On The Young Turks, we explained in two parts how the proposed fence on the border between Mexico and the US is completely useless and helps politicians get more money for their campaigns. First, we explain why there are huge holes in the fence:




You can read more about Ray Hunt's sweet deal here on Think Progress. Then The Texas Observer has even more details on how politicians make money off of the companies that will be building the fence, even though it will be worthless with all the holes in it. Here's quick explanation of how all the people in DC make money while our taxpayer revenue is wasted:




How does this help you if you want the fence built or if you don't want it built? It doesn't. It screws us all because it wastes money for no reason other than to make people with connections even richer. This system is broken. We have to find a way to get the influence of money out of politics, otherwise these people will rob us blind forever.

Watch More Young Turks Here

Every election year has them: the provocative social issues that can destroy a candidacy. In 2004 it was gay marriage that upended Kerry-Edwards in close swing states like Ohio. Earlier this year driver's licenses for illegal immigrants threw Hillary Clinton for a loop.

It's obvious what the next hot button issue is going to be. Watch below to find out...


And now for our poll (props to mo-NEEK-a on option #4):

The Times today has a story that makes the U.S.'s divisive immigration debate look downright cordial.

The Swiss People's Party, the most powerful party in Switzerland's Parliament, has been promoting itself with a poster in which three white sheep standing on the Swiss flag kick a black sheep away. The tagline: "To Create Security."

Surely, this was the glaringly racist and eerily Nazi-like work of a rogue ad exec? Nope. The Times reports that the SVP is all about this kind of propaganda:

When I set out to blog, I certainly didn't expect to be challenged. This whole interactivity thing really blows.

Paul Mirengoff has called my last posting on the immigration bill "unpersuasive." He also indicated I used the word "dumb" too many times when in fact I only used the word "dumbocracy" (a fairly nifty pun) once. Rest assured Paul and I will have words at this year's Newsbloggers July 4th picnic in Wilkes-Barre.

Most stingingly he writes that I believe the American people are too stupid to understand the bill. That's nonsense.

Mo Rocca's discussion of why the immigration reform legislation failed in Congress is unpersuasive. He contends that the legislation failed because it's complex -- too complex for the American people to understand now that President Bush has helped convert us into a nation of simpletons. (As aside, I haven't witnessed the word "dumb" thrown around as much as it is by authors on this blog since my daughters passed the age of seven).

When Joel Kaplan, Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff, offered a comprehensive briefing on the Immigration Bill before its demise earlier today, he made a lot of sense:

"Look, this is a complicated bill. It's taken some time for people to understand what's in there. Obviously, it's a compromise and it's in the nature of compromise that everyone doesn't get everything they want."

But here's the problem: We're not conditioned to hear complicated proposals from this White House. They've been more committed than any White House in memory to turning us into simpletons. The President has been proud of framing everything in black-and-white. (If "nuance" weren't a French word, would he hate it as much?)

Asked why he used to hold a position diametrically opposed to the one he was defending as mayor, Ed Koch replied, "Because I was an idiot!"

That's the great thing about being young. You can be an idiot, and then you can become more sensible when you grow up. Paying taxes, getting married, having kids, saving for retirement--these facts of life introduce an element of responsibility that simply isn't there when you're young.

Plenty of people will mock the headline of The New York Times' polling piece: "New Poll Finds That Young Americans Are Leaning Left." They shouldn't. What's laid out in the piece isn't all that obvious.

The results of the poll are interesting and confirm one thing I've learned from visiting lots of college campuses (other than that I didn't have nearly enough fun when I was actually in college): young adults are energetic, discerning, healthily skeptical, sometimes pessimistic - but not cynical. They don't skulk around with permanent sneers on their faces. They don't lack faith in anything higher than themselves. They don't automatically suspect that authority figures are motivated by the worst in human nature.

The poll jibes with much of conventional wisdom: On a host of issues, including immigration and universal health care, younger Americans are to the left of the country at large. They're already more favorable to gay marriage than the rest of America and moving steadily more so in that direction. (This makes sense since opponents of gay marriage have yet to offer any sensible objection beyond fear of cooties.)

Let the deportations begin! I've never understood all the nonsense about how we should be sympathetic toward illegals who came here to work and find a better life. We don't extend such sympathy to other people who routinely break the law. We aren't sympathetic, for instance, toward people who break into banks or hold up grocery stores in order to support their families and get a fresh start in life. We don't get teary-eyed about folks who engage in insider trading or bribery in order to send their kids to college and enjoy the American dream. We feel sorry for these lawbreakers, and than clap them into prison.

I'm an immigrant myself, and I'm pro-immigration, but that means legal immigration. I think the immigration plan being pushed by Bush and Kennedy is basically an amnesty program, even if it makes the illegals jump through a few hoops before they get their citizenship papers.

The case of Yaderlin Jimenez, however, is a special case. Her husband Alex Jimenez is one of the American soldiers missing in Iraq. Recently his military tags were found in an Al Qaeda hideout near Baghdad. HIs fate is unknown but not looking good.

