THERE ARE FEW topics in our country that ignite more fiery debate than immigration.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), there are now a record number of immigrants living in the United States -- about 37.9 million. But it is the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants who generate the most controversy. California has more illegals than any other state -- an estimated 2.4 million, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.
In an era of government cost cutting, the public costs of recent immigrants to our nation, both legal and
illegal, have come under scrutiny. It is thought that as many as one-third of recent immigrants use some
sort of public assistance. Because of their lower education levels, a very
large share of immigrant
households have meager incomes, and thus qualify for these services. About a third lack health insurance as well, so no debate about health care in this country can ignore this fact.
While illegals cannot use the welfare system themselves, their
U.S.-born children can be enrolled in Medicaid and receive
food assistance.
And the total cost for educating illegal aliens and the
U.S.-born children of illegal aliens likely comes to over $30 billion a
year, CIS studies show.
On the other side of the argument are
those who say the immigrant workforce is a necessary component of our
economy. More than 90 percent of illegal households have at least one
worker, much higher than the rate for native households.
"Undocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services," writes Francine Lipman,
a professor of law at Chapman University. "Moreover, undocumented
immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and
consumption of goods and services..."
And while it is probable those undocumented workers with school-age children do take in more than
they pay out, that is true for native families with children, as
well. Education is undoubtedly the key to bringing these families out of poverty.
Yet despite all the turmoil, we cannot forget we are a nation of immigrants. Nearly
every family has an ancestor who came to the United States looking for
a better life.
I AM TURNING OVER the bulk of this entry to my daughter, Amber, who is a
freshman at Emory University in Atlanta. Amber volunteers every week at
DeKalb Technical Institute as an English tutor for recent immigrants to
the United States. She has also worked with many young immigrant
families through the Neighborhood for Learning project in Ventura and
Head Start in Ojai.
I am sharing her stories here because I recognize there is a common bond between those she tutors in Atlanta and the immigrants who live here in our community. My daughter has recognized a work ethic and fierce determination in these people and it has inspired her:
I GET TO CLASS ABOUT 15 minutes early every
Wednesday and Osama's smiling, enthusiastic face always greets me. He
has whitened hair and tanned, weathered skin. He seems to exude an
inner calm. This week, as we sat down in our respective seats, we
chatted about our Thanksgivings.
"How was your Thanksgiving?" he eagerly asked in slow, accented English.
"It was really nice," I replied with a smile. I always enjoy our
conversations. "I went home for the first time since August. And I ate
a lot of turkey. How was yours?"
"My wife and I prepared turkey. Then I woke up early on Friday to shop at Target," he told me.
This caused me to laugh, "Oh, so you went shopping on Black Friday? Was it crazy?"
"Yes, it was very crazy," he said with a big grin.
I am struck by the normality of this conversation, when it is anything but typical. At 55, this is Osama's first Thanksgiving. Preparing turkey and waking up early to shop at Target are entirely new for him. He and his wife moved to the United States five months ago from Libya, although they are originally from Baghdad. His brother was working at Emory, and he sponsored Osama, his wife and his son to move here. However, this is not all of Osama's family -- three of his children are still in Libya.
Before they came to the United States, Osama's family moved to Libya so that his family could have a better life. When I asked Osama about his children, he pulled a whole host of papers out of his briefcase. They were documents necessary for their immigration to the United States. Osama went through each one with me, showing me the pictures and telling me about his children. His daughter, Dhai, is a dentist in Libya. He has another daughter named Amany, and a son named Abdulrazak, also living in Libya still. His youngest son, Jonathon, is studying in a college here in Chamblee. Unfortunately, only his youngest son could come to the United States because any children accompanying immigrants have to be under 21 years of age. I asked him if he missed them, and the saddest look crossed his face. "Yes, I miss them a lot," he said, unable, or perhaps unwilling, to express himself further.
Nonetheless, he seems to be adapting well. Osama is certainly one of
the most focused students in the class. He gets to class early,
participates with enthusiasm, and seizes any opportunity to practice
his developing English skills. I asked him if he liked America, and he
said, "it is beautiful, very beautiful. People are very kind, they give
assistance."
But when I asked him if it was very different, he said with great feeling, "It is too much different, like the earth and the sky. At home, there is kindred, I have a big family and we speak Arabic. But you do not get assistance from a stranger."
AT FIRST GLANCE, ESL classes at DeKalb Tech are nothing special. Every Wednesday, the students slowly trickle in, one by one, until class starts at 6:45. The teacher usually spends a few minutes discussing logistics of the class, and then jumps into the lesson. The class reviews the workbooks, reading each lesson aloud, while the teacher periodically pauses to explain something. At this point, the students will jump in and comment on their own experiences.This is where the class diverges from the normal. On one occasion, we were discussing locks and their uses, as well as practicing how to respond to questions. This is a fairly basic concept for anyone who has grown up in America. Yet to some of the students who came from rural or impoverished places, locks were not so common. So when the teacher asked, "Did you used to have locks on your doors?" there was a smattering of "yes, I did" or "no, I did not," depending on where the student was from. But a Cuban student, who is more outspoken, said, "In Cuba, we did not have any locks because there was nothing in our houses to steal." At this point, the whole class burst into laughter.
This moment has stuck with me, not only because it was particularly hilarious, but also because something like this would never have happened in one of my regular classes. The recurring theme throughout my sessions has been how something so ordinary is actually so extraordinary.
I have come out of this with an immense appreciation for struggles that immigrants have to go through in America. Every single immigrant I met at DeKalb Tech was hardworking and dedicated to making a better life for him or herself. And yet they are criticized for "being lazy," or "taking advantage of the system," especially if they are illegal immigrants. These statements make me angry now that I have this experience and all that I have learned in this class behind me. Immigrants first have the struggle of getting here, often escaping some form of persecution in their home country. Then, once they are here and finally settled, they have to deal with the stress of a completely foreign culture, where they know nobody and don't speak the language.They do all this for the hope of achieving the illusive American Dream, something that we all believe in. This struggle is courageous and valiant; it reflects the very essence of our history and culture. Instead of shunning immigrants, we need to embrace them.
