Friday, May 28, 2010

Canada may point the way to sensible immigration policy

BY: Froma Harp

Immigration reform? Look north. Canada has a large immigration program but little illegal immigration, because Ottawa won't tolerate it.

Ripped from the news: Haitians are illegally crossing into Vermont from Canada, looking for work.

Why didn't the Haitians stay in Canada, where the social-safety net is far cushier? Because, as the head of a Haitian radio station in Montreal told The New York Times, "they saw that they had no chance to become Canadian permanent residents." And, he added, "people thought that the United States were going to receive all the Haitians."

What do we take home from this?

First off, porous borders are not the biggest reason that illegal immigration has become such a huge problem in the United States. Note that while President Obama is sending up to 1,200 National Guard troops to secure the border with Mexico, there are no troops, rivers or even fences along most of the U.S.-Canadian border. Some country roads mark the boundary with a simple stone.

True, illegal aliens can walk into the United States from Mexico. The logistics are easier in the American Southwest. But there are plenty of illegal workers in Washington state, Michigan and Maine — and little stopping them from going on to Canada.

Our northern neighbor has a large immigration program but little illegal immigration, because Ottawa won't tolerate it. No country with generous entitlements can afford a growing population of low-income workers.

Canada tweaks its immigration program to meet economic needs. It favors entrants with highly desirable skills. And when the economy recently turned sour, it stopped renewing many temporary work permits.

Should America do as Canada does? Should it stringently enforce its ban on hiring illegal workers? Yes. And should it stop fretting over what happens to undocumented people already in the country? Yes, but not yet.

What separates the United States from Canada on illegal immigration is a consistent message.

America's landmark 1986 immigration-reform law banned the hiring of illegal workers while granting amnesty to several million already here. But it was purposely rendered toothless at the last minute, when saboteurs yanked out a provision requiring a secure check of job applicants' identities.

Talk about messages. Suppose you're an impoverished Mexican. You know that the United States has offered several amnesties to illegal workers, and in any case, hasn't much enforced the law. You heard President George W. Bush announce that he was going to "match any willing worker with any willing employer." And you know that the conservative Wall Street Journal has called for open borders, while the liberal New York Times runs editorials on immigration that refuse to distinguish between legal and illegal.

What would you do? You would come to the United States, papers be damned.

We've had several decades of a two-faced immigration policy during which millions have come to this country illegally, taken jobs, started families and become part of the American scene. They are mostly good people who have been integrated into our economy and communities. There must be a last amnesty to cover them.

And it will be the last one if two things happen: One, we pass immigration reform that requires every new hire to present counterfeit-proof ID. Two, the public demands that their government go after lawbreaking employers.

After virtually no enforcement in the Bush years, the Obama administration has begun to cite and fine employers who break the law. This is needed to move public opinion toward an immigration package that includes legalizing many already here. Sending troops to the border may also boost confidence.

But as Canada shows us, it's not the ease of crossing the border that encourages illegal immigration, but the ease of getting a job once in. The United States needs to get its act together and its message straight on immigration.



Immigration

Darden turns himself in, then heads back for "treatment"

It's not the treatment in rehab he needs to be worried about. It's the treatment he'll be receiving from his new friends in jail.

Former Yazoo teacher returns to rehab


YAZOO CITY — Former Manchester Academy teacher Richard Darden is back in rehab today after turning himself in to authorities Thursday evening.

Yazoo County Sheriff Tommy Vaughan said Darden arrived at his office around 5 p.m. with his attorney. This morning, Darden made his initial court appearance in which Justice Court Judge Pam May set bond at $200,000, and Darden was ordered back into rehabilitation.

Once Darden finishes, the Sheriff's Department will place him in county jail under the bond. Vaughan said he did not know for how much longer Darden would need treatment.

"It sounded like it would be several weeks," he said. The sheriff would not say what specifically Darden is seeking treatment for other than an "addiction."

Darden's attorney, Cynthia Stewart, said her client "is innocent until proven guilty. All we have now is just allegations and many of them made in a lawsuit seeking money."

