Congress

Carlos Slim and Bill Gates are two of the richest men in the world. Slim with his Mexican telecommunication monopolies has done little to make either Mexico or the world a more prosperous place. In contrast, the computer revolution, in which Bill Gates was a major player, enriched the lives of people all over the world. In their book Why Nations Fail, Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson claim that the reasons why Slim’s and Gates’ wealth bear such different fruit are the same reasons why Nogales, Arizona is so much more prosperous than Nogales, Mexico, although the cities are divided by no more than a fence which marks an international border. For the most part the people on both sides of the international line in Nogales are of the same ethnicities and share the same history and geographic constraints, but the incentives in each nation are radically different.

The authors claim that broadly-based prosperity is possible only in a nation with the rule of law, protection of private property, constitutionally-limited government, and relatively broadly-based political and economic power.

In failing nations, political control is held in a few hands and a single party. The institutions have been set up so that the people in power can stay in power and benefit themselves and their friends. In Mexico there were only three banks, no real elections, no publicly acknowledged system for registering private property ownership, and no way in which inventors of new ideas could expect to prosper from those new ideas. Except for those in political power, most of the population was consigned to grinding poverty. Mexico has periodically faced bankruptcy and the International Monetary Fund, as a condition of bailing out the government, insisted that some of the many government monopolies be privatized. The Mexican government privatized the telephone monopoly by handing it over to one of its cronies – Carlos Slim. He didn’t put up any money. He “paid” for it out of the proceeds of the company itself, and he picked up other assets at “distressed” prices. With his monopolies, he continued to soak high telephone rates from the Mexican people. In contrast, Bill Gates, after dropping out of Harvard, invented his software in his garage with a couple of his friends, marketed Microsoft products fiendishly, and competed as ruthlessly as he could with his rivals like Steven Jobs who had built Apple in a similar way. In doing so, Microsoft and its competitors computerized the world and raised living standards in places like India and Mexico.

Under the rule of law, Bill Gates was sued by Netscape for building a monopoly. And although Netscape’s case was relatively weak, Gates lost in court, was humiliated on the witness stand, was fined, and was almost forced to break up his company. The flip side of the equation is that he could not have acquired his wealth if he had been operating in a nation without the rule of law.

Without the rule of law the only way to gain economic wealth is to pay bribes, seek patronage from the government, and rely on the police and the state to eliminate your competition. Technological improvement, so essential to real economic growth, is always a threat because it will lead to political change and any political change is likely to lead to major loss of property and life to those at the top of the heap. And so, historically, those governments have granted monopolies on every aspect of the economy and monopolies tend to charge the highest possible prices and provide the lowest quality of goods. Monopolies cannot exist without the force of government behind them.

Acemoglu and Robinson demonstrate it doesn’t matter what the ideology of the people in power is. They always act to preserve their power and that requires eliminating the rule of law and concentrating all economic and political power in a small group of people. These governments routinely kill and imprison their political opponents, confiscate the wealth of their middle classes, and impoverish and starve the mass of their people. And if those political opponents gain power, they do the same. Thus, using radically egalitarian propaganda, the economic inequality in China and Russia increased after their revolutions and tens of millions of their citizens were starved to death because all the food the peasants grew was expropriated by the government. In Africa, with a few exceptions like Botswana, the post-colonial governments exploited their people in much the same ways, and to an even greater degree, than the colonial powers had. Rhodesia’s government may have been unjust, but Zimbabwe’s government is murderous. In too many of these countries, the leaders and their friends are all fabulously wealthy. The other people are fabulously poor.

But times are changing. The Mexican government is turning toward the rule of law and the privatization of large and inefficient state monopolies. Meanwhile, in this country, we are moving away from the rule of law and constitutionally-limited government and toward unlimited government power and cronyism. Government is becoming the only available source of funding for many people and many businesses, and politically, the force of government is being used to silence the government’s political opposition. And perhaps Bill Gates and Microsoft may finally get a real monopoly. It is called the Common Core. Read more about Why Some Nations Succeed and Many Nations Fail

Rather than twisting the political knife in the gaping wound that is Obamacare, House Republicans are off on a “comprehensive immigration reform” toot. The latest news has the Speaker putting off any action for now, and waiting until after the midterm elections in order not to anger the anti-amnesty base, and “to goose Latino turnout or to swing purple districts” in 2016, as political blogger Allahpundit put it. In other words, electoral timing rather than principle is determining what happens.

