Wiston Papers

The proposed Federal Shield Law to protect journalists is a dangerous idea.

Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; …

The First Amendment is a 45-word affirmation of our forefathers’ belief in the sanctity of fundamental human rights.  A faith in people as the repository of freedom and effective government.  And those basic rights include the absolute guarantee to worship, speak, publish and protest without fear of recrimination.

So absolute is this guarantee that the Bill of Rights declares in elegant, concise, powerful, unambiguous prose that “Congress shall make no law...”

    The portion of the First Amendment that specifically covers journalists is a mere 78 characters--sufficiently short to tweet yet strong enough to support a republic based on individual liberty.

Despite this 200-plus year bedrock underpinning our nation, some contemporary journalists are willing to risk their freedom and weaken the nation’s foundation. They are mesmerized by a Pied Piper who promises additional protection for the press with the Free Flow of Information Act of 2013--the so-called Federal Shield Law now before Congress.

So seductive is the proposal that some news organizations have succumbed and openly support it.  This tryst is a dangerous liaison and journalists intoxicated by its allure will, I fear, regret their actions when they awake to the sober ramifications of their unwise embrace.

Senate Bill 987 and House Resolution 1962 purportedly erect barriers to prevent federal entities from compelling journalists to reveal protected information. At first blush the proposed legislation appears to befriend the media.  But closer examination reveals the risk to journalists and to society if the measures are adopted.

Section 2, lines 8--25 specify clearly the circumstances under which journalists are not protected by the shield.  The bills use vague language such as “has exhausted all reasonable alternative sources...” and “there are reasonable grounds to believe...” (I have underlined the key words.)

The Federal Shield likewise states that journalists can be forced to reveal protected information when the government “has established that the interest in compelling disclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in gathering and disseminating the information or news at issue...”

Furthermore, if enacted, the proposed legislation permits subpoenas or court orders as long as they “shall, to the extent possible be narrowly tailored in purpose, subject matter and time covered...”

What constitutes “reasonable alternative sources?”  Who decides if there are “reasonable grounds to believe?”  How does one know when the “interest in compelling disclosure clearly outweighs the public interest?”  When are we certain that a subpoena or court order has been “narrowly tailored?”  How is that measured and by whom?

The proposed Federal Shield Law is ambiguous. It delineates by omission the circumstances under which the federal government can compel journalists to divulge their sources.  Lawmakers inevitably will acquiesce to the demands of competing voices in shaping the final measure--many of whom do not have the best interests of the press at heart.  

Journalists are better served by fighting to uphold the absolute freedom of the press they now enjoy as clearly articulated by the First Amendment rather than lobby for legislation that holds more risk than security.  

The genius of our forefathers is evident in the beauty, simplicity and boldness of the Bill of Rights.  Let’s honor their wisdom by upholding the liberties we have  and know.

The proposed Federal Shield Law is unnecessary and potentially dangerous.  Americans of all persuasion should reject it.

   

Steve Coon

May 30, 2013

Wiston Papers

We must secure our borders.  Or is it already too late?

The Senate is considering the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Modernization Act--the so-called immigration reform bill.

Assuming passage of the proposal by the upper chamber, the House of Representatives would then take it up.  

Obscured  by the contentious partisan discussions in the Senate and narrow focus of media coverage on unlawful immigrants, is an unseen issue that threatens the very soul of America.

It may be too late for the Democrat-controlled Senate to correct this oversight, but the Republican House still has time to combat this  insidious danger.  To do so, the lower chamber must convene hearings that may look something like this:

HOUSE HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL McCAUL OF TEXAS:    “Ladies and gentlemen, we have called this joint meeting of the House Homeland Security Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee, Intelligence Committee, and the Oversight and Government Reform Committees.

“With us today are the respective committee chairman Ed Royce of California, Mike Rogers of Michigan, and Darrell Issa of California.

“The purpose of this hearing is to determine how to keep America’s borders safe from Australian, British and Canadian actors and media executives who have invaded our shores and have displaced Americans performers and media elite.

“We have supboenaed the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Nepolitano to testify and explain why the administration has failed to stem the flow of these foreigners.”

Australians Simon Baker of the “Mentalist,” Poppy Montgomery of “Without A Trace” and “Unforgettable,” Yvonne Strahovski of “Chuck,”  and “Dexter”...

