George Weigel - An immigration debate primer

"An immigration debate primer" is a must read for Catholics like me who are concerned about the debate over illegal immigration. It's by Catholic ethicist and columnist George Weigel, whose syndicated column can be accessed here at the Archdiocese of Denver website.

Weigel writes that:

Catholic political theory places a high value on the rule of law, which it regards as morally superior to the alternative, which is the rule of willfulness imposed by brute force.

Hear, hear! The reason why liberal Americans like myself — people who shudder at the new Arizona law making "breathing while Hispanic" a dangerous proposition for Mexican immigrants, legal or otherwise — should insist on tighter border security is that the rule of law as Weigel defines it is crucial to everything America stands for. Unlawful immigration by definition undermines the rule of law.

Weigel:

The laws we make through our elected representatives are under the scrutiny of the natural moral law we can know by reason, which means that our political judgments should be rational, not glandular.

Catholic thought has always been "anti-glandular," meaning it is based on reason and reasonability. The "natural moral law" is basic to Catholic understanding: a "supreme and universal principle, from which are derived all our natural moral obligations or duties" (The Catholic Encyclopedia). It is the foundation-stone for reasoning about right and wrong in the political arena and elsewhere. (Nice to have in this topsy-turvy day and age, no?)

Weigel:

The inalienable dignity and value of every human being from conception until natural death is the bedrock personalist principle from which Catholic thinking about public policy begins. The dignity does not confer an absolute right on anyone to live wherever he or she chooses. A proper Catholic understanding of limited and constitutional government grasps that the state—which in the American case means the national government—has a right to enforce its citizenship laws and a duty to conduct that enforcement in a just way.

True, a lot is packed into that bullet point.

"Inalienable dignity": It applies to illegal immigrants, too. We as Catholics, as Americans, and as human beings are not to despise anyone based on their immigration status.

No "absolute right [for] anyone to live wherever he or she chooses": The inalienable dignity of every person is not a blank check to do whatever he or she wants. "The rule of willfulness" is suspect at both the national and the personal levels, in Catholic thought.

"The [national government] has a right to enforce ... citizenship laws": Though Weigel is a conservative theologically and politically, he's no extreme libertarian. There are things that a strong central government must do.

"... a duty to conduct that enforcement in a just way": Yes, must do. Justly, though — not (as with the Arizona law) a matter of "willfulness imposed by brute force."

Weigel:

With the exception of our Native American brethren, every Catholic in the United States today is the descendant of immigrants ... [a fact] which reflects the national tradition of hospitality to the stranger [and] should create a predisposition to be pro-immigrant within the Catholic community in America. That the vast majority of Catholics in the United States today are law-abiding citizens whose economic and social well-being is made possible by living within a law-governed political community should incline us to live that pro-immigrant predisposition through the mediation of the rule of law.

" ... predisposition to be pro-immigrant": Unfortunately, many American Catholics lack it.

" ... living within a law-governed political community": They (in my opinion) lack it in part because they fear illegal immigration's potential to undermine the rule of law.

" ... should incline us to live that pro-immigrant predisposition through the mediation of the rule of law": OK, let's be frank. Not just Catholics but many others worry that the rule of law has broken down in America's struggle to deal with immigration matters. So our "pro-immigrant predisposition" is taking a back seat to our fears.

Weigel:

It is absurd to suggest that the United States has become xenophobic, racist, or anti-immigrant. Last year ... the United States naturalized 1 million new citizens, most of them from Mexico, and over the past decade ... another 10 million people who have worked their way through the system legally. Millions more are in the legal immigration pipeline or are working in the United States with legal permits. If these are the marks of a racist or xenophobic nation, it’s a nation that displays its racism and xenophobia in very odd ways.

" ... absurd to suggest that the United States has become xenophobic, racist, or anti-immigrant": The U.S. as such is not anti-immigrant, but many people within it are. It's sad, but true — hello, Patrick Buchanan. So this is the only point Weigel makes that I'm not fully on board with. But I cheer loudly that over the last decade we've naturalized some 1 million new Americans a year, many of them from Mexico.

Weigel:

The canons of justice dictate that people should not be rewarded for law-breaking, and that is what illegal immigrants do: they break the law. Realism dictates that we cannot send some 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants home. The present situation—border porousness, which is exploited by criminals as well as by those looking for work; a large population of illegals; millions of people seeking U.S. citizenship while playing by the rules—is intolerable. Any morally acceptable solution to immigration reform will address all three facets of the present mess.

" ... canons of justice ... ": A nice Catholic turn of phrase, that.

" ... law-breaking ... is what illegal immigrants do ... ": Yes! Until we liberals come to grips with that fact, the immigration debate will stay topsy-turvy and glandular.

"Realism dictates that we cannot send some 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants home ... ": Suggesting that we need to get to the point where an amnesty (by whatever name) can be granted to those who are already here and are not otherwise in trouble with the law.

" ... border porousness ... exploited by criminals ... ": Facet #1 needing to be addressed.

