Big Jolly Politics

politics in Harris County and Texas

Book Review: They’re Both Wrong by John Tamny

by

“Let cities and states experiment, after which other cities and states can asses the good and bad of their experimentation. Such an approach is far superior to national solutions that don’t take into account how different we all are. And that doesn’t take into account how experiments most often fail. Local is bliss.”

Review by Steve Parkhurst

John Tamny’s new book, They’re Both Wrong: A Policy Guide for America’s Frustrated Independent Thinkers, available next week, is going to make people think, and for the partisans on either side, it will hopefully make them ask questions about their own arguments. I have reviewed Tamny here before, back in 2016 when he published Who Needs the Fed?, and the things I said about him and his writing style then, I maintain those words now. Good prose is my bliss, so I can turn to John Tamny anytime.

John Tamny is a first-rate educator. And if he were a politician, we would all be admiring his ability to “stay on message” and to “control a narrative.” In all his writing, continuing into this work, Tamny has thoughts and phrases that continue to appear, and that is necessary because as soon as the reader starts to deviate from common sense thinking, he reins the reader back in to the central theme.

In his opening chapter, Tamny lays out that our obsessed political culture (my words, not his) was not the vision of the Founders as prescribed by the Constitution, which “as written made it possible for Americans to have very little interest in politics, and particularly national politics.” The Constitution’s “few and defined” powers meant that people could live the lives they wanted as almost all government that actually affected them was local.

Now, Americans almost “care about politics today because they have to.” As Tamny writes, “Americans who can no longer avoid policy errors foisted on them by the political class are understandably more and more political by the day.”

Tamny continues, “My view is that both Democrats and Republicans have turned the Constitution on its head by virtue of both parties presuming to govern us from Washington, DC, as opposed to each leaving us free to choose our policy bliss through our choice of city or state.” Later on in defining all levels of government programs, Tamny further clarifies, “most government and government services should be local, and it will be understood that if these programs are going to be offered by government, they should be offered locally, if at all.” Precisely.

From there, John Tamny launches into critiques of arguments from both major political parties with regard to various issues such as immigration, global warming, taxes, spending, the minimum wage, charitable giving, free trade, school choice, stimulus spending, and more. He does all of this from an economic perspective, looking at what markets recognize and how they function, and how government seemingly fails to realize that individuals are the market, that “economies are just individuals.” Politicians tinkering with the economy is not only unnecessary, it is usually counterproductive. 

There is almost nothing the federal government loves more than trying to prevent failure. John Tamny is slowly but surely educating America that not all failure is bad. “Failure is information that informs the doings of investors in ways that persistently enhance the allocation of capital,” he writes. “Liberals ultimately believe that government is necessary to save economies, but all governments can do in fighting slowdowns is to elongate them. Never forget that economies are just individuals, and the faster individuals realize their errors, the quicker the recovery.” Tamny recalls the brilliant, late Warren Brookes and his book from the early 1980s, The Economy in Mind to remind us that, “To bail out or subsidize those companies and individuals who fail, we must tax, and therefore punish, those who succeed.”

Tamny’s argument can be further boiled down to calling attention to government spending and what the real economy, what he terms the “productive economy,” loses for every one dollar that the federal government spends. The argument is both fundamental and utterly fascinating. This is also not a new concept per se, it is just ignored by the politicians of today.

“Governments only have money to spend insofar as the private sector is creating wealth in the first place. Government spending is an effect of economic growth, not a driver of it, plain and simple,” Tamny writes. “So when the federal government spends, those in its employ are using the money of liberals and conservatives alike to compete with the private sector for access to what’s precious and what businesses cannot do without.”

As already mentioned, Tamny really does use this effort to take aim at government, more so federal than state and city. In fact, a major theme of this work is that we should be seeking to return power and decision making to the states and cities. They’re Both Wrong is not simply a screed against all government, Rand Paul has that market covered. Instead, this book is a hearty defense of more economic freedom, of more politicians doing less, and of people making the best use of their time and talent to achieve their bliss.

Let us be clear on a crucial point about this book: Tamny is not taking opposing sides to the issues of our time and pointing out disagreements among the political parties that currently rule, he is using the issues to show where both sides are wrong in their argument on those issues, especially from an economic perspective. It is a big difference, and an enjoyable one.