Vaughan said his investigators waited to take Darden into custody "because there were so many complaints filed we had to investigate each on independently and that takes time. We don't work on hearsay."

More than 100 students have come forward with allegations against Darden. Many are minors.

Investigator Dennis Moulder said he has yet to interview Darden because the suspect's attorney refused.

Investigators have been through Darden's house and have taken several items of evidence. Moulder also confirmed finding a room from where Darden may have watched students.

As for claims of abuse conducted at the school, Moulder said there is no firm evidence anything occurred at Manchester Academy.

Vaughan also said he is not investigating accusations against Darden made in the suit filed Wednesday in Yazoo County Circuit Court.

"I haven't seen it. I don't want to see it. I don't deal with civil. I deal with criminals," he said.


Clarion Ledger



Manchester/Darden Scandal


Related Posts: Manchester teacher caught peeping refuses to turn himself in.

Students sue former Manchester Academy teacher accused of abuse

Harper Says Military not a "testing ground for social change"

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representative Gregg Harper (R–Miss.) issued the following statement after opposing final passage of the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation includes an amendment by Democratic Representative Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania that repeals “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a long standing law banning homosexuals from openly serving in the United States military.

“The Democratic leadership only allowed 10 minutes of debate on an amendment that will repeal a 17-year-old law. By repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ without a thorough review process, the majority is attempting to put the proverbial cart before the horse.

“Our men and women in uniform must be consulted to address the possible complications of implementing this controversial policy change. I agree with all four uniformed service chiefs who earlier this week sent letters strongly imploring Congress to defer any legislation repealing this regulation until the Department of Defense completes its review.

“At a time when our military is stretched thin fighting two wars, I do not believe we should consider policy changes of this magnitude. The United States military should not be used as a testing ground for social change.”



Harper vote on Defense Authorization

Whatchootalkin’bout, Willis? Gary Coleman Dead at 42

Another Icon of the 80's is gone.

Diff’rent Strokes Actor Gary Coleman Dead at 42



Gary Coleman, 42, the diminutive Diff’rent Strokes actor and poster child for the latter-day troubles of kid stars, died Friday at a Provo, Utah hospital of a head injury caused by a fall

Time

We’re too broke to be this stupid

STEYN: Beleaguered taxpayers may finally put a stop to the sheer waste of government spending

by Mark Steyn
Back in 2008, when I was fulminating against multiculturalism on a more or less weekly basis, a reader wrote to advise me to lighten up, on the grounds that “we’re rich enough to afford to be stupid.”

Two years later, we’re a lot less rich. In fact, many Western nations are, in any objective sense, insolvent. Hence last week’s column, on the EU’s decision to toss a trillion dollars into the great sucking maw of Greece’s public-sector kleptocracy. It no longer matters whether you’re intellectually in favour of European-style social democracy: simply as a practical matter, it’s unaffordable.

How did the Western world reach this point? Well, as my correspondent put it, we assumed that we were rich enough that we could afford to be stupid. In any advanced society, there will be a certain number of dysfunctional citizens either unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to support themselves and their dependents. What to do about such people? Ignore the problem? Attempt to fix it? The former nags at the liberal guilt complex, while the latter is way too much like hard work: the modern progressive has no urge to emulate those Victorian social reformers who tramped the streets of English provincial cities looking for fallen women to rescue. All he wants to do is ensure that the fallen women don’t fall anywhere near him.

So the easiest “solution” to the problem is to throw public money at it. You know how it is when you’re at the mall and someone rattles a collection box under your nose and you’re not sure where it’s going but it’s probably for Darfur or Rwanda or Hoogivsastan. Whatever. You’re dropping a buck or two in the tin for the privilege of not having to think about it. For the more ideologically committed, there’s always the awareness-raising rock concert: it’s something to do with Bono and debt forgiveness, whatever that means, but let’s face it, going to the park for eight hours of celebrity caterwauling beats having to wrap your head around Afro-Marxist economics. The modern welfare state operates on the same principle: since the Second World War, the hard-working middle classes have transferred historically unprecedented amounts of money to the unproductive sector in order not to have to think about it. But so what? We were rich enough that we could afford to be stupid.

