Tag Archives: immigration policy

Immigration Myths and Legends and NV gubernatorial candidates

Nevada Republicans apparently have managed to recruit not one but two profoundly flawed candidates for Governor — Dubious Dan Schwartz, author of an alternative budget so far out in right field it found itself in the parking lot, and Adam Laxalt, The Adelson candidate du jour.  AG Laxalt joins the bevy of Republican officials who find no reason to challenge the Trumpian decision on DACA.  Better still, he’s an associate of notorious ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio:

“To date, Laxalt has shown zero interest in protecting Nevada’s DREAMers. In 2015, Laxalt added the State of Nevada to a lawsuit opposing President Obama’s immigration executive action with the goal of deporting DREAMers and tearing immigrant families apart. Laxalt is currently scheduled to appear this month at an event with disgraced former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a criminal and notorious bigot who racially profiled Latinos in Arizona.”

Laxalt and Schwartz do illustrate the topics Republicans want to talk about — immigrants, tax cuts, and the wedgies (guns and gays.)   Let’s focus on immigration for the moment.  Nevadans have been treated to a surfeit of salacious “alternative facts” on DACA, and some of the myths appear to have taken hold.  DACA encouraged child migration! — No, it didn’t.  DACA beneficiaries have taken jobs away from Americans — only if one buys into the Lump of Labor Fallacy.  Nor do DACA beneficiaries cost the American taxpayers much of anything — they aren’t eligible for federal means tested welfare, Medicaid, health care tax credits, or anything else.   Republicans sputter that ending DACA will keep us safer — however DACA requires a background check, no felonies, no serious misdemeanors, and only 2,139 of the 800,000 beneficiaries have lost permits because of criminal activity. The handy plastic brains show this amounts to 0.267%. [WaPo]

Looming on the dark horizon of GOP visions is the ever present phantasmagorical presence of More Immigrants.  Interesting isn’t it, that the danger always comes from (1) Mexico or Central America, or (2) Muslims.  However, as of 2015 about 15% of green card recipients were from Mexico, 7% came from China, 6.1% from India, 5.4% from the Philippines, and 5.2% from Cuba. [CNN] [see also DHS]  Little notice is given to the 4,765,000 immigrants of European origin. [MPO]

Enter the other conversation Republicans don’t want to have — racism in all its systemic, institutional, and individual forms.  The ultimate exercise in otiosity is to attempt to get a Republican candidate to admit that beneath their rhetoric about immigration is a deep layer of good old fashioned prejudice and racism.  European immigrants are ‘productive,’ Central American immigrants are ‘gang members.’  European immigrants ‘take opportunities,’ while Central American immigrants ‘take jobs.’  European and Asian immigrants are hard working, but Central American ones are potential criminals — as if Russian and Chinese organized crime operations are minimized by excluding discussion of their activities.

Who were the gangsters associated with the following?

“The suspects (+30) also face charges of extortion, gambling, narcotics trafficking, wire fraud, credit card fraud, and identity theft, according to law enforcement sources. Some of the charges carry a maximum penalty of decades in prison.”

No, not from Mexico, Central America, not MS 13 — they’re members of Russian organized crime in NYC.   There was some mention about the Chinese immigrants attempting to enter the US without documentation last August 27th. [ChicagoABC] Not much, nor is much said about Chinese organized crime moving into south eastern Asia.  For coverage of Australian-Chinese cooperation interdicting drug trafficking in the area one has to head to Australian or Chinese news sources.  Lets guess that the latest 13 tons of drugs captured weren’t all destined for Sydney and Melbourne?

However, broadening the focus on criminal activity to include a more global perspective doesn’t serve the purposes of the anti-immigration far right in the US, which voraciously consumes any and all news of Mexican and Central American criminal activity while minimizing the capacity of Asian and Russian gangs and cartels to wreak havoc.

Thus far candidate Schwartz has demonstrated his capacity to parrot talking points from the Trickle Down Hoax book of imaginary economics, while Laxalt has aligned himself with the Arpaio clan (a word carefully chosen) of racists and bigots.  Both are flawed, and both leave room for a centrist Democrat to make an effective run for Governor.

