Category Archives: Immigration

The Anglosphere considered, minus imperialism

Stanley Dubinsky can always be relied upon to point out things that provoke thought. I was particularly struck by this review from The Times of a book called REPLENISHING THE EARTH: The settler revolution and the rise of the Anglo-world. An excerpt:

Writing history is largely a matter of what filters you use. Different-coloured filters bring out different patterns. For most recent chroniclers and analysts of the Anglo-Americanization of the world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the filters used have been those that show up the “imperialism” of the process. The most startling novelty of James Belich’s Replenishing the Earth: The settler revolution and the rise of the Anglo-world is that it scarcely mentions imperialism at all, except to marginalize it (“with all due respect to the rich scholarship on European imperialism, in the very long view most European empires in Asia and Africa were a flash in the pan”); yet it still makes a pretty convincing job of explaining the huge and important process that is its subject. Even where it does not totally convince, it is immensely illuminating, as new filters invariably are. This is one of the most important works on the broad processes of modern world history to have appeared for years… – arguably since Sir Charles Dilke’s pioneering Greater Britain introduced a concept very like Belich’s “Anglo-world” to his Victorian contemporaries in 1868.

Dilke’s book was written before the word “imperialism” came into vogue, at least in connection with British overseas expansion. Empire carries essential connotations of power, or domination, whose major manifestation in Britain’s case was India – which again finds no place in Belich’s book, and hardly featured in Dilke’s either. Dilke was interested in something else: the migration of the British people over the globe, including North America; with the aid of some state power, certainly – the general protection afforded by the Royal Navy, occasional military expeditions to pull the migrants out of trouble, charters and treaties – but not in order to dominate anyone. Rather, the aim was to reproduce British-type “free” societies, usually freer than Britain’s own, in what were conveniently regarded as the “waste” places of the earth. Belich calls this “cloning”. It was an entirely different process from the more dominating sort of “imperialism”, representing a different philosophy, involving different social classes, and mainly affecting different regions of the world. Belich believes that it was a far more important influence than what is generally understood as imperialism on the whole course of modern history.

Consider this post a transparent effort to lure the “Anglospheric” Mike Cakora back to the blog. Haven’t heard from Mike in awhile…

The answer to the burning immigration problem

15 Replies

For years, some of you have tried to convince me that our porous border with Mexico is a critical, nation-threatening problem, necessitating such absurdly grandiose measures as the construction of a wall.

I was unconvinced — until now. This important video report provides the arguments that were missing before.

(Warning: There is some less-than-polite language used in this report, for comic effect.)

Notice how this hasn’t helped with SC jobs

33 Replies

Tomorrow's op-ed page features this Trudy Rubin column about how, in tough economic times, xenophobia and scapegoating of "the other" tends to rise. She speaks of the synagogue trashed in Caracas, similar incidents in Argentina, the Vatican's recent mess with the reinstated archbishop, etc.

And just in passing, there is a mention of a type of scapegoating we have seen in this country:

Of course, it won't just be Jews who will be scapegoated. It can be Chechens or dark-skinned people from the Caucuses in Russia, or migrant workers in Chinese cities, or illegal immigrants in the United States.

Well, yes and no, in terms of the direct correlation to the economy. We saw the rise of resentment of illegals peak BEFORE the economy's recent southward trend. And in fact, one has heard a lot less about it recently than one heard back before John McCain became the GOP nominee (except, of course, from the kind of GOP voter who said they would not vote for him, not no way, not nohow).

Of course, there are some here in SC who would attribute the quieting of the anti-illegal lobby to the terrific job they say they're doing. I just got this release today from S.C. Senate Republicans:

South Carolina’s Immigration Laws Could Be Severely Weakened

Federal Government May Not Reauthorize E-Verify Program

Columbia, SC – February 17, 2009 – South Carolina’s State Senators are taking action and asking the United States Congress to reauthorize a federal program that is presently allowing the state to crack down on illegal immigration. State Senator Larry Martin (R-Pickens) today introduced a resolution urging Congress to reauthorize the E-Verify program.
    E-Verify is an Internet based program run by the Department of Homeland Security, which allows for the instantaneous verification of an employee’s residency status.
    After an outcry from businesses, workers, and taxpayers across the state, the South Carolina General Assembly last year passed the nation’s toughest illegal immigration laws. Using the federal government’s E-Verify program, South Carolina’s new laws give the state the ability to punish those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, South Carolina’s laws could lose their teeth and be severely weakened if Congress does not reauthorize E-Verify.
    Senator Larry Martin says the affect on South Carolina’s economy could be devastating. “We now have the third highest unemployment rate in the nation due to this harsh economic environment. Our new law has stopped the influx of undocumented workers in South Carolina. We need to ensure that every available job in the state is being filled by a legal United States resident.”
    Martin continued, “E-Verify is the most cost-effective, secure, and reliable tool for businesses to verify the residency status of their employees. I can not urge Congress enough to reauthorize this vital program.”
            ###

So basically, he's saying we've got to keep out the illegals to protect our jobs. To which I say, what jobs? The period during which he's saying SC's done a great job of keeping out illegals (which remains to be seen, but let's play along) is a period in which unemployment in SC has soared.

