Migration and Mexican Politics

What do the Mexicans think of Mexicans emigrating from their homeland to the jobs, jobs, jobs in the United States? We looked at this here at the Road to the Middle Class back in April.

Migration just entered Mexican presidential politics as lefty PRD candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador called it “`Mexico's disgrace,’ caused by the government's failure to create enough jobs,” according to Alistair Bell of Reuters.

Well, that’s for sure. But what standing has any leftist anywhere to talk about jobs, apart from low-productivity government jobs financed by taxpayers’ money? Lopez wants to cancel Fox’s attempt to bring a free market to corrupt Mexico.

He vows to boost employment and cut poverty by slashing government spending, launching large infrastructure projects and introducing welfare programs for Mexico's poorest.

Oh good. That will really help.

President Vicente Fox promised to create “1 million jobs a year and oil-rich Mexico's economy has grown only slowly in his 5 1/2 years in office.”

Lopez also wants the US to help in Mexico’s development. As if we hadn’t, by pushing NAFTA and encouraging Mexico to lose its patronage economy.

The fact is that we know how to grow an economy. Ask the Chinese. Ask the Irish. Ask the Estonians. Ask Vaclav Kraus, former President of the Czech Republic, who just got an award from the Foundation for Economic Education.

But here’s a tip for you folks in Mexico. Don’t ask a lefty.

Let's Make a Deal on Immigration

Everyone has had their say after President Bush’s so-so speech on Monday. Conservatives have groused and grumbled; the MSM has grunted approvingly. Dick Morris seems to think the speech was great, which is really troubling.

Now Tony Blankley comes along and says: OK fellahs. Don’t forget, politics is about compromise. Let’s not make the mistake of picking up our dollies and going to play in the corner. Let’s make a deal today, and come back for more later if we need to.

[W]hen in negotiations, if he with whom you are negotiating is moving in your direction, don't walk out of the room. As a final proposition: In politics, as in life, you can't always get what you want, but sometimes you can get what you need

For those that believe that the central issue is a secure border, the fact is that President Bush “has moved measurably, but insufficiently, toward that position.” Now let’s capitalize on that movement and nail down a deal.

Ultimately, we need to control illegal immigration. We can and we should allow a strong flow of immigrants into the country, but let us be clear. Immigrants compete with the American working poor. And, echoing what Charles Murray said twenty years ago in Losing Ground, it is unjust to make patsies out of the working poor by favoring illegals and wasters over the hard, not very rewarding life of the lower middle-class striver. That is what was wrong with the War on Poverty, and that is what is wrong with turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants and workers.

There is a feeling of a sea change happening in conservative politics right now, a sense that we are moving on from the Reagan-Bush years. But let us nail down the best compromise we can get on immigratioin while we still can.

After November, we may have to deal with a Democratic Senate or Congress, and we know where they stand: Immigrants equals votes, and forget about the American people.

Strong Families Means Small Government

As we conservatives mumble around about doing something about the welfare state there are people out there with and idea to really do something about it.

After reading Love and Economics by Jennifer Roback Morse, Arnold Kling is inspired to write:

Single moms and the welfare state go together. Strong families and free markets go together.

What could be simpler? If you like strong families, then you should argue for a smaller state. If you like big government then you better understand that you are in favor of single moms and the destruction of the family.

But think of the implications. If you think that a strong state and strong families are incompatible, then you have to think about how to resolve problems without having the big powerful state step in and solve it.

If people know that they cannot rely on the state to arbitrate these issues, then they will turn to families, religious institutions, and other associations within communities to help strengthen our values.

What could be wrong with that? Well, top-down conservative government by Republicans, for one thing. After ten years of a Republican Congress we can see that Republicans aren’t going to do anything about big government. If there is to be a change, it will have to come from below.

Those who wish to be part of the solution should focus on strengthening our own families. The lesson of Morse's book is that strong families are the only antidote to the nanny state.

But that, of course, means work.

Iran's War on US Costs It a Bundle

Ever since the Khomeini revolution in Iran the mullahs have been running a low-grade war against the United States. We often complain about the annoyance and the cost of Iran and its Islamist terrorism. But Amir Taheri gives us a glimpse of the cost to Iran.

Nowhere is the cost of the so-called "War against the Infidel" more apparent than in Iran's oil industry. Projections made in 1977 envisaged the Iranian oil off-take to reach a daily capacity of 6.5 million barrels, with another 1.5 million available as emergency reserves. The capacity of the Kharg terminal, the chief export facility for Iranian oil, was increased from 5.5 million barrels a day to 8 million.



But lack of investment, and the virtual impossibility of accessing highly complex technology, has meant a steady decline. Today, the Islamic Republic produces something like 3.8 million barrels a day - a level Iran had surpassed in 1973.

And that is saying nothing about the cost of having the economy run by a bunch of politicians and activists. We arranged the 20th century, remember, as a demonstration of the economic ability of politicians vs. businessmen.

But what has Iran gained strategically? It is true that Iran has obtained a foothold in Lebanon and in Palestine.