Advertisements

Comments Off on Immigration Myths and Legends and NV gubernatorial candidates

Filed under Immigration, Nevada politics, Politics

Imaginary Numbers for Imaginary Growth

I’m sorry but it’s time to type out, yet once more, how we calculate the annual growth rate for the real GDP, and no, there’s no imaginary quarterly or annualized growth rate for the real GDP.  Now that we’ve reviewed, the financial inanity of the current administration is highlighted by policies which are in direct variance with the stated goal of increased economic growth of 3%.

There are two numbers we absolutely need in order to have economic growth: Labor force increases; and, Labor Productivity increases.  The labor force is obvious, how many people of working age are in the workforce. Productivity pertains to how much can be produced by those workers.  For more information see this article from the St. Louis FED.  Suffice it to say that if the labor force growth is 0.5% and the productivity growth rate is o.5% then the economic growth rate will be 1%.

There are a couple of bits of Reality we need to introduce at this point in time: (1) The baby boom is over. (2) We are poised to severely limit our immigration.

As of 2015, the number of baby boomers ranges from 74.9 million to 82.3 million, depending on whether the generation begins with the birth year 1943 or 1946.” [CNN] No matter which year one assumes for the beginning, it was over by 1964-65.  Growth in the labor force has not, and may rationally not, increase at levels seen when the Boomers hit the job market. And, now they are exiting.  Those born in 1965 are now 52, with about 13 years left before retirement; those born during or before 1952 are presumably retired already. So, what is happening now?

“The US fertility rate has been in a steady decline since the post-World War II baby boom. Back at its height in 1957, the fertility rate was 122.9 births per 1,000 women. The latest quarterly CDC data also indicate the larger pattern of women having babies later in life. As birth rates increased among women in their 30s and 40s, the rate among teenagers and women in their 20s dropped.” [CNN]
The current rate is 59.8. There are factors associated with lower birth rates; for example, in developed nations urbanization is a factor — children aren’t a major need for their work in agricultural pursuits.  Another factor is the cost of raising the children, it’s more expensive to raise children in a developed country where those children don’t enter the labor force until they are in their late teens or twenties.  Further, the urbanization trend continues apace in the US. [Census] [Slate] More urbanization, more education, and we can’t reasonable expect a repetition of the Boom in the foreseeable future.
So, if we aren’t increasing our labor force via the old birth-rate route, then the other way is immigration, and this warning from the Los Angeles Times:

“Trump in his first weeks in office has launched the most dramatic effort in decades to reduce the country’s foreign-born population and set in motion what could become a generational shift in the ethnic makeup of the U.S. Trump and top aides have become increasingly public about their underlying pursuit, pointing to Europe as an example of what they believe is a dangerous path that Western nations have taken. Trump believes European governments have foolishly allowed Muslims with extreme views to settle in their countries, sowing seeds for unrest and recruitment by terrorist groups.”

This seems a polite way to say that the Trump administration would like very much to limit immigration to white Western Europeans. If we don’t allow immigration from Mexico and Central American nations, and we severely limit immigration from predominantly Muslim nations, then what’s left?

And, in terms of increasing the labor force, here’s where the policy and the reality clash. If we want an increase in the birth rate in order to increase our labor force, then the women having those babies are more likely to be foreign born immigrants to the US. [Pew]  We don’t get to have it both ways — limiting immigration both limits the number of people available for immediate employment, and the number of little people who will grow up to be a portion of our labor force. Once more with feeling, if we limit immigration we necessarily limit our economic growth.

One of the amazing things about conservative/trumpism ideology is the notion that elements diametrically opposed to one another may somehow be massaged by empty rhetoric into actuality.  Somehow, we are supposed to believe that we can have 3% economic growth while limiting our immigration unrealistically, and while continuing the urbanization of the country. Only in the fever swamp of right wing ethnocentric white supremacist thinking is this going to “happen.” And, the happen part is in quotation marks because this is Neverland.

So, no — we don’t get the deficit reduced by cutting taxes on corporations, millionaires, and billionaires. No, we don’t get a balanced budget by cutting non-defense discretionary spending, and NO we don’t get 3% economic growth by unrealistically impeding immigration.  2 + 2 does not equal 7.

