Monday, June 25, 2018

Trump, the Democrats and the Illegals

The President acceded to the media storm as well as probably to the
feelings of himself and his immediate family and has now ordered that
the children of aliens caught sneaking over the border may remain in
the detention centers with their parents. The new policy does have
problems in that it conflicts with a previous judicial decision
precluding children remaining in such detention for more than 20 days.
This decision from the liberal 9th circuit appeals court resulted from
a case brought forward by advocates for the illegals so it's unlikely
they will be satisfied by the President's decision. It appears that
what these militants want is a return to the previous policy of "catch
and release" in which those crossing the border without permission
were simply given an appointment for a future court appearance and
released into the country. Very few such persons ever returned for
their hearing, which isn't surprising considering that they felt
comfortable flaunting U.S. law in the first place.

The administration's zero tolerance policy requires treating entry
into the country outside the legal entry points as the illegal act
that it is, in keeping with our immigration laws, as well as those of
most other countries in the world. The cases of those legitimately
seeking asylum from political oppression or violent unrest must be
addressed but it appears that only a small minority fit into that
category and even in such cases asylum seekers are obliged to apply at
a legal entry point. Those caught illegally crossing the border will
now be detained until their cases can be adjudicated, and unless they
are legitimate asylum seekers will be returned to their country of
origin.

The new procedures are costly and time consuming but are in keeping
with the law and make more sense than what went on before. "Catch and
release" has resulted in an influx of massive numbers of unskilled,
non-English speaking individuals into our population whose whereabouts
and means of support are largely unknown. There has been a recent
estimate of 50,000 per month being caught at the border and presumably
many more escape detection. And of course, aside from the recent
furor, the great majority of minors sneaking in are unaccompanied.
Such individuals live in the shadows, often working at low paying jobs
without benefits, with for example their medical care relegated to
emergency rooms or the free clinic where I volunteer weekly (so that I
know something of what I speak).

What the demonstrating "immigration advocates" seem to really want is
unfettered entry into the country. They do not distinguish between
legal and illegal immigration. They seem to feel that the U.S. should
not have the right to determine its own immigration policies. They
hold up signs saying such things as "Humans are not illegal". Under
cover, this view appears to be shared by some in the business
community who benefit from uncomplaining cheap labor. Another major
factor in this situation are the governments in the countries of the
migrants who welcome the money flowing back to their homes as well as
the social problem release valve and therefore seem to encourage the
migration. Mexico, despite its own strict immigration policies, seems
to have no problem permitting a large flux of migrants through its
territory en route to the U.S.

The immigration position of the Democrats is obscure. It appears that
at present they are mostly trying to placate the left wing of their
party since there are widely available past videos showing both Bill
and Hillary, President Obama, Leader Shumer and Speaker Pelosi all
decrying the evils of illegal immigration. They presently are
primarily advocating a rejection of whatever the President wants,
regardless of the fact that the policies he is advancing were primary
reasons why he was elected. But what is it they do want? They reject
the building of a wall, saying that it's too expensive and won't be
effective but their attitude suggests that their real fear is that it
will be effective. They call for "comprehensive immigration reform".
But what does that actually mean? Certainly our present immigration
laws are outdated and should be revised. And the issue of how to
handle the millions of illegal immigrants already well entrenched in
our country is a serious one. But it seems incomprehensible that they
actually favor continuing the situation of easy access across our
southern border of large numbers of unknown individuals, not to
mention drugs and other nefarious things? We know what President Trump
wants. They should state clearly what they want so that in the coming
mid-term elections we will have a basis to choose.

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Thoughts on the Big Summit. Trump vs Kim

Successful deals are not successful because of complicated paperwork (a la the Iran Deal). When I was in practice I made lots of deals with other colleagues, including several years of sharing office space with 3 others, and never did anything but a handshake. On the other hand I signed a complicated contract with a big medical company, which I won't name, and got screwed. Deals work when both sides get something they want that they would otherwise not have, not because of complicated diplomacy.

What's in it for Kim. Well it appears that throughout the last 3 administrations the Norks kept working and now have Nucs and ICBM's, and a year ago were showing off their prowess. Their problem, however, is that Trump loudly made it known that if Kim dared to push his red button that it would be the last thing he ever did. (I love it that Trump does his negotiating in public). Kim isn't a religious fanatic like the Mullahs so I don't think that result was too appealing to him, but he could still sell his technology and make a few bucks. But "how you gonna keep him down on the farm after he's seen Paree", or even better S. Korea and Singapore. (How about the background scenes of Singapore on TV.) Trump pushed the real estate value pretty hard and how do you ignore that. I'll bet Kim liked it and has a few visions of sugarplums dancing around in his head.

So what do we get. Well the elimination of an unscrupulous regime with Nucs is a no brainer. But a prosperous N. Korea, less dependent on China for its every breath and morsel of food would also not be a bad outcome. We would like that as well as S. Korea, Japan and the other players in the region, but what about China. It's said they like having a local puppet to screw us up, but I don't know how much of a prize it is with a desperate population and crazy scientists playing around with Nucs right next door. I don't know much about Nucs but they've got to be tricky in the wrong hands. Also I think we have more leverage over China than we give ourselves credit for. Who else is going to buy all the stuff on Amazon.

I think Trump just might pull it off. It's all very public so we'll know soon enough whether Kim is just joshing around. I don't think Trump is in it for a Nobel Prize and that he'll walk away in a New York minute if there's any horseplay on Kim's part. I read his "Art of the Deal" and just finished Conrad Black's biography. The guy is a master strategic thinker and dealmaker and after a year he knows the job better and now has a great foreign policy team. Anyone who still thinks he's a moron and a fool should reconsider.