Merry Christmas!

Have a Wonderful Christmas!

Well, Heck

I'm trying to write the wrap-up to my first set of policies to deal with illegal immigration, and I'm beginning to really understand why politicians don't want to mess with this. It goes way beyond the Hispanic vote, too.

The additional problems I see with my own policy suggestions are:

1. The economic fallout in the US would be bad -- suddenly we'd have millions of unemployed illegal aliens with no way out. Deporting them, assuming we could catch all of them, would be extremely expensive. Polipundit suggested that, if they couldn't get work, the illegals would deport themselves, but I don't believe that. Some, maybe many, would be forced into crime, which is made more likely as increased pressure from the US government would allow Mexican organized crime groups in the US to have greater power over the illegals. Also, as our cheap labor pool dried up, prices would go up.

2. I recently read that remittances sent from people in the US constitute Mexico's second largest source of income. (I'll try to find the article and link it.) If even half of the money being sent there is from illegals, then carrying out these policies will actually make Mexico's economy worse, which will exacerbate the problem.

3. The Mexican government has lost control of segments of the nation. It is no longer in firm control over the police or military, both of which have been thoroughly infiltrated by drug lord agents and both of which have, in the past, acted to protect drug lord interests over the interests of Mexico. Any worsening of the situation in Mexico could further weaken the government and strengthen criminal organizations.

Thoughts? Ideas? Solutions?

Finals Week

It's that time of year, folks. I'll reformulate my Illegal Immigration 1 policy and post a new policy proposal in the near future.

In the meantime, here's some philosophy for you:

Definition: Kneehighlism - the belief that fruit-flavored softdrinks are better than Nothing.

And a holiday joke I stole:

Did you know that the three wise men were firemen? Yeah, it says they came from a far.

And finally, folks, remember: A solipsist has only imaginary friends.

Dean Fisked Like a Snake in a Wagon Rut Wearing a Tophat

Howard Dean: "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway."

Jason Van Steenwyk replies:

...thanks to the Abrams Doctrine and former SecDef Melvin Laird, the active component cannot function without significant commitment from the reserve forces.

This is because, combat formations aside, much of the required medical, transportation, supply, administrative, communications, civil affairs, legal, and combat support needed to conduct a deployment comes from the reserve components.

If you pull reserve forces out, you will rip the heart out of our combat divisions. You may not even be able to fly them home.

Tell the Brigade commander "you know that truck company you rely on to move a battalion of soldiers to and from the fight? Send them home.You know that -30 level maintenance unit you rely on to get your crew-served weapons firing and to repair your damaged and broken vehicles? You don't get them anymore. You know those MPs already working 12 hour shifts guarding your detainees? Say bye-bye. And you really don't need those Arabic linguists do you? We're sending a whole battalion of linguists home...

In other news, Howard Dean to Bring Christmas Cheer to Troops.

Heh.

###

PS, if you haven't advised me on my future presidential immigration policy yet, please do!

And remember, AGIP 2008!

Wiki-wild

Instapundit sends us to a roundup on the Wikipedia wars.

I like the idea of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia anyone can add to or edit, a great deal. The execution, however, is sometimes lacking a great deal. Worse, sometimes it is making up a great deal, like adding treason to bios.

Illegal Immigration 1

Here's your chance to affect presidential policy! This is the second in my series of policy discussions. These posts are rough drafts of my future presidential platform planks (AGIP 2008!), and I heartily welcome the comments of my presidential policy formation team (i.e., my blog readers). At the beginning of each week, I'll post a new policy discussion post, and at the end of each week, I will summarize and re-draft that week's policy proposal.

Illegal immigrants and immigration are complex issues, and so this post more than anything else discusses how to change immigration and employment policies to control illegal immigration. What this post does not address are border security, how to deal with the 7 million+ illegal aliens in the US this program will upheave, as well as how to handle the economic fallout of ending a large, cheap labor pool. Those three things will be the focus of next week's policy discussion (though, of course, feel free to comment on them here).

This post represents both domestic and diplomatic proposals to help end the problem of illegal immigration. I am greatly indebted for many of the ideas to various posts by Dr. Demarche on The Daily Demarche, a blog by two foreign service officers which has given the most informed ideas to address this issue I've seen. I have collected, organized and modified some of the ideas I found there and added my own as noted below.