Comments Off on Imaginary Numbers for Imaginary Growth

Filed under Economy, Immigration, Politics, Republicans

Respect Must Be Earned: ICE and CBP aren’t helping themselves

Law enforcement isn’t an easy job, not that it’s one of the most dangerous, it isn’t. The most dangerous job is logging, followed by commercial fishing, law enforcement ranks 15th on the list.  However, it’s not high on the popularity list in some quarters, and actions by ICE and the CBP aren’t helping.

Daniela Vargas was 7 years old when her family came from Argentina. That makes her a Dreamer, and supposedly protected from deportation under the current administration’s directives.  Her status, with a renewal application pending, should have been safe, but it wasn’t because she spoke out and was immediately detained by ICE for a “visa overstay.”

Sara Beltran Hernandez a 26 year old asylum seeker from El Salvador has been in detention for about 450 days, on February 10 she collapsed and was diagnosed with a brain tumor. [LAT] Report vary about the conditions under which she was held and her access to legal representation and family support. However, no one is disputing that she was shackled at one point until medical staff ask that the restraints be removed so her medical needs could be addressed.

Muhammad Ali Jr. was detained at a Florida airport by agents who asked him about his religion.  Ali, who was born in Philadelphia, was asked “How did you get your name?” The most obvious answer would be that he happened to be the son of Muhammad Ali, and American icon.  An American man, traveling with his American passport is detained by immigration agents?  Worse still, he’s asked about his religion. The agency denied he was detained because of his religion, but what else could it be?  Unless, of course, we’re going to start detaining and questioning all black travelers coming to America, or coming back to America?

Henry Rousso, born in Egypt, one of the pre-eminent scholars of the Holocaust was detained for almost ten hours and threatened with deportation by agents in Houston, TX.  The Houston CBP agents didn’t appear to understand that those academics who are paid a stipend to speak to conferences such as the one organized by Texas A&M, are allowed to travel on a tourist visa. The agents were described as “inexperienced”and Texas A&M officials were successful in providing the “inexperienced” ones with some on the job training.

Passengers on a domestic Delta Airlines flight were delayed at JFK airport on February 22nd, when CPB and ICE agents decided to check the identification of all passengers on the flight while looking for an individual — who was not on the flight.

All five of these incidents do not place either ICE or CBP in a kindly light as protectors of our national security.  In none of these incidents were any “bad hombres” detained and deported, not one.  What they do seem to indicate is that agents are insufficiently trained, questionably supervised, and now endowed with a sense of their own authority, sufficient to constitute a danger to our Constitution and the safety of our citizens.

If ICE and CBP agents want our respect they must do a better job of earning it.

 

Comments Off on Respect Must Be Earned: ICE and CBP aren’t helping themselves

Filed under Human Rights, Immigration, Politics

Monday Morning and The Press

There are several things of note this morning, probably the least important of which is the Blunder at the Oscars, although that’s one of the more entertaining.  Added to this is the current administration’s rather bombastic squabble with the press, however, this too is of more interest to the media itself than an actual matter of national interest.  In fact, some of the best political reporting is that which is done outside the confines of news conference spin sessions.   For example, in 1902-03 Ida Tarbell didn’t need to attend press conferences to expose the machinations of John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil. Nor did Upton Sinclair need a gaggle to write about the meatpacking industry in 1906.  In 1953 reporter Murrey Marder followed the serpentine trail of Senator Joe McCarthy and helped expose the duplicity of the Senator’s charges against the Army. Surely, the administration wasn’t applauding David Halberstam’s coverage of the war in Vietnam. Woodward and Bernstein weren’t following White House press gaggle threads to uncover the Watergate story, nor was Dana Priest relying on press releases about black sites in eastern European countries, or when she revealed conditions at Walter Reed Hospital.

In short, some of the very best reporting has resulted from investigations outside the walls of various and sundry executive offices.  There are stories still unfolding which may have an extraordinary effect on American politics and governance, and the information essential to their explication won’t come from anyone’s gaggle, no matter who is invited.

Suggestions?

#1. The Trump Russian connections.  As the Boston Globe opined:

“The issues raised by Trump’s Russia connection are some of the most serious that this country has ever confronted. We could have a president who is vulnerable to blackmail from Moscow and even worse, one who has committed treasonous offenses. As long as these questions go unanswered there will be a permanent black cloud over the White House — and the country.”