Take Tamny’s masterful critique of immigration. He talks about immigrants in America and the value they add to what America is. And just when it appears that his immigration concept is understood, he starts zigging and zagging, and it’s amazing. Tamny notes, “Furthermore, let’s not forget one likely reason some immigrants pursue low-wage work in the first place. Precisely because the pay is slim, they have better odds of hiding themselves and their employment from government officials. Conversely, if their work were legal, immigrants would more comfortably pursue all manner of work at all levels of pay, thus broadening their impact on the job market in general.”

A bit later, in driving home the point about government involvement in immigration, and the lack of a national “fix” to the issue, he points out a truth many of us forget, and one that others want to pretend does not exist when he states, “And as the ever-expensive—and failed—drug war has hopefully reminded everyone, increased border patrol (or worse from a conservative standpoint: more muscular policing of U.S. businesses) will grow government, but not do much to keep immigrants out.”

Finally, in his defining the idea of making work in America legal, he delivers this challenge, “In that case, arguably the best solution is an Athens, Greece-style approach. During its renaissance Greece legalized work, as opposed to citizenship. The ambitious flocked there, and its economy soared. Ideally U.S. legislators would legalize work once again, while requiring new arrivals to announce themselves.”

This country is a great and wondrous place, and it can be even more so, as Tamny opines, “The United States is the place where individuals cure their poverty, and where ideas become global corporations.” “Economic growth has the best track record of all when it comes to freeing people from lives of misery.” Perhaps both sides have been wrong about immigration for a long time now, and clearer thinking beyond platitudes and talking points is required once and for all.

Tamny early on points to the “low quality of national policy decisions” made in Washington. Recent events, typically involving shootings and crazy murderers, always have pundits and leaders looking to legislate, to “do something,” and many will utter that we need a “national discussion” on either mental health or gun rights, or both. This is precisely the idea for a book like They’re Both Wrong and for a writer like John Tamny to address the point that these decisions need to be local, not national.

The nonsense that follows is one side yelling at the other, CNN and Fox News panels (the ungodly ones with four yackers on the same screen) muddy the waters, accusations and insults are launched, presidential tweets are dissected, and eventually people stop talking to each other, then the issue (usually) dies. Rather than the sideshow, get the problem (in theory) solved locally, to the contentment of the people where they live, and if the solution works long term, other states will follow. If the solution fails, at least the failure was limited to that locale, and perhaps the next place can refine the solution until eventually maybe someone someplace gets it right. Markets work the same way, thanks to Tamny I understand better that markets, or economies, are individuals. And whether dollars and cents, or major political issues, we can get both right, locally.

One final point that needs to be made. On the issue of healthcare, Tamny makes a point that caught yours truly by surprise: Nearly everyone has a cell or smart phone, right? Did the government force everyone to buy a cell or smart phone? Did conservatives show up with a plan for cell/smart phone savings accounts? No and no. Instead, the market worked the way markets work and people got to make a choice and almost everyone now owns a phone that they chose and they can add what they want, like extra data or a protective case or a stylus or new earbuds, maybe even cordless ones. Instead of the federal government picking places to intervene and regulating this aspect and taxing or diverting dollars to the other aspect, the federal government should remove itself from the equation and let the states govern. People that are unhappy with their state, can elect new legislators, or they can choose to leave for a place that provides them their legislative bliss.

How do you chase your bliss now? First, read John Tamny, that can happen quickest. Second, choose elected officials that support your ability to chase your bliss. Those that are choosing for you, or those who want to use your earnings to reward someone else so they can build up favors for the future at the expense of your bliss, well, they’re both wrong.

Whose fault is the Shutdown?

by

Many issues lead to the government shutdown, but DACA is the issue perpetuating the impasse.  This gives us an opportunity to look at DACA and explore a potential compromise.

At the beginning some full disclosure:

  1. My family consists of 2 citizens and 1 lawful permanent resident.
  2. I am being harmed by the shutdown.

The short version of why DACA is an issue is President Obama implemented it via executive order.  This was doubtless an illegal order, and states indicated they would file suit.  When time came, President Trump reversed the order to make the suit moot, and delayed implementation of the order to afford Congress an opportunity to address the issue before DACA was officially revoked so the resolution could be orderly with the possibility of continuing to protect the dreamers.

