Deep breath – an attempt, before tonight’s speech,  at a dispassionate appraisal of President Trump’s actions regarding immigration.

GOOD: he has kept DACA in place so far. Of course, if you are one of the “deplorables” who believed he should follow through religiously on every campaign vow, you are disappointed.

GOOD: his priority will be to deport the estimated 700,000 illegal immigrants who happen to be felons. Uh, Obama had the same priority, so Trump gets no incremental credit. But it would be nice if immigration advocacy groups applauded the removal of criminals; after all, they adversely affect the optics of the overall immigration situation.

Similarly, advocates might convey an understanding of what is more than a nuance, namely that rates of change affect attitudes, e.g. if the Hispanic percentage rises gradually in a particular locale, there is not the angst that occurs when the proportion climbs sharply. There is an adjustment in the former instance: there is real, everyday human interaction as opposed to ill-informed sloganeering about who is taking which jobs.

BAD: the border wall idea – a lousy return on investment; better, if greater enforcement is the goal, to put money into people (which he is doing as well actually) and technology, not bricks and mortar. Even better, relax a touch, there has been no net immigration from Mexico in the past few years.  That is not to say that the criminality aspect itself is of no consequence.  According to the “Economist” (2-24-17) Latin America and the Caribbean, representing 9% of the world’s population, account for one-third of all murders. There are some 20 million individuals in what the Brits call the “NEET” category: not employed or pursuing education or being trained. Not good.

REALLY BAD: Through multiple actions, telling illegal immigrants that they are not safe in this country, even if they have been here for years. If there was a dragnet pick-up and deportation of ten+ million hard-working people (who often occupy jobs that the rest of us would not take on a bet), inflation would spike and real economic growth would decline, the opposite of what Trump’s economic expansion agenda is intended to accomplish.

Some 41% of Latinos overall now “have serious concerns about their place in America” (Pew Research Center, 2-24-17). A survey from the same source indicates that only 5% of Americans believe that diversity makes the country worse (the number is 10% among conservatives). Both figures, which are counterintuitively below what they were only six months ago, are stunningly low when contrasted with the anti-immigrant energies being deployed by the Trump administration to accomplish something that apparently cannot move the needle much on attitudes.

The United States has capital; it needs to import, not export, people if it wants to have the economic growth level that just might reduce tensions a tad.  Putting billions into an additional 5,000 border patrol and 10,000 ICE agents, adding immigration judges and asylum officers for what purpose? Economically, older people (who skew white) need more younger workers (who skew non-white) to fund the social security coffers which otherwise will run dry.  According to the “Wall Street Journal” (2-23-17), the number of retirees per 100 workers, now 27, will be 48 by 2065. With no immigration, the latter is 56.

In summary, everything Trump has proposed regarding immigration, save maintenance of DACA, works against his desire for faster economic growth.

P.S. Hate does not defeat hate. Civility has been on the decline in the USA for decades; now it is in free fall. Everybody comes armed with an agenda, neatly circumscribed by the size of a poster or the length of a tweet. Productive discourse is minimal. Want to blame Trump – be my guest. The trends were already in place as the country becomes more and more geographically and politically balkanized.

The inability to have dialogue at public gatherings will simply drive even more planning/plotting to closed door deliberations. (Hard to believe in the current environment, but I once picketed a Humphrey rally [Google him—he was an important man] and when he saw me, he smiled and came over, extended his hand, which I shook in a friendly manner.  Full disclosure compels me to add that the person behind me said I was a fascist and tore off a corner of my poster, so it was not perfect civility.)

There is a saying,” liberals love humanity, it’s people they can’t stand.” The latter are not a tidy philosophical construct; they are individuals with their own combinations of beliefs. A person may be against Trump’s position on immigration, in favor of states making their own rules about transgender bathroom access, against further excursions into the Middle East, for a two-state solution regarding Israel and Palestine, and in favor of an economic policy which keeps more jobs in this country. They may applaud diversity while living in a community that scarcely has any. They might think that learning rudimentary English should be a requirement of anybody coming to the USA to stay.

So what! “Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.” (Emerson)

 

 

 

You will not have read this expose in the “New York Times,” as neither their controlling shareholders nor their staffers have their children in the affected schools, but –

FOR MANY DECADES, financially challenged urban African-American and Hispanic kids have had virtually no choice but to attend local schools noted for low academic standards and minimal preparation for higher education. Instead, they are being trained to be eager consumers (see John Taylor Gatto’s unreadable book –“The Underground History of American Education — that nonetheless makes the prior valid point) and they learn the finer points of how to get low-paying service jobs in industries importantly catering to the whims and alleged needs of affluent white suburbanites.

Of course, they are not tutored in the particulars of said jobs, like “at will” employment versus being involved in a union contract, or the vagaries of health insurance.  Why would “we” spoil a good thing. We do not want real change, but the guilt part of our psyche does mean that money has been poured into the above schools, with, uh, no discernible impact.

The affluent have always had school choice – it is a function of the thickness of their wallets.  They simply pick up and move to districts offering better educational opportunities. Those with lesser financial resources have been rendered vote-less.  Some “volunteer” to become additionally impoverished — the double whammy of taxes and parochial school tuition. Later, they discover that the first priorities of these schools are “values” and safety, not academic rigor.

Adding to the fraudulent aspect of their schools, the overworked (absurd caseloads) guidance counselors in urban America are not well-versed on that many colleges. Often they resort to default options, like suggesting local two-year colleges or low-cost state schools, which may or may not be appropriate (and would never happen in an affluent area).

