Schroedinger's Camel Spider

Doc In the Box carefully performs a scientific study.

Another Plan for Dealing With Illegal Immigrants

Consul-at-Arms presents the first part of his plan to deal with illegal immigration. Lots of good ideas.

Conservative Battle Fatigue?

Mark Tapscott talks about why it's hit and what to do about it.

Good stuff that I mostly agree with, particularly that it's the GOP in Congress that I'm tired of (except my own Senator Coburn is excellent, and my other two reps are pretty good). I'm also tired of fighting the same ideological battles over and over and over.

Any comments?

News? Well ...

Victor Davis Hanson covers WWII like much of the media is covering Iraq today. Here's a sample graph:

As we see thousands of Americans dying and our enemies still in power after four years of war, it is also legitimate to question the stewardship of Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Marshall. The Sherman tank tragedy, the daylight bombing fiasco, the absence of even minimally suitable anti-tank weapons and torpedoes — all these lapses came on his watch, and the man at the top must take full responsibility for mistakes that have now cost thousands of American lives. Indeed, it is not just that America has worse tanks and guns than our German enemies, but they are inferior even to the rockets and armor of our Soviet allies. The recent publication of “The Sherman Tank Scandal” follows other revelations published in “Asleep at the Philippines,” “The Flight of Gen. MacArthur,” “Gen. Patton and the Atrocities on Sicily,” “Do Americans Execute P.O.Ws?” “Torture on Guadalcanal,” “Incinerating Women and Children?” and “Civilian Massacres in Germany” — publications in their totality that suggest a military out of control as often as it is incompetent.

Meanwhile, Gaijin Biker reports that:

NEW YORK (Rooters) Popular political comedian Steven Colbert, who delivered a biting critique of President Bush at April's White House Correspondents Dinner, has been seized by US government agents.

According to a highly-placed State Department source, Mr. Colbert is believed to have been rendered to Uzbekistan ...

Yep.

Remember, folks, you read it here second ...

They're All Ugly, And Not

Jim Geraghty (in Turkey) let's it rip about the 'ugly American' myth.

I lived overseas for seven years; every nationality I've dealt with has its uglies, and the US is not the worst of them by far.

Part of the reason "the world" is down on Americans, instead of just our government, is the re-election of Bush. That's just the way it is, folks. Being nice isn't going to help because, frankly, most of them don't really care about Americans (we were stupid before, now we're stupid and evil), and if we were all killed by bovine flu or mad chicken disease tomorrow, there would be a collective snort and a 'well, it's a tragedy, but certainly if any nation deserved it ...' Followed, of course, by a mad scramble to see who could get what of our stuff.

Illegal Two-Steppin’

Step 1: Document the Undocumented; Stop the Inflow of Illegals

Pass legislation that:
1. Gets the wall between the US and Mexico built.

2. Makes it a felony to enter the US illegally from the date the legislation takes effect, and to be in the US illegally from 31 days after the legislation takes effect. Also makes it a felony to assist an illegal in avoiding law enforcement and immigration agencies, gives all police the jurisdiction to enforce this law, and, regardless of whether they enforce it or not, requires all law enforcement officers to report any contact with illegal aliens within 24 hours. Finally, make it prohibitively expensive, and a possible felony, to knowingly employ illegal aliens from 31 days after the law takes effect.

3. Gives all current illegal immigrants 30 days (count ‘em: three-zero) to:
a. Get the paperwork from their employer or a family member for sponsorship,
b. Get registered at their closest consulate,
c. Apply for and receive a special temporary worker visa from the US (issued automatically after a US criminal background check and two phone calls to check sponsorship and registration at their consulate).

4. Makes these special visas non-renewable (but see Step 2).

5. Requires employers to check every employee on the Social Security Administration database. The database software will be set up to issue receipts for valid matches, and those receipts must be placed in the employees’ files and copies submitted with tax documentation. Since handling all the special visas will take a huge amount of time, give employers six months to get all current employees registered, however, new employees must be checked from the date the legislation goes into effect.

