After aircraft were used in a dastardly surprise attack on the U.S. in which many thousands of Americans lost their lives, America went to war against a fanatical enemy. There were a large number of residents and citizens from that nation residing in America at the time. Those residents and citizens, as well as those who simply traced their origins to the country who attacked, came to be viewed with deep suspicion, even hatred. Their patriotism was questioned to the point where many of them were rounded up and put into special camps where the U.S. could keep an eye on them.
The majority of those put into the camps were loyal Americans. More than a few wound up in the military where they served their nation honorably: some with great distinction. In time, the U.S. came to see its error and realized it had misjudged and overreacted in its treatment of those who were rounded up and scorned. Very, very few of those rounded up were in fact enemies of the United States. Still, it took a long time for Americans to look on those people with anything but dislike and distrust.
I am writing of the Japanese of course. After Pearl Harbor, until recently the most terrible attack on the U.S., Japanese in the U.S. were viewed with suspicion and hostility. They were offensively caricatured and mocked in the press and vilified throughout the country. For many, even being suspected of being Japanese was enough to incur wrath and the risk of being rounded up and placed in a camp. (My great Uncle was called in for an interview and possible relocation to one such camp because his last name was construed as being of Japanese origin. When a big, strong Polish man walked though the door, they quickly realized their mistake). Even after we had had our revenge on the Japanese, the hatred remained for long time, and still does in some parts. It is unimaginable that a Shinto shrine would have even have been proposed in the U.S. for decades after Pearl Harbor.
Many years later, the U.S. came to see the error of its actions and that it had made a mistake in viewing all Japanese as potential enemies, less still its religion. We have even apologized for our treatment of Japanese Americans. It was vowed that the U.S. would never resort to such hysteria again. We have almost succeeded in upholding that vow.
While the government has been careful to avoid portraying its current opponent in general racial or religious terms, many in the media, and among the public, have had no reservation in doing so. Not a few are making a good living from stoking the notion. They are the ones apt to see the current struggle as a war against Islam, or at least against "radical" Islam. But, as the current controversy over the proposed Mosque in New York illustrates, that distinction is rarely made. In the minds of many Americans, we are at war with Islam and because we are at war with it, Islam and its adherents cannot be trusted.
Mosques and Muslims are viewed with great suspicion. Even leaving aside the proposal to build a mosque in New York near Ground Zero, it is likely that a proposal to build a mosque or madrasah anywhere in the U.S. or an attempt by Muslim communities to adhere to their traditions would be viewed with trepidation, if not hostility. We have made progress though. No one is proposing rounding up Muslims and putting them into camps: except on facebook and Fox News. We have come a long way from the days of Manzanar; just not quite as far as many would like to think.
My only beef with Islam is I want Constantinople back. If not Constantinople, at least the Haggai Sophia.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Who Really Pays?
The state legislature in Austin, Texas is preparing to take up immigration legislation when it meets later this year. It is predicted there will be immigration laws proposed similar to the tough new laws enacted in Arizona. People on both sides are bracing for a fight. Because of the often delicate nature of the issue, both sides prefer to focus on the economic costs of immigration. Fortunately, there is much to focus on.
There is a significant difference in the debate at the national and state levels. At the national level, immigration is an issue on the agenda. While there is rhetoric about the need to address the issue, there is little sense of urgency. With elections in the fall, many members on both sides are reluctant to get into a serious debate on the topic. Concern over the issue is most often expressed in generalities, such as the need to "do something", or "reform" immigration laws.
At the state level, things are more concrete. The Texas state legislature is preparing to take up a bill similar to the one recently passed in Arizona. The House State Affairs Chairman, Burt Solomons, stated that the committee is preparing legislation that will "focus on what the real costs are for state services." Those costs are significant.
The director for the Health and Human Services Commission in Texas told the committee that the cost of illegal immigration to Texas is nearly $100 million a year. Money is tight in Texas at the moment. Texas is facing a budget deficit of $1.3 billion over the next fiscal year. The budget will have to be cut. By law, TX must pass a balanced budget. The state constitution requires it. Every dollar spent on immigration is a dollar that cannot be spent elsewhere, and that $100 million is sorely needed elsewhere.
