Change Wilberforce now

The New Neo Posted on by

You hear the pundits on the left saying that the right criticizes Obama for ignoring laws, but when he enforces the 2008 act that requires that unaccompanied minors from Central America be given special treatment, the right howls.

No doubt that criticism makes sense to some people. But it ignores almost every salient fact about the situation.

The bill in question, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, dealt with a different set of circumstances and was never envisioned to apply to what’s happening now. As its name suggests, it was aimed at stopping human trafficking, and only a very small part of it dealt with unaccompanied minors from Central America (actually, from all countries except Mexico and Canada), and even that was in the context of those minors as presumed human trafficking victims. Back then, there were no hordes of unaccompanied minors coming here from Central America to attempt to gain residence on rumored promises of amnesty.

The second point is that Obama is very selective about his enforcement. He ignores the laws he doesn’t like, or changes them, whereas with those that suit his purpose he falls back on the idea that he simply must obey the law. It’s his intentionally selective enforcement that’s the problem. In particular, if Obama enforced the laws on border security, Wilberforce wouldn’t have ever become such a problem in the first place.

For Wilberforce, Charles Lane invokes the law of unintended consequences—legislative version. He’s correct. In retrospect we can see that the section of the law involving unaccompanied minors was poorly drafted, but hindsight is always 20/20:

So, here we are: The Wilberforce Act, logical and humane on paper, has been overthrown by an influx of Central American kids…

This isn’t anyone’s idea of sustainable immigration; at least it shouldn’t be. Some call the situation a humanitarian crisis. I prefer “national scandal.”…

Yet the key is to fix the Wilberforce Act: to permit prompt exclusion of unaccompanied Central American minors, as is already the case for Mexicans and (far less frequently) Canadians.

Sounds simple, right? Seems like everyone should get behind this, right? Wrong. That’s much too reasonable.

It will be very interesting to see whether the House manages to pass some sort of revision to Wilburforce, making the new arrivals subject to quicker deportation:

Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), the working group’s leader, will argue that child immigrants from Central America should be subject to the same rules as those from Mexico. A source close to Granger said the group will also advise that National Guard troops be sent to the border, a longstanding demand from Republicans.

I’m not even sure the GOP would support such a bill, although it seems eminently sensible to me. And even if it were to somehow be passed, I can’t imagine Harry Reid allowing it to come to a vote in the Senate. And then, if by some incredible happenstance it did get through the Senate, and such an act reached Obama’s desk for signing, he would be faced with quite a dilemma: would he veto a bill most of America desperately wants? Or would he sign it and turn his back on the left of his party, as well as his own plans for America’s future and an entrenched Democratic majority? I know which one I’d put my money on.

One more thing about that famous Hillary Clinton quote “What difference at this point does it make?”

The New Neo Posted on by

The question Hillary Clinton asked during the Benghazi hearings has become famous, and famously mocked.

But people have been so focused on the blase attitude it shows that they rarely comment on the fact that embedded in it is a false choice. This has bothered me for a long time, so I want to set the record straight.

Not that it makes any difference at this point.

But here’s the quote:

With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans! Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?

So, was it “because of a protest”? Or was it some random chaotic act “because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans”?

Well, how about: “Neither, Hillary, and what’s more, you know it was neither. Both suggestions are absurd. It actually was a group of organized terrorists who planned an attack, and succeeded in killing not just ‘some’ random Americans, but the ambassador and three protectors.”

I’ve long wondered why that part of the quote has been pretty much ignored.

Another worthless poll

The New Neo Posted on by

A WaPo-ABC News poll finds that:

Nearly 6 out of 10 Americans are not happy with Obama’s performance in dealing with the tens of thousands of minors who have arrived from Central America in recent months, overwhelming Border Patrol stations. All told, 58 percent disapprove of his management on the issue, including 54 percent of Latinos…

But as with other hot-button issues, congressional Republicans fare even worse in the court of public opinion, with 66 percent disapproving of the job GOP lawmakers have done to address the crisis. Almost as many Republicans disapprove of their party’s handling of the issue as say they approve, with negative ratings rising to a majority among conservatives.