6. Sets up a generous guest worker program that requires application from the country of origin, a sponsor / employer, and for which it is impossible to apply while on the special temporary worker visa (though see Step 2).

Step 2: Reciprocity and Normalization

1. Over the year after passage of the above legislation, have a congressional study group that will study immigration laws and economics in the countries that have large blocks of immigrants on these special temporary visas.

2. Make any further concession to the immigrants of these nations based on their home nation’s laws, make this policy explicit from the beginning, and take into account any change each individual nation takes towards immigration liberalization for Americans and economic improvement. For example, if, during that year, Mexico were to liberalize its immigration laws and allow Americans easy immigration, the same property and business ownership rights as Mexican citizens, and take steps to improve economic opportunities for the poor, then Mexican immigrants on special temporary visas in the US would most likely get an automatic year extension to their visas, and the restriction that they could not apply for guest worker visas while on special temporary visas would be removed. Of course, if Mexico didn’t change, well, fair’s fair. Our laws would still be more free and open than Mexico’s, and anytime anyone complained about the US deporting millions of Mexicans, we’d point that out and the great opportunity for its citizens on both sides of the border that the Mexican government chose to ignore.

In both steps, there would have to be exceptions made, for example, for refugees, or for nations with very few immigrants in the US on special visas (so threatening their deportation wouldn’t be a significant stimulus), etc.

I've left a lot out, but Dr. Demarche made some more good proposals that would complement mine well.

Update 5/17: It seems that Glenn Reynolds agrees with me.

###

Previous posts on this topic:
Mexican Immigration Law
Undocumented Migrants In Mexico Brutalized
Random Illegal Thoughts
Well, Heck
Illegal Immigration 1

The Beautiful Month of May ...

... begins with sorrow, terror and injustice. Catallarchy presents his annual 'Day of Remembrance' for the victims of communism with several articles on the topic.

New Terrorist Cell Must Be Factored In

Over at Sir Humphreys we find out about the dreaded Al-Gebra organization:

At New York's Kennedy Airport today, an individual later discovered to be a NYC public school teacher was arrested trying to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, protractor, set square, slide rule and calculator.

At a morning press conference, a White House spokesman said authorities believe the man is a member of the notorious Al-Gebra movement. The man is being charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of maths instruction.

Go learn more about this dreaded terrorist group.

Eeeww! Every Liberal's Dream ...

Every conservative's nightmare.

Most disturbing.

Mexican Immigration Law

Pardon My English sends us to a Center for Security Policy paper (in PDF), Mexico's Glass House, which is a good rundown on Mexican immigration policy and a recommendation that we reciprocate by asking Mexico to change its immigration laws, or changing our own to reflect Mexico's.

Some of those points are:
• Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse. [I.e., no demonstrations - PJ]
• Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights. (Limitations on the type of real estate and the percentage of certain types of companies non-citizens can own.)
• Immigrants are denied equal employment rights. (Hiring preferences for citizens.)
• Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
• Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service. (Non-citizens can't serve in the military, police forces, and even naturalized citizens are barred from serving in the legislature, supreme court, or as president -- for president, even your parents have to be native-born Mexican.)
• Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
• Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants)
and hand them to the authorities.
• Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.

http://www.directory.com.mx/immigration/ is webpage, maintained by pro-Mexico individuals, that details disparities in Mexican and US immigration law, and advocates Mexico change its immigration laws. What I find most interesting are some fairly clear indications of racism enshrined in Mexican law. Here are some interesting points:

Mexicans, and people of Mexican parentage can become dual citizens of Mexico and the USA. Nevertheless, U.S. citizens who are NOT of Mexican descent are still prohibited from becoming citizens of Mexico, unless they are willing to formally ... represent that they have renounced their U.S. citizenship. ... By the way, Article 20 I c) is an example of how Mexico gives preferential treatment to folks from Latin American nations or the Spanish peninsula when awarding nationality status versus their "gringo" competitors, despite the existence of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

We are not aware that Mexico allows foreign-born citizens to hold truly significant governmental posts, especially not if they are of non-Mexican ancestry and if they want to maintain dual citizenship elsewhere. In contrast, the U.S.A. has allowed various foreigners to hold truly prominent federal and gubernatorial offices without requiring that they renounce their citizenship abroad. Among them are Madeleine Albright, Henry Kissinger and Arnold Schwarzenegger. ...