Here's a clue, folks: You know what's more likely than anything else to keep out illegals? The continued decline of our economy, that's what. When there aren't jobs to be had, they're going to stay away. But is that what we want?

Think about it: Would you rather have high unemployment and keep the illegals out, or low unemployment but with illegals here? I'm sure the choice before us is not a pure question of either-or, but a basic understanding of supply and demand would suggest that there is a high correlation…

Democrats officially write off the xenophobe vote

31 Replies

Now this one ought to set off the nativists:

In Convention First, 2008 Democratic National Convention To Be Simulcast In Spanish

Comcast Named Official Cable Television and Video On Demand Provider, Will Produce and Distribute Bi-Lingual Convention Coverage to Millions Worldwide

DENVER – In keeping with its commitment to make the 2008 Democratic National Convention the most accessible and technologically-savvy event of its kind, the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) announced today that Comcast Corporation will produce simultaneous, online streaming coverage of the Convention in Spanish at DemConvention.com and make available a broad range of Convention content through its signature On Demand service. The DNCC also announced that Comcast has been named the Convention’s Official Cable Television and Video-On-Demand (VOD) provider.
“We set out to ‘bring down the walls’ of the Pepsi Center and make this year’s historic Convention as inclusive and accessible to as many people as possible,” said Leah D. Daughtry, CEO of the DNCC. “Comcast is helping us bring the Convention to a growing number of computer screens and televisions throughout the country and around the world.”
From the Comcast Media Center, based in the Denver metro area, Comcast will provide live, gavel-to-gavel Spanish-language interpretation of all Convention activities…
“With Spanish as the primary language of approximately 35 million Americans – not to mention the more than 300 million Spanish-speakers outside the United States – offering bilingual coverage of the Convention makes more people feel welcome under the Democratic Party’s ‘big tent’,” said Texas State Senator and Convention Co-Chair Leticia Van de Putte. “As a Texan and a Latina, I’m proud to belong to a party that embraces the Hispanic community.”

"Ay, caramba!" the English-only crowd is thinking right about now. "No somos listos por eso!" (Or would that be, "no estamos listos"? Randy?) I’m not even going to get into the fact that the last part of Leticia Van de Putte’s name sounds like an insult in Spanish, because that would be digressing way too much…

Does this mean some of y’all will be voting for McCain now?

Desirée Jaimovich, Argentine journalist

9 Replies

Remember a few months back, when I was visited by Zoe Rachel Usherwood, Foreign Affairs Producer for Sky News in the U.K.? Well, whether you remember or not, it was right after the primaries, when there had been a lot of international attention focused on South Carolina. Well, today the same international program brought Desirée Jaimovich by the office.

Desirée is a writer and editor for the Buenos Aires Herald, an English-language publication. Argentina is, as you probably know, one of the more cosmopolitan of South American countries, a lot of people having ethnic roots from across Europe.

We talked about a number of things. She asked in particular about a recent story that recently led our front page, "S.C. first in on-job deaths of Hispanics." I told her that illegal immigration was an extremely hot issue in this country, but that unfortunately, while our lawmakers will demagogue no end about illegality, there is little talk among our politicians about the dangerous conditions that illegals often work in — and there should be.

She of course asked WHY illegal immigration was such a hot issue, and I somewhat glibly told her that it was a matter of xenophobia. A little later, though, I told her not to go by me, that I don’t understand and never have understood the roots of passion over illegal immigration. (And don’t explain to me for the millionth time that it’s because it’s illegal; as I indicated back here, maybe I’ll believe that’s core of it when folks get as stirred up about speeding on the highway.)

Anyway, we had a nice visit. I never did practice my Spanish on her though, because it embarrasses me. When I was a kid living in Ecuador, I was more or less as fluent in Spanish as English. But I’ve been back in this country since 1965, which is a long time. Whenever I try to speak it now, it’s such a struggle that I find it distressing.

Can we drive 55? OK, how about 70?

18 Replies

We all know how frustrated Energy partisan Samuel Tenenbaum gets about his perfectly sensible suggestion that we save the country and the planet, and save ourselves some bucks, by driving 55 mph. He keeps hoping his moment will arrive — will we get sensible at $5 a gallon? Or will it be $6?

Anyway, I was reminded of all that by this letter this a.m.:

Keeping to speed limit will save on gas

Apparently the high cost of gasoline is not yet a problem for the people of South Carolina.

Every
driver knows that higher speeds reduce fuel efficiency. Yet traffic on
our interstate highways continues to roll about 10 mph over the speed
limit.

STEPHEN D. KIRKLAND

This raises the question: Do you think we can summon the political will in this state to enforce the speed limits we have now? The reason traffic "continues to roll about 10 mph over the speed
limit" is that we all know that the de facto speed limit is 10 mph over — and maybe more like 15.

Maybe we can start the movement here. How about it? Can some of y’all who get SO worked up about illegal immigration "because they’re breaking the law" get worked up by speeding? After all, this isn’t just about not having the right paperwork; speed kills.

If we can tap into an emotional well like that, we can save lives, save money, flip the bird to Chavez and the House of Saud and save the planet. Sounds like a good deal.