NAPOLITANO:    “Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to clarify the misunderstanding that actors from abroad have replaced United States performers.”

Canadians Emily VanCamp of “Revenge,” Corey Monteith of “Glee,” Mia Kirshner of “The Vampire Diaries,” Jim Kerry of “The Truman Show,” “Mask”...

NAPOLITANO:    “The fact is, gentlemen, that immigrants from these ABC countries of Australia, Britain and Canada, have taken acting jobs that Americans don’t want.”

Britains Hugh Laurie of “House,” Nicollette Sheridan of “Desperate Housewives,” Matthew Rhys of “Brothers and Sisters,” Joely Richardson of “The Patriot”...

REP. ROYCE:    “But isn’t it true, Madame Secretary, that some of the most popular recent American movies and television shows star Australian, British or Canadian actors?  For example, English actor Daniel Day-Lewis received an Academy Award for playing the part of American President Abraham Lincoln. A Brit masquerading as an American.   Does that seem fair to you?

Daniel Day-Lewis in "Lincoln," Damian Lewis in "Homeland," Alan Cumming, "The Good Wife," Ed Westwick of "Gossip Girl"...

NAPOLITANO:    “With all due respect, Chairman Royce, fairness is not the issue.  President Obama is on record as promoting faster immigration for those persons most qualified to fill the competitive jobs the United States requires to restore our economic preeminence.  The popularity of the motion picture “Lincoln” and the millions of dollars spent by Americans who flocked to the theaters across the nation  to see the film demonstrate dramatically--pardon the pun (chuckles)--the wisdom of this immigration policy.”

Australian Portia de Rossi of “Arrested Development” and “Better off Ted,” John Noble of “Lord of the Rings,” and “Fringe,” Rachel Griffiths of “Six Feet Under,”  and Jesse Spencer of “House” and “Chicago Fire”...

REP. ROGERS:    “Secretary Napolitano, the Obama administration claims to have strengthened security along our border with Mexico by hiring more border patrol agents and extending the length of the wall under construction there.  Meanwhile our northern border is as porous as Swiss cheese and hoards of Canadians are slipping across.”

Canadians Michael J. Fox of “Back to the Future” and “Doc Hollywood,” Pamela Anderson of “Baywatch” and “V.I.P.” Stana Katic of “Castle,” and Martin Short of “Mars Attacks!” and “Saturday Night Live”...

NAPOLITANO:    “The United States and Canada enjoy a long history of harmonious, peaceful co-existence based on a common cultural and historical heritage including our British colonial ties and English language.  The vast majority of Canadian immigrants have entered America legally and have contributed to our nation’s artistic enrichment.  True, Mike Meyers may not be a good example, however...”

REP. ISSA:        “Artistic contributions aside, my concern is the British editorial impact on our news organizations.  With virtually no effort by your agency to control their arrival, scores of Brits have sneaked into our nation and taken control of key executive media jobs.  The fact that millions of Americans receive news, information and opinion shaped by English journalists frankly scares the bejeebers out of me.”

Britains Deborah Turness, president of NBC News, Mark Thompson, chief executive of The New York Times Company, Joanna Coles, editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan, and Tina Brown, editor of Newsweek and The Daily Beast...

NAPOLITANO:    “Although I share your concern, I must stress that it is the responsibility of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to patrol our nation’s shores and borders.  That is not a Homeland Security obligation.

“Nevertheless, my agency is working closely with the Department of Justice to monitor communications between journalists and their sources.  To date we have subpoenaed  the telephone records of the Associated Press and identified at least one reporter for Faux News...uh, rather...Fox News as a co-conspirator and...(SHUFFLING THROUGH HER NOTES)...no, wait these are Susan Rice’s talking points on Benghazi...ah, here we are.  (CLEARS HER THROAT)  “As I was saying...”

Steve Coon

May 29, 2013

Wiston Papers

“A collegium acutioribus”

OMINOUS MUSIC

FADE IN TO DIMLY LIT ROOM WITH A WIDE-SHOT OF THREE PERSONS STARING UNEASILY AT EACH OTHER.

CLOSE-UP OF A MAN LOOKING AT HIS DESK AND RUBBING HIS CHIN.

CLOSE-UP OF WOMAN WITH BLACK READING GLASSES AND A TWITCH OF HER MOUTH AS HER EYES DART NERVOUSLY FROM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER.  