Ten Answers to the Illegal Immigration Problem

In El Otro Lado, Dr. Demarche laid out five steps the US could take to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and explained them. I have quoted from his list (all direct quotes are from The Daily Demarche), added my own ideas, and posted these steps below. You can click the link to read his explanations. I have added three more steps from other posts at The Daily Demarche, including guest poster Criticalreactor. Finally, the last two proposals are my own.

1. "Punish American firms that hire illegal workers- this is the most important step." I would expand this to simply say 'Punish Americans who hire ...' It isn't just firms. Small businesses and individuals are also doing this. On the enforcement side, I would start with the big fish and work down, of course.
2. "Establish a more secure employment document- the Social Security card does not work." Issue new SS cards with photos and all the anti-counterfeiting features. Showing a valid new SS card would also be required to be able to vote in federal elections, and encourage states & cities to pass similar legislation for state elections. From Polipundit, I found out the Social Security Administration is already implementing an online database employers can check SSNs on, which is great -- I don't have to add this to my platform! I would make checking a requirement, however.
3. "Revise and expand the H2 [guest worker] visa category- not just for Mexicans, but for all, and require that issuance only occur in the country of origin of the alien."*
4. "Require legal workers to pay into Medicaid, and deny public benefits to illegal aliens found in America."
5. "Reduce the amount of foreign aid granted to any country by a set or variable amount based on the costs associated with each illegal immigrant detained/treated/deported."
6. Institute a waiting period for applications for visas after a denial. Currently, once denied a visa, an applicant can pretty much immediately re-apply, which is choking the system. This and steps 7 and 8 would greatly enhance our ability to control to whom we issue visas.
7. Professional visa adjudicators would take over the visa lines, currently manned by newby FSOs who do the job for a year or two and move on. They would be "...well versed in law and policy who speak the local language at a high level ..."
8. End all visa category restrictions on the use of section 214(b) to deny visas. 214(b) "... is the catch-all refusal used to turn down applicants (tourist, business, student, etc) that the officer feels are not being truthful, or has other suspicions about." Currently, religious visas (Islamist imams, anyone?) and some others are exempt from denial under this section. (Guest poster Criticalreactor suggested ending the exemption on religious visas, but I don't see any reason to stop there.)
9. Deny a visa to anyone who has publicly incited violence against the US or its interests within the last ten years, and deport any resident aliens who do or have done this.
10. From the date of passage of the legislation, any child born on US soil whose parents are in the US illegally will not be granted US citizenship. This decreases the incentive for pregnant women to cross illegally.

Well, team, what do you think?

###

Update: Dr. Demarche has a new post on this topic up at American Future which is worth the read.

*Dr. D., if you read this, could you please explain why you would require the issuance in the country of origin, instead of simply outside the US? For example, why is it a bad idea to allow a Chinese worker to apply from Japan?

Polipundit link mug tip to Michelle Malkin.

And remember, vote A Guy in Pajamas in 2008!

Bush vs. ET Wrap-up

Well, Jean was the only one who gave a serious response to the discussion, so there's not much to wrap up. Thanks, Jean!

It was an impulse post, however, and most of my readers are folks coming in from Google searches for different kinds of pajamas, so maybe my expectations were a bit too high.

Tomorrow or Monday I'll post another question. Maybe I can make this one a bit more engaging.

Update: Just wanted to say, this was not meant as a 'poor me' post. If I can't generate reader interest, that's my problem, not my readers' problem for not commenting, etc. I hope I didn't sound like I was whining. I really do appreciate my readers, without whom I would have quit blogging long ago.

Congrats!

Grandma Jean graduated!

Riding Sun turns one!

Discussion: Bush vs. ET?

From PRWeb:

On September 25, 2005, in a startling speech at the University of Toronto that caught the attention of mainstream newspapers and magazines, Paul Hellyer, Canada’s Defence Minister from 1963-67 under Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Prime Minister Lester Pearson, publicly stated: "UFOs, are as real as the airplanes that fly over your head."