But principle, not to mention common sense, is what’s at stake here. Anyone proposing “comprehensive” anything after the debacle of Obamacare is delusional...

And please, let’s stop all the delusional dreams of Hispanic “natural conservatives” flocking to the GOP after the boon of amnesty is bestowed upon them. John McCain partnered with Teddy Kennedy in 2005 and 2007 to craft legislation to create a “path to citizenship,” and still got half as many Hispanic votes (31%) as Barack Obama did in 2008. By the way, McCain beat Mitt “self-deport” Romney by a whole 4 points with Hispanic voters...

Also ridiculous is the fear that not doing something will allow Democrats to tar Republicans with the racism or xenophobia brush. Here’s a news flash: they are going to do that no matter what Republicans do. The “preemptive cringe” as Margaret Thatcher called it is the worst form of defense...

...If we are going to debate this issue honestly, then let’s talk about the whole reality rather than ignoring the side that doesn’t advance our political interest, whether this be more Democrat voters and welfare clients, or more cheap labor. Then explain how amnesty is going to change that behavior and lower those costs.

Moreover, let’s demand that the amnesty crowd explain exactly how they plan to sort out those two sets of illegal immigrants, the ones we should keep and the ones we need to kick out...

...Don’t tell me the country that between 1940 and 1944 increased military aircraft annual production from 3660 to 96,300, that in 1942 was producing 4,000 Sherman tanks a month, 70 years later can’t fence off the 1933 miles of border between Mexico and the U.S.

Do that first, and when the border is secure, then start talking about what to do with the 11 million illegal aliens. Meanwhile, reform our immigration policies by getting rid of family reunification programs, and making admission to this country conditional on what the immigrant has to offer Americans, not what Americans have to offer immigrants. Start enforcing labor laws and putting teeth into sanctions against violating them. And most important, start returning to the old model of immigration that made it work for most of American history: assimilation to American political principles and virtues, facility in speaking English, and a rejection of self-loathing multicultural nonsense about American guilt and the superiority of the countries immigrants risk their lives to leave. Read more about Republicans Go On an Immigration Reform Bender

Wednesday morning at a small meeting of conservative House members called the Conservative Opportunity Society, the topic was immigration—specifically, John Boehner. Despite the loud protestations of his rank-and-file, the House Speaker had come back from the the GOP's retreat in Cambridge, Maryland seemingly determined as ever to get amnesty legislation to the floor in 2014.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen laid it out in blunt terms. “I can’t think of a stupider thing for the Republicans to do,” Rasmussen told the assembled lawmakers (he thinks the GOP should tackle immigration reform in 2015, after the midterms).

Only 24 hours later, the Ohio Republican finally relented, abruptly hitting the brakes on his immigration push.

Boehner told reporters that distrust of Obama was an insurmountable hurdle to bringing forward legislation. The real story of Boehner's sudden reticence was the building fury of hardline amnesty opponents in Congress and the grassroots activists who had been melting the Capitol phone lines.

And while it would be deeply naïve to believe the push for amnesty is dead, Boehner's retreat Thursday was just the latest time his conservative critics have been able to thwart his determined push to tackle the issue since the 2012 elections.

In the weeks leading up to the big reveal of Boehner's immigration “principles,” anti-amnesty groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), NumbersUSA, and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) had begun revving up their messaging machines. Heritage Action’s website began filling itself with anti-amnesty posts. Tea Party Patriots leaders began bashing the GOP leadership, with co-founder Jenny Beth Martin hawking the group's FireSpeakerBoehner.com petition.

On Wednesday, grassroots group ForAmerica launched a Facebook campaign urging activists to call Boehner’s office. The result? 5,500 phone calls in 24 hours with the message “no secret deals on amnesty,” the group's spokesman said.

