Shaina of Shaina's Corner is seriously offended by Arizona's new immigration legislation, and with valid reason. The law can easily be viewed as racial profiling. To put this law into context, however, I believe it's telling to look to the national immigration policy. The national government has been content for years to all but ignore growing illegal immigration, which is unsurprising, given the politically touchy nature of the subject and the minimal negative effects most states feel. However, the government has also done little to improve the legal immigration process, which is mired in inefficiency. The problems associated with illegal immigration (such as displacement and wage reduction of lower-class American workers, and overtaxed social services) simply aren't strong enough to create national demand for reform. Indeed, many businesses may benefit from the reduction of wages.
While the nation as a whole may not be feeling the negative effects of illegal immigration, the weight of the problems fall heavily on Arizona, with an undocumented population of a half-million. Healthcare of illegals especially is a massive expense to the state. Unable to secure the border effectively without federal support, Arizona is given few options as problems get out of hand. Legal and racial issues aside, however, the new law does little to reduce problems associated with the open border, such as drug trafficking and the associated violence, and is questionable in its ability to substantially reduce the impact of illegals on the state. Overall, it would seem more sensible and less contentious to keep more people from coming in, rather than try to find and deal with those already here.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Arizona Immigration Policy and its Effects on the Race for Texas Governor
Arizona's passage of AZ SB 1070, which allows police officers to require ID from anyone under reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant and gives stiffer penalties to illegals, is igniting a fire among citizens. Cries from opponents derail the plan as racial profiling and a slip towards a police state, while many supporters cite the drain of illegals on social services and the escalating border violence from drug cartels
Back in Texas, these recent events have brought the states own contentious Immigration debate to the forefront just in time for the Governor's primary, and this may bode ill for republican incumbent Rick Perry. The race for Texas Governor is tight, and Perry's lead is slipping; down to 4% over Democrat Bill White from 10% in January.
Perry desires to attract the Hispanic vote (or at least not have it mobilize against him) while maintaining his conservative base, and part of his solution has been skirting around immigration issues to avoid conflict. He has been content to pass the blame to the federal government, often citing his standing order for National Guard support as well as the Feds failure to secure the border.
Now, failing to promise a tougher stance on illegal immigration with policy similar to that of Arizona could result in a loss of his conservative base. This is perhaps best summed up by conservative blogger TexasFred: "I don’t like Bill White, but we can survive him, and maybe, in the process, we can wake TEXAS up [to real conservatism]" Acting to please conservatives, however, could seriously mobilize Hispanics against him, given the obvious racial undertones on the Arizona policy.
Perry will inevitably be able to respond to the issue in step with his current strategy, but the power of the Arizona policy may stir up enough voter energy to give Bill White a serious chance. As political scientist Jerry Polinard says, “...for White to win, there has to be a large Latino voter turnout.”
The election aside, Perry has a point that the federal government has not been using resources to manage flow of people across the Mexican-American border, especially given the prevalence of drug cartels and the violence they bring. Given the lack of federal support, the escalating border violence, and the drains on social services due to increasing numbers of illegals, border states such as Arizona may be drawn to policies such as the one we see; effectively band-aids that do nothing to address the cause of immigration problems while bringing up significant civil rights issues.
Back in Texas, these recent events have brought the states own contentious Immigration debate to the forefront just in time for the Governor's primary, and this may bode ill for republican incumbent Rick Perry. The race for Texas Governor is tight, and Perry's lead is slipping; down to 4% over Democrat Bill White from 10% in January.
Perry desires to attract the Hispanic vote (or at least not have it mobilize against him) while maintaining his conservative base, and part of his solution has been skirting around immigration issues to avoid conflict. He has been content to pass the blame to the federal government, often citing his standing order for National Guard support as well as the Feds failure to secure the border.
Now, failing to promise a tougher stance on illegal immigration with policy similar to that of Arizona could result in a loss of his conservative base. This is perhaps best summed up by conservative blogger TexasFred: "I don’t like Bill White, but we can survive him, and maybe, in the process, we can wake TEXAS up [to real conservatism]" Acting to please conservatives, however, could seriously mobilize Hispanics against him, given the obvious racial undertones on the Arizona policy.
