While it sometimes seems like I’m a hyperpartisan Democrat, I’m really not… I just believe that the Republicans have lost their way, completely and utterly. Von, a conservative writer at Obsidian Wings, hits the nail on the head:

VIOLATE THE LAW, get a reduced penalty?  Scamnesty!  How dare you disrespect teh rule of law!  Blah blah blah.

VIOLATE THE LAW, get a reduced penalty? Hooray!  It’s not a real crime anyway! Blah blah blah.

Yup, it totally makes sense for the party of small government to punish workers and praise perjurers.  You see, we don’t want a path to citizenship for workers, but we do want more convicted perjurers.  Because perjurers are, like, completely oppressed and stuff by massively unfair partisan witchhunts — even partisan witchhunts undertaken by the convicted perjurer’s own partisans!  (How frightfully rude of them.)

Grownups:  Please come back.  The party misses you.

The rest of the nation misses you, too.

Combining anti-immigration fervor with Republican conspiracy theories can’t really ever come to a good end, but this is ridiculous:

In Pakistan, Usman Ali is trying to rebuild his life after being deported from Florida, his legal home of more than a decade, for improperly filling out a voter-registration card while renewing his driver’s license.

…

Mr. Ali, 68, who had owned a jewelry store in Tallahassee, got into trouble after a clerk at the motor vehicles office had him complete a registration form that he quickly filled out in line, unaware that it was reserved just for United States citizens.

Even though he never voted, he was deported after living legally in this country for more than 10 years because of his misdemeanor federal criminal conviction.

“We’re foreigners here,” Mr. Ali said in a telephone interview from Lahore, Pakistan, where he lives with his daughter and wife, both United States citizens.

Wow. A misdemeanor charge results in the deportation of a 10 year resident even though the explanation is plausible and obviously true. He also didn’t vote, which to me means the law is written too harshly.

The rest of the article talks about how Republican conspiracy theories about voter fraud hasn’t resulted in many convictions since 2001 when Ashcroft made finding such fraud a priority. Politics over sound policy, the mantra of the Bush administration.

I also want to point out that a law that requires deportation for a misdemeanor conviction is absolutely insane and should at least require the discretion of a judge. And the people who fall into the “I’m scared to walk down the street in Peoria because of terrorism” should go get a clue. The anti-immigration folks should have one person of their family randomly deported because a clerk told them to fill out the wrong form.

Then, tell me if these laws make sense.

I got 100% right. I don’t think I would’ve gotten more than 60% if I had to answer orally as they do on the real test (it’s not multiple choice, usually).

How did you do?

(found via Chhavi’s blog)

Oh, Wonderful:

“We need to take a realistic look at the notion of birthright citizenship,” said J.D. Hayworth, a Republican congressman from Arizona, on NBC’s “Meet the Press”.

I’m telling you, this immigration debate is about more than illegal immigrants from Mexico. It’s about changing the nature of immigration. To paraphrase Zakaria, do we really want to be more like Europe on this issue? I don’t.

If you’ve been following the news at all, you know that Iran is the next, great threat to our nation. You might argue that it was a greater threat in 2002 than Iraq, but we can leave that aside for now. The Bush administration has one response to any identified threat (real or imaginary): military force. Since they’ve pretty much screwed up diplomacy at every level, I’m not really sure what else they’re really able to do. Since our military is taxed right now occupying a country, the administration is considering various military strikes. According to Sy Hersh and later confirmed by the Washington Post, those plans include a large scale bombing effort that could include nuclear tactical weapons (bunker buster nukes).

While Bush has been categorically denying plans for airstrikes in Iran, remember that he was doing the same about Iraq in late 2002. We’ve since found out that planning started in earnest before diplomacy had been given a chance, and that the diplomacy was shaped around a military timeline first. In other words, the administration never really tried to consider another solution to the problem of Iraq. Military first, military last. Diplomacy is really just about getting basing and airspace rights.

Our prestige has suffered internationally. More nations are skeptical of claims by the Administration on any front. The latest Pew survey of global opinion (6/2005) shows that U.S. image is still negative, though it is up from the recent lows. From another report (3/2004), people in other countries view Iraq as a mistake:

These notions are not shared elsewhere. Majorities in Germany, Turkey and France – and half of the British and Russians – believe the conflict in Iraq undermined the war on terrorism. At least half the respondents in the eight other countries view the U.S. as less trustworthy as a consequence of the war. For the most part, even U.S. military prowess is not seen in a better light as a result of the war in Iraq.