In the middle of it all, conservative war horse Phyllis Schlafly dropped her own bomb, issuing a report with the thesis that immigration reform would result in the demographic extinction of the GOP.

Inside the Capitol, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions began flouting delicate congressional protocol, openly organizing House members against Boehner. His Senate colleagues were following suit. Regulars like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee took shots at Boehner's principles, but pretty soon John Cornyn and even Mitch McConnell were making it clear they thought Boehner was out to lunch.

At the retreat, roughly 40 House Republicans told Boehner face-to-face they wanted nothing to do with immigration in 2014, a large majority of those who spoke.

That day, the hits just kept on coming for Boehner in the conservative media, the greatest indignity being a superimposed sombrero hat on the Drudge Report.

Top amnesty proponent Paul Ryan threw cold water on the push on the Sunday shows, but back in Washington on Monday, Boehner just kept going, touting his principles over the Senate Gang of Eight bill in a closed-door meeting Tuesday while his office issued promotional materials about the issue.

It was around this time that the private discussions of amnesty's biggest foes took a turn in a more explicitly anti-Boehner direction, GOP sources say.

The discussions, while early, were real. Members and staff talked about trying to force a special leadership election – which would require 50 signatures – in the event Boehner tried to move forward. Rep. Raul Labrador told Roll Call Boehner “should lose his speakership” if he moved forward, and the rumors of a coup began to spread.

That's when Boehner hit the brakes.

"We pushed the Speaker hard to understand that until the border is secure, it doesn't make sense to even discuss reforms, and the Speaker FINALLY CAME TO OUR SENSES,” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said in an email to Breitbart News.

Boehner gave himself plenty of room to resurrect the issue several months down the line, and his critics aren't ready to pop the champagne cork.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), for example, said the whole episode was disconcerting.

“I am slowly but surely developing the opinion that John Boehner does not intend to run for Speaker,” Brooks said in a phone interview.

Or, if he does, then it will be quite a challenge for him to accumulate the 218 votes needed to be elected Speaker. He’s just not acting like a candidate for Speaker who needs and wants 95 percent of the Republican conference vote to get to that 218 needed to be elected. It’s one thing to get a majority vote of the Republican conference. It’s another thing to get the 218 votes you need to actually be elected. That’s the number you need under the Constitution. He almost was not elected last time. Remember, these remarks are coming from somebody who voted for John Boehner twice.

“We’re used to now having amnesty pushers declare their efforts to be dead only to have them be miraculously revived a few months later,” a GOP aide opposed to amnesty told Breitbart News. “The fight’s not dead until Ryan, Cantor, and Boehner formally announce they have no intentions of passing amnesty, ever.”

That's doubtful. But the last few weeks should have put the fear of God in their hearts, at least. Read more about How the Tea Party Cornered John Boehner on Immigration

On Tuesday, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell told reporters immigration is just not in the cards in 2014. Last Thursday, rank-and-file House members sent a loud message that President Obama is not the partner for legislation, spooking even top proponent Paul Ryan...

However, since the GOP retreat last week, Boehner has just kept marching along...

“I wouldn't be surprised” if immigration legislation came to the House floor as early as this spring, one well-connected GOP member said....

"What has surprised me is how few people in House Republican caucus have stood up and opposed the policy," said Frank Sharry, founder and executive director of America's Voice and one of the nation's leading proponents for immigration reform. "Now maybe the concern about timing, and Obama's trustworthiness are excuses, ways to get to 'no' without seeming to be in league with the hard-liners. For us, watching it from our somewhat distant perspective, it's the dog that didn't bark," he continued...

For example, the push back from conservatives has caused significant tremors of doubt within Boehner's leadership team...

After raising serious doubts about whether immigration could come to the floor this year in a Sunday television interview, Ryan was more optimistic in remarks to reporters Tuesday.

“It wasn't really bad,” Ryan said about the immigration showdown in Cambridge, MD. “The substance of our document people really appreciated. It's just, like I said, the lawlessness of the White House makes us lose confidence that the President will enforce the laws,” Ryan said...