Recently Jimenez applied for a green card for his wife Yaderlin, whom he married in 2004. The authorities discovered that in 2001 she came illegally to America from the Dominican Republic. Ordinarily I'd say we should start planning Yaderlin's farewell party. But here is a situation where her husband is, in a very literal way, putting his life on the line for his country. He may already have paid the ultimate price. Therefore I think the immigration people should make an exception and let Mrs. Jimenez stay. No general amnesty for illegals, but amnesty for her.

Acting under the direction of President Sarkozy, France's immigration minister has set tough new goals for arresting and deporting illegal immigrants. Sarkozy isn't anti-immigrant, but he campaigned on the need to control the flow of immigrants into France and to make sure that they were integrated into French society.

France intends to arrest at least 125,000 people this year for illegally entering the country. It wants to deport 25,000 illegals each year. Immigration minister Francois Fillon calmly says, "The French Republic will be extremely firm. It will ensure laws are applied. Naturaly the laws will be applied with the greatest humanity."

Can America learn from France? It wouldn't be the first time. Many Americans seem to have lost sight of the simple core principle of the rule of law. We say things like, "But they're such nice people" or "There's work for them to do here" or "Their motives for coming were good." All true, but irrelevant. Laws are made to be obeyed, and the problem with illegal immigration is that it is illegal.

That's why many Americans are upset at the current amnesty plan that is being pushed by President Bush, Senator Kennedy and others. It seems to look the other way on breaking the law, while pretending to be tough. Before we figure out what to do with illegals who are here, we have to figure out a way to stop the inflow of new illegals. If France can find the backbone, surely we can too.

George Packer of the New Yorker finds that George Bush just had the best week of his presidency. Packer, a fierce critic of the administration, found four things to like about Bush's recent performance -- his strengthening of sanctions on Sudanese companies, his request that Congress double funding for global AIDS programs, his decision to have diplomat Ryan Crocker meet with an Iranian diplomat, and his criticism of conservative critics of the pending immigration reform legislation.

The first two actions are consistent with a humanitarian spirit that has long-animated the Bush administration. For example, the president has frequently called for significant increases in the funding of global fight against AIDS, as in his 2003 State of the Union address when he proposed a tripling of such assistance. Indeed, I've been told (off-the-record) by leaders in humanitarian efforts on behalf of Africa, that Bush has been the best friend that continent has ever had in the White House. I guess it took Bush's negotiations with Iran and bashing of conservatives for Packer to notice.

Packer doesn't explain why he thinks the meeting between Ryan Crocker and an Iranian diplomatic was a good idea. Perhaps this view is well enough entrenched in certain precincts of Manhattan that it requires no defense. In my view, though, the meeting signaled U.S. weakness at a time when Iran needs to see signs of strength. President Kennedy once said, "let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." I suspect that Bush authorized Crocker's get-together out of deference to the State Department, not fear. However, it's unlikely the Iranians will perceive it that way. Here is a fuller discussion of why Bush erred in agreeing to these negotiations.

Finally, Packer is delighted that Bush attacked "the demagoguery of right-wing critics" of his immigration reform package. Packer fails to explain what is demagogic about conservative criticism of the 400 page legislation -- this looks like another instance in which Manhattan orthodoxy substitutes for analysis. As I argue here, the administration's criticism is not justified.

President Bush probably takes no comfort in knowing that if he demonizes those who normally support him, he can get half a good word (Packer's praise is full of enough caveat to maintain his standing in Manhattan) from one member of the liberal intelligentsia. If Bush does, he should read the rest of Packer's piece in which he endeavors to consign the Bush presidency to the dust-bin of history. That effort will be the subject of my next post.

UPDATE: Lou Dobbs responds to his critics...

For a little while now, the CNN anchor Lou Dobbs has been claiming that illegal immigrants bring a host of problems into the United States, including leprosy.

Evidently, illegal immigrants were one of the main causes of the soaring leprosy rate, which went from only a hundred-odd cases a year to 7000 in the last three years. Seven thousand! That's an awful lot of lepers! The only problem is that the figure isn't true at all. A few weeks back, during a piece on 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl questioned the statistic, pointing out that it seems to be entirely untrue, in the sense that there is absolutely no proof for it, and that the available information seems to point in the opposite direction.

Dobbs admitted that the statistic was misleading if not entirely false. Then, the very next night, he hopped back on the air at CNN to reiterate and emphasize the immigrant-related leprosy rate. As David Leonhardt of the New York Times wrote, Dobbs "has never acknowledged on the air that his program presented false information twice. Instead, he lambasted the officials from the law center for saying he had."

This kind of behavior can really make someone unpopular in the news business. It can even make a guy a leper. So what gives? How can someone have such flagrant disregard for the truth? Is it an isolated incident or part of a pattern? Should he be permitted slips now and again? Should everyone? What standard should he be held to?

Here's a good piece on Dobbs from my magazine, the New Yorker. Below are the videos addressed above.