Although I draw a different conclusion than the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, they give a good summary of the debate positions in their concise explanation on the Catholic Social Teaching regarding immigration. The teaching states:

  1. The first duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person.
  2. The second duty is to secure one’s border and enforce the law for the sake of the common good.

If anyone is an innocent party to the immigration debate it is the dreamers.  So the thought of punishing them with deportation seems harsh.  However, not punishing the dreamers does not extend to rewarding them for their parent’s misdeeds.

Removing the fear of deportation is not punishing.  A grant of citizenship is a reward.  So how do we balance these two positions into a solution?  The answer is simple.  When Congress finally addresses the issue create a new immigration category for the dreamers: lawful permanent resident without possibility of citizenship subject to deportation for criminal offense.

This would meet both the moral requirement to “welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person” while maintaining law enforcement “for the sake of the common good.”  The dreamer can stay, but they cannot vote or sponsor family members for immigration.  However, if they commit criminal acts, they are subject to deportation for the sake of the common good.

So, whose fault is the shutdown?  The above reasoning isn’t novel/creative thinking.  The insistence on a pathway to citizenship makes clear that the democrats are seeking voters rather than humanitarian good.  To that end, the shutdown falls on their shoulders.

I Too Am An Immigrant

by

America is a land of immigrants ….. both legal and illegal

immigrant

by Howie Katz

The inscription on the Statue of Liberty in part reads: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

But history has shown that those words did not apply to many people desiring to come to America. For many years after they had completed furnishing the cheap labor to build America’s transcontinental railroads, Asians were refused entry into the U.S. The Irish were refused entry during the ‘Potato Famine.’ And unless they could find a sponsor, Jews were refused entry during the Holocaust.

In 1939, Cuba, Canada and the United states all turned back 900 Jewish refugees on board the German ship MS St. Louis. The ship’s captain then managed to find several European countries to accept the refugees. Unfortunately, some of those countries were subsequently overrun by the German Wehrmacht, and it is estimated that approximately a quarter of the 900 refugees died in Nazi death camps

My father, mother and I came to the United States as Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany in 1936. We were among the fortunate few who had a distant American relative who agreed to sponsor us and be financially responsible for us. God only know how many Jews perished in the Nazi gas chambers because they were refused entry into the U.S.

My father had a management position in Braunschweig with Karstadt, a big German department store chain. He was also the shoe buyer for the whole chain. I believe it was in 1934 that Nazi authorities ordered Karstadt to fire all Jews, including my father. We moved to Magdeburg where my father obtained a job as a shoe salesman. Unlike many German Jews, my father saw the handwriting on the wall and sought a new life for us in America.

America is a land of Immigrants. I too am an immigrant. I am very lucky and I love America with all my heart and soul!

America is also a land of both legal and illegal immigrants. Immigration authorities and the media keep throwing around eleven million as the number of illegals in this country. I believe the number is closer to 20 million.

Eleven million or 20 million, we cannot deport them all, which is what a lot of Americans seem to want. We’re having a hard time deporting just the criminals among the illegals, and when we do, they manage to slip back into this country within a few weeks after they were thrown out.

There are those who claim that the illegals are taking jobs from Americans. Not True! The illegals are taking unskilled or low-skilled, backbreaking jobs at rock-bottom wages, jobs Americans are loath to do even if they paid more.

I remember back in the ’60s, some black ministers in Los Angeles tried to bring about an end to the bloody warfare between the Bloods and the Crips. They managed to call a truce meeting attended by the leaders of the two gangs. Also present were city officials, LAPD brass and line officers, social workers as well as ministers from various black churches. The meeting was closed to the public and media. After several hours the meeting broke up and as the gang leaders came out of the building they were met by a horde of reporters.

What the media got out of the meeting was that everyone agreed jobs were the solution to the daily gangbanging. If young African-Americans would only find work, the shootings and other illegal gang activities would stop. But a leader of the Bloods told reporters: “We don’t want no minimum wage jobs, we want $25-an-hour jobs.”