The issue is complicated because some of the lawmakers who spoke in favor of the substance of the principles were not in favor of moving forward on legislation. In many cases, members only implied their stance on the underlying question rather than explicitly stating it. They also mostly only had one minute to speak each.

Still, conservative heavyweights like Reps. Tom Price and Jeb Hensarling came out strongly against moving forward, and the result of the meeting seemed to change Ryan's tone in the days afterward....

Senator Marco Rubio, another Gang of Eight member, was more pessimistic. Asked if the House should move forward in 2014, Rubio said, “That's not my role to give them advice on. They're working on what is a very difficult issue. The resistance they're running into is a lack of confidence that this president and the federal government will enforce the security measures no matter what they're written as.” Read more about Boehner, Undeterred, Moves Forward on Immigration

...Republicans may once again come to the rescue of the Democrats, by discrediting themselves and snatching defeat from the very jaws of victory.

The latest bright idea among Republicans inside the Beltway is a new version of amnesty that is virtually certain to lose votes among the Republican base and is unlikely to gain many votes among the Hispanics that the Republican leadership is courting...

Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them...

...why do the American people not have a right to the protection that immigration laws provide people in other countries around the world — including Mexico, where illegal immigrants from other countries do not get the special treatment that Mexico and its American supporters are demanding for illegal immigrants in the United States?...

What in the world is wrong with Congress taking up border security first, as a separate issue, and later taking responsibility in a congressional vote on whether the border has become secure? Congress at least should come out of the shadows.

The Republican plan for granting legalization up front, while withholding citizenship, is too clever by half. It is like saying that you can slide halfway down a slippery slope.

Republicans may yet rescue the Democrats, while demoralizing their own supporters and utterly failing the country.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2014 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Read more about Republicans’ Comprehensive Immigration Folly

Republicans will be unlikely to compromise on immigration reform unless U.S. borders are first secured, and the possibility of a broad immigration bill reaching President Barack Obama's desk this year is "clearly in doubt," Representative Paul Ryan said on Sunday.

"Security first, no amnesty, then we might be able to get somewhere," Ryan said on ABC's "This Week."...

Last June, the Senate passed a comprehensive bill that would provide a path to citizenship for the approximately 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally and tighten border security.

The bill stalled in the House, and some conservative Republicans in both chambers remain staunchly opposed to offering legal status for millions of adults who live in the United States unlawfully.

Obama last week hinted in an interview that he might be open to a plan that would first give undocumented workers legal status, as long as they were not permanently barred from becoming citizens....

"This is not one of those issues that has a deadline," he said in the ABC interview. Ryan emphasized that securing the U.S.-Mexico border was a crucial first step before changing rules around legal residency.

"We don't know who's coming and going in this country. We don't have control of our borders," he said. "Doing nothing on the security side of this isn't the responsible thing to do."

House leaders must contend with several conservatives who are suspicious of Obama's agenda and are reluctant to give the president a long-sought legislative victory....

Incumbents facing a primary challenge or a close general election in this year's campaign season may have an incentive to oppose the plan's path to citizenship.

Still, many lawmakers agreed to revamp U.S. policy on immigration after exit polling showed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney won just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2012. The Republican National Committee made it a priority to reach out to minority voters after the election.

Louisiana Republican Governor Bobby Jindal said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" that Republicans should go ahead with immigration reform since it remains the right thing to do and not "because of what some pollster tells us." Read more about U.S. immigration bill 'in doubt' this year, Republican Ryan says

Although president Obama wants a "pathway to citizenship" as part of overall immigration reform, he says he won't "prejudge" what kind of bill might reach his desk -- as long as "folks aren't being deported."

"Well, I think the principle that we don't want two classes of people in America is a principle that a lot of people agree with, not just me and not just Democrats," Obama told Jake Tapper in a taped interview that aired Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

Obama said if House Republicans produce a bill saying that "folks aren't being deported, families aren't being separated, we're able to attract top young students to provide the skills or start businesses here and then there's a regular process of citizenship, I'm not sure how wide the divide ends up being. That's why I don't want to prejudge it."