Excuses for illegal immigration and tapping-into the US welfare system, for anyone is against the law. The problem with the US system is lack of total enforcement and politics as usual. If a person is illegal, so should the children be, and they should not be allowed employment. Period. Laws should be altered to state if an illegal parent of either sex, married or not to their spouse, has a child naturally, through guardianship or adoption, that child is banned from receiving welfare and other funding by the US system. The other excuse by Francine Lipman, is that these illegals contribute to the tax base and employment base; I don't care if these people bring in tax funds or necessary services to employers...we can always find workers to do the job; legal citizens of the US, who easily pay taxes and be employed to do the job, too. The Lipman thought-process is stupid! There seems to be no internal responsibility on the part of politicians once they assume office, as the interest turns inward - unto themselves only. Mexico should take care of their own. What is the problem with Mexico that it cannot be more proactive in production and manufacturing and other forms of viable business enterprises then they are currently? The US establishes quotas per state, for immigrants. With so much turmoil in the world right now, I feel best if the US and other countries such as the UK, would stop immigrants for the time being until the countries themselves reorganize their infra-structured financial situations and terrorism drops drastically. The US, like some other countries are also allowing too much influx and because of it, the world is falling apart, piece by piece. This comment is very staccato and does not address all issues dealing with immigration, nor explains much problem-solving options, but for the US, it certainly has a major problem with illegals....and an oversupply of other immigrants, legally being entered into the US.
"Instead of shunning immigrants, we need to embrace them."
While I do appreciate the lengths taken to put faces on the immigration issue, I do take issue with the comment above because it treats legal and illegal immigrants the same.
I welcome and embrace legal immigrants who are now legal US citizens, I'm not as ready to welcome and embrace those who have come illegally. There is a big difference in my mind between legal and illegal as this pertains to respect for the rule of law.
Perhaps, as a follow-up in the next semester, we could not just see the above profiles, but also some profiles of families and citizens impacted by illegal immigration in different ways.
Profiles like this one.
Here is a link of a story coming out of Kansas on 12/19/08. In it, the "alleged drunk driver" killed a family's mother. The family just learned that the alleged drunk driver was in the country illegally. In fact, it appears he had been pulled over before and had 4 misdemeanors.
The victim, Lola Jayne, was a mother of 8 and had been married for 58 years.
No doubt, such a profile would change a couple of minds as to it's impacts, would it not?
Also, ask yourself how many illegal immigrants we now house and pay for in our prison system? Is this cost included in the "illegal immigrants pay for themselves argument?"
There is no doubt we need to show compassion when it warrants it, especially those who have fallen victim to human trafficking, but not at the expense of justice and the rule of law.
First, reading Amber's account, I'm not really clear if her students are legal/undocumented workers or some combination.
For her story though, it doesn't matter. All immigrants to this nation share many of the same experiences. They struggle to get here, to eke out a living, and eventually to fit in.
I'd say though, that the process is much easier today for many, especially Hispanic immigrants than it was for my Swedish grandmother some 80+ years ago.
That being said, I've also read that full assimilation is a truly multi-generational process whether your ancestors were Swedish or Mexican.
A nice commentary though Amber...put's a face on people...thank you.
Now second, the commentary by Mr. King. You raise some issues that I have to say I don't have a lot of knowledge of. Some of what you say, I don't think I'l agree with.
..but, Mr. King I very much appreciate the, for the main, resonable and calm way you made your case. That does not happen enough here about this topic I think.
While I don't think I'd agree at all with your remark that: "The US, like some other countries are also allowing too much influx and because of it, the world is falling apart, piece by piece."
I do believe that you present opinions that differ from my own, but also that you sound like someone who will truly discuss issues.
A refreshing change on these boards and thank you for your thoughts.
I agree with Scott that it isn't fair to group legal and illegal immigrants together. It is unfortunate that those who oppose illegal immigration are routinely labeled as bigots or anti-immigrant. That is simply untrue. I believe that immigration is very important to the continued cultural and economic growth of this country, but like many others I only support LEGAL immigration.
First of all, we are a nation of laws. Those who want to come to this country for a better life need to have a respect for our laws. Any conversation about illegal immigration should also include the severe impact on our education system, prisons, hospitals, and poverty programs. Illegal immigration has also been responsible for importing violent gang activity into our inner cities. It circumvents screening for infectious diseases like TB that put the public at risk. A high percentage of our prison population are criminals who are in this country illegally. Schools are being overwhelmed with the children of illegal immigrants who have limited English skills and often live in poverty.
We also can't ignore the victims of illegal immigration, like Jamiel Shaw. He was a star high school running back who was being recruited by Rutgers and Stanford University. But earlier this year he was gunned down at the age of 17 by an 18th Street gang member named Pedro Espinoza. Pedro is a violent 19 year old illegal immigrant who had been released from LA County Jail just one day before he murdered Jamiel Shaw. Despite a history of criminal behavior he was never deported. One day after being released from prison he murdered Jamiel Shaw in a random attack without provocation, most likely because Jamiel was black.
Now Jamiel is dead and Pedro will likely be spending the rest of his life in prison, with the cost shouldered by American taxpayers. It should be noted that at the time of the murder Jamiel's mother, a sergeant in the Army, was serving her country in Iraq. The family is understandably angry that their son was killed by a man who should not have been in this country in the first place, and who had already been in the custody of law enforcement before their son was killed. The family unsuccessfully attempted to draft a law to repeal LAPD's Special Order 40 that prevents law enforcement officers from asking suspects about their immigration status.
Stories like this are why I get upset when I hear all the complaints about ICE enforcing our immigration laws. There needs to be zero tolerance for violent criminals who are in our country illegally. Yet the illegal immigrant sympathizers hide behind rhetoric like "comprehensive immigration reform" and "family reunification", which is nothing more than blanket amnesty. These open border advocates even seek to block enforcement of our immigration laws. That is not an acceptable solution. We tried amnesty back in 1987 and the result was even bigger waves off illegal immigration. The statistics showing a recent sharp drop in illegal immigration demonstrates that enforcement of our immigration laws actually works.
What is evident with the above writing from Amber Lakin is the attitudes of an emerging generation of Americans who do not see borders and are more apt to support globally integrated solutions.
If you want a good read, might I suggest "The Way We'll Be" by pollster John Zogby. In it, he outlines the attitudes of an emerging group of 18-29 year old voters, he calls the "First Globals" because they view themselves as America's first global citizens.
While I don't generally speak for others, I'd be willing to bet Amber may represent this emerging generational divide that doesn't approach the world with my reverence for Robert Frost's "good fences make good neighbors" approach.
I hope that she will share her view on both illegal and legal immigration and whether she even accepts this division.