Teachers and cops didn’t make $25-an-hour back in the ’60s. It just goes to show that illegal immigrants don’t take jobs from Americans.

So, what shall we do about the illegal immigrants in our country? First of all, we need to get rid of the dope dealers, rapists, robbers and other dangerous criminals among them. I used to take my students on field trips to the federal prison in Bastrop. Over half the inmates in that prison were illegal immigrants. Deporting them after they are released from prison does little good if they can slip back in to continue preying on law abiding members of the public.

We need to build a wall on our southern border similar to the Berlin Wall or to the combination wall and security fence Israel built to keep out Palestinian terrorists. That would keep deported criminals from returning and would keep new immigrants from sneaking in. What we have now is a joke. Almost anyone can climb over, squeeze through or tunnel under our present security barrier.

As for the other illegals, it is easy to say that if they want to become American citizens, they should return to their native lands, apply for entry into the United States and await their turn before returning. The matter of fact is that once they’ve returned to their country of origin, they’ll croak before their turn for reentry comes up.

Here is my radical suggestion, one for which I will surely get a lot of flack. Why not just legalize the illegals who have been working hard to support their families and who have not committed any crimes other than being here illegally? We can easily absorb these folks … as a matter of fact we have already absorbed them with no harm done to us.

Frankly, I don’t give a damn whether the people that mow my lawn, clean my house, repair my roof, put down some new flooring, etc. are documented or not as long as they do a good job at a price I can afford. I do believe that deporting millions of illegals will disrupt our economy.

As a former narcotics enforcement officer, it makes more sense to me to legalize illegal immigration than to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. A hard working immigrant will be a contributing member of society, a stoner will be a drag on it.

Howie Katz is a former law enforcement officer and retired criminal justice professor.  In 1969 he founded the Texas Narcotic Officers Association. He currently resides in Houston, Texas. You can see more of his writing at http://barkgrowlbite.blogspot.com and http://theunconventionalgazette.blogspot.com.

Why isn’t the media talking about Jorge Ramos and the Univision IPO?

by

On July 2 the Houston Chronicle reported on Spanish-language broadcasting company Univision’s filing to launch an initial public offering of its stock. The Chronicle reported bits and pieces of information from Univision’s Securities and Exchange Commission filing but these days the story often isn’t what’s reported; it’s what’s NOT reported—and why the drive-bys fail to do their job reporting the real reason why Jorge Ramos of Univision is having a hissy-fit over Donald Trump’s candidacy for President of the United States.

Challenge everything.

Here’s what the Chronicle reported about the Univision IPO:

The New York-based company said Thursday that it expects to raise up to $100 million in the offering. It did not say how many shares it will sell or how much they will cost. It expects the stock to trade on the New York Stock Exchange or on Nasdaq under the symbol “UVN.”

Proceeds from the IPO will be used to repay debt and for general corporate purposes.

Univision’s principal unit is Media Networks, which operates Univision Network and UniMas. It also operates nine cable networks, including Galavision and the sports cable network Univision Deportes. It also operates 67 radio stations. The company says it reaches over 49 million viewers monthly.

The company expects growth along with the Spanish-language market. The demographic represented 57 million people in the U.S. and is projected to grow to 77 million by 2030 (can you say Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation needed for growth in viewership and revenues?). Univision also said it is the youngest demographic in the U. S., with 60 percent of the U.S. Hispanic populations being 34 or younger as of 2012.

What was NOT reported or included in the article?

A link to the Univision IPO Form S-1 on the Securities and Exchange Commission where Univision discloses its Risk Factors (as they are required to), chief of which is a slow-down in immigration into the U.S. and the impact of federal and state immigration legislation and policies:

We believe a substantial portion of our growth will result from projected increases in the U.S. Hispanic population and by projected increases in their buying power. Factors that impact the U.S. Hispanic population, including a slow-down in immigration into the U.S. in the future, the impact of federal and state immigration legislation and policies on both the U.S. Hispanic population and persons emigrating from Latin America could affect the growth of the U.S. Hispanic population and, as a result the demand for our Spanish-language programming.