CLOSE-UP OF SECOND MAN--WITH RECEDING HAIRLINE AND NEATLY TRIMMED BEARD--OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO REMAIN CALM AS HE STARES INTENTLY AT THE MAN BEHIND THE DESK.

CLOSE-UP OF SECOND WOMAN WHO IS COLORFULLY DRESSED WITH LARGE, DANGLING EARRINGS AND A SLIGHT SMILE.

CUT TO MEDIUM SHOT OF MAN BEHIND DESK--UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT DR. OLIVER GETTRICH:

FADE MUSIC UNDER:

GETTRICH:    “We’ve got a serious problem.”

FIRST WOMAN--ARTS AND LETTERS DEAN, DR. IRIS GOODLETTER:    “I agree.  The light and temperature in this room are reminiscent of Edgar Allen Poe’s dark romanticism as exemplified by ‘The Cask of Amontillado.’”

SECOND MAN--COMPUTER AND MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMS DEAN, DR. CHANG BAO TECHRIGHT:   “If I may respectfully disagree.  The Wi-Fi connection is the problem.  I can’t get any text messages in this room.” (Fiddling with his cell phone)

SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES DEAN, DR. MARIA GUADALUPE ROSA-GREEN:  “You’re both mistaken.  It’s the physical and psychological constraints of our setting that are not conducive to optimum cognitive tasks.”

GETTRICH:      (Shouting)  “No, no, no, damn it.  It’s money!  That’s why I called you all here.  We’re hemorrhaging money and we’ve got to stem the flow.  There’s too many expenses and not enough cash to fund everything!”

ROSA-GREEN:  (Smiling arrogantly) “Technically you have to stanch a hemorrhage not stem it.”

GOODLETTER:  (Removes her glasses and proclaims seriously) “And the correct grammatical structure should be ‘There ARE too many expenses instead of there IS.  It’s subject-predicate agreement, of course.”

TECHRIGHT:    (Looks up briefly from his cell phone) “Generally Acceptable Accounting Principles would dictate that your assets most likely are best determined by adhering to the Revenue Recognition Principle that...”

GETTRICH    (Interrupting) “I don’t give a rat’s ass about any of that crap.

“ROSA-GREEN:    “Technically rat’s ass should be Rattus Norvegicus Anus, but rectum sometimes is used to...” (Stops in mid-sentence under Gettrich’s withering stare.)

GETTRICH:    “Shut up all of you and listen.  The Board of Regents is threatening to shut us down if we don’t get our financial house in order.  In simple terms, we’ve got to figure out how to teach all of our students with less money.   (Leaning back in his chair).  So talk to me.  Give me your ideas.”

ROSA-GREEN:    “We could maximize efficiency by assigning students with discrete IQs to different classes.”

GETTRICH:    (Taking notes) “Good, good, I like it.”  What else?”

TECHRIGHT:    (Still fiddling with his cell phone) “We could actuate our curricula to program content based on demographic criteria.  That would eliminate unnecessary duplication and ineffective course content across multiple classes ”

GOODLETTER:    (Looking more nervous and mouth twitching more noticeably) “Composition and exposition are individualized activities. And creativity cannot be replaced by technology.”

ROSA-GREEN:     (Leans toward Goodletter and says cattily)  “Oh, come on, Goodletter.  No one believes that bull.  Even a robot could write better than most of our students.”

TECHRIGHT:    (Switching to his iPad) Dean Rosa-Green is quite correct.  There have been significant advances in robotic-generated prose--especially in sports stories.  And now we can even use computers to grade writing.”

GOODLETTER:    (Her face turning red, removes her glasses angrily)  “This is outrageous.  The National Council of Teachers of English last month publicly declared its opposition to robot-evaluation of writing and I agree strongly.”

GETTRICH:    (Waving his hand to quiet everyone)  “We’re getting off track.  I like the idea of separate classes for the smart and dumb kids.  How do we do that?”

ROSA-GREEN:  (Smiles again)  “Well, I prefer differentiated cognitive capabilities, but you can determine  each student’s IQ with a simple visual test.”

GETTRICH:    (Dropping his pen)  “A what...”

GOODLETTER:    (Her nervousness replaced by defiance)  “Really, Rosa-Green, really?  We’re going to judge students by what they read?  You’ve got to be kidding!