He said he "genuinely" believes that House Republicans want to get serious about immigration reform, and he mentioned Rep. Paul Ryan by name.

"I do know that for a lot of families, the fear of deportation is one of the biggest concerns that they've got. And that's why we took executive actions, given my prosecutorial discretion, to make sure we're not deporting kids who grew up here and are Americans, for all practical purposes. But we need to get that codified.

"And the question is, is there more that we can do in this legislation that gets both Democratic and Republican support, but solves these broader problems, including strengthening borders and making sure that we have a legal immigration system that works better than it currently does."

Obama said he plans to consult with "the people who stand to be affected" by immigration reform legislation.

"The -- not just the immigrant -- immigration rights groups and organizations and advocates, but also ordinary folks. How do they feel? What is it that they're looking for? What do they aspire to? And, you know, this is something that -- where you've got to have a serious conversation around the country."

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough told CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday that President Obama does want a "pathway to citizenship" for people who came to the U.S. illegally.

"We don't want to have a permanent separation of classes or two permanent different classes of Americans in this country," he said. "We're just not going to live with that."

He said the White House will now "stand back" and "see how the House Republicans handle this."

Some Republicans have talked about giving illegal aliens "legal status," but not citizenship. Read more about Obama: "We don't want two classes of people in America"

Drum roll…..the long awaited GOP principles on illegal immigration were presented today to the House GOP Conference at their annual [aptly-named] retreat. Sorry to disappoint you but there is nothing new under the sun. Their framework is a mirror image of the Senate “Gang of 8” bill, albeit cloaked in even more deceptive and disingenuous language in order to distract conservatives with shiny objects. Let’s go through some of the text:

• After proposing broad amnesty, the document says that” none of this can happen before specific enforcement triggers have been implemented.” That might sound like it was written by the Tea Party, but in reality every GOP leader has made it clear that enforcement triggers mean something ambiguous after the “probationary” legal status is granted.
• Legalization before amnesty is the key point. Everything else is window dressing. Once they are legalized there is no turning back. There will never be any leverage to implement the universally agreed-upon security measures thereafter. This is beyond Lucy and the football already.
• “There will be no special path to citizenship for individuals who broke our nation’s immigration laws – that would be unfair to those immigrants who have played by the rules and harmful to promoting the rule of law.” This is the big lie. Once legal status is granted before the enforcement is in place and the magnets are removed, they will get citizenship. If there is this much pressure to legalize them when they are totally illegal, there is no way they will permanently reside here without citizenship for more than a year. At that point, Chuck Schumer will push for citizenship. Furthermore, the notion that this is not a special pathway is nonsense. The traditional pathway is in the country of origin. Staying in the country is the special pathway.
• The Dream Act is full amnesty, a disaster and a farce. It is particularly irresponsible to push that without asking for changes to birthright citizenship and the welfare state in exchange. They will be eligible for immediate legal status and citizenship shortly thereafter. These people are largely poor and low-skilled. They would be eligible for the entire array of welfare programs. Moreover, once you have amnesty for “Dreamers” it is defacto amnesty for everyone else because A) they can bring in family members and B) anyone can potentially be eligible, so ICE would have to suspend all deportations to allow illegals a reasonable opportunity to present their case. Sans a proposal to change birthright citizenship first, the Dream Act would expand our anchor baby magnet to an “anchor teenager” phenomenon.
• “One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents.” Here is another big lie. They claim that we can’t “punish” children nor could we withhold legal status from anyone because it is not humane. Yet, they proceed to claim “we must ensure now that when immigration reform is enacted, there will be a zero tolerance policy for those who cross the border illegally or overstay their visas in the future. “ This is internally incoherent. Once you telegraph the message that as soon as someone successfully comes here illegally and puts down roots, we will not have the stomach to deport them, why would that change during the next cycle? If amnesty for illegal children is a “founding principle,” then we have to have a perpetual amnesty for such children in perpetuity. The reality is that unless we implement all enforcement long before any amnesty, we will continue the perennial cycle of open borders and sympathy-driven amnesty. And that is exactly how they want it.
• The best way to solve a problem is