A rather bizarre column by Jeff Jacoby is drawing some blogospheric attention.

YOU’RE A sensible, principled conservative. You want America to be a land of boundless opportunity and freedom, where people are treated as individuals and judged on their merits. You reject the divisive identity politics of the left – what matters most about any of us, you would insist, is not race or class or ethnic origins: it is personal character and achievement. There are few things about contemporary politics you deplore more than the demonizing or scapegoating of entire groups (“white males,’’ “the rich,’’ “the Christian right,’’ “gun owners’’), as though every member of the group is interchangeable and indistinguishable, wholly defined by a single disparaging label.

True.

But let someone mention “illegal immigrants,’’ and your principles fly out the window.

No, not me.

So when Governor Deval Patrick recommends allowing young illegal immigrants – residents of Massachusetts who have graduated from high school – to attend a public college and pay in-state tuition, you flip out. This is outrageous, you protest. It rewards people who broke the rules. It’s unfair to the taxpayers who subsidize public higher education. Why should an illegal immigrant get a valuable tuition break that Massachusetts wouldn’t give to a kid from Maine or New Hampshire?

You vigorously agree with Charlie Baker, a Republican candidate for governor. “If you’re illegally here, you’re illegally here,’’ Baker said last week. “The notion that we should treat illegal immigrants with the same benefits and opportunities that legal immigrants and legal citizens have doesn’t make any sense to me.’’

It is dispiriting to see Baker, a man of considerable intellectual heft, stoop to such shallow sloganeering. It is even more dispiriting to see conservatives assail immigrants instead of the insane immigration system that gave most of them no legal way to enter the United States.  On the whole, illegal immigrants are just the sort of newcomers Americans should embrace: self-motivated risk-takers, strivers determined to improve themselves, hard-working men and women willing to take the meanest jobs if it will give them a shot at building their own American dream. Why would we want to punish them? Why would we want to punish their kids?

But these aren’t mutually exclusive.  I simultaneously agree with Jacoby that our immigration system is broken, that accepting and assimilating more of them is one the whole a good thing, and that it makes sense to educate assimilated immigrants and yet believe that we ought to enforce our laws.  The fact that we can’t or won’t enforce our immigration policy is a good reason to change it — not a reason to pretend the laws don’t exist.

Jacoby cherry picks a ridiculous case:

A couple from Brazil, seeking a better life for themselves and their 2-month-old daughter, enter the United States unlawfully. They settle in Massachusetts, where 18 years later the girl graduates from a public high school, as assimilated and acculturated an American as her classmates in every respect – except that they are US citizens, and she, by virtue of a decision made when she was a baby, is not. Her classmates can attend the University of Massachusetts, paying $9,704 a year in tuition, the price tag for Massachusetts residents. She can attend only if she pays the out-of-state rate of $22,157; if that’s more than she can afford, she’s out of luck.

Now, what percentage of illegal immigrants fit this description?! I don’t know the ins and outs of immigration law but would think the child could be made an American citizen.  After all, adopted babies from overseas are made citizens before they can even talk. Beyond that, her parents are U.S. citizens and residents of Massachusetts.   Why wouldn’t a child of U.S. citizens be considered a resident of the state in which she has resided for 18 years? Of course this kid should be able to attend UMass as an in-state resident.

On the other hand, Jacoby has a point about irrationality among conservatives on the issue.

An unsigned piece at Stop the ACLU retorts, “what Jeff is missing is that the people looking for a better life entered the country illegally. Why should we excuse that behavior? We shouldn’t embrace that behavior just so they can build the American dream.” Jacoby doesn’t “miss” that; he argues that the system essentially doesn’t allow these people a legal means of immigration and that millions of them are already here.

Still, the reaction is understandable: These people are here illegally. Granted, in most cases, it was their parents who broke our laws, merely bringing their kids along for the ride. And some percentage of the kids are for all intents and purposes Americans, having grown up here and having no memories of “home.”

But it does seem perverse to reward their parents for flouting the law. Those who are trying to get in legally are waiting years and foregoing this opportunity for their children, after all.  Openly declaring a policy that “once here, you’re here” both makes those who play by the rules suckers and ensures fewer will play by the rules.

