Constitutional Rights

How many of your Constitutional Rights did you exercise this week?

Response to Mark's comment

Americans can't or won't do it because we aren't willing to pay them enough, that means they won't do it. So let someone who is willing to accept the pay do it or raise the cost of fruit, that's simple.

I think my idea does address border security, at least so much as our current border is secure. The patrols etc can be continued and perhaps even funded with monies from fees to register for legal entrance. So we continue with border security, but with legal openings...if you come through the legal opening and register that's all well and good, don't and we shoot on sight. This can be clearly posted in English and Spanish in large glowing neon letters "Enter US this way ONLY" and directions

I believe, at least from the immigrants (legal and illegal) that I have known that most would welcome the chance to work their way toward residence and citizenship. The registration and 6 month window allows for seasonal workers to come up, do what they do for the money the can get, and then go home for the next 6 months. Just because you can't prove full employment for the time doesn't mean you can't have a second chance, after all, on some level this is the nation of second chances. A lot of the early immigrants here ended up here because they failed at whatever it was they were trying to do at home, and a lot of them continued to fail and die, but the ones that worked hard (or were lucky) survived and helped build our national character into what it is today

Jacob's proposal on Immigration

Why is immigration a political issue? It seems logical that we would want the kind of people who want to come to be able to come. After all, this country needs immigrant and migrant workers to do the jobs Americans can not or will not do. The best soft power we have is the people that want to come the United States and become Americans, we should embrace that.

Since I have been sitting around this summer doing little besides reading, thinking and applying for jobs I have come up with an immigration policy that I think could be workable. Obviously I’m not in a position of political power now, but that does not mean I can not think of good ideas, or ideas that I think are good.

If what we want is people to come and be able to work, and work their way to being American citizens then lets start by basing our policy on that goal. To this end the US could establish virtually open borders, anyone who wants to come can, but on the condition that on arrival they register themselves with the INS and on settling somewhere they inform the INS and their local PD. This program I’m proposing isn’t for visitors, but those who intend to come to the US and make it their home, potential immigrants. Once arrived and registered, an immigrant has a six month grace period during which they must find housing and employment, or if under age 18, enter school and demonstrate passing grades. Given that some level of unemployment is cyclical, in the first 6 months they have to show at least 4 months of employment and a dedicated effort for any time not working.

Once you’ve made it through a 6 month check up, and assuming you’ve passed work and housing requirements, immigrants are given a 1 year extension. If in that year you are working 9 months of the time, then you get another year. If after 2 and half years you’ve managed to be employed for at least 3/4ths of the time, with no criminal infractions and your kids in school, you get another 2.5 years extension on your residency. After 5 years of steady work, you get a follow up evaluation. Should you still be a contributing member of society, you get permanent legal resident status. Another few years of that, and you get a chance to take the citizenship exam.

For individuals who are under 18, or in post-secondary school, good school records could be substituted for work records.

I think its workable, it lets the people who are willing to be part of the American dream stay and sets ground for long-term economic expansion. Additionally, by checking up on people periodically we can watch out for those who slip through the cracks and prevent them from messing up the system for everyone else.

hmm

I've been a bit lazy about posting this week, but I've thought of a question that interests me, what is the best historical parallel for understanding what what wrong with our invasion of Iraq?

One of my pet personal projects at school and in my own mind has been trying to use historical analysis and case studies to try to understand current events, under the theory that human nature is roughly a constant, despite the varieties of individuals and cultures that might alter how that nature is expressed.

So back to the question at hand, what previous conflict provides the best metaphor for understanding this current mess? I've been reading a very interesting book on the history of irregular warfare through the ages titled "War in the Shadows" by Robert B. Asprey in which he (briefly) explores most of the notable examples of guerrilla warfare over the period from Alexander the Great to the defeat of the Nationalist in China and the end of the Civil War there. So far I've not been struck by any particularly vivid parallels, though I'm only up to the World War II in the Pacific at the moment.

If anyone is actually reading this and can think of a promising analogy I would be greatly interested to hear (read) of it

More Sci Fi and Poli Sci

I went to see Transformers last night and was amused by the level to which political concerns have penetrated into popular culture. Early in the movie a group of American Special Forces personnel encounter a friendly Arab youth who leads them back to his home village for refuge. The soldiers fight side by side with the (heavily armed) villagers against the alien invader, an idealized version of what some expected when we invaded Iraq, the locals rising up to support the US against what all could have viewed as a larger threat.

Slightly later in the film while trying to figure out who or what perpetrated the attack a comment is made to the effect that the Iranians weren't smart enough to build something like the machine that committed the attack, an interesting comment about a country that, despite whatever other problems they may have, seems to have no lack of engineering ability as the underground bunkers sheltering their nuclear weapons program would indicate.

This movie also reminded me of my last post. It seems that Schmitt's conception of global peace through alien menace have been pretty well absorbed by the national mass media. Many science fictions movies, especially the big summer blockbusters, include some sort of global alliance to combat invading aliens, Independence Day in particular comes to mind in this genre. I wonder what other concepts of political science theory have entered into common usage and could be seen in popular entertainment?

Oh, Schmitt!

On the subway today I was re-reading The Gripping Hand by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, which on its surface would appear to have very little to do with either history or political science, being that it is a science fiction book that is set far in the future and nowhere near Earth. However, one section of the book deals with a former traitor becoming deeply interested and involved in supporting the "Empire of Man" because he fears a possible attack by aliens. The character in question states that the only reason he came to support the empire was because he saw the aliens as a greater threat to his people than the empire was.

As I read this, I was reminded of Carl Schmitt's Concept of the Political and particularly his section of formation of identity and on the possibility of world peace. Schmitt posits that the only way we are going to get world peace is if the human race as a whole manages to identify an enemy-other against which we can form a common sense of self and unite. Niven and Pournelle, whether deliberately or coincidentally, pick up on this concept and use it in their book.

This also reminds me of a theory I was discussing Friday with my brother, namely Frederick Jackson Turner's theory of the frontier and its position in the formation of the American identity. Can a fusion of the Schmitt and Turner be created in which the sense of self develops through the opposition of not an enemy-other, but through overcoming geographic and other hardships? Can humanity be united in a common cause that doesn't involve trying to kill something else? Is our own survival a strong enough motivator? I for one have no idea, but I don't think combating global problems is going to bring global peace, but it might force a relaxation of some of the traditional definitions of sovereignty. If we are going to deal with say, the hole in the ozone layer or international trafficking of people and drugs than nations are going to have to work together to form common standards. It worked for stomping out the slave trade (though slowly) - maybe its worth paying attention to?

Further Reflections on the Meaning of History

"History is a record of exploded ideas" - British Admiral John Fisher, as quoted in "To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World" by Arthur Herman.

If history is as, Fisher said, nothing but a record of failed ideas than what does it mean to study history? Are we trying to learn why these mistakes were made so we can avoid the same path, or just avoid being exploded along with the ideas?

For those that don't know but do care, Fisher was the architect of the concept of the British Navy in the pre-World War One period and a mentor to Winston Churchill. It was he who forced the British navy to adopt submarines, torpedoes and the concept of the fast attack battleship. His naval policies are often held at least partially to blame for the rise in in Anglo-German antagonism and the eventual arms race, a subject of no small interest to myself (and one I think that is well worth studying, given the possibility of an arms race between the US and either [or G-d forbid, both] Russia and/or China).