The federal government can spend as much money as it wants, whether it has it or not. The states cannot. States like Texas can only spend the money they have. To meet the rising costs of illegal immigration, Texas must either raise taxes or cut spending. Either option costs the residents of Texas. As illegal immigration increases, the costs associated with it increase.
Because the effects and costs of illegal immigration are more keenly felt by the states, states have begun taking action. While the immigration issue for many is an abstract issue of rights, language and ethnicity, it is also a concrete issue of dollars and cents. While Washington debates and postures on the issue, states are writing checks and spending money they don't have or is needed elsewhere. But when states and local governments take action on the issue, they are widely condemned, and even taken to court.
Many of the costs borne by state governments are mandated by the federal government. In the case of illegal immigration, states are compelled to pay much of the costs for those here in violation of federal law. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, last year the federal government spent $28.6 billion in illegal immigrant related costs. State and local governments spent $84.2 billion. Lawn care companies and poultry farms might come out ahead when it comes to illegal immigration,, but states and cities don't. If Washington is unwilling or unable to enforce laws against illegal immigration, it is only fair that the burden of paying for the breach of immigration law should fall on the federal government. If the federal government is not willing to act, it should not grudge the states for trying to reduce the burden resulting from the failure to enforce federal law by enforcing it themselves.
Usually, if a state ignored federal law, there would be a swift reaction from Washington. Certainly, if a state flouted federal law there would be a stern response. Oddly, immigration appears to one case where the federal government at times seems less concerned that the law be enforced than that it be ignored. It even goes so far as to threaten states that seek to enforce it.
Given the scale of the problem, one would think that any help states and cities could give to the federal government would be welcomed, not scorned. But one would be wrong. If immigration law is onerous or objectionable, it should be changed, not ignored.
There is a significant difference in the debate at the national and state levels. At the national level, immigration is an issue on the agenda. While there is rhetoric about the need to address the issue, there is little sense of urgency. With elections in the fall, many members on both sides are reluctant to get into a serious debate on the topic. Concern over the issue is most often expressed in generalities, such as the need to "do something", or "reform" immigration laws.
At the state level, things are more concrete. The Texas state legislature is preparing to take up a bill similar to the one recently passed in Arizona. The House State Affairs Chairman, Burt Solomons, stated that the committee is preparing legislation that will "focus on what the real costs are for state services." Those costs are significant.
The director for the Health and Human Services Commission in Texas told the committee that the cost of illegal immigration to Texas is nearly $100 million a year. Money is tight in Texas at the moment. Texas is facing a budget deficit of $1.3 billion over the next fiscal year. The budget will have to be cut. By law, TX must pass a balanced budget. The state constitution requires it. Every dollar spent on immigration is a dollar that cannot be spent elsewhere, and that $100 million is sorely needed elsewhere.
The federal government can spend as much money as it wants, whether it has it or not. The states cannot. States like Texas can only spend the money they have. To meet the rising costs of illegal immigration, Texas must either raise taxes or cut spending. Either option costs the residents of Texas. As illegal immigration increases, the costs associated with it increase.
Because the effects and costs of illegal immigration are more keenly felt by the states, states have begun taking action. While the immigration issue for many is an abstract issue of rights, language and ethnicity, it is also a concrete issue of dollars and cents. While Washington debates and postures on the issue, states are writing checks and spending money they don't have or is needed elsewhere. But when states and local governments take action on the issue, they are widely condemned, and even taken to court.
Many of the costs borne by state governments are mandated by the federal government. In the case of illegal immigration, states are compelled to pay much of the costs for those here in violation of federal law. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, last year the federal government spent $28.6 billion in illegal immigrant related costs. State and local governments spent $84.2 billion. Lawn care companies and poultry farms might come out ahead when it comes to illegal immigration,, but states and cities don't. If Washington is unwilling or unable to enforce laws against illegal immigration, it is only fair that the burden of paying for the breach of immigration law should fall on the federal government. If the federal government is not willing to act, it should not grudge the states for trying to reduce the burden resulting from the failure to enforce federal law by enforcing it themselves.
Usually, if a state ignored federal law, there would be a swift reaction from Washington. Certainly, if a state flouted federal law there would be a stern response. Oddly, immigration appears to one case where the federal government at times seems less concerned that the law be enforced than that it be ignored. It even goes so far as to threaten states that seek to enforce it.
