Better then to focus our political attention on expunging the term "marriage" from civil life, leaving that overloaded term to the purview of it's owners. Better it is to remove "marriage" from daily civic use, replacing it instead with the term "civil union" for all who wish to have such a union recognized by the state for the purpose of protecting the party's rights of guardianship, survivorship, inheritance and any tax benefit (if any) that accrue from such recognition.
I am against compelling a person of strong faith to accept that his or her concept of marriage or "holy matrimony" be used in ways unintended. I am for the State's extension of the same protections and benefits of personal unions to all manner of relationships.
see also:
Securing the Blessing of Liberty
The history of marriage springs from ancient religious belief about the nature of relationships between persons (admittedly persons of differing sexes). Our government's intrusion into the marriage contract is relatively recent in this context and consists mostly of ensuring that the marriage contract is valid across state boundaries while also providing a legal framework for rights of survivorship and inheritance, rights of guardianship over the partners to- and offspring of the union and making some tax consideration for marriage. The legal basis for recognizing marriages is founded on the concept of common-law partnership.
Now, the libertarian view is that given "marriage" is not primarily of a civic, but religious history, the term marriage could not be co-opted to support those unions that those religions that spawned our modern term marriage find out of step with the nature of marriage. This is not to say that I believe gay union is out of step with nature or our culture, only that "owners" of the term "holy matrimony" or "marriage" have a defensible claim to it's meaning and application.
The argument for the use of the term "marriage" as applied to the union between two persons of the same gender, at least within the Running campaign team, follows the logic of extending all rights and protections of citizenship to all citizens as demonstrated during the civil rights battles of the 20th century. The argument states that civil rights legislation can thus serve as a model to support the extension of the meaning of "marriage" to include anything the state deems necessary or appropriate. However, the counter argument (my arugument) to this is that Dr. King, as the most recognizable leader of this civil rights movement, did not (primarily) try to appropriate religious symbols of his day to support his demand for equality and justice and racial peace. He was demanding full access to civil rights previously guaranteed him by the Constitution of the United States, a social contract to which we Americans are all a party. Religion provides no such universal rights to the word or spirit of the term "marriage".
Instead, the libertarian viewpoint should be that the government's responsibility is to provide an equal legal framework for recognizing the union between two people regardless of religion or gender, effectively extending the rights of guardianship, survivorship, ownership and taxation to all.
It is unconscionable to expect that honest people of honest faith give up their symbols (including the term marriage) simply because the culture or the government says they must. This would be tantamount to State sanction and compulsion of the use of the Star of David for neo-Nazi demonstrations.
What the State can and should do is provide the same protections and benefits to all citizens regardless of gender or persuasion (something to which Dr. King no doubt would agree). Therefore, if one wishes to change the use of the term marriage, it must be done not through the courts or the Congress or the Constitution, but in the jurisdiction from which this term has been given life; that is in the churches, synagogues and mosques of the religions that spawned the concept and it's religious meanings.
Better then to focus our political attention on expunging the term "marriage" from civil life, leaving that overloaded term to the purview of it's owners. Better it is to remove "marriage" from daily civic use, replacing it instead with the term "civil union" for all who wish to have such a union recognized by the state for the purpose of protecting the party's rights of guardianship, survivorship, inheritance and any tax benefit (if any) that accrue from such recognition.
I am against compelling a person of strong faith to accept that his or her concept of marriage or "holy matrimony" be used in ways unintended. I am for the State's extension of the same protections and benefits of personal unions to all manner of relationships.
see also:
Securing the Blessing of Liberty
Depending on who you choose to believe; the world has between 44 and 250 years of oil supply left; the earth is warming at a rate that will cause severe ecological distress within the next few decades; health care costs in the US will bankrupt this country well before the baby boomers children have retired; the US economy will be dwarfed by China’s and perhaps even India’s by 2040; our government is in the hands of narrow-minded if not outright unscrupulous monied interests while pursuing a war under false pretenses and loading future generations with nearly 9 trillion dollars in debt; the economic ladder that served many generations of Americans is showing signs of weakness if not total distress as Americans find it more and more difficult to take advantage of an economic system that simply doesn’t work for everyone; and we have no friends left in the world…
What cannot be reasonably or intelligently debated are the facts that the future looks very different than the past, the future presents challenges more significant than any we've faced and the future is now.
What cannot be reasonably or intelligently debated are the facts that the future looks very different than the past, the future presents challenges more significant than any we've faced and the future is now.
To say that it is easy to find fault with the state of our country and its place in the world today would be an understatement. It is painfully easy, it is 6 year old easy, it is shooting fish in a barrel easy to look around and not find something to feel sick about regarding the direction or future of this country.
Easy, that is, unless you’re part of the top 1% of American households that controls 33% of America’s wealth or perhaps one of the top 10% of American households that control nearly 71% of the America’s wealth. However, if you’re one of the 40% of America’s households who together control only 1% of America’s total wealth; then it would be pretty easy to find fault with the direction and future of this country.
Now, there is no intention to pit economic classes against each other. In fact, any thinking person inhabiting the upper strata of America’s better off citizenry should be alarmed by the direction and future of this country. Terrorism knows no economic class. Global warming doesn't respect the size of bank accounts. Pandemics won't stop at the gates of America's affluent communities. The financial stress of the US government will affect all of its citizens.
No, these interlinked posts introduce the idea that our future is upon us and our future looks bleak if you listen only to the purveyors of worst-case scenarios BUT bold, honest and focused action can begin to rewrite our future. Our actions today can rewrite our future not as one of less and less for more and more; not as one of political unrest and uncertainty as we strive to acquire through negotiation or force the resources needed to power our future; not as one of increasing and potentially life-threatening damage to our planet; nor of one that loses the best of our Democracy in the name of security. Our actions today can create a future that rebuilds the economic ladder that leads to the American Dream, a future that spreads our values by example and not by the muzzle of a gun, a future that protects our environment while powering our cities and towns and factories and farms, a future that rebuilds a social contract that cares for the needs of our citizens while maintaining fiscal discipline and fiscal security.
In a series of interlinked posts, we’ll consider the following topics:
- The Interconnectedness of Many Things… An outline for considering energy policy in a complex, interconnected world.
- The Social Contract… An introduction to the responsibilities of a government to its people.
- Making votes last… Some insights into how regular Americans can take back the future. -- coming soon
These thoughts are not about the past; past sins, past problems, past deeds; it’s about the future. However, where current policy leads to future pain it will be our duty to point this out if only to provide a clear understanding as to why it’s the future, stupid…
