CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Have We Progressed Enough To Embrace Comprehensive Immigration Reform?

According to Newsweek, immigrants are leaving the United States -- willingly and unwillingly -- and countless others are deciding not to come.

The reasons cited by Newsweek for the new trend include:

More stringent Border Controls

Apprehensions are down sharply along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border—in fiscal 2007, 859,000 illegal immigrants were stopped, compared with 1.07 million in 2006. This suggests, at least to Newsweek, that fewer people are attempting to cross the border illegally.

Expanded Border Patrol

Use of the National Guard to Support the Border Patrol

Deportations of Illegal Immigrants

Deportations rose from 178,657 in fiscal 2005 to 282,548 in fiscal 2007—up 58 percent.

Prosecutions for Illegal Entry

Prosecuting Employers Who Employ Undocumented Workers

The Slowing Economy

The slowing economy means less work for immigrants, and for the people who make a living providing services to them.

The Weaker Dollar

Mexico's central bank said remittances from the United States fell 2.9 percent in the first quarter of 2008

A survey released by the Inter-American Development Bank in April found that 3 million fewer Latino immigrants are sending money home from the United States this year compared with two years ago.

Strength In Emerging Economies

Today, about 84 percent of the graduates of the prestigious Indian Institutes of Technology decide to pursue careers at home, compared with only 65 percent seven years ago.

That's the good news. On the other hand, U.S.News & World Report tells us about a new study confirms that what many of us who have been arguing for controlling the border have long suspected: Mexican immigrants are assimilating to life in the United States less successfully than other immigrants.

Using such factors as intermarriage, English ability, military service, homeownership, citizenship, and earnings, the Vigdor study uses a novel 100-point assimilation index. The closer to 100, the more assimilated an immigrant group:

Overall, the report shows immigrants are weaving into the American fabric at a remarkable clip, despite arriving poorer and knowing less English than immigrants of a century ago. And they are gaining speed, with new arrivals assimilating faster than those who came more than 20 years ago. With a score of 53, Canadians are the most assimilated, followed closely by Filipinos, Cubans, and Vietnamese. The main outlier: Mexicans, with a score of 13—followed by Salvadorans.

According to U.S.News, the root cause of the Mexicans' slower assimilation is that so many of them are illegals:

"There are certain jobs or certain services you just can't get [as an illegal immigrant]," Vigdor says. "There are plenty of indications here that for those Mexican immigrants who are interested in making a more permanent attachment to the United States, their legal status puts very severe barriers in that path."

Since the 1990s, Mexicans' immigrant story has differed from that of their peers. When comparing Mexicans and Asians, "Asians show up with a lot more money, oftentimes," notes Dowell Myers, a demographer at the University of Southern California. "They have a higher education to begin with, and many of them are entrepreneurs." Past decades saw influxes of refugees from countries such as Vietnam and the Philippines. Today's Asian immigrants are some of the best and brightest, which puts them on a faster track to assimilation via economic success.

The Asian experience recalls a general rule of today's immigrants. The farther you have to migrate, the wealthier you probably were in your country of origin. "Poor people can't afford a plane trip across the ocean, but poor people can walk across the border," Myers says. "Poor Africans and poor Chinese can't do it." Because of their proximity to the United States, poor Mexicans can make the trip. Indeed, their poverty impels them to risk the border crossing. But when they arrive, they arrive significantly disadvantaged, and they often qualify for jobs that offer little opportunity for social advancement. Other factors may also contribute but are more difficult to quantify: The leading contender is that the sheer number of Latinos in the United States has created a subculture that slows assimilation.

Other reasons offered for the slow assimilation include segregation and lower education.

In reporting on the Vigdor study Boston Globe poses some important questions that should be answered before we can address what needs to be done about the "anemic progress of Mexican immigrants:"

- Should the goal of our immigration policy be to satisfy industrial demand for low-skilled labor? Or should we place a higher priority on admitting new residents who seek to build a permanent attachment with American society?

- Should our policy toward immigrants place a greater value on cultural or civic assimilation?

All that said, the question remains: are we ready to again try and achieve comprehensive immigration reform? I don't think we are, at least not in the midst of the presidential election. There will be a window of opportunity for the new President to again attempt comprehensive reform after the November election.

