The problem results from a confusion between the words undocumented and illegally. Anyone who enters America is documented as part of the process. We know they're here and we know if they left legally.
However they can be documented but still be here illegally if they stay passed the time their documentation says they have to leave.
Not to mention, many undocumented folks crossed the border legally.
If they crossed the border legally then they have documentation and are, by definition, not undocumented even if they remain in the country illegally.
The problem of visa-overstayers is a very different one than the problem of illegal border crossings.
With over staysers
* Everyone has been cleared with customs, and whatever background checks we choose to do or do not do. We have a chance to verify they're not bringing drugs or other contraband.
* Most are going to be skilled laborers because it's difficult to get a temporary visa without having money and a good purpose for coming here.
* We don't get the majority from just a few places - we take people on temp visas from all over the world so if they oversay we don't get a permanent minority - people are more likely to assimilate.
* Everyone has documentation so we can find out who they are if they ever get arrested. Just run their fingerprints against the visa-overstayer database. If they don't get arrested then maybe we can just let them be.
* If we find that certain types of visas are more likely to be violated or certain characteristics (nation of citizenship, purpose for coming, etc.) make it more likely someone will overstay, we can cut back on those visas.
In short, with visa over-stayers we have a way to manage the situation. We don't have that with illegal border crossers.
I have a couple problems with this. First, I'm a softie and don't want to put people who have laid down roots here in that situation. Second, I believe immigration policy should primarily benefit Americans and a policy that forces American children/spouses to either abandon family members or leave is not one that I think is good for Americans. And let's remember that these trespassers have also made American friends outside their family.
Finally, and very importantly, I don't want that kind of police society where people have to show their papers to get anything done. I'm an American citizen and if I want to work I should be allowed to work without having to dig up pieces of paper that let people look up my life's story. Such a paperwork government-approved society is one liberal wet dream I don't want any part of.
Great Wall isn't relevant. It was a very different situation - different time, different peoples, different purpose, etc..
$22 billion - the Heritage foundation figure the illegal immigrants cost us about $50 each year. After the border is built the maintenance costs will be lower per year than the building cost. Troops will be needed to secure the border so that will add to the cost. However after the first few years that cost will also decrease as it becomes clear that there is no point in trying.
A border sufficiently secure from trespassers will also make drug smuggling very difficult because getting drugs across usually involves getting people across. Some drug smugglers will still get through and many will keep trying given the profits available, but stopping those smugglers will get easier when we can assume anyone crossing illegally is a smuggler rather than a mere trespasser and we can be more aggressive in stopping them.
If pouring money into Mexico would help, I would be all for it. But we've played that game too many times and lost. You give foreign aid to a people struggling with, amoung other things bad government and organized crime, and the money ends up in the hands of the bad government and the organized criminals helping them secure their place as the people ruining the society.
There may be something cultural as well - the only places where foreign aid has brought about long lasting positive effects is in places that were being restored to what they were before - like Germany, Japan, and the Marshall Plan in Europe. It has never lead a society to a place it had never been before. The only times were outsiders have effected positive long-lasting change is when there has been some level of colonization or force, and that is hit-and-miss and generally takes decades or longer even when it works. (Really the only places I know of where such a colonization has worked really well are when America forced Japan to open up (perhaps it wasn't strictly colonization, but it was force)(it worked well in modernizing their society even if it lead to later problems) when the Japanese took over Taiwan.)
One other thing about the cost - again I think culture is important. Mexicans and other South Americans have never established a working stable robust democracy despite nearly 200 years of trying. Frankly I don't want too many people from such a culture coming to America and voting/governing in ways that undermine our system.
We aren't like those other countries where citizens are muzzled. Over here, we have the first amendment. Oh wait...Yes, I am referring to the constitution*.
*Subject to certain prohibitions and restrictions. May not apply in all states and jurisdictions. All terms subject to override by the President if Congress fails to do what he tells them to.
"Much of the reporting is one-sided — and there's a reason for this."
There is more than one reason. The article gives one reason - and this was news to me.
However the other reason is that for some reason the reporting is very biased in favor of open borders. This is a situation where the well-known obvious liberal bias of most reporters fits perfectly with the often alleged corporate bias of the owners of most major media outlets. Diversity meets cheap labor is the perfect storm.