Clifton B of Another Black Conservative argues that we can’t afford it. “What Jeff Jacoby (like so many in Washington) has forgotten is that America is $12 trillion dollars in the hole. Half of every dollar we spend is borrowed money. Money that must be paid back by a generation that is too young to vote their objections or accept the responsibility. Sure it would be nice not to punish the children of illegal immigrants for the parents’ lawbreaking. However the stark reality is that for us to be generous the way Jacoby suggests, requires us to be cruel to our very own children by robbing their futures to pay for our current mistakes.”  A similar argument is made at 24Ahead.

That just doesn’t make sense. Either the in-state rate is a worthwhile investment in the future of Massachusetts residents or it isn’t. Adding in a relative handful of students isn’t going to break the bank.

The latter goes on to make a more compelling argument:

[C]ollege resources and discounts are a finite resource: just like in a game of musical chairs, there are only so many to go around. Any illegal alien who gets a “chair” (education slot or discount) means that a U.S. citizen will have to “stand” (not be able to go to college or not be able to afford it). If any of “400-600 additional students” that Mass can admit are illegal aliens, that means that U.S. citizens could have gotten those slots/discounts but lost out. Mass voters are in effect valuing foreign citizens higher than their fellow U.S. citizens, turning their back on U.S. citizens in order to help foreign citizens.

The problem with that, though, is that there’s no such thing as “citizenship” at the state level — only residency.  In the cherry picked example from earlier, there’s no obvious reason why the 18-year Massachusetts resident with American citizen parents should be treated differently from cohorts who were born in the United States.  Much less her cohorts who are American citizens whose parents moved to Massachusetts two years ago and have hardly paid anything into the state treasury.

But, surely, it makes no sense to declare a policy that those who are here in violation of our laws should be able to bring that fact to the attention of the government and thereby be rewarded.

Eugene Volokh brings to our attention, rather belatedly, the case of Joly v. Pelletier, in which Rene Joly brought a suit some ten years ago alleging that Pelletier and others had conspired to suppress evidence that he was a Martian.  The judge dismissed the case on two grounds:

1. Neither pleading discloses a cause of action. While conspiracy to do harm to someone is the basis of many actions in this Court there is a fundamental flaw in the position of Mr. Joly. Rule 1.03 defines plaintiff as “a person who commences an action”. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines person as “an individual human being”. Section 29 of the Interpretation Act provides that a person includes a corporation. It follows that if the plaintiff is not a person in that he is neither a human being nor a corporation, he cannot be a plaintiff as contemplated by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The entire basis of Mr. Joly’s actions is that he is a martian, not a human being. There is certainly no suggestion that he is a corporation. I conclude therefore, that Mr. Joly, on his pleading as drafted, has no status before the Court.

2…. I am satisfied that the claims are frivolous and vexatious and constitute an abuse of the process of this Court…. [W]ith all respect to Mr. Joly and his perception of reality, these actions are patently ridiculous and should not be allowed to continue as they utilize scarce public resources not to mention the time and money of the numerous defendants who have been forced to defend these actions.

Volokh finds Reason 1 more blogworthy.   Glenn Reynolds and I concur.

I just received a press release claiming that, despite complaints getting them removed from retail store shelves, illegal alien Halloween costumes are becoming an underground sensation.  Indeed, the group claims, “This costume is going to be the most popular costume of 2009 because 78% of Americans oppose any path to citizenship for illegal aliens and resent this attempt to quell free speech and freedom of expression in America.”

Well, I don’t know about that.  Then again, I didn’t even know the costume existed, much less that it has been banned.  (See Amanda Terkel for a rundown as well as a rather histrionic view from the opposition to said costumes.)

Regardless, while the juxtaposition of the two meanings of “alien” is rather clever here, I would imagine that the demand for such a costume is rather limited.  After all, the whole point of dressing up in costumes for Halloween is to have fun.  And, as we all know, it’s no fun being an illegal alien.

Weekend Caption Jam Linkfest. . .