Amber writes about all these wonderful immigrants and on the surface sounds great. However, we need to distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal aliens. There is a big difference. Legal immigrants did not break any laws; they CHOSE to come here legally and respect our immigration laws. I respect that. I do not condone illegals circumventing our laws, regardless of how much they want a better life. Therefore, I CHOOSE to disagree with Amber regarding her description of the immigrants she works with. They need to enter my country respecting the immigration laws that pertain to my beloved country. If they are here illegally they need to go back and apply to come here legally. Otherwise, forget the dreams that they are not entitled to.
The people Amber wrote about in this blog entry entered legally. But she thinks she has also worked with people who were illegal.
Her point was that it is unfair to characterize them as lazy and/or only interested in gaming the system.
It is sometimes hard to separate legal and illegal immigration. People who enter the U.S. legally can overstay their visas and thus become illegal. Many bear children here who are legal citizens. Most illegals reside with someone in their family who is here legally.
Even legal immigrants tax our social service system.
I've tried to coax her on here to respond. She's a writer like her mother, but unlike mom does not like to argue and debate. :-)
I think it is refreshing to hear from our youngest generation on the social issues they will one day be called on to solve.
ONCE again the argument for illegal immigration is are ageing poplulation? yet millions of AMERICANS are losing their jobs to outsourcing to foreign country's! in turn we see our goverment encouraging foreign industry here? the question is whats the deal? now we throw holiday inn the illegal immigrants and refugees? now if your a american tax paying legal citizen you ask yourself where the hell do i benefit from this type of direction and action? how does my country benefit from this change and culture? i see POOR! COST! SLUMS! CRIME!DISEASES? LOWER WAGES! FOREIGN TAKE OVER? but the biggest argument is all are invaders are from unkown country's? give this type of nothing more than parasites power benefits legal voting rights? invaders? whats to say russia is not thrown a few million communist activist? how about MEXICO? china? korea? then you have ACORN organization? DIFFERENT COUNTRYS GAINING POWER IN STATE AFTER STATE INFLUENCE? TAKING u.s. APART PIECE BY PIECE LIKE BIDDING ON STATES A CHEST GAME? right now mayors talking about selling off our assets NOW" and have been read LOU DOBBS book? private companies obamas trillion dollor tax plan? private foreign goverments? everything stinks what this bunch of criminals in washington are trying to pull off by underminding the american public!their is no justifcation to give something illegal a right? american legal citizens lose period gain nothing except foreign invaders power? they contribute more than they take BS!!!! is this true CALIFORNIA? TEXAS? ILLINIOS? NEW YORK? ARIZONA? COLORADO? VIRGINA? NEW JERSEY? MARYLAND? FLORIDA? MASSACHSETTS? LOUISIANA? KANSAS? INDIANA? PENNSYLVNIA? GEORGIA? TENNESSEE? ROAD ISLAND? INVASION? encourage by our own goverment and special interest groups? outsource our industry bring in foreign industry? work force foreign illegal invaders? gee this sure looks some kind of funny to ME! (CONSPIRACY?) health care cost alone in texas for illegal invaders dam near close to a billion dollars? money wasted on foreign country's poor invaders? NUTS!!! MONEY THAT COULD AND SHOULD BE USED ON ENFORCEMENT AND OUR PROTECTION? instead propaganda and encouragement from goverment and special interest groups like NAACP? ACORN? LA RAZA? ACLU? the most trusted names in illegal rights and civil rights but not for whites groups? argument for illegal behavior and rights i see nothing on for their argument we have immigrant AND JUST MIGRATION system or should i say we did before clinton AND NAFTA took power? 37 million invaders and them numbers only increase day after day? we lose gain nothing AMERICA period. INDEPENDENT michigan little big horn AMEN.
Wow, Frank, just a suggestion but maybe you could use the caps key less often and lose a question mark or two.
Frank brings up a good point. I find it very hypocritical that people bitch and complain and moan about how “illegals� from Mexico are stealing American jobs.
What a complete joke, time to wake up everyone. If you are that upset why not turn some of that righteous anger at Big companies exporting American Jobs to China as well as our Govt for supporting the destruction of American jobs.
Made in the USA used to mean something but now its all about cheaper costs and labor. People need to take a look at the big picture, How can you get pissed off that illegal’s are taking jobs and tax payer money when people have no trouble buying that lead based toy that was made in China.
Its no wonder we have all kinds of safety scares in relation to lead in toys, melamine poisoning in milk and pet products. Lets keep exporting for cheaper costs and throw American safety standards out the window.
Illegal immigration is the least of our problems when it comes to jobs. I know I went a little off topic but this goes hand in hand with “illegal’s� taking jobs. The USA Used to be self sufficient, now it relies way to much on foreign imports and energy, labor and manufacturing. Its no wonder our economy is tanking hard core when we spend our American Money in foreign countries while our American citizens are left holding an empty bag in the food stamp line.
Immigration is what made this country great, immigrants came to this country and worked their butts off to make a better life for themselves and their children, which in turn helped make the USA a great country. People should not forget that. Instead make it so legal immigration is easier but until we stop America’s lifeblood from flowing to foreign countries American is only going to get economically sicker and sicker.
Mexican wanted in sexual-assault cases arrested
By Debbi Baker
Originally published 1:17 p.m. December 30, 2008, updated 10:19 p.m., December 30, 2008
SAN DIEGO — A Mexican national with a history of immigration violations and arrests has been taken into custody as a suspect in a series of sexual assaults, authorities said Tuesday.
Carlos Ceron Salazar, 30, was booked into jail Monday in San Diego on suspicion of assault with intention to commit rape, mayhem and sexual battery in connection with an attack in December 2006 on a woman jogging at Miramar Lake, San Diego police said.
The woman told officers at the time that she was running about 12:30 p.m. when a man grabbed her around the neck and forced her to the ground.
She fought him and bit his hand so deeply that when he yanked it away, she lost two of her teeth. She escaped and called for help, police said.
Escondido police arrested Salazar on charges of public intoxication about 1:30 a.m. Dec. 22 on North Escondido Boulevard near West Valley Parkway, Escondido Lt. Bob Benton said.
While Salazar was at the Vista jail, officials ran a routine immigration check and found that he had extensive violations. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Lauren Mack said he had multiple apprehensions and had been deported or voluntarily returned to Mexico 10 times.
Further checks discovered that San Diego police and sheriff's detectives suspected him in several sexual assault cases.
ICE agents turned him over to San Diego police, Mack said.
A DNA sample taken from Salazar matched DNA collected from the attack at Miramar Lake as well as DNA taken from an assault in September 2004, authorities said. In that case, a woman jogging along a trail near Community Road in Poway about 8:30 a.m. was raped by a man who came up from behind her and threw her to the ground, said sheriff's Detective Jose Baltz.