Nevertheless, until we reach a consensus -- not just a simple majority, but a consensus substantial enough to overcome a filibuster -- on what to with the 12 million illegal aliens already living here, no comprehensive immigration reform can succeed. To be successful, any proposed reform must convince the skeptics that it will actually discourage future illegal immigration.

Immigration reform should be one of the issues throughly debated during the presidential campaign to move us toward the needed consensus.

Is Hillary Conceding?

Bloomberg reports Hillary's presidential campaign is in formal talks with Obama's campaign about becoming his vice presidential running mate:

The two Democratic campaigns are talking about ways for Clinton, from New York, to drop her bid for president that may include joining the Illinois senator's ticket, CNN reported. Talks are in a "very preliminary" stage and are described as "difficult," the network said.

UPDATE: The Answer Is No:

Clinton campaign officials Howard Wolfson and Terry McAuliffe tell NBC News that reports of talks between the Clinton campaign and the Obama campaign over a possible vice presidential role are totally false.

Clinton campaign officials are eager to shoot down the reports -- even suggesting they could be deliberate leaks from the Obama campaign to signal that Clinton is ready to give up and cut a deal in order to dry up her fundraising and get superdelegates to declare for him.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells First Read that suggestions these leaks are coming from Obama Land are "completely and unequivocally not true."

Obama Picks A Fight, McCain Finishes It

Fear of encouraging a troop exodus caused quite a debate over a generous expansion in the education benefits of the G.I. Bill.

The Congressional Budget Office, in its cost analysis, estimated that the proposed improved benefits would result in a 16 percent drop in re-enlistments.

During yesterday's debate on the enhanced educational benefits, Obama picked a fight with McCain. Obama threw the first punch on the Senate floor when he questioned McCain's opposition to the increased benefits:

"I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI Bill," he said. "I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans."

McCain's response was swift and highlighted Obama's lack of military service:

"I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did," said McCain, a former naval aviator who was held as a prisoner of war for more than five years during the Vietnam War.

"Running for president is different than serving as president ... the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend," McCain said.

McCain's full statement is available in the extended post.

Obama got it wrong from the moment he threw the first punch at McCain. McCain did not line up behind President Bush on this issue. According to the New York Times, "the Bush administration threw its support behind an alternative bill introduced last month by Mr. McCain and two other Republican senators, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard M. Burr of North Carolina:"

That benefit is also generous, increasing the monthly tuition benefit to $1,500, or roughly the average cost of public university tuition; it would rise to $2,000 for those who serve for 12 years. After new amendments, some as recent as Wednesday, their legislation would also include $1,000 a year for books and fees. The overall cost, Senators Graham and Burr said at a news conference, would be $38 billion over 10 years, financed by an across-the-board cut of a half percent in discretionary spending.

The main difference, though, is the provision to allow service members to transfer the benefits, up to half after 6 years of service and all after 12 years. Echoing the Pentagon’s arguments, they said that would encourage more service members, especially noncommissioned officers, to make the military a career.

I don't understand why Obama always has to distort McCain's positions. Why is Obama afraid to debate the issues based upon the truth? Are his arguments so weak that he feels he must resort, as numerous non-partisan factcheckers have found Obama has, to "distortion," "rank falsehood, "seriously misleading" statements and "outright lying?"

Monty Python For The Democrats

"It's Just A Flesh Wound"

:

"This whole thing is the biggest fairytale I've ever seen."
-- Bill Clinton 1/8/08

Obama Defends Rogue Leader Talks

MSNBC’s Firstread reports Obama is on the defense over his promise to talk to the leaders of rogue states:

The campaign's surrogates have slowly been walking back his initial declarations and the RNC and McCain folks have been pouncing hard on him.

The Associated Press reports that the issue, and Obama's morphing position, isn't as simple as Obama wants voters to think it is:

Obama gets cheers at his rallies when he declares there is nothing to fear, and potentially much to gain, from talking to enemies as well as friends.

But U.S. diplomacy is not that simple and neither is his position.

This week, Obama qualified his past statements that he would meet the Iranian leadership directly and without precondition by saying he did not necessarily mean Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's hardline, anti-American president.

Nor is it certain lately at what point he, as president, would speak personally with some of the dictators he says should be engaged.

This, despite months of assertions that his willingness to sit down with foes sets him apart from Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and now McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, who challenges Obama on that point.

Yesterday, I took Obama for task for relying upon President Kennedy's disastrous talks with Khrushchev as precedent and justification for Obama's Carter-like naive promise.

