California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

Peace is Not Just the Absence of War

by John Lawrence

As an advocate for a Department of Peace, I do not advocate eliminating the Department of War (Defense Department) altogether. I think both are necessary but in a more balanced way. Most efforts toward peace in the world should take place outside the arena of war, that is as a preventative to war. This includes economic development in parts of the world that are liable to gang control. In fact I would advocate the use of the US military to go after the gangs that are controlling certain parts of the world, for example in Mexico where gangs are trafficking humans to the US border and controlling the inflow of drugs into the US. Haiti is another candidate for the use of the US military to eliminate the gangs while the Peace Corps is helping with economic development. In areas of the world that don't have mature institutions that can provide security for the populace, the US military could provide that while the Peace Corps is building infrastructure. The two should operate hand in hand. What China is doing with its Belt and Road Initiative is instructive. China is winning friends and influencing people by building infrastructure in many parts of the world. But much more needs to be done that China is not doing. Low level infrastructure such as clean water and sanitation needs to be built out. Approximately half the world does not have clean water or adequate sanitation facilities.  3.6 billion people are still living with poor-quality toilets that damage their health and pollute their environment. Inadequate sanitation systems spread human waste into rivers, lakes and soil, contaminating water resources.China is building high level infrastructure such as ports, railroads and trains. The US should complement their efforts.

There are around 750 U.S. military bases in at least 80 countries. Most of these bases are unnecessary and represent a waste of money. They are also sitting ducks for attacks by the likes of ISIS. They should be eliminated and the resources redirected elsewhere. With US sea borne and satellite military resources there is no need for land based resources. The efforts should instead be put into developing  infrastructure both in terms of economics and in terms of political institutions. What is important is helping to create stable institutions in parts of the world where instability results in chaos ^e.g. Haiti. Also if life was good in countries where there is a lack of stability and economic development, people would not be flocking to the US and European borders and asking for asylum. So military assets as well as Peace Corps assets could work hand in hand. Once war breaks out these efforts at creating peace in the first place are useless. A Department of Peace needs to have a diplomatic aspect as well as the Peace Corps division. Also person to person exchanges help to build understanding. In fact the largest efforts need to be made with those who are considered our worst enemies.

As an anti-war protester in the 1960s, I am still one today. Peace efforts or efforts at creating peace in the world today do have both an economic and a military component. In some countries peace workers would be slaughtered by gangs if they weren't adequately protected by the US military while they go about doing their jobs. So while I am anti war, I am not anti military. I just think that the balance of human and financial resources is completely out of whack. Less money and manpower (womanpower?) needs to be devoted to the military and more money and womanpower needs to be devoted to the Department of Peace which should include the Peace Corps (economic development), the diplomatic corps (institutional development)  and exchange corps ( person to person friendship). Less effort needs to be spent on proving to the rest of the world that the US way is the best way and more effort needs to be spent on creating stable societies with the economic and institutional resources so that people in all parts of the world can have comfortable and secure lives.

Bringing the rest of the world up to economic and institutional speed is of utmost importance today because, unless the whole world is operating cooperatively, it will be impossible to do much about our common enemy - global warming. In fact we have met the enemy and it is us. Economic development in the developed world has proceeded in such a way as to have created the global warming crisis. Now it must proceed in such a way as to eliminate it. Sustainable development and environmental responsibility should be the order of the day. Countries that have vast fossil fuel resources have no incentive to curtail the economic development of those resources if they are considered to be pariah nations by the rest of the world. Nations that are considered pariah nations have no incentive to convert from war time expenditures to peace time expenditures if they are not brought into the community of nations in a respectful way. Nations that are at war right now have no incentive to negotiate a peaceful resolution if their interests and concerns are not taken into account.

Off the Top of My Head

The Bipartisan Senate Border Legislation is Not Sufficient Even if Passed

by John Lawrence

Simply put it doesn't go far enough, and I'm a Democrat and a supporter of President Biden. I've written previously that Biden should go full Trump at the border. This vaunted Senate bill, that Trump doesn't want the House to take up and implement, is a step in the right direction. However, it doesn't address the fact that it doesn't really secure the border. It deals with what to do after people enter the country illegally and getting them processed more quickly. It has a provision that the border can be shut down after the number of illegal entries reaches 5000 people a week. Really? The goal should be zero illegal border crossings. In order to do that, security at the border needs to be stepped up. Although a border wall has become a political football, a wall in and of itself is necessary but not sufficient. There should be no place where someone can just walk across the border. There is already a wall along much of the border. It needs to be strengthened, but, more importantly, it needs to be augmented by electronic means including satellite surveillance. The national guard needs to be deployed because the border patrol does not have sufficient manpower to deal with the situation there. More manpower along the border is of utmost importance.

Here's an alternative. People seeking asylum should be required to apply with an app on their phone while remaining in Mexico or another country or to apply at a legal port of entry. People entering the country illegally should not be tolerated. Anyone entering illegally should be instructed to apply for asylum through the app or at a port of entry and immediately deported or at least denied entry onto American soil. They shouldn't be allowed to remain in the US until their case is heard. In fact their cases could be heard while they wait in a third country, not in the US. The point is that illegally entering the country and applying for asylum shouldn't be tolerated. The Senate bill allocates a lot of money for more judges and more ways to speed up asylum hearings so that cases can be decided in 6 months rather than 6 years as is the present case. This is an improvement over the present situation but not good enough. More money needs to be spent on securing the border itself rather than in processing people who have entered having crossed the border illegally. It's a question of how to best spend money to resolve the situation, Rather than spending more money processing people who have entered illegally, border security should be beefed up making it very difficult if not impossible for people to enter illegally in the first place.

Stepping up border security dos not prevent people from applying for asylum, and, therefore, does not violate the asylum law. It just channels potential asylum seekers to apply for asylum in a manner other than crossing the border illegally and then asking for asylum. Now Trump would just deport everyone crossing the border illegally and the hell with the asylum law. He just would give them no path to entry. However, when someone from abroad applies for asylum, they are not guaranteed that, even if they do qualify and are successful, they will necessarily wind up in the US. So right now what is important is border security in and of itself. All the other talk about a pathway to citizenship and all the other aspects of immigration and naturalization that Democrats want to throw into the mix, those things, while important, are not of paramount importance right now. Border security is. In that respect the Senate bill was apropos. On the other hand legal immigration is important. Most Americans are for legal immigration and so am I. However, it needs to be in an orderly process, not the chaotic situation of people crossing into the US because of a porous border. No other country would tolerate it and neither should the US.

Off the Top of My Head

Biden Should Go Full Trump at the Border

by John Lawrence

There has been so much obfuscation about the situation at the border. Let's clarify one thing: the amnesty law gives anyone the right to ask for amnesty even if they set foot in the US illegally. This law needs to be changed. Any migrant that sets one foot in the US can ask for amnesty and then be assigned a case to be heard 4 or 5 years down the road. Meanwhile, they get to live and work in the US and probably disappear into the shadows never to be seen or heard from again. Even if this law were to be changed, people would still try to get into the country illegally and not be detected. That's why the border security needs to be ramped up both physically and using electronic and/or satellite surveillance. The goal should be to eliminate illegal immigration totally and completely so that the only alternative from the migrant's point of view is LEGAL immigration. This should be an orderly process and it should be made easier to migrate legally. In fact legal immigration should be increased.

The problem is that deporting any person who sets one foot in the US and asks for asylum is illegal according to the current asylum law. Of course Trump glosses over this fact. Biden should too. What's the worst that could happen? Biden would be sued for violating the asylum law. He should let it happen. It'll be tied up in court till after the election when, hopefully, Democrats will control all three branches of government and can then remedy the situation with the appropriate legislation. That legislation would change the asylum law so that people would have to apply for asylum and/or legal immigration in an orderly manner and not just set a foot in the US to do so. In fact anyone caught entering the US illegally would automatically be deported which is approximately Trump's position. Of course Trump wants to use this as his campaign Trump card so he tells his lackeys in Congress not to pass a new immigration law now. That's why Biden should just go ahead and act as if.

Biden should just do it. Automatically deport anyone entering the US illegally whether or not they are asking for asylum. Make it clear that there is an orderly process for asking for asylum and that entry to the US will not be allowed until that process has been completed. After all approximately 80% of those asking for asylum are denied it. The asylum law is being totally abused by migrants. The number one issue for Trump voters is the situation at the border, namely, illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants are adding to the homeless crisis all over the country. We can't even adequately house all the American citizens who are homeless, yet we are supposed to house, feed and take care of thousands of illegal immigrants who ask for asylum. It's not right. It's ridiculous.

Biden needs to take the wind out of the sails of the number one campaign issue for Trump and/or Republican voters. Just go ahead and fix the borders with or without Congressional help. Let the Supreme Court object. Who cares? It'll be a moot issue anyway after the election, and it'll be tied up in court for years. Then Biden should take the number 2 issue away from the Republicans and that is tax cuts. Tax the rich and give tax breaks to the middle class. The right approach to these two issues should secure the election for Biden.

Off the Top of My Head

The Asylum Law Needs to be Changed

by John Lawrence

Right now anyone who can set foot in the US illegally can ask for asylum and have their day in court 4 or 5 years from now. So they get a free pass to live in America for at least 4 to 5 years. The asylum law was not set up to accommodate economic migrants which approximately 80% of them are. The result is that the border is overrun with desperate people seeking to set a foot on US soil. I am a proponent of legal immigration. However, there can be legal immigration without the border being overrun with essentially bogus asylum seekers. Even if the asylum law is changed, people will still attempt to get into the US illegally. For that reason the border needs to be strengthened whether by physical or electronic barriers. I hate to say it but Trump, despite his buffoonery about building a 30 foot wall and getting Mexico to pay for it, has a valid point, and I say that as a Democrat and one who thinks Biden is one of the greatest US Presidents. There is much confusion about legal immigration, illegal immigration, refugees, migrants and asylum seekers. Suffice it to say that the advantages of living in the US compared to any other country in the western hemisphere except Canada are such that people will risk their lives to get here, and that legal immigration pales in comparison with illegal immigration plus asking for asylum which legalizes getting across the border by any means necessary according to existing law.

Many plans have been put forward to stem the flow of illegal border crossers such as creating safe zones in other countries from which people could apply for asylum, setting up courts in other countries to separate out those who have valid claims of asylum and the approximately 80 per cent that don't. Also US aid to countries to create better conditions so that people don't seek to come to the US in the first place has been suggested. There is something to be said about processing people in Mexico or some other south or central American country to determine if they have a legitimate claim of asylum. However, it won't work as long as people can set foot in the US illegally and then ask for asylum which is how the law now stands. Immigration courts need to be streamlined. There shouldn't be 4 or 5 year back logs. Processing asylum seekers needs to be expedited. As it now exists, the system is ridiculous and people hoping to live in the US legally or illegally are exploiting the laws.

So the border needs to be strengthened in terms of both physical and electronic barriers - not necessarily Trump's 30 foot wall which can be fairly easily breached. Electronic barriers and increased manpower could be much more effective. Why isn't satellite imagery being used to detect border crossings? A situation needs to be created whereby it's not in anyone's interests to cross the border illegally because they will be caught and prevented from entering the US and also possibly because, after being caught, they will lose whatever rights they had for legal immigration or asylum seeking. At the same time legal immigration needs to be stepped up to augment the US work force which is badly in need of an increased number of workers in jobs that immigrants typically do. The situation at the border is representative of the dysfunction of American government in that a proper solution cannot be implemented due to the train wreck of American politics which makes it seemingly impossible to create an orderly border so that people and commerce can proceed in a legal manner.

Off the Top of My Head

The Immigration Debacle - Part 3 - The Difference Among Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Illegals

by John Lawrence

A refugee is someone who wants to emigrate to another country, but applies typically from a refugee camp in a neighboring country. If granted refugee status, they can not determine exactly which country they will be granted admission to.  An asylum seeker is like a refugee in the fact that they want to leave their home country, but unlike a refugee they attempt to set foot in the country they want to go to. Some of them do this legally by approaching a port of entry and requesting asylum. They are then processed and given a court date at which time a judge will decide whether or not to give them asylum status. It all depends on whether or not they can convince the judge that they are fleeing violence in their home country. Fleeing poverty is not a good enough reason. Approximately 80% are denied asylum status and ordered to leave the US. Others enter the US illegally ^i.e. by crossing the border but not at a port of entry. If they are picked up by border patrol, they can then also request asylum. Others enter illegally and manage to evade the authorities altogether. They are the true illegals.

The problem from the asylum seeker's point of view is 1) their court date may be way off in the future and they are given no government assistance until after they are granted asylum and 2) their chances of getting asylum are very meager. So this situation incentivizes people to enter illegally and try not to get caught especially if they have family in the US who can shelter them. There are a number of ways to change the dynamics of this situation - some favored by conservatives and some favored by liberals. To really solve this problem what is needed are elements from both sides. The policy of letting anyone who sets foot in the US claim asylum should be changed. People should be incentivized to request asylum at a port of entry or better yet ask for refugee status in their home country or a neighboring one. The border wall should be strengthened to make it very unlikely that anyone can get in illegally. The fact that someone can wade across the Rio Grande, set foot in the US and request asylum is ridiculous. This is where I side with conservatives. On the other hand the process of requesting asylum at a port of entry needs to be expedited. These cases should be decided in a matter of days not months. If you have to hire more judges and build more court rooms, so be it. Furthermore, the policy for granting asylum should be liberalized to the extent that reasons other than "fleeing violence" are acceptable. Fleeing the results of climate change should be factored in as, more and more, that will be one of the main reasons for migration. So the goal should be discouragement of illegal entry by means of a strong border wall whether physical, electronic or both and encouragement of asylum seekers to do so at a port of entry.

Another component of immigration policy is that quotas should be greatly increased for refugees and immigrants in general. In fiscal year (FY) 2020, slightly more than 707,000 immigrants became lawful permanent residents (LPRs, also known as green-card holders), the lowest number since 2003 and the first time the figure dropped below 1 million since 2013, when 991,000 people obtained green cards. This number needs to be greatly increased. If more immigrants are let in legally, they will disincentivized from coming illegally. Also the US is greatly in need of workers for those jobs that immigrants typically do. The bracero program used to let Mexican farm laborers come to the US on short term labor contracts to do farm work. These kinds of workers are in short supply today and liberalizing immigration laws should help to bring much needed workers to the US legally.

Amnesty International estimates that there are 70 million refugees worldwide. Some of the largest refugee camps are in Africa. Refugees are hoping to be resettled in a country where they can experience basic human rights. Some are willing to leave these camps and risk life and limb to get to the European Union or the US. Many have drowned in the Mediterranean trying to get to Italy or Greece. Similarly, many have lost their lives trying to get to the southern border of the US. Southern border states as well as Italy and Greece are upset that they have to bear the brunt of illegal immigrant crossings.

The third thing the US could do is to ameliorate conditions in Central and South America as well as Haiti and some other Caribbean countries that are contributing to the high volume of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. This could be done by using the US military to root out the gangs which are threatening peoples' lives and doing the human trafficking as well as drug smuggling. Financial and economic help could reduce the impact and burden of poverty in those countries. The Peace Corps could help people to build their lives from the ground up rather than just giving their governments money which could be siphoned off by corrupt bureaucrats. Ameliorating poverty and the negative effects of climate change by improving infrastructure and creating a safe environment will reduce the number of those seeking admission to the US. Processing asylum seekers and refugees in countries outside the US so that immigrants don't have to trek thousand of miles or pay a coyote to traffic them would cut the pressure on the southern border.

Off the Top of My Head

The Immigration Debacle - Part 2

by John Lawrence

By international and American law, any foreign national has the right to present themselves at a port of entry and apply for asylum. To be given asylum one must prove that they have a fear of persecution in their home country. One also has a right to request asylum if they enter the US illegally ^i.e. swim across the Rio Grande or getting into the US by means of a weak link in the border fence. Title 42, implemented under the Trump administration allowed persons who entered illegally to be deported because of COVID restrictions. Also in a deal worked out with the Mexican government asylum seekers were required to remain in Mexico while applying for asylum. Title 8 which preceded Title 42 allowed asylum seekers to remain in the US until their court date at which time they were either granted asylum or deported. The Trump administration with Title 42 had a makeshift, half way solution to the border crisis: they discouraged people from coming to the southern border. However, they did nothing to address the root causes and conditions that incentivized this problem. It's true that the southern states shouldn't have to bear the brunt of immigrants legal or illegal coming across the border any more than Italy or Greece should have to bear the brunt of immigrants seeking entry to Europe from Africa and the Middle East. The current UNHCR law regarding refugees was implemented after WW II and is need of revision since the current situation is far different than the one prevailing then.

Applying for asylum status at a port of entry or entering illegally requires a lengthy and dangerous journey from a home country and possibly paying a coyote thousands of dollars. However, the US southern border is a magnet for asylum seekers because of the current law. That law should change in order to encourage migrants to apply for asylum in their home country. Unfortunately, their home country is the one they're fleeing from presumably because of a threat to their lives. One solution is for the US, hopefully with the cooperation of central American and south American countries which are providing most of the asylum seekers, to go into those countries and do whatever is necessary to root out the gangs which are threatening the violence from which the asylum seekers are escaping. The US could provide safe zones in those or neighboring countries to which asylum seekers could flee and apply for asylum or refugee status there. The US should give cash and/or other incentives to keep asylum seekers in or relatively close to their home country until their cases can be heard in court. Courts should also be located in these safe zones so they would not have to travel to the US.

At the same time that asylum seekers are incentivized to apply in or near their home countries, they should be disincentivized from coming to the US southern border. This could be done by denying a court hearing for asylum status to those presenting themselves at a port of entry or entering illegally. This relieves the pressure on the southern border. This would be in violation of the international law regarding asylum seekers, but would not foreclose the possibility of seeking asylum. To the extent that the US improved the conditions which created the need for asylum in the first place, the number of asylum seekers would diminish. In the present era many seeking to immigrate to the US or Europe are doing so to escape economic conditions in their home countries. Economic immigrants are already ineligible for asylum under international law. However, if developed and advanced countries like the US and European Union would devote major resources to improving economic conditions in poorer countries, this would decrease the need for immigration. At the present time and going forward immigration will also be driven by climate change as people lose the means to support themselves due to floods, fires and drought. The US, as the major cause of greenhouse gas emissions, has a responsibility to ameliorate conditions in countries which are suffering most from global warming.

UNHCR most recently estimated that, by mid-2021, for the first time in recorded history, the number of forcibly displaced persons is now 89.3 million with over 27.1 million refugees. The advanced countries - that means Europe and the US -  need to coordinate their policies and increase their quotas for the admission of refugees. The number worldwide will only increase due to climate change. Refugees are not the same as asylum seekers. They are mostly in refugee camps around the world while asylum seekers present themselves at the borders of a country they wish to immigrate to. Those seeking asylum in the US are not entitled to government benefits such as TANF or Medicare until they have actually been granted asylum. It is only then that they can get a green card and other benefits. However, the court system is so backlogged that this might take years. The system as it exists now needs to be thrown out and revised, and that should start by changing the law at the UN so that both a humane and a realistic system can be implemented based on current and projected conditions.

Off the Top of My Head

Replace Halloween With a Day Honoring Mother Earth and Its People

by John Lawrence

Americans will spend $10 billion on Halloween this year, a day dedicated to goblins and ghouls. There is enough scariness in the world. What the world needs is not a day dedicated to rotting children's teeth, but a day dedicated to preserving the environment so that they have a stable and hospitable planet to live on. Instead of "trick or treat" how about a day of "how can I serve my neighbor?".No other country celebrates Halloween and makes such a big deal and spending spree out of it. In Latin American countries they celebrate Día de Los Muertos, the Day of the Dead honoring their ancestors. This is totally different from American Halloween which celebrates nothing except the selfish acquisition of candy. American Halloween has no socially redeeming value whatsoever.

What are we teaching children by celebrating Halloween? That American life is all about the acquisition of stuff - in this case candy. And if we don't get what we want we will do harm to others. Instead of a trick why not teach children to do a favor for others. Let's eliminate tricks from Halloween. It's teaching children that it's OK to do harm to others if they don't get what they want. Enormous sums of money are spent on Halloween which could be spent for more constructive purposes like providing funds to help the growing number of refugees around the world including the refugees internal to our own country which the homeless surely are.

Greta Thunberg shines a spotlight on global warming every Friday with her school strike for climate. School Strike for Climate (Swedish: Skolstrejk för klimatet), also known variously as Fridays for Future (FFF), Youth for Climate, Climate Strike or Youth Strike for Climate, is an international movement of school students who skip Friday classes to participate in demonstrations to demand action from political leaders to take action to prevent climate change and for the fossil fuel industry to transition to renewable energy. Let's make Halloween a day for honoring future generations and Mother Earth. We could also make Halloween a school strike for peace because peace is necessary if the world is to cooperate in meeting the challenge of global warming.

The celebration of Halloween sends all the wrong signals to children. Instead of public service, it sends the message of selfish acquisitiveness. Instead of concern for others it sends the message that, if they don't get what they want, they will do you a disservice. Halloween has no redeeming value. It is just a spendfest on candy and costumes which money could be better spent on more worthwhile goods and services for themselves and others. Instead of candy, children should be taught about nutritional literacy and the value of eating healthy foods. But instead children are carefully taught to disregard any concern for others and even the dangers of self indulgence for themselves. Many eat candy until they get sick. Sugar has no redeeming nutritional value, and Halloween has no redeeming social value whether it be honoring our ancestors as the Mexicans do or honoring a planet suitable for habitation by our children and their children. The world is scary enough with the pandemic and climate change. Instead of honoring scariness, let's celebrate the redemption of the planet and the health of the global population.

Off the Top of My Head

Many Essential Workers are Undocumented

by John Lawrence, September 12, 2020

Trump said: "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. ... They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists." Guess what else they are? Essential workers. Most essential agricultural workers are undocumented. Immigrant field workers have been told to keep working despite stay-at-home directives, and given letters attesting to their “critical” role in feeding the country. They live in fear of being deported despite the fact that America now calls them "heroes." Heroes work here, and most of them are undocumented. They are ordered to go to work and risk getting COVID for minimum wages. What's wrong with this picture. Trump is in effect saying well OK you can stay for now as long as you keep picking our vegetables and packing our meat.

The New York Times reported:

For many workers, the fact that they are now considered both illegal and essential is an irony that is not lost on them, nor is it for employers who have long had to navigate a legal thicket to maintain a work force in the fields.

“It’s sad that it takes a health crisis like this to highlight the farmworkers’ importance,” said Hector Lujan, chief executive of Reiter Brothers, a large family-owned berry grower based in Oxnard, Calif., that also has operations in Florida and the Pacific Northwest.

Mr. Lujan, whose company employs thousands of field workers, described them as unsung heroes for guaranteeing that Americans have food security.

“Maybe one of the benefits of this crisis is that they are recognized and come out of the shadows,” said Mr. Lujan, whose company has been lobbying Congress to pass a bill that would legalize immigrant farmworkers.

About half of all crop hands in the United States, more than one million, are undocumented immigrants, according to the Agriculture Department. Growers and labor contractors estimate that the share is closer to 75 percent.

In addition to picking our vegetables and packing our meat, undocumented workers are also employed heavily in the construction and leisure and hospitality industries. They are building houses and cleaning hotel rooms in large numbers. So far from being a crisis in illegal immigration as Trump suggests, undocumented workers are keeping what remains of the US economy running in the age of COVID and taking chances with their lives in doing so. Oh and by the way they pay American taxes with no hope of ever getting social security. So when is Trump going to put up a big sign on his "wall" that says "Thank you Mexican workers for bailing out the US economy and keeping the food chain up and running."

Pew Research Center estimates that about 11.3 million people are currently living in the U.S. without authorization, down from a peak of 12.2 million in 2007. More than half come from Mexico, and about 15 percent come from other parts Latin America. CBS News reported:

Further studies show that the importance of this population of workers will only grow in coming years. For example, in 2014, unauthorized immigrants made up 24 percent of maids and cleaners, an occupation expected to need 112,000 more workers by 2024. In construction, the number of additional laborers needed is estimated at close to 150,000. And while only 4 percent of personal care and home health aides are undocumented, the U.S. will soon require more than 800,000 people to fill the jobs necessary to take care of retiring baby boomers.

So Trump can demonize "illegal aliens" all he wants to gain political points. Let's see his supporters who are irate about losing their jobs go to work in the fields picking vegetables and working in meat packing plants after all the undocumented workers are sent back to Mexico. And after he has exacerbated the relationship with China where American corporations have sent all the American manufacturing jobs, let's see if Americans will still have access to all the products they consume which are manufactured there. It sure didn't help that in the initial stages of the pandemic critical supplies were unavailable because most of them were manufactured in China. Antagonizing essential workers in the American economy as well as the US' major trading partner will only land up the US in a pickle in which not only food but consumer goods might be unavailable in the future.

Mexico Is Showing the World How to Defeat Neoliberalism

by Ellen Brown, Web of Debt blog, February 8, 2020

While U.S. advocates and local politicians struggle to get their first public banks chartered, Mexico’s new president has begun construction on 2,700 branches of a government-owned bank to be completed in 2021, when it will be the largest bank in the country. At a press conference on Jan. 6, he said the neoliberal model had failed; private banks were not serving the poor and people outside the cities, so the government had to step in.

Andrés Manuel López Obrador (known as AMLO) has been compared to the United Kingdom’s left-wing opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, with one notable difference: AMLO is now in power. He and his left-​wing coalition won by a landslide in Mexico’s 2018 general election, overturning the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) that had ruled the country for much of the past century. Called Mexico’s “first full-fledged left-wing experiment,” AMLO’s election marks a dramatic change in the political direction of the country. AMLO wrote in his 2018 book “A New Hope for Mexico,” “In Mexico the governing class constitutes a gang of plunderers…. Mexico will not grow strong if our public institutions remain at the service of the wealthy elites.”

The new president has held to his campaign promises. In 2019, his first year in office, he did what Donald Trump pledged to do — “drain the swamp” — purging the government of technocrats and institutions he considered corrupt, profligate or impeding the transformation of Mexico after 36 years of failed market-focused neoliberal policies. Other accomplishments have included substantially increasing the minimum wage while cutting top government salaries and oversize pensions; making small loans and grants directly to farmers; guaranteeing crop prices for key agricultural crops; launching programs to benefit youth, the disabled and the elderly; and initiating a $44 billion infrastructure plan. López Obrador’s goal, he says, is to construct a “new paradigm” in economic policy that improves human welfare, not just increases gross domestic product.

The End of the Neoliberal Era

To deliver on that promise, in July 2019 AMLO converted the publicly owned federal savings bank Bansefi into a “Bank of the Poor” (Banco del Bienestar or “Welfare Bank”). He said on Jan. 6 that the neoliberal era had eliminated all the state-owned banks but one, which he had gotten approval to expand with 2,700 new branches. Added to the existing 538 branches of the former Bansefi, that will bring the total in two years to 3,238 branches, far outstripping any other bank in the country. (Banco Azteca, currently the largest by number of branches, has 1,860.) Digital banking will also be developed. Speaking to a local group in December, AMLO said his goal was for the Bank of the Poor to reach 13,000 branches, more than all the private banks in the country combined.

At a news conference on Jan. 8, he explained why this new bank was needed:

There are more than 1,000 municipalities that don’t have a bank branch. We’re dispersing [welfare] resources but we don’t have a way to do it.  . . .  People have to go to branches that are two, three hours away. If we don’t bring these services close to the people, we’re not going to bring development to the people. …

They’re already building. I’ll invite you within two months, three at the most, to the inauguration of the first branches because they’re already working, they’re getting the land … because we have to do it quickly.

The president said the 10 billion pesos ($530.4 million) needed to build the new branches would come from government savings; and that 5 million had already been transferred to the Banco del Bienestar, which would pass the funds to the Secretariat of Defense, whose engineers were responsible for construction. The military will also be used to transport physical funds to the branches for welfare payments. AMLO added, “They are helping me. They are propping me up. The military has behaved very well and they don’t back down at all. They always tell me ‘yes you can, yes we do, go.’ ”

To concerns that the government-owned bank would draw deposits away from commercial banks and might compete in other ways, such as making interest-free loans to small businesses, AMLO countered:

There’s no reason to be complaining about us building these branches. … [I]f private banks want to build branches, they have every right to go to the towns and build their branches, but as they won’t because they believe that it’s not [good] business, we have to do it . . . it’s our social responsibility, the state can’t shirk its social responsibility.

Issues with the Central Bank

While the legislature has approved the new bank, Mexico’s central bank can still block it if bank regulations are breached. Ricardo Delfín, who works at the international accounting firm KPMG, told the newspaper La Razón that if the money to fund the bank comes from a loan from the federal government rather than from capital, it will adversely affect the bank’s “Capitalization Ratio.” But AMLO contends that the bank will be self-sufficient. Funding for construction will come from federal savings from other programs, and the bank’s operating expenses will be covered by small commissions paid on each transaction by customers, most of whom are welfare recipients. Branches will be built on land owned by the government or donated, and software companies have offered to advise for free.

About the central bank, he said:

We’re going to speak with those from the Bank of México respecting the autonomy of the Bank of México. We have to educate them because for them this is an anachronism, even sacrilege, because they have other ideas. But we’ve arrived here [in government] after telling the people that the neoliberal economic policy was going to change. . . .

There shouldn’t be obstacles. How is the Bank of México going to stop us from having a [bank] branch that disperses resources in favor of the people? What damage does that do? Whom does it harm?

AMLO has repeatedly promised not to interfere in the business of the central bank, which has been autonomous for the past quarter of a century. But he has also said that he would like its mandate expanded from just preserving the value of the peso by fighting inflation to include fostering growth. The concern, according to The Financial Times, is that he might use the central bank to fund government programs, following in the footsteps of Argentina’s former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, “whose heterodox policies led to high inflation and, many economists believe, the country’s current crisis.”

Mark Weisbrot counters in The New York Times that Argentina’s problems were caused, not by printing money to fund domestic development, but by a massive foreign debt. Hyperinflation actually happened under Fernández de Kirchner’s successor, President Mauricio Macri, who replaced her in 2015. The public debt grew from 53% to more than 86% of GDP, inflation soared from 18% to 54%, short-term interest rates shot up to 75%, and poverty increased from 27% to 40%.

In an upset election in August 2019, the outraged Argentinian public re-elected Fernández de Kirchner as vice president and her former head of the cabinet of ministers as president, restoring the 12-year Kirchner legacy begun by her husband, Nestor Kirchner, in 2003 and considered by Weisbrot to be among the most successful presidencies in the Western Hemisphere.

More appropriate than Argentina as a model for what can be achieved by a government working in partnership with its central bank is that of Japan, where Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has funded his stimulus programs by selling government bonds directly to the Bank of Japan. The BOJ now holds nearly 50% of the government’s debt, yet consumer price inflation remains low — so low that the BOJ cannot get the figure up even to its 2% target.

Other Funding Options

AMLO is unlikely to go that route, because he has vowed not to interfere with the central bank; but analysts say he needs to introduce some sort of economic stimulus, because Mexico’s GDP has slipped in the last year. The Mexican president has criticized GDP as the ultimate standard, advocating instead for a model of development that incorporates wealth distribution and access to education, health, housing and culture into its measurements.

But as Kurt Hackbarth warned in Jacobin in December, “To fully unfurl [his] program without simply ransacking other line items to pay for it will require doing something AMLO has up to now categorically ruled out: raising taxes on the rich and large corporations which, not surprisingly, make out like utter bandits in Mexico’s rigged financial system.”

AMLO has continually vowed, however, not to raise taxes on the rich. Instead he has enlisted Mexico’s business magnates as investors in public-private partnerships, allowing him to avoid the “tequila trap” that brought down Argentina and Mexico itself in earlier years — getting locked into debt to foreign investors and the International Monetary Fund. Mexico’s business leaders seem happy to invest in the country, despite some slippage in GDP.

As noted by Carlos Slim, Mexico’s wealthiest man, “Debt didn’t go up, there is no fiscal deficit and inflation came down.” In November 2019, the Economy Secretariat reported that foreign direct investment showed a 7.8% increase in the first nine months of that year compared with the same period in 2018, reaching its second highest level ever; and at the end of 2019 the peso was up around 4%. Stocks also rose 4.5%, and inflation dropped from 4.8% to 3%.

Partnering with local businessleaders is politically expedient, but public/private partnerships can be expensive; and as U.K. Professor Richard Werner points out, tapping up private investors merely recirculates existing money in the economy. Better would be to borrow directly from banks, which create new bank money when they lend, as the Bank of England has confirmed. This new money then circulates in the economy, stimulating productivity.

Today, the best model for that approach is China, which funds infrastructure by borrowing from its own state-owned banks. Like all banks, they create loans as bank credit on their books, which is then repaid with the proceeds of the projects created with the loans. There is no need to tap up the central bank or rich investors or the tax base. Government banks can create money on their books just as central banks and private banks do.

For Mexico, however, using its public banks as China does would be something for the future, if at all. Meanwhile, AMLO has been a trailblazer in showing how a national public banking system can be initiated quickly and efficiently. The key, it seems, is just to have the political will — along with massive support from the public, the legislature, local business leaders and the military.

_______________________

This article was first posted on Truthdig.com. Ellen Brown chairs the Public Banking Institute and has written thirteen books, including her latest, Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age.  She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com

Off the Top of My Head

What's Happening With the "Caravan"?

by John Lawrence, December 3, 2018

I think the caravan has melted away. Some have gone back home. Some have decided to stay in Tijuana and work. However, thousands have been living in miserable conditions in a sports arena. Mexico is starting to resolve the immediate problem, but is the US at least helping? I don't think so.

My source in Tijuana told me that immigrants from Central and South America were always welcome to come to Tijuana and work. According to him Tijuana is a city of immigrants. Being close to the US, financial opportunities abound. He thought that the "caravan" was a put up job organized by Trump supporters whether of the American or Latin American variety. He said that private buses took them from the southern Mexican border to Tijuana. They didn't walk. The shortest route would have been to Texas, but Tijuana, being close to San Diego, was more of a media hub.

He thought that, since there is no civil war in Guatemala or Honduras, the threat to their safety and security was overdone. Poverty yes. They were trying to escape poverty, but that's no reason to go to the US and apply for asylum. Poverty isn't a reason to grant asylum at least according to present day laws. If it was, half the world would be coming to the US. In short the whole thing was a publicity stunt organized by someone or someones for God knows what purposes. The visuals of small children being tear gassed at the border did not have the hoped for effect of outrage in the same way that the visuals of children being separated from their parents on the US side and put in detention facilities did.

On Sunday, November 25, the US-Mexican border was shut down "for hours" at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. The shopping center on the US side, the Las Americas Premium Outlets, located less than a mile west of the San Ysidro Port of Entry was shut down. Many Mexicans cross the border to shop there. A five-hour shutdown of the U.S.-Mexico border near San Diego last Sunday cost local businesses $5.3 million in lost revenue, but officials say the impact of the border’s closing has reverberated to other industries that depend on the massive flow of people traveling to and from Tijuana. Think of the economic damage if the border was shut down not just for hours but for days as Trump threatened. My contact had a lot of business cancellations. Mexican people who rely on cross border business will be very upset if the border is ever shut down again even if just for hours.

Mexico just has an election and the left leaning government of Lopez Obrador won. He was just inaugurated December 1. The Washington Times reported:

In one of his first acts in office, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has signed an agreement with his counterparts from three Central American countries to establish a development plan to stem the flow of migrants seeking asylum in the U.S.

The Foreign Ministry said Saturday that the plan includes a fund to generate jobs in the region and aims to attack the structural causes of migration from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

Thousands of migrants, mostly Hondurans, have joined caravans in recent weeks in an effort to speed through Mexico to request refuge at the U.S. border.

Dozens of migrants interviewed by The Associated Press have said they are fleeing poverty and violence in their countries of origin.

So the migrant situation is about to change thanks to the actions taken by Mexico itself, thanks to the first left leaning President in decades. Will the US help with this situation or just sit back and enjoy the results? The solution, of course, is economic development in Central America. This disincentivizes migrants trying to get in to the US, and, hopefully, makes for a better life for them.

Meanwhile, a Democratic controlled US House of Representatives will take effect January 1, just as the new left leaning Mexican government gets started. What this portends for future US-Central American relations can only be described as hopeful. Perhaps some intelligent and principaled  people can do something about the immigration situation instead of just exploiting it for political purposes.

 

Off the Top of My Head

Will the Border Be Open Today?

by John Lawrence, November 29, 2018

Today I go to Tijuana, and it's raining. I will pass through the same Port of Entry where the "caravan" is waiting to get into the US. I go there frequently because that's where my dentist is - Dr. Garcia at Baja Oral Center. I've had 2 root canals, a crown and an implant lately so I've been down there a lot. Today is the last visit for a while at least as Dr. Garcia will do the permanent fillings on the root canals. More and more people are going to Tijuana for medical and dental work. Why? The professionals there are just as good as those in the US or even possibly better and they don't charge you and arm and a leg ... only an arm. Ha. Ha. No, dental work in San Diego is outrageously expensive if you need anything other than a routine cleaning.

The broader point is that there is a lot of transborder business that goes on every single day. San Ysidro is the busiest Port of Entry in the world. I take people to and from the border as an Uber driver. Some people live in Tijuana and work in the US. Why? Rents and home ownership is cheaper  down there. They are building a lot of luxury high rise condos along the border. As Americans get priced out of home ownership in San Diego, it is wiser to buy a condo there and commute. San Ysidro is only about a 15 minute freeway drive from downtown San Diego.

The US better get its act together on immigration because the lack of an actual, workable policy regarding refugees, asylum seekers and everything else is affecting thansborder business. San Ysidro businessmen lost millions just because the border was shut down last Sunday for a few hours, and Trump is threatening to close the border permanently? That would be a disaster beyond measure. I just hope it doesn't get shut down while I'm down there today so I can't get back home.

But my potential suffering doesn't compare to the suffering of poor people from Honduras and Guatemala who just want a better life for themselves and their families. There are approximately 6000 of them holed up in a sports stadium in Tijuana. Some have given up and returned home despite the evident threats to their lives by the "gangs." Central and South America are in bad shape and their people are suffering. An American medical ship is giving help to Venezualans offshore that they can't get in Venezuela. If the US spent as much money on helping real people in its own hemisphere as it does on its military-industrial complex, there wouldn't have to be the drama of desperate people trying to get to the US for a better life for themselves and their families. Oh well, I guess the task of helping people in Central and South America will be left to China which is picking up the ball and running with it.

Off the Top of My Head

Disorder at the Border

by John Lawrence, November 27, 2018

Immigration should not be a political football stoking Trump's base and causing cries of shame among the Left. Now in addition to crying children separated from their parents, we have the visual of young children being tear gassed at San Ysidro. Let's get real, folks. Trump has a point and the Democrats should address that point. You can't have thousands of people charging the border to get across and seek asylum. There needs to be an orderly process for asylum seekers and getting into the US illegally and then asking for asylum is not it.

The asylum laws need to be changed for one thing. People should apply for asylum while remaining in their home country or they should apply for a visa, come here and then apply for asylum. Visa holders need to be tracked so they don't just simply overstay their visas like a lot do. Trump is right that the "catch and release" method of processing asylum seekers is a lost cause. People coming in illegally, then being caught, given a court date and then released doesn't work because many never show up for their court date. They just disappear into the vast sea of society.

The refugee crisis is a world wide event. As the earth shrinks in terms of habitable area due to climate change and as people from poorer countries gain access to the internet and realize how people live in rich countries and as continual wars wreak havoc and destruction, people from poorer countries and war ravaged nations want to get in. Europe has been relatively lenient in letting refugees in from war torn areas of the Middle East and Africa, many of whom are fleeing US caused wars and the results of those wars. Now Europe has a big problem with the rise of fascism because the local citizenry is rebelling against this policy of letting huge numbers of people in. It is creating real problems for them among which terrorism is probably the least.

The US has been relatively unscathed in the refugee problem so far, at least from Middle Eastern refugees. But let's give credit where credit is do. Trump has articulated a real problem for the US. Millions want to come here from Central America because we have a land border with Mexico and they want a better life regardless of the threat from gangs in their home country. Although I give Trump credit for recognizing this problem, I don't give him credit for politicizing it and uasing it as campaign fodder. But Democrats need to come to grip with this problem; Congress needs to come to grips with this problem. A real solution needs to be developed that doen't include building a wall or tear gassing babies. On the other hand you just can't let them all in. That would lead to the same social upheaval that Europe is experiencing.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican-American war in 1848 did not give Mexicans living in Mexico the right to move to the US. It gave Mexicans living in the territories ceded to the US (mainly Texas and the whole southwestern US) the right to remain and become American citizens although they had to declare their intentions within a year.

What the US should do is to give assistance to the peoples of Central America so they feel secure and safe in their own countries and do something to alleviate poverty there. Will the US do it? Not with Trump's attitude of "you're on your own, baby."

 

"These Are Prisons for Babies": Forcibly Separated From Parents, Youngest Kids Sent to So-Called "Tender Age" Detention

Published on Wednesday, June 20, 2018 by Common Dreams

Those who have visited the facilites describe "play rooms of crying preschool-age children in crisis." 

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer

 

5 Comments

The Associated Press reports that young migrant children forcibly separated from their parents are being sent to facilities that critics described as "prisons for babies." (Photo: @NIJC/Twitter)

Under the Trump administration's cruel and widely condemned family separation policy, immigrant babies and young children torn from their parents at the Southern border have been sent to a trio "tender age" shelters that, according to lawyers and medical professionals who have visited the South Texas facilities, feature "play rooms of crying preschool-age children in crisis."

"They've created a jail for babies," tweeted ThinkProgress editor and founder Judd Legum, in response to the "absolutely soul-crushing" Associated Press report. "Creating prisons for babies and toddlers is not just another screwed up policy. These are crimes against humanity."

These are prisons for babies.

Prisons. For babies. https://t.co/417dScJZLi

— Women's March (@womensmarch) June 20, 2018

As of Tuesday, at least 2,342 children had been separated from their families since May 5. Images of children in cages and audio of young migrants crying for their parents have fueled international outrage and demands that the administration immediately halt the policy, which critics say amounts to a serious abuse of human rights, and even torture.

With the number of children detained in U.S. custody expected to continue rising as long as the policy remains in place, the AP reports that the government plans to convert a fourth facility in Houston, despite protests from local leaders. Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner says the fourth facility is a warehouse that was used to house people after Hurricane Harvey, and could hold up to 240 children.

Turner has met with the contractor for the fourth shelter, Austin-based Southwest Key Programs—which is reportedly slated to make some $458 million off of operating child detention centers—to ask the nonprofit to reconsider the plans. At a press conference on Tuesday, Turner said he told the contractor: "I do not want to be an enabler in this process. I do not want the city to particiapte in this process."

Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner voiced opposition to a plan to house migrant children separated from their families at the border in a private facility in his city, saying he doesn't want to be an "enabler" of the Trump administration practice https://t.co/xoN842gUSM pic.twitter.com/nv9vhIHuJS

— CNN (@CNN) June 20, 2018

"The thought that they are going to be putting such little kids in an institutional setting? I mean it is hard for me to even wrap my mind around it," Kay Bellor of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, which organizes foster care and other services to migrant children, told the AP. "Toddlers are being detained."

Toddlers are being detained. Toddlers.

This is why we filed a class action. This is why we won’t stop fighting until families are reunited.#FamiliesBelongTogetherhttps://t.co/hHTpmBB7jB

— ACLU (@ACLU) June 20, 2018

The three existing facilities for young migrants are located in Combes, Raymondville, and Brownsville, and, according to the report, "have been rapidly repurposed to serve needs of children including some under 5."

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who recently attempted to visit a facility in Texas, called out Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen—who has been sharply ridiculed for lying about then defending the family separation policy, and even left a Mexican restaurant where she was dining Tuesday evening after being confronted by members of the Democratic Socialists of America's Metro D.C chapter.

Taking babies from their moms and putting them in mass shelters is horrific. @SecNielsen: Look in a mirror. Is this how you want to be remembered?https://t.co/i5YVxkJ4E8

— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) June 20, 2018

While the Trump administration continues to claim the policy is necessary to deter immigrants from coming to the United States and that the shelters are specially equipped to meet the needs of children—despite news reports to the contrary—as South Texas pediatrician Marsha Griffin, who has visited many facilities, concluded, "The shelters aren't the problem, it's taking kids from their parents that's the problem."

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow broke down on air Tuesday night while trying to read the breaking AP report to her viewers. Maddow addressed the moment in a series of tweets following the broadcast.

This is the clip of Rachel Maddow in tears when she found out about the report of "tender age" shelters for babies and young children separated from their parents.pic.twitter.com/ELMj1ylrwT

— Erick Fernandez (@ErickFernandez) June 20, 2018

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

Children Separated From Families: It's Happening All Over the World

by John Lawrence, June 19, 2018

There is a migrant crisis not only on the US southern border, but in Europe as well and it's ten times worse. There migrants are fleeing war torn countries that are victims primarily of US started wars in those countries. Even though the US is directly responsible, European countries are bearing the brunt of this crisis. Boatloads of people trying to land in Italy recently were turned away. They ended up in Spain. Many have drowned in capsized boats in the Mediterranean. European countries are trying to absorb all these people but not very successfully. There is a political backlash brewing because many of these countries want to preserve their ethnic identity and not be overrun by people from a different ethnic and religious background.

One way to stem this flood of migration is to make conditions livable in the migrants' home countries. Central Americans from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras are fleeing because of gang violence related to the drug and human trafficking trade. The US has no qualms about invading other countries so why doesn't it invade Central America and take out the drug gangs and cartels? They could also improve the economic conditions of peoples' lives there because poverty is a big reason why people migrate and a big reason why people join gangs. But the US is only interested in making Central America safe for corporate exploitation, not in improving peoples' lives who happen to be at or near the bottom of the economic spectrum.

The cartels in Mexico are a real threat to both Mexico and the US. If Mexico can't do anything about them, the US should step in. They are using migrants as pawns to distract the US border patrol and tie up US resources so they can smuggle in opioids now that their pot business has dried up.

The Federalist reports:

The cartels don’t just benefit from being paid by these migrant families desperate to get away from the violence in Central America. Every family group the cartels send across ties up the Border Patrol for hours. Back in 2014 when unaccompanied minors were flooding across in large groups, U.S. authorities were well aware that the cartels were taking drugs just a few miles upstream while they dealt with the minors, but there was nothing they could do about it. They were hamstrung by their own humanitarian policies.

There’s something going on here that brings to mind the ignorance of the U.S. military when it came to the early days of ISIS. It’s as if we refuse to acknowledge that the enemy reads the same media we do – that they can’t follow coverage of the issues, and understand how to manipulate the story lines to their advantage. That’s clearly what is going on here, and the Trump administration’s zero tolerance crackdown in response to this increased migration is playing into their hands.

When will the US take into account the larger picture of what is going on here? It is not enough to put these families through a review process and decide which ones should stay in the US and which ones should be sent back. If the US is concerned about what is happening in its own hemisphere, it should focus resources here not half way around the world. The US should step in and eliminate the gang and drug culture in Central America, create a safe and prosperous atmosphere for people there to live in, and then there would be no migrant crisis. Building a wall is just plain stupid. Creating prosperity and safe living conditions in Central America is the way to go.

The Absurdities and Alternative Realities of Republican Politics

by John Lawrence from the San Diego Free Press

The Republican political arena has become the theater of the absurd largely thanks to the emergence of Donald Trump as the new standard bearer of the Republican Party. He has stood all the rules on their heads and made a mockery out of political correctness. Somehow this has breathed fresh air into the stodgy world of Republican memes and mantras.

For example, let's take the birther controversy which the Donald was a big part of a few years ago when he and others made an attempt to prove that President Obama was not a "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution in order to be President. In fact, as Trump and others maintained, Obama was born in Kenya. Turns out not to be true.

Then enter Ted Cruz and The Donald is up to his old tricks maintaining that Cruz is not a natural born citizen since he was born in Canada. Makes sense since, if Obama had actually been born in Kenya, there would be no doubt that he was not a "natural born citizen" even though he was born to an American citizen mother which no one disputes. Cruz maintains that, since his mother is a "natural born citizen" he is also regardless of what country he was born in. It seems that the birther problem, although not pertaining to Obama, in fact does pertain to Cruz. How ironic! But then leave it to Trump to point out the obvious and destroy a political opponent in the process.

Mary Brigid McManamon, a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School, in an article, Ted Cruz is Not Eligible to be President, says:

Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.

The Constitution provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The concept of “natural born” comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept’s definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one’s country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. . . . [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

For that matter John McCain, the Republican who ran for President in 2008, was not a natural born citizen either. He was born on a military base in Panama. The Constitution does not make an exception for military bases, and they certainly are not a part of the territorial United States. Democrats shouldn't hesitate to attack Republicans on this issue especially since Republicans created so much misery about it for Barack Obama.

Since You Brought it up Republicans ...

If Cruz ends up being the Republican nominee, it would be up to Hillary or Bernie to make the birther case against Cruz. They would have to do it or they would be remiss in their duty. If they have to sue, let the suit begin. Republicans have no hesitancy about suing Democrats.

Remember George W Bush suing Al Gore and in the process becoming President even though Gore won the election. And Gore was too nice stepping aside "for the good of the country." Then look what happened. Bush lied us into war, took out Saddam Hussein and cast the whole middle east into turmoil with the result that ISIS is casting the whole western world into turmoil, not to mention hundreds of thousands dead and millions of refugees. "The good of the country"? I don't think so.

For nearly 10 years, thousands of conservatives have openly claimed President Obama is not an American citizen. With no evidence at all, they have regularly claimed that instead of being born in Hawaii, he was actually born in Kenya or even Indonesia, to his American mother and African father.

This is from the New York Daily News:

What’s wild is that the true story of Cruz — the one supported by him and by the facts — is actually the exact same fictional story that the birther movement has claimed for 10 years disqualifies Obama from being president.

On Dec. 22, 1970, Ted Cruz was actually born in a foreign country — Canada — to an American mother, Eleanor Darragh, and a father, Rafael Cruz, who was not an American citizen.

His father, born and raised in Cuba, actually did not become an American citizen until 2005. When Ted Cruz was born, his parents weren’t visiting Canada or working on a military base — they had lived there for years.

Now since there is doubt that a Republican running for President is a "natural born citizen," conservatives have their panties all in a wad to redefine what actually is a "natural born citizen." In other words their hypocrisy over this issue is written all over their faces. They unshamefacedly assert that, while Obama is not a natural born citizen since he was born in Kenya to an American mother, Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen since he was born in Canada to an American mother. I guess it has to do more with the fact that Canada is a predominantly white near neighbor to the US while Kenya is thousands of miles away and is predominantly black.

So while conservatives are willing to twist the words of the Constitution when their ox is being gored, they will in no way allow any such twisting regarding the Second Amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Well, what does that actually mean?

One interpretation would be that the right to bear arms should only be in the context of a well regulated militia. The militias extant these days are anything but well regulated. Therefore, the right of the people to bear arms necessarily needs to be infringed. Besides in 1776, they didn't have semi-automatic or full automatic weapons. Let the people's right not be infringed when it comes to the weaponry they had in 1776, but the weapons available today are definitely infringable. Conservatives are willing to twist and bend the Constitution when their interests are at stake, but are original constructionists when it's in their interests to maintain wording which in no way is applicable to todays' realities.

Donald Trump and The Wall

One of the most humorous Trump originated issues is the building of The Wall which infuriates the Left and gets cheers from the Right. The absurdity of the situation is that there is a wall already there. Has anyone been to San Ysidro lately? Looks like a wall to me. But all the Yahoo followers of Donald Trump don't already know this. They think it's possible just to walk back and forth across the Mexican American border at will, and Trump doesn't discourage them from thinking this. In fact he maintains that he'll even get Mexico to pay for The Wall. It led to one of the funniest skits on Saturday Night Live when Trump was hosting. In comes the Mexican President with a large Publishers Clearing House style check for The Donald and he says, "Here this is for The Wall."

Now since progressives are supposedly smarter than Trump's followers, why are they so upset over this issue when it is really a non-issue? Sure there are gaps in the wall. It isn't continuous along the whole Mexican American border, but it's there in one form or other along much of it so why is this even an issue? Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Work has been underway ever since. By April 2009 Homeland Security had erected about 613 miles of new pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border from California to Texas. This was during the Obama administration I might add.

To be accurate, Trump should have said, "I will complete the wall along the border," but this wouldn't have the same hyperbolic affect that stating the issue in such stark terms has. Nuances are not The Donald's strong suit. Or maybe they are for the effect he intends to achieve.

In the final analysis The Wall is a fig newton of Trump's imagination calculated to get his supporters cheering and make his detractors apoplectic. This issue is a pure contrivance calculated to rile up and antagonize on the one hand and to pander to people's fears on the other. It's a litmus test to see how your knee jerk reaction defines you as a progressive or a conservative and ignores the reality of what actually is.

Sure a wall could be built or more accurately the gaps could be filled in. Some say it would be prohibitively expensive at $30 billion. That's a fraction of what's being spent on the military-industrial complex which sucks in a trillion or more each and every year. The issue is just a non issue as advanced surveillance systems are already being used at the border and are being expanded and improved each year. Are progressives saying that the "wall" as it already exists should be taken down? I don't think so. Donald is right that every country has the right to protect its borders from encroachment.

Donald Trump and Anchor Babies

While Trump thinks that Cruz is not a natural born citizen since he was born in Canada, he also thinks that babies born in America are not American citizens if their parents are not.

This is from Politifact:

Donald Trump says his plan to roll back birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants will pass constitutional muster because "many of the great scholars say that anchor babies are not covered."

"Many of the great scholars" -- really? That comment caught our attention.

In case you need a refresher on birthright citizenship: As it stands now, any person born on U.S. soil is a citizen -- regardless of the parents’ immigration status -- because of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Trump has recently advocated for pulling back citizenship for illegal immigrants’ children. Some, like Trump, refer to these children as "anchor babies."

"The parents have to come in legally," Trump said, talking to reporters in New Hampshire Aug. 19. "Now we’re going to have to find out what’s going to happen from a court standpoint. But many people, many of the great scholars say that anchor babies are not covered (by the 14th Amendment). We’re going to have to find out."

Considering that about 300,000 babies are born to illegal immigrants and become citizens every year, we wondered if Trump is right to say that "many" scholars think this isn’t necessarily a constitutional right.

We won’t dig into who’s a "great" scholar, but we will look at how widespread this position is and if "many" say the 14th Amendment isn’t an impediment to Trump’s plan.

The 14th Amendment became part of the Constitution in 1868 following the Civil War. The amendment established birthright citizenship and equal protection under the law for all citizens, making newly freed slaves full American citizens.

The relevant clause reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Today, this clause is widely understood to mean that the Constitution requires that everyone born on U.S. soil -- regardless of parents’ citizenship -- is automatically an American citizen. We polled a number of experts in immigration law, and each one told us that this is the mainstream view among legal scholars, without question.

"We're going to have to find out," no Muslims entering the US "till we find out what's going on," "many scholars say...", Trump has a way of always qualifying his hyperbole in such a way as to make it sound more reasonable.

It seems that, although Trump may be right about Ted Cruz, he has his head up his ass regarding anchor babies unless you want to change the Constitution. And if you're going to change the Constitution, you might as well change the outdated and dangerous Second Amendment as well to be in line with today's realities regarding guns. Something along the lines of "... a citizen has no absolute right to gun ownership except those guns that were available when the Constitution was signed ..."

So according to Trump, if you're born in Canada, you're not a natural born American citizen, and if you're born in the US, you're not an American citizen either if your parents were not American citizens. How ironic that the birther issue resurfaces at this time to come back and bite Republicans in the ass! Politics really does make strange bedfellows.

Judy Goes to Tijuana to the Dentist

by John Lawrence

Judy hadn't seen a dentist in some time and she needed to go. I tried to persuade her to go to my dentist, Dr. Miguel Garcia in Tijuana, but she had a fear of crossing the border. I had been going to Dr Garcia for 10 years or more, and I told her she had nothing to fear. Everybody in Dr Garcia's office spoke perfect English. They had the latest, most modern equipment and the best training. My friend Olof who had been going to Dr Garcia for years on my recommendation also tried to persuade Judy that there was nothing to be afraid of. She would be in good hands.

Finally, Judy agreed to go. I had assured her I knew the way by heart, and we could drive right into the building to park. Then it was just a short walk to the elevator. We'd be on the fourth floor and in the Baja Oral Center in no time. It was just a 40 minute drive from our home in El Cajon. The problem was though that they hadn't fixed the border yet; it was still under construction. After going across the border we came out on a street unfamiliar to me. In short we immediately got lost. It was Judy's worst fear.

Judy said, "Just take me home." I said, "No, I think I can find it." After driving around for some time in a state of confusion, we finally stumbled on Plaza Pacifico Building on Jose Clemente Orozco Street just off the main drag of Paseo de los Heroes. It's close to the Abraham Lincoln roundabout so I guess our Abraham Lincoln was a Mexican hero because he was against the Mexican-American War in which Mexico lost considerable territory. There's also a statue of Lincoln in Juarez, dedicated in 1966 by President Lyndon Johnson. The U.S. received a statue of Benito Juarez in exchange, which is in Washington, D.C. Juárez and Lincoln exchanged friendly letters during the American Civil War.

It was well past our appointment time when we finally found the correct location. But by this time Judy was beside herself. "Just take me home", she repeated. I said, "We're here now," but Judy wanted to go home anyway so I relented. We navigated the return route with some difficulty, but after an hour and a half wait at the border, we were finally on our way back to El Cajon. Judy said she'd never go to Mexico again. So I agreed to take her to a dentist in El Cajon. The initial exam was $285. OK, but Dr. Garcia doesn't charge for an initial examination. After the exam the extensive dental work required to get Judy on the right dental path came to thousands of dollars.

We decided to wait. After all Judy was in no pain. She qualifies for Medi-Cal, but, unfortunately, Medi-Cal didn't cover dentistry at that time. About a year later we were informed that Medi-Cal was bringing back dental benefits. It is called Denti-Cal. We waited for the advent of the date of coverage with baited breath, and then went back to our El Cajon dentist. However, all the dental work Judy needed turned out not to be covered by Denti-Cal! They covered certain root canals - just not in the teeth that Judy needed them. The first order of business was to be the cleaning, and for that the charge was a heart stopping $900! We decided to take a pass.

After considerable time had passed, Judy had a change of heart about visiting Dr Garcia's dental office in Tijuana. She all of a sudden got more adventurous. A further incentive is that by this time the border had been fixed and wait times were considerably shortened - 10 to 20 minutes. The San Ysidro Port of Entry is the busiest land port of entry in the western hemisphere. 50,000 northbound vehicles are processed each day. 25,000 northbound pedestrians cross each day. Coming into Mexico there is no wait at all. The bottleneck was always going back.

But now the port had been expanded and modernized. There were 38 additional vehicle inspection booths. The port was now the "Port of the Future" featuring sustainable design and technology. The San Diego U-T reported on September 17, 2014:

Many drivers accustomed to waiting in line for hours instead sailed through the busy border crossing within minutes on Wednesday.

What made it possible was the reopening of seven inspection lanes — and the completion of a key phase in the $741 million reconstruction of the massive port, the busiest on the U.S.-Mexico border.

The expanded capacity in the primary inspection lanes means that U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency charged with operating the port of entry, now has at its disposal 25 rebuilt inspection lanes with total of 46 booths. And that’s just the beginning: By January 2018, the port is expected to grow to 34 lanes with 63 booths.

“This is incredible. I can’t believe it. There’s something like 15 cars ahead of me,” said Marco Montano, as he waited early Wednesday afternoon to cross in the general lanes, which are usually the longest. He and a friend were heading from Tijuana to San Diego to purchase a bus part and had been prepared for the usual wait of two to three hours — not 10 minutes.

Now it's almost impossible to get lost going to and coming from Dr. Garcia's office, and Judy was ready to make the trip again. We were inside the Plaza Pacifico Building within 40 minutes from our home in El Cajon. We took some food and water with us in anticipation of the return trip which would be right around lunch time. Things went so well though that now Judy wants to eat at one of the nearby restaurants next time we go. Judy was immediately impressed by the friendliness and cheerfulness of Dr. Garcia and his professional staff. Judy was most concerned to have a replacement tooth for one that had fallen out. Dr. Garcia gave her a thorough examination, and then two young women went to work cleaning her teeth. Total cost for the visit including the cleaning - $60.

$60. for dental cleaning in Tijuana versus over $900. for the same job in El Cajon! We couldn't believe the difference in pricing between Mexico and the United States. Dental insurance in the States might have brought the price down, but it is my experience that dental insurance is mainly a joke. It covers the inexpensive stuff, but not the major dental procedures. And there's a yearly cap after which you're on your own.

The Baja Oral Center offers a complete list of dental services from fillings to crowns to implants. There are a lot of doctors, dentists and specialists in the Pacifico Plaza Building that Dr. Garcia works with. For instance, root canal specialists are close by. They all speak fluent English, use the latest techniques and equipment and are super friendly. More people are spending their money on a trip to San Diego for a vacation and a side trip to the dentist in Tijuana than on the expensive dentists in the US.

Judy felt so comfortable that before we left with a return appointment scheduled, she was joking and laughing with Dr Garcia and his staff. She looks forward to her next appointment and a good meal at one of the nearby restaurants. Before long she'll probably want to spend some time shopping at the nearby shopping center. The return trip was a breeze - just a straight shot down Paseo de los Heroes to the border. As we entered the US, Judy turned to me and said, "I like Dr Garcia."