Wouldn't our governents' finally addressing the abovementioned legal differences help elevate Mexico's $9,000 annual GDP per capita to more closely resemble the USA's $38,000 figure? We would like nothing better for our beloved friends in the USA's neighboring trading partner of Mexico than to see them get to leave their country only when they truly want to, instead of out of economic desperation. Is Mexico's current governmental administration doing nearly enough to help Mexico's people though?

Alan Wall, an American legally living and working in Mexico, tells the story of 18 Americans deported from Mexico for participating in a demonstration:

The Americans’ offense was to participate in May Day marches in Mexico City and Guadalajara. The ones in Mexico City were college students, visiting with their professor from Washington State. They had joined a group protesting the expropriation of land near Mexico City for a new airport and were waving machetes with the other protestors. They might have gotten away with it, except that some of them were heard on the TV news shouting protest slogans in broken Spanish, which in turn caused Mexican journalists to express outrage.

The INM wasted no time. The offenses were committed on May 1st, and by the evening of May 2nd, the offending gringos were on their way back to the U.S.A., their Mexican visas revoked.

Wall then goes on to show the heavy influence the Mexican government is exerting in the US through its 47 consulates and President Fox.

###

Apparently, Rush Limbaugh beat me to the punch on this one. I would link the article on his website, but it's members-only.

It seems to be going around. This is a well-written article!

'Undocumented Migrants' in Mexico Brutalized, Robbed by Officials

AP writer Mark Stevenson reports:

Undocumented Central American migrants complain much more about how they are treated by Mexican officials than about authorities on the U.S. side of the border, where migrants may resent being caught but often praise the professionalism of the agents scouring the desert for their trail. ...

Jose Ramos, 18, of
El Salvador, said the extortion occurs at every stop in Mexico, until migrants are left penniless and begging for food.

"If you're on a bus, they pull you off and search your pockets and if you have any money, they keep it and say, 'Get out of here,'" Ramos said.

Maria Elena Gonzalez, who lives near the tracks, said female migrants often complain about abusive police.

"They force them to strip, supposedly to search them, but the purpose is to sexually abuse them," she said.

Others said they had seen migrants beaten to death by police, their bodies left near the railway tracks to make it look as if they had fallen from a train.

The Mexican government acknowledges that many federal, state and local officials are on the take from the people-smugglers who move hundreds of thousands of Central Americans north, and that migrants are particularly vulnerable to abuse by corrupt police. ...

In the United States, mostly Mexican immigrants have staged rallies pressuring Congress to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants rather than making them felons and deputizing police to deport them. The Mexican government has spoken out in support of the immigrants' cause.

While Interior Secretary Carlos Abascal said Monday that "Mexico is a country with a clear, defined and generous policy toward migrants," the nation of 105 million has legalized only 15,000 immigrants in the past five years, and many undocumented migrants who are detained are deported.

Although Mexico objects to U.S. authorities detaining Mexican immigrants, police and soldiers usually cause the most trouble for migrants in Mexico, even though they aren't technically authorized to enforce immigration laws.

And while Mexicans denounce the criminalization of their citizens living without papers in the United States, Mexican law classifies undocumented immigration as a felony punishable by up to two years in prison, although deportation is more common.

(Mug tip to Wizbang.)

###

Related: My Mexican Immigration Law post and Some Random Illegal Thoughts.