• Rodney is still a little nuts.
• Wizbang landed chinese — Won Wing Lo.
• Wyatt Earp has the Magnificent Six.
• Cowboy Blob lost his beer goggles
• RT’s Ponderings has been canned.
• Blonde Sagacity has a real head banger.
• Military Times is keepin’ cool

Other Humor:
Icanhascheezburger welcomes you to the kitteh cult.
V the K always has the best pictures at Caption This!

To join in, start a Caption Contest at your blog, edit it to add a link to this post, and then send a TrackBack. If your blog doesn’t automatically generate one, use the Send TrackBack feature below. For more information, see this post.

The Cato Institute has recently published a study indicating that amnesty for illegal immigrants would produce a net benefit to the economy–and increased enforcement would be a net drag:

This study uses the U.S. Applied General Equilibrium model that has been developed for the U.S. International Trade Commission and other U.S. government agencies to estimate the welfare impact of seven different scenarios, which include increased enforcement at the border and in the workplace, and several different legalization options, including a visa program that allows more low-skilled workers to enter the U.S. workforce legally.

For each scenario, the USAGE model weighs the impact on such factors as public revenues and expenditures, the occupational mix and total employment of U.S. workers, the amount of capital owned by U.S. households, and price levels for imports and exports. This study finds that increased enforcement and reduced low-skilled immigration have a significant negative impact on the income of U.S. households. Modest savings in public expenditures would be more than offset by losses in economic output and job opportunities for more skilled American workers. A policy that reduces the number of low-skilled immigrant workers by 28.6 percent compared to projected levels would reduce U.S. household welfare by about 0.5 percent, or $80 billion.

In contrast, legalization of low-skilled immigrant workers would yield significant income gains for American workers and households. Legalization would eliminate smugglers’ fees and other costs faced by illegal immigrants. It would also allow immigrants to have higher productivity and create more openings for Americans in higherskilled occupations. The positive impact for U.S. households of legalization under an optimal visa tax would be 1.27 percent of GDP or $180 billion.

This is consistent with previous studies that show an economic drag from the current immigration system and a net benefit to simple amnesty and relaxed immigration rules as opposed to the Soviet Eastern Bloc-style “build a wall and make everyone show their papers” strategy that is popular in some anti-immigrant circles. (A strategy that, I might add, my colleague Jon Stonger beautifully skewered here.)

(link via the Washington Independent)

The Department of Homeland Security is removing the words “United States” from a New York border station for fear that it will make the station a terrorist target.

Four years ago, when the federal General Services Administration unveiled its plans for a new border-crossing station here in northeastern New York State, the design was presented as part of the agency’s campaign to raise the dismal standards of government architecture. Even many in the famously fractious architectural community celebrated the complex — particularly its main building, emblazoned with glossy yellow, 21-foot-high letters spelling “United States” — as a rare project the government could point to with pride.

[...]

Yet three weeks ago, less than a month after the station opened, workers began prying the big yellow letters off the building’s facade on orders from Customs and Border Protection. The plan is to dismantle the rest of the sign this week.

“At the end of the day, I think they were somewhat surprised at how bold and how bright it was,” said Les Shepherd, the chief architect of the General Services Administration, referring to the customs agency’s sudden turnaround.

“There were security concerns,” said Kelly Ivahnenko, a spokeswoman for the customs agency. “The sign could be a huge target and attract undue attention. Anything that would place our officers at risk we need to avoid.”

As you can see from the photo of the station in question above, it’s clear that once the word “United States” is removed, no terrorist worth his salt will be able to tell that this building is, in fact, a border crossing station…

(link via Cory Doctorow)

Photo Courtesy the New York Times

Starting today, every American citizen is now required to have a passport to return to the U.S., even for travel to Mexico and Canada.

Beginning today, American travelers entering the U.S. by land, air or sea from Mexico, Canada, Bermuda or the Caribbean are required to carry a U.S. passport.

“The basic, number one rule is that everyone should get a passport,” said Vince Gargiulo, owner of Cruise Planners, a Gainesville travel agency. “That would be the safest way to travel.”

The new regulations also will apply to cruisers, with an exception for “closed loop cruises,” which travel within the Western Hemisphere and depart from and return to the same port.

Although closed loop cruisers are not required to have a passport to travel, Gargiulo still recommends that everyone get a passport as soon as possible.