In this overall education environment, I am not chagrined to see adverse publicity about various voucher programs, which in aggregate involve a handful of students nationally.  Negative feedback will bring changes in their modus operandi or they will disappear.  In contrast, the neighborhood school down the street in urban America can be under-educating its kids for decades and it lives on, providing nice employment for the adults.

Howard Fuller, the well-known African American education reformer, had it colorfully right more than twenty years ago, “it (changes in our approach to educating those with limited financial resources) ain’t about the research, it’s about the will.”

P.S. High-performing charter schools begin with that will, the passion to deliver a quality education to all students, regardless of their particular backgrounds.

 

 

Welcome!

Take your seat and put your emotions on hold. You are about to hear things you never expected, not in a dream, nor in a nightmare.

It is January 21. President Trump has been widely praised, except by the bicoastal media elites of course, for yesterday’s inaugural address, in which he promised both to be the president of all the people and to uphold those attributes of the United States which have contributed to its unique place in the world.

*President Trump and the Executive-Director of the National Immigration Law Center are at the podium.

Trump: I realize that the majority of Americans want a positive program of immigration reform. I too want such an outcome, although my methods may differ.

NILC: Immigration advocates undoubtedly disagree with you on many, if not virtually all, of your electioneering statements concerning immigration. At the same time, NILC is in complete agreement that it serves all of our interests to deport the estimated 800,000 criminals who are undocumented immigrants. We also acknowledge that we have hurt the perception of our cause when we made excessive demands and when we marched under the flag not of the USA, but of our prior home country.

Trump: Thank you. We are all immigrants; we simply came at different times and under different rules. I am announcing that there will be no change in the DACA program; it will continue to roll forward on its two-year time-frame. Growth in the American economy must be stimulated and these young, educated individuals are becoming important contributors to that growth. I know that Canada has recognized this and has liberalized its rules regarding international students and immigrants alike.

Upon the advice of people expert in construction and surveillance, I am reconsidering how to best protect America from those who simply walk into the country. It may be that a different approach to technology utilization and cross-border cooperation will be a better combination than an expensive new wall separating us from our important trading neighbor, Mexico. Be assured that the safety of Americans is my prime concern.

*President Trump and the Executive-Director of the American Muslim Center are at the podium.

Trump: For sure, I am guilty of overstatement during my campaign. For that I apologize.

AMC: On our part, we have been negligent in not speaking out more regularly and aggressively about the damage being done to the Muslim diaspora by the criminals of ISIS. We call on Muslims everywhere to disassociate themselves from those who distort the teachings of the Koran.

Trump: Thank you. America was built by people from all nations, with wide variations in culture and religious beliefs. At present, I am nervous about people entering the USA from the seven nations listed by former President Obama as fostering state terrorism: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. That they happen to be Muslim nations does not mean that I am anti-Muslim. And it does not mean that other Muslim and non-Muslim countries have not been the source of terrorists. I realize that those wanting to distort what I am going to do will do so; that is uncontrollable.

While the AMC will disagree with the policy to be implemented, and I respect that, for the next three months, people entering from the countries former President Obama named will be detained at the airport and subjected to extensive questioning. This does not apply to those holding American green cards or specialized visas such as H-1B work authorizations.

*Trump is now solo at the podium.

I was elected on the basis of two primary promises: stronger economic growth and a safer America.

The actions outlined above speak to these pledges. In fact, immigration reform is essential for economic reasons. Among other factors is that the country is aging and the ratio of working people to retirees has dropped significantly, which puts social security in jeopardy if we do not have higher employment. It may be that importing labor is essential to moving our economic growth rate up, but this only makes sense if (1) we are assured that citizens will not take the relevant jobs, (2) we are satisfied that our education system is producing capable employees, and (3) we are able to adequately vet those newcomers to America.

Globalization itself is tied to immigration. Over half the companies started in Silicon Valley have immigrant founders. These are some of our most dynamic enterprises, and their energies must be protected. This can be done with an expanded H-1B program, which does not contradict the steps outlined above to more closely scrutinize those entering the USA from certain countries.

Globalization is tied as well to the terms of trade. Not only do I have some skills in making deals, but several of my cabinet members have made their living in negotiating for their companies. Yes, you may see some unusual tariffs and some jawboning with countries having overvalued currencies, but there should be no hand-wringing that international trade is going to be suddenly stopped. I simply want better terms of trade, which on balance will mean somewhat less outsourcing and bring renewed job growth to our country.

Healthcare costs, which per capita are double those of neighboring Canada, are a restraint on economic growth. We will address this issue in a manner which does not mean the loss of insurance for low-income populations.

People know that I am emotional. I cannot help but be critical, sarcastic even, when the media is more concerned with “gotcha” questions than with unbiased give-and-take. Similarly, to have rich Hollywood types screaming from their multi-million dollar homes and gated communities about refugees that they would not give the time of day to, except perhaps as disposable servants, is really bad theater. Nor will debt-strapped, unemployed college students be taking refugees into their homes. Acceptance of refugees is a matter for all of us to decide, hopefully favorably, in line with our historical narrative. Right now the issue is safety first, a pause to make sure of credentials.

My third and final fundamental promise to the American people was that I would “empty the swamp;” what I meant in this admittedly overly dramatic verbiage was that it would not be business as usual in Washington. Thus, I am not at all taken back by the screams of wounded pigs who have supped at the federal trough for decades. I want the economic benefits of my changes not to be centered in Washington or in the 1%ers but to be felt in middle America, the people who were ignored by the opposition in the recent election.

Thank you.