Perry will inevitably be able to respond to the issue in step with his current strategy, but the power of the Arizona policy may stir up enough voter energy to give Bill White a serious chance. As political scientist Jerry Polinard says, “...for White to win, there has to be a large Latino voter turnout.”
The election aside, Perry has a point that the federal government has not been using resources to manage flow of people across the Mexican-American border, especially given the prevalence of drug cartels and the violence they bring. Given the lack of federal support, the escalating border violence, and the drains on social services due to increasing numbers of illegals, border states such as Arizona may be drawn to policies such as the one we see; effectively band-aids that do nothing to address the cause of immigration problems while bringing up significant civil rights issues.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Response to George Kraft's "Taxes in Texas"
In response to George Kraft's article "Taxes in Texas" from his blog Lone Star Observatory:
It should be noted that Texas is in the lowest fifth of states in terms of overall tax rate, and that most states have both income and sales tax. If Texas wanted to increase its revenue by bumping sales tax, there would be both potential gains and losses to consider. The idea of collecting (significantly) larger sales tax and eliminating income tax was floated on the national level starting with John Linder and his 2005 book The FairTax Book. Proponents of the measure cite as you do the economic benefits of taxing consumption rather than income and outline ways not to increase the effective tax burden on the middle and lower classes using rebates. Opponents have legitimate concerns, however; high taxes on consumption (23% in the FairTax measure) increase the incentive for tax evasion in the form of underground transactions, and rebate systems are open to serious fraud.
It should be noted that Texas is in the lowest fifth of states in terms of overall tax rate, and that most states have both income and sales tax. If Texas wanted to increase its revenue by bumping sales tax, there would be both potential gains and losses to consider. The idea of collecting (significantly) larger sales tax and eliminating income tax was floated on the national level starting with John Linder and his 2005 book The FairTax Book. Proponents of the measure cite as you do the economic benefits of taxing consumption rather than income and outline ways not to increase the effective tax burden on the middle and lower classes using rebates. Opponents have legitimate concerns, however; high taxes on consumption (23% in the FairTax measure) increase the incentive for tax evasion in the form of underground transactions, and rebate systems are open to serious fraud.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
More Dead in Juárez: The Effect of Drug Policy on Texas-Mexico Border Violence
The recent killing of three U.S. consulate members in Juárez has brought the escalating nature of drug violence on the Texas-Mexico border to the forefront once again. It is indeed a serious issue for Mexicans and Americans alike.
The U.S. State Department includes Mexico in its list of travel warnings for countries which are "dangerous or unstable." due to "long-term, protracted conditions" (along with such travel destinations as iraq and pakistan). The city of Juárez is a posterchild for the problem; in 2009 the town had 2,600 murders and is now "the most violent zone in the world outside of declared war zones." The crime naturally brings up the debate surrounding border control, but there are other aspects of the issue to discuss as well. The crime brought about by massive drug cartels is not a uniquely Mexican problem that is spilling over into Texas; The cartels heavily profit off U.S. demand for narcotics, and control approximately 70% of the narcotics that flow into the United States. Prohibition policies (such as those in U.S. and Mexican drug policy) that make markets illegal create distribution-related violence because, in the words of Harvard economics professor Jeffery Miron, underground markets mean "buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead." This concept is reinforced by examples such as gambling, prostitution, and alcohol in the prohibition era. Although there are many potential advantages and disadvantages to the legalization of drugs, it would significantly reduce the amount of distribution-related violence, and I simply offer this as something that should be discussed in context of the drug violence along the Texas-Mexico border and throughout the world.