That works for a while. In the economic expansion of the late 20th century, citizens of Western democracies paid more in taxes but lived better than their parents and grandparents. They weren’t exactly rich, but they got richer. They also got more stupid. When William Beveridge laid out his blueprint for the modern British welfare state in 1942, his goal was the “abolition of want.” Sir William and his colleagues on both sides of the Atlantic succeeded beyond their wildest dreams: to be “poor” in the 21st-century West is not to be hungry and emaciated but to be obese, with your kids suffering from childhood diabetes. When Michelle Obama turned up to serve food at a soup kitchen, its poverty-stricken clientele snapped pictures of her with their cellphones. In one-sixth of British households, not a single family member works. They are not so much without employment as without need of it. At a certain level, your hard-working bourgeois understands that the bulk of his contribution to the treasury is entirely wasted. It’s one of the basic rules of life: if you reward bad behaviour, you get more of it. But, in good and good-ish times, who cares?

By the way, where does the government get the money to fund all these immensely useful programs? According to a Fox News poll earlier this year, 65 per cent of Americans understand that the government gets its money from taxpayers, but 24 per cent think the government has “plenty of its own money without using taxpayer dollars.” You can hardly blame them for getting that impression in an age in which there is almost nothing the state won’t pay for. I confess I warmed to that much-mocked mayor in Doncaster, England, who announced a year or two back that he wanted to stop funding for the Gay Pride parade on the grounds that, if they’re so damn proud of it, why can’t they pay for it? He was actually making a rather profound point, but, as I recall, he was soon forced to back down. In Canada, almost every ethnocultural booster group is on the public teat. Outside Palestine House in Toronto the other week, the young Muslim men were caught on tape making explicitly eliminationist threats about Jews, but c’mon, everything else in Canada is taxpayer-funded, why not genocidal incitement? We’re rich enough that we can afford to be stupid.

It’s not so much the money as the stupidity, which massively expands under such generous subvention. When it emerged that President Barack Obama had appointed a Communist as his “green jobs czar,” I carelessly assumed it was the usual youthful “idealism”: no doubt Van Jones, the Communist Obama appointee in question, had been a utopian college student caught up in the spirit of ’68 and gone along for the ride. A passing phase. Soon grow out of it. But, in fact, Mr. Jones became a Communist in the mid-nineties, after the fall of the Soviet Union. He embraced Communism after even the commies had given up on it. Like the song says, he was commie after commie had ceased to be cool. On Fox News, Glenn Beck made a fuss about it. But the “mainstream” media thought this was frankly rather boorish, and something only uptight right-wing squares would do. I mean, what’s the big deal? True, everywhere it’s been implemented, Communism causes human misery—not to mention an estimated 150 million deaths. But it doesn’t make you persona non grata in the salons of the West. Quite the opposite. The Washington Post hailed the grizzled folkie Pete Seeger as America’s “best-loved commie”—which, unlike “America’s best-loved Nazi,” is quite a competitive title. Even so, why would you stick a commie in the White House and put him in charge of anything to do with jobs, even “green jobs”?


Well, because “green jobs” is just another of those rich-enough-to-be-stupid scams. The Spanish government pays over $800,000 for every “green job” on a solar-panel assembly line. This money is taken from real workers with real jobs at real businesses whose growth is being squashed to divert funds to endeavours that have no rationale other than their government subsidies—and which would collapse as soon as the subsidies end. Yet Tim Flannery, the Aussie climate-alarmist who chaired the Copenhagen racket, says we need to redouble our efforts. “We’re trying to act as a species,” he says, “to regulate the atmosphere.”

Er, “regulate the atmosphere”? Why not? We’re rich enough to be stupid with the very heavens.