We could have a president subject to blackmail? We could have a president whose financial ties to Russian interests impact his decision making? We could have an administration so entangled with Russian financial and political entities that we have allowed an infringement on our own sovereignty?  Investigative journalism is necessary if we are to avoid that “permanent black cloud.”

#2. The rise of white nationalism/supremacism and the nature of Antisemitic acts and the assaults on Muslims and their mosques. If anything tears at the fabric of American civic life it’s the demonization of ethnic and religious minorities, and the tacit support for the demeaning and desecration of religious institutions.  No, the conservative white Christian establishment is not under “attack.” However, synagogues, mosques, and cemeteries  definitely and physically are.  Does the current administration bear some responsibility for emboldening the hateful people who commit these acts?  What steps must the federal government take to discredit and diminish the organizations which seek to perpetrate them?  We know a great deal about the membership, publications, and activities of these organizations, however we’re missing more essential writing on the impact these groups have in terms of radicalizing white nationalists. What motivated the current administration to shift law enforcement focus away from domestic terrorists and pay almost exclusive attention to foreign sources?  We may think we know the answers, but more reporting would be extremely useful.

#3. The impact of anti-immigrant fervor on American economic growth.  As noted in a previous post, the anti-immigrant plus anti-Muslim posture of the current administration could have significant effects on the tourism, agriculture, housing, and food service sectors. It’s going to take some research and analysis from business reporters to fully understand the impact of this posture on our economy.

#4. The assault on the institutions of democracy by those who promote vote suppression and gerrymandering.  Again, we have had more than enough examples of the blatant attempts to restrict the Right To Vote. The story is NOT about vote fraud, it’s about the fraudulent attempts to prevent people from voting.  The story is about a nationwide attempt, to deliberately freeze out qualified voters, eliminate them from the rolls, and prevent them from voting in convenient polling places, by a national political party and its myrmidons.

I need to immediately acknowledge that my list may not be everyone else’s list, and that I’ve left out topics like women’s reproductive health issues, health care access. and climate change, but there’s always room for MORE investigative journalism and more topics of national and international interest. Indeed, investigative journalists could turn the “tennis ball machine” back on the White House, and give the Oval Office a daily dose of its own distraction.  After all, a good offense is often a good defense.  Every session in which the administration has to justify its ties to Putin, has to explain the rise of white supremacists, has to speak to the economic impact of anti-immigrant policies, has to find ways to excuse vote suppression, is a session in which it has less opportunity to promote the Trickle Down Hoax and its embrace of Wall Street.  For that matter, why not add in more reporting about the administration’s efforts to promote Wall Street interests at the expense of Main Street?

Politics is, indeed, a contact sport and the sooner this administration finds out the truth of that old saw the better.

1 Comment

Filed under Economy, financial regulation, Immigration, Islam, Nativism, Politics, racism, Republicans, Vote Suppression

Gung Ho Isn’t Always The Way To Go

So, some ICE agents are saying that under the slackening of requirements for detentions the job is fun again?  This raises some serious questions about law enforcement in this country, the most significant of which may be: Is a person innocent until proven guilty? Or, is an immigrant guilty until he or she can “show papers?” There’s a related tangential question as well: Do we detain individuals on a selective basis, or do we round up greater numbers and risk “collateral” damage to those who have committed no felonious acts?

The Obama Administration focused on arresting, detaining, and deporting the very individuals the current administration says it is focused on — criminals engaged in felonious activities.  However, the “unshackling” appears to have emboldened some agents to engage in behaviors that sound more like the directive given by Arnaud Almaric, “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.” (Kill them all; let God sort them out.)

The anti-immigration rejoinder is often “they’ve all broken the law by being here,” and “we’re just enforcing what is already on the books.”  These generalities require closer inspection.  The first offense under 8 US Code 1325 is a misdemeanor, punishable by a possible jail sentence of less than one year.  It is not until there is  subsequent unlawful entry that the punishment reaches felony level.  Some of the more vocal anti-immigrant voices may want to refer to 8 US Code 1227 which outlines deport-able offenses. In light of at least one recent detention, it should be noted that there are waiver provisions for victims of domestic violence. Thus, the current administration has a decision to make.

Is it the policy of the administration to round up and deport all those who are not authorized to be in this country? Or, is it the policy to detain and deport those who have committed felonious acts while residing here without authorization?  The actions of ICE agents seem to reflect the former, while the words coming our of the White House appear to be consistent with the latter.