Today, in the New York Times, Nathan Thrall and Jesse James Wilkins take up the theme that Obama should learn something from the Kennedy experience. In an opinion piece entitled, "Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed," they write:

Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings — his Harvard thesis was titled “Appeasement at Munich” — he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.

Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy’s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?”

But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader.

[. . .]

A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them.

If Barack Obama wants to follow in Kennedy’s footsteps, he should heed the lesson that Kennedy learned in his first year in office: sometimes there is good reason to fear to negotiate.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- George Santayana

Obama's Huge Crowd Result Of Good Stagecraft

Earlier in the week there was a big hullabaloo about Obama's big Oregon crowd:

Senator Barack Obama drew the largest crowd of his campaign so far on Sunday, addressing an estimated 75,000 people who had gathered here on the banks of the Willamette River.

According to CNN the turnout was all about stagecraft.

1. The Obama campaign took a page from the Kerry campaign. In 2004, 50,000 attended a Kerry rally at the same location.

2. The Obama campaign built a sense of urgency, sending out word through local news that this would be last chance to see Obama before Oregon's primary.

3. The pot is sweetened by announcing Michelle Obama would be there as well.

4. A popular local band was booked to draw a bigger crowd.

5. The Obama campaigned followed up -- building on the buzz -- with emails and flyers.

Tom Foreman reports in the following video:

Still, it was nicely done stagecraft.

The Times Violates Its Policy on Ethics in Journalism

As revealed by my RedState colleague Soren Datyon, Ed Morrissey catches the New York Times attempting to extort an invitation to a presser with the McCain campaign:

It’s no secret that the McCain campaign believes the Times to be dishonest in its reporting on the candidate, and they decided not to extend an invitation to the Times for the media pool at the release of the medical records on Friday. According to my source close to the part of the campaign that deals with these issues, they have invited a variety of media outlets, including national-reach newspapers, wire services, and cable-news networks into the pool, but told the Times that they would not receive any credentials for the event.

This prompted a conversation between one Times editor and the campaign staff. Again according to the source, the editor told the campaign that the Times would take a negative view about the release of the records if an invitation was not forthcoming. It was clear that an invitation to the pool would change the nature of the coverage.

The McCain campaign did not cave, in the face of the Times threats and promises. That is clear from the Elisabeth Bullimer and Lawerence K. Altman hit job just published on the Times website.

The news organizations in the pool, selected by the campaign, include ABC News, The Arizona Republic, The Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, NBC News, Reuters, The Washington Post and, possibly, a newsmagazine.

Each organization is allowed two representatives and is expected to file a “pool report” for other reporters detailing the information in the records.

The so-called news organization took a "negative view about the release of the records," just as Morrissey reported the Times threatened to do.

As if extortion isn't bad enough, in some cases it can be a crime, this unprofessional conduct constitutes a clear violation of paper's Policy on Ethics in Journalism:

A2. How We Gather the News

21. We treat news sources fairly and professionally. We do not inquire pointlessly into someone's personal life. We do not threaten to damage uncooperative sources, nor do we promise favorable coverage in return for cooperation. We do not pay for interviews or unpublished documents: to do so would create an incentive for sources to falsify material and would cast into doubt the genuineness of much that we publish.

The McCain campaign certainly has plenty of reason not to trust the Times. Remember, the Times held a story for months, endorsed McCain to be the Republican Presidential nominee, and when he became the presumptive nominee the Times published a gutter story implying, with so little evidence -- none except two unnamed, disgruntled campaign workers -- that the Times' unprofessionalism became the story, the Senator engaged in some sort of impropriety.

Then there was the story falsely alleging McCain lost his temper, which was discredited by this video.

Finally, there is the earlier "news article" and an editorial attacking McCain over his medical records.

Is it not way past time for the Times to comply with its "Rules of the Road" and "uphold the highest journalistic, business and personal ethics?"

Also posted at Right Side Politics.

Superdelegate Super Mess

Ever wonder how news organizations track all those superdelegates who will decide whether Hillary or Obama gets the Democrats' nomination to challenge McCain?

NBC Nightly News Digital Correspondent, Mara Schiavocampo, reveals how NBC's political unit does it:

Yea, that really gives me a lot of confidence in the numbers they report.