If someone on a cruise fell ill and needed to return to the U.S., they would not be able to.

As Reason points out, this even took former Presidents Bush and Clinton by surprise.

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush admitted yesterday they had no idea the U.S. was implementing a new rule Monday that would require Canadians and Americans to have passports to cross the border.

The former presidents were caught off guard during a 90-minute joint appearance in Toronto when moderator Frank McKenna, the former Canadian ambassador to the U.S., spoke about how Canadians feel slighted by the new rule.

Of course, there’s no good reason for this. American citizens have been freely travelling to Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean now for decades on the strength of a driver’s license. There’s no point to this whatsoever.

A few weeks back, Thomas Friedman ran this tongue-in-cheek proposal for getting us out of the financial mess, particularly in the housing market.

“All you need to do is grant visas to two million Indians, Chinese and Koreans,” said Shekhar Gupta, editor of The Indian Express newspaper. “We will buy up all the subprime homes. We will work 18 hours a day to pay for them. We will immediately improve your savings rate — no Indian bank today has more than 2 percent nonperforming loans because not paying your mortgage is considered shameful here. And we will start new companies to create our own jobs and jobs for more Americans.”

Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok have been pushing a variant of this idea — Buy a House, Get a Visa — for months.  It’s starting to take off.  Richard Lefrak and Gary Shilling argued in WSJ earlier this week that, “The Obama administration should seriously consider granting resident status to foreigners who buy surplus houses in this country.”

The blueprint for a program to sell surplus housing to immigrants is already in place with the EB-5 visa program. Each year, 10,000 EB-5 visas for this country are available for foreigners who each invest $1 million in a new enterprise ($500,000 in economically depressed areas) that creates at least 10 full-time jobs. After two years, the entrepreneur and his family can become permanent residents.

Cowen likes the idea and suggests lowering the threshold to $100,000 (which strikes me as low, although it would buy a modest sized house in much of the country).  He links to John Mauldin who has a very detailed look at the policy, based on papers Shilling sent him.  He observes that, “the US is already allowing roughly 1 million immigrants a year into the country” and that this would “simply change the nature of what constitutes the conditions for acceptance, so as to jump start the housing industry and the economy.”

The massive losses because of bad loans that are being subsidized by US taxpayers would be stemmed, saving many hundreds of billions, if not a trillion or more dollars. The excess inventory of homes would quickly disappear and the millions of jobs that were lost as home construction fell into a deep depression would come back. If housing values rise, many families would be able to refinance their homes at lower rates and have more income left over after paying their mortgages. $12 billion in commissions would end up in real estate agents’ pockets, helping a very battered and bruised group. Hundreds of billions will flow into local businesses, as these new immigrants will need to furnish their homes. This could mean as much as a half trillion dollars in sorely needed stimulus in the next few years, without one penny of taxpayer money and actually adding taxes back to governments from local to national. And we are not bringing in 1 million foreigners, we are attracting 1 million mostly middle-class new Americans, which, if we are smart in how we do this, will result in more jobs for all Americans.

There’s a ton more at the link, with charts and everything.  They emphasize, too, that background checks and whatnot would still be conducted.

The commenters provide interesting rebuttals including moral ones (”reverse colonialism”) and practical ones (”Why any foreigner like myself who has the skills and financial ability to start such a business would choose instead to purchase an overpriced home is beyond me” and that this is “biased towards older generations, and [is] not fair to younger Americans who want to buy their own home”).   The former doesn’t much bother me — nobody would be forced to come — and the latter strike me as largely self correcting.

Greg Ransom:

BARACK OBAMA IS A CITIZEN OF KENYA as well as a citizen of the United States, according the Rocky Mountain News and other sources.  There’s reason to believe that Obama is also a citizen of Indonesia.  He calls himself a “citizen of the world”, and in some sense, he is.

That’s a good line.  Whether Obama is actually a citizen of Kenya and/or Indonesia is interesting but ultimately irrelevant. There’s no reason to doubt his loyalty to the United States and, if he has citizenship elsewhere, it’s simply an artifact of their laws and not any choice he’s made.