The U.S. State Department includes Mexico in its list of travel warnings for countries which are "dangerous or unstable." due to "long-term, protracted conditions" (along with such travel destinations as iraq and pakistan). The city of Juárez is a posterchild for the problem; in 2009 the town had 2,600 murders and is now "the most violent zone in the world outside of declared war zones." The crime naturally brings up the debate surrounding border control, but there are other aspects of the issue to discuss as well. The crime brought about by massive drug cartels is not a uniquely Mexican problem that is spilling over into Texas; The cartels heavily profit off U.S. demand for narcotics, and control approximately 70% of the narcotics that flow into the United States. Prohibition policies (such as those in U.S. and Mexican drug policy) that make markets illegal create distribution-related violence because, in the words of Harvard economics professor Jeffery Miron, underground markets mean "buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead." This concept is reinforced by examples such as gambling, prostitution, and alcohol in the prohibition era. Although there are many potential advantages and disadvantages to the legalization of drugs, it would significantly reduce the amount of distribution-related violence, and I simply offer this as something that should be discussed in context of the drug violence along the Texas-Mexico border and throughout the world.
Friday, April 2, 2010
TexasFred offers the insight of a "true Texan" in reference to the DC shooting and gun control policy
TexasFred of The TexasFred Blog confirms his self-professed place as "a highly opinionated blogger" as he makes his case against gun control laws in the context of the March 30th DC Shooting. His sarcastic, humorous list of "40 Reasons to Ban Guns" and response to the event offer a solid overview of the arguments against gun control in an entertaining fashion.
TexasFred knows his audience, and he's in the business of telling the textbook conservative group what they already know. He doesn't make any concessions in an attempt to broaden his audience to any "libbers", and he definitely "doesn't play the PC game". He builds credibility through ideological similarity with his intended audience combined with enough statistics and specific knowledge to competently elucidate on the subject at hand.
The primary claim of TexasFred's sarcastic piece is that gun control has the opposite of the intended effect on crime, and is not an effective response to shootings such as the DC incident he references. His response to the shooting makes the case that 'We, legal gun owners, are NOT the issue, but the libbers would have you believe that the streets flow red with blood because there are folks like me that own guns." and that gun control laws would deprive well-meaning citizens of access to firearms, and would be unable to reduce access to illegal guns by the criminal element, which is responsible for virtually all crimes involving firearms.
In his tongue-in-cheek list "40 Reasons to Ban Guns", TexasFred cites a number of arguments as to why gun control is bad policy. Firstly, he cites the 2nd ammendment, sarcastically rebuking "libber's" claims that:
"12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917."
and
"15. 'The Constitution is strong and will never change.' But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution."
He goes on to cite crime statistics:
"2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’ high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control."
He also reinforces his earlier argument about the effects of gun control on citizens:
"27. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted."
The rest of the list references standard leftist claims, but focuses more on cracking jokes at specific events and organizations.
My personal take on gun control is generally in agreement with TexasFred. It has proven infeasible to eliminate high-demand illegal products from the market in the United States (just look to the war on drugs). Also, I believe that socioeconomic conditions are the primary drive for crime, and that even if we were capable of effectively removing the supply of firearms, violent crime would still be prevalent (though I hold that reliance on less lethal methods would result in less effective violence)
Anyone who wants a quick and entertaining overview of the arguments against gun control, and doesn't mind a heavy right slant, should take a look at TexasFred's piece.
TexasFred knows his audience, and he's in the business of telling the textbook conservative group what they already know. He doesn't make any concessions in an attempt to broaden his audience to any "libbers", and he definitely "doesn't play the PC game". He builds credibility through ideological similarity with his intended audience combined with enough statistics and specific knowledge to competently elucidate on the subject at hand.
The primary claim of TexasFred's sarcastic piece is that gun control has the opposite of the intended effect on crime, and is not an effective response to shootings such as the DC incident he references. His response to the shooting makes the case that 'We, legal gun owners, are NOT the issue, but the libbers would have you believe that the streets flow red with blood because there are folks like me that own guns." and that gun control laws would deprive well-meaning citizens of access to firearms, and would be unable to reduce access to illegal guns by the criminal element, which is responsible for virtually all crimes involving firearms.