On the domestic front, we’re not doing much to improve that image. An editorial in the NYTimes, How to Lose the Brain Race, expresses concern about the immigration debate hurting our long term economic growth. Looking at the current proposals on the table, the op-ed makes a case for maintaining foreign student inflows:

Senator Feinstein insisted that the bill call for some fees for foreign students applying to study at American colleges and universities to be doubled, and also demanded that agribusiness get the right to 1.5 million low-wage foreign guest workers over five years. Combined, the two proposals sent a message to the rest of the world: send us your brawn, not your brains.

…

In making immigration laws, Congress caters to cheap-labor industries like agribusiness and sweatshop manufacturing while shortchanging the high-tech, high-wage industries on which the future of the American economy depends.

Both of these things are related because they influence each other. One simply needs to take a look at Indians to understand this. A February report about world opinion shows that Indians are the only foreign populace to view Bush favorably. Their explanation of why is telling:

America remains a land of opportunity for many Indians. Asked where they would recommend that a young person move in order to lead a good life, a 38% plurality of Indians choose the United States. This finding may seem a weak endorsement, given America’s longstanding image as a hopeful new world for immigrants; however, in no other country does even a plurality recommend the U.S. to the hypothetical young person searching for a better life. In other countries, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and Germany are all more popular choices. After India, Poland has the second largest share of respondents recommending the United States - and only one-in-five Poles (19%) suggests America as a destination.

What we choose to do with Iran and what we choose to do with immigration will define this country for the next century. With Iran, if we go the nuclear route and attack yet another country, that will hurt our image abroad even more. Billmon has an excellent piece exploring what the world might look like if the U.S. uses tactical nukes. It’s not nuclear winter or mutually assured destruction, but the annihilation of our image abroad.

With immigration, we could change one of the hallmarks of this country. We need bright people, no matter where they hail from, to create businesses and bring ideas here. The more research that happens at American universities, the stronger our nation becomes. Fanning the flames of xenophobia will only hurt our country in the long run. Pandering to low wage industries will do the same.

We stand at a crossroads. This administration wins support by playing to peoples’ fears on globalization, terrorism, and immigration. It’s no wonder that folks are responding. When your leaders tell you, “Look how scary this is. Thank God you have us to protect you,” of course people will begin to give in to that fear. Every time they have taken a principled stand (the rare times they do), they’ve quickly folded the moment their polls start heading south on Iraq or on corruption issues.

I worry about the immigration debate we’re having. I’ve been worried since Lou Dobbs started banging the “Mexicans are scary” drum years ago. It’s only gotten worse since. The myriad of proposals all seem to change the very nature of immigration. As Fareed Zakaria says,

Compared with every other country in the world, America does immigration superbly. Do we really want to junk that for the French approach?

My family is the product of the American immigration experience. My father arrived in the early 70s as a skilled civil engineer. My mother soon followed. They had me, then my sisters, and by the mid 80s owned a home. I went on to a top 20 university. My sisters went on to the top liberal arts colleges in the world. They both went on to pursue law and medical degrees. By the time we all were finished our undergrad, both of my parents were citizens. In high school, I considered joining the military after realizing that between being Indian and being American, I was American. My loyalty lies here, with the country that gave my family opportunity.

In another country, say France or Germany, my parents wouldn’t have become citizens. I would not be in a neighborhood with a bunch of Jewish families, a bunch of Christian families, and, yes, one or two Indian families. I may have been in a ethnically homogenous neighborhood, segregated but welcome there. I might have had a tougher time getting into some of the best colleges here, and I may not have pursued the career I did.

It’s not to say that we’re the same as illegal immigrants or that my family exemplifies the illegal immigrants that these laws target. My point is that these laws we’re proposing will affect those of us who come here legally. Without citizenship, my story would be different.

As a country, we are too often focused on who to blame and who to punish. At some point, we need to see what is right in front of us. These people come here because they know they can make money. They come because they want to help their families. They can make money because people want to hire them. So, why do folks hire them? More specifically, who hires them? What would happen if there were an H-1B program for laborers, meat packers, and farm hands?

I can’t believe that guest worker programs are the best that we can come up with. Nor can I believe that Lou Dobbs and the vapid rhetoric coming out of some Republicans are the best we can do talking about this debate. I also can’t believe that I’ve found an issue that I actually agree with the President (until he flip-flopped recently).

The Economist has a good overview of the larger debate and politics.