The article "A New Crackdown on Illegal Workers" (U.S. News, Jan. 20) highlights the administration's plans to create a government office to oversee audits against companies that employ illegal workers. These audits, however, are soft enforcement at best. A Government Accountability Office study found that these audits are of little use, with many employers considering minor fines just the cost of doing business. In fact, sometimes these fines are less than a New York City parking ticket.
Americans don't want another taxpayer-funded government office. Instead, the administration should increase real work-site enforcement efforts, which include administrative and criminal arrests.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas)
House Judiciary Committee
Kudos to the present administration for the recent progress achieved with respect to illegal immigration enforcement. The problem of illegal immigrants in our country can be largely solved merely by letting all employers know and believe that the federal Form I-9 laws will be enforced. No additional legislation is necessary.
Why our politicians on all sides haven't focused on this existing law is a mystery.
Down goes Obamacare! This travesty of a law, which infringes individual liberty, deserves to be thrown into the ash can of history. Once it is gone, Congress should get to work on reforming—not revolutionizing—health-care delivery. A good place to start is allowing insurers to sell products across state lines. The market will discipline insurers, if we let it work.
Addendum:Here is a Wall Street Journal story about the ruling.
1-31-91 Thursday. After two weeks of intensive bombing of Iraqi targets by coalition forces, including those of the United States, the ground war has begun. About all we know is that troops have begun to move across the desert into Kuwait. It’s too early to tell whether they’ll meet resistance, although experts assume they will. The Iraqis have reportedly dug in during the past few months.
Before reaching his decision in a case, a judge must make an effort to see the claims of the parties before him in their best possible light, which means with as much sympathy as he is able short of actually endorsing any of the positions in question. It is not enough that a judge be an interpretive genius, a Hercules of the law who is able to construct out of the resources of his own intellect a deep and elegant theory to support his decision in the case at hand. It is also necessary that he appreciate what the decision means to the parties and to those who identify with or support them, for how he presents the decision, the words he chooses to explain and defend it and often the content of the decision itself, will depend on his estimate of its meaning to the parties and the groups they represent. This is something no mere comparison of the depth and elegance of different theories can reveal. Only by sympathetically reviewing the case from the parties' own perspectives can a judge gain such understanding. In doing so, of course, he must also maintain his distance from the parties' concerns, and the great challenge in judging is to remain detached while simultaneously exercising a maximum of sympathy toward the parties and their conflicting claims. A judge who fails in the first respect shows bias or favoritism and one who fails in the second, hardheartedness—the twin vices between which every judge must thread his way.
(Anthony T. Kronman, "Living in the Law," The University of Chicago Law Review 54 [summer 1987]: 835-76, at 864 [footnote omitted])
My friend Peg posted a link to this story from the Hollywood Reporter. It resonated with me, because I have lost friends as a result of my "conversion" to conservatism. I should have put "friends" in quotation marks, because a true friend would never allow politics or religion to destroy a friendship. I now realize that these people weren't friends at all. They don't care about me as a person; they care about me as a political soulmate.
For consider: When I was a progressive, my progressive friends and I could commiserate about the role of conservatives in our political life. We could joke about them, abuse them, and refuse to engage their arguments. Once I became conservative, this had to stop. A true friend would have realized that the jokes and abusiveness were inessential to the friendship. A pseudo friend, however, would treat them as essential, thereby revealing a corrupt understanding of friendship.
I am proud to say that I have never ended a friendship for political or religious reasons. That makes me better, morally, than the so-called friends who abandoned me (some of them, sadly, went on to abuse me, even to lie about me) when my views changed. I feel sorry for them, for they mistake political solidarity for friendship. One shudders to think what they would do if their spouses, parents, or children went over to the other side.
In “Reforming the Reform” (column, Jan. 24), Ross Douthat raises the difficult conundrum that is the insurance mandate. He proposes an alternative approach, with limited enrollment periods.
What seems to be lost in the discussion is that this is not fundamentally a question of economics, interstate commerce or freedom of choice. It is at its root a moral issue.
If there is no mandate to buy coverage, what do we do when people who make the choice to opt out of insurance coverage do get sick or have terrible accidents? Do we let them die because they took a calculated risk?
Fortunately, we have sensible laws that require hospitals to treat the sick and injured whether they are insured or not. That is the moral thing to do.
However, as long as we have such a mandate for treatment, we must have an accompanying mandate for coverage or we will never control costs.
Barack Obama is in way over his head. This man—our alien president—has no interest in, or aptitude for, foreign affairs. His aim is to remake American society so that it conforms to his progressive vision.
Dr John J. Ray (my friend in Australia) wrote an essay eight years ago in which he compared the fascism of Benito Mussolini with modern-day leftism. I haven't read Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism (2008), but I suspect John beat him to the punch.
Several strands of leftist ideology converge to make Jews and Israel the perfect objects of believers' hatred—even as they are intrinsically the objects of Islamists' hatred. First, as we saw in chapter thirteen, leftism, like Islamism, detests modernity, individual freedom, and any value placed on individual human life, notions with which Jews are strongly identified. Jewish values are most strongly represented by Israel, a tiny nation that refuses to be extinguished despite myriad attempts to drown it in violence and terror. Representing the triumph of the human spirit, Israel has come to symbolize all that is despised by Islamists and leftists alike.
In addition, Jews are seen as being synonymous with the oppressive structures of corporate capitalism and globalization, and Israel is both the outpost of Western values in the Middle East and an ally of the United States in the terror war. While Islamists hate America, in part, for supporting Israel, leftists hate Israel for its alliance with the United States—and for sharing its principal values. This is why anti-Semitism has become so conveniently enmeshed with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-globalization.
Re “Across Country, Lawmakers Push Abortion Curbs” (front page, Jan. 22): Anti-choice lawmakers across the country may be heralding a new era in which they plan to mount aggressive campaigns to limit abortion. But they won’t necessarily have the last word on what abortion restrictions ultimately end up on state books.
With the rush of anti-choice legislation will come vigorous court challenges to these infringements on constitutional rights.
In the last two years—since the 2008 election—anti-choice state legislators have pushed especially ambitious agendas, enacting some of the most extreme anti-choice legislation in recent memory.
But time and again, judges have declared these laws unconstitutional, and for good reason.
They violate women’s rights by profoundly intruding on their private medical decisions and by imposing trumped-up regulations on abortion providers so they can no longer realistically provide women services.
Nancy Northup President Center for Reproductive Rights New York, Jan. 26, 2011
Note from KBJ: The letter writer uses "anti-choice" (instead of "pro-life") four times in a short letter. You can see why. To a libertine, choice is a good thing. Anyone who is opposed to a good thing must be evil! How would the letter writer like to be called "pro-abortion" or "anti-life"? By the way, those who wish to criminalize abortion are anti-choice in the same sense in which those who wish to keep murder criminalized are anti-choice. Think about it.
Note 2 from KBJ: Why is abortion not viewed as genocide against blacks? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton when you need them?
Note 3 from KBJ: The letter writer tried to pressure CBS into not airing Tim Tebow's pro-life advertisement during the 2010 Super Bowl. If she's pro-choice, then she should want women to make their own decisions about whether to abort. It sounds as though she wants women to make only one choice, namely, abortion. I wonder why that is. Can you think of a reason?