If he had obtained passports from another country, it could have implications for his obtaining a security clearance, but there’s no reason to think this is the case.  (And, indeed, one presumes any such restrictions would be inapplicable to him in any case were he elected president.)

The larger subject of dual nationality comes up in other contexts on occasion, though, and it’s one that continues to intrigue me.  Here’s some background from the State Department:

Dual Nationality

The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

Intent can be shown by the person’s statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship. Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.

Does the U.S. Recognize Dual Citizenship?

It strikes me as bizarre that someone can have loyalty to two countries and pick and choose among them.  There’s a longstanding and widespread misconception that Americans are forbidden to hold dual nationality and must renounce any foreign allegiance.  As the above excerpt makes clear, though, the United States recognize duals citizenship as a fact of life and we only actively discourage it in rare instances.

In cases like Obama’s, for example, it’s a non-issue.  His father was a Kenyan citizen and that automatically conveys to his U.S.-born son.  He grew up in Indonesia and, apparently, that conveyed their citizenship on him, too.  But he’s not carrying their passports, serving in their military, or otherwise acting as a citizen of those countries.

Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette noted in the wake of the John Walker Lindh case that dual citizenship is rising fast and that,

Voting in a foreign election, serving in a foreign army, or swearing allegiance to a foreign government used to be automatic grounds for losing U.S. citizenship. But a 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 made it all but impossible for someone to lose U.S. citizenship unless he or she wants to give it up.

That’s still the law today.

Image credit:  Flickr user tsevis. (And, yes, those are U.S. State flags, not international flags.)

Despite being fully integrated economically the media seems to ignore stuff north of the 49th parallel. I live a few hundred miles south and get the CBC on TV. I warn you that this report is disturbing.

First, if you are crossing a border into the USA you are a suspect. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will investigate every last word on your laptop.

Federal agents may take a traveler’s laptop or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed.
Also, officials may share copies of the laptop’s contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“The policies . . . are truly alarming,” said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who is probing the government’s border search practices. He said he intends to introduce legislation soon that would require reasonable suspicion for border searches, as well as prohibit profiling on race, religion or national origin.
DHS officials said that the newly disclosed policies — which apply to anyone entering the country, including U.S. citizens — are reasonable and necessary to prevent terrorism. Officials said such procedures have long been in place but were disclosed last month because of public interest in the matter.

This is one of the few instances I agree with Senator Feingold (he has often promoted saving 10 cents in this year’s military budget, to cost an extra dollar in the next, hoping to cancel the program over the increased cost. The man has tried to kill many times JVC in Utah, the country’s only major source of rocket fuel).

Meanwhile, anyone at Whistler, the site of the Winter Olympics is TRAPPED. Landslides have severed the only road (I’ve driven it)

Whistler Air and Perimeter Bus Lines Ltd. Appear to be among the biggest beneficiaries as stranded tourists and commuters seek alternatives after Tuesday’s massive rock fall on British Columbia’s Sea to Sky Highway.
The B.C. Ministry of Transportation says 16,000 vehicles use the Sea to Sky to travel between Vancouver and Squamish at this time of year.
But after a section of the road, located 20 kilometres south of Squamish was buried under a mountain of rock on Tuesday, many of those vehicle drivers are looking at other options, including air transportation and alternative routes.

Next, the non-gun carrying Canadians have no violent crime, right? When no one has guns, there are still knives. This is horrible. If you go to Google News Canada, this is the top story.

A quiet, easy-going carnival worker who was heading home to Winnipeg has been identified as the victim of an unthinkably horrific and random slaying on a Greyhound bus.
Friends said Tim McLean, 22, was the young man who was stabbed repeatedly and then decapitated by a man sitting next to him, who then carved up his body in front of terrified passengers.
William Caron, 23, of Winnipeg, said that contrary to some reports, McLean was not asleep when the attack happened.
…..