TECHRIGHT:    “No, Dean Rosa-Green is right.  There’s evidence that you can measure IQ easily with an eye exam.  And it’s quite predictive of classroom performance.”

GETTRICH:    (Leans back in his chair, looks into the distance and rubs his chin)    “You mean that just by...”

ROSA-GREEN:    “Yes.  Have every student on the first day of classes put on a hat with electrodes, read the course syllabus, and “presto” you know within minutes by how they read how intelligent they are!”

TECHRIGHT:    (Shuts off his iPad and puts on glasses with an eye tap and adjusts his wearable computer)     “That’s exactly the process.  Kids love these electronic gadgets.  Just ask them to wear an eyetap like this one while they read the course outline and it sends the data directly to the university’s computer center for processing.”

GOODLETTER:    (Looking skyward)    “And the next day every student would be assigned to different classrooms based on how well he/she read the syllabus?  That sounds ominously like George Orwell’s “1984.”  President Gettrich, you’re not seriously considering this Big Brother scenario are you?”

GETTRICH:    (Swivelling nervously in his chair)  “Well, we have to cut expenses if we’re going to survive.”

TECHRIGHT:    “This plan does, in fact, save money and improves teaching.”

GOODLETTER: (Dubious but softening)    “How exactly does it improve learning?”

ROSA-GREEN:    “First, the reading IQ test quickly identifies the learning potential of each student and assigns him/her to the appropriate class.”

TECHRIGHT:    “Second, we can eliminate many of our adjunct faculty by delivering virtual lectures using avatars, which our students will love.”

ROSA-GREEN:    “Third, these virtual lectures will be programmed to deliver demographically- and intellectually-targeted material based on the Perceptive Radio technology used by the BBC.”  Each class gets a different lecture.

GETTRICH:    (Perplexed)    “The perceptive what...?”

TECHRIGHT:    “Perceptive Radio.  The BBC has developed software that changes the story plot of a radio program based on who the listeners are and their location.”

GETTRICH:    “You mean...”

ROSA-GREEN:    “Exactly.  Fewer teachers because we’re using avatars and virtual lectures instead of real people.  We don’t have to pay them.”  

TECHRIGHT:    “And we program the avatars to deliver content appropriate for each student’s intellect.  Lower IQ students get the robots.  And we can teach the smart students ourselves.””

GETTRICH:    “Yes, that would save money indeed.”

ROSA-GREEN:    “It get’s even better. We can even begin to make money.”

GETTRICH:    (Leans forward, smiling, toes tapping)  “I’m all ears tell me more.”

ROSA-GREEN:    (Continues triumphantly) “First, the reading IQ test quickly identifies exactly the type of students we want to come to the university.

In fact, you could weed out the cognitively challenged applicants by having potential students read specific content on our website then ask them a few questions based on what they read.  We’d know the intellectual capability of students before they even came to campus.”

GETTRICH:    (Smiling enthusiastically)    “The bright kids get in; the dumb ones don’t.”

GOODLETTER:    “That seems draconian, but interesting.”

TECHRIGHT:    “We can then charge higher tuition because our school will soon become a destination for the academic elite who will boast that they were accepted by our institution.”

GOODLETTER:        “True.  There would be better writers in our classes. That would be a nice change I agree.”

GETTRICH:    (Slaps his knees happily)    “Excellent!  That’s just the ticket.  We’ll do it.”

GOODLETTER:    (Stands up, marches quickly to the door, then turns to face the group)    “President Gettrich you’ll have my resignation within the hour.”

GETTRICH:    (Surprised and disappointed)    “Why?  I sensed that you were beginning to warm to the idea.”   

“GOODLETTER:        “Hell, I love it.  It’s a great plot for my next novel.  And I’ll make millions on the movie rights. But in my story a 12-year-old girl posts an online virtual university, tests IQs, programs the avatars, and puts you clowns out of businesss because she runs the whole operation from her parents' garage. (Puts on dark sunglasses and strikes a celebrity pose).  “Ciao, ciao, baby.”

CAMERA CUTS TO MIDDLE SHOT OF REMAINING PERSONS ALL WITH SHOCKED EXPRESSIONS.