In his tongue-in-cheek list "40 Reasons to Ban Guns", TexasFred cites a number of arguments as to why gun control is bad policy. Firstly, he cites the 2nd ammendment, sarcastically rebuking "libber's" claims that:
"12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917."
and
"15. 'The Constitution is strong and will never change.' But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution."
He goes on to cite crime statistics:
"2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’ high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control."
He also reinforces his earlier argument about the effects of gun control on citizens:
"27. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted."
The rest of the list references standard leftist claims, but focuses more on cracking jokes at specific events and organizations.
My personal take on gun control is generally in agreement with TexasFred. It has proven infeasible to eliminate high-demand illegal products from the market in the United States (just look to the war on drugs). Also, I believe that socioeconomic conditions are the primary drive for crime, and that even if we were capable of effectively removing the supply of firearms, violent crime would still be prevalent (though I hold that reliance on less lethal methods would result in less effective violence)
Anyone who wants a quick and entertaining overview of the arguments against gun control, and doesn't mind a heavy right slant, should take a look at TexasFred's piece.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
A look at Obama Foreign Policy in a Sea of Domestic Drama
Doyle McManus from the Los Angeles Times offers a casual, generally pro-Obama analysis of the administrations response to a possible nuclear Iran in his opinion piece,"What if Iran gets the bomb?".
Iran's progress towards developing a nuclear weapon has been slowed, but not stopped by the status quo of sanctions and negotiations - even internal unrest hasn't put a halt to it. McManus argues as "Most experts now estimate that Iran needs about 18 months to complete a nuclear device", the course of action for the United States is at a crossroads, and he proceeds to discuss our options.
McManus rejects the "hawks" opinion that military action remains the only remaining option, citing the line of reasoning that a military strike, while increasing (the already considerable) chaos in the country, would make the regime more hard-line and quite potentially result in another Afghanistan/Iraq type conflict, as well as open war between Israel and Iran. Although McManus doesn't cite much supporting this view, it seems plausible and is commonly held.
McManus suggests that the course of action should be to contain the threat, a policy the United States has quite some experience with. More sanctions, more defense to Israel and other countries threatened by Iran, and a more active role in the region. McManus suggests more of the same from the Obama administration, just in a stronger variant.
I agree with the general sentiment of the article, caution and indirect action should be strongly considered,especially given the current deployment of US military and intelligence resources: we cannot fight directly on all fronts.
McManus offers a passable, but simple analysis of the Iran situation, and his article offers an entry point to causal readers of the news to understanding the conflict and the policy options United States leaders face.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Hutchingtons
Jason Embry at the Austin American Statesman outlines a history of political decisions that crippled Hutchington's prospects for governor, as well as discusses her failures to adapt and effectively counter her opponents current campaign.
Hutchington's indecision and inaction for years contributed to her loss. After opting not to run against Perry in 2006, she was complacent in her efforts due to a percieved lead against perry for 2010. Perry's ability to capitalize heavily on anti-Obama and anti-government sentiments of the day combined with his ability to expose Hutchington's politically unwise voting record (for a republican governor of Texas) had the net effect of demolishing the favor towards Hutchinson amongst republicans.
Hutchington's previous efforts to secure for state projects and interests now worked against her, and her own political advertising focused on smaller faults of Perry's history and couldn't stand up to the anti-Obama headwind that had been catapulting Perry's popularity.
Hutchington's indecision and inaction for years contributed to her loss. After opting not to run against Perry in 2006, she was complacent in her efforts due to a percieved lead against perry for 2010. Perry's ability to capitalize heavily on anti-Obama and anti-government sentiments of the day combined with his ability to expose Hutchington's politically unwise voting record (for a republican governor of Texas) had the net effect of demolishing the favor towards Hutchinson amongst republicans.
Hutchington's previous efforts to secure for state projects and interests now worked against her, and her own political advertising focused on smaller faults of Perry's history and couldn't stand up to the anti-Obama headwind that had been catapulting Perry's popularity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