How often do we here about the need for "comprehensive immigration reform"? The very word "reform" shows the bias. And we already did it anyway, we traded amnesty for increased enforcement. The amnesty occurred but we never go the enforcement. Now the very same deal is being offered again? How often do you hear this outside of right-wing radio and (possibly because I don't watch it) Fox News? Yet it is central to why so many people are dead-set against a comprehensive deal. For a deal you need trust and there is no trust. But you don't see that reported in the Washington Post.
Build a border that can be enforced, then we'll talk amnesty (and I'll be in favor of it too). But we can't make a new agreement until good faith is shown through the fulfilling of the terms of the previous agreement. Would you go back and buy another car from a salesman who never delivered the previous one you bought and paid for?
One we have the trust, we can talk about the H1-Bs too.
The natural environment is a survival of the fittest game where most actors look out for their own interests - pretty much like an economy. Is it any surprise that in both cases when we try to perform top-down management we fail due to unintended consequences?
My advice is to look at small companies rather than large companies. Large companies are likely to have policies in place and you're not likely to get the CEO's attention for an override.
At a small company they may not have a policy. Or maybe if you impress the guys interviewing you enough they might just bring in the president of the company to see if he'll let them make an exception.
Since you mention that you had just gotten out of the military, you might look around for a program (even at a large company) that helps vets get back into civilian life. I worked on a project at a large company (on a contract with the Army) that was bringing in vets who had been seriously injured. Maybe there's something out there for vets who had emotional issues as result of combat.
I suspect (I'm speculating though) that most large companies have policies in place that prevent hiring of people with criminal histories. However small companies and start-ups are often more free to make case-by-case decisions. My one datapoint is having worked for a small company with an excellent programmer with no college degree. When I started at a large well-known company he asked about working there as well. I recommended him to my boss who told me they had a strict rule - you need a college diploma to work there.
So look for firms of less than 200 employees where you have a decent chance of the top guy finding out about you and overriding any policies in place (if there are any).
I've wondered how district stability (I assume that's what you mean) might be incorporated into the plan. You wouldn't want it as a factor the first time it is used because you want to get rid of any previous gerrymandering effects. But in follow-up years it would be nice for people not to have the districts (and representatives) changing wildly. I don't have an answer for it though. I think the benefits of ending gerrymandering would make up for the district instability.
Why not use something like random.org or another "perfect" random number source? That way, nobody choose the seed.
For the same reason we don't trust electronic ballots - too easy to tamper with the process without having any evidence.
A big round tub of ping pong balls on the other hand - there is no obvious way to rig which ball will be selected and if you did figure something out the evidence would be tangible and much harder to dispose of.
District-drawing very much should recognize communities. If you can avoid it, it does not make sense to have districts that are half suburban and half agricultural, or half high-end gentrified downtown and half working-class and poor. Unfortunately, as you point out, the judgment involved does make it easier to slip in some degree of gerrymandering.
it does make sense if you want to have non-extremist represents willing to compromise because they have to worry about pleasing more than one kind of constituent. One of the big complaints about gerrymandering is that it has lead to 'safe' seats where extreme partisans cause gridlock.
While it does ignore geographic features, the algorithm has the virtue of extreme simplicity and does seem to produce quite reasonable results in all but a few cases.
If you give a "non-partisan" commission (is there is such a thing when they are appointed by partisans?) that much power, it won't be long before they're corrupted by the powers that be.
Look, for example, at our Supreme Court which is supposed to be above partisanship, but as they've gained more power we've all come to know which ones tilt which way and there is talk about justices scheduling their retirements to make sure the right president appoints their successor.
The only data fed to the program is geographic markers the will provide convenient district borders (railroad lines, roads, rivers, county and city borders, etc.) and the number of people within each section.
Here's the flaw: the people who provide the 'convenient district borders' will be able to choose them in a way that favors one party or another.
You don't allow them to choose, for example, which Interstate Highways can be boundaries - you say they can all be boundaries. The algorithm chooses which ones to use. You don't choose which county roads can be boundaries, you say either county roads can be used or they can't. And you might give them a priority that says they're less important than Interstates but more important than creeks. But ultimately it is the algorithm running two years later that decides based on population which of those roads and creeks to use as boundaries.