If the U.S. Hispanic population grows more slowly than anticipated, the projected buying power of the U.S. Hispanic population may not grow as anticipated. In addition, economic conditions, such as unemployment, that disproportionately impact the U.S. Hispanic population could slow the growth of, or reduce, the projected buying power of U.S. Hispanics. If the U.S. Hispanic population or its buying power grows more slowly than anticipated, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Now take a look at the list of key officers, executives and directors of Univision Holdings, Inc. –see any familiar names?

How about former San Antonio Mayor and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry G. Cisneros?

With Univision’s need to repay its debts and dependency on an open-borders immigration policy, don’t you think Univision Holdings, Inc.’s key shareholders and the underwriters of Univision Holdings, Inc.’s IPO could be a tad nervous right now?

No surprise the media drives right on by this issue—-Jorge Ramos has succeeded in drawing attention to the financial damage that will occur to Univision and its subsidiaries, affiliates and shareholders if the IPO is withdrawn or postponed as a result of a slow-down in immigration into the United States and Presidential candidates supporting any policy other than open borders.

 

UPDATE: Seems the Teachers Retirement System of Texas is among the investors of CityView. Mr. Cisneros currently serves on the board of directors of CityView.

The Border Crisis, Who Created It and What to do About it

by

guest-columnBy Dr. Brian Babin, Republican nominee for CD-36

Never in my wildest dreams would I have expected to see what is happening on our south texas border. Thousands of illegal immigrants, adolescents and children, many of whom are seriously ill, simply walking across the border and coming in at will every day. Our southern border has been virtually erased. This humanitarian and national security border crisis is a creation of President Barack Obama. As Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. federal government, it is his job to enforce the law.

He’s failing to do his job.

President Obama recently held a press conference in which he offered no new solutions, nor accepted any responsibility for this crisis. He offered no real substance on the issue, other than demanding House Republicans certify his previously lawless executive action of providing de-facto amnesty to some half a million illegal immigrants and dumping billions of dollars into the Department of Health and Human Services. In fact, only about $177 million out of the $3.7 billion the President has demanded Congress dole out would actually go to border security. All the while, as revealed by the Washington Post, that the President ignored warning bells from his own administration over a year ago of the impending immigrant crisis, yet did nothing.

The problem with the President’s current “solution” is that changing the law is not a sufficient answer to our problem. Current law requires and provides for a secure border if enforced. President Obama ignores and refuses to enforce the laws that are on the books – placing him in direct violation of his oath “to faithfully execute the laws of the United States of America”.  We are a nation of laws Mr. President and your failure to carry out this duty is certainly worsening our problems.

If President Obama will not enforce the current border and immigration laws, he will not enforce a new one. To the president millions of illegal immigrants are merely pawns in a game to be used – as votes for bigger government for entitlement programs and for an ever-growing federal government. There is no other reason not to secure our border. A secure border results in a sovereign, secure and independent nation, and would lead us toward a legal immigration program that is fairer and safer for all Americans.

Our overwhelmed U.S. Border Patrol, now has less than half of its personnel actually working to secure our border. Our overwhelmed communities, already struggling to provide basic city services, adequate law enforcement and emergency responders to legal residents are now being seriously challenged to find ways to accommodate even more people. Our schools are overwhelmed to a point that in some communities the public education of our children is completely compromised.

Most importantly, we must remember this crisis goes way beyond statistics. These are people, many of them innocent children who are herded like animals by human traffickers and accompanied by drug couriers and dealers who use the mass chaos of the border to commit heinous crimes. Moreover not all of the immigrants are helpless children or innocent people looking for work. It is chilling to imagine that criminal and terrorist organizations could be already promoting and exploiting this opportunity to attack our country.

What can be done? First, the President must begin enforcing our border laws and secure the border. Second, it’s time for congress to act as an equal branch of our federal government. The United States Congress has the power of the purse strings to provide, or not provide funding for the entire federal government. If the President or his agencies won’t do their duty, it’s incumbent upon congress to cut the funding for individuals and agencies that abuse or neglect the law in direct violation of their oaths of office. We cannot continue to tolerate the endangerment of American lives, national security, the squandering of hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and the loss of sovereignty of the greatest and most blessed nation on earth.

The negligence of the President of the United States has created humanitarian crisis. It is irresponsible for him to ask the American people to pay for his own dereliction of duty. And it is unconscionable that the leader of the free world would let the least among us be exploited and abused by the worst among us in his political games.