Here’s the poll in its entirety: three questions. But the all-important one, both for Obama and for Congress—“do you think he/they is/are too lenient on allowing illegal immigrants in, or too tough?”—isn’t even dreamed of by the clever WaPo or the brilliant ABC.

And that’s the only question that would make any real sense of the poll. Without it, it’s just noise.

I can’t believe that the WaPo and ABC can’t figure that out, so I’ll just assume their purpose is to obfuscate. I’ve noticed that this is not unusual for polls in general. They often ask opinion questions without adding a single follow-up question to inquire as to the basis for the disapproval, and without that, the polls are nearly worthless. For example, what percentage of Obama’s growing disapproval rates is because respondents think he’s too far to the left, and what percentage is because they think he’s been not effective enough in getting his leftist agenda across? Inquiring minds should want to know.

We won’t be solving the Fermi Paradox any time soon

The New Neo Posted on by

The Fermi Paradox is scary any way you look at it. Are we alone in the universe, and if so, why? And if not, why haven’t we heard a thing?:

Continuing to speculate, if 1% of intelligent life survives long enough to become a potentially galaxy-colonizing Type III Civilization, our calculations above suggest that there should be at least 1,000 Type III Civilizations in our galaxy alone — and given the power of such a civilization, their presence would likely be pretty noticeable. And yet, we see nothing, hear nothing, and we’re visited by no one.

So where is everybody?

Welcome to the Fermi Paradox.

We have no answer to the Fermi Paradox — the best we can do is “possible explanations.” And if you ask ten different scientists what their hunch is about the correct one, you’ll get ten different answers. You know when you hear about humans of the past debating whether the Earth was round or if the sun revolved around the Earth or thinking that lightning happened because of Zeus, and they seem so primitive and in the dark? That’s about where we are with this topic.

It seems to me to be an excellent introductory article dealing with a complex subject. The author, whom I’d never heard of before, also has a blog. Surfing around there, I found this fascinating post on the author’s visit to North Korea.

Yes, you heard me right: North Korea. Read it. Ignore the gratuitous f-words. It’s a good article nonetheless.

Do you wonder whatever happened to this bill?

The New Neo Posted on by

In 2011 Senator Vitter of Louisiana introduced a bill to ban the automatic granting of citizenship to so-called “anchor babies” of illegal immigrants:

A group of conservative Republicans in the U.S. Senate have drafted a bill to stop “anchor babies” from automatically being granted birthright citizenship, ABC News reported Wednesday.

David Vitter of Louisiana, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah and Jerry Moran of Kansas said that their bill requires the federal government to limit automatic citizenship to children born to at least one parent who is a citizen, legal resident, or member of the military.

Or this subsequent one from 2013?

I can’t find much about their final dénouement. My guess is that most either die in committee, or are voted down in the House, because not enough Republicans will support them, much less Democrats. And even if such bills were to somehow pass the House, Harry Reid would block them in the Senate.

In addition, I’m not sure whether, if they somehow managed to be passed, the Supreme Court would uphold them. This would depend on how the Court interprets the Fourteenth Amendment. According to this, the Court so far has only ruled (at least, up to the year 2009, when the article was written) that children who are born here of legal immigrants must be citizens, a proposition with which I have absolutely no quarrel. If you’d like to study the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it might apply if Congress were to pass a bill like that proposed by Vitter in 2011, see this, particularly the description of the Congressional debates at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was passed:

Howard said that the clause “is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.” He added that citizenship “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons”””a comment which would later raise questions as to whether Congress had originally intended that U.S.-born children of foreign parents were to be included as citizens.

There’s much more that’s relevant to the question of whether the Court would uphold a law such as Vitter’s, and on what grounds, here and here. The ultimate remedy for the Court’s ruling against such a bill’s constitutionality would be to pass a constitutional amendment, which would require a lot more support than a mere bill.

