CSpec

Before quotas, all immigrants had to do was go through orderly checkpoints where they were examined for communicable disease and any criminal history. There was no arbitrary numerical restriction on their entry. That's what's driving illegal immigration: there is still a great demand for their labor, but myopic laws don't allow them to get the right pieces of paper. The (greatly overstated) violence from the smugglers is a direct result of that policy.

ocn, they're illegal because we cap legal entrants at an absurdly low rate. Americans need to realize that these people would desperately like to come here legally without resorting to violent smugglers, but our system forces their hand. And "deport them!" is never going to happen, it's a canard by the xenophobes in both parties.

Mine is about 15-20 mins, depending on traffic. I go against the gridlock, thank God. In terms of your job, Dodgefan, I would recommend taking it even if the pay isn't that great. Jobs are few and far between, experience is always good, and you can keep looking for better opportunities.

Are you required to register a car anywhere that's not to your primary residence?

I thought he was supposed to be tech-savvy and stuff. Maybe he thinks the Internets are a series of tubes?

"China alone loses between 100 million and 200 million tons of coal each year to mine fires, as much as 20 percent of their annual production, according to the International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, based in Enschede, Netherlands. The Institute estimates that carbon dioxide emissions from these fires are as high as 1.1 billion metric tons, more than the total carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles in the United States."

When he said "no quotas for most of its history" he meant before 1924.

I'll quote one of my favorite bloggers: "This is our nation's drug enforcement in a nutshell. We started out by banning the things. And people kept taking them. So we made the punishments more draconian. But people kept selling them. So we pushed the markets deep into black market territory, and got the predictable violence . . . and then we upped our game, turning drug squads into quasi-paramilitary raiders. Somewhere along the way, we got so focused on enforcing the law that we lost sight of the purpose of the law, which is to make life in America better."

<iframe src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=4178864&w=400&h=249" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" width="400" frameborder="0" height="249"></iframe><noscript></noscript> <p>Don Boudreaux is a national treasure.</p>

Want to talk politics with your neighbour? The Economist I WAS in Seattle on Monday, chatting to Pat Murakami, a lady who runs a small computer repair shop and does a little political agitating on the side. She’s concerned about her neighbourhood, a vibrant area full of Vietnamese shops and veiled women waiting at bus stops. A few years ago, the city tried to declare parts of it “blighted”. That would have enabled it to seize people’s homes and hand the land to private developers. Mrs Murakami started a group called “Many Cultures, One Message”, to rally her neighbors to object to the proposed bulldozing. She prevailed. Or at least, the plan to knock down chunks of her neighbourhood was shelved. But she worries that the politicians and their developer chums might try again, so she wants to reform Washington state’s rules on “eminent domain”, which allow local government far too much power to condemn private property. She ran into a second little-known state law. If she prints some fliers, calls some meetings and urges her neighbours to write to their state representative demanding change, she has to register as a “grassroots lobbyist”. This rule applies to any group that spends more than $500 in any given month trying to influence the legislature. That sum includes not only cash but also anything else of value, including voluntary labour, the use of office space and so forth. In other words, it could cover nearly any grassroots group. To comply with the law, Mrs Murakami must provide details such as the name, address and employer of everyone who helps organise her campaign or who contributes more than $25 in cash or kind to it. All this information is then made public on the internet. She must also provide monthly reports on all the group’s activities and expenditures. Failure to follow the rules can result in ruinous fines--$10,000 per violation, which could mean every time she sends out a mail shot. Mrs Murakami is suing to have this law overturned. It has a chilling effect on free speech and free association, she reckons. If the first amendment means anything, it surely protects the right of Americans to discuss politics with their neighbours. Many of the people who support Mrs Murakami’s group are recent refugees from autocratic regimes. If supporting a cause means having their personal details published, they would rather not get involved. Also, the rules are so complex and unclear that you need to hire a lawyer to understand them. This is something small voluntary groups like “Many Cultures” cannot afford. All states regulate professional lobbyists; that is, paid agents who communicate directly with politicians in the hope of swaying them. Fair enough. But a new report from the Institute for Justice, a libertarian group, reveals that 36 states also impose restrictions on “grassroots lobbying”. A few even threaten criminal sanctions for those who violate such rules: in Alabama, the maximum penalty is an incredible 20 years in jail. Because few things offend politicians more than the sight of citizens banding together to petition them with grievances.

Very cool idea at Toyota...