Hey, Lindsey, if you thought THAT guy was a nativist, wait until the fall

35 Replies

We knew Buddy Witherspoon had his problems with people who are different coming into the country. Yeah, yeah, he said the usual stuff latter-day nativists say, about how it’s just because they broke the law, but he was pretty frank that he was worried these folks would "weaken our common culture and national identity." And we know about his past associations.

But hey, at least ol’ Buddy did limit himself to the illegals. Here’s what Bob Conley, whose thin vote margin over Michael Cone for the Democratic nomination to this very same Senate seat will likely trigger a recount, has to say on his Web site:

The legal
importation of foreign workers is also driving down wages, and placing
Americans in unemployment lines. This is wrong, and must end.

He elaborated on this in our interview. He complained in particular about foreign engineers coming into the country, making it hard for American engineers to get jobs. Mr. Conley describes himself as "a Commercial Pilot and a Flight Instructor as well as a licensed Professional Engineer," so apparently he knows about these things.

Does the New England Journal of Medicine know about this breakthrough?

27 Replies

All of y’all who get worked up about having Spanish-speakers around will love this letter on today’s page:

I am sick and tired of the wailing and gnashing of teeth by some business owners and Chambers of Commerce over the new immigration law.
I don’t normally put much faith in our legislators, but they hit a home run for a change. I only wish the law had been implemented earlier.
My company hired a Hispanic three years ago who used falsified documents. He worked two weeks, suffered an aneurysm and our Workers’ Compensation Commission, in its infinite wisdom, ruled it was job-related and awarded him $175,000. As a result, my workers’ compensation insurance increased dramatically.
If this law had been in effect three years ago, it would have saved me a lot of money and much grief. As a result of this incident, we now use the federal electronic database and verify every new hire.
My advice to all the malcontents: Make sure your employees are in this country legally or hire U.S. citizens.

So it turns out that illegal immigration causes aneurysms! Who knew?

Isn’t that just like those Hispanics? They come up here and take jobs just knowing they’re going to have an aneurysm, no doubt as a result of the very act of wading across the Rio … The nerve of these people.

Remember, hire U.S. citizens (or, if you must, legal aliens), because they don’t have aneurysms.

Marking time at the State House

6 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
IN THE LAST 15 minutes of the 2008 session of the S.C. General Assembly, there were three things going on in the House chamber: The speaker and clerks and others up on the podium were fussing about finishing important paperwork of some sort. All of the other House members were wandering about on the floor, socializing, saying goodbye, slapping backs, shaking hands, sharing stories and so forth.
All, that is, but two members, Reps. Chris Hart and Walt McLeod. Mr. Hart was at the lectern. Mr. McLeod was at his desk. Their microphoned voices rose indistinctly above the buzz of their milling, meandering colleagues. A sample of their vaudevillian dialogue:

Rep. McLEOD: Is it correct to say that, at the present time, our state prison system is operating at a deficit?
Rep. HART: That’s absolutely correct, and I’m glad you mentioned that, Mr. McLeod…

They were discussing a two-part proposal made by Attorney General Henry McMaster earlier in the session. He had proposed to do away with what’s left of parole in our state prisons, while simultaneously creating a new “middle court” that would punish first-time, nonviolent wrongdoers in ways other than sending them to prison.
What Messrs. McLeod and Hart were teaming up to say — between Mr. McLeod’s friendly, leading questions and Mr. Hart’s “thank you for that good question” answers — was that it would be crazy to do the former without first doing the latter. (Their language was more polite; I’m just cutting to the chase.)
That’s because, as Mr. Hart explained, South Carolina already did away with parole for violent offenders long ago. And since then, we’ve been jamming more and more prisoners (violent and nonviolent) into our prisons, while cutting the budget of the Corrections Department year after year. We now spend less per prisoner than any other state in the union, while locking up more of our population than most. We lock up more prisoners with fewer guards, and make basically no effort to rehabilitate them. So our prisons are increasingly dangerous places — for the guards, for the prisoners and for those of us on the outside who depend on the worst criminals staying inside.
Some of you will say, Oh, isn’t that just like a couple of liberal Democrats, prattling on about mollycoddling prisoners. If you say that, you’re not paying attention.
One of Gov. Mark Sanford’s biggest gripes about the budget the Legislature just passed — and remember, this is Mark Sanford, the most fanatical enemy of “growing government” ever to enter the State House — was that it does not spend enough to run our prisons safely and responsibly.
He is guided in this by his hyper-conservative director of Corrections, Jon Ozmint. (I once toured a prison with Mr. Ozmint, a former prosecutor. He kept striking up chats with the prisoners. He’d ask, “Who sent you here?” The prisoner would name a judge. Mr. Ozmint would say, “Oh, Judge So-and-So! He’s a really good judge! He’s really fair, isn’t he?” The prisoner would gape at Mr. Ozmint as though he were a Martian.) Mr. Ozmint, after years of refusing to complain on the record, wrote an op-ed piece this year to beg lawmakers not to abolish parole, suggesting that if they did, he and his shrunken staff would not be able to keep the lid on the pressure-cooker.
Everybody who is familiar with these facts knows these things. Henry McMaster knows these things. So why did he propose something that flew in the face of the facts (abolishing parole), at the same time as proposing something that made perfect sense in light of the same facts (alternative sentencing for nonviolent offenders, to reserve prison space for the worst criminals)?
Because he is a political realist. He knows the South Carolina General Assembly. “No parole” was the tooth-rotting sweetener to help the alternative-sentencing medicine go down.
The good news here is that the Legislature didn’t abolish parole this year. The bad news is that it didn’t provide for alternative sentencing, either. What it did, in the end, was neglect the whole problem as usual, sending more people behind bars while we pay less and less to keep them there.
It was the same approach lawmakers took to early-childhood education; our crumbling, unsafe roads; our emergency rooms crammed with mental patients; our struggling rural schools — leave it all to fester.
What did lawmakers do this year besides throw up their hands over the lack of money, after having cut taxes by about a billion dollars over the last few sessions? Well, they passed an “immigration reform” bill that will accomplish two things: force businesses to do a lot of paperwork, and enable lawmakers to tell the voters in this election year that they had “done something” about illegal immigration. And boy did they spend a lot of time and energy on that.
Back to Mr. Hart and Mr. McLeod. If the whole abolish parole/alternative sentencing thing was already dead for the year, why were they going on so earnestly? Well, they’re just that way; they’re very earnest guys. It was pointless, really — perhaps even a bit priggish of them. They knew they were just marking time and so did everybody else, so you can’t blame anybody for ignoring them. It was just political theater; they were actors in a play with a “what if?” plot, as in, “What if lawmakers realistically and intelligently engaged the actual challenges facing their state?”
Only an easily distracted fool who didn’t have the slightest idea what was going on would have paid attention to them at all.