I was in a hurry at the time and wished I could come up with better wording for what I meant by "people within each section". I did mean population density - but as I was writing it the thought occurred to me that precise knowledge of population density could be used to do some partisan gerrymandering and was thinking at the time that maybe less precise data would be better.
In your second paragraph you suggest that districts should be built around population centers. Why do we want that? Why should every farmer be tied to a town instead of large sections of farmers (a community) being tied together?
I've had this method of redistricting in my mind for a long time but I have to admit this population density issue had never occurred to me before. Democrats tend to live in urban centers and Republicans in less densely populated areas. Some attention would need to be paid to the algorithm to be sure it didn't favor one party or the other simply by the technique it uses to group voters.
I do like how your method avoids what is usually one of my objections to "keeping communities together" which is "how do you define community?"
But I don't agree with what seems to be a consensus among many that having communities represented together is necessarily a good thing. One of the reasons gerrymandering is criticized is that it leads to 'safe' districts and extremely partisan representatives.
Having an algorithm that uses geography but otherwise ignores "communities" will some community representation together and some split up - but in a non-partisan way. I see this diversity of representation types as a good thing.
Each state should create a competitive contract and to build a re-districting computer program. The requirements for the program should include
* The only data fed to the program is geographic markers the will provide convenient district borders (railroad lines, roads, rivers, county and city borders, etc.) and the number of people within each section. No other demographic data (age, race, previous voting patterns, income, etc.) will be input into the program
* the program will be completed 2 years before the redistricting and be open source so that anyone can inspect it and run it and get the same result
* the program will take a random seed as input and will generate different results based on that seed.
The requirements also include obvious stuff like how spread out or compact districts must be, how many can be disconnected, etc.
The geographic data will also be made public 2 years in advance of the redistricting
When the census data comes out it will be published as well.
On the big day they'll hold a lotto-type drawing to select the random seed. At that point anyone - researchers, journalists, some kid in his basement - can run the program and know the result before it is even published by the government. If the result isn't what everyone else expects we'll know there was funny business.
The program will be fair because the kind of data that allows gerrymandering simply won't be permitted as input. Any sneaky attempts to use something like population density as a proxy will be something anyone can find and complain about in the open source code. Neither party will be able look at the results ahead of time, see that by chance it gives a slight advantage to their opponents, and scuttle the process because the outcome won't be available until the random seed is drawn.
Each state should create a competitive contract and to build a re-districting computer program. The requirements for the program should include
* The only data fed to the program is geographic markers the will provide convenient district borders (railroad lines, roads, rivers, county and city borders, etc.) and the number of people within each section. No other demographic data (age, race, previous voting patterns, income, etc.) will be input into the program
* the program will be completed 2 years before the redistricting and be open source so that anyone can inspect it and run it and get the same result
* the program will take a random seed as input and will generate different results based on that seed.
The geographic data will also be made public 2 years in advance of the redistricting
When the census data comes out it will be published as well.
On the big day they'll hold a lotto-type drawing to select the random seed. At that point anyone - researchers, journalists, some kid in his basement - can run the program and know the result before it is even published by the government. If the result isn't what everyone else expects we'll know there was funny business.
The program will be fair because the kind of data that allows gerrymandering simply won't be permitted as input. Any sneaky attempts to use something like population density as a proxy will be something anyone can find and complain about in the open source code. Neither party will be able look at the results ahead of time, see that by chance it gives a slight advantage to their opponents, and scuttle the process because the outcome won't be available until the random seed is drawn.
It is obvious. This wasn't a study to point out the bad effects of Gerrymandering - everyone with a 5th grade education could learn to understand and explain it within 5 minutes.
This was a chance for teachers at a publicly funded university to point out that Republicans are bad. (they won't be doing this when the Democrats are winning by Gerrymandering).\
So the purpose of that part of the Voting Rights Act was to require gerrymandering that favors Democrats? Good thing it was struck down. Gerrymandering isn't good but if we're going to have it it should at least be equally accessible to both parties.
Slashdot Mirror
Crossed legally then didn't leave when they were supposed to. Sort of like if I went to Canada on vacation then just never left.
That makes them illegal, not undocumented.
The problem results from a confusion between the words undocumented and illegally. Anyone who enters America is documented as part of the process. We know they're here and we know if they left legally.