World components: Steel shocks The Economist One of the few boons of the recent global recession for carmakers was that it drove the soaring steel prices of 2008 down sharply. Now, however, prices are starting to climb again on the back of renewed demand. Profit margins in the auto industry are already razor-thin and other costs have been pared to the bone. So carmakers’ only remaining option may be to pass the increased costs of the crucial metal on to consumers. The price of steel has been rising for over six months, albeit in a volatile way. They are still some way off their highs in 2008, when prices boomed by 60%, but they have recovered much of the ground they lost during the 45% slump in 2009. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s latest forecast, the price of steel will average US$568 per tonne in 2010, compared to US$489 in 2009 and US$889 in 2008. A number of factors lie behind this recovery, notably including renewed demand and increasing interest from speculators. But the main driver remains the vast Chinese market, whose thirst for the metal is rising in line with booming consumption of consumer goods. In 2009, Chinese demand for steel accounted for more than 45% of global consumption, and rose by 18% compared to 2008. That was a sharp contrast to the 22% slump in demand in the rest of world, led by North America, Europe and Japan. Contributing to the volatility of prices, however, is a radical change to the way that iron ore is priced. For the last few decades, iron-ore contracts have operated on an annual basis, which gave buyers a degree of pricing certainty. In the last month, however, mining companies – led by the UK's BHP Billiton and Brazil's Vale – have forced steelmakers to switch to quarterly contracts so that they can respond to market conditions better. That makes steel prices harder to predict. Car makers and suppliers hit again As a key end user of steel, the automotive industry is particularly exposed to this price volatility. Despite the increasing focus on lighter-weight metals such as aluminium and composites, steel accounts for around 50% of the weight of the average family-sized car and around 10-15% of its production cost. Mass carmakers are particularly badly affected, because the metal accounts for a higher proportion of their end-prices. ACEA, the Brussels-based trade body for the European automotive industry, has already spoken out against what it describes as distortive developments from the three major exporters of iron ore which it says ‘hold the significant pricing power of an oligopoly.’ “The automobile industry needs broad access to raw materials at competitive conditions, especially in times of fragile economic circumstance,” ACEA said. The World Steel Association and Eurofer have also protested, urging competition authorities to look into the new agreement. Where still possible, carmakers such as Germany's Volkswagen are trying to mix the length of their steel supply contracts, in the hope that this will reduce their exposure to price volatility. BMW (also Germany) has fixed its steel contracts for 2010 in advance, while truckmaker Daimler (Germany) has opted for price-hedging. Other truckmakers, such as Sweden's Volvo, say that they are mainly reliant on scrap steel, the prices for which lag behind those for freshly produced steel. Component makers, many of whom are much smaller businesses, have even fewer choices. Japan's Toyota, the world’s largest car company, actually purchases the steel itself and then sells it back to its own suppliers. That way its suppliers – and hence Toyota - get the benefits of buying in bulk. If none of these tactics work, however, then the only remaining option for carmakers may be to raise their end prices, despite the threat to new car sales.

This is pretty ridiculous, though I would suspect there's more to this story than initial media reports suggest.

........... Border crossings by undocumented immigrants have declined sharply over the past decade. With more Border Patrol agents on duty than ever before, apprehensions of would-be immigrants along the 2,000-mile border have dropped from a peak of 1.8 million in fiscal 2000 to 556,000 in fiscal 2009.

I don't blame the officers; I'm sure they trained and ordered to act exactly like they did. It's the result of the progressively more oppressive and futile effort by our politicians to appear tough on crime and destroy civil liberties.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbwSwvUaRqc&feature=player_embedded Does this make any sense to any of you? I'll quote the blog I got it from: "This is the blunt-end result of all the war imagery and militaristic rhetoric politicians have been spewing for the last 30 years—cops dressed like soldiers, barreling through the front door middle of the night, slaughtering the family pets, filling the house with bullets in the presence of children, then having the audacity to charge the parents with endangering their own kid. There are 100-150 of these raids every day in America, the vast, vast majority like this one, to serve a warrant for a consensual crime. But they did prevent Jonathan Whitworth from smoking the pot they found in his possession. So I guess this mission was a success."

I think this would be a suit in small claims, not an insurance issue... Plus I think you would need some evidence; otherwise it's just your word against his.

Did you read the article..? The borders are secure, to a sane extent.

Read the next paragraph.