Salazar also is a suspect in an attempted sexual assault in December 2005 when a woman was attacked at Lake Poway, Baltz said.
Additional charges of rape with a foreign object and attempted rape will be sought against him, Baltz said.
Sheriff's Department records show that Salazar also had been arrested in 2005 and 2006 on driving-under-the-influence charges.
Salazar is scheduled to be arraigned Wednesday in San Diego Superior Court. He is being held without bail.
Detectives said they believe Salazar could be involved in other attacks. Authorities are asking anyone with information to call Baltz at the Poway sheriff's station at (858) 513-2824, or San Diego police Detective Greg Flood at (619) 531-2210.
Yes, this is dreadful, sickening news. But using is to make a point about immigration is sort of cheap. Let's not forget the mass murder on Christmas perpetrated by a white, native-born male dressed in a Santa suit. There are sick individuals everywhere.
Marie:
Approaching this issue as simply compassionate social policy is not going to accomplish much. We need to ensure border security and strict enforcement creates one legitimate legal system to enter this country. You can't have people waiting in line to become legal citizens while others just jump illegally to the front.
This is patently unfair to all those who adhere to our legal system.
The bottom line is, by rewarding those who broke the law Washington just encourages more law-breaking. Unfortunately, states like California burns up with social and legal costs while Washington fiddles.
I'm fully supportive of reform of our immigration laws, but we must have strict adherence and enforcement to the current legal framework in order for those reform discussions to commence.
You cannot speak of reform if the current rule of law has been so disrespected.
Actually I think that Bubba makes an excellent point. The U.S. Justice Department has estimated that there were 270,000 illegal immigrants who served jail time in 2003, of which 108,000 were in California. Illegal immigrant criminal activity and the resulting impact on the criminal justice system is a massive problem that can no longer be ignored. Approximately 17% of prisoners at the federal level are illegal immigrants, which is a huge number when you consider that illegal immigrants represent just 3% of the total population. A large percentage of criminal activity in this country can be directly tied to illegal immigration. I don't consider bringing up this issue a cheap shot at all.
Scott,
I don't think I was really advocating that. The social issue is just one facet. Realistically, though, how do you round up and deport en masse 11 million people? Do you favor a guest worker program?
I think people who hire illegals should be cracked down on even harder and this has worked in many places.
But denying illegals emergency health care and not educating their children is not something I would advocate. We tried to do that with Prop. 187 and it was ruled unconstitutional.
Marie:
I'll try to answer quickly before the Rose Bowl game, but if I can't I'll add more later.
Happy New Year to everyone by the way.
I don't agree with your usage of the comment "round them up." From my perspective, word choices like "round them up" assumes a certain cowboy nature to our justice system and actually implies those who violated the law are like cattle or subhuman. I don't agree with the comment, "round them up."
We are dealing with people who have broken the law, but we also need to be cognizant of the fact that illegal immigrants are still human beings who deserve justice just like we would expect.
That said, I support full expansion of our immigration courts. According to the General Accounting Office, there is 53 immigration courts located in the US. As recently as July, The LA Times (Link above) reported on how underfunded and undermanned these courts are for dealing with the stronger enforcement we have seen from this administration. Some are waiting 2 to 3 years to have a decision made on whether they can stay in the US or go.
It makes it very tough to enforce the law, when it takes 2-3 years to adjudicate these cases and our justice system is overwhelmed.
Another 2008 GAO (GAO-08-542T) report admits, "while DHS apprehends hundreds of thousands of such individuals each year, several hundreds of thousands more enter the country illegally and undetected."
Third, currently not all employers are required to participate in the "e-verify" system which was created to allow employers an easy system to verify their employees work eligibility. The GAO report (GAO-08-729T) states about 61,000 employers have registered on e-verify and only about half actively use the system. This is way too small a number.
So, the first thing I think we should do is ensure a safe and secure border region that creates a higher interdiction success rate at the border. Second, enable the courts to effectively manage the heavy caseloads to process the backlog. Third, enable employers the tools to verify the eligibility of their employees.
In terms of a guest worker program. I just can't support any type of program while hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants enter the country undetected yearly, our immigration courts are overloaded, and our employers do not have an adequate system in place to check the work eligibility of their employees.
Introducing a guest worker system would be akin to solving Medicare fraud problem by making Medicare fraud legal. This is not a solution in my mind at this point.
Marie:
One other item that I didn't get a chance to add. There needs to be a reform to required legal identification necessary to open bank accounts in the US. It should be insufficient to open an account with consular cards. Typically, community banks are not using consular cards to open bank accounts, but it's my understanding big banks have an exemption from Treasury.
Congressman Gallegly brought this to light in 2007. I believe these exemptions that allow consular cards should be stopped.
I appreciate your reaction to my "round them up" comment. Seldom have I been chastised for my lack of sensitivity. :-) But of course it was not meant that way at all. It was only meant to highlight the logistical improbability of the task.
I notice you did not mention stepped up sanctions for employers. Other states have been busy ramping up their anti-illegal immigration laws. Arizona law suspends the business license of employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers. On a second offense, the license is revoked. They also require your E-Verify, but so far only 19 percent of Arizona's employers have signed up for it.
Of course then the Wall Street Journal ran an article critical of Arizona's law:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119760108815428771.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news
Quote from that:
"Getting rid of these workers means we are deciding as a matter of policy to shrink our economy," says Judith Gans, an immigration scholar at the university's Udall Center. "They're filling vital gaps in our labor force."
There are employers in Arizona who said they will outsource some of their work to Mexico because of this law. So clearly employers want these illegal employees.
I'm strongly in favor of sanctions for those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. I would point out that the open border supporters who argue for "comprehensive" immigration reform have protested against raids against companies who use illegal immigrant labor. We can't get control of this problem if we don't enforce our own laws. Businesses should not get away with hiring cheap labor while leaving taxpayers on the hook for the costs of healthcare, housing and education. If employers have a need for labor we should create a work visa program that allows workers into this country legally, but requires them to return to their country after some period of time. I'm also in support of allowing those working in this country to have a path to citizenship, but only if they follow the rules, are financially self-sufficient, and are law-abiding contributors to our society.
