Thoughts for St Patrick's Day

 

Catherine Connoly, President of Ireland, yesterday opined that immigrants are as welcome in Ireland as was immigrant St. Patrick.

There's a difference, however between St. Patrick and the 3rd world immigrants now flooding into the Emerald Isle.   St. Patrick came to save Ireland.   Those 3rd-world immigrants mean to destroy Ireland.

Primarily Muslim, but not insignificantly from other parts of the developing world, these recent immigrants come not because they value Irish culture, but rather because they see the generosity of the Irish people as an opportunity to permanently embed their culture within the existing Irish culture — fully expecting that by doing so, they will make their own culture dominant with the fullness of time.

In particular, Islam requires of its adherents that they have no higher loyalty.   That is, they may not be so loyal to their 'adopted' country that their loyalty to Islam takes second place.   The reason for that is that Islam is not focused on the eternal;   it is a temporal ideology that seeks world-wide domination of the temporal (as opposed to the eternal) space.

The Irish, alas, seem thoroughly infected with 'suicidal empathy'.   Their concern for their fellow man persists even when their fellow man declines to reciprocate and, in fact, has concern only for their own long-term goal of an Islamic Ireland.

St. Patrick weeps.

 

Posted Without Comment

 

Regarding Islam

 

Have You Met Amelia?

 

The socialist, Islamophilic British government, smarting from fresh criticism over arresting 12,000 of His Majesty's subjects for unlawful tweeting, launched a propaganda program aimed at British youth: 'Pathways', an online 'game' in which the main character, Charlie, is being subverted by a Goth chick, Amelia, (blue hair, black velvet choker, pink mini-dress, purple cardigan) into rejecting his new neighbors from third-world countries.   The game has students trying to help Charlie defend against the verbal assaults of the hateful poisonous far-right Islamophobic revanchist Amelia.

Oddly, reaction from the actual students to the program content seems to be that they consider Amelia's opinions and positions to be common-sensical.

Oops...

Overnight, content creators have materialized Amelia into a modern-day British equivalent to Joan of Arc, but the government can't burn this one.   To see what Babbage hath wrought, pop on over to YouTube and search for 'Amelia'.   Page after page of AI-generated videos of Amelia, appropriately costumed, delivering British patriotic anthems of ages past: 'Jerusalem', 'I vow to thee, my country', and more, pressing into service modern rock diatribes as well.   One video has Amelia confronting Keir Starmer: "How did we get all the way from Churchill to you, you git?"

This would be no story except for the fact that popular support for Amelia has gone into low Earth orbit.   'Off the charts' simply doesn't do it justice.   The British people, it now seems, have only been waiting for someone to give voice to their unspoken — and untweeted — thoughts.

Even better, there is now a Swedish version, Inga, and a German version, Maria, and there's said to be an Australian version, but I haven't seen it.   All over the Western world, Amelia has spread like an engineered virus.   Various governments are furiously trying to put the genie back in its lamp and failing, predictably.

If you had asked me three weeks ago what I thought of the UK, I would have told you that I was sure it was 'a lost cause' soon to be overwhelmed by third-world in-migration and becoming, itself, part of the third-world.   Now?   As Churchill once opined: "This is not the end.   It is not even 'the beginning of the end'.   But it may be the end of the beginning."

You go, Amelia!

 

Citizenship

 

A person not a citizen of the United States by birth or inheritance must obtain citizenship via naturalization.   The process for becoming a naturalized citizen involves an oath of allegiance:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

A Muslim, whether practicing or not, must be presumed to be unable to "swear this oath" as that term of art is typically understood.   Why is this so?

Islam has as a basic tenet that there can be no other allegiances superior to Islam.   It is analogous to the First Commandment of Judeo-Christianity.   But the oath asserts that the person swearing the oath will "support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic", and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same".   No Muslim can do this, since it (potentially) places Islam in an inferior position relative to the Constitution.

But many Muslims do swear this oath.   Have they committed perjury?   To non-Muslim eyes, the perjury is clear, but to Muslims (whose first and only duty is to Islam) the issue is not-so-clear.   The Koran, the 'holy book of Islam', carves out an escape clause: taqiyya.   Taqiyya, simply put, allows a Muslim to lie to an infidel (any non-Muslim) if doing so advances the cause of Islam.

