Ads on Help Save Virginia website

Help Save Virginia has a section for ads from businesses that do not use illegal alien labor. Excellent idea.

The great thinkers...

The Washington Post gives you an article from the Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Anne-Marie Slaughter. It's a pretty good example of various tendencies among Those Who Know Better Than You.

The second paragraph is self promotion--the Democratic candidates will need to appoint cabinet members after all--while after that it is attacks on media commentators, bloggers, and officials who are not sufficiently "bipartisan". Michael Lind in the Nation and Tony Smith in the Washington Post both criticized her ideas (which includes her at least initial support for the Iraq War), and therefore she has decided they aren't sufficiently bipartisan. They are both left of center. She also attacks right of center John Bolton, the former ambassador to the UN under Bush, for criticizing the administration for dealing with North Korea.

I agree some commentators/blogs/politicians are over the top and contribute nothing to the debate, but isn't critiquing important policy decisions on important topics such as Iraq and North Korea allowed anymore? Both the Lind* and Smith pieces were rather moderately phrased, hardly "vitriol", but by calling it such without addressing their arguments she marginalizes their views. (I don't fully agree with their views, but that doesn't make them unreasonable in my book). One wonders if Lind, Smith, or Bolton would have their argumentation style blasted--and fundamentally she is attacking style since she cannot bother to attack their substance--if they agreed with her views...

The first paragraph to me is the most interesting. She praises how Bush "started" reaching across the aisle in the failed immigration bill. Aside from showing exactly how politically ignorant she is, given Bush was pushing his *guest* worker program since he took office, it demonstrates that the interests of those in power (and as a Dean at an Ivy League university she is in power) very often coincide. Calls for bipartisanship along with the smearing ideological opponents; when that happens it's often to the detriment of you, even when it seems like a debate among policy wonks. A topic will be declared off limits and those outside of the officially declared appropriate view will be declared irrational, mean spirited, partisan, etc. while the desired policy is shoved through. When you can't get anyone in power from any side of the ideological spectrum to address a topic you're in trouble. Luckily, that trick doesn't seem to work anymore. At the end of her own article--where she calls on readers to spam the inboxes of those "partisans" who take views she doesn't like--the commenters certainly give their positions on her article, and they're less than, um, "bipartisan".


*The Nation only gives an excerpt; you have access to a subscription or Lexis to read it.
**Matthew Yglesias also has a helpful definition of the word partisan for Slaughter's benefit.

Hazleton's law struck down

A federal judge struck down Hazleton's law punishing landlords and businesses that rent and hire illegal immigrants.

On Lou Dobbs an ACLU spokesman echoed the common sentiment of illegal immigrants' rights groups: immigration is a federal issue. (This was also a finding of the judge). I would imagine it will be appealed.

Question: If the federal government was actually acting to keep illegal immigrants out and was punishing employers and landlords, what is the likelihood the ACLU and the rights group would pull the "it's federal" card, 1/10 of a percent of 1/10000 of a percent?

One of the reasons for this blog is to work around legal setbacks (see previous posts for my ideas). Hopefully these ideas can be used for towns like Manassas (in Northern VA) that already has a large illegal presence. (Note the lovely picture under "Help Save Manassas to Draw Protestors).

Help Save Maryland

Montgomery County, MD can't find the money for a community center, senior citizens centers, schools, and homeless shelters but can find the taxpayer money to help illegals with day labor centers and free health clinics, apparently only for illegals.

www.helpsavemaryland.com

(Look at the blog as well)

Reducing dependence

Some occupations that are necessary for a community to function have either been largely taken over by illegal immigrants in certain regions or cater to illegal immigrants. Construction is an example of the former while many in the banking industry have decided to cater to illegal immigrants by offering loans, check cashing, wire transfers, etc. As noted in the last post public hospitals are forced to provide non-essential medical care.

Encouraging citizens of a community to focus careers on these industries will both provide an alternative to illegal immigrant labor and destroy the infrastructure that allows/encourages them to stay. Construction jobs are tricky, as many of them have been gutted by low wage illegals and the owners willing to exploit them. Those companies hiring legal workers will be at a disadvantage, for a time. However, a community willing to hire only Americans from the community will a) find work done properly, b) be supporting their and local community and their country's economy, and c) reducing crime and dependence on social services (and therefore taxes). Illegal companies could eventually be driven from the scene.