Removing the “bad dudes” from our midst doesn’t look all that compatible with reports of:

  • ICE agents removing a Salvadoran brain tumor victim from a hospital and placing her in detention.
  • ICE agents detaining a victim of domestic violence who had gone to court to seek assistance, on a tip possibly coming from her abuser.

What is different from the enforcement procedures of the Obama Administration is that these incidents are more likely to occur because the requests for “collateral” arrests from ICE agents is now closer to being standard operating procedure. A 2011 memorandum restrains agents from making arrests in sensitive areas — churches, schools, etc. But, the problem, of course, is that under current guidelines ICE could use those areas as targets, lending unwarranted credence to the rumor mills.  Coordinated raids and collateral arrests are not something commonly witnessed during the Obama Administration, while the current administration could likely to utilize those processes.

Collateral arrests create collateral damage.  Some rumors of detentions at schools or other public places proved to be incorrect, but the more the agency uses large scale raids and arrests ‘collateral’ suspects, the less cooperation there is likely to be from members of the community when it comes to detaining and deporting those truly worthy of being deported.

A second unfortunate prospect is that local police forces, already stretched and strained by hiring limitations imposed by budget restraints, will find themselves asked to play additional roles in federal enforcement, adding logistical issues to the possibility of less local community cooperation on other matters.

Until there is more clarity, and far less bombast, from the administration on the extent and justification for collateral arrests the situation may continue to be ripe for rumor mills, and fears among immigrant communities that “papers please” will be injudiciously applied to anyone fitting a “profile” including legal residents and US citizens.

Collateral arrests may also have unintended economic consequences, in agriculture, in tourism, in restaurants, and in real estate. In short, the old saw “Be Careful What You Wish For” may be applicable in this instance.  Short term gains for political grandstanding purposes could transform into long term losses for several sectors of the US economy.

Gung Ho may be popular with some rank and file ICE employees, but it may very well prove to be the sort of gloss that corrodes the underlying credibility of the agency in the long run.  There need to be some adults in the room as we have this discussion, some adults who can reach compromise positions on comprehensive immigration policy reform, and can curtail some of the excesses of the advocates for collateral arrests.

Comments Off on Gung Ho Isn’t Always The Way To Go

Filed under Immigration, Politics

Bait Switch Switch Bait: Trump’s Wall

It’s not like the discussion of immigration is some theoretical exercise in Nevada; the population is 28.1% Hispanic (as of 2015.)  Discussions about “building a wall” present blatantly white supremacist imagery to some and a direct threat to the familial security of others. 

Along this spectrum there are economic concerns (they take jobs) although we know from economic studies immigration tends to create jobs. [Atlantic, Business Insider, AmImC] Also there’s a spectrum of anti-immigration fervor reaching back to the ages when “the French would spread their revolution,” the “Germans refused to speak English,” “No Irish Need Apply,” Italians, Jews, and Eastern Europeans were not to be trusted; and, the Chinese were to be excluded.  Trumpsterism taps into this egregious strain of American political thought and was manifest in “Build the Wall.”

The Something For Nothing crowd was also appeased by the notion that the Mexican government was somehow supposed to pay for this.  How much of this was an almost pure con job is well illustrated by comments made by candidate Trump back in January 2016:

“Mr. Trump invents his positions as he goes along. His supporters say they don’t care. What they may not know is how deliberately he is currying their favor. At a meeting with The Times’s editorial writers, Mr. Trump talked about the art of applause lines. “You know,” he said of his events, “if it gets a little boring, if I see people starting to sort of, maybe thinking about leaving, I can sort of tell the audience, I just say, ‘We will build the wall!’ and they go nuts.” [NYT]

Nuts they may have gone, but the Mexican government has made it clear since August 12, 2015 it has no intention of paying for any wall Trump may construct.  The Mexican government restated this point on November 9, 2016:

“Foreign Minister Claudia Ruiz Massieu reiterated that Mexico would not pay for Trump’s proposed wall along the U.S. border. The threat that Mexico will pay for the wall was a key feature of his stump speeches.” [ADN]

As it became ever more obvious that the Mexican government wasn’t going to get out its check book, the Trump campaign offered other suggestions as to how “Mexico would pay.”