Border security isn't the problem Washington Post The notion that the first thing to do is "secure the border" between the United States and Mexico -- and only then worry about comprehensive immigration reform -- falls somewhere between hopeful fantasy and cynical cop-out. It's a good sound bite but would be a ridiculous policy. Fact-based analysis is increasingly out of fashion, however, and so the border-first hallucination has become popular among politicians and pundits reacting to Arizona's new "breathing while Latino" law. The measure, which has sparked angry protests nationwide, orders police to act on "reasonable suspicion" in identifying, arresting and jailing undocumented immigrants. Anyone who thinks such extremism could be quelled if the federal government would just "secure the border" really ought to visit Arizona and take a look. Or at least consult a map. Or even just read up on what is happening at the border -- which, according to Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, "has never been more secure." Border crossings by undocumented immigrants have declined sharply over the past decade. With more Border Patrol agents on duty than ever before, apprehensions of would-be immigrants along the 2,000-mile border have dropped from a peak of 1.8 million in fiscal 2000 to 556,000 in fiscal 2009. Some of the decrease might be the result of tougher border enforcement, but the weakness of the U.S. economy also could be a factor. There has been much sound and fury about Mexico's rampant drug violence spilling over into the United States -- much of it wrong, at least as far as Arizona is concerned. Sen. John McCain, who should know better, said recently that failure to secure the border "has led to violence -- the worst I have ever seen." Gov. Jan Brewer said she signed the state's outrageous new law because of "border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration." But law enforcement officials in border communities say this simply is not true. Roy Bermudez, assistant police chief of the border city of Nogales, told the Arizona Republic that "we have not, thank God, witnessed any spillover violence from Mexico." The newspaper reported -- citing figures from FBI crime reports and local police agencies -- that crime rates along the border have been "essentially flat for the past decade." Violent crime is down statewide, as it is nationally. It should be pointed out there wouldn't be any drug-related violence along either side of the border if Americans would curb their insatiable demand for illegal drugs. It also bears noting that the Mexican drug cartels procure their assault weapons on the U.S. side of the border, where just about anyone with a pulse can buy a gun. Still, it's hard to argue, in principle, against making every effort to lock down the border. The problems come in figuring out how to translate principle into practice. In Nogales, the busiest Arizona crossing, there is already a big, impassable fence; the place is crawling with Border Patrol agents and other police. Most of those who cross illegally do so in remote areas, where they have to walk for many miles across scorched, unforgiving desert. Undocumented migrants already find ways to overcome daunting and potentially deadly obstacles, and it would take a lot more than rhetoric to make the border truly "secure." An attempt to design a high-tech "virtual" fence using sensors and cameras has not gone well. The equipment has not been able to discern people from wildlife. And even if there were a system that could alert authorities whenever an illegal immigrant had stepped onto U.S. soil, how would authorities find him or her in the vast wilderness? It would be possible to build a 2,000-mile-long Berlin Wall, complete with watchtowers. But it would be stupid and counterproductive. The U.S.-Mexico relationship is vital, economically and politically, and the border has to be permeable enough to permit a massive legitimate daily flow of goods and people. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, who is seeking approval to sue the state to overturn the new law, told me on Monday that the only solution is comprehensive reform that provides a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already settled here, a legal way for temporary workers to come and go, and increased quotas for Mexicans who want to immigrate permanently. The answer is not a bigger wall. And the answer surely is not Arizona's shameful new law, which, Gordon said, "doesn't do one thing but make our city less safe."

Arizona's Immigration Mistake Wall Street Journal I have spent over 50 years in the law-enforcement profession in the Tucson community, the past 30 of which I have served as sheriff. I have seen relations between our community and law enforcement personnel shift with the times: sometimes challenged when the actions of a few police officers cross the line, and often improving when there is a sense of partnership. But in the past few weeks Arizona became a model for the rest of the country of what not to do. The immigration reform law that was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23 effectively requires that immigrants be able to prove their legal presence in the state of Arizona. I have argued from the moment that this bill was signed that it is unnecessary, that it is a travesty, and most significantly, that it is unconstitutional. Pima County, where I am sheriff, shares 123 miles of border with Mexico. Patrolling this area for illegal immigrants is like trying to keep water from passing through a sieve. I have always believed that the federal government, charged with the task of regulating immigration into the United States, bears the responsibility for this task. However, it has also never been the policy of my department to ignore the existence of those that are in this country illegally. That's why my deputies are instructed that if they come in contact with an illegal immigrant they should detain him, contact Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and turn him over to federal authorities. My deputies have referred more illegal immigrants to Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement than any other state or local law enforcement agency in Arizona. But this new law will pass the burden of immigration enforcement to my county department. This is a responsibility I do not have the resources to implement. The more fundamental problem with the law is its vague language. It requires law enforcement officials to demand papers from an individual when they have a "reasonable suspicion" that he is an illegal immigrant. The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal" and that "they are endowed . . . with certain inalienable rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Those who look "suspiciously" like illegal immigrants will find their liberty in severe jeopardy and their pursuit of happiness disrupted—even if they are citizens or have lived, worked, paid taxes, and maybe even have served in our Armed Forces for decades. When used in a law-enforcement context, "reasonable suspicion" is always understood to be subjective, but it must be capable of being articulated. In the case of identifying illegal immigrants, the ambiguity of what this "crime" looks like risks including an individual's appearance, which would seem to violate the Constitution's equal protection clause. Such ambiguity is especially dangerous when prescribed to an issue as fraught with emotion as that of illegal immigration. I have an enormous amount of respect for the men and women of my department—the deputy sheriffs who respond to calls for assistance throughout Pima County every day of the week. I have no doubt that they make intelligent, compassionate and reasonable decisions countless times throughout their shifts. But no one can tell them what an illegal immigrant looks like and when it is OK to begin questioning a person along those lines. This law puts them in a no-win situation: They will be forced to offend and anger someone who is perhaps a citizen or here legally when they ask to see his papers—or be accused of nonfeasance because they do not. There is a horrible problem with illegal immigration in this country, and it affects the citizens of Pima County every single day. Because of our proximity to the border, our county population demographic is heavily Hispanic (both legal and illegal). That means we must interact with witnesses and victims of crime in their times of need, regardless of their immigration status. Though this legislation states that inquiry into a person's immigration status is not required if it will hinder an investigation, that's not enough to quell the very real fears of the immigrant community. Law enforcement did not ask for and does not need this new tool. What we do need is assistance from the federal government in the form of effective strategies to secure the border. Additionally, the federal government must take up this issue in the form of comprehensive immigration reform policy. If any good is to come from this firestorm, it is that our legislators will finally recognize that a problem exists and that they are the only ones with the authority to address it.