This is not a game, Mr. President. And it is time that Congress and the American people tell him we are not playing.

Brian Babin is the Republican Nominee for Congress, Texas District 36

Woodville, TX

Contact info for author;

Dr. Brian Babin

Can the 10th Amendment provide a path to address the “Immigration Issue”?

by

Why can’t we seem to resolve the “immigration issue” this country has been debating, off and on, for the last forty years (and which we have debated intensely and incessantly for the last 4-5 years)?

This question has been nagging at me for more than a month now.  It most recently arose during the November meeting of the Clear Lake Area Republicans, when our focus-group discussion identified several issues that we bundle together as the “immigration issue” as the most important local and federal issues we currently face.  Then, in mid-December, I attended a debate about immigration policy between two well-intentioned and well-regarded local Republican leaders sponsored by a local chamber of commerce, which ended-up stirring the issues around rather than providing much clarity. I walked away from both of these events feeling that this issue—or bundle of issues—seems to be a wound that we can’t get to heal, no matter how hard we try.  In fact, the harder we try to close this wound, the more we seem to bleed from it.

This feeling is exacerbated for me, because I deeply believe that the long-term solutions to many of this country’s problems will be solved, if at all, by re-balancing the allocation of responsibility and power of government based on the principles contained in the 10th Amendment—and yet, effectively addressing the immigration issue has seemed to me to require a more coherent and aggressive federal, rather than a state and local response.  Because Washington seems increasingly incapable of addressing its own responsibilities wisely and effectively, this problem has seemed impervious to resolution, which is why States have tried to act on their own to attack the issue.

But, just when I decided to stop thinking of this issue for a while, some thoughts came to me, which I want to share with you as we move into 2012.  I am not promising that my thoughts provide all the right answers, or even the right path toward any of the right answers.  But, I hope they will provide a different perspective that could get us closer to finding at least some answers.

I think the reason that the present immigration debate seems like it is beyond resolution, is because the current problem arises from a structural dilemma related to the federal structure of our governments.  To understand this dilemma, I first want to digress to discuss that federal structure.

In Federalist 45, James Madison made this following observation about the nature of the different spheres of responsibility and powers delegated to the federal government and retained by the states:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State government are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Consistent with this view, the Supreme Court, after the Civil War and the passage of the post-war amendments that expanded the scope of federal authority over civil rights of citizens, articulated the difference this way:

… the United States is not only a government, but it is a national government, and the only government in this country that has the character of nationality. It is invested with power over all the foreign relations of the country, …, all of which are forbidden to the state governments. It has jurisdiction over all those general subjects of legislation and sovereignty which affect the interests of the whole people equally and alike, and which require uniformity of regulations and laws, …– all which subjects are expressly or impliedly prohibited to the state governments.

Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. 457, 555 (1871).

While under our Constitution and form of government the great mass of local matters is controlled by local authorities, the United States, in their relation to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens, are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory.

The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 604 (1889).

What these statements show is that the general division of responsibility and power between the federal and state governments was based on a division between authority over external and purely national issues on the one hand, and authority over local issues on the other hand; and on a further understanding that most issues faced by government were local in nature.  With these general understandings in mind, Hamilton, in Federalist 32, describes the further idea of the limited nature of the delegation of authority to the federal government this way:

But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.

He goes on to identify three types of exclusive delegation:

…where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; where it granted in one instance the authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; and where it granted an authority to the Union to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally contradictory and repugnant.

Finally, Hamilton identifies the express delegation of the power to “establish an Uniform Rule of naturalization throughout the United States,” as an example of the third type of express delegation, and this view is elaborated upon by Madison in Federalist 42.  So, what our Founders intended was to give us a federal government vested with expressly delegated responsibilities, which were intended to address external and purely national issues.  One of those expressly delegated issues was Naturalization.