The United States, on the other hand, has made a spectacular incursion in what could be regarded as Iran's geopolitical habitat in West and Central Asia, the Caspian Basin, Transcaucasia and the Middle East. The Americans are now militarily present in all but two of Iran's 15 neighboring countries.

Where have we seen that before? Didn’t the Soviet Union boast that it would bury the US and find itself, in the end, surrounded by the US and its clients?

Shelby Steele Goes to San Francisco

You wouldn’t think that libertarian conservative Shelby Steele would get a fair shake for his White Guilt in the San
Francisco Chronicle. You know what they are like in San Francisco. But he does.

Unlike many over-the-top liberal writers Edward Guthmann is almost generous to the writer who has written that black rage and white guilt have wrecked the civil rights revolution.

Unlike so many conservative pundits, the ones who bait their liberal opposition with inflamed rhetoric, Steele is soft-spoken, avuncular in his approach.

Well, Guthmann is writing for San Francisco Democrats, after all. But he does allow Steele’s argument to be made:

What sets Steele apart is that he's saying things many people, even those who secretly agree with him, would rather not hear. He says that blacks should take responsibility for their own disproportionate crime rates and poor academic performance and not blame a system imposed on them by whites; that whites support affirmative action and other "silly racial policies" out of fear, to avoid accusations of racism.

Steele acknowledges that he’s caught his “share of hell” from his writing. But

one of the great benefits is that I can talk now to anybody about anything, racially and otherwise. And people feel comfortable with me: They know I'm not going to hold it against them if they make some sort of little faux pas. I'm not going to take a knife out and tell them they've defamed my whole race.

It’s an interesting point. If you are talking to someone of a different race, you are almost certain to “step on his sensitivities without knowing it.” But imagine if people just quietly informed you of your faux pas instead of putting you down by playing the victim card. It’s a thought.

But that would collapse the whole race game, in which a lot of people are making a lot of money.

Tired Bush Not Leading

President Bush tonight offered a quick fix to the immigration issue. More border enforcement, an amnesty program, and a biometric ID card “for every legal foreign worker” as part of a vague promise to build ”a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility.”

Will it be enough to bring the Republican base onside? Hard to say.

It would be more comforting if the president had proposed something to put the Democrats on the spot. For instance, if he had proposed a program to deport all illegal immigrants arrested in the United States for ordinary infractions of the law, it would put liberal jurisdictions that ignore illegals on the spot. And it would distance Democrats from the American people.

And it would be nice to put the bite on Mexico, whose corrupt, unreformed economy is at the base of the illegal immigration problem.

But this commentator can’t get away from the feeling that Bush is sleepwalking. Nothing wrong with that: he’s had a rough time as president. But we Republicans need fresh leaders. We need people brimming with energy and eager to lead. And that is something we ain’t got right now.

Don't Be Downhearted, Writes Barone

If you are a conservative this morning you are probably feeling downhearted. After all the heavy lifting that conservatives have done, since 9/11 under George W. Bush, and back in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan, how come conservatives don’t get no respect? Here we are with $3.00 gasoline, no end in sight in Iraq, a big immigration problem, a spendthrift Congress, and the president’s poll numbers are down in the low 30s.

Just don’t forget, writes Michael Barone, that despite all the gloom and doon we are living the legacy of Reagan and Thatcher and that they were never that popular.

Clinton and Blair, the center-left response to Reagan and Thatcher, were popular because they didn’t challenge the status quo, the status quo created by the hard work of Reagan and Thatcher.

It is in the nature of things that the right, while sharply defining the issues and winning most serious arguments, should also stir more bitter opposition than the soothing, consensus-minded center-left. All the more so because Old Media in this country, more than in Britain, is dominated by a left that incessantly peppers the right with ridicule and criticism, while it lavishes the center-left with celebration and praise.

The other thing to remember is that the left can’t deal with criticism. Bill O’Reilly reports on efforts to disinvite mainstream conservative politicians from giving commencement speeches at two major universities. What are we to think of the professors and students at the New School in New York who want to disinvite Senator John McCain from the school’s commencement, and at Boston College who want to disinvite Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice from attending?

Ex-Brit conservative writer John Derbyshire tells the awful truth about liberals who don’t want to pollute their delicate minds with the voice of the other side.

Here you see one of the paradoxes of our strange times. Our women dress like sluts; our kids are taught about buggery in elementary school... yet so far as anything to do with the actual reality of actual human nature is concerned, we are as prim and shockable as a bunch of Quaker schoolmarms. After 40 years of lying to ourselves, we are now terrified of the truth.

Let us admit that we conservatives lie to ourselves. And we deserve to face the consequences. But imagine you are a liberal. Think of all the things that liberals have been lying about to themselves for the last 40 years. And then think about how it makes complete sense for liberals to be shouting down and disinviting distinguished conservative visitors to the university, and forbidding uncomfortable ideas from seeing the light of day on campus.

If you had got everything wrong for 40 years, how would you react to disturbing and frightening ideas?