Passengers gave a much more graphic account of events.
“We heard this blood-curdling scream and turned around, and the guy was standing up, stabbing this guy repeatedly, like 40 or 50 times,” Garnet Caton said from a hotel in Brandon, Man., where he and other passengers had been taken to rest.
“There was no rage or anything. He was like a robot, stabbing the guy.”
Caton said the bus stopped immediately, just west of Portage La Prairie on Wednesday night, and everyone scrambled to get out while the attacker started methodically carving up the victim’s body, not paying attention to anyone else.
There have been several media reports that the man was seen to consume some of the victim’s flesh.
Caton and the driver shut the bus door from the outside while they waited for police to arrive.
“We put our bodies up against the door, waiting for him to come out … and he went back and brought the head to the front and pretty much displayed it … and dropped it on the ground in front of us,” Caton said.
“All very calmly. He was wearing sunglasses. It was no big deal to him.”

I hope this brutal attack makes the US press, to void the impression that everything is great north of the border. Every country has its’ psychopaths. They aren’t the norm, and Canada has them too. .

Today’s Outrage of the Day on the right side of the blogosphere regards this latest bit from Barack Obama, regarding the need for our educational system to get better at teaching other languages.

Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this. Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English — they’ll learn English — you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language.

You know, it’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say [is], “Merci beaucoup.” Right?

You know, no, I’m serious about this. We should understand that our young people, if you have a foreign language, that is a powerful tool to get ajob. You are so much more employable. You can be part of international business. So we should be emphasizing foreign languages in our schools from an early age, because children will actually learn a foreign language easier when they’re 5, or 6, or 7 than when they’re 46, like me.

This, to me, seems pretty uncontroversial. I personally consider it a woeful deficiency in my education that I speak only the barest smattering of French and Spanish–certainly not enough to carry on a conversation–and am completely ignorant of any Chinese or Japanese. Indeed, I recall a time not too long ago when conversatives lamented the fact that multilinguism, once a foundation of what was considered a well-rounded education, had fallen to the wayside. Not anymore, apparently, as here’s a quick roundup from around the right side of the blogosphere:

• Glenn Reynolds: “Barack Obama: Europeans are cooler than Americans.”

• Tom Maguire: “Whoa. Reporting live from the United Kingdom, I have been assured that the typical Brit does not speak many (i.e., any) languages other than English and a smattering of American. Apparently Obama is aware that culturally, Britain is not part of Europe, and he assumes we know it as well.”

• Gateway Pundit: “Obama is quite embarrassed that Americans are so boorish and refuse to speak French while traveling abroad. It’s so uncouth.”

My OTB Colleague Dave Schuler has some more sensible comments on this at his own blog:

I’m a language junkie. I’m fluent in several and conversant in a number of others. But for Americans that’s a hobby and an eccentricity not a necessity. Many Americans can travel 1,000 miles in any direction and not find that even their knowledge of Spanish (or any other language other than English) is not particularly useful to them, other than in communicating with workmen they may employ.

I agree with him that in one sense, it’s not necessary to speak another language in the United States. That sense being a pure, practical one. But there are other benefits to learning a language. For one, as Obama suggested, it provides a competitive advantage for business. Americans may not travel much, but lots of folks from other countries travel to America. Even if those people speak English, there can be business advantages to being able to speak with them in their own language.

Additionally, from my multilingual friends I am assured that speaking other languages is helpful for trying to understand other cultures and ways of thinking–which is a good skill for any educated person to have. A broader understanding of ideas fosters creativity and innovation.

Frankly, all this seems to be is a pathetic attempt to feed the “Barack Obama is Unamerican” narrative. A narrative that, I might add, has the result of making Americans sound like ignorant hillbillies. “He’s got a funny name!” “He likes food that tastes good instead of crap that’s fried in lard!” “He likes foreigners!” “He wants to speak other languages!” “He’s educated!” “He played basketball instead of football!” Embarrassing, really.

There are lots of policy ideas that Barack Obama has that are pretty silly–his protectionist-leaning foreign trade policies, for one thing. His commitment to cutting taxes without commiserate spending cuts. His national service plan. His push to expand government funding for faith-based charities. His support for McCain-Feingold. His support for No Child Left Behind. There’s plenty to attack Obama on the merits. Why not stick to that?

UPDATE (James Joyner): While I agree with Alex about the silliness of this as an “outrage” and even agree that bilingualism has its uses, Obama has stumbled on one of my pet peeves with this one:

You know, it’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say [is], “Merci beaucoup.” Right?