In his book The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism (La tyrannie de la pĂ©nitence), the French writer Pascal Bruckner concludes by quoting Louis Bourdaloue, the celebrated Jesuit priest at the court of Louis XIV, who preached on the four kinds of conscience: 1) the good and peaceful; 2) the good and troubled; 3) the bad and troubled; 4) the bad and peaceful. The first is to be found in Heaven, the second in Purgatory, the third in Hell, and the fourth—the bad but peaceful conscience—sounds awfully like the prevailing condition of the West at twilight. We are remorseful to a fault—indeed, to others’ faults.

It’s not just long-ago sins like imperialism and colonialism and Eurocentric white male patriarchy and other fancies barely within living memory. Our very lifestyle demands penitence: Americans have easily accessible oil reserves, but it would be wrong to touch them, so poor old BP have to do the “environmentally responsible” thing and be out in the middle of the Gulf a mile underwater. If you’re rich enough to be that stupid, what won’t you subsidize? The top al-Qaeda recruiter in Britain, Abu Qatada, had 150,000 pounds in his bank account courtesy of the taxpayer before the comically misnamed Department for Work and Pensions decided to cut back his benefits.

The green jobs, the gay parades, the jihadist welfare queens, the Greek public sector unions, all have to be paid for by a shrinking base of contributing workers whose children and grandchildren will lead poorer and meaner lives because of the fecklessness of government. The social compact of the postwar era cannot hold. Across the developed world, a beleaguered middle class is beginning to understand that it’s no longer that rich. At some point, it will look at the sheer waste of government spending, the other shoe will drop, and it will decide that it no longer wishes to be that stupid.

Macleans

Was it a bribe? White House Used Bill Clinton to Ask Sestak to Drop Out of Race

White House attorneys say that Mr. Emanuel’s proposal was for an unpaid job, so it doesn't rise to the level of bribery.

Representative Joe Sestak, with his wife, Susan, and daughter Alex, won the Democratic primary for the Pennsylvania Senate seat even though his opponent had the backing of President Obama and other Democratic party leaders. President Obama’s chief of staff used former President Bill Clinton as an intermediary to see if Representative Joe Sestak would drop out of a Senate primary if given a prominent, but unpaid, advisory position, people briefed on the matter said Friday.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, asked Mr. Clinton to explore the possibilities last summer, according to the briefed individuals, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the politically charged situation. Mr. Sestak said no and went on to win last week’s Pennsylvania Democratic primary against Senator Arlen Specter.

The White House did not offer Mr. Sestak a full-time paid position because Mr. Emanuel wanted him to stay in the House rather than risk losing his seat. Among the positions explored by the White House was an appointment to the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, which provides independent oversight and advice the president. But White House officials discovered it would not work because Mr. Sestak could not serve on the board while still serving in Congress.

Mr. Sestak first mentioned publicly in February that he had been offered a job but provided no details, and the White House for three months has refused to discuss it, generating intense criticism from Republicans who accused it of trying to bribe a congressman and deep consternation among Democrats who called on the administration to answer questions.

Mr. Obama promised on Thursday to release an account of the matter, which White House lawyers have been drafting in recent days in consultation with Mr. Sestak’s brother, Richard, who runs his campaign. The White House plans to release its statement later on Friday. Until now, the White House has said publicly only that whatever conversations took place with Mr. Sestak were not inappropriate.

The office of Robert F. Bauer, the White House counsel, has concluded that Mr. Emanuel’s proposal did not violate laws prohibiting government employees from promising employment as a reward for political activity because the position being offered was unpaid. The office also found other examples of presidents offering positions to political allies to achieve political aims.

Mr. Emanuel was eager last summer to clear the way to this year’s Democratic Senate nomination for Mr. Specter, who had just left the Republican party to join the Democrats and bolster their majority in the Senate. Mr. Sestak, a retired admiral and two-term House member, was already planning a run.

In tapping Mr. Clinton as the go-between, Mr. Emanuel picked the party’s most prominent figure other than Mr. Obama and someone Mr. Sestak had worked for on the National Security Council staff in the 1990s. Mr. Sestak endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton against Mr. Obama in the 2008 presidential primaries, and Mr. Clinton was one of the first to call to congratulate him on his Senate victory last week.