Given the scale of the problem, one would think that any help states and cities could give to the federal government would be welcomed, not scorned. But one would be wrong. If immigration law is onerous or objectionable, it should be changed, not ignored.
Monday, August 16, 2010
You Cannot Limit the Unlimited
Increasingly, there are fewer and fewer limits to what we expect from government. We expect the government to provide us with health care. We expect the government to help us to get a job and support us if we cannot. We expect the government to help us with our mortgage and pay our bills. We expect the government to make sure we are not harassed at work. The government has been more than willing to encourage us in this notion. Indeed, it peddles it. Every two years politicians promise to help us realize our wishes and desires and to protect us from adversity. Every four years we are offered competing visions of America and what it can be: what it should be.
In the U.S., we are told that everything is possible. Hunger can be abolished. Equality can be achieved. College can be in the grasp of every one who wants it. Health care can be had by everyone who desires it. Whatever the desire or need of the people, the government promises to help us satisfy it. Happiness and prosperity are promised for all. Sometimes, however, those promises are more than just campaign sweet talk. Sometimes they are sincere goals. Sometimes they are open ended, unlimited promises: such as to end injustice or guarantee quality health care and jobs to every American. All that is needed is the right people and the right policies.
Unlimited goals require unlimited power. If the goal of the government is to provide us everything we want, it will need the power to achieve that goal. Limits on government come to be perceived as limits on the people and obstacles to their happiness, or at least their contentment. But this is only true true where the people have come to rely on government to achieve their desires. If the government cannot intervene in society, people cannot intervene in society. This is an intolerable limit to the visionaries who consistently attempt to nudge society closer to perfection.
When politicians are elected on the promises they have made regarding what they will do for us, we expect them to deliver on those promises. If the law prevents or inhibits the fulfillment of those promises, it is argued that the law must yield. Unlimited promises cannot be met by limited government. Given the choice between tailoring our desires and needs to meet the power of limited government, or expanding the scope and power of the government to meet our needs and desires, time and time again we have chosen to expand the government. Every expansion of government is simultaneously an expansion of government power. Government cannot give us what we want unless it has the power to do so. The more the public demands or accepts from government, the more power government will need to satisfy the public. The more power claimed by the government, the less liberty we have.
Needs are limited. Desires are not. A government dedicated to fulfilling our desires has to be an ever expanding government and so will continually push against any barrier erected to block its expansion. In order for the government to fulfill the demands of the public it must have the power to do so. The greater the demands placed on government, the greater the power needed by government to satisfy them.
In the U.S., we are told that everything is possible. Hunger can be abolished. Equality can be achieved. College can be in the grasp of every one who wants it. Health care can be had by everyone who desires it. Whatever the desire or need of the people, the government promises to help us satisfy it. Happiness and prosperity are promised for all. Sometimes, however, those promises are more than just campaign sweet talk. Sometimes they are sincere goals. Sometimes they are open ended, unlimited promises: such as to end injustice or guarantee quality health care and jobs to every American. All that is needed is the right people and the right policies.
Unlimited goals require unlimited power. If the goal of the government is to provide us everything we want, it will need the power to achieve that goal. Limits on government come to be perceived as limits on the people and obstacles to their happiness, or at least their contentment. But this is only true true where the people have come to rely on government to achieve their desires. If the government cannot intervene in society, people cannot intervene in society. This is an intolerable limit to the visionaries who consistently attempt to nudge society closer to perfection.
When politicians are elected on the promises they have made regarding what they will do for us, we expect them to deliver on those promises. If the law prevents or inhibits the fulfillment of those promises, it is argued that the law must yield. Unlimited promises cannot be met by limited government. Given the choice between tailoring our desires and needs to meet the power of limited government, or expanding the scope and power of the government to meet our needs and desires, time and time again we have chosen to expand the government. Every expansion of government is simultaneously an expansion of government power. Government cannot give us what we want unless it has the power to do so. The more the public demands or accepts from government, the more power government will need to satisfy the public. The more power claimed by the government, the less liberty we have.
Needs are limited. Desires are not. A government dedicated to fulfilling our desires has to be an ever expanding government and so will continually push against any barrier erected to block its expansion. In order for the government to fulfill the demands of the public it must have the power to do so. The greater the demands placed on government, the greater the power needed by government to satisfy them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)