Mr. Hellyer went on to say, "I'm so concerned about what the consequences might be of starting an intergalactic war, that I just think I had to say something."

Hellyer revealed, "The secrecy involved in all matters pertaining to the Roswell incident was unparalled. The classification was, from the outset, above top secret, so the vast majority of U.S. officials and politicians, let alone a mere allied minister of defence, were never in-the-loop."

Hellyer warned, "The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning. He stated, "The Bush administration has finally agreed to let the military build a forward base on the moon, which will put them in a better position to keep track of the goings and comings of the visitors from space, and to shoot at them, if they so decide."

Hellyer’s speech ended with a standing ovation. He said, "The time has come to lift the veil of secrecy, and let the truth emerge, so there can be a real and informed debate, about one of the most important problems facing our planet today."

Indeed. And what a great issue to launch my new discussion theme. At the beginning of each week, I will endeavor to post an interesting question for discussion, and wrap it up at the end of the week.

First Question: How should the US respond to these extraterrestrials? Is it better to be armed and polite, or mostly harmless and polite? Or something else?

Side Question: If you were Condoleeza Rice, how would you reply to Mr. Hellyer's comments? (Remember, you're secretary of state -- this would be an official statement!)

(The topic has been around the block a bit: WSJ's Best of the Web & InakaYabanjin, among others.)

Good Discussion of Media Coverage of Iraq

There are articles, polls, & discussions of this going on over at AOL. (Yes, I'm trying to influence the polls.)

I'm Not Dead

Really. (In fact, I'm feeling much better now. I'm. Happy! I'm. Happy!)

But, the Good Doctor is now demised. He'll be posting over at American Future, which I'll soon bagel. That old bagel is looking pretty moldy over there, come to think of it.

Well, Diplomad, Chrenkoff, Allahpundit, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern ...

To blog or not to blog, that, Ferns, Romulans, Fellow Bloggers, is the sow's ear I need to consider. Whether it is better to suffer the worms and maggots of outrageous decomposition, or to go gently into that good night, or to awake, and awakening, dream of new themes and posts, aye, posts, there, me lads and lasses, is the rub.

Hit 'em Hard, Hit 'em Fast

Countercolumn Piles On

McCain on Victory

The President Nails Levin

The White House slams the twisted intel lie

Gateway Pundit Rocks

White House 1-2 Series Nails Senators and NYT. A good roundup, and don't miss the GOP commercial of Democrats' statements on Saddam and WMD.

Mug tip to Instapundit, who also rocks with his own comments.

Jeff Goldstein - What else do I have to say?

9 rejected Democratic talking points for why Congressional Dems initially believed Chimpy McHitlerburton's WMD Intelligence LIES

Podhoretz Pulverizes 'Bush Lied' Meme

Click the link and stand back, folks.

BAM! BLAM! KaBLOOIE!

Ooh. That's gotta hurt.

(Mug tip to Michelle Malkin.)

A Broader Pro-Liberation Response

It seems the president wasn't giving a one-off defense of going to war, which was something that worried me. The facts are in our favor. There is only so long you can be a gentleman and ignore slander.

From the AP:

Bush relied on the collective judgment of the intelligence community when he determined that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

"Turns out, we were wrong," Hadley told "Late Edition" on CNN. "But I think the point that needs to be emphasized ... allegations now that the president somehow manipulated intelligence, somehow misled the American people, are flat wrong."

Republican lawmakers and other officials who appeared on Sunday news shows echoed Bush's Veterans Day speech in which he defended his decision to invade Iraq.

Bush said Democrats in Congress had the same intelligence about Iraq, and he argued that many now claiming that the information had been manipulated had supported going to war. The president also accused his critics of making false charges and playing politics with the war.

Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean rejected the criticism on Sunday and said, "The truth is, the president misled America when he sent us to war."

...

Contending that the president has not been honest about the size of the deficit as well as the war, Dean said, "This is an administration that has a fundamental problem telling the truth."

Hmph. Sounds like the most fundamental problem a sizable number of Democrats still have is just making crap up. Go on 'Face the Nation' with McCain, Mr. Dean. See how far that BS takes you.