45th Anniversary: La Brigada Asalto 2506

And the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

Val Prieto & co. at Babalu Blog (where else?) has it covered:

My father in law was a member of La Brigada 2506 and fought in the Bay of Pigs in what was called Operation Mongoose by the US Government. He has a million stories to tell, everything from the moment he decided to join La Brigada and fight for the freedom of Cuba, to the training, the embarcation, the invasion, the battle on the beaches, his capture and incarceration and the subsequent torture -- physical and mental -- at the hands of fidel castro, to his release and reunification with his wife and daughter here in the States. My words can do his story no justice, but someday it will be told. Until then, Edgar, Happy Birthday. The following articles are for you and your brothers and sisters in arms to assure you that this generation, our generation, has not and will not forget your sacrifice and love for una Cuba libre.

Mark Steyn on Iran

A perfect metaphor:

You know what's great fun to do if you're on, say, a flight from Chicago to New York and you're getting a little bored? Why not play being President Ahmadinejad? Stand up and yell in a loud voice, "I've got a bomb!" Next thing you know the air marshal will be telling people, "It's OK, folks. Nothing to worry about. He hasn't got a bomb." And then the second marshal would say, "And even if he did have a bomb it's highly unlikely he'd ever use it." And then you threaten to kill the two Jews in row 12 and the stewardess says, "Relax, everyone. That's just a harmless rhetorical flourish." And then a group of passengers in rows 4 to 7 point out, "Yes, but it's entirely reasonable of him to have a bomb given the threatening behavior of the marshals and the cabin crew."

Random Illegal Thoughts

Visiting Permanently and Other Things I Don't Understand, a good post on immigration issues by the good doctor, Dr. Demarche.

I agree that we should secure the border first, then decide what to do about the illegal aliens already here. Why is securing the border controversial?

I have a retired Japanese-born friend who became a naturalized US citizen and made his career here in the US. His oldest son is Japanese, but grew up here, then decided to try Japan out for a while. He wasn't able to fit in there, and so is trying to move back to the US. But since he left the US, he hasn't been able to get a visa to come back. They have applied, and have waited three years already. No telling when his visa will be approved. His entire life is pretty much on hold. But had he just come on a tourist visa and stayed illegally, well, that would be fine, apparently. I'm thinking of counseling him to do so, actually. Why not?

Why can the latino & immigrant communities stage demonstrations with tens of thousands, but there's no group that is organizing counter-demonstrations with tens of thousands? Could such a group be started, and what would it look like? In fact, every interest group out there has an organization or ten, but there's not one for your basic American citizen. At least, not one I know of. Organization counts; a small, strident group can have more impact than a large, quiet one. I'm tired of being in a quiet group.

Signs and slogans for a good border security / anti-illegal immigration rally:

Why are YOU above the law? (maybe written over an image of the Mexican flag?)

Amnesty = Injustice

Justice for Law-Abiding People

Say 'NO!' to the Reconquistadores!

I (heart) *LEGAL* Immigrants!

Thank You *LEGAL* Immigrants!

What's wrong with illegal immigrants? What's wrong with vigilantes?

*Border Security
*Easier Immigration
*NO Amnesty

Don't break into my home at night, then ask me to feed you breakfast.

Want more crime? Reward it!

We Are Either
A Nation of Laws
- Or -
A Lawless Nation

A quiet, law-abiding group of links:

Protesting, A Job for Immigrants?
Reconquistadores
A little bit of agitation at Michelle Malkin's
Why so many US flags?
Big Instapundit roundup

Feel free to add your own slogans and links, and comments of course, in the comments.

Reading about the Iraq Invasion

I'm doing a little research on the war in Iraq and I'm interested in reading the best factual work I can find, as well as the best arguments for and against the invasion of Iraq.

I'm specifically looking for books, articles, papers, etc., whether online or off.

Any suggestions?

Happy March 10th!

Why? Oh, I guess because it's Friday, and since my last class for the week was yesterday, my spring break starts today, and, er, my, aren't the pear blossoms pretty?

Has anyone else noticed that the Japanese put a lot more meaning into blossoms than we in the West seem to? For example, plum blossoms are the first of the year and represent first love. We put more meaning into flowers, I think, like what different colors of roses mean. Anyone have an angle on that?