Further, they cannot "take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion", since evasion is exactly the purpose of obtaining citizenship.   Obtaining U.S. citizenship is seen as a necessary first step toward the primary goal of Islam: establishing a world-wide caliphate governed by Sharia law.   Taqiyya is permissible.

Summarizing:   Muslims who take the Oath of Allegiance to the United States can only do so by resorting to taqiyya, an action that otherwise constitutes perjury and invalidates the oath ab initio.

No Muslim should be offered United States citizenship under any circumstances.   Muslims who have been granted citizenship via naturalization should be immediately de-naturalized.   Muslim citizens-by-inheritance should be considered national security risks.

 

ICE in Des Moines

 

ICE has arrested the Superintendent of the Des Moines Public School System, Ian Roberts.   That's the headline.   The subject is an illegal alien here since 1999 on a student visa — which he overstayed.   Okay, ICE did their job.

The question in my mind is: How did he manage to get past all the required checks to prove eligibility for employment?

The answer is that somebody — or several 'somebodies' — within DMPS' HR department cut a corner or two, and just coincidentally violated federal law by doing so.

Step #2 falls to DOJ.   They need to descend upon DMPS/HR and demand to see all the paperwork and all the sign-offs connected to this illegal alien being cleared for work.   Anything that smacks of illegality should result in immediate arrests and equally immediate arraignments, followed by quick trials for every single person within HR that had anything to do with clearing Ian Roberts for his appointment.

Only by making the lawbreakers accountable will such travesties be brought to an end.   Paging Pam Bondi...  Paging Pam Bondi...

 

Due Process

 

There's a storm brewing over the issue of 'due process' as it applies to a certain category of people.  Whether you call them 'illegal immigrants' or 'undocumented tourists' or something else (and I'm not going to be drawn into that argument), the current furor is engendered by the position — widely held on 'the left' — that such persons may not be deported without 'due process'.

Estimates of the magnitude of the population to which this applies range from 11 million to 35 million, and the due process demanded is (apparently) a full jury trial for each such affected person.  Not to put too fine a point on it, doing so would take centuries and cost trillions, that is: a practical impossibility which, it seems, is the point of the demand.  Obviously, doing so is tantamount to granting permanent residency status to virtually all of them.

Lost in the uproar is one critical fact that almost no one is paying attention to:  'due process' is different for different categories of persons.  For an invading army that storms ashore on one of our beaches, 'due process' is a bullet.  To suggest that someone who bypassed recognized procedures for entering a country is entitled to the same due process that a citizen of that country requires is patent nonsense.

For the United States currently, we require those entering the country to present a passport or equivalent, and to possess an entry visa for certain countries-of-origin.  Someone who enters the US without doing so becomes an illegal immigrant, and the process due a person accused of entering the country without following the prescribed procedures (presenting their passport and being granted leave to enter) is to appear before a magistrate of appropriate jurisdiction where it can be determined that the certain person (a) is not a US citizen, and (b) has not been granted leave to enter.  If those two conditions are true, the magistrate orders the person deported.  No jury need be empaneled, and no other issues need be addressed, although the magistrate may consider other factors.  "Gang membership" is a red herring.  Whether the undocumented tourist is or is not a member of a criminal gang is irrelevant.

 

The Time Has Come

 

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing-wax —
Of cabbages — and kings —
And why the sea is boiling hot —
And whether pigs have wings."

It's time, also, to consider what the Founders meant by the text of the First Amendment.  Did they, I wonder, mean to include political ideologies bent on world conquest that protect themselves by wrapping a camouflage cloak of 'religion' around them?  Did they really mean that we should clasp such a viper to our breast?

I speak, of course, of Islam, a religion-in-name-only, adherence to which involves a committment to the destruction of the western values upon which the United States was based.  It seems counter-intuitive that the Constitution (which we are assured is not a suicide pact) requires us to harbor within our midst persons who are dedicated to our destruction.

It's time for Congress to assert that Islam and its practice is not a religion as the term is normally understood, and that Islam is not a religion as the term was understood at the passage of the Bill of Rights.  That is: the Bill of Rights was never meant to protect a conquering army merely because it claims a religious exemption.

Why now?  What happened that suddenly makes this "an issue"?