" ... a large population of illegals ... ": Facet #2.

" ... millions of people seeking U.S. citizenship while playing by the rules ... ": Facet #3.

Weigel:

Responsible citizens who wish to be generous and uphold the rule of law and create a solution to the problem of illegals that doesn’t divide families or otherwise treat unjustly those who have ... “taken advantage of a situation we Americans have allowed to exist for too long” should demand that politicians stop playing the demagogue on this issue. Responsible citizens, while understanding the angers of fellow-citizens along the southern border of the United States who are appalled at the situation they face on a daily basis and while demanding that the government fulfill its duty to protect the border, will also appeal to the common sense of their neighbors who imagine that deportation is a real-world solution.

" ... politicians [must] stop playing the demagogue ... ": Yes, it's up to us citizens to demand they do, but how? This seems to be one of the most pressing issues of the age — how can we get our elected representatives to stop shirking their duties and pass immigration reform?

" ... Responsible citizens, while understanding the angers of fellow-citizens ... will also appeal to the common sense of their neighbors ... ": A synonym for "natural law" is (properly qualified) "common sense." We all need to employ common sense more than we do. Common sense more than anything else can rescue our republic from the wing-nuts.

George F. Will - Arizona law's foes are using the real immigration scare tactics

Let's talk some sense about illegal immigration, please.

Washington Post columnist George F. Will wrote recently in "Arizona law's foes are using the real immigration scare tactics" of his dissent from Cardinal Roger Mahony, who said in "Arizona's Dreadful Anti-Immigrant Law" that Arizona's new law pertaining to illegal immigration involves

... reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation.

The statute, signed into Arizona law by Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, requires state police to question anyone who appears to be in the country illegally. This has been called a mandate for racial profiling. In effect, "breathing while Hispanic" in the state of Arizona can now get you in trouble with the cops.

Cardinal Mahony is right to oppose it, and George Will was wrong to take umbrage. (In fact, there can be little doubt that the Arizona law will quickly be shot down constitutionally by the very liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which sits in San Francisco. The U.S. Supreme Court, though it tips conservative, will likely uphold that ruling.)

But Will was also right about something:

... the vast majority [of Americans] who do not favor completely open borders believe that there should be some laws restricting who can become residents, and presumably they believe that such laws should be enforced.

Once Americans are satisfied that the borders are secure, the immigration policies they will favor will reflect their -- and the law enforcement profession's -- healthy aversion to the measures that would be necessary to remove from the nation the nearly 11 million illegal immigrants, 60 percent of whom have been here for more than five years. It would take 200,000 buses in a bumper-to-bumper convoy 1,700 miles long to carry them back to the border. Americans are not going to seek and would not tolerate the police methods that would be needed to round up and deport the equivalent of the population of Ohio.

We need to get control of the border. Senator John McCain was on the same page with Will in this campaign ad:





"Completing the danged fence" along the Mexico-U.S. border is a politically necessary prelude to granting amnesty to the 11 million illegals who are already here and not otherwise in trouble with the law. So is getting sufficient numbers of U.S. Border Patrol on the job in Arizona and other states along the border.

Why is it so hard to find anybody who sees all of the following:

• how important securing the border is
• how necessary amnesty for the illegals already here is
• how laws like the new Arizona one are an insult to basic American values

Greek Crisis Looming for America?

Will the recent debt crisis in Greece one day be echoed here in America? There is a lot of reason to believe it will, and soon, unless we get our government deficits at federal, state, and local levels under control.

In "European and American debt crises signal an era of austerity,"in today's Washington Post, columnist Michael Gerson points out that "In 2009, the federal government spent $1.67 for every $1 it collected in taxes." The extra 67¢ has to be borrowed and becomes part of our national debt.

Our national debt is bankrolled in large part by China and other foreign countries. Banks in those lands buy securities issued by the U.S. Treasury. To get them to do that, the Treasury pays the banks interest. Right now the interest rate is low, because the perceived likelihood of our failing to pay back our solemn debts is nil.

But as the size of the accumulated debt rises with respect to our annual GDP, our creditors will rightfully become nervous and insist on higher interest rates.

That's what's loomed over Greece in recent months. Certain other European nations may be in the same boat. And we may be soon, too. Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson writes in "The welfare state's death spiral" that:

Greece is exceptional only by degree. In 2009, its budget deficit was 13.6 percent of its gross domestic product (a measure of its economy); its debt, the accumulation of past deficits, was 115 percent of GDP. Spain's deficit was 11.2 percent of GDP, its debt 53.2 percent; Portugal's figures were 9.4 percent and 76.8 percent. Comparable figures for the United States -- calculated slightly differently -- were 9.9 percent and 53 percent.

The welfare state's death spiral? Dramatic phrasing but, maybe, yes.

The "welfare state" is what "entitlements" such as Social Security and Medicare are all about. Government entitlement programs are duty bound to provide people with money to cover certain of their needs such as financial security in old age.