Also, just out of curiosity, what would represent first love / young love in the West? Anyone know of a flower / blossom / other symbol that fits?

Well, off to work. See ya 'round, and enjoy the day!

Moderate Muslims?

I posted about the Free Muslims Coalition earlier, noting a moderate Muslim group. Interestingly, a Washington Post article by Fleming Rose, the Jyllands-Posten editor who commissioned and published the 12 cartoons, points out some moderate Muslim victories in Denmark:

Since the Sept. 30 publication of the cartoons, we have had a constructive debate in Denmark and Europe about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and respect for immigrants and people's beliefs. Never before have so many Danish Muslims participated in a public dialogue -- in town hall meetings, letters to editors, opinion columns and debates on radio and TV. We have had no anti-Muslim riots, no Muslims fleeing the country and no Muslims committing violence. The radical imams who misinformed their counterparts in the Middle East about the situation for Muslims in Denmark have been marginalized. They no longer speak for the Muslim community in Denmark because moderate Muslims have had the courage to speak out against them.

In January, Jyllands-Posten ran three full pages of interviews and photos of moderate Muslims saying no to being represented by the imams. They insist that their faith is compatible with a modern secular democracy. A network of moderate Muslims committed to the constitution has been established, and the anti-immigration People's Party called on its members to differentiate between radical and moderate Muslims, i.e. between Muslims propagating sharia law and Muslims accepting the rule of secular law. The Muslim face of Denmark has changed, and it is becoming clear that this is not a debate between "them" and "us," but between those committed to democracy in Denmark and those who are not.

Still, I think the cartoons now have a place in two separate narratives, one in Europe and one in the Middle East. In the words of the Somali-born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the integration of Muslims into European societies has been sped up by 300 years due to the cartoons; perhaps we do not need to fight the battle for the Enlightenment all over again in Europe. The narrative in the Middle East is more complex, but that has very little to do with the cartoons.

This is good to know, and it is good to know the moderates seem to have won some battles in Denmark. What will the net effect be? I don't know, but I do think this cycle of events has kicked a few more Westerners awake, particularly Europeans. I hope it leads them to address the real issues, with moderate Muslims where they can be found, instead of burying their heads in the sands of submission (aka, tolerance). I also have to agree that the narrative in the Middle East has little to do with the cartoons.

On the other hand, Muslim commentator Mansoor Ijaz tells us in the LA Times:

The first truth is that most Muslim ideologues are hypocrites. What has Osama bin Laden done for the victims of the 2004 tsunami or the shattered families who lost everything in the Pakistani earthquake last year? He did not build one school, offer one loaf of bread or pay for one vaccination. And yet he, not the devout Muslim doctors from California and Iowa who repair broken limbs and lives in the snowy peaks of Kashmir, speaks the loudest for what Muslims allegedly stand for. He has succeeded in presenting himself as the defender of Islam's poor, and the Western media has taken his jihadist message all the way to the bank.

...

The second truth — one that the West needs to come to grips with — is that there is no such human persona as a "moderate Muslim." You either believe in the oneness of God or you don't. You either believe in the teachings of his prophet or you don't. You either learn those teachings and apply them to the circumstances of life in the country you have chosen to live in, or you shouldn't live there.

...

But to look at angry Islam's reaction on television each night forces the question of what might be possible if all the lost energy of thousands of rioting Muslims went into the villages of Aceh to rebuild lost homes or into Kashmir to construct schools.

In fact, the most glaring truth is that Islam's mobsters fear the West has it right: that we have perfected the very system Islam's holy scriptures urged them to learn and practice. And having failed in their mission to lead their masses, they seek any excuse to demonize those of us in the West and to try to bring us down. They know they are losing the ideological struggle for hearts and minds, for life in all its different dimensions, and so they prepare themselves, and us, for Armageddon by starting fires everywhere in a display of Islamic unity intended to galvanize the masses they cannot feed, clothe, educate or house.