Back to the AP article:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Democrats have a right to criticize the war but that it was disingenuous to claim that Bush lied about intelligence to justify it.

"Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French ... all reached the same conclusion," McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Not to mention Clinton.

Let's hope the pro-liberation crowd keeps it up. As for me, for whatever it's worth, I'm writing my representatives to let them know I expect them to keep it up. We have the facts on our side; we need to use them.

Wow, Mr. President

President Bush gives the speech I've been praying for:

And our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.)

This is a truly magnificent speech, well worth reading the whole thing. I wish I had caught it on TV.

Keep it coming!

###

Check out Instapundit's post on the speech, and his replies to hate mail, etc. Excellent.

By the way, the Whitehouse Website always carries the full-text of presidential speeches, and archives them online for us.

One, Opinionated, and Right!

Hey! It's Grandma Jean's blogiversary!

And she's been profiled. No, not by the cops, silly.

What would be your main advice to a novice blogger?
Be brief, post frequently, have something to say, use proper grammar and spelling. [Darn good advice for the rest of us, too. -- Ed.]
...
If you were to relive your life to this point, is there anything that you'd do differently?
Nothing that I want to tell the world about.

That was back in June, and I didn't find out about it until someone followed the link over to me. Thanks for mentioning me, Jean! I'm flattered.

And HAPPY BLOGIVERSARY! Many happy returns!

I'm So Lazy

... I'm stealing Tim Blair's link roundup. In my defense, it's a good one.

And hey, go cheer mj on in the NaNoWriMo (National Novel Writing Month) competition -- she's writing a novel this month!

Finally, with all the media criticism I've done, I'm happy to link to a Countercolumn posting of an apology from an editor for getting it wrong.

Can the Dems Resurge?

Tom Lemasters at Politics in Focus, an interesting-looking new poli-blog, lists what he thinks the Dems need to do to make a comeback.

A brief overview of his full article is:

1. All politics is local; recruit like it.
2. Fresh blood anyone?
3. Stand for something.
4. Nominate a Presidential candidate from outside Washington.
5. Look to the South or the Midwest.

He's got some good ideas, and the comments are interesting (though there is one full-fledged 'Bush-stole-2000-AND-2004!' moonbat).

I think one problem is, Americans want to win in Iraq. We like to win, no matter what, but many of us also understand that winning in Iraq is vitally important for our own future. I'm not thrilled with some things the Republicans have done the last five years (starting with spending and immigration), but the Dems have to overcome their 'America deserves to lose' image, and that would take a tsunami of change.

(I owe someone a mug tip for this, but ... well, darn the aging process! Darn it, I say!)

Betrayal

Greyhawk details NYT distortions and outright lies regarding the words of our soldiers. There are several more, but I found this retraction by the NYT breathtaking:

The Op-Ed page in some copies of Wednesday's newspaper carried an incorrect version of the below article about military recruitment. The article also briefly appeared on NYTimes.com before it was removed. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, "Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday," nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a "surprise tour of Iraq." That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error.
...
This sort of give-and-take is standard practice on the Op-Ed pages. "We try to clarify and improve copy," said Mr. Shipley. "We do this for the benefit of our contributors, many of whom are not professional writers."

This is a betrayal both of the men and of all journalistic integrity. Again I'll ask, if they'll do this, what else have they been lying about?

Mug tip to Countercolumn.

Barrrrr Humbug!

It's gettin' ter be that time of year, lads and lasses.

Paris is burning. Great novel title. Any takers? Or am I late? Anyway, Dr. D has some thoughts on it, for any o' you scallywags as wot ken reed.

Murray the Barbarian has a book review up -- I think I'll be buying that one. He's on a roll, so I highly recommend reading everything on his main page right now. The crusader pig is especially cute (though as a Kurenai no Buta / Porco Rosso fan, I'm biased).

The good ol' Comrade suggests Mother Nature needs diapers. Not only that, he gives a possible explanation for blogoholism. Oh, all right. It has to be linked too, I suppose. Video games!

Yeah, and I still haven't decided about the whole running for president thing, so don't pull out the pocket books or babies yet.

Arrrrrh! Now move along there, matey, afore I keel 'aul ya!