OMINOUS MUSIC UP FULL

FADE TO BLACK

-0-

CLOSING CREDITS

BBC PERCEPTIVE RADIO

http://bit.ly/16Wm3Nq

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH

http://bit.ly/ZEhLWP

ROBOTIC NEWS STORIES

http://bit.ly/1273dSP

VISION TEST FOR IQ

http://bit.ly/Z7ihfj

Steve Coon

May 26, 2013

Wiston Papers

The Triple Threat to President Obama.  How serious?

Political controversy seems to erupt in Washington in summer.  Every year journalists find some story to run with when the town would otherwise be silent.

This summer of discontent has brought us a “perfect storm.” An unusual confluence of three simultaneous crises has Republicans, Democrats, and the news media all pointing fingers.

Republicans continue to accuse the Obama administration of dereliction of duty before the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Lybia last year then lying about its causes afterward.  Four Americans died that day.

Both political parties are angry that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) singled out conservative political groups for extra scrutiny and that the White House either was complicit at worst or at least asleep at the wheel.

And news organizations are outraged that the  Justice Department used secret subpoenas to seize telephone records between Associated Press (AP) reporters and their sources about a thwarted terrorist plot.

Some pundits are already speculating that President Obama is a lame duck because of these scandals—that his presidency is irrevocably doomed barely four months into his second four-year term. The latter claim is nonsense, of course.  Let’s  take a closer look at this  Triple Threat—terrorism, targeting and tampering.

TERRORISM:  

The facts surrounding the attack on the Benghazi consulate are clear.  At least one American diplomat in Libya feared possible violence there last year following the release of a film in the U.S. that mocked Muhammad the Profit.  No extra security was sent and angry Muslims stormed the consulate as well as the American embassy in Cairo on September 11.

The State Department described the Benghazi attack as a “spontaneous protest.”  That was the official line that State, the White House and CIA all promoted and United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice was asked to carry their water to the Sunday morning television talk shows.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was conveniently absent as the administration hung out Ms. Rice to dry and sabotaged her diplomatic career.

We now know that the protests were, in fact, a carefully orchestrated terrorist attack against an inadequately defended diplomatic mission.

TARGETING:  

We learned earlier this month that the IRS office in Cincinnati singled out conservative political organizations for extra review during last fall’s presidential campaign.  President Obama has labeled the actions as outrageous, promised accountability, and the interim IRS chief will resign in June.

As usual, Congressional hearings quickly were convened, the expected partisan grandstanding occurred, and those who should have been in charge denied responsibility.  Some have compared this scandal to the Nixon Watergate and wonder about the degree of White House involvement.

TAMPERING:

The  Justice Department originally asked AP not to publish a story about a thwarted terrorist plot that the wire service had confirmed.  In the interest of national security, AP complied with the request until notified by the government that the threat had passed.  The wire service then published the news but later discovered the government seizure of its reporters’ phone calls.

Justice officials defended their telephone surveillance of AP by alleging that the conversations put the nation at risk.  Journalists argued that the government violated the First Amendment and demanded passage of a media shield law to prevent future occurrences.

Some perspective is required on this Triple Threat.

First, there are nearly 300 American embassies and consulates throughout the world.  In an increasingly dangerous international environment, the State Department receives diplomatic communiqués everyday expressing security concerns.  How many of these do you take seriously and how do you decide which request deserves increased protection from a finite number of military security forces?  Under such circumstances some mistakes are inevitable and in this case tragic.

Yes, Ambassador Rice lied to the press because the White House and State Department screwed up.  But that is the extent of the crisis.  Prolonged partisan bickering serves no good purpose.

Second, did the White House order the IRS to lean on Tea Party and other conservative political organizations?  Several congressional hearings are trying to determine that.  Previous administrations stretching back decades have employed executive branch agencies to perpetrate political dirty tricks.  Whether President Obama was involved or gave direct orders seems unlikely.   This is not Watergate.

What is indisputable, however, is that some over-zealous civil servants certainly acted unethically and perhaps illegally.  The question is why?  The ongoing inquiries are warranted.

Third, the prospect of government spying on American citizens including journalists is chilling.  Despite often irritating reporting practices by some news organizations, the U.S. press enjoys First Amendment protection and the Justice Department’s secret subpoenas of AP phone records are clearly unconstitutional.  