See the video of Hart and McLeod here.

Graham slaps down Sanford again — politely

15 Replies

You’ll recall Lindsey Graham’s rebuke to his old friend Mark Sanford last week over the governor’s continuing efforts to divide the Republican Party.

As you can see on the video, he was polite and used mild language, but the rebuke was fairly firm nonetheless. Obviously, the Senator had decided it was time for someone to act like a party leader rather than an insurgent.

Well, he’s done it again, this time over the South Carolina reaction to Real ID. This release came in late Monday:

March 31, 2008

Graham on REAL ID and South Carolina
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made this statement on South Carolina and REAL ID.
Graham said:
“I am pleased South Carolina has been granted an extension by Secretary Chertoff regarding REAL ID compliance. The decision was more than justified.
“The Governor has done an excellent job in explaining his concerns to federal officials, many of which I share. Our state already meets 16 of the 18 compliance benchmarks – about 90 percent — called for in REAL ID. Governor Sanford’s efforts to reform our state drivers’ license program has made the system more secure and efficient.
“REAL ID grew out of recommendations made by the 9-11 Commission over the need for more secure forms of identification. It was viewed as an effective means of cracking down on the use of fraudulent documents like those used by the 9/11 hijackers. In addition, REAL ID would make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to obtain employment by tightening acceptable forms of identification.
“I will do my part to help ensure the federal government addresses the unfunded mandate burden imposed on the states by REAL ID. Governors and state legislatures across the country are rightfully concerned about these requirements.
“However, in this age of international terrorism we must secure the homeland. We need better identification to protect air travel, access to federal buildings, institutions, and other high value terrorist targets.
“I believe we can accommodate the legitimate national security needs of our nation with the concerns raised by Governor Sanford and the state legislature.”

#####

As he said, there’s no excuse for unfunded mandates. At the same time, we need a better identification system for citizens, both for national security and immigration control reasons.

He points out that for all the hollering, South Carolina is already most of the way to compliance.

And as he concludes, we can address these important matters without all the ideological posturing and brinksmanship. We just have to act like grownups.

Democrats got a Senate candidate!

19 Replies

Well, lookee here… we keep hearing (although not all that much) about lesser-known Republicans running against Lindsey Graham on account of their being ticked at him over immigration. That’s old news.

But now I read that a Democrat — Michael Cone, a Charleston lawyer — is also interested. Here’s a story that was brought to my attention this morning. More to the point, here’s his Web site. And here’s a philosophical interlude from that site:

… Thomas Jefferson wrote that there are only two real political divisions between people: people are either Aristocrats or Populists, no matter the label they might hang upon themselves.
Essentially, an Aristocrat is someone who believes that the people of the United States should be represented in government by an elite group of privileged few who know what is best for the people. A Populist believes that the people themselves know what is best for them and that their representatives in government should represent the will of the people to the largest extent possible. Equal opportunity for everyone is not favorable for Aristocrats as they would lose power if they were not lifted above the people. Therefore, it is imperative for the Aristocrats to create artificial divisions among the people so that the people cannot come together to create equal opportunity for everyone.
I am a Populist….

Had you all in suspense there, didn’t I? You thought he was going to say he was an Aristocrat, I’ll bet. Or maybe not.

Anyway, not being that big a fan of Jefferson, I see the world in less simplistic terms, more as his protege Madison did. In other words, I believe in the republic that our Constitution established, which provides that regular folks get elected to Congress, go there and study the issues as most of us are unable to do, and become smarter about those issues before voting on them. I want government that’s a lot smarter than an opinion poll. But that’s just me; I’m weird.