Local banks very often offer higher returns on savings and CD accounts, and might offer better loan rates (the reason being, apparently, that they spend less on advertising than the large banks). Local banks can be set up only for community residents and U.S. citizens. (Ever been to a Bank of America in a border state? Real fun to stand in a long line with the other citizen customers while the illegals get a line ONLY FOR THEM. Yes, really. And thankfully I'm no longer with them.)

The medical professions should also be targeted. If members of a community encouraged current medical professionals to leave public hospitals, and if the children of the community were encouraged to become nurses and doctors, hopefully the local public hospital system would only be able to provide emergency services and not the current benefits provided to illegals. Many regions have faced the closure of public hospitals because of the burden being imposed by illegals, and setting up an alternative private system will spare citizens while inconveniencing those illegally here, as they won't be able to access it.

Taking back these professions will reduce how much you pay in taxes, will make your stay at the hospital much more pleasant (and potentially life saving), and will support the local economy instead of Mexico's.

Family thing

I will be out of town for a few days. Back next week.

Waitresses versus professonial policy makers

I worked as a waitress for a time with more than just college students. One thing of which I’ve become more and more convinced is that I would be more comfortable with most restaurant servers determining policy than many academics I’ve encountered. Sure, many of them could not manage their personal lives (they would still behave in a self defeating manner despite knowing they were going down the wrong path), and they were probably not as smart in many areas compared to the academic types.

However, on many social issues they were much more honest and knowledgeable than most of the academic types. All races in the restaurant were pretty honest about what they thought about the other races, and they were honest about the faults of their own race, white, black, Hispanic... On immigration policy, on welfare policy, on much of foreign policy, I would generally trust the servers’ judgment. They face the competition and social decay of neighborhoods from illegal immigrants, they are closest to people who abuse welfare while they go to jobs, and they are often the ones who know people who will go to war.

It reminds me of a show a few years ago on Spanish intruding on English. Two Hispanic brothers were interviewed. The older one was a construction worker. He had acquired a reasonable amount of English in school, but he no longer used it since all of his coworkers spoke Spanish. He expressed regret, through an interpreter I believe, that he was losing the English he had known. His younger brother was fluent in English and in law school. He did not believe Spanish speakers should have to learn English. He did not have to face the daily reality his own brother had to face, and he was doing people like his brother a huge disservice with views like that. But he had his ideology, he didn't have to deal with the problem, so he didn't think it mattered.

The grad students I know are much more concerned about what others think about their opinions (and they get more pressure to think a certain way), and they’re also a bit more out of touch from every day concerns. Occasionally those who don’t really feel the same way will slip up and reveal their true feelings; dissatisfaction with illegal immigrants and the experience their aunt who is a nurse has had with them, how Los Angeles has been invaded from the south, etc. But the knee jerk reaction is “oh that’s awful” when anything deemed hostile to the “downtrodden” is discussed. They think everyone else is for amnesty, is for more and more welfare, is just fine with Spanish billboards and commercials on TV, so they all parrot the same line in a situation of mutual misunderstanding. And you can bet if they had to implement policy, most of them would behave the same way.

Some academics are very honest about what they believe, whether right or left, and I’ve been privileged to get their views on things. I've been privileged to meet those who have had contact with all types of people, are quite knowledgeable about the world, and have honestly come to conclusions different from mine. I’ve also been privileged to meet ones who are quite willing to respectfully listen to views different from theirs. It’s a shame there are those who aren’t like that.

Insurance alternatives

Insurance costs can be a major obstacle to small businesses. In the previous post I discussed making private schools affordable and keeping costs such as insurance low is important in this quest.

Several months ago I saw a news report on Christians who get together, pay relatively low premiums, live a healthy lifestyle, and cover each others’ emergency costs. It is not an insurance company or insurance, apparently, but it provides security if something medically catastrophic occurs. These groups are on the internet, just google +Christian +insurance (I don’t want to be seen promoting any of the groups as I don’t know their track records).

My thought is that this could be used in communities, for members of any faith, who do not have their own insurance or don’t want to pay ridiculous premiums for standard private insurance. Presumably people willing to get together and form a community will, on average, have lower risk lifestyles than the rest of the population (less likely to use drugs, be alcoholics, be violent or out drag racing, etc.). This should reduce costs as community members are not subsidizing others’ behaviors. I do think those community members with a history of cancer or other problems should not be turned away, however.