Now, before we return to the primary topic of this post, we need to address the difference between “naturalization” and “immigration”.  Naturalization is the process by which a foreigner, once having arrived in the country, may stay and become a citizen.  Immigration is the process by which a foreigner comes to, and enters the country.  The power over naturalization was expressly delegated to the federal government, in large part because of the problems the colonists encountered with restrictions imposed by Britain prior to the Revolution, and inconsistencies created by the States under the Articles of Confederation.  However, the Constitution is silent as to the power over immigration (except for an odd reference in the provision related to the continued importation of slaves until 1808).  Consistent with this silence, and with the colonists’ anger over limitations on voluntary immigration imposed by Britain before the Revolution, the federal government did not impose restrictions on voluntary immigration until the 1880s.

When the federal government first imposed restrictions upon immigration, the action was not justified as an exercise of the “necessary and proper” power related to naturalization but, instead, was justified as enforcement of treaty provisions with China and Japan, which restricted immigration from those countries. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that the authority to regulate immigration was inherent in, and arose from all of the powers vested in the federal government to conduct foreign affairs—or, as the Founders would have said, from the delegation of powers over external issues.  Then, as we in Texas remember all too well, about 30 years ago in Plyer v. Doe, the Supreme Court narrowed the ability of States to regulate the conduct and status of persons who had entered and stayed in the country in violation of federal immigration laws, by requiring that States provide the children of such persons equal access to public education.  And that opinion has led, in large part, to the tremendous strain on States and communities caused by the “immigration problem” in this country ever since.

So what is the structural dilemma I spoke of earlier?  Unlike most of the problems that have arisen from the allocation of power during our history, the current immigration problem is unique.  During most of our history, we have battled over the adequacy, extent, or legitimacy of the power delegated to, or usurped by the federal government from the states or individuals.  Whether the issues have been slavery, civil rights, economic, or social regulation, the debates normally centered on whether the national effects from local actions actually made the issues national in scope, and whether the power being debated could be exercised legally and effectively from Washington.  The current immigration debate is the exact opposite.  The immigration debate involves an issue that is expressly or inherently vested in the federal government to address (whether it be naturalization, immigration, or border security), but which creates negative effects that are almost exclusively local in nature.  From the strain on public schools and hospitals, to the local insurance and job markets, communities are absorbing the brunt of federal inaction.  In the meantime, communities and States have very limited legal means at their disposal to address these effects.

That the federal government has failed, and continues to fail, to address today’s immigration and naturalization issues is beyond serious debate.  It has failed to develop and maintain an appropriate bilateral relationship with Mexico within which border security and immigration could and should be handled.  It has failed to secure our borders to know who is coming and going, and to enforce current restrictions on entry.  It has failed to address the problem of expired visas for students and temporary workers.  It has failed to enforce laws on the books designed to stop the employment of persons who have entered and stayed in violation of law.  It has failed to enforce deportation laws.  It has failed to create positive laws that promote immigration of workers we need for today’s economy.  These failures have created a de facto federal policy of non-enforcement of illegal entry restrictions.

Though this de facto federal policy has created stresses on State and local governments throughout the nation, the problem is most acute where the policy is most abused:  in the States and communities closest to the border with Mexico.  In the meantime (though we should get some clarification from the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue by June, 2012), current legal precedents limit the extent to which States and local governments can address the impact of this policy.  While there is no question that State and local governments can, and constitutionally should enforce federal immigration laws, the current administration has been hostile to even modest attempts by state and local governments to cooperate in or assist with such enforcement.  Beyond basic enforcement, state or local regulations that attempt to regulate the activity of people because of their immigration status, to deny benefits to people because of their immigration status, or to impose additional state-law penalties for violating the federal immigration laws, have rarely been upheld by the courts.

So, while the federal government continues to dither, what can we do?  What should we do?

The simple answer is that we must do what we can do, and what we can do is take back control of our communities and States, consistent with the 10th Amendment and with the federal structure I discussed above.  To take back this control, we are going to have to embrace a paradigm shift in our thinking, though.  This paradigm shift will require a more realistic and forgiving attitude toward those who have come here, or who have stayed here, in violation of the law; and it will require a more appropriate self-image of ourselves and our role in this process.

First, the realism:  millions of people who crossed the Rio Grande and stayed illegally over the last generation, or who over-stayed their visas, will never go home.  Whether it is because we won’t have the stomach or the resources to do it, we will not deport that many people; and many of them will have planted too many roots here to ever leave voluntarily, no matter how bad the economy gets.  Moreover, for those who have established homes in the Southwestern U.S., why would they go home when they can build a better life in a place that is still culturally and historically familiar to them?