Early this morning as revelers in New Orleans (LA) celebrated the start of a new year, an Islamic terrorist, possibly aided by presently unknown co-conspirators, drove a truck bearing an ISIS (black) flag into the crowd killing 15 and injuring many others.  Some of the deaths were due to the terrorist shooting into the crowd with, some reports say, firearms reported stolen in New Jersey.  A few hours earlier, the same scenario played out in several places in Western Europe.  We are at war.

The practice of Islam must be treated as we treated Communists.  We didn't allow them to enter the country.  If they somehow got in by hiding their Communist bona fides, we revoked their citizenship and deported them.  It was merely a matter of self-protection.

Failure to do this — and soon — means facing eventual dissolution of the United States of America.

 

The H1-B Problem

 

There's trouble in DOGE City, and it's all because of H1-B visas.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy both defend the idea of H1-Bs, but the bulk of the MAGA-populace see them as 'part of the immigration problem'.  Thery're both right to a certain extent.

There's no doubt that bringing in highly specialized manpower is good for the economy and good for business, so Vivek and Elon are right — as far as that goes.  And if that was what H1-Bs are used for, no one would have any complaints.

But that's not, in many cases, what H1-Bs are used for.  In all but a few unusual cases, H1-Bs are used to bring in inexpensive manpower.  They have no particular specialized talents save only that they don't cost as much.  That's good for business, but not for the economy — as viewed from the bottom-up.

So, doing away with H1-Bs is a bad idea, but keeping them (in their current form) is an equally bad idea.  Bringing in foreign headcount — as indentured servants — simply to cut costs is the thing that the bulk of the voting populace sees as 'the problem'.  Whether they're right or wrong is irrelevant; perception is reality.

Curing that perception is, I think, fairly easy.  H1-Bs are requested/applied for not by the companies where the imported headcount will eventually work, but by 'consultancies' or other temporary labor agencies.  In all but a few cases, there has not been an actual job offer made for any of these H1-Bs as of the time the visa is requested.  That's the problem in a nutshell.  Fix that and the problem goes away.

Require that every application for a new H1-B visa be accompanied by a bona fide requisition from a potential employer that constitutes a real job offer.  No job offer?  Sorry, no visa.

You're welcome.

—==+++==—

Update, Sept 20, 2025:  Yesterday, President Trump imposed a $100,000 annual fee on all H1-B visas.  The immediate effect of this is that inexpensive foreign workers have suddenly become expensive foreign workers.  Expect many of them to be sent home within the planning future, to be replaced by now-relatively-less-expensive Americans.  H1-B workers that truly provide otherwise-unavailable skills will probably be used to train Americans, after which they, too, will be sent home.

 

Gun Control and El Salvador

 

Tucker Carlson tonight aired an interview with the President of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele.  Bukele fretted over the fact that it was the bold, the risk-takers, the entrepreneurs, the economic drivers that were fleeing El Salvador and making a hazardous trip north to the United States.  The incentives the United States offers to new immigrants are draining the lifeblood out of his country.

As I watched him describe how murders in his country have been reduced by 75% in recent years, I wondered what 'gun control' looked like there.  This is what WikiPedia has to say on that topic:

Salvador law aims to allow and regulate civilian possession of firearms.  In order to get a firearm license one must have no criminal record, be at least 21 years of age (24 for a carry license), pay a tax stamp (around $32 dollars) and undergo a written test.  The process takes around three hours in total.  In 2017 there were 344,587 registered firearms in El Salvador, or 5.6 per 100 people (1 in 18).

All things considered, that's pretty easy-going for a Central American country, and that may be related to the sudden drop in murder.  An armed society, after all, is a polite society.

What does that say about Salvadorans who flee the poor economic climate at home for the United States?  People like David Codrea worry that Central American immigrants are going to be heavily Democratic in their politics.  This says something different: Salvadorans are going to expect to be able to arm themselves in this country, and I suspect they will not be closely attuned to Democrats' traditional stance on guns and gun ownership.  I suspect they're going to be joining the NRA or GOA and thumbing their collective noses at Democrats' efforts to disarm the American people — of which they hope to soon be part of.