Anyway, no word yet on whether he’s upset about immigration, too. Looks like he’s for the "FairTax," though.

Why not just let in more Mexicans?

42 Replies

Over the weekend, we had our gazillionth in a series of letters from indignant writers insisting that they are NOT anti-immigration, they are anti-ILLEGAL immigration:

We in the pro-enforcement camp do not oppose legal immigration, and we do not call for discrimination against legal immigrants, no matter their race or ethnicity. All we ask is that our government enforce its immigration laws, secure our borders and deport illegal aliens.
Since when is being in favor of law enforcement on a nondiscriminatory basis racism? Certainly, those who favor illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens have been unfairly labeling us, as they have no legitimate reason for opposing enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.

And of course, for about the gazillionth time I thought, fine — let’s change our immigration limits and streamline our procedures so that the Mexican labor our economy seems to demand can get in legally. Then, we’ll all be happy. I certainly will, because I don’t like having a shadow, extralegal population either. People in this country from another should be documented. People who are hot about illegal immigration will also be happy. People who just don’t like having a lot of Mexicans around will not be, but you can’t please everybody.

Why not remove the incentive to come in illegally by lowering barriers to legal immigration? I’m not an economist, but it seems fairly obvious that there is a demand for Mexican labor in this country — and a demand for American work in that country — that is greater than the supply we are currently processing legally. Those demands will continue to exist, and those forces will continue to attract vast waves of people to this side of the border, whatever laws we have. So let’s get serious about getting a handle on it.

The people who actually ARE economists disagree with each other on all this, of course. Here’s an interesting, fairly dispassionate piece that was in the NYT Magazine a couple of years back, which examines whether we should let so many unskilled workers into our economy. If you’re looking for an absolute "yes" or "no," you need to look elsewhere, but I found the discussion interesting:

Economists more in the mainstream generally agree that the U.S. should take in more skilled immigrants; it’s the issue of the unskilled that is tricky. Many say that unskilled labor is needed and that the U.S. could better help its native unskilled by other means (like raising the minimum wage or expanding job training) than by building a wall. None believe, however, that the U.S. can get by with no limits….
What the economists can do is frame a subset of the important issues. They remind us, first, that the legislated goal of U.S. policy is curiously disconnected from economics. Indeed, the flow of illegals is the market’s signal that the current legal limits are too low. Immigrants do help the economy; they are fuel for growth cities like Las Vegas and a salve to older cities that have suffered native flight. Borjas’s research strongly suggests that native unskilled workers pay a price: in wages, in their ability to find inviting areas to migrate to and perhaps in employment. But the price is probably a small one.

That last point, of course, is an important one to discuss. And in fact, if these are NOT "jobs Americans don’t want," but merely jobs with conditions and wages depressed by an oversupply of cheap labor from south of the border, then we should reduce the flow northward, and thereby raise wages and conditions for Americans (and the cost of goods and services, but that might be a policy outcome we decide is worth it).

But if, in the aggregate, these millions of Latinos are just a supply meeting a demand without widespread ill effects on the working class, why not let more in legally?

DMV on Real ID

17 Replies

Since I’m having trouble finding time to comment, I can at least pass some stuff on to y’all to discuss, such as this release from DMV:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Beth Parks

REAL ID IN SOUTH CAROLNA
Blythewood, SC – March 6, 2008 – As the deadline for states to apply for the federal Real ID extension approaches, many South Carolina citizens question how Real ID will affect them as individuals.

"While the decision to comply or not comply with Real ID is up to state officials, it’s important for the citizens of South Carolina to understand how it will affect them," said Executive Director Marcia Adams.

Compared to the way SCDMV currently issues driver licenses and identification cards, the process to issue a compliant Real ID credential will change considerably. SCDMV must take customer source documents, such as a birth certificate or social security card, and verify them for authenticity and scan them into SCDMV records. SCDMV expects these additional steps to increase the average wait time in a field office from 15 minutes to 45-60 minutes. That wait could grow to as much as two hours during peak operating times.

The cost for a Real ID compliant credential will also significantly increase. The current cost for a 10 year license is $25.00. A Real ID compliant credential, which can only be valid for eight years, may cost as much as $60.00. To implement Real ID, SCDMV must develop new processes and build verification systems that do not exist on the state and federal level. South Carolina will require $16 million in non-recurring funds and $10 million in recurring funds to implement and maintain the Real ID program.

SCDMV will not be able to issue Real ID compliant credentials over the counter as it is done today. SCDMV will be required to change to a central issuance model, which means that customers will not be able to leave a field office with compliant credentials on the same day as their visit. Instead, they will be issued a temporary non-compliant credential. The credential cannot be issued until SCDMV has electronically verified all of the source documents. The compliant credential will be issued from SCDMV headquarters and mailed to the customer within 2-3 weeks of their office visit. SCDMV will continue to serve customers that do not want a compliant credential. The credential they receive, however, must be marked as non-compliant.
#####

Beth S. Parks

Communications Director

SCDMV

Make of it what you will. Here is our editorial position on the immediate political question before us.