But wouldn’t it be worthwhile it to pass such a bill and see what the Court would say about it? I’m almost positive that most Americans would favor such a law, especially now with the border crisis exploding. The most recent poll I could find on the subject was taken in 2011, and that year 61% of respondents disliked the anchor baby rule as it stands. What’s more, only 28% agreed with the rule, and “Eighty-four percent (84%) of voters believe that before anyone receives local, state or federal government services, they should be required to prove they are legally allowed to be in the United States. Only nine percent (9%) oppose such a requirement.” And although it was Republicans and Independents who most wanted to change the law favoring anchor babies, even Democrats were evenly split on the issue. That’s fairly overwhelming support.

So laws such as those sponsored by Vitter would seem to have unusually wide appeal. Why then are they not passed? Well, you know why. From the same poll:

There are sharper differences of opinion as far as the Political Class is concerned. Seventy percent (70%) of those in the Political Class favor automatic citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, but 70% of Mainstream voters are opposed.

Mainstream voters also believe much more emphatically that those seeking government services need to prove they are in this country legally.

The Rasmussen report on the poll is behind a paywall so I don’t know how they define “Political Class” (the above quotes and facts are from a blog purporting to quote the Rasmussen report). But it seems clear that the interests of Congress involving business, lobbyists, and the Hispanic bloc have conspired to cause them to act against the interests of the American people as a whole on this issue.

Not only is the Vitter bill sensible, but it is also the position of many countries in the world:

To stop birth tourism, Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom have a modified jus soli, granting citizenship by birth only when at least one parent is a citizen of the country or a legal permanent resident who has lived in the country for several years.

Works for me. Only Canada of all the developed countries has a rule that resembles ours.

And I don’t care what race, ethnicity, or country we’re talking about. If the parent is a whiter-than-white illegal immigrant from Scandinavia I don’t want anchor babies of illegal immigrants to be given automatic citizenship. Same for wealthy Chinese mothers who come here to give birth and then return home, and whose kids will some day come to the US and be computer whizzes. I don’t care.

Our current policy not only encourages people without respect for the rule of law to come here to game the system and to reap benefits we cannot afford (illegal immigrant women who are pregnant or nursing can qualify for WIC, and their children can be on Medicaid), but it can only decrease respect for the rule of law in general. It’s time to take another look at changing the birthright citizenship rules and passing something like the Vitter bill. Too bad that even the Republicans seem to have no stomach for it.

More “stuff” from Obama

The New Neo Posted on by

Obama in Austin: “You know it is lonely, me just doing stuff.”

That’s not a mocking paraphrase, nor is it an Onion article nor a scene from the movie “Idiocracy.” It’s a direct quote from our president:

Does this fool anyone anymore? Probably his intended audience: liberals, for example the rather-dazed-yet-smiley group of folks carefully placed behind him as he makes his speech.

To me, it’s a profoundly ironic comment by Obama, because he is indeed “doing stuff.” It’s just not the “stuff” the country would like him to do. It’s other “stuff”—such as working against the interests of the US. Ha, ha, pretty funny joke, right?

Also of some note is Obama’s use of his vernacular “I’m-just-folks” mode. Or alternately, his “I’m-a-young-hipster” mode. The telltale word is “stuff,” one of his favorites. I first noticed these propensities of Obama’s during the 2008 campaign. Obama is never more studied and controlled than when he’s being purposely casual.

Let’s not automatically assume that Hispanics who are already here are happy about the new flood of illegals

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve been wondering why everyone seems to assume that all the Hispanics who are already here—legally or illegally—would be jumping with joy at the current flood of illegal arrivals.

It seems to me that maybe, just maybe, some not utterly insignificant number of them might relish neither the competition for jobs and/or welfare, nor the bad optics the unprecedented flood of the newly-arrived present—a prospect that could rile people up against Hispanic immigrants in general. There weren’t many things that could have turned even a small number of Hispanics away from support of Obama and Democrats (and perhaps even towards a Republican or two?). But Obama’s behavior so far during this crisis just might be able to accomplish that almost-impossible feat.