Read more at The New York Times



WH used Clinton to make offer to Sestak

YouCut: Gimmick or Good Idea? (Video)


The House GOP’s YouCut program is gimmicky, sure, but savvy, too.

In 2006, with a flashy, YouTube-mimicking cover, Time magazine declared you — “Yes, you,” they wrote — their Person of the Year. Frank Rich of the New York Times called it a “cover stunt,” one that revealed the dead-tree weekly’s “desperation” to “appear relevant and hip.”

House Republican whip Eric Cantor has been subject to similar eye-rolls from the Left for YouCut, his office’s anti-spending overture to plugged-in Americans. But while the program is a tad gimmicky, it’s also politically and technologically savvy.

Cantor debuted YouCut earlier this month. Its premise is simple: Each week, Americans can vote for their favorite of five potential spending cuts on the web (or via text message to 68398). Cantor works to bring the winner to the House floor. With one click, you can help to shape the House GOP agenda.

“It allows us to focus on out-of-control federal spending, the number-one issue for millions of Americans,” Cantor says. “For us, it is an unprecedented online project. So far, we’ve received over 500,000 votes. The response has exceeded all of our expectations.”

Some critics, such as economist Mark Lieberman of Fox Business Network, have criticized Cantor for “ceding” power to “Internet browsers” and ignoring the argument of Edmund Burke that legislators should be strong figures, not simply delegates who act according to the popular will. But YouCut is hardly the start of direct democracy in Washington. Instead, it is a way for the House GOP to prick the Pelosi machine, hand in hand with frustrated citizens.

“It is important for Republicans to demonstrate that we want to engage with the public,” Cantor says. “The public wants to participate. This country, and the rest of the world, is now communicating 24-7, so you have to embrace that; you can’t avoid it.” Every day, he adds, he becomes more involved with social-media tools such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.

“YouCut’s focus like a laser on spending is why it has been wildly successful,” says David All, the founder of TechRepublican.com. “People are deeply interested in this, and there is a hunger out there to be involved and at the table. They want to know, and change, what’s happening in Congress. YouCut’s ability to adapt to the quick news cycle — a new winner and resolution every week — says a lot about where House Republicans are at.”

Not surprisingly, some Democrats have slammed YouCut. They seem quite nervous about the GOP out-hustling them in the wired arena. “First, this is not American Idol or Dancing with the Stars,” snapped Rep. Alcee Hastings (D., Fla.). “This is America’s legislature. For all we know, on YouCut, Osama bin Laden could be voting. Please know that a handful of organized, gotcha Republicans are not going to control this legislature.”

Read more at NRO





YouCut: Gimmick or Good Idea?

Mike Kent wants your help.

An open letter from Madison County Superintendent of Edcuation Mike Kent:

I am sure that most of you are aware that the City of Canton Zoning Board is scheduled to hear a request from local developers on TUESDAY, JUNE 1 at 3:00 p.m. to rezone approximately 26 acres at the intersection of Old Jackson and Sowell Roads to allow for construction of 300 apartment units.


Although this area has been annexed into the city limits of Canton, there is case law from the Mississippi Supreme Court that distinguishes between city limit boundaries and school district boundaries. If apartments are built on this site, the Madison County School District will have the responsibility of educating children who reside there.

In recent years, all of the District’s planning, demographic studies, bond issues, etc. have been based upon numbers consistent with zoning regulations in Madison County which currently favor single family residences. With that as a rationale, the Madison County School District opposes the construction of apartment complexes and any other high density residential complexes.

We have attempted to gain permission to speak at the meeting on Tuesday, but have been told that the deadline to be placed on the agenda has passed and that we will not be allowed to address the zoning board about our concerns. This makes it all the more imperative that we have as many citizens as possible attend the meeting to show the board that we oppose this zoning request.

We will keep you updated on any new developments in this matter; but I strongly encourage you to plan to attend the zoning meeting on Tuesday, June 1 at 3:00 p.m. at the Canton City Hall.

Thanks for all you do to support our schools!

Mike



School Board Opposes Canton Apartments

How Tan Are You?