The recently passed health care reform is an entitlement. It subsidizes those who cannot afford health insurance, while at the same time making sure that adequate insurance coverage will be available to them.

Where does the money come from which the government duly provides to those who are deemed entitled to it? If it doesn't come from tax revenues, it has to come from somewhere else. For every dollar Uncle Sam collects in taxes, he has to find an additional 67¢ elsewhere. Hello, China!

Pundits are saying we can't keep it up. The 67¢ figure, already high, is due to rise dramatically. As the deficit soars, our national debt will too.

George F. Will, in "Greece and GM: Too weak to fail":

America's projected $9.7 trillion in budget deficits in this decade will drive the nation's debt to 90 percent of GDP (Greece's is 124 percent).

What can we do? Some options:

• Raise taxes — i.e., impose higher tax rates on incomes and other things
• Impose new kinds of taxes like a value-added tax
• Lower non-entitlement government expenditures
• Reform entitlements — e.g., raise the minimum retirement age
• Grow the economy such that incomes and other things we pay taxes on go up

The pundits are pessimistic about all of these, and there is no magic bullet.

Other solutions get mentioned, such as devaluing the dollar so the goods we make are cheaper for foreigners to buy. If they buy more from us, it will help fuel economic growth and bolster tax revenues.

All of these solutions are politically or economically problematic. Raising tax rates and/or imposing new taxes offends the political right. Entitlement reforms offend powerful interest groups who usually support Democrats. Reducing non-entitlement expenditures is easier said than done. And if there's a way to juice the economy, we'd be doing it already.

Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein writes in "Solving the deficit problem requires an open mind, common sense and courage" of his blueprint for a solution:

... we can safely run a deficit of 2 percent of GDP. That suggests a "hole" to fill of about 5 percent of GDP.

Federal outlays are due to be about 26 percent of GDP, while tax revenues will come to about 19 percent. The difference is 7 percent. If we shrink the deficit to 2 percent of GDP, we'll be OK. But how do we fill that 5 percent "hole"? Pearlstein:

The compromise I propose is a 50-50 split between tax increases and spending cuts in the medium run, rising to 60 percent spending cuts as limits to entitlement spending start to compound.

Pearlstein wants to:

• Hold federal health spending increases (Medicare, Medicaid, premium subsidies) to GDP growth plus 1 percentage point a year, rather than the GDP-plus-2.5 percent that has been the norm.
• Raise the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare by one month for each two-month increase in average life expectancy.
• Slowly reduce the cost of living increases on Social Security benefits for wealthy seniors ... while slowly increasing their Medicare premiums.
• Limit growth of "discretionary" spending -- defense as well as domestic -- to the rate of inflation, except to pay for wars, natural disasters and safety-net spending during recessions.
• Impose a new, broad-based value-added tax of 6 percent, with rebates to low-income households. (A value-added tax is a fancy sales tax. It would hit low-income families the hardest, since a greater portion of their income is used to buy stuff.)
• Raise corporate tax revenues by 5 percent by closing loopholes, while at the same time lowering corporate tax rates.
• Tax wages and salaries and short-term capital gains at only three rates: 17 percent for income from $50,000 to $150,000, 27 percent for income between $150,000 and $250,000 and 37 percent for income above that. This would represent a tax hike for the well-to-do, while an increase in the standard deduction and personal exemptions will mean no tax is paid by a family of four with income under $50,000.
• Reduce the Social Security payroll tax slightly to 12 percent and over time impose it on wages and salary up to $150,000, up from the current cap of about $110,000.
• Raise the Medicare payroll tax slightly, to 3 percent, and apply it to all income.
• Replace the federal gasoline, diesel and jet fuel taxes with a carbon-based transportation fuels tax, set at a rate that would raise $25 billion more annually. (This carbon tax might help reduce greenhouse emissions and forestall global warming.) All revenue from the tax would go to a new transportation infrastructure fund, so it could be considered an investment in America's economic future.
• Eliminate the inheritance tax, but require all estates to pay any deferred and unpaid capital gains taxes on all assets before any distribution to heirs.

Most of these wonky changes are calibrated, equal-opportunity offenders. Lowering their tax rates, for instance, might mollify corporate poohbahs somewhat, in exchange for their tolerating closing cherished loopholes.

Let's assume that Pearlstein's laundry list would just fill in the 5 percent hole. What would happen, then, if even one of his proposals couldn't get enacted, owing to political opposition? The hole wouldn't get completely filled in, unless Congress approved compensating replacement measures. Such measures would be sure to be politically more anathema than Pearlstein's, not less.

In other words, good luck.

Wonky, incremental, politically calibrated changes of the sort Pearlstein recommends, if they could ever be enacted as a package, might do the trick. But the odds are long that they could be bundled together and overcome the vaunted Senate filibuster. If they couldn't get passed, and if China and others wouldn't let us get away with not filling in the hole, then what?

Non-incremental change is the only other alternative. The death spiral of the welfare state ...