If the Mexican government refused to write a check for the wall, of say $5 to $10 billion, then the administration would include wire transfers as part of a plan to disallow monetary transfers from the U.S. to Mexico made by undocumented individuals.  The obvious problem with this approach is that there is nothing to prevent someone who is a legal resident or citizen of the U.S. from making the transfer.

“It’s an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5 (billion)-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year,” Trump said on his campaign website.” [Politifact]

It’s just as easy a decision to have someone who is a citizen or legal resident facilitate the transfer.  It’s also unclear what percentage of the transfers are already made by those who are in this country perfectly legally, and what percentage comes from those who are without documents.

Okay, if this is fuzzy, then Trump added another element – fees.

“Trump said on his campaign website that he would generate money for the wall by increasing fees for visas and border crossing cards and by enforcing trade tariffs.Experts have told us there isn’t a connection between the U.S.-Mexico trade deficit (about $50 billion) and finding money for a wall.”  [Politifact]

There’s no connection between trade and “the wall” construction, and increasing fees for visas and border crossing cards isn’t likely to generate the kind of revenue needed to say “the Mexicans paid for it.”  Nor did the Trump campaign clarify that border crossing cards are also issued to Canadians.  Eventually we have to get to the matter of how much this proposal is going to cost – anyone or everyone.

If his followers had pictures of a “really high” precast concrete wall, they were shortly to be faced with a shrinking image.

“Trump has said the wall could cost $8 billion to $12 billion, be made of precast concrete, and rise 35 to 40 feet, or 50 feet, or higher. He’s said the wall doesn’t need to run the nearly 2,000 miles of the border, but half of that because of natural barriers.”  [Politifact]

Now it’s only half the 2000 mile border… pedestrian fencing costs range from $400,000 to $15.1 million per mile (average $3.9 million per mile) and vehicle fencing ranges from $200,000 to $1.8 million per mile. “Topography, type of fencing and materials used, land acquisitions and labor costs all impact costs per mile.” [Politifact] [GAO pdf]

By January 2017 the Wall was reduced to fencing.

“Most experts viewed such promises as unrealistic and impractical, and Trump himself sometimes allowed that the wall would not need to span the entire length of the border, thanks to natural barriers like rivers. After winning the election, he said he’d be open to stretches of fencing.”  [TPM]

Thus much for the precast concrete rising from 35 to 50 feet.  And, who’s going to pay for it? At the moment it’s the American taxpayer:

“Under the evolving plan, the Trump administration would rely on existing legislation authorizing fencing and other technology along the southern border. Congress would be asked to ensure that enough money is appropriated to take additional new steps — but would not pass a stand-alone bill authorizing a big new wall. CNN separately reported that Trump would ask Congress to appropriate US tax payer money to pay for the “wall”.” [TPM AP]

The evolution is almost complete. From Wall to Fence. From Mexico to U.S. taxpayer.  The president-elect intends to “negotiate” with the Mexican government about paying for it.  

“We’re going to get reimbursed,” Mr. Trump said during a brief telephone interview. “But I don’t want to wait that long. But you start, and then you get reimbursed.” [NYT]

He now says:

“In the interview, the president-elect insisted that Mexico would ultimately reimburse the United States. He said that payment would most likely emerge from his efforts to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with the Mexican government.

“It’s going to be part of everything,” Mr. Trump said of the cost of building the wall. “We are going to be making a much better deal. It’s a deal that never should have been signed.” [NYT]

We already know that there’s no realistic connection between trade deficits and money to “build a wall,” or even to stretch a fence.  Here are a few of those previously cited experts:

“Trump’s connection of the trade deficit with a Mexican border fence is just nonsense,” said Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Just because the Mexican economy has a trade surplus relative to the United States doesn’t mean the Mexican government has the resources to build a border wall. It would be like me threatening my neighbor to build a new fence or else I’ll stop shopping at Walmart.”  

Mark Perry, a University of Michigan professor and scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said the trade deficit is based mostly on trading and investment by private individuals and companies — not the government itself.

“It’s not like there is $54 billion sitting around somewhere in Mexico, like a magic pile of dollars, that could be used to build a wall,” he said.

The Mexican government does not have adequate funds to pay for health, education or roads — much less build a wall, said Gary Hufbauer of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a think tank that analyzes globalization.