Second, the forgiveness:  except for our most serious crimes, such as murder, every crime has a “statute of limitations” period, after which someone can no longer be prosecuted.  Crossing the border and staying without complying with federal law in order to work and make a living are crimes, but they aren’t murder.  Just as society forgives other crimes over time, we need to begin forgiveness (especially if it comes with repentance, such as compliance with payment of fines and prohibition against citizenship).  We also need to remember that one of the hallmarks of our legal rights has been the principle that the “son is not liable for the sins of the father,” which is embodied in the Constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder, and to stop condemning children for the crimes of the parents.  Finally, we have to understand that all of us—citizen and illegal immigrant alike—have been harmed by the failures of the U.S. and Mexican governments to address the problems that have caused and attracted this continued exodus into the U.S.

Third, and maybe most importantly, we have to stop wallowing as victims over this issue.  For years, we have seen ourselves as the victims of a wave of illegal activity without protection from our federal government, and, to add insult to injury, we’ve seen ourselves as having to support the “villains” with public benefits.  In response to this feeling of victimization, we’ve come to sound and act collectively like “Inspector Javert,” the character from Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables, who eventually loses his soul over his quest to bring the petty criminal Jean Valjean to “justice” long after Valjean had paid his penance.

Ladies and gentlemen, these “villains” are our neighbors, regardless of who they are, where they came from, or how they got here.  And, as I noted before, most of them and their children will be here a very long time.  The Democrats and other organizations know this, and they are advocating that these neighbors remain separate from the rest of the larger community, and, therefore, dependent on unions, government and their political party for years to come.  As long as the Democrats can maintain the federal status quo, and we refuse to engage with these new neighbors, we condemn these newcomers to become wards of the long-term Democratic strategy for our country.

So, if the federal government won’t act, the paradigm shift requires us to use the principles of the 10th Amendment positively and aggressively to build better communities for the future.  To accomplish this shift, we will have to take control and build neighborhoods with these new neighbors.  The only way to build these bonds of neighborhood is through assimilation, and real assimilation is hard work—and takes both parties to make it happen.

That means, it is time we roll-up our sleeves and help our new neighbors to assimilate:  to privately establish the network of churches and private organizations that help neighbors and build communities; to teach English and help them become literate in our culture and history; and to mentor the establishment of private businesses and employment through which they can pay taxes, and support the public institutions that now support them.  We can not, and should not, reward the adults among them who committed the initial crime by granting them amnesty through a citizenship path (and we couldn’t do that anyway because that is the essence of the power of naturalization delegated to federal responsibility), but we must begin to fold their families into our neighborhoods so that their children—who will stay here because this is the only home they have known—become productive neighbors, and their children and grandchildren become productive citizens.

I know this paradigm shift does not address the actual needs at the federal level.  I do not address the federal problems, because, frankly, we know what needs to be done to secure the border and re-gain control over the legal flow of people into this country.  Our elected leaders in Washington will either have the will to pass this legislation, or we will have to keep electing new leaders until we find those who will.

But we can not wait for the stalemates in Washington, and between Washington and Mexico City, to resolve themselves before we begin to retake control of our lives and our communities.  That is the purpose of this idea of the paradigm shift—to use the ideas of the 10th Amendment to positively address the problems created by federal inaction and build stronger citizens and communities in the future; rather than to use the 10th Amendment as a negative argument to joust with the federal authorities over whether and how to should enforce federal law.

Some may label my paradigm shift as amnesty by another name, but it is not.  Amnesty, or other such regulations, deal with naturalization, and that is a federal responsibility.  In fact, if my idea would be implemented, there may indeed be neighbors who we help who eventually will be deported if and when the federal stalemate ends.  But the conditions of our schools and our communities, and the demands on our local infrastructures, require that we take control of this situation here and now where we live and work.  Frankly, this is what the Founders would have expected us to do.

I know many of you will disagree with what I have written here.  Do me a favor—read it once, give it some thought, then read it again.  Afterwards, give me your comments and let’s start a dialogue on this important issue.