You think I’m crazy for saying it or even thinking it? Well, get a load of this from Michael Barone:

A Washington Post new [sic] story quotes Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke as favoring “greater emphasis on the interests of these children who are refugees from extreme violence” instead of “an acceleration of the deportation process at the expense of these children.” But the Post reporters note that “O’Rourke added that he has been surprised by the anger he has heard toward the immigrants of many of his El Paso constituents, who ‘feel like we can’t take care of everyone, and these children and their families are gaming the system.’ ” O’Rourke’s district, which includes most of El Paso County, is 79 percent Hispanic.

I don’t know much about intra-Hispanic rivalries, but could there perhaps also be no love lost between the older arrivals from Mexico and the newer ones from Central American countries?

Eric Holder keeps playing that race card

The New Neo Posted on by

Why not? It’s the only one he’s got.

Eric Holder, victim. Right. I don’t think even Holder believes it any more, if in fact he ever did.

Years ago there was a lot of talk about whether Obama would let Holder go, because Holder was caught up in so many controversies. I have always taken the position that it would not happen, and unfortunately that turned out to be correct. In February of 2010 I wrote:

…[M]y gut senses a close identification between Obama and Holder, an almost-Vulcan-mind-meld between them…

Holder serves a purpose for Obama. If there is an issue on which the President is somewhat loathe to express his opinion fully, perhaps because he knows it will be unpopular or controversial, I believe that Obama purposely uses Holder as cover, to draw the opposition’s criticism and deflect it from himself.

Perhaps the proper word for the relationship might be “surrogate” or “mouthpiece.” This is not to say that Holder does not have opinions of his own. I am not claiming he is a puppet. But his opinions are so closely in sync with Obama’s on these issues that for all intents and purposes they are one.

I see no reason to change my mind now.

There is talk of impeaching Obama but it will probably never be done. There is talk of impeaching Holder, and although it’s a bit more likely it will probably not be done either, unless Republicans think they have 2/3 of the Senate willing to vote to convict.

How likely is that? Not very, to say the least. Can you imagine the shouts of “racism” if either Obama or Holder were impeached? Apparently, being black makes a person unimpeachable—that is, unless that person is a black Republican, such as Clarence Thomas. Then that person becomes an honorary white.

The border: Clash of the Titan Interest Groups

The New Neo Posted on by

This is what happens when we don’t have one America: the Democratic Party creates its coalition by catering to a diverse group of ethnic interest groups, and some day the very special interests of those very special interest groups will clash.

In the following clip, we see a microcosm of the competing groups, as well as rifts within the black community itself. My guess would be that almost everyone speaking on the video is a Democrat, although I can’t be sure. But they certainly show a diversity of opinion and a great intensity of feeling about it, too, as well as some eloquence. The Vietnam vet has a quiet firmness. I can’t always understand what the guy on the left with the white hair and curly beard is saying, but the earnest younger man in the black shirt’s “This make no sense!” comes through loud and clear.

I absolutely agree with him. Our government’s reaction to what’s happening on the border makes no sense if we ordinary people look at it conventionally. But it makes plenty of sense to Obama and others in his party who think it will give them a permanent and unbeatable majority in the not-too-distant future, as well as placate the huge Hispanic voting bloc in the present. And if their formerly reliable ethnic group, African Americans, suffers as a result—well then, what are they going to do about it anyway? Turn Republican? After Democrats’ successfully branding Republicans as racist for several decades, that would be a tough pill for many black people to swallow, and the Democrat know it.

Towards the end of the tape, the soft-spoken guy on the right in the red shirt talks the hard leftist line of “Americans have caused all the ills of the world by interfering with it.” Thank you, Howard Zinn! The young woman with the tank top with the thin straps counters him at the very end by saying the US does some good, too.

It’s a little microcosm of America, complete with the drumbeats of the Native American demonstrators who are using the occasion to air their grievances as well:

The National Review has a good article on the topic of the clash between American blacks and the new arrivals. Not only will poorer black citizens bear the brunt of the jobs competition with these illegal immigrants, as well as competing for aid, they will be the ones on the front lines in terms of the invasion of their neighborhoods. No rich white liberal (and no rich black liberal, for that matter) is going to have to live next door to a houseful of illegal alien drug runners controlled by the violent cartels.

The people in this administration seem to think that anything they do is spinnable. And why wouldn’t they? That’s been their experience so far. I wonder about this one, though. People seem very angry, and it cuts across political and racial lines to a certain extent.

[ADDENDUM: Here’s another video that’s gotten even more air time, of a woman in Houston making much the same points, with a similar frustrated intensity.]

Descent into chaos: “notice to appear” form

The New Neo Posted on by

Raise your hands if you think any of these people will ever report back to the authorities again.

And why should they? After all, if the authorities show such contempt for the law and our safety, why should our new guests feel any differently? They’ve already shown a propensity to break the law in the manner of their arrival, and nothing they’ve encountered in this country since then would be likely to give them a new respect for it:

Whatever could go wrong?

Ever hear of the Lisbon earthquake?

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This is a slightly edited version of an earlier post.]

This first time I ever read about the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 was in one of the volumes from Will and Ariel Durant’s humungous Story of Civilization series, which I came across while feeling bored one day during a stay at my in-laws’ house while I was helping my husband recover from knee surgery. Until then I’d never even heard of the Lisbon earthquake, although I was in my mid-twenties.

Like WWI and the 1918 flu epidemic, it was a cataclysmic event—not just because it killed a lot of people, but because of what it meant to those who survived. It was a case of that overused word: the narrative. If WWI precipitated a loss of faith in human progress, the Lisbon earthquake had precipitated a loss of faith in faith itself. As I wrote here:

How many remember anything about the great Lisbon Earthquake, fire, and tsunami of 1755, which struck at 9 AM on All Saints’ Day and virtually destroyed a city that was one of the major capitals of the world at the time, collapsing churches filled with worshippers and filling Europe with horror? The earthquake struck not only at the city and its inhabitants, but at the attitude of optimism that had characterized the first half of that century, and caused many to question their previously unshakeable faith in divine providence, advancing the Enlightenment and the science of seismology.

There have been many disasters that have killed more people; the entire death toll from the earthquake and its attendant sequela (tsunami and fire) was probably “only” about 100,000. But its psychological effects were much greater than the numbers would dictate, because of the time and place:

In the morning of November 1, 1755, a large earthquake struck Lisbon – a great city legendary for its wealth, prosperity and sophistication. It was Sunday and the religious holiday of All Saints. Most of Lisbon’s population of 250,000 were praying in six magnificent cathedrals, including the great Basilica de Sao Vincente de Fora. Within minutes, this great thriving city-port of Lisbon, capital of Portugal and of the vast Portuguese empire and seat of learning in Europe, was reduced to rubble by the two major shocks of this great earthquake and the waves of the subsequent catastrophic tsunami. A huge fire completed the destruction of the great city…

The destruction caused by the earthquake was beyond description. Lisbon’s great cathedrals, Basilica de Santa Maria, Sao Vincente de Fora, Sao Paulo, Santa Catarina, the Misericordia – all full of worshipers – collapsed, killing thousands. Lisbon’s whole quay and the marble-built Cais De Pedra along the Tagus disappeared into the river, burying with it hundreds of people who had sought refuge.

The psychological and philosophical effects were profound:

The earthquake had wide-ranging effects on the lives of the populace and intelligentsia. The earthquake had struck on an important church holiday and had destroyed almost every important church in the city, causing anxiety and confusion amongst the citizens of a staunch and devout Roman Catholic city and country, which had been a major patron of the Church. Theologians would focus and speculate on the religious cause and message, seeing the earthquake as a manifestation of divine judgement. Most philosophers rejected that on the grounds that the Alfama, Lisbon’s red-light district, suffered only minor damage.

There are natural events that particularly resonate with the ethos of an age and help to shatter it. The flu and the war, and the Lisbon earthquake before it, had that effect. They are the quintessential Black Swans, the unforeseeable and uncontrollable events that help determine human destiny. And curiously, they are often forgotten (or nearly so) by posterity.

[NOTE: In this post I speculated on the reasons for what I call “the forgetting.”]