But news organization kneejerk demands for a national shield law are a mistake.   Any Congressional law will reflect competing voices—some of which will not be in the best interests of the press.  Two clichés are appropriate here: “The devil is in the details” and “be careful what you wish for.”

Steve Coon

May 23, 2013

Wiston Papers

Vacation plans 2013

VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED

“That’s it.  I give up,” John conceded as he slowly descended into his chair.  “I can’t keep up with these 2013 daily celebrations.”

“Whoa, you haven’t even gotten to my day yet,” waitress Beverly reminded him.  “National Waitress Day on the 21st, remember?”

“Won't happen.  I already spent too much money last week,” John muttered.  

“Then you obviously won’t want any of our three coffee specials for this week--Parchment and  Kappi Royale Robusta and Monsooned Malabar,” Beverly boiled as she marched off.

“That’s what I need,” John agreed, “bring me the Marooned Malabar.  I’d love to be alone on a desert island.”
      "Monsooned!" Beverly stormed.  Monsooned!"
      "Whatever," John exhaled gloomily.

“Sounds like someone could use a vacation,” I smiled at the prospect and savored my first sip of Kappi Royale Robusta.

“Exactamundo, buddy. I need to get away,”  John chugged his Monsooned.  

“Well, it’s almost summer and people are making vacation plans,” I looked dreamily into the horizen.”

“That’s why I brought these travel brochures,” John quickly spread out several flyers on the table as I barely rescued my cup.

“There are great spots like Yellowstone with its geysers, hot springs and Grizzly Discovery Center,” I suggested good-naturedly.

“Burning water and man-eating animals don’t really appeal to me.”

“Washington, D.C. has lots of free attractions like the Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument and Smithsonian museums,” I mentioned culturally.

“Nah, it’s too politically toxic.  I want to avoid politicians.”

“OK, how about San Francisco’s Embarcadero, Mission and Castro districts,” I noted gaily.  

“Yeah, well its hilly and Alcatraz seems confining.”

“I know,” I mentioned breezily, “there’s the Windy City Chicago with its baseball teams and shopping.”

“Don’t think so.  Too close to home. And the White Sox and Cubs both blew it last year.”

“How about Las Vegas?” I gambled. "You might Dig This,"

“No, no, no,” John motioned excitedly to Beverly for a refill.  “I’m looking for something unique like this Love Land in Korea or Amora Sex Theme Park in London.”

“Lover boy, you’d be better off renewing your spirit in seclusion at  Orlando’s Holy Land,” Beverly counseled as she piously restored our cups.

“But if I go to England I could see Dickens World.  Yeah, I should book that trip.”

“I’d prefer the World Chocolate Wonderland in China,” I pondered sweetly.

“It’s certainly better than the slave camps of Grutus Park in Lithuania or Memory Park in Haiti,” John groaned oppressively.

“John, a space cadet like you, would love the Apex Resort in Roswell, New Mexico,” Beverly hovered before dropping the bill. “And leave a big tip before you take off.  Or is that too alien for you?”

Steve Coon

May 15, 2013

Wiston Papers

The time for immigration reform is here

Summer in Washington promises to be even hotter than usual this year.  Not from climate change.  But generated instead by the contentious, partisan, often disingenuous debate over proposed immigration reform before Congress

The “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Modernization Act” (Senate Bill 744) already has raised the temperature on Capitol Hill along the ideological divide between liberals and conservatives.  A chasm long separating those who want to tighten our borders against unlawful entry and those who promote robust immigration to boost America’s economy and intellectual competitiveness.   Not surprisingly the debate already has produced more heat than light.

Co-authored by four Democrats and four Republicans--the so-called “Gang of 8”--the measure attempts to resolve the disparate issues of secure borders and legal status for guest workers.  It would also resurrect the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).  Popularized among its advocates as the “Dream Act,” DACA promises a fast track to United States citizenship for nearly 2-million unauthorized Latino/a  children who came to America as children.

Immigration reform is a hotly-contested polemic that  at best pits opposing intellectual advocates in the battle for policy supremacy.  At its worst, the controversy reveals an ugly undercurrent of ethnic and racial bigotry with an equal mixture of national paranoia and xenophobia.  Even the language contributes to misunderstanding and emotional reaction: illegal aliens, undocumented workers, unlawful immigrants, unauthorized arrivals.