The Convenient Nativist

13 Replies

Odd, isn’t it, that this anti-immigrant bit of propaganda — which purports to be about Sen. Lindsey Graham — should emerge at this particular moment:

This offensive nativist screed makes no policy proposal. The thrust here is about people speaking Spanish — as opposed to fine, decent folks with "South Carolina values." Appalling.

And as we all know, there’s a lot more at stake with an emotional play like this than a quixotic slap at a secure incumbent senator.

Each Republican faces a different challenge in S.C.

14 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
TO ALL THE candidates seeking the presidency of the United States of America: Welcome to South Carolina. Iowa is behind you; so is New Hampshire, and we understand that we are to have your undivided attention for the next couple of weeks, which is gratifying.
So let’s take advantage of the opportunity. The South Carolina primaries have little purpose unless we learn more about you than we have thus far, so we have a few matters we’d like you to address while you’re here.
Let’s do Republicans first, since y’all face S.C. voters first (on the 19th) and come back to the Democrats (after the cliffhanger night Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton just went through, they could probably do with a rest today).
We’d like some specifics beyond the vehement claims that pretty much each and every one of you is “the real conservative” in the race.
We’ll start with John McCain, the big winner in New Hampshire Tuesday.
You’re a war hero, and you’ve got the most experience in national defense and foreign affairs. You take a back seat to no one in fighting government waste. You were for a “surge” in Iraq long before the White House even considered the idea, and you weren’t afraid to say so. It’s no surprise that you lead among retired military officers, and others who have been there and done that.
But folks who are not retired would like some reassurance that the oldest man in the race, with a spotty medical history, is up to the world’s most demanding job.
Most of all, though, South Carolinians need to better understand your position on immigration. You’re the one who decided to try to lead on this radioactive issue in the middle of a campaign, and plenty of folks around here don’t like the direction you chose. Start explaining.
Next, Mike Huckabee. You have qualities that Sen. McCain lacks: You’re (relatively) young, fresh, new and exciting. As a Baptist preacher, you’re definitely in sync with S.C. Republicans on cultural issues. More than that, you are on the cutting edge of a new kind of Republicanism, one that is more attuned to the concerns of ordinary working people, from health care to education.
But let’s look at some headlines from this week: The U.S. Navy almost had to blow some Iranian gunboats out of the water. Hundreds are dead in Kenya, one of the few African countries we’d thought immune to such political violence. Pakistan, nuclear power and current address of Osama bin Laden, continues to teeter on the edge of chaos after Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. I could go on.
Every day, something that threatens the security of this country happens in yet another hot spot, calling for a depth of knowledge and experience for which on-the-job training is no substitute. Those blank looks you’ve given when asked about current events are disturbing. Reassure us. We know you don’t get daily intelligence briefings yet, but you could at least read the paper.
Mitt Romney, you come across as Central Casting’s idea of a Republican: Perfect coif, square jaw, a private-sector portfolio that confirms your can-do credentials. Moreover, as governor of Massachusetts you presided over health care reform that many other states are looking to as a model.
But increasingly, 21st century Republicans are less impressed by a business suit, and I think you’ll find South Carolinians a lot like Iowans in that regard. You’ve got to have more to offer.
Also, voters here would like to hear more positive reasons to vote for you, and less about what’s wrong with everybody else. In all the years since I’ve been getting e-mails, I have never seen anything like the blizzard of releases from your folks trashing this or that rival.
After the nasty whispering campaign that sank Sen. McCain in 2000, South Carolinians have had a bellyful of the whole “going negative” thing. Just forget the other guys, and tell us what’s good about you.
As for Rudy Giuliani, we know you’re a tough guy, and a tough guy can be a good thing to have in the White House. You inspired the nation through some of Gotham’s darkest days, and you took on all Five Families at once as a mob-busting federal prosecutor, which is why John Gotti and some others on the Commission wanted to have you whacked. You’re definitely a man of respect.
But if you do bother to campaign down here, South Carolina Republicans might be forgiven for wondering whether you’re one of them. You were doing OK in polls a couple of months ago, but let’s face it — that was just the early national media buzz, and we’ve gotten past that.
You need to do some fast talking — we hear New Yorkers are good at that — about some of those “cultural issues” that, to put it mildly, distinguish you from candidates who happen to be Baptist preachers.
Finally, Fred Thompson — you certainly have no need for a translator. As your wife, Jeri, reminded me when she dropped by our office Tuesday, you speak fluent Southern.
But there’s a reason y’all were campaigning down here rather than up in New Hampshire: After the biggest “will he or won’t he” buildup in modern political history, your campaign failed to catch fire nationally after it finally got rolling.
That could be because, while you can play a “conservative” well on TV, you have yet to communicate exactly what you bring to the campaign that other candidates don’t bring more of. Are you better on national security than McCain, or more in tune on abortion than Huckabee? And if what the party was crying out for was a guy who was tough enough on immigration (as your supporters keep telling me), why didn’t it go for Tom Tancredo?
Once again, welcome one and all to the Palmetto State. Whether you go on from here may depend in large part on how you answer the above questions.
For my blog, go to http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/.