Europeans speak English because they live in geographically small countries and have regular occasion to speak other languages. English has become the default lingua franca because of the reach of the British Empire followed by the rise of the United States as a world power. If you live virtually anywhere in the world where English is not your first language, then your choice of a second language is rather obvious.

By contrast, Americans have no such easy choice. I learned to speak German because I spent quite a bit of time there growing up and again as a young adult because I grew up around and served in the United States Army, which meant I’d have plenty of occasion to use the language. Outside Germany, however, the ability to speak German has essentially no application and, indeed, my skills have atrophied substantially. French, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, Farsi and a host of other languages would be occasionally useful. But, aside from those who learn languages easily and make a hobby of it, it’s simply not worth the time and effort to do so if you’re an American who doesn’t regularly travel to a specific country.

The one exception is Spanish. But, unless you live in Texas, New Mexico, California, or Florida the only real reason to learn that language is, as Dave notes, to more easily converse with workmen. Whether it’s worth the time investment for that purpose is, I suppose, an individual judgment.

UPDATE II (James Joyner): Steve Bainbridge points out that Obama made his comments in the context of the need for those living in America to learn English, making his answer a neat sleight-of-hand.

Drew Carey asks, “How are we supposed to compete against something that doesn’t get paid, doesn’t get health insurance, and never goes on breaks?”

No, not illegal aliens, silly. They get paid (a little) and take the occasional break. No, he’s talking about robots.

Today, we don’t need human workers to book our travel, do our banking, or file our taxes. From factory workers to symphony conductors, countless workers are locked in battle with soulless job stealers known as computers, websites, and robots.

Carey says nobody’s complaining about this, although I’m not sure it’s true. Certainly, labor unions oppose the mechanization of labor without commensurate featherbedding to protect human jobs. But he’s right that the outcry seems to be small compared to the raging against migrant human workers.

The post title, of course, refers to the classic South Park episode “Goobacks.”

via Glenn Reynolds

I just got an email from a group calling itself “America’s Voice calling attention to a spoof Lou Dobbs for Governor site they’ve put up because Dobbs is ostensibly “contemplating a run for Governor of New Jersey next year.”

Lou Dobbs for Governor: Because Nothing Says “Welcome to the Garden State” Like “Show Me Your Papers Amigo!”

Spanish-only speakers have an easier time getting by in Miami than English-only speakers, AP reports.

In many areas of Miami, Spanish has become the predominant language, replacing English in everyday life. Anyone from Latin America could feel at home on the streets, without having to pronounce a single word in English. In stores, shopkeepers wait on their clients in Spanish. Universities offer programs for Spanish speakers. And in supermarkets, banks, restaurants — even at the post office and government offices — information is given and assistance is offered in Spanish. In Miami, doctors and nurses speak Spanish with their patients and a large portion of advertising is in Spanish. Daily newspapers and radio and television stations cater to the Hispanic public.

But this situation, so pleasing to Latin American immigrants, makes some English speakers feel marginalized. In the 1950s, it’s estimated that more than 80 percent of Miami-Dade County residents were non-Hispanic whites. But in 2006, the Census Bureau estimates that number was only 18.5 percent, and in 2015 it is forecast to be 14 percent. Hispanics now make up about 60 percent.

“The Anglo population is leaving,” said Juan Clark, a sociology professor at Miami Dade College. “One of the reactions is to emigrate toward the north. They resent the fact that (an American) has to learn Spanish in order to have advantages to work. If one doesn’t speak Spanish, it’s a disadvantage.”

According to the Census, 58.5 percent of the county’s 2.4 million residents speak Spanish — and half of those say they don’t speak English well. English-only speakers make up 27.2 percent of the county’s residents.

That Miami has a huge Spanish-speaking population is hardly news, of course. They’ve been electing Hispanic mayors almost exclusively since 1973 and all their first-time mayors since 1985 have been Cuban-born.*

It’s arguable, at least, that people who live in Miami should be expected to be able to speak some Spanish. The problem, though, is that Miami isn’t an island. It’s a major city in an overwhelmingly English-speaking country. It’s not reasonable that Americans who live elsewhere should feel as if they’re in a foreign country when traveling domestically on business. More importantly, it threatens to isolate Miami from the rest of the country, making them less able to participate in the political system and cut off from the broader national culture.