Marie, I'd also like to correct you on your comment on Prop 187. The proposition was not ruled unconstitutional. A single federal judge ruled that the proposition exceeded state authority since immigration is regulated by the federal government. Governor Pete Wilson appealed that ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In the meantime, Gray Davis was elected governor. Before the appeals court was able to issue its ruling Gray Davis ordered the state to drop its appeal, effectively killing the law by letting the lower court ruling stand. Prop 187 never had its day in court, therefore the constitutionality issue was never resolved. Most likely this issue would have gone all the way to the state, and possibly U.S. Supreme Court. I think that the citizens of the State of California should have been entitled to a fair ruling on the law instead of having the results of an election overturned by a single judge.
OK, Bubba, I was relying on memory there, but I went back and looked it up and exceeding state authority is a Constitutional violation of the Supremacy clause. Wouldn't 187 also violate the 14th Amendment, too?
http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-14_1c.html
So you would advocate for a guest worker program? How do you force people to go back?
Marie:
While I agree that we need strong sanctions, I also believe we need to get businesses under one consistent system such as e-verify. We also need to evaluate the burdens and costs on businesses to accomplish it. Once this is done, we will have the means to get aggressive on the sanction side.
In terms of the Udall center, I have a sneaking suspicion that the labor costs to productivity measure is too low and this is the real push for outsourcing in the region.
I'd like to see a cost of compliance analysis with the law before I believe it will cause outsourcing already being caused by artificially high labor costs and low productivity.
In terms of the AZ law itself, I think the major issue is how an investigation get's started.... Anyone can file a complaint (including a competitor) and this starts the investigation. It also appears the investigations can go on in perpetuity. That's quite a bit of autonomy.
In my view, a better method would be to have businesses submit a document stating their labor is compliant with e-verify as part of the business license process.
But, my general view is Arizonans should govern Arizona.
Marie, the issue whether 187 violated the 14th amendment is unresolved. I personally don't think there is a violation since illegal immigrants don't have the same constitutional protections as U.S. citizens. Also, there is an ongoing, unresolved dispute over states rights when it comes to controlling illegal immigration, especially in light of the federal government's inability to address the issue. Since state budgets are heavily impacted by federal immigration laws there is a valid argument that states therefore have some right to pass their own laws to address the impact that illegal immigration has on state hospitals, prisons, education, and healthcare. But, nevertheless, the courts would have the final say. However, we don't know how the courts would have ruled since the process was not allowed to go forward.
By the same token, how would you feel if a single politician used their power to drop the legal challenges to the constitutionality of Proposition 8? Don't you feel that these issues should at least have the opportunity to go through the full legal process? If you think that opponents of Prop 8 are entitled to a legal review of the constitutionality of that law then why wouldn't the same apply to supporters of Prop 187? If the opponents of 187 were so certain that it would have been eventually held to be unconstitutional then they should have allowed the appeal to move forward, that way the issue would have been resolved once and for all.
Illegal immigrants living in public housing raising eyebrows
By Elliot Spagat, The Associated Press
Updated: 01/01/2009 05:18:30 PM PST
Untold thousands of illegal immigrants live in public housing at a time when hundreds of thousands of citizens and legal residents are stuck waiting years for a spot.
Illegal immigrants make up a tiny portion of the 7.1 million people in federal housing, according to government statistics. But authorities may be unaware of thousands more, and critics say no illegal immigrant should get housing benefits.
The issue made headlines in November with news that Zeituni Onyango, an aunt of President-elect Barack Obama, was living in Boston public housing while in the country illegally.
The federal government, which funds the lion's share of the nation's public housing, requires only that illegal immigrants share a home with at least one family member who is in the country legally and pay their share of the rent.
While there are no hard numbers on illegal immigrants in public housing, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reports that 29,570 people - 0.4 percent of all those in federally funded housing - are "ineligible noncitizens." Some may be on temporary visas, such as highly educated workers or college students, but many are believed to be illegal immigrants.
Frank Bean, director of the University of California, Irvine's Center for Research on Immigration, Population and Public Policy, estimates at least half of ineligible noncitizens - or about 15,000 - are illegal immigrants with U.S.-born children. Anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen, making their families eligible for federal housing.
The HUD tally does not offer a full picture of how many illegal immigrants are in public housing.
It doesn't include housing funded by state and local governments, where eligibility requirements vary. Massachusetts, where Obama's aunt occupied one of about 50,000 state-funded units, doesn't ask immigration status under a 1977 federal consent decree in a class-action lawsuit that prohibits the state from denying the benefit to illegal immigrants.
Other illegal immigrants may live in public housing without notifying authorities.
"It seems that the larger concern would be those who we don't know about that may be in the U.S. illegally and living in federal housing, yet never risk presenting themselves to HUD," said Jonathan Graffeo, a spokesman for Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.
Some prospective tenants and advocates of immigration restrictions are angry about U.S. citizens waiting for housing aid that some number of illegal immigrants are enjoying.
New York City has about 260,000 people in line for housing aid. Chicago recently opened its waiting list for the first time in about 10 years and collected 259,000 names in four weeks for 40,000 slots.
"As long as that waiting list includes American citizens or legal immigrants, there's no reason an illegal alien should occupy any of that housing," said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for NumbersUSA, a group that supports curbs on immigration.
In San Diego, applicants are told they can expect to wait five to seven years.
"I don't think we should take a second seat to anyone," said Daryl Ford, who applied for housing aid last year and lives in a San Diego homeless shelter. "We send money to everyone else in the world but we're struggling here."
Some say the costs of illegal immigration in public housing are overstated.
Tanya Broder, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, said illegal immigrants are reluctant to seek government benefits because they keep low profiles. Even some legal immigrants shun public housing, fearing reprisals against them or their families, she said.
Illegal immigrants get free public education through high school and emergency medical care, but are denied many other services, like food stamps and broad Medicaid coverage.
Elliotte Skinner, 48, applied for public housing in San Diego in 2000 and lives in a cramped studio with a shared shower. He says focusing on illegal immigrants misses the point.
"There's too much blame on illegals for the country's problems," he said. "Their numbers are so small (in federally funded housing) they don't even make a difference. The real problem is we don't have enough affordable housing."
Elena Salmon, 45, lives at a San Diego home where about 30 women share four bathrooms while she waits for public housing, but she said it would be inhumane to deny housing to illegal immigrants.
"That's not what America is about," she said. "Why should we kick them out, even if they are taking up some space?"
HUD declined to break down the number of ineligible noncitizens by city or state.
The New York City Housing Authority reports 2,471 families with at least one ineligible noncitizen, or 0.9 percent of the 289,000 households on vouchers or in housing developments.
The San Diego Housing Commission reports 658 of the 37,120 people on federal housing vouchers are ineligible noncitizens, or 1.8 percent. The San Francisco Housing Authority has 148 ineligible noncitizens among its 28,611 people in federal housing, or 0.5 percent.