McCain with the WSJ editorial board

3 Replies

Here’s an account of what John McCain had to say to the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal the day before he came here to announce the endorsements of all the brass:

Mr.
McCain is 71. But the tired, sluggish, former front-runner you may have
read about was nowhere in evidence when the senator came to the
Journal’s offices yesterday. In his place was a combative
and–yes–straight-talking candidate with no qualms about rising to a
challenge or speaking his mind. In short, he looks once again like the
spry 63-year-old who nearly knocked off front-runner George W. Bush
eight years ago….

He said some of the same things he said here, but of course the interview was more wide-ranging, more like the session we had with him back in August.

And over in the horse-race department, it’s interesting that he tells folks up on Wall Street how important South Carolina is to his chances:

The
senator says he doesn’t worry too much about the electoral tactics, but
he does know what lies ahead. "We’ve got to win New Hampshire," he
says, or at least exceed expectations there. "And then I think we can
do well in South Carolina. In South Carolina we’ve got the base this
time. The Attorney General, the Speaker of the House, Lindsay Graham,
most of the base."

Whether
that’s true or not, Mr. McCain still trails by 15 points on average in
South Carolina. But assuming he can do well there, "then I think we’re
obviously very much in the game. What happens to Huckabee, what happens
to Rudy, what happens to Romney–all this stuff is in such flux now
that it’s very difficult to predict and so we’re not paying a lot of
attention, obviously." Still, he’s paying some attention, apparently.

It’s interesting how, whenever anyone takes a careful, dispassionate look at McCain, he looks good. But for the immigration issue, he’d still be the nominee apparent. There is actually a significant number of Republicans who would decide who should lead this country on the basis of that, rather than the broad range of critical issues, is amazing to professional observers from The Economist to the Journal to little ol’ me.

Of course, that’s just a bonus for the immigration hotheads, because they tend to be folks who don’t like professional observers any more than they like illegal Mexicans.

If McCain doesn’t make it, I’ll be able to do what he’s doing on the surge now — saying "I told you so." But I’ll get a lot less satisfaction out of it. Back when he stepped out front in an effort actually to solve the immigration problem rather than demagogue on it, I asked him why — trying to lead on that issue would only earn the enmity of those who find any practical, sensible approach to be anathema.

Of course, his answer was what it always is when he steps out of everybody else’s comfort zone on an issue — he saw it as the right thing to do.

Thank a soldier, whatever your first language may be

4 Replies

Yesterday at Rotary, one of the preliminary speakers told an anecdote, the punch line of which was one I’ve heard a number of times recently: "If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you’re reading it in English, thank a soldier."

I can assure you there was no ill intent toward anyone in the mind of the person who said that Monday. He simply meant to express the obligation that all of us owe to those who have worn the uniform of our country, and I agree with the sentiment. As for the actual words… well, as tends to happen during meetings, my mind starting riffing on what I’d heard, and it launched on two tracks. The first was that it seems that I started hearing that bit about "reading it in English" repeated more often about the time illegal immigration became such an emotional issue in this country. I suspect that I’m wrong; I’m sure I just started noticing the phrase, and hearing vague xenophobic echoes that weren’t really there, at about that time. After all, the two issues have no actual connection. Then I went down the second track: Is there any soldier alive today who fought in a war that prevented a situation in which we were likely to be speaking any language other than English? I started running through all the wars in my mind. Certainly we’d still speak English if we’d lost in 1783 or 1812. Maybe the Southwest was changed by the war with Mexico, but those guys have been dead a century and more. Certainly the world would be wildly different had we lost in 1919 or 1945, or the Cold War, but I suspect we’d still speak English — although maybe the REST of the world wouldn’t have switched to the English standard… Muoz1

Anyway, all this nonsense was swept away when the main speaker stepped to the podium. It was Sgt. José Muñoz, United States Army. (That’s him in the video above. I apologize for the quality; I shot it with my phone.) The first words out of his mouth were to beg forgiveness for his strong accent. He had been born in Mexico. He became a U.S. citizen earlier this year. He has done two combat tours in Iraq, and is about to go to Afghanistan. He joked that he joined the Army hoping to see more of THIS, his adopted country, but has seen little outside of Fort Bragg, while he has been all over Iraq, first with artillery, and later with convoy security.

Sgt. Muñoz was visiting us as part of the Pentagon’s "Why We Serve" speakers program. (That’s his official portrait below at left, much better than my phone version.) He said he didn’t fully understand at first why he was going to the Pentagon. He had never been there Hrs__munoz_photo
before. They just told him to show up in his Class A’s, so that’s what he did.

There was no particular political message other than the usual grousing about how "the media" always tell you the bad stuff that happens in Iraq. I just sat impassive through that, the way I always do (something that’s made easier by the fact that I know exactly what he means, and I know it has nothing to do with me). He had just come to tell why he, José Muñoz, is a United States soldier. He told of how, when he went into Iraq in the 2003 invasion, the Iraqi civilians treated him and his comrades like rock stars. Specifically, he said he felt like Ricky Martin. Later, it was more neutral, he said — they were looked upon just as a fact of life.

He also wanted to let everyone know that despite the fact that convoy security is extremely hazardous, his unit did not lose a single soldier during that deployment.

