Should Government Go After Fox, Breitbart?

The DailyCaller has a good article about left-leaning bloggers and journalists who are calling on the federal government to clamp down on Fox news after reporting Andrew Breitbart’s edited video of now jobless Shirley Sherrod supposedly admitting her own racism in her job.  When people watch the video of Ms. Sherrod in its entirety, they can gleam from it a wholly separate picture.  

Here’s the rub: I know Fox News and Andrew Breitbart participated in ruining this lady’s career, and they should be reprimanded by us, the consumer.  However, I can see outcry on both sides of the aisle after this story broke, and especially after the fecal matter met the fan blades; but I did not see the same response from the left after ABC news reported on bad information.  That is what Fox is guilty of, reporting faulty information.  They should apologize and set the record straight, but government should stay the hell out of it.  Otherwise, if the government lays down the law on Fox News, they should go after ABC for reporting false information about President Bush’s Air National Guard records, and Andrew Sullivan for his Levi and Bristol Palin infatuation (all which turned out to be false) and hell, every other news organization that reported something that ended up damaging their own credibility anyway.  That’s what will, and should, happen with Andrew Breitbart and Fox after this fiasco. 

-rj

Economics Are The Key To Immigration Reform

Immigration reform has been heating up for a while- though it is currently taking a backseat to health care and energy- and has already garnered much attention with regards to President Obama’s policies on illegal immigration raids, protectionist allegations?regarding Mexican trucking and putting National Guard troops on the border . Furthermore, President Obama?recently held a meeting to discuss how such? reform would take place, and?Senator Chuck Schumer, chair of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, said last week he plans to have an immigration reform bill completed by Labor Day and on the president’s desk later this year or early next year. Given the president’s margin of victory with Hispanics over Senator McCain (R-AZ) last November-he won 67% of the demographic- and his efforts to appease that base with the?nomination of Judge Sotomayor, Republicans are in a lot of trouble. If President Obama can pass legislation that pleases that base,?Republicans will be hard-pressed to even close to the 40%-or-so of the?Hispanic vote then-President Bush got in 2004??for many years to come. Too, Hispanics are a massive part of the country now , and are expected to continue being the fastest-growing minority in?America.

Immigration reform is likely to come to a head sometime in the next?twelve months, as it did in 2007. However, I think Republicans can pre-empt the Democratic initiatives if they tackle the issue head-on, with?a comprehensive look at its various and disparate parts, and not from?a solely ideological view. While we certainly cannot ignore the millions of illegal immigrants in the country, as the left wants to?do, nor do we have the financial or other resources to kick 20 million?people out of the country, as many conservatives want to do.

The first- and most important- step in immigration reform is to stop?or reform the economic incentives to come to America. We need to?punish the businesses that hire illegal immigrants through fines, and we need to punish sanctuary cities through fines and the rescinding of?federal funds. We also should create a reformed welfare policy that?does not give monies of any kind to illegal immigrants. Finally, we?need to create the proper economic incentives to bring the kind of?immigrants we want here- hard-working, highly educated, technical?people who will create jobs.

Some conservatives would argue against the above point- they say building a wall is the vitally important first step to protecting?America from illegal immigrants. There are two reasons why this is a?bad idea: first, why do illegal immigrants come to America? According?to both libertarian?Ken Schoolland in 2005 and conservative Dinesh D’Souza in “Letters to a Young?Conservative,” they come for economic reasons. They also send BACK at?least $10 billion to Mexico and at least $20 billion more to other?countries, as seen here? and?here. Lastly, many immigrants are going back to their native countries because of the recession. There is no doubt?that they are coming to America for economic reasons, and so it makes?sense to shut down those resources and incentives that encourage the numbers of illegal immigrants entering the country we have seen for so?many years.

A second reason we should not push for building a wall is that it is a?waste of resources?for?the country?(immigrants will find a way through, around, over,?etc.), and thirdly it is a terrible public relations move for Republicans (who tend to support a border wall the most). Only the most hardened conservative won’t be moved by stories of families?looking for a better life, and trying to achieve the American Dream.?By creating economic disincentives to come illegally, and creating?economic (and legal, though that is a discussion for another day)?incentives that encourage immigrants with the skills and mindsets we?want in America (including this suggestion by The Heritage Foundation), we would find ourselves with a very?much diminished illegal immigration issue.

Other supported reforms include putting troops and agents on the?border which, given our current laws, will not do much- see here? and here?to see how two border agents were railroaded for doing their job,?and even the National Guard cannot shoot if attacked while patrolling the border. However, like a wall,?people can find ways around even a good border security policy, and?therefore the impact is limited. Economics are the reason illegal?immigrants come to America, and good border economic policy is why?they will either leave or not enter in the first place. (However, by?
the same token, it would not hurt to allow our immigration protection?officials to shoot at drug smugglers, gang members and others who?intend to harm this country and/or its citizens.)

-dustin

Step Up the Support or Start Running North

In the past few years, U.S. leaders ignored the growing grumble of drug related violence in Mexico because they were too focused on the stability of Middle Eastern states.? Foreign policy goals must be prioritized logically, in order of which states have the closest regional proximity and strongest economic ties.? The U.S. – Mexican border expands nearly 2,000 miles and the economic relationship between the two states is beyond vital; Mexico is the United States third largest trading partner.? Prioritization of Middle Eastern oil resources has left the United States vulnerable to serious problems festering over the border.? Mexican problems become American problems when cartels are operating out of our cities, spreading violence to small towns and large metropolis areas alike.? I outlined this clearly in an August?op-ed in The Washington Times, which apparently fell on deaf ears.? Now what do we do?

The working relationship is difficult to approach because the U.S. and Mexico have a long standing and productive alliance, one that has warranted their country to be considered part of NORTHCOM instead of SOUTHCOM in the eyes of the U.S. military.? This distinction gives Mexico a visual superiority over Latin American states because of the mutually beneficial diplomatic relationship which must be maintained at all costs.? Some have raised the notion of mobilizing the National Guard to the border, something that many of the border-state Governors support (not surprisingly, because it is a huge increase in their power).? While adding the National Guard to the border could help in the event of a very serious emergency, militarizing the Mexican border has serious diplomatic side effects that make it a very unattractive option.

Illegal immigration and narco-trafficking is a law enforcement issue and must be dealt with by CBP and ICE, both of which are doing an increasingly effective job at it over the past 7 years.? We can quell the problem by continually supporting both of those agencies while acknowledging the American end of the problem: demand for drugs and the supplying of weapons.? The shared responsibility that Hillary Clinton recently acknowledged has been missing in the past and is necessary for progress in the U.S.-Mexican relationship.? Addressing the problem on our end will be more effective in the long run than pretending to have the capability of securing such an expansive border completely and crushing the supply of drugs from Mexico.

We must support the Mexican government so that they can fight it on their end.? The challenge in combating the cartels with the legitimate Mexican government is that cartel members have infiltrated most levels of the very forces which exist to fight them.? Simply throwing money at the problem with the Merida Initiative will not fix it.? We must support trusted and dedicated leaders to rebuild Mexico and its leadership strategically, while showing their citizens and loyal sovereign leaders the respect they deserve.

-annie