Generally, immigrants have a strong incentive to learn English and their children do so almost universally. But that’s much less likely to happen when they can get by in their native tongue. We should expect, therefore, that this trend will continue.

__________
*Stephen P. Clark, who served from 1993-1996, had previously been city mayor from 1967-1970 and mayor of Miami-Dade County from 1970-1972 and 1974-1993.

John Hawkins, who initially supported Duncan Hunter for president and came to nominally support John McCain after exhausting all other possible Republican choices, has now announced the withdrawal of his support.

Why? “John McCain is a liar. He’s a man without honor, without integrity …” That seems rather harsh. What happened to give him that idea? Well, McCain reiterated his stance on immigration reform yesterday afternoon.

In yet another sign of his pivoting toward the general election, Senator John McCain said at a roundtable with business leaders here today that comprehensive immigration reform should be a top priority for the next president.

[...]

Mr. McCain largely stopped talking about the issue and repeatedly invoked a mantra that he had gotten the message from voters that the borders needed to be secured first, before any solution for the illegal immigrants already here is addressed.

[...]

After several of the business leaders complained about the difficulty in obtaining temporary H1B visas for scientists and engineers, something the Senate immigration bill was supposed to address, Mr. McCain expressed regret the measure did not pass, calling it a personal “failure,” as well as one by the federal government.

[...]

He added: “I believe we have to secure our borders, and I think most Americans agree with that, because it’s a matter of national security. But we must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don’t do it before, and we probably won’t, a little straight talk, as of January 2009.”

[...]

Later, Mr. McCain took up the topic again, saying the problem of what to do with illegal immigrants already here needs to be solved, saying “they are also God’s children, and we have to do it in a human and compassionate fashion,” which drew applause from his audience.

Now, having paid attention to McCain over the last several months, including participating in several blogger conference calls with the senator, none of this comes as news to me. Hawkins, however, is incensed.

McCain claimed that he had changed his tune. Yes, he still supported amnesty, but he said he had heard the message that the American people were sending him and that he had been convinced that we needed security first, before we pursued an amnesty. [...] McCain has said, again and again, that he no longer supports comprehensive immigration reform. To the contrary, he has been saying that we need security first and then — and only then — could we consider moving forward with an amnesty.

But that’s what he said yesterday, too. “Security first” was always about tactics, not strategy. The idea was that you had to mollify the “They’re violating our laws!” constituency before moving ahead and fixing the whole system.

Indeed, McCain’s campaign said as much to Hawkins in a post-conference call email last month.

As the recent immigration debate demonstrated, Americans have little trust that their government will honor a pledge to do the things necessary to make our border secure. As president, I will honor that pledge by securing the border, thus strengthening our national security. I will also require that, among other things, border-state governors certify that the border is secure before proceeding to other reform measures. However, I also believe that our immigration system must recognize that America will always be that “shining city upon a hill,” a beacon of hope and opportunity for those seeking a better life built on hard work and optimism. Once we achieve border security, we must ensure that we approach our remaining immigration challenges with constructive dialogue and solutions that reflect a compassionate approach and the needs of our economy.

McCain is not feeling his way around on this one. He’s represented a border state in the Senate for 31 years and has been a passionate leader on this issue. Why would anyone think he’d turned 180 degrees in the middle of a presidential run? For that matter, why would they want to trust the leadership of their country to someone who had?

Instead, he took his beating on the issue like a man, announced that he’d learned that he’s not going to get his way without addressing the security issue first, but reiterated that he thinks we need a comprehensive, humanitarian approach to the problem.

Then again, these are the same people who were shocked and angered to find out that George W. Bush, who went around speaking Spanish during his first presidential run and proclaimed that “immigration is not a problem to be solved, but the sign of a successful nation” and that “While he is strongly opposed to illegal immigration, he believes more should be done to welcome legal immigrants” was suddenly a traitor to his country when he sought to actually enact that agenda.