The normally respected conservative think tank Heritage Foundation fueled the flames last week when it published a controversial study arguing that the proposed immigration bill would cost trillions of dollars.  The beneficiaries of immigration reform, the authors claim, will be poorly educated, unlawful arrivals with limited work skills.  By permitting this, the measure will encourage the wrong types of immigrants--those who will add to America’s already overburdened welfare state.  

Instead, Heritage argues, the type of immigrants the U.S. most needs are asked to wait for years to enter the country legally thus depriving the nation of badly-needed, highly-educated, skilled employees who will add to the country’s financial coffers rather than deplete them.

The blowback was immediate and harsh. Both conservatives and liberals pounced on the conclusions and denigrated the study’s methodology.  One of the two authors resigned.

The Washington Post columnist David Nakamura said Heritage co-author Jason Richwine’s departure followed criticism of the study’s “racially charged conclusions” about immigrants with “...less education and lower IQs.”  

Although I, too, am critical of the study, I’ve read the 102-page original report--twice--and find no statements to support these allegations.  Rather, my criticism is about the calculations employed by the researchers.

Yes, I know the proponents of equitable reform want to promote faster immigration of highly-educated persons who bring badly needed skills to American high-paying jobs.

And, yes, such arrivals would pay more taxes and the benefits-taxes ratio would be more in balance with this group than with poorer immigrants.

Nevertheless, the number of highly-skilled immigrants--under the best of circumstances because of their comparatively small numbers--would generate far fewer tax dollars in the aggregate.

Furthermore, there are already millions of undocumented workers who pay taxes on their income.  At the same time, we have millions of of American-born citizens who are unemployed, receiving welfare benefits, yet not paying taxes.

As one mathematical expert told me, the Heritage study errs in part because it “...compares a net total (the increased revenue) to a gross total (the overall cost of benefits), which is wrong...”

Early efforts to change the nation’s immigration laws have stalled in Congress on more than one occasion--most recently in 2007.  And today there is no shortage of opinions or studies regarding the latest proposal in the U.S. Senate as evidenced by the controversy surrounding the Heritage conclusions.

COMPETING VOICES:

    Those who clamor for greater border security claim we are overrun by an illegal invasion of Mexicans.  Not true.  That traffic has declined significantly in recent years.  (See Woodrow Wilson Research Center)

    Those who complain that undocumented workers take jobs away from Americans are wrong.  There are no long lines of U.S. citizens applying for jobs in the kill rooms of meat packing plants or anxious to clean public bathrooms or prepared for the backbreaking work of harvesting the nation’s fruit and vegetable crops. (See Center for American Progress).  Further studies show that the immigrant labor force actually has saved some rural communities. (See Ripon Society)

    Advocates of tighter immigration laws argue that unauthorized residents increase the crime rate in American cities.  The data are mixed. (See Center for Immigrant law Enforcement and Center for Immigration Studies)

    Unlawful workers do not reflect American values and do not assimilate.  Wrong again.  The assimilation patterns of today’s immigrants are not unlike the history of other groups including Northern Europeans.  And there is clear evidence that new arrivals contribute to our diverse culture.  (See Aspen Institute,  Cato Institute, and Russell Sage Foundation)

   

    The need for immigration reform is long overdue.  Current laws are antiquated, exclusionary and punitive.  They are based on an unfounded fear of foreigners.  Such laws make it too difficult for highly-educated persons with critical skills to reach America’s shores. Instead such restrictions encourage  the impoverished, poorly-educated desperate for a better life to cross our borders illegally.

    The Dream Act that would be included in the current proposal answers that need. It would grant amnesty to immigrant children and young adults who are in an unfair legal purgatory through no fault of their own.  Many of whom, in fact, are the very “best and brightest” advocates seek for a competitive America. These immigrant children are already here, let’s open the doors for them to contribute.

Unlike 2007,  the atmosphere in Congress this year appears more favorable for passage of some form of comprehensive immigration reform.  

Long-range forecasts are always risky.  However, despite often bitter partisan disputes on other controversial issues, there seems to be an undercurrent consensus that some measure will reach President Obama’s desk.  But with so many competing voices, what the actual bill will look like on arrival is uncertain.

One thing is very clear.  The current immigration system is not working--it must be fixed.  Now is the time.

Steve Coon

May 13, 2013