So illegal immigration is a huge buzz subject right now, so I figured I would take a minute to lay out what I think is the ideal immigration plan. It is a three pronged approach, and all three are necessary in order for the program to be successful.
First, we need to liberalize immigration policy. Make immigration into the United States by those seeking opportunities for gainful economic activity easier. Free flow of information and people is key to a successful free market economy, and we must make our borders more open to people who can add to our society, whether by taking jobs considered undesirable by many Americans, or by providing skilled labor or an educational background to their employers. Or, for that matter, by offering their labor at a lower rate, and thus serving to balance what is an increasingly inflated labor market in the United States. Liberalizing immigration policy also makes it more obvious that the type of people who still continue to enter our borders illegally are not the type of people we want to have here.
Second, modernize. Make agreements with other countries allowing us access to certain criminal records of those seeking to enter the United States. Allow people to apply for visas online, and process those applications online. Make all visas (even tourist visas) digital, to improve enforcement. Use biometrics to track people and ensure they are who they (and their documents) say they are at the border. Also, modernize both the public and government conversation on "border" security. Borders are no longer only on the edge of our country, or on land. They are no longer marked by a fence, a river, or a highway. Borders are present at every international air and sea port in this country. Borders are present anywhere there is a private air strip. Border security matters everywhere, not just in California, New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona.
Finally, enforce. Regardless of whether the laws which prevented them from legally entering our country are the best laws or not, the people who are here illegally are criminals. Whether they were or were not before, they are now. Enforce current immigration laws, and do so in a manner strict enough to discourage future violations. Enforce the laws intelligently, too. Don't just patrol border cities. Follow up on tourist and seasonal work visas. Did these people leave the country? This goes back to modernizing. Instead of a simple stamp on a passport, or a separate piece of paper, visas should be digitally available information. At best, this would allow ICE to track down anyone on an overstayed visa. At the very least, if this were linked electronically either to the passport itself, or to an electronic card required of anyone using a foreign passport as ID, it could greatly impair those on overstayed visas. For instance, if they tried to go get a driver's license or state ID, their license should expire when their visa expires. If they try to renew, they would not be allowed to, and ICE agents could be notified. If they try to fly, they would not be able to check in (except to International flights) with an expired visa card. If they try to open a bank account, or conduct any other business which requires an ID, their visa status would become clear.
It may sound odd that a Libertarian would propose tougher immigration enforcement. First of all, keep in mind that I do advocate a more open immigration policy. The new enforcement would be of less stringent requirements. Second, anyone who has read or seen anything on human trafficking lately knows that in addition to many who are here for their own purposes, many individuals who are not properly documented, or who overstay visas, are not here on their own accord anyway. Following up on every overstayed visa would greatly improve the likelihood of discovering and rescuing trafficked women and children.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Legalize It!
The other day, I saw this interview at Reason on marijuana policy, and it caught my attention. Could our decades old losing "War" on drugs finally be coming to an end? With the issue appearing on the ballot in California, and mainstream medical and mental health professionals (even some, like Dr. Fichtner, who have a government background) coming out in support of legalization, we could be there.
Poll numbers show that increasing numbers of Americans support, or at the least, don't oppose, the legalization of marijuana. In fact, I'm guessing that polls, petitions, and other actions actually underestimate the number of people who strongly support liberalization of drug laws. Many drug users (especially the stereotypical paranoid pothead) do not publicly support legalization because they don't want their names associated with a taboo subject, and one which could have serious legal, professional, and personal ramifications.
Do I agree with Dr. Fichtner that marijuana legalization is the key to pulling us out of the recession? Not entirely.
I don't think pot is the next technology or real estate sector.
On the other hand, by legalizing marijuana, we could probably reduce federal and state budget deficits. Prisons would be less crowded, ICE agents could focus on stopping human trafficking, potential terrorists, and hard drug trafficking. Local law enforcement agencies would not be paying officers to search high school students' pockets for pot and pipes.
Moreover, the tax revenues generated by adding this product to the above ground market would be huge. The savings to the average user would also be significant, possibly providing some sort of stimulus spending on the pothead's part.
The lowered medical and law enforcement costs from reduced gang activity resulting from removing the most used illegal substance from the black market would be huge.
Is legalized pot going to save our economy? Probably not.
Will it help, even a little? Absolutely.
Is this just one more reason to add to an already long list to support legalization of marijuana and an end to our War on Drugs? Absolutely.
Californians, potheads and Libertarians everywhere are watching you this November. Continue to lead the way on this issue.
Poll numbers show that increasing numbers of Americans support, or at the least, don't oppose, the legalization of marijuana. In fact, I'm guessing that polls, petitions, and other actions actually underestimate the number of people who strongly support liberalization of drug laws. Many drug users (especially the stereotypical paranoid pothead) do not publicly support legalization because they don't want their names associated with a taboo subject, and one which could have serious legal, professional, and personal ramifications.
Do I agree with Dr. Fichtner that marijuana legalization is the key to pulling us out of the recession? Not entirely.
I don't think pot is the next technology or real estate sector.
On the other hand, by legalizing marijuana, we could probably reduce federal and state budget deficits. Prisons would be less crowded, ICE agents could focus on stopping human trafficking, potential terrorists, and hard drug trafficking. Local law enforcement agencies would not be paying officers to search high school students' pockets for pot and pipes.
Moreover, the tax revenues generated by adding this product to the above ground market would be huge. The savings to the average user would also be significant, possibly providing some sort of stimulus spending on the pothead's part.
The lowered medical and law enforcement costs from reduced gang activity resulting from removing the most used illegal substance from the black market would be huge.
Is legalized pot going to save our economy? Probably not.
Will it help, even a little? Absolutely.
Is this just one more reason to add to an already long list to support legalization of marijuana and an end to our War on Drugs? Absolutely.
Californians, potheads and Libertarians everywhere are watching you this November. Continue to lead the way on this issue.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Paul Ryan's views on social medicine
I saw this over at Conservative Outpost, and it was quite interesting to me.
I think that Paul Ryan is on to something here. Many conservatives use arguments involving Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to point out what is wrong with Obamacare, and, in particular, the ways in which the cost estimates for the system are likely lower than the realistic costs of the program.
Why, then, when these conservatives were in office, were all three of these programs continued (and sometimes even expanded)? If Obamacare is truly evil, guess what, so are these other government-run healthcare programs. When we take back Congress this fall, prove to the public that you're not all a bunch of right-wing Christian nut jobs, and save us some money. Privatize medicine and elder care, for good, and for real!
I think that Paul Ryan is on to something here. Many conservatives use arguments involving Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to point out what is wrong with Obamacare, and, in particular, the ways in which the cost estimates for the system are likely lower than the realistic costs of the program.
Why, then, when these conservatives were in office, were all three of these programs continued (and sometimes even expanded)? If Obamacare is truly evil, guess what, so are these other government-run healthcare programs. When we take back Congress this fall, prove to the public that you're not all a bunch of right-wing Christian nut jobs, and save us some money. Privatize medicine and elder care, for good, and for real!
Friday, August 20, 2010
Online K-12 Education
I am not really sure if this is just a new trend in Nevada, or if it is nationwide, but I have been hearing a lot of advertisements for K12, an online, tuition free, public education option.
I have mixed feelings about this. From a political standpoint, I think it is great for two reasons.
First of all, I am all for improving the efficiency of any government programs, including public education. Online education does not carry the expense of purchasing or maintaining a physical school facility. This could lead to huge cost savings if and when this trend catches on on the large scale.
Second, I am all for parental choice in education. Especially in a system increasingly controlled by Federal, rather than State or Local, regulations, benchmarks and policies, parents should have more say in how their children are educated. Especially in Nevada, a state where many people are employed in the 24 hour gaming and tourism industries, this also has the potential to increase parental involvement in their children's education, since online education is not limited to a traditional daytime class schedule.
On a personal and social level, however, it is important to acknowledge that academic knowledge is only part of the educational experience. Socialization, and the learning of social norms and skills that comes with it is another huge part. There is an (in my humble opinion) alarming trend toward ignoring this aspect. From eliminating recess and physical education, to starting online education, we are shying away from the social development aspects of traditional education, in favor of test results to get children into increasingly competitive higher education institutions, so that they can better compete in an increasingly competitive job market. Through numerically-based Federal programs like the No Child Left Behind Act, we are leaving behind no individual children (at least on paper), but we are leaving behind the social development which schools bring.
Particularly as video games, cable televisions, and computers have taken children away from live, face to face (sometimes hand to hand) contact with other children, this is scary. Add to this the realities of our era not being as safe as that in which we, or especially our parents grew up. Gone are the days for most children of being left outside unattended on a summer afternoon to play with the neighborhood kids.
Test results may look good, but especially as our economy moves more and more away from production and into service industries, social interaction is important. There is no standardized test which adequately measures or prepares for social interaction. Practice, social gaffes, and yes, even fights, are how our youth learn what is and is not socially acceptable behavior. This is what truly prepares them for interaction with customers and coworkers in the real world. A college professor of mine once said, "Ten years from now, I doubt any of you will remember anything I taught you about Japanese politics. This class is not really about Japanese politics, or what you learn about it. It is about teaching you how to learn, and how to think."
The same goes for earlier phases of education. School is not about learning multiplication tables. It is about learning study, professional, and social skills which will allow students to prosper in adult life. Online education fails students in this important regard.
I have mixed feelings about this. From a political standpoint, I think it is great for two reasons.
First of all, I am all for improving the efficiency of any government programs, including public education. Online education does not carry the expense of purchasing or maintaining a physical school facility. This could lead to huge cost savings if and when this trend catches on on the large scale.
Second, I am all for parental choice in education. Especially in a system increasingly controlled by Federal, rather than State or Local, regulations, benchmarks and policies, parents should have more say in how their children are educated. Especially in Nevada, a state where many people are employed in the 24 hour gaming and tourism industries, this also has the potential to increase parental involvement in their children's education, since online education is not limited to a traditional daytime class schedule.
On a personal and social level, however, it is important to acknowledge that academic knowledge is only part of the educational experience. Socialization, and the learning of social norms and skills that comes with it is another huge part. There is an (in my humble opinion) alarming trend toward ignoring this aspect. From eliminating recess and physical education, to starting online education, we are shying away from the social development aspects of traditional education, in favor of test results to get children into increasingly competitive higher education institutions, so that they can better compete in an increasingly competitive job market. Through numerically-based Federal programs like the No Child Left Behind Act, we are leaving behind no individual children (at least on paper), but we are leaving behind the social development which schools bring.
Particularly as video games, cable televisions, and computers have taken children away from live, face to face (sometimes hand to hand) contact with other children, this is scary. Add to this the realities of our era not being as safe as that in which we, or especially our parents grew up. Gone are the days for most children of being left outside unattended on a summer afternoon to play with the neighborhood kids.
Test results may look good, but especially as our economy moves more and more away from production and into service industries, social interaction is important. There is no standardized test which adequately measures or prepares for social interaction. Practice, social gaffes, and yes, even fights, are how our youth learn what is and is not socially acceptable behavior. This is what truly prepares them for interaction with customers and coworkers in the real world. A college professor of mine once said, "Ten years from now, I doubt any of you will remember anything I taught you about Japanese politics. This class is not really about Japanese politics, or what you learn about it. It is about teaching you how to learn, and how to think."
The same goes for earlier phases of education. School is not about learning multiplication tables. It is about learning study, professional, and social skills which will allow students to prosper in adult life. Online education fails students in this important regard.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Thoughts on Gay Marriage
With the ruling on Prop 8, the gay marriage debate has suddenly been brought back to life.
Well, I figure this is as good a time as any to share my thoughts on the issue.
First of all, the religious right is correct. Marriage is a holy and sacred institution. Perhaps, if that is what a particular religion believes, it should not be tainted or disgraced by the marriage of a same sex couple. On the other hand, what does the religious right think of Rush's three marriages? Or Republicans who get divorced?
The purpose of marriage (from a religious sense) is the raising of a family, is it not? So, according to most of the doctrines which oppose gay marriage, these couples should not be using birth control, right? Moreover, widows, divorced people, etc. shouldn't be getting married if the woman is post-menopausal, and unable to bear children, right?
In fact, in many of these religions, people probably shouldn't be marrying if the woman is employed full time outside the home, right? After all, women were intended to raise the family, right?
Well, the hypocrisy of the reasoning behind protecting the sanctity of marriage aside, here is my point. The whole institution of legal marriage is a disgrace to both the sanctity of marriage, and the liberty of individuals.
If a marriage is a holy union, why should you need the government's approval? What about couples who are in love, who have their creator's blessing, but cannot afford a marriage license, or for whatever reason are unable to attain one?
Some say that the issue is over a word. A less extreme view of my own perspective would argue that marriage should be changed to a "civil union" or "legal union" for both gay and straight couples, to take the religious fervor out of the argument.
My own, perhaps rather extreme, opinion, is that marriage as a governmental or political institution should be abolished. There are a series of "benefits," "drawbacks," and other effects which come with legal marriage. These should each be considered individually, and be up to the individuals involved to decide.
Many of these issues can be addressed with wills and living wills. Inheritance, hospital visitation rights, organ donations, funeral arrangements, medical decisions, etc. should go to biological family (parents or children), not to spouses, unless a specific arrangement has been made and legally documented prior to the situation arising.
Taxes should be based on living arrangements, not based on personal or romantic relationships or emotional attachments. Roommates (regardless of their domestic arrangement) who choose to live as a household should be able to file taxes as one, regardless of whether or not they are "married."
Health insurance companies and employers should decide who is eligible for non-employee benefits based on their policies, not based on a piece of paper issued by a court.
A couple of good examples before I stop rambling. Many adults never get married. Some get divorced and stay single. Some adults have long-term roommates. For instance, one woman I know has been married, and lived with her roommate for 30 years (almost as long as she has been married to her husband). They pay bills together, pay rent together, and share groceries. The roommate recently became unemployed, and is now being supported by my acquaintance and her husband. When the couple was raising their child, the roommate was there to support them and help them. Their daughter describes it as "almost like having a second mother." From a financial or tax standpoint, is she any less a part of their household than the husband?
Gay or straight, people should have the right (and responsibility) to make choices regarding individual financial, legal, and medical decisions. These should not be lumped into one institution, under a name borrowed from religion, and based entirely (at least in theory), on an emotional, sexual, and romantic relationship. Leave "marriage" and "unions" up to the people and their churches, and let the state worry about specific transactions.
Well, I figure this is as good a time as any to share my thoughts on the issue.
First of all, the religious right is correct. Marriage is a holy and sacred institution. Perhaps, if that is what a particular religion believes, it should not be tainted or disgraced by the marriage of a same sex couple. On the other hand, what does the religious right think of Rush's three marriages? Or Republicans who get divorced?
The purpose of marriage (from a religious sense) is the raising of a family, is it not? So, according to most of the doctrines which oppose gay marriage, these couples should not be using birth control, right? Moreover, widows, divorced people, etc. shouldn't be getting married if the woman is post-menopausal, and unable to bear children, right?
In fact, in many of these religions, people probably shouldn't be marrying if the woman is employed full time outside the home, right? After all, women were intended to raise the family, right?
Well, the hypocrisy of the reasoning behind protecting the sanctity of marriage aside, here is my point. The whole institution of legal marriage is a disgrace to both the sanctity of marriage, and the liberty of individuals.
If a marriage is a holy union, why should you need the government's approval? What about couples who are in love, who have their creator's blessing, but cannot afford a marriage license, or for whatever reason are unable to attain one?
Some say that the issue is over a word. A less extreme view of my own perspective would argue that marriage should be changed to a "civil union" or "legal union" for both gay and straight couples, to take the religious fervor out of the argument.
My own, perhaps rather extreme, opinion, is that marriage as a governmental or political institution should be abolished. There are a series of "benefits," "drawbacks," and other effects which come with legal marriage. These should each be considered individually, and be up to the individuals involved to decide.
Many of these issues can be addressed with wills and living wills. Inheritance, hospital visitation rights, organ donations, funeral arrangements, medical decisions, etc. should go to biological family (parents or children), not to spouses, unless a specific arrangement has been made and legally documented prior to the situation arising.
Taxes should be based on living arrangements, not based on personal or romantic relationships or emotional attachments. Roommates (regardless of their domestic arrangement) who choose to live as a household should be able to file taxes as one, regardless of whether or not they are "married."
Health insurance companies and employers should decide who is eligible for non-employee benefits based on their policies, not based on a piece of paper issued by a court.
A couple of good examples before I stop rambling. Many adults never get married. Some get divorced and stay single. Some adults have long-term roommates. For instance, one woman I know has been married, and lived with her roommate for 30 years (almost as long as she has been married to her husband). They pay bills together, pay rent together, and share groceries. The roommate recently became unemployed, and is now being supported by my acquaintance and her husband. When the couple was raising their child, the roommate was there to support them and help them. Their daughter describes it as "almost like having a second mother." From a financial or tax standpoint, is she any less a part of their household than the husband?
Gay or straight, people should have the right (and responsibility) to make choices regarding individual financial, legal, and medical decisions. These should not be lumped into one institution, under a name borrowed from religion, and based entirely (at least in theory), on an emotional, sexual, and romantic relationship. Leave "marriage" and "unions" up to the people and their churches, and let the state worry about specific transactions.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The Murkowski Resolution's Failure
I caught this over at Freedom Works, but I had a little bit different, and more (long-term) positive read on it.
Hopefully, rather than speaking specifically to bi-partisan opposition to Cap and Trade (although that would also be nice), this is showing a greater understanding of and respect for the separation of power from our legislators.
The executive branch of the United States government, including all of the regulatory agencies which fall under it, is supposed to execute the policies outlined by the legislative branch. It is not designed, intended to, or allowed to pass legislation or policy independent of the legislative branch.
Unfortunately, our legislature has bought into the idea of a bureaucracy of experts (more often a bureaucracy of people with good connections), and has given away both their right and their responsibility to legislate. If people wanted experts on environmental policy with no accountability to the public to have final say on environmental regulations, we would have elected people with those qualifications to public office. Instead, we want the people we elected to make laws for us to do that. And we want to have the power of the ballot box to hold them accountable.
Unfortunately, the Resolution failed. Fortunately, it was closer than expected, with even Democrats supporting it. Hopefully soon our legislators will start legislating, rather than pawning their jobs off on bureaucrats.
Hopefully, rather than speaking specifically to bi-partisan opposition to Cap and Trade (although that would also be nice), this is showing a greater understanding of and respect for the separation of power from our legislators.
The executive branch of the United States government, including all of the regulatory agencies which fall under it, is supposed to execute the policies outlined by the legislative branch. It is not designed, intended to, or allowed to pass legislation or policy independent of the legislative branch.
Unfortunately, our legislature has bought into the idea of a bureaucracy of experts (more often a bureaucracy of people with good connections), and has given away both their right and their responsibility to legislate. If people wanted experts on environmental policy with no accountability to the public to have final say on environmental regulations, we would have elected people with those qualifications to public office. Instead, we want the people we elected to make laws for us to do that. And we want to have the power of the ballot box to hold them accountable.
Unfortunately, the Resolution failed. Fortunately, it was closer than expected, with even Democrats supporting it. Hopefully soon our legislators will start legislating, rather than pawning their jobs off on bureaucrats.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Gay Community Blinded By Partisan Politics
I saw this letter to the editor recently, and it caught my eye. Let me preface this by saying that this is just one example of what I'm sure is a widespread problem.
First, let me point out that the blog this was found on is run by an organization specifically geared toward bringing together gays and the Republican Party.
Second, let me point out as a disclaimer that as a Libertarian (yes, a member of the Party, not just a blogosphere "Libertarian-minded" Republican), I offer a simpler solution for gay and lesbian voters. The Libertarian Party is, in fact, the only political party I'm aware of that actually explicitly supports gay rights to marriage and other gay issues.
But, realizing that most voters are registered with (or tend to vote for) one of the major parties, lets' get back to the overall point. Prominent gays and lesbian, gay and lesbian organizations, and the gay and lesbian media, tend to unequivocally support and endorse Democratic candidates. This may have made sense a few years ago, but given recent political trends, I wonder how wise this is. First of all, many Republicans, including candidates, are Republicans because they are sick of government spending, not because of the Republican stances on social issues.
On the other hand, Democrats seem less firm in their support for gay rights. Has our Democratic President taken a stance yet on gay marriage? Don't Ask Don't Tell? We elected one of the most "progressive" presidents we have ever had. He wants to provide free health care for everyone, raise taxes on the rich, etc. Yet, he has said in the past that he does not believe gays should marry. Granted, he wants to leave the individual decision to states, not the Federal government, but does that matter?
If the LGBT community continues its blind support of the Democratic agenda, we will simply elect state legislators who also oppose gay rights. As Right Pride rightfully points out, there are a number of Republicans in office and running for office who have been vocal in their support for the LGBT community and/or LGBT rights, and a number of Democratic public figures who are vague at best, and anti-gay at worst. Yet, the larger LGBT community continues to support the Democratic Party.
LGBT Organizations and the LGBT media (Human Rights Campaign, QVegas, etc.) are doing a real disservice to the gay community by continuing to blindly support Democrats in politics. While perhaps many gay voters tend to lean left, the role of these organizations and media outlets should be to advise politically based on the common factor affecting their membership and readership, namely sexual orientation. A specific candidate's track record and statements on LGBT issues, not their partisan affiliations, should be the grounds for endorsement by LGBT organizations and media.
First, let me point out that the blog this was found on is run by an organization specifically geared toward bringing together gays and the Republican Party.
Second, let me point out as a disclaimer that as a Libertarian (yes, a member of the Party, not just a blogosphere "Libertarian-minded" Republican), I offer a simpler solution for gay and lesbian voters. The Libertarian Party is, in fact, the only political party I'm aware of that actually explicitly supports gay rights to marriage and other gay issues.
But, realizing that most voters are registered with (or tend to vote for) one of the major parties, lets' get back to the overall point. Prominent gays and lesbian, gay and lesbian organizations, and the gay and lesbian media, tend to unequivocally support and endorse Democratic candidates. This may have made sense a few years ago, but given recent political trends, I wonder how wise this is. First of all, many Republicans, including candidates, are Republicans because they are sick of government spending, not because of the Republican stances on social issues.
On the other hand, Democrats seem less firm in their support for gay rights. Has our Democratic President taken a stance yet on gay marriage? Don't Ask Don't Tell? We elected one of the most "progressive" presidents we have ever had. He wants to provide free health care for everyone, raise taxes on the rich, etc. Yet, he has said in the past that he does not believe gays should marry. Granted, he wants to leave the individual decision to states, not the Federal government, but does that matter?
If the LGBT community continues its blind support of the Democratic agenda, we will simply elect state legislators who also oppose gay rights. As Right Pride rightfully points out, there are a number of Republicans in office and running for office who have been vocal in their support for the LGBT community and/or LGBT rights, and a number of Democratic public figures who are vague at best, and anti-gay at worst. Yet, the larger LGBT community continues to support the Democratic Party.
LGBT Organizations and the LGBT media (Human Rights Campaign, QVegas, etc.) are doing a real disservice to the gay community by continuing to blindly support Democrats in politics. While perhaps many gay voters tend to lean left, the role of these organizations and media outlets should be to advise politically based on the common factor affecting their membership and readership, namely sexual orientation. A specific candidate's track record and statements on LGBT issues, not their partisan affiliations, should be the grounds for endorsement by LGBT organizations and media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)