However they can be documented but still be here illegally if they stay passed the time their documentation says they have to leave.
Not to mention, many undocumented folks crossed the border legally.
If they crossed the border legally then they have documentation and are, by definition, not undocumented even if they remain in the country illegally.
The problem of visa-overstayers is a very different one than the problem of illegal border crossings.
With over staysers
* Everyone has been cleared with customs, and whatever background checks we choose to do or do not do. We have a chance to verify they're not bringing drugs or other contraband.
* Most are going to be skilled laborers because it's difficult to get a temporary visa without having money and a good purpose for coming here.
* We don't get the majority from just a few places - we take people on temp visas from all over the world so if they oversay we don't get a permanent minority - people are more likely to assimilate.
* Everyone has documentation so we can find out who they are if they ever get arrested. Just run their fingerprints against the visa-overstayer database. If they don't get arrested then maybe we can just let them be.
* If we find that certain types of visas are more likely to be violated or certain characteristics (nation of citizenship, purpose for coming, etc.) make it more likely someone will overstay, we can cut back on those visas.
In short, with visa over-stayers we have a way to manage the situation. We don't have that with illegal border crossers.
I have a couple problems with this. First, I'm a softie and don't want to put people who have laid down roots here in that situation. Second, I believe immigration policy should primarily benefit Americans and a policy that forces American children/spouses to either abandon family members or leave is not one that I think is good for Americans. And let's remember that these trespassers have also made American friends outside their family.
Finally, and very importantly, I don't want that kind of police society where people have to show their papers to get anything done. I'm an American citizen and if I want to work I should be allowed to work without having to dig up pieces of paper that let people look up my life's story. Such a paperwork government-approved society is one liberal wet dream I don't want any part of.
Great Wall isn't relevant. It was a very different situation - different time, different peoples, different purpose, etc..
$22 billion - the Heritage foundation figure the illegal immigrants cost us about $50 each year. After the border is built the maintenance costs will be lower per year than the building cost. Troops will be needed to secure the border so that will add to the cost. However after the first few years that cost will also decrease as it becomes clear that there is no point in trying.
A border sufficiently secure from trespassers will also make drug smuggling very difficult because getting drugs across usually involves getting people across. Some drug smugglers will still get through and many will keep trying given the profits available, but stopping those smugglers will get easier when we can assume anyone crossing illegally is a smuggler rather than a mere trespasser and we can be more aggressive in stopping them.
If pouring money into Mexico would help, I would be all for it. But we've played that game too many times and lost. You give foreign aid to a people struggling with, amoung other things bad government and organized crime, and the money ends up in the hands of the bad government and the organized criminals helping them secure their place as the people ruining the society.
There may be something cultural as well - the only places where foreign aid has brought about long lasting positive effects is in places that were being restored to what they were before - like Germany, Japan, and the Marshall Plan in Europe. It has never lead a society to a place it had never been before. The only times were outsiders have effected positive long-lasting change is when there has been some level of colonization or force, and that is hit-and-miss and generally takes decades or longer even when it works. (Really the only places I know of where such a colonization has worked really well are when America forced Japan to open up (perhaps it wasn't strictly colonization, but it was force)(it worked well in modernizing their society even if it lead to later problems) when the Japanese took over Taiwan.)
One other thing about the cost - again I think culture is important. Mexicans and other South Americans have never established a working stable robust democracy despite nearly 200 years of trying. Frankly I don't want too many people from such a culture coming to America and voting/governing in ways that undermine our system.
We aren't like those other countries where citizens are muzzled. Over here, we have the first amendment. Oh wait...Yes, I am referring to the constitution*.
*Subject to certain prohibitions and restrictions. May not apply in all states and jurisdictions. All terms subject to override by the President if Congress fails to do what he tells them to.
"Much of the reporting is one-sided — and there's a reason for this."
There is more than one reason. The article gives one reason - and this was news to me.
However the other reason is that for some reason the reporting is very biased in favor of open borders. This is a situation where the well-known obvious liberal bias of most reporters fits perfectly with the often alleged corporate bias of the owners of most major media outlets. Diversity meets cheap labor is the perfect storm.