Housing agencies in Miami-Dade County and Chicago each reported serving less than 50 ineligible noncitizens. The Boston Housing Authority reports 288 of its 45,100 families on federal housing assistance are ineligible noncitizens, or 0.6 percent.
Onyango, the half-sister of Obama's late father, applied for public housing in 2002 while she was in the country legally seeking asylum from her native Kenya, said Lydia Agro, spokeswoman for the Boston Housing Authority, which has a waiting list of nearly 20,000 people.
Onyango moved into federally funded housing in 2003 and stayed there after 2004, when, The Associated Press learned, an immigration judge denied her asylum application and ordered her to leave the country.
Onyango transferred to an apartment funded only by the state, which cannot ask about immigration status under the court order. In November, her attorney said she was staying with relatives in Cleveland and would fight her deportation order.
Thanks for posting the story, Bubba.
Getting back to your earlier post: There was a prior Supreme Court ruling in 1982 that said undocumented children do have a right to public education.
Politics and judicial review are completely intertwined. For example, because of Bush we have a more conservative Supreme Court. I am sure two of our justices were waiting to retire in hopes of a Democratic president.
We don't have a federal solution because I don't think immigration is a priority for any of our politicians right now. And there are no easy answers.
One reason I wanted to put this entry up is to demonstrate just how complex this issue is. I really appreciate the thoughtful commentary I've seen here.
Thanks, Tom Johnston for your kindness. I reside permanently in the Philippines with my wife and son. I'm a retired attorney, after nearly 45 years. I just have one quotation to bring your way. It came from the Fillmore Gazette, and was written by a Conway Spitler on 01/01/09 in the Fillmore Gazette: "If you wish to become Danish, you: Must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark's history, culture and a Danish language test. You must live in Denmark for seven years before you apply for citizenship. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to being your spouse to Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won't find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you."
Now...why in the name of you-know-who, cannot the United States of America's political whips get around to this concept, or do all of their campaign promises end up with another face on their character once they assume office. One other item and that is the problem of any employer hiring any worker, should "E-Check" their prospects legality to be employed in the US. If they hire an illegal and are caught, impose a fine of $100,000.00 each offense, and after the third offense, it is jail time for the owner of the business. Internal crackdowns should be mandatory. Until then, the country will be spending billions on unwanted and useless methods of immigration.
I've done a quick news search and found an interesting "E-Verify" lawsuit worth noting. President Bush signed an executive order essentially requiring federal contractors to use the E-Verify system.
One of the interesting aspects of the lawsuit is that the business groups are filing suit because if they dismiss an employee based on e-verify there is no indemnity from costly discrimination suits. This is up for interpretation. As many of you know, employers cannot discriminate based on national origin
According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Title VII and the other antidiscrimination laws prohibit discrimination against individuals employed in the United States, regardless of citizenship. However, relief may be limited if an individual does not have work authorization."
Also, the website states the EEOC collected $22.8 million in monetary charges on businesses just from these types of cases. This also doesn't include litigation.
President-elect Obama has pledged massive new deal-like public works programs as the cornerstone of his economic plan. He has also promised to repeal many of Bush's executive orders.
I am very interested to see if President Elect Obama will repeal Bush's e-verify requirements on government contractors within the first 100 days in office.
Employers do not seem to like these sanctions.
I can't see Obama repealing this. From what I have read he is more interested in environmental issues and stem cell research, etc.
Marie:
I'm very curious to see the details of Obama's executive order changes in the coming weeks.
Yes, Obama is interested in the environment. I believe this will be one of his first governing challenges within his own coalition.
As he pushes for more public works and "economic recovery", will he be forced to reduce the red tape to get people working or will these projects spend months analyzing environmental impacts?
Will we hear, "Are these projects carbon neutral and so on?"
I am very interested in what the left's environmental movement does in the coming months with Obama's "shovel-ready projects".
In addition, Obama's "shovel ready projects" utilize more union labor while the more expensive green collar projects utilize little union labor.
How he manages this potential challenge early in his administration, will be interesting to me.
It's not the 1930's where all you need is some cement, dynamite, and a lot of workers. There is a whole list of local, state, and federal environmental laws each with specific interest groups, turf holders, and legal protections.
I am fascinated with how he manages these competing interest groups in his coalition early on.
Scott,
Sounds like you're quoting from the WaPo Christmas Eve article on green jobs. If that's the case, I don't see that article as digging very deep into how the new administration/Congress will prioritize its approaches for economic stimulus and how closely it will work with Congress in crafting improved legislation, and with good reason. The Bush administration took analytical thought out of every decision process and made them all about benefiting Republican donors. Environmental reviews were dragged out to eternity not because it really takes that long to perform the analyses, but because the EPA and other agencies wanted to put politics over science. Decisions by EPA scientists to regulate this or that were put on hold while the ideologues mulled over the wording they would attach to agency positions to water them down. I have personally been involved in many scientific analyses with EPA that were blocked and or fatally slowed by this administration's OMB, which always uses the argument that small businesses will be unfairly disadvantaged if certain environmental limits are placed on occupational and environmental toxicants. No surprise then that Congress is unsure how to behave; Democrats and Republicans who care about environmental issues and global warming (or even smart use of money and decreasing wasteful earmarks) have had no leadership either in the WH or in Congress--there's been no thoughtful discussion of ideas for 8 years.
The issues now, as I see it, are ones of priority; also, to whom Obama will turn for advice and counsel and how will he work with Congress to get them to abandon earmark-laden legislation in favor of strategic targeting of monies? Urban infrastructure that needs mending could be handled in the short-term, using union labor, and environmental impact statements should be unnecessary or minimal, given that the infrastructure already existed, and is not being proposed for a "pristine" area. Solis should ensure that unions are benefitting from this. I hope to see Obama work very closely with smart growth experts, and abandon large scale highway projects in favor of high-speed rail, which would also put large numbers of construction workers on the job. We're a long way from green power, but certainly work can be done on the grid immediately to prepare for that day in the future when wind farms and fields of solar panels can be brought online? Also, investment in green building (using expertise from the US Green Building Council) would put people to work while exploiting (and expanding) burgeoning technologies to reduce energy needs in commercial and residential buildings and reducing heat islands in major cities. Existing green technology should also be used for any refurbishing of infrastructure (like schools, public buildings, etc.) as appropriate. This is why the selection of Dr. Steven Chu for Sec. of Energy is so important, IMO. I believe his counsel will be crucial in helping Pres. Obama chart a path toward sustainability.
One major roadblock is getting the big banks to loosen up--they've been unwilling to be helpful, and Obama should find some way to gracefully show them the error of their stingy ways. No matter what happens this year, it's going to be interesting to watch.
Scott, the only point I was bringing up on the "E-Verify" program is that even if employers do or do not utilize this program, it is up to the employer to employ LEGAL, SOCIAL SECURITY registered workers, in any or every field of employment opportunity. There would be NO discrimination or EEOC problems based upon the facts of not hiring an illegal immigrant, or if a potential employee is hired, and it was determined he or she was illegal, the employer themselves should be the one to be responsible. "E-Verify" is available to all employers. I used a pre-form of this system when based in Texas. As Legal Consul, HR Manager, Safety Manager all rolled into one, I always checked with the local Social Security Office on every application that I received. Whether considering employment or not from these applicants, I would make separate files for those qualified and legally documented to work in the US, and those non-qualified (etc.) to be employed for work in the US. When the INS conducted a raid on our business, it was determined only one illegal slipped through the cracks, and I did not hire him, and I never knew he was there until he appeared in front of me in the conference room, gave his name, and I had no record of his hire. We were not fined, or given a citation. The illegal was handcuffed, put on loaded buses with 345 other illegals (from other raids on local businesses that day) and hauled-off someplace. This blog has gotten off-track and now is talking about Obama, but I can assure you, in his administration, Immigration will be a back-burner issue once again, and the US will continue it's internal katzenjammer nausea and headaches with this illegal worker issue the next 4 years at least. Nobody has the backbone to face this issue head-on and fix it!
I agree with you, John. I mentioned earlier that I did not see the political will there, either. Do you ever read Peggy Noonan? Look at the bottom part of this piece:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110010988
Kara:
I think time will tell on how he balances this out. Check out the link on my previous comments. Obama’s time horizon is fairly large right now, but it will shrink and demands for things will get louder as we head toward the midterms.
Above, I linked to a Mercury article that picked up the Washington Post article. I also read a good article entitled, “'Smart growth' group lobbies against new road construction� in The Hill on 12/16 (link above). I thought both articles were pretty solid.
I probably should have done a better job citing my articles, but sometimes I get out of APA standard and just leave a link as I did above.
Thanks for the info. I guess we'll see whether you were right or those articles were right when Obama works his stimulus package through Congress and we see the details.
John:
I understand your point, but on this subject it's not a perfect world. Not all companies are created equal and have the resources or expertise to meet the standards. I agree that it is the employer's responsibility, but what happens if a competitor who one is bidding against is not using that standard and is consistently underbidding your projects?
I think the operative phrase that you used was all employers "should". Not everyone is as diligent as you are in your job, but it sounds as if your process is one for the best practices manual.
The difference between us is not in our ends, but I think in our means to achieve those same ends. I believe we have to take individual business situations into account and ensure a legal, regulatory, and competitive environment that is fair in order to easily meet those ends for all stakeholders.
Attrition through enforcement — involves a program of consistent, comprehensive application of the immigration law (something we have never attempted), not only at the borders, but also at our consulates overseas and at worksites and elsewhere inside the country. The aim is to reduce the number of foreigners sneaking in to the country (or overstaying visas) and at the same time increase the number of illegal immigrants already here who go home — some forcibly through deportation, but most voluntarily, through what might be called self-deportation. By engineering a steady decrease in the total number of illegal aliens, instead of the continual annual increases we’ve permitted over the past two decades, we can back out of a problem that has taken many years to develop.
Enforcement Works – Mexican returning home in record numbers
The Mexican Consulate's office in Dallas (August 22, 2008) is seeing increasing numbers of Mexican nationals requesting paperwork to go home for good, especially parents who want to know what documentation they'll need to enroll their children in Mexican schools.
"Those numbers have increased percentage-wise tremendously," said Enrique Hubbard, the Mexican consul general in Dallas. "In fact, it's almost 100 percent more this year than it was the previous two years."
The illegal immigrant population in the U.S. has dropped 11 percent since August of last year, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. Its research shows 1.3 million have returned to their home countries.
Some say illegal immigrants are leaving because a soft economy has led to fewer jobs, causing many laborers to seek work elsewhere. Others argue that a tough stance on immigration law enforcement has cause illegal immigrants to depart. Perhaps the most telling statistic is that illegal began returning home before the downturn in the economy indicating, in large part, that enforcement played a major role in their departure.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,409221,00.html
The Forgotten Issue: Illegal Immigration and Crime
Two new studies were released in October on the relationship between illegal immigrants and crime in the U.S. The first released October 1, 2008, by the Center for Immigration Studies deals with gang activity, and the second, released October 3, 2008, by the Maricopa County Attorneys Office in Phoenix, Arizona, details the percentage of crimes committed by border violators in the third largest county in the U.S.
"Taking Back the Streets: ICE and Local Law Enforcement Target Immigrant Gangs" is the Center for Immigration Studies report that offers these highlights:
# Transnational immigrant gangs have been spreading rapidly and sprouting in suburban and rural areas where communities are not always equipped to deal with them.
# A very large share of immigrant gang members are illegal aliens and removable aliens. Federal sources estimate that 60 to 90 percent of the members of MS-13, the most notorious immigrant gang, are illegal aliens. In one jurisdiction studied, Northern Virginia, 30 to 40 percent of the gang task force case load were removable aliens.
# MS-13 activity was found in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
# The immigrant gangsters arrested were a significant menace to the public. About 80 percent had committed serious crimes in addition to their immigration violations and 40 percent were violent criminals.
# While immigration law enforcement is a federal responsibility, ICE cannot do the job effectively without assistance from state and local law enforcement, particularly when it comes to immigrant gangs.
# Failure to adequately control the U.S.-Mexico border and to deter illegal settlement in general undermines the progress ICE and local law enforcement agencies have made in disrupting criminal immigrant street gangs.
The MCAO report from County Attorney Andrew Thomas features these startling numbers for prosecuted felony cases in Maricopa County, Arizona:
In 2007, illegal immigrants accounted for:
10% of sex crimes convictions
11% of murders convictions
13% of stolen cars convictions
13% of aggravated assaults convictions
17% of those sentenced for violent crimes
19% of those sentenced for property crimes
20% of those sentenced for felony DUI.
21% of crimes committed with weapons
34% of those sentenced for the manufacture, sale or transport of drugs
36% of those sentenced for kidnapping
44% of forgeries
50% of those sentenced for crimes related to "chop shops"
85% of false ID convictions
96% of smuggling convictions
Illegal immigrants make up 19 percent of those convicted of crimes in Maricopa County and 21 percent of those in county jails.
Illegal immigrants only make up an estimated 9 percent of the county’s population.
It is estimated that each violent crime cost citizens $20,000, and each property crime cost citizens $4363 per offense.
All the more a concern is research that finds the likelihood of an illegal immigrant being incarcerated grows with longer residence in the United States and that the U.S. born children (considered citizens) of illegal immigrants are dramatically more likely to be involved in crime than their illegal immigrant parents. For instance, native born Hispanic male high school dropouts are eleven times more likely to be incarcerated than their foreign born counterparts.
Enforcement Works:
Prince William County, Virginia fought back over rising crime rates, overcrowding and quality of life issues due to illegal immigration. In July 2007 they enacted a tough illegal immigration control ordinance, termed the “Rule of Law Resolution�.
Besides a huge improvement in quality of life issues, there is this telling statistic: Overall crime rate decreased by 22%. Murders were down by 44%, rape decreased by 33%, robberies decreased by 23% and aggravated assaults by 18% as measured within the period July 2007 – July 2008.
Prince William County is one of only two counties in Northern Virginia that partner with ICE through the 287(g) program. In the first half of 2008 Prince William County has turned over 533 inmates to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, 134 more than any other county in the Washington area.
As reported in August 2008, Prince William County and Manassas once again was by far the hottest residential real estate market in Greater Northern Virginia in July, with year-over-year sales up 103% over July of 2007. Culpeper County came in second with a 25% increase, and nowhere else was there a positive double-digit change. This makes the sixth straight month where Prince William and Manassas topped the rest of the area by a wide margin, a market leadership that doesn’t show any sign of slowing down as the total inventory of available houses on the market fell again for the fourth straight month. Meanwhile, the area as a whole saw year-over-year sales remain flat.
All the above factors are undeniable proof that strict enforcement of immigration laws work, If only the federal government were as astute and possessed the same convictions for “the rule of law� that Price William County, Virginia does.
After careful review, anyone with a even a modicum of logic can come to no other conclusion: illegal immigration must be halted, illegal immigrants here now must be deported and legal immigration needs decreased from the approx. 2 million allowed in per year currently.
Please review the following report on the FISCAL COST OF IMMIGRATION by economist Edwin Rubenstein released in April 2008:
http://www.esrresearch.com/Rubensteinreport.pdf
A partial summary of the report:
The impact on 15 Federal Departments surveyed was: $346 billion in fiscal related costs in FY 2007.
Each immigrant cost taxpayers more than $9,000 per year.
An immigrant household (2 adults, 2 children) cost taxpayers $36,000 per year.
Legal immigrants were not separated out from illegal immigrants for the fiscal impact study, but if they had been, the fiscal cost per ILLEGAL immigrant would be even more shocking than the figures quoted above.
The most extensive and authoritative study, prior to economist Edwin Rubenstein's "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration" (April 2008) , is the National Research Council (NRC)’s The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (1997).
The NRC staff analyzed federal, state, and local government expenditures on programs such as Medicaid, AFDC (now TANF), and SSI, as well as the cost of educating immigrants’ foreign- and native-born children.
NRC found that the average immigrant household receives $13,326 in federal annual expenditures and pays $10,664 in federal taxes—that is, they generate a fiscal deficit of $2,682 (1996 dollars)per household.
In 2007 dollars this is a deficit of $3,408 per immigrant household.
With 9 million households currently headed by immigrants, more than $30 billion ($3,408 x 9 million) of the federal deficit represents money transferred from native taxpayers to immigrants.
Our national immigration policies have to work for the United States. While improving the plight of the world’s poor is a laudable goal, the finite resources we have available to fulfill that goal would be swamped if there wasn’t some orderly and manageable system in place to limit entry into the United States to what this nation can actually support. The more illegal aliens that are permitted to subvert the immigration system, the fewer immigrants we can accommodate who might actually produce a positive benefit for our country.
The more we become a nation of illegal immigrants, the deeper we fall into anarchy.
Scott,
Thanks for pointing out the links. I agree with you that things will start to get hairy around mid-terms, especially if the economy has not improved. I think the biggest hurdle is working with Congress, and no matter what, it's going to be interesting. One bright spot--given how bad everything is now, there's nowhere to go but up!
Kara:
I have a question on a couple of your earlier comments. In the above link related to the Energy Secretary nominee Chu. He has said he supports gradually raising gas taxes over 15 years while Obama has basically said he does not support larger burdens being placed on American families right now.
Link above.
Will you be disappointed if taxes on gasoline have not been raised in the next four years?
In terms of the concept of "sustainability." How does the environmental movement appropriately calculate what citizens will want to tomorrow?
That is, I always hear that we need to do this or that on behalf of future generations. How do environmentalists know what future generations will want?
Scott,
Yes, I will be unhappy if taxes on gasoline have not been raised in the next four years. Last summer we were paying $4+/gallon for gas, now we're paying roughly $1.90/gallon. The gains made in changing people's driving habits are eroding. I saw no Hummers or limousines on the highway after months of high gas prices, but Priuses multiplied like conejos, and I thought that was a move in the right direction. Americans have shown time after time they will not change their behavior if you don't hit their pocketbook ("Why should I conserve energy for future generations when the guy next door won't?"). We have a me-first, I'm getting mine mentality, and I don't see that going away. It's why the McCain campaign scoffed at Obama's call for personal sacrifice last summer, and pooh-poohed his suggestions regarding energy conservation (remember the snarky comments from McCain about making sure your tires were inflated? McCain didn't realize how stupid he sounded, because he was preaching in his own church).
I personally feel there should be a floor in the price of gasoline, which takes into account not only drilling, shipping, refining, and transportation costs, but also the actual cost of using gas as an energy source on public health, environmental degradation, etc. Calculating these costs is not difficult, it's been done by life cycle analysts for years. But the average American has never heard of these "hidden" costs, and doesn't know the price they are paying away from the pump (unless you live near the LA ports and have kids with asthma--I imagine those folks know exactly what's causing their ills). Sorry, long answer to a short question.
Regarding sustainability and future generations--well, I don't think we can know what future generations will want any more than people in the 1800s could know what we want now. I don't see people advocating for sustainability as doing so in order to put their desires over those of our grandkids, etc. I see people urging for sustainability because it will help ALL life on our planet, including ourselves.