These small businesses would then face less of a competitive disadvantage with large companies, as would the private schools (easier to obtain employees if insurance is offered, lower costs for insurance), and it would help those who cannot get or afford insurance from mainstream companies.

I don’t believe private hospitals have to take the uninsured except in emergencies. Communities could then set up private hospitals that can turn away those who come in with minor problems and drive up everyone else’s costs. The cost to have translators on staff would also be reduced, as the substantial majority of those with insurance will speak English and the only translators needed would be for emergencies, assuming translators are required by law. I do think any hospital should take in any true emergency, but no hospital should have to take in someone because they don’t want to bother to go to a doctor on their own because their kid has the sniffles. However, these hospitals should not be focused solely on making record profits, but on serving the community they were built to serve.

As a note on the translation issue, in the past year or two there have been a couple of news articles on illegal aliens complaining because the hospital they were leeching off of did not provide translation services fast enough for their liking. How’s that for balls?

Schools

For parents with children, the quality of schools is a big motivator as to where they live. In areas with a large influx of illegal immigrants, public schools become less attractive to those parents. Unless it is a magnet school or a school with a good honors program, teachers will have to spend more time with non-English or limited English speakers. Even then, the kids will face increased chaos and decreased bonds with fellow students.

So how to solve the problem for those without the money to live in a good school district, those who don’t want to spend 50% of their income on a mortgage or private school, or those who have plenty of money but do not like aspects of the upper class lifestyle, namely spoiled children and “keeping up with the Joneses?” (This seemed to be traits I noticed among some kids who were in the very well off neighborhoods. Certainly not always the lower class with problems).

First, I would suggest living in a more affordable area that is still relatively safe. If enough people do this in a neighborhood, the nearby public schools can have enough kids who share the same goals and language. The parents could lobby for some type of charter school. However, if this isn’t the case or if the teachers are not what the parents would prefer, cheap private schools could be a solution.

I don’t know if states require private school teachers to have education degrees, I don’t think so. If not, this might make recruiting teachers easier. To reduce costs, students perform many of the tasks schools currently pay to have done: mowing the grounds, taking out the trash, vacuuming, etc. This has the added benefit of teaching humility. Also, as the school will be in a less expensive area, rent costs will be lower.

Donations could be requested from community members (whether they have children or not), former students, and local businesses. Those better off would perhaps be willing to give more than others; if they have children themselves, they are also serving their self interest since their children get the benefit of decent classmates whose parents otherwise could not afford tuition.

I would also suggest parents having at least three children. This will increase the number of those in the community who are interested in forming social bonds and it will make it more likely that a public school will be built in the community neighborhood as there will be more students. Community members could babysit for those families where both parents work or the family could have children close together so the stay at home parent could go back to work sooner, if she (or he) so desired. Private schools would also have more customers, and could therefore possibly give discounts to parents with more children.

I have ideas on how to keep insurance costs for teachers low, but that will be in another post on how to keep insurance lower for everyone.

These ideas should help keep tuition affordable. Hopefully.

Defend Hazleton

Hazleton, Pennsylvania is fighting a lawsuit over their attempt to stop illegal immigrants from burdening their town. The lawsuit is an attempt to bankrupt Hazleton and intimidate that town and the others trying to stop the harm done to them.

To my two or so readers :-), please contribute to the Hazleton Defense Fund:
http://www.smalltowndefenders.com/public/

You might want to use a money order as the various groups selfishly looking to expand their power and number of constituents at the expense of the nation want the names of the contributors to this fund.

Creating a sustainable parallel society

A community should be able to provide certain services without having to resort to illegal labor (such as construction or the service industry) or face declining standards due to mass migration without assimilation (schools, hospitals). Miraculously, this can and does happen in areas that have not faced an influx (when I was a waitress I was shocked to discover a girl who had been a busser back in her small town. That was something non-English speaking illegals did in the city I'm from. The crude gestures made at the female staff was just great, but it was nice to be defended by the American Hispanics who (unfairly) risked being lumped in with their distant cousins).

However, we can't all live in small towns or unaffected cities, hence the necessity to try to create or own communities. Unfortunately, in cities or town that have experienced the influx, businesses that try to obey the laws are at a competitive disadvantage from others who don't follow the law and can exploit immigrants who aren't going to expect reasonable pay. Over the next few days I'll outline what I think can be done by citizens in the areas listed above in an affordable way.