How often do we here about the need for "comprehensive immigration reform"? The very word "reform" shows the bias. And we already did it anyway, we traded amnesty for increased enforcement. The amnesty occurred but we never go the enforcement. Now the very same deal is being offered again? How often do you hear this outside of right-wing radio and (possibly because I don't watch it) Fox News? Yet it is central to why so many people are dead-set against a comprehensive deal. For a deal you need trust and there is no trust. But you don't see that reported in the Washington Post.
Build a border that can be enforced, then we'll talk amnesty (and I'll be in favor of it too). But we can't make a new agreement until good faith is shown through the fulfilling of the terms of the previous agreement. Would you go back and buy another car from a salesman who never delivered the previous one you bought and paid for?
One we have the trust, we can talk about the H1-Bs too.
The natural environment is a survival of the fittest game where most actors look out for their own interests - pretty much like an economy. Is it any surprise that in both cases when we try to perform top-down management we fail due to unintended consequences?
My advice is to look at small companies rather than large companies. Large companies are likely to have policies in place and you're not likely to get the CEO's attention for an override.
At a small company they may not have a policy. Or maybe if you impress the guys interviewing you enough they might just bring in the president of the company to see if he'll let them make an exception.
Since you mention that you had just gotten out of the military, you might look around for a program (even at a large company) that helps vets get back into civilian life. I worked on a project at a large company (on a contract with the Army) that was bringing in vets who had been seriously injured. Maybe there's something out there for vets who had emotional issues as result of combat.
I suspect (I'm speculating though) that most large companies have policies in place that prevent hiring of people with criminal histories. However small companies and start-ups are often more free to make case-by-case decisions. My one datapoint is having worked for a small company with an excellent programmer with no college degree. When I started at a large well-known company he asked about working there as well. I recommended him to my boss who told me they had a strict rule - you need a college diploma to work there.
So look for firms of less than 200 employees where you have a decent chance of the top guy finding out about you and overriding any policies in place (if there are any).
They shouldn't be having companies buy it; companies should be leasing it from the government.
Thanks
I've wondered how district stability (I assume that's what you mean) might be incorporated into the plan. You wouldn't want it as a factor the first time it is used because you want to get rid of any previous gerrymandering effects. But in follow-up years it would be nice for people not to have the districts (and representatives) changing wildly. I don't have an answer for it though. I think the benefits of ending gerrymandering would make up for the district instability.
Why not use something like random.org or another "perfect" random number source? That way, nobody choose the seed.
For the same reason we don't trust electronic ballots - too easy to tamper with the process without having any evidence.
A big round tub of ping pong balls on the other hand - there is no obvious way to rig which ball will be selected and if you did figure something out the evidence would be tangible and much harder to dispose of.
No, the heart of gerrymandering is "recognizing communities and then ripping them apart electorally".
or tying them tightly together so they only get one representative.
District-drawing very much should recognize communities. If you can avoid it, it does not make sense to have districts that are half suburban and half agricultural, or half high-end gentrified downtown and half working-class and poor. Unfortunately, as you point out, the judgment involved does make it easier to slip in some degree of gerrymandering.
it does make sense if you want to have non-extremist represents willing to compromise because they have to worry about pleasing more than one kind of constituent. One of the big complaints about gerrymandering is that it has lead to 'safe' seats where extreme partisans cause gridlock.
Someone has already implemented a pretty good algorithm for generating congressional districts.
http://rangevoting.org/SplitLR...
While it does ignore geographic features, the algorithm has the virtue of extreme simplicity and does seem to produce quite reasonable results in all but a few cases.
Sounds like a good start.
If you give a "non-partisan" commission (is there is such a thing when they are appointed by partisans?) that much power, it won't be long before they're corrupted by the powers that be.
Look, for example, at our Supreme Court which is supposed to be above partisanship, but as they've gained more power we've all come to know which ones tilt which way and there is talk about justices scheduling their retirements to make sure the right president appoints their successor.
The only data fed to the program is geographic markers the will provide convenient district borders (railroad lines, roads, rivers, county and city borders, etc.) and the number of people within each section.
Here's the flaw: the people who provide the 'convenient district borders' will be able to choose them in a way that favors one party or another.
You don't allow them to choose, for example, which Interstate Highways can be boundaries - you say they can all be boundaries. The algorithm chooses which ones to use. You don't choose which county roads can be boundaries, you say either county roads can be used or they can't. And you might give them a priority that says they're less important than Interstates but more important than creeks. But ultimately it is the algorithm running two years later that decides based on population which of those roads and creeks to use as boundaries.
I was in a hurry at the time and wished I could come up with better wording for what I meant by "people within each section". I did mean population density - but as I was writing it the thought occurred to me that precise knowledge of population density could be used to do some partisan gerrymandering and was thinking at the time that maybe less precise data would be better.
In your second paragraph you suggest that districts should be built around population centers. Why do we want that? Why should every farmer be tied to a town instead of large sections of farmers (a community) being tied together?
I've had this method of redistricting in my mind for a long time but I have to admit this population density issue had never occurred to me before. Democrats tend to live in urban centers and Republicans in less densely populated areas. Some attention would need to be paid to the algorithm to be sure it didn't favor one party or the other simply by the technique it uses to group voters.
I do like how your method avoids what is usually one of my objections to "keeping communities together" which is "how do you define community?"
But I don't agree with what seems to be a consensus among many that having communities represented together is necessarily a good thing. One of the reasons gerrymandering is criticized is that it leads to 'safe' districts and extremely partisan representatives.
Having an algorithm that uses geography but otherwise ignores "communities" will some community representation together and some split up - but in a non-partisan way. I see this diversity of representation types as a good thing.
Each state should create a competitive contract and to build a re-districting computer program. The requirements for the program should include
* The only data fed to the program is geographic markers the will provide convenient district borders (railroad lines, roads, rivers, county and city borders, etc.) and the number of people within each section. No other demographic data (age, race, previous voting patterns, income, etc.) will be input into the program
* the program will be completed 2 years before the redistricting and be open source so that anyone can inspect it and run it and get the same result
* the program will take a random seed as input and will generate different results based on that seed.
The requirements also include obvious stuff like how spread out or compact districts must be, how many can be disconnected, etc.
The geographic data will also be made public 2 years in advance of the redistricting
When the census data comes out it will be published as well.
On the big day they'll hold a lotto-type drawing to select the random seed. At that point anyone - researchers, journalists, some kid in his basement - can run the program and know the result before it is even published by the government. If the result isn't what everyone else expects we'll know there was funny business.
The program will be fair because the kind of data that allows gerrymandering simply won't be permitted as input. Any sneaky attempts to use something like population density as a proxy will be something anyone can find and complain about in the open source code. Neither party will be able look at the results ahead of time, see that by chance it gives a slight advantage to their opponents, and scuttle the process because the outcome won't be available until the random seed is drawn.
"recognizing communities" is the heart of gerrymandering. Any gerrymandering algorithm should be forbidden from doing so.
Each state should create a competitive contract and to build a re-districting computer program. The requirements for the program should include
* The only data fed to the program is geographic markers the will provide convenient district borders (railroad lines, roads, rivers, county and city borders, etc.) and the number of people within each section. No other demographic data (age, race, previous voting patterns, income, etc.) will be input into the program
* the program will be completed 2 years before the redistricting and be open source so that anyone can inspect it and run it and get the same result
* the program will take a random seed as input and will generate different results based on that seed.
The geographic data will also be made public 2 years in advance of the redistricting
When the census data comes out it will be published as well.
On the big day they'll hold a lotto-type drawing to select the random seed. At that point anyone - researchers, journalists, some kid in his basement - can run the program and know the result before it is even published by the government. If the result isn't what everyone else expects we'll know there was funny business.
The program will be fair because the kind of data that allows gerrymandering simply won't be permitted as input. Any sneaky attempts to use something like population density as a proxy will be something anyone can find and complain about in the open source code. Neither party will be able look at the results ahead of time, see that by chance it gives a slight advantage to their opponents, and scuttle the process because the outcome won't be available until the random seed is drawn.
It is obvious. This wasn't a study to point out the bad effects of Gerrymandering - everyone with a 5th grade education could learn to understand and explain it within 5 minutes. This was a chance for teachers at a publicly funded university to point out that Republicans are bad. (they won't be doing this when the Democrats are winning by Gerrymandering).\
So the purpose of that part of the Voting Rights Act was to require gerrymandering that favors Democrats? Good thing it was struck down. Gerrymandering isn't good but if we're going to have it it should at least be equally accessible to both parties.