A Fence is No Substitute

The much-discussed and sometimes popular notion of a fence on the American border with Mexico isn't going to solve our immigration problem. Let's pretend that we had physical barriers around this country that were very difficult to penetrate. For example, let's pretend we were an island in the Pacific, far from neighboring land masses. Australia! Let's pretend America is Australia. Given the mythical properties that people ascribe to a border fence, that it can keep immigrants out and solve our problems, you'd expect that Australia has no immigration problems. But you'd be wrong. People wash up on Australian shores in a desparate attempt to escape persecution in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Iran, and Iraq, among other places. And when they do, Australia puts these refugees, who are not even simply immigrants looking for work but desperate people seeking asylum from death and torture, in "detention centers", which are indistinguishable from prisons. Basically, Australian refugee policy is deeply troubling. It in no way substitutes for meaningful reform and a legitimate set of procedures for processing refugees, giving them asylum, allowing them a legal status, and providing them with the opportunity to become contributing members to Australian society.

Americans, a border fence will not protect us from needing a comprehensive policy on immigration. The only solution is reform, based in an understanding of 1) our shared humanity with immigrants and refugees, 2) and acknowledgement that America was built on free/cheap labor and still exploits those with no bargaining power to get it, and 3) the economic policies of the US in relation to Mexico and Central America have contributed to the poor economies of those countries and therefore to the dire straits of those who live there. We need an immigration reform plan that stops demonizing people in public while doing nothing to punish the corporations that exploit immigrants because immigrants cannot enforce the minimum wage requirements.

We need a policy that incorporates the need this country has for the labor that immigrants do. This policy must give immigrants some measure of safety and accountability, so that we cease our shadow world of undocumented people working under the radar for either individual or institutional employers. We need to recognize that immigrants pay taxes: even if they get cash for working, they pay sales tax and value added taxes on commodities such as gasoline and cigarettes. We should grant them some kind of guest-worker status that allows them to contribute more of their income to this country. There should be a citizenship plan for these guest-workers that is much less restrictive and punitive than the current system, so that these productive, hardworking people can reap the benefits they've paid into with their sales taxes and payroll taxes. The American-born children of immigrants should unquestionably be granted the citizenship that is their right under the 14th amendment. Both American-born and immigrant children should continue to be sent to public school, since education is the best way to ensure that those new citizens produce and pay taxes in the future. There is a proven need for immigrant labor in this country, and it's time to stop demonizing people who want a better life and start crafting policy that makes it easier for us all to live better.

Words Have Meanings

Question: what is this story about?

If you didn't already know that Ben Roethlisberger had been accused of rape a couple of times, would you have learned it from that story? Have you ever seen anyone try so hard not to put the words "Ben Roethlisberger repeatedly accused of rape" together?

God forbid we sully this upstanding citizen role model's name by reporting on the violent crimes he is alleged to have committed, amirite?

The New Nuclear Paradox

So, Obama's hosting the Nuclear Security Summit right now, which is the largest gathering of world leaders on American soil since 1945. Pretty cool! Also cool: apparently the U.S. has the moral authority and capability to be the go-to country for helping others, namely Ukraine and Chile, collect and dispose of weapons-grade nuclear material.

I got to thinking last night how far the world has come, even just in my lifetime (born 1982), on the subject of nuclear weapons use. It seems that we're at the point where use of a nuclear weapon by a legitimate country is all but impossible politically. Russia and the US are drawing down their arsenals cooperatively, to widespread international acclaim. Some states are voluntarily giving up the potential for nuclear capability by giving us their materials, and they're apparently not worried that we'll turn them into weapons and bomb people. Among nuclear states that hate each other and antagonize each other every other way imaginable (looking at you, India and Pakistan) nuclear war has never broken out. Economic inter-connection is also a deterrent: what would the U.S., for example, get out of nuking China? Nothing worth nuking China, that's what. The world economy as it is provides no incentives for the kind of scortched-earth warfare a nuclear bomb represents. It is politically indefensible for any country to use a nuclear bomb against any other country.

That brings us to those to whom political defensibility means nothing. Obviously, terrorists are actively seeking nuclear weapons and would use them if they got them. This is part of the reason Ukraine in particular is anxious to unload its enriched uranium. It's pretty expensive to keep that stuff protected. Here's where I have trouble though: does the US, or anybody, actually gain anything from having a nuclear weapon to use against terrorists? The whole deal with terrorists is that their center of power moves; we don't know where they are to bomb them. We're already bombing civilians in Pakistan with drones because those civilians live near purported terrorist cells. Will there ever come a time that we consider a compromised or failed state, like Somalia or Afghanistan, a legitimate target for nukes because terrorsts sometimes work from there? I seriously doubt it. So, knowing that, how does having nukes make us safer? Is our nuclear arsenal just another piece of American Security Theatre? I'm open to the possibility that having nukes and acquiring nukes from other countries makes us look strong, and that in itself is valuable. But I think it is equally possible that looking like we will bomb countries we percieve as weak makes us appear to be a bunch of cowboy bullies, which falls neatly into the terrorists' reasons for demonizing us.

I guess this is a difficult problem with no real conclusion, and nuclear weapons are not per se bad for us to have, but I'd love to hear more discussion about why we have them and why a world with nukes is safer for the US than a world without nukes.

Awesome Religious Leader Alert!

The Reverend Welton Gaddy, Executive Director of the Interfaith Alliance, was on Rachel Maddow last night. They had a good discussion about religion and politics, and the degree that the two of those mix, and why that mix is a problem. Of course they talked about the C Street House, which is one of Rachel's pet issues, but they also began their chat with a little bit of Stupak. Rev. Gaddy said things I have never heard a male person say in my life:

MADDOW: What do you make of Congressman Stupak on this health reform issue of his, saying that he doesn‘t listen to nuns, he only listens to bishops when it comes to abortion rights?

GADDY: Well, it sounds very much like a male authoritarian point of view, doesn‘t it? I don‘t know whether this is all about politics or all about religion. Either way, it doesn‘t work. It‘s bad politics. It‘s bad religion. When a man takes up on himself the authority that lets him tell a woman how she can handle her own body, what she can do and do with it, I get very suspicious about the audacity of that man.

Thank you Dr. Gaddy. The fact that a male religious leader in a mainstream Christian denomination (he's a Baptist) can articulate that point of view gives me hope for the world.