The dirty little secret of America's border policy is that it isn't meant to keep everyone out. If you're sufficiently determined, sufficiently clever, and sufficiently careful, you can get into the country illegally, stay here illegally, and make a life for yourself illegally, and that's what our border policy is meant to allow.
You'd never know from listening to the Republicans carry on about our "open borders" that it was the Republicans themselves who established our current setup, but it was. Back in 1986 it was a coalition of Republicans and business-friendly Democrats who drew up our current immigration policy, and it was none other than that conservative icon, Saint Ronald Reagan, who signed it into law. (Did you know that the Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 1980 elections, and kept control of it for the first six years of the Reagan era? It's not something they like to admit these days.)
From the point of view of the cheap-labor, anti-union wing of the GOP (and their fellow travelers in the Democratic Leadership Council), having a steady supply of illegal immigrants entering the country with little or no hope of becoming legal is the perfect condition, the sweet spot, the answer to their prayers. Employing an illegal worker is the next best thing to owning a slave -- you don't have to worry about minimum wage laws, employee benefits, or labor unions. If an illegal gives you any trouble, you just tip off the ICE and they haul his ass off to jail and ship him out of the country. And there's always a plentiful supply of new illegals to replace him. There are whole industries in this country that rely on illegal workers to keep their costs down, and our immigration policy is designed to keep them supplied with low-cost, trouble-free labor. An added feature of employing illegal workers is that they keep wages artificially depressed, since there are so many jobs in this country that are performed for sub-minimum wages.
An obvious (though unworkable) solution to illegal immigration is to make it harder for people to enter the United States illegally. The trouble with that idea is that the system we have now is already designed to do just that, and it only slows down the influx of illegal immigrants. There is no way to keep foreigners from entering the United States illegally as long as there are jobs waiting for them here.
Another unworkable solution is to crack down on companies that employ illegal workers. The trouble with this idea is that ferreting out companies that employ illegal workers is a never-ending task. In the unlikely event that one is put out of business, the others just expand to take up the slack.
So what's the solution? Amnesty, plain and simple. Unconditional amnesty for every illegal immigrant who is already in the country, or will enter the country in the future. After all, the whole point of the system is to allow unscrupulous employers to exploit illegal workers. If illegal immigrants are able to get green cards as soon as they enter the country, there won't be any illegal workers to exploit. Companies that rely on illegal workers to maintain their profit margin will either have to adapt or die. The rise in wages will provide a boost to the economy, and the larger pool of legal workers will make it easier for unions to organize. And once the supply of sub-minimum-wage jobs dries up, the economy will be able to support all the immigrants who can make it into the country.
But isn't giving amnesty to illegal immigrants unfair to the legal immigrants? I'd say it's even more unfair to make people who have been living and working here for five, ten, or twenty years jump through a lot of hoops just so they can continue living and working here, or to uproot and deport them until they manage to jump through all those hoops. That is, if we're going to talk about fairness.
But isn't giving amnesty to illegal immigrants rewarding criminal behavior? Yeah, and so what? We Americans love rewarding criminal behavior, as long as the criminal is doing something we approve of. Conservatives swoon in ecstasy when they hear about government officials ignoring inconvenient laws against warrentless wiretapping or torture. They flock to movies and TV shows about cops who are willing to "break the rules". There's nothing as American as rewarding criminal behavior.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
A Chance Meeting
I was walking my dogs Thursday afternoon, and who should I run into on Broadway but my primary opponent Peter Martin? We shook hands and talked for a bit, and I introduced my basenjis. To increase the spookiness factor, Martin told me that he had just run into Steve Coaty that afternoon as well.
I bet this sort of thing doesn't happen to John McCain.
I bet this sort of thing doesn't happen to John McCain.
Marriage Equality
Back when Barack Obama was born in 1961, his parents' marriage was illegal in 16 states because his mother and father were different races. That state of affairs ended when Obama was six years old, when the wild-eyed judicial activists on the US Supreme Court struck down Virginia's (and by extension the other states') anti-miscegenation law in Loving v. Virginia. The principle at stake in Loving was an obvious one, but one that conservatives have a real beef with: the notion of inalienable rights.
An inalienable right is one that a person is born with. It can't be legislated away, and the notion that such a right can be dependent on the will of the majority is an abhorrent one. In the United States, we've come to accept Thomas Jefferson's assertion that one of the roles of government is to uphold these rights. Furthermore, the government doesn't have the power to decide which of these rights to uphold and which to deny; it has to uphold them all. In Loving, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage was just such an inalienable right, and that governments had no business deciding that some couples were entitled to marry each other but others were not.
Forty years later, that view is being extended, state by state, to same-sex couples. Currently, four states grant same-sex couples civil unions offering restricted marriage rights, four more states grant same-sex couples civil unions offering full marriage rights, and two states grant same-sex couples the right to marry. Forty years after Loving, no politician can openly declare that governments should have the right to forbid interracial marriage (whatever private views they may hold). Within our lifetimes, the same will be true of opposition to same-sex marriage. The time has come for Rhode Island to affirm this inalienable right, and if I'm elected to the General Assembly, my voice will join those already calling for marriage equality in the Ocean State.
By the way, I know I've based my campaign on running to the left of everyone else, but I don't think that'll be possible in this case, because State Representative Steve Coaty's position on marriage equality is actually more radical than mine. He has stated that he wants to restrict marriage to religious organizations and limit governments to the granting of civil unions. Since marrying people is one of the traditional prerogatives of government ("by the power vested in me by the State of Rhode Island") and always has been, trying to "get the state out of the wedding business" would be as radical a move as trying to get the state out of the criminal justice business. Ironically, my own belief that we ought to keep the state's marriage laws the way they are, and just extend them to same-sex couples, is more conservative that Coaty's. I apologize. I'll try not to let it happen again.
An inalienable right is one that a person is born with. It can't be legislated away, and the notion that such a right can be dependent on the will of the majority is an abhorrent one. In the United States, we've come to accept Thomas Jefferson's assertion that one of the roles of government is to uphold these rights. Furthermore, the government doesn't have the power to decide which of these rights to uphold and which to deny; it has to uphold them all. In Loving, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage was just such an inalienable right, and that governments had no business deciding that some couples were entitled to marry each other but others were not.
Forty years later, that view is being extended, state by state, to same-sex couples. Currently, four states grant same-sex couples civil unions offering restricted marriage rights, four more states grant same-sex couples civil unions offering full marriage rights, and two states grant same-sex couples the right to marry. Forty years after Loving, no politician can openly declare that governments should have the right to forbid interracial marriage (whatever private views they may hold). Within our lifetimes, the same will be true of opposition to same-sex marriage. The time has come for Rhode Island to affirm this inalienable right, and if I'm elected to the General Assembly, my voice will join those already calling for marriage equality in the Ocean State.
By the way, I know I've based my campaign on running to the left of everyone else, but I don't think that'll be possible in this case, because State Representative Steve Coaty's position on marriage equality is actually more radical than mine. He has stated that he wants to restrict marriage to religious organizations and limit governments to the granting of civil unions. Since marrying people is one of the traditional prerogatives of government ("by the power vested in me by the State of Rhode Island") and always has been, trying to "get the state out of the wedding business" would be as radical a move as trying to get the state out of the criminal justice business. Ironically, my own belief that we ought to keep the state's marriage laws the way they are, and just extend them to same-sex couples, is more conservative that Coaty's. I apologize. I'll try not to let it happen again.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Fair Warning
The blog is a hungry beast. It has an insatiable need for new posts. That being the case, any email sent to me in my capacity as a political candidate (or, for that matter, as a political blogger) is fair game, and I hereby reserve the right to quote it in full on this blog, and, if necessary, mock it cruelly.
You have been warned.
You have been warned.
Last Call
Reading through Wednesday's Newport Daily News, I saw that another Democrat had entered the race -- Peter Martin, 67, a Newport native, software developer, and Chairman of the Aquidneck Island Planning Commission. At a quarter past four I strolled down to City Hall to get the final list of candidates for the 75th district, and learned that it was just Steve Coaty, Peter Martin, and me. Martin and I will be facing off on Primary Day, September 9, and the winner gets to face Coaty on Election Day, November 4.
In the afternoon I called Martin to say hello and wish him good luck. I was surprised to learn that we've met, and to my considerable embarassment I realized that I didn't remember him. It seems we met in the course of the 2006 Senate race, and that Martin knew me through my old political blog, Newport 9. I suppose I shouldn't be so surprised. Newport's not that big as cities go, so it makes sense that two people interested in local Democratic politics should be acquainted. (More proof that it's a small state is that I have a couple of friends in common with Steve Coaty, and my wife is related to State Senator Chuck Levesque.)
Martin told me that he'd thought about entering the special election last fall, but decided not to when Bud Cicilline entered the race. This time, he decided to take the plunge. I was sort of expecting the Newport Democratic City Committee to draft some high-profile local Democrat to run against Coaty, and I'm a little disappointed that they didn't. Come November, it'll be up to either Martin or me to face Steve the Giant-Killer, the man who beat Cicilline by 26%.
UPDATE: Martin tells me that our association actually goes back to early 2005, when the two of us took part in the creation of the Rhode Island Progressive League, and he was responsible for designing the RIPL website.
In the afternoon I called Martin to say hello and wish him good luck. I was surprised to learn that we've met, and to my considerable embarassment I realized that I didn't remember him. It seems we met in the course of the 2006 Senate race, and that Martin knew me through my old political blog, Newport 9. I suppose I shouldn't be so surprised. Newport's not that big as cities go, so it makes sense that two people interested in local Democratic politics should be acquainted. (More proof that it's a small state is that I have a couple of friends in common with Steve Coaty, and my wife is related to State Senator Chuck Levesque.)
Martin told me that he'd thought about entering the special election last fall, but decided not to when Bud Cicilline entered the race. This time, he decided to take the plunge. I was sort of expecting the Newport Democratic City Committee to draft some high-profile local Democrat to run against Coaty, and I'm a little disappointed that they didn't. Come November, it'll be up to either Martin or me to face Steve the Giant-Killer, the man who beat Cicilline by 26%.
UPDATE: Martin tells me that our association actually goes back to early 2005, when the two of us took part in the creation of the Rhode Island Progressive League, and he was responsible for designing the RIPL website.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Running in District 75
Take a map of Newport and draw a line across it.
Start the line on Route 138 as it comes east across the Pell Bridge. Follow Route 138 until it reaches the tracks of the Newport & Old Colony Railroad, then turn south along the tracks. Follow them until they reach America's Cup Avenue, then cut across to Fairwell Street. Follow Fairwell south until it hits Marlborough Street, then go east to Broadway and follow it north. Turn east onto Calvert Street, then north onto Wesley Street, then east onto Cranston Avenue, then north again onto Kay Street. From Kay follow Rhode Island Avenue south until you reach Champlin Street, then go east to Eustis Avenue, then north to Ellery road, then east until you reach Middletown.
Everything south of the line you've just drawn is the 75th Representative District.
The current 75th District was created in 2002 when the Rhode Island House of Representatives was reduced from 100 seats to 75. Paul W. Crowley, a Democrat, held the seat from its creation until he succumbed to cancer on September 25, 2007. In a special election held on December 18, the seat was won by Republican Steve Coaty. Now Coaty has to defend the seat against all comers, including me.
Who am I? Thomas Kalinowski, 45 years old, married with no children. I've lived in Newport for eleven years, and I currently work at the front desk at a local hotel. If you see me walking down the street, I'll probably be accompanied by my two basenji dogs, Kleopatra and Louis. They're friendly dogs who like meeting new people, so don't be afraid to say hello and pet them. They'll also be happy to share any food you may be carrying (whether you want them to or not).
Why am I running? Well, in any political race, somebody has to run to the left of everyone else, and in this race that somebody will be me. If elected, I promise to raise your taxes, grant amnesty to the thousands of illegal immigrants living in Rhode Island, and legalize gay marriage. Or at least, I'll be advocating for those things, since it's unlikely that the other 74 Representatives, 38 Senators, and Governor will go along with any of them. But I'll be doing my best to push my radical agenda, and of course I'll also be representing the interests of my constituents (ie bringing home as much pork as possible).
So, if you'd like to see an unapologetic liberal represent you in the General Assembly, go ahead and vote for me, and we'll both see what happens.
Start the line on Route 138 as it comes east across the Pell Bridge. Follow Route 138 until it reaches the tracks of the Newport & Old Colony Railroad, then turn south along the tracks. Follow them until they reach America's Cup Avenue, then cut across to Fairwell Street. Follow Fairwell south until it hits Marlborough Street, then go east to Broadway and follow it north. Turn east onto Calvert Street, then north onto Wesley Street, then east onto Cranston Avenue, then north again onto Kay Street. From Kay follow Rhode Island Avenue south until you reach Champlin Street, then go east to Eustis Avenue, then north to Ellery road, then east until you reach Middletown.
Everything south of the line you've just drawn is the 75th Representative District.
The current 75th District was created in 2002 when the Rhode Island House of Representatives was reduced from 100 seats to 75. Paul W. Crowley, a Democrat, held the seat from its creation until he succumbed to cancer on September 25, 2007. In a special election held on December 18, the seat was won by Republican Steve Coaty. Now Coaty has to defend the seat against all comers, including me.
Who am I? Thomas Kalinowski, 45 years old, married with no children. I've lived in Newport for eleven years, and I currently work at the front desk at a local hotel. If you see me walking down the street, I'll probably be accompanied by my two basenji dogs, Kleopatra and Louis. They're friendly dogs who like meeting new people, so don't be afraid to say hello and pet them. They'll also be happy to share any food you may be carrying (whether you want them to or not).
Why am I running? Well, in any political race, somebody has to run to the left of everyone else, and in this race that somebody will be me. If elected, I promise to raise your taxes, grant amnesty to the thousands of illegal immigrants living in Rhode Island, and legalize gay marriage. Or at least, I'll be advocating for those things, since it's unlikely that the other 74 Representatives, 38 Senators, and Governor will go along with any of them. But I'll be doing my best to push my radical agenda, and of course I'll also be representing the interests of my constituents (ie bringing home as much pork as possible).
So, if you'd like to see an unapologetic liberal represent you in the General Assembly, go ahead and vote for me, and we'll both see what happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