Hopefully this is the 'shock and awe' bailout the bond market need to see. The reforms of the ridiculous civil service system there are great.

How Immigration Crackdowns Backfire Reason Arizona legislators are fed up with being terrorized by illegal immigrants, and they have passed a law to get tough. Under the measure, passed this week and sent to the governor, police would have to stop and question anyone they suspect of being in this country without legal authorization. The bill passed after the fatal shooting of Robert Krentz, a 58-year-old rancher whose killer apparently entered illegally from Mexico. Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu says police are also under siege: "We've had numerous officers that have been killed by illegal immigrants in Arizona." Even Sen. John McCain, once a supporter of immigration reform, has called for the immediate placement of 3,000 National Guard soldiers along the border. It's no surprise that Arizonans resent the recent influx of unauthorized foreigners, some of them criminals. But there is less here than meets the eye. The state has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants. But contrary to myth, they have not brought an epidemic of murder and mayhem with them. Surprise of surprises, the state has gotten safer. Over the last decade, the violent crime rate has dropped by 19 percent, while property crime is down by 20 percent. Crime has also declined in the rest of the country, but not as fast as in Arizona. Babeu's claim about police killings came as news to me. When I called his office to get a list of victims, I learned there has been only one since the beginning of 2008—deeply regrettable, but not exactly a trend. Truth is, illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native Americans. Most come here to work, and in their desire to stay, they are generally afraid to do anything that might draw the attention of armed people wearing badges. El Paso, Texas, is next door to the exceptionally violent Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, and easily accessible to illegal entry. Yet it is one of the safest cities in the United States. In 2007, scholars Ruben Rumbaut and Walter Ewing investigated the issue for the Immigration Policy Center and concluded that "if immigrants suddenly disappeared and the country became immigrant-free (and illegal-immigrant free), crime rates would likely increase." That's not to say Arizonans don't have a right to be upset when Mexicans trespass across private land on a regular basis. But you could solve that problem by making it easier for them to immigrate legally. It's also worth remembering that this used to be a rare phenomenon. What made it common was not a new avalanche of people coming to the United States without permission. It was a federal offensive to intercept them in major border cities where they used to arrive. "Closing the old entry points diverted them into places which didn't have many undocumented immigrants before," Princeton University sociologist Douglas Massey told me. Instead of sneaking into San Diego or El Paso, they are prone to entering somewhere else—often in the Arizona desert, where the chance of being caught is lower. Turning the border into a 2,000-mile replica of the Berlin Wall may sound like a simple cure for the problem. But besides being hugely expensive, it would have effects the advocates would not relish. How so? Massey says the number of people coming illegally has not risen appreciably in the last couple of decades. But the number staying has climbed, because anyone who leaves faces a harder task returning. Had the government not cracked down at the border, he says, "the undocumented population would be half what it is now." A fence intended to keep illegal immigrants out is serving beautifully to keep them in. Assigning local police to enforce federal immigration laws would also have unhealthy side effects. The Major Cities Chiefs Association, representing 56 police departments, says it hinders law enforcement by deterring members of immigrant communities from cooperating with cops. Last year, Police Chief George Gascon of Mesa, Ariz., (now chief in San Francisco) told a congressional committee that in some cases, this approach "is setting the police profession back to the 1950s and '60s, when police officers were sometimes viewed in minority communities as the enemy." If there is anything we've learned about getting tough on illegal immigration, it's that it rarely works as intended. Like punching a wall, it may feel good for a moment, but it hurts a lot longer.

I thought the future of warfare was unmanned...