In response to a question that seemed to lead in this direction, Sgt. Muñoz volunteered the fact that his family came to this country legally. So that pretty much spoiled any pious little sermon I might offer on the immigration issue, seeing as how the angry people all insist that they don’t mind immigrants as long as they have their papers, and probably believe that if Sgt. Muñoz didn’t have his papers, he’d be essentially a different person (a sort of thinking I don’t follow, but that’s why I don’t get why this issue is as hot as it is).

In any case, suffice it to say that Sgt. Muñoz received a standing ovation. All present seemed to feel privileged to be in his presence.

Maybe we should add a corollary: "If you’re reading it in English as a second language, thank a soldier." I certainly made a point of thanking Sgt. Muñoz after the meeting. To me, and I believe to my fellow Rotarians, he’s a much bigger deal than Ricky Martin.

Muoz2

Does this mean we don’t ever have to hear about it again? EVER?!?!?!???

12 Replies

Did you see the excellent news this morning out of New York?

Gov. Eliot Spitzer formally announced today that he would abandon his plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, conceding that his best efforts to sell New Yorkers on the merits of his proposal had clearly failed.

Not that I had a dog in that fight — I never have decided whether I thought it was a good idea or not; I’m sort of in a Hillary place on that.

The good news part is that maybe, just maybe, those of us who are occasionally trapped — as I have been, while working out or giving blood or something — listening to Lou Dobbs go on and on and on and on and on about this will never have to hear about it again!

Right? I mean, please tell me it’s over. Or will it go on and on and on and on and on…

Contrasting Obama, Clinton on licenses

3 Replies

After having read or heard Barack Obama expressing his objections to Hillary Clinton’s answer to the debate question about N.Y. Gov. Spitzer’s driver’s license proposal, I finally asked Amaya Smith with his campaign for a statement of what Sen. Obama thinks about it. (That had been missing from the bits and pieces I had run into up to that time.) Here’s what Amaya said:

Barack Obama supports providing secure identifications to undocumented immigrants as a way to reduce fatalities on the roads, and give our law enforcement personnel the tools they need to fight crime and stop terrorism. However, this can only be a stopgap measure on the road to comprehensive immigration reform that includes securing our borders, fixing our broken immigration bureaucracy and bringing the 12 million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and onto a responsible path towards citizenship. Gov Spitzer’s original plan is consistent with Senator Obama’s views on the issue.

To me, that didn’t sound wildly different from what Hillary had said, so to refresh my memory, I went back to fetch it:

"You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays ‘gotcha.’ It makes a lot
of sense… what is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a
serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed. Do I think
this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand
the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this —
remember, in New York; we want to know who’s in New York, we want
people to come out of the shadows. He’s making an honest effort to do
it; we should have passed immigration reform.

OK, so Obama’s for it, but has reservations, seeing it as no more than a stopgap. Hillary sees reasons why the governor would do it, and doesn’t want to criticize, but in the end has reservations too strong to be for it. Which is where I am, only I’m not offended by Obama’s position. It makes sense, too. Seems to me like we have two reasonable people here, both of whom see the pros and cons, but they end up a few degrees away from each other, on different sides of a line.

I end up on Hillary’s side. I see how licenses could be a way of bringing underground people out into the open and tracking them — not to mention making New York’s roads somewhat safer. But in the end, I think there are too many negatives to granting the licenses, including homeland security problems. And ultimately, the Congress should have passed the comprehensive immigration reform bill, which would accomplish the goals Obama says he’s aiming for.

If there were a scale with zero being the position of Lou Dobbs (completely against), and 10 being Spitzer (completely for), it seems like Hillary’s a 4, and Obama’s a 6.5 or 7. Not exactly polar opposites.

But then again, I don’t understand the passions this issue generates. Robert Ariail — who has upcoming cartoons both making fun of poor Dennis and hitting Hillary the way Obama is (if anyone still thought Robert marched in step with the rest of us, that should settle it) — and I just had another discussion/argument about the issue this morning, with little ground given by either of us. Robert’s a fence-and-deportation guy; I’m for the defunct McCain/Graham bill.

P.S. — I had lunch with Amaya and Kevin Griffis back on Oct. 18. Nothing eventful, aside from the fact that the maitre d’ had to shunt us off to a private room because although Kevin wore the obligatory sport coat, he wore in with jeans. The purpose of the lunch was for Kevin to introduce me to Amaya, a mission which he accomplished. Consider this to be my official, belated contact report.

As if the Democrats weren’t bad enough last night…

2 Replies

Now Mitt Romney has jumped in, along with Edwards and Obama, for a twofer — demagogue the immigration issue, and bash Hillary.

Just got around to reading this e-mail that William Holley of the Romney campaign sent me this morning:

One more for you:
If y’all didn’t catch the Democratic debate last night, Senator Clinton and other Democrats made some troubling remarks in support of a plan in her home state of New York to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.
That won’t fly here in South Carolina.
Governor Romney, on the on the other hand, has a clear record of opposing driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.
Here is a “Romney Vision” policy document on the issue: http://mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Romney_Vision_Illegal_Immigration

Enjoy.

Urging me to "enjoy" it is being just a tad optimistic there, William.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits