"The General Welfare" and presidents past and future

Jim-
The critic who wrote, “your editorial again shows the world you are the scum of the earth” is wrong. While he may disagree, it's not your opinion that would justify such an assessment. On the other had I wonder how the majority of Americans would find a paper that systematically excludes those who don't agree your immigration agenda squares with their values of what a democracy ought to be. Obviously you don't believe the arguments that you present can stand on their own merit. Otherwise the overwhelming opportunity you have present them would suffice. But lacking the logical coherence to prevail in an open debate on illegal immigration, you simply choose to suppress the opportunity for your readers to actually engage in a process where they could read arguments side by side and judge for themselves. I suspect the majority of the Americans might find a newspaper and its editors that acted that way worthy of an assessment not far from that of your critic.

I won't bother arguing the immigration question here because it's a meaningless exercise. The blog audience is tiny and I won't engage in the fiction that this represents anything like the debate necessary to an open democracy. But I will say that your reactionary attitude to school vouchers was over the top. Every supposed problem you mention can be controlled. Vouchers, which are taxpayer money, can and should come with any conditions necessary to meet the goals of publicly provided education. Open enrollment, no additional tuition or fees, requirements that voucher-receiving schools teach the academic standards we have and partake in the testing regime we establish to measure outcomes are all reasonable requirements. In a way voucher receiving would function much like charter schools do without having to go through government agencies that are often against anything that undermines their existing monopoly structure. The difference is whether you believe that preserving a government monopoly of union employees with their incredible political clout is a system that produces excellence and value for the taxpayer's education dollars. But I can't see how anybody who has observed the results of the current system and cares a whit about our kids and the effect their educational outcomes holds on our future would reject any system that holds promise.

Arizona's example is showing that strong enforcement of immigration and employment law can make a dent in the illegal immigration problem in an efficient and humane fashion. Future policy should focus not on amnesty -- which has been proven to make matters worse -- but on ways of encouraging the trend toward return migration of those here illegally. Perhaps illegal immigrants who can show they have had Social Security taxes deducted from their pay can be given a lump sum partial refund to help with relocation and reestablishment of a household in their native land. Reintroducing the spectre of amnesty, however, sends the wrong signals to would-be migrants and unscrupulous employers on this side of the border.

Jim-
The critic who wrote, “your editorial again shows the world you are the scum of the earth” is wrong. While he may disagree, it's not your opinion that would justify such an assessment. On the other had I suspect that the majority of Americans would find a paper that systematically excludes those who didn't agree with it's immigration agenda fails to square with their values of what a democracy ought to be. It seems you don't believe the arguments that you present are able to stand on their own merit. Otherwise the overwhelming opportunity you have present them would suffice. Lacking the logical coherence to prevail in an open debate on illegal immigration, you simply choose to suppress the opportunity for your readers to actually engage in a process where they could read arguments side by side and judge for themselves. I suspect the majority of the Americans might find a newspaper and its editors that acted that way worthy of an assessment not far from that of your critic.

I won't bother arguing the immigration question here because it's a meaningless exercise. The blog audience is tiny and I won't engage in the fiction that this represents anything like the debate necessary to an open democracy. But I will add that what seems like your reactionary attitude to school vouchers was a bit over the top. Every supposed problem you mention can be controlled. Vouchers, which are taxpayer money, can and should come with any conditions necessary to meet the goals of publicly provided education. Open enrollment, no additional tuition or fees, requirements that voucher-receiving schools teach our academic standards and partake in the testing regime we've establish to measure outcomes are all reasonable requirements. In a way voucher receiving would function much like charter schools do without having to go through government agencies that are often against anything that undermines their existing monopoly structure. The question is whether you believe that preserving a government monopoly of union employees with their incredible political clout is a system that produces excellence and value for the taxpayer's education dollars. I can't see how anybody who has observed the results of the current system and cares a whit about our kids and about the effect their educational outcomes hold on our future would reject any system that holds promise.

It’s about time that this country returns to its values. While Bush did support comprehensive immigration reform, he didn’t fight very hard for it. That allowed the nativists in his party to defeat it. Those people have come to dominate the Republican Party. Except for John McCain and a former incarnation of Mike Huckabee, it is mostly up to the Democrats to fix our broken immigration system because they understand that this country is built upon immigration and that tradition will make us grow and become stronger.

Once again the LA Times has chosen to back government initiatives (health care, education, and immigration reform) whose sole strategy is to throw good federal tax money on the issues, hoping that amidst the huge bailout, the money might help someone. But, money is not the cure-all for all ills.

For instance in health care, the first step the federal goverment must take is for the establishment and implementation of digitized/PMR disease treatment programs. Huge sums of money are wasted on inefficiency and errors. The 2nd step is free market competition on drug pricing, with the thrid step in establishing reimbursement of alternative medical treatments and directives. We are all going to die some day, and it makes no sense to only allow certain treatments (that find favor on Wall Street) to be utilized. We need more independant scientific studies on alternative treatments.

In regards to education, there has always been a "given" that parents and family play an integral role in the education of a child. Just like it is bad policy to give too much discretion and autonomy to schools and teachers, it is equally bad when family will not or cannot meet the minimum required of them. Why should this then fall on the taxpayer? Aren't that what prisons do, they house children now adults who were poorly raised? Clearly, the education solution lies in more accountability from the family, and in part, it also crosses orver into the immigration problem.

On the immagration front, taxpayers are footing huge extra amounts for the children of illegal and other ill-prepared imagrants. Why is that our problem? Shouldn't new immigrants be required to meet certain minimum criteria that they are prepared to fit into jobs, communities, education, etc.? I mean, right now our immigration process seems like one big give-away!

Here's my immigration solution. Change the Constitution so that all Americans must speak one language, preferably English. Next, pass new legislation that all the existing illegal immigrants can stay if they meet two criteria: 1. They must perform 5000 hours (yes I mean hours) of volunteer work in their community, part of a new volunteer infrastructure that the federal government will set up. This is a modern day volunteer equivalent of Roosevelt's New Deal. And for 2. they must learn learn English.

I can promise that my above proposals would accomplish far more in making America safer, healthier, and more competitive in jobs around the world than ANY proposed solution to date based primarily on "spending" as a solution.