Obama's Carter-Like Naivety

On Sunday, Obama showed his Carter-like naivety when he said Iran poses no serious threat to us and suggested we might have common interests with the rouge state that is developing a nuclear weapon to wipe Israel off the map. Obama got it very wrong. Yes, Kennedy spoke with Khrushchev during his first year in office, just like Obama promises to do with the leaders of his "tiny" countries. The Kennedy/Khrushchev talks were a disaster. Some say the Soviets, based on the talks with Kennedy, believed they could get away with putting nuclear-armed missiles in Cuba.

It wasn't talking with the Soviet leaders that allowed us to win the cold war. It was our economic and military strength that enabled us to successfully confront and contain the Evil Empire.

When Obama claimed Iran poses no serious threat, he must have forgotten about the Marines killed in the 1983 Hezbollah terrorist bombing of the Marine Barracks, in Beirut, Lebanon. Until the September 11 terror attacks, Iran-sponsored Hezbollah was responsible for killing more Americans than any other terrorist organization.

Yes, Obama got it very wrong. So wrong, that after John McCain called Obama on making light of the threat "tiny" Iran poses to America and Western civilization and distributed the video of Obama’s pronouncement, Obama nuanced his Sunday position faster than Kerry. Obama now admits Iran is a grave threat:

“Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust,” he said.”

Obama still doesn't get it.

When Obama says "Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba," Obama fails to mention that at the same time that Kennedy sent a private emissary to the Soviet Union and corresponded with Khrushchev via the teletype, Kennedy had already declared a naval quarantine of Cuba and threatened military force to destroy the missiles.

Obama also gets it wrong when he claims that Iran is the biggest beneficiary of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

As Roger L. Simon wrote yesterday:

Well, maybe, maybe not. But let’s leave aside the obvious — that Iran and the US have had numerous contacts over the last few years to no avail — and consider some more basic issues around the Iranian Revolution about which Senator Obama, most of whose time has been consumed by running for President since arriving in the Senate, may not be fully aware. These issues have tremendous ramifications regarding the level of Iran’s threat.

To begin with, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a conventional state in the sense of France or even the former Soviet Union. Since the revolution on 1979, it has been a theocracy based on Ayatollah Khomeini’s vision of a Shiite world under Allah.

[. . .]

In other words, Iran was not really a country per se, but a stepping stone in the eternal mission of global jihad. As demonstration, Khomeini almost immediately allowed millions to die in his 1980s war with Iraq, one of whose goals was to gain control of the holy cities of Kerbala and Najaf (the resting place of Shia’s Imam Ali) for Allah.

This goal was never truly abandoned as the Islamic Republic of Khomeini evolved into today’s IRI of Ayatollah Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I say evolved, but their belief system has remained essentially intact, with some minor diversions, since 1979.

These extreme tenets of Khomeinist Shia Islam can be argued to be more dangerous to our future and those of the West than Marxism-Leninism, which promoted itself as scientific socialism and therefore was governed to some extent by scientific evaluation. The IRI is governed by their version of faith in Allah. No science or fact can ever contradict the justice of their cause, which is to them God’s will. Their eschatology includes a belief under which global chaos will bring forth the “hidden imam” or Mahdi, the Shia messiah, who will bring peace to Earth, unified, of course, under Allah.

Consider the danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of people who actually believe that. It’s unclear how many do, but Ahmadinejad obviously does, as do many others in their leadership, particularly in the Revolutionary Guard and its Quds Brigade.

Obama's naivety reminds me of the naivety shown by President Carter, who admitted he was shocked that the Soviet Union would invade Afghanistan after Carter negotiated a Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty with Brezhnev.

Obama's White Women Problem

Gallup reports Obama has a problem with white women voters:

Obama loses to McCain by a nine-point margin among white women, Clinton wins by a three-point margin.

This difference persists when white women are segmented into two groups by education.

While Obama loses to McCain by 16 points among non-Hispanic white women with no college, Clinton ties McCain. And while Obama does manage to squeak out a four-point advantage over McCain among college-educated white women, Clinton has an 11-point margin.

[. . .]

Combining white voters of both genders, the current analysis shows that McCain wins over Obama among whites, 53% to 38%, and beats Clinton by a considerably smaller 51% to 42% margin.

Gallup Poll Editor in Chief, Frank Newport, covers the details in the following video:

Is this an argument for the super delegates to give the nomination to Hillary? This is about as compelling as her argument that she's won states that have more electoral votes than Obama.