On moderate Muslims, specifically, I don't think Ijaz understands what we mean by 'moderate Muslims,' so I guess I should explain what I mean: tolerant Muslims. Since he is advocating Muslim tolerance, I think his definition is different. I think he means 'half-way Muslims,' which is not what I mean at all.

Still, that last paragraph is excellent: Islam's mobsters and terrorists are terrified that the West has it right, so terrified that they must, at all costs, prove to themselves that they are still relevant by destroying the West, first by humbling it into submission, then gradually by taking over. I don't know if the West has 'perfected the very system that Islam's holy scriptures urged them to learn' or not. I don't know enough to comment on that part, but I agree with the rest. The terrorists themselves are acting out of the all-consuming fear that the West has made them irrelevant.

If Rose is to be believed, some Muslims, like the moderates in Denmark, see this and are taking action to become relevant to the West not through violence, but through assimilating to it and practicing their religion within the boundaries of liberal democracy. This inspires hope that peaceful resolutions can work, hope that we are winning over some Muslim hearts and minds, but the rest of the world right now leaves me very uneasy about the foundations of that hope. Is it silly to say that I hope my hope is well-founded?

Well, anyway, here's hoping ...

Free Muslims Coalition

This looks like a promising organization. Here's what seems to be their manifesto:

Taking our religion back one Muslim at a time

We believe in the re-interpretation of Islam for the 21st century where terrorism is not justified under any circumstances.

We believe in the separation of religion and state.

We believe that democracy is the best form of government.

We believe in the promotion of secularism in all forms of political activity.

We believe that equality for women is an inalienable right.

We believe that religion is a personal relationship between the individual and his or her God and is not to be forced on anyone.

Rent-a-mobs, Eh? Oh, and, Yes, Egypt Too

Instapundit links an Amir Taheri article on the Cartoon Wars:

The Muslim Brotherhood's position, put by one of its younger militants, Tariq Ramadan--who is, strangely enough, also an adviser to the British home secretary--can be summed up as follows: It is against Islamic principles to represent by imagery not only Muhammad but all the prophets of Islam; and the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. Both claims, however, are false.
...
The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers. There is no space here to provide an exhaustive list, but these are some of the most famous ...
...
Now to the second claim, that the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. That is true if we restrict the Muslim world to the Brotherhood and its siblings in the Salafist movement, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda. But these are all political organizations masquerading as religious ones.

Well, that's pretty interesting. He calls the rioters 'rent-a-mobs,' which makes sense to me. I've heard of the same thing in China, where the government buses show up at the schools, the students are told to get on, they head to the US embassy & are issued protest signs as they step off. The students have a field day; government sanctioned anarchy! Sweet! If you look at the photos of some of the Chinese protests last year, a lot of the 'angry protesters' are grinning and really seem to be having fun.

Anyway, remember the claim that an Egyptian newspaper had printed the cartoons back in October 2005? Well, Belmont Club links to scans of it at Egyptian Sandmonkey, an Egyptian blog. Very cool find.

In the comments to that post, a gentleman by the name of Mohamed charges Jyllands-Posten with hypocrisy:

By the way, hypocricy goes both ways, the guardian published an article on Monday about the same paper (yes the same exact hysterical defender of free speech) refusing to publish some cartoons three years ago citing they'd be insulting to christians and would be considered as unneccessary provocation.

Completely different situation. First, the Christians weren't threatening free speech, so what would be the point? The Jyllands-Posten editor made it very clear the Muhammed cartoons were published to test the boundaries, to see if, after the murder of Theo van Gogh for making a film that attacked Islam, Denmark was still free.

Second, a great many newspapers and magazines in the West have already published cartoons lampooning and insulting Jesus, Christianity and Christians. It's been done; it is, in fact, cliche, which is about the same in the publishing world as not being halal, eh?

This Is Evil ...

The People's First Suidaetic Aviation Regiment test pilot