“The trade surplus does not represent money in some idle bank account controlled by the Mexican government,” he said.” [Politifact]

What are we going to do? “Stretch a Fence!” Who’s going to pay for it? We are!

Comments Off on Bait Switch Switch Bait: Trump’s Wall

Filed under Immigration, Nevada, Nevada politics

Heck’s Campaign: Saddled with Trump?

Heck Trump

Let’s start with the fact that 27.8% of Nevada’s population is of Hispanic or Latino descent.[Census] And, that of the 2,890,845 people in this state some 49.7% are women. [Census]  Now, add in information about voting demographics in this state:

    • From 2012 to 2016, voters of color will jump from 36 percent of the state’s electorate to 39.4 percent.
    • Asian American eligible voters will reach 11 percent of the Nevada electorate in 2016.
    • If the Latino vote share sees the same growth as is projected for the share of Latino eligible voters, more than one in five voters in the state in 2016, or 21.2 percent, will be Latino for the first time ever, up from 19 percent in 2012.

Not that the Heck campaign for the U.S. Senate would ever ask my advice, but I would offer this:  Given the statistics I would not advise doing anything to tick off women or people of Hispanic descent if I were to run for a statewide office in Nevada.  Nor would I try to hook my message on a mistake:

“End birthright citizenship. This remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration. By a 2:1 margin, voters say it’s the wrong policy, including Harry Reid who said “no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.” [Trump Campaign]

There are two problems herein.  It probably isn’t very helpful to attach oneself to a 1993 proposal about which the author said:

“Reid then talked about how, shortly thereafter, he was assailed at a town-hall meeting on his bill by Hispanic friends, and added, “I have done everything since that meeting in Las Vegas, in conversation with my wife, to undo my embarrassment.”  And, “In 1993, Reid’s bill died in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Reid has said it was the biggest mistake of his legislative career. It has come back to haunt him .” [DrmAct]

Secondly, there are some very serious possible consequences of tinkering with the concept of birthright citizenship.  It’s time for a reality check:

“The reality is this: Repealing birthright citizenship would create a self-perpetuating class that would be excluded from social membership for generations. Working with researchers at Pennsylvania State University, the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) has found that ending birthright citizenship for U.S. babies with two unauthorized immigrant parents would increase the existing unauthorized population by 4.7 million people by 2050. Crucially, 1 million would be the children of two parents who themselves had been born in the United States. Under a scenario denying U.S. citizenship to babies with one parent who is unauthorized, our analysis finds that the unauthorized population would balloon to 24 million in 2050 from the 11 million today.

This last finding alone should give pause. Touted by its supporters as a solution to reduce illegal immigration, repeal in fact would have the completely opposite effect.” [MP org]

Thus, instead of “fixing” a problem, the repeal proponents are advocating a “solution” which  exacerbates it.  If we need an example of how badly things can go wrong – look to the Japanese importation of Korean laborers in the 1940s and the subsequent denial of citizenship opportunities.  [UCDavisEdu]

And then there’s the issue with The Women.  It’s about power, asserting power, using power, and that of course means putting women “in their place:”

“Women labor under a cloud of Trump’s distrust. “I have seen women manipulate men with just a twitch of their eye—or perhaps another body part,” he wrote in Trump: The Art of the Comeback. Working moms are particularly lacking in loyalty, he believes, and thus do not make for good employees. “She’s not giving me 100 percent. She’s giving me 84 percent, and 16 percent is going towards taking care of children,” he told Mika Brzezinski. (Further evidence of his dim view of working moms: Trump once notoriously blurted that the pumping of breast milk in the office is “disgusting.”)”  [Slate]

One can only wonder what other gems are to be found in the archives of Howard Stern’s radio program?   So, we’re left with some questions candidate Heck should answer:

Do you support repealing birthright citizenship?  If so can you explain how its repeal will not create a permanent underclass of exploited workers?

Do you support the comments made by candidate Donald Trump on (1) working mothers?  (2) Which of the five different positions on the issue of abortion candidate Trump took in three days during late March/early April 2016 do you support? [WaPo] (3) How do you interpret candidate Trump’s life and life style as it relates to Family Values?

Comments Off on Heck’s Campaign: Saddled with Trump?

Filed under Heck, Immigration, Nevada politics, Politics