Such a population merged with others from the same or similar cultures constitute a contractable virus.  Salvadorans are going to infect their compadres with the desire to be free (at last) from the fears that drove them north.  They're going to want to be free — freer — than they were back home.  They're going to want their own guns.  They're not going to be Democrats, at least when it comes to 'gun control'.  On that issue, they're going to be Americans.

 

A response to 16 liberal talking points

 

A friend posted these 16 theses on Facebook with the proviso: "(Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine)".  Each of these 'liberal talking points' deserves an individual reply, but since I have been disinvited to post anywhere but my own page...  so let it be written; so let it be done.

—==+++==—

1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members.  A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected.  Period.

Resp:  It is the essence of 'civilization' that the old, the weak, the infirm, and children are cared for and protected when they cannot do so for themselves.  On this count, there cannot be any argument without first abandoning any pretense of civilization oneself.

2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that's interpreted as "I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all."  This is not the case.  I'm fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it's impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes "let people die because they can't afford healthcare" a better alternative.  I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it.  And no, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.

Resp:  To say that healthcare is a right reveals a gross misunderstanding of the nature of 'rights'.  One cannot have a right without a corresponding responsibility.  My right to own a gun, for instance, carries with it a responsibility not to use it for evil.  What responsibility is associated with a right to healthcare?  It can only be that someone is charged with the responsibility of providing healthcare.  Who would that be?  Here is a case where, again, the productive sector is being asked — no that's not right — is being ordered to provide for someone who can't or won't provide for themselves.  If it were only the old, the weak, and the infirm, our innate moral sense would urge us to do this without coercion, but that's not what's at stake here, is it?

3. I believe education should be affordable and accessible to everyone.  It doesn't necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I'm mystified as to why it can't work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.

Resp:  What we see as 'the education crisis' is largely manufactured by bad public policy.  Suppose the government decided that teachers must be able to get to work teaching and offered a $10,000 tax rebate for any teacher who bought a new car.  What do you think would happen to the price of new cars?  If you guessed that the price of cars would suddenly jump by several thousand dollars, you can see why the price of a college education has quintupled in just a few decades.  (The same analysis, by the way, applies to that 'housing bubble' of a few years back.)  Market forces must be allowed to 'price' the value of a degree in Medieval French Literature or we will soon find ourselves with scholars who can quote verbatim 13th-century love poems but can't be employed anywhere but McDonald's.

4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don't want to work.  I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this.  Ever.  I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor.  Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this.  Somehow believing that makes me a communist.

Resp:  Jack is not rich because Jill is poor.  There is not a causal relationship between those two things.  There is a causal relationship between 'Jack is rich' and 'Jack runs a government-sanctioned monopoly'.  If you're serious about solving the problem of wealth inequality, you're not going to do so with simple-minded redistributionist schemes.  Plus, recognize that there will always be some inequality; some people are more talented than others, and some don't see money as the be-all and end-all of life.

5. I don't throw around "I'm willing to pay higher taxes" lightly.  If I'm suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it's because I'm fine with paying my share as long as it's actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare.

Resp:  Well, you just pinned two things that can't happen without government intervention, and you think the answer is 'more government intervention'.  I don't know how to counter that.  Checkmate.

6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage.  Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes.  What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water.  Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multi-billion-dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn't have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live.

Resp:  Should companies have to pay 'x' dollars for work that isn't worth 'x' dollars?  What do you do with employees who don't/can't/won't contribute to your bottom line at least the equivalent of the minimum wage?  Answer: you fire them and replace them with machines.  What happens to your business if ALL your employees produce less than you are forced to pay them?  Your business is now 'your former business'.  Good idea?  Then, too, 'minimum wage jobs' aren't meant to provide a living wage.  They're meant to provide the kind of experience one needs to get a better job.  If you can only make minimum wage, you shouldn't be starting a family.

7. I am not anti-Christian.  I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc.  (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; *compulsory* prayer in school is - and should be - illegal).  All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs.  When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I'm not "offended by Christianity" — I'm offended that you're trying to force me to live by your religion's rules.  You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you?  That's how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me.  Be a Christian.  Do your thing.  Just don't force it on me or mine.

Resp:  THAT is a true 'liberal' position, one that all the founding fathers would have applauded.  It boils down to 'leave me alone', a sentiment we find all through the revolutionary writings, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.  Where did we go wrong?  We said "Hmm.. clean food and untainted meat: good idea; let's have an FDA..." and we were off and running.

8. I don't believe LGBT people should have more rights than you.  I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you.

Resp:  Another true liberal position, but who says they have fewer rights?  Would that be... umm... Congress?

9. I don't believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN'T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they're supposed to be abusing, and if they're "stealing" your job it's because your employer is hiring illegally).  I'm not opposed to deporting people who are here illegally, but I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc).

Resp:  While Republicans (and occasionally Democrats) might dispute this, the Constitution nowhere grants authority to anyone, Congress or the President, to control immigration (you could look it up).  Congress is granted power 'to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization', and that's as far as it goes.  Surprised?  Whether you acknowledge it or not, the root of the current malaise is not 'immigration' per se, but rather the welfare state we have allowed this country to become, that and the fact that Congress has bobbled the ball on that 'uniform Rule of Naturalization' thingy.

10. I don't believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc.  It's not that I want the government's hands in everything — I just don't trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are actually SAFE.  Is the government devoid of shadiness?  Of course not.  But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they're harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc.  Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation.

Resp:  I would much rather have Consumer Union inspecting my food than FDA and USDA.  CU has a vested interest in maintaining their reputation for honesty and fair-dealing.  FDA and USDA?  Not so much.  Every drug ever recalled by the FDA was first determined to be safe and effective by the FDA.  As to 'consumers have recourse', I refer you to the vaunted 'tobacco settlement'.  Was any of that monster fine used to recompense anyone actually harmed by smoking?  Nope, and the terms of the settlement immunized the tobacco companies against lawsuits.  Nice people you're hangin' with...

11. I believe our current administration is fascist.  Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I've spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities.  Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past.

Resp:  If by 'fascist' you mean 'controlling the means of production', then we've been fascist for about 170 years.  I think what you mean is 'totalitarian', and we've been that for about 120 years.  Only the fact that 120 million Americans own 400 million guns and 300 billion rounds of ammunition has kept the government from lining people up against the wall.

12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed.  Which means those with privilege — white, straight, male, economic, etc. — need to start listening, even if you don't like what you're hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that's causing people to be marginalized.

Resp:  Does that mean you want to forbid facial tattoos and eyebrow piercings?  Because if anything 'marginalizes' people, it's that.  Most marginalization of people results from the decisions of the marginalized rather than their skin color or gender.  Efforts to coerce an end to that marginalization results in bakers being sued for turning away profitable business.  Coercion is bad no matter what the reason.

13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government.  What I am interested in is sensible policies, including background checks, that just MIGHT save one person’s, perhaps a toddler’s, life by the hand of someone who should not have a gun.  (Got another opinion?  Put it on your page, not mine).

Resp:  There is not a single 'sensible gun control policy' in the liberal catechism that would have saved even one life — ever.  If anyone has proof that that's incorrect, I'd like to see it.  120 million Americans own 400 million guns and 300 billion rounds of ammunition.  If any appreciable fraction of those were as dangerous and unstable as they are made out to be, there wouldn't be 30,000 fatal gunshots each year; there would be 30,000 fatal gunshots each month.

14. I believe in so-called political correctness.  I prefer to think it’s social politeness.  If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles.  It’s the polite thing to do.  Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better.  When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you're using, you now know better.  So why not do better?  How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person?

Resp:  I will happily call someone 'Theo' rather than Theodore, Ted, or Eddie, and I may even — if they ask politely — refer to them as 'Your Serene Boffness', but I'll laugh when I do.  Force me to do that?  That's really what this is all about, isn't it?

15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs.  There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil.  Sorry, billionaires.  Maybe try investing in something else.

Resp:  The laws of physics are immutable.  No amount of wishing will change the fact that wind, solar, hydroelectric, and thermal energy together cannot — that's an important word: cannot — sustain the world's current lifestyle, but it can destroy entire national economies trying prove that they can.

16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human.  They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse.  Why on earth shouldn’t they be?

Resp:  The laws of nature are as immutable as the laws of physics.  Men cannot bear children and parthenogenesis doesn't work for our species.  That means that men and women are biologically different, and no one with even half a brain disputes that.  That women must bear the children and are in a relatively fragile state while doing so means that they cannot — there's that word again — work the same as men.  At some point, they are forced (!) to attend to the birthing process and not attend to 'their job'.  Men provide muscle mass and DNA; women create civilization; let's not screw that up.

I think that about covers it.  Bottom line is that I'm a liberal because I think we should take care of each other.  That doesn't mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money.  It just means I don't believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome as long as money is saved.

Resp:  That must mean you're anti-war.  What are you doing voting Democrat (or Republican)?

 

The Theory And Practice Of A Welfare State

 

In a welfare state, wealth is transferred from those who have wealth to those who don't.  Ideally, the recipients of welfare state charity are those who are needy through no fault of their own and who are making an effort to become self-sufficient.  Too often, however, the modern welfare state provides support for those who have no ambition to become self-sufficient, and which is a primary factor in how they became 'needy' in the first place.  A modern industrial society can actually tolerate a certain number of able-bodied slackers, although it's never a good idea since it tends to encourage others to take that low road.

In a modern industrial society, those with ambition and talent can live in comfort not generally available to welfare beneficiaries.  This is, in fact, the primary element that makes the welfare state possible: some people are producing wealth far beyond what is actually necessary for subsistence, and that extra wealth can be tapped in order to provide for those whose wealth-generating ability is below what is necessary for subsistence.  Voila!  A source of wealth and a place to use it.

If the recipients of welfare largesse are encouraged, cajoled, or coerced to end their reliance on public charity, a welfare state can operate for a very long time, and the more robust the underlying economy, the longer the game can be played.

We know, however, that entropy always increases, and this is true even in a modern welfare state.  As benefits become more lush, more people find themselves comfortable with the idea that they are wards of the state.  Eventually, that group becomes a powerful voting bloc, and at that point, the system, like a star that has run out of fuel, is on the path to a spectacular end.  In fact, without a mechanism that forces welfare recipients off the dole after a limited time, that path begins when the welfare state is first established.  As the number of participants who produce no wealth grows, the burden on the actual wealth-producers becomes more and more onerous.  If the number of wealth-producers is also falling (as it is in America today) the collapse of the system is easy to foresee.

Things get out of control when newborns are eligible for state-supplied welfare because there is an incentive, usually in the form of larger payments than are strictly necessary for the newborn's survival.  That is: having a baby becomes profitable and the incentive to become productive and leave the welfare rolls decreases, even if only slightly.  This also moves society toward the point where welfare recipients constitute a voting majority.

In Minnesota recently, a modern scam involving their welfare system threatens to bankrupt their economy.  Working mothers whose income is under a certain figure are eligible for $1,000 per child per month for child care expenses.  A company is formed for the purpose of delivering 'child care' and subscribes a group of families.  It then hires those mothers as 'attendants', and pays them minimum wage for 25 hours per week to watch their own children!  The company bills the state for the 'care' at the maximum allowable rate and, it appears, funnels the excess offshore.  It should not come as a surprise that the proceeds of this scam are used to bring Mom's relatives over from the home country so that they can apply for and get welfare benefits here.

Meanwhile, the sources of the funds for doing all this are having children at a much decreased rate.  The next generation will be much smaller, but supporting a much larger group of welfare clients.

This can't go on.

 

Birthright Citizenship

 

The current hot-button domestic issue is something called 'Birthright Citizenship'.  It is the doctrine that anyone born in the United States (with a few exceptions) is automatically a citizen of the United States.  The argument centers around children of illegal aliens: a pregnant woman crosses the border illegally, births her child, and then demands to stay because her child is a citizen and she can't leave her child, can she?  The child is called 'an anchor baby'.

The problem arises because the 14th amendment says (right up front):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

This is pretty plain-spoken and can be misinterpreted only in the presence of a serious Jones to do so.  Those who wish to misinterpret it will explain, slowly and carefully so you catch all the words, that this was phrased this way in order to enfranchise slaves who had previously not been considered 'persons' and that no one had anticipated people coming here just so their offspring could be natural-born citizens.

That position is probably correct, but the wording of the 14th amendment sits there staring back at us.  That may have been what they meant, but that's not what they wrote.  They wrote "all persons" and "subject to the jurisdiction" and "are citizens".  If this ever goes before SCOTUS and they rule that anchor babies are not really citizens, they will be 'legislating from the bench', something the GOP hates when Democrats do it, and the Democrats hate when the GOP does it.

Further, the whole debate dances around the real issue, carefully ignoring it — because if we can ignore it long enough, no one will notice that it's there — we hope.  The real issue is that we have turned the United States into a stereotypical welfare state.  Can't afford food?  Yes, you can have food stamps.  Can't afford rent?  Yes, you can have an AFDC supplement.  Don't worry about school; it's free.  Arrested and can't afford an attorney to defend you in court?  Miranda!

The people worrying about 'anchor babies' and 'illegal aliens' are really worried that somebody will arrive on our doorstep and demand a piece of cake that should justly be reserved for Real Americans™.  They will deny it, of course, but it has to be true.  We are in a job-surplus position at the moment — too many jobs and not enough people to fill them — so if Real Americans™ were worried them Messicans were going to take our jobs...  which jobs?  The ones there aren't enough workers to fill?  The only thing 'adding more workers' to the mix would do is bump the GDP up a notch or two.  Horrors!

We don't have 'an illegal alien problem'.  We have 'a welfare state problem'.  Fix the 'welfare state problem', and the illegal alien problem will evaporate like dew on a Summer morning.

 

Asking The Wrong Questions in Arizona

 

Arizona has begun their own  'immigration enforcement program',  stopping anyone who appears to be in the state illegally  (that is:  if they look like Mexicans)  and requiring them to prove their right to be where they are.

Now, don't get me wrong:  my position on  'the powers of states'  (I hate the meaningless term 'states rights')  is that Arizona may legally do what it is they're doing.  I just think it's a remarkably poor idea.  It's another one of those all-too-common examples of the syndrome I call  'ask the wrong question;  get the wrong answer'.

The  'wrong question'  in this case focuses on  'immigration', and it will generate the wrong answer:  send 'em back where they came from.

If you ask any of those  'illegal immigrants'  why they come here, they'll tell you it's because they want to be able to support their families.  Few...  make that 'none'...  will tell you they've come here to get on the welfare wagon.  Similarly,  few of those in favor of Arizona's draconian new  'Papieren, Bitte'  regime will admit that what's behind all this is an attempt to keep those  'illegal aliens'  from using up all of our valuable public services:  police, fire, food stamps, unemployment compensation, etc.  Yet, that is the baseline problem.  The supporters of that new Arizona law firmly  (and in their own minds, justifiably)  believe that those 'benefits' are for the use of citizens, dammitol...

So...  we frame the problem in terms of  "they're doing something illegal and we have to stop all this law-breaking behavior".  This allows us to completely ignore the underlying problem:  that we make it attractive for slackers to live in this country.

Again, I'm not saying those illegal-border-crossers are coming here to stick their snouts into the welfare trough.  It may be true, but I'm not saying that.  It's irrelevant, in any case.  What is relevant is that we American citizens stick our snouts into the welfare trough with a frightening regularity.  Given the kinds of jobs those illegal-border-crossers typically work at, there also seems to me some room to doubt they've just come here for 'the easy life'...  although it's almost certainly easier than what they're used to south of the border.

Raise your hand if your ancestors arrived here as immigrants.  Hmmm....  there's a lot of you out there...  OK,  should we have sent all those immigrants back?  No?  Why?  Because they applied for entry 'legally' during a time when there were no 'quotas' for immigration?  (And, surprise! no passports, either, which did not become 'mandatory' until 1941!)  At a time when anyone who knocked on our door was allowed in as long as they weren't carrying plague or a felony record?  That's not the way the world is today, but I'm sure you know that.

Today, we require new immigrants to apply months or years in advance, go through a lengthy investigation, fill out a mountain of forms.  The process is a pain-in-the-ass...  deliberately.

Given all the good things immigrants have done for this country in the past few centuries, why do we now make it such a PITA?  Now we're asking the right questions, or we're about to.

The process is now a royal PITA because unchecked immigration could overwhelm our welfare system.  This was not the case when your great-grandfather/mother arrived from The Old Country.  Back then we didn't have a welfare system to overwhelm, yet people came to us nevertheless.  Why?

They came because America was The Land Of Opportunity.

In the absence of an all-pervasive welfare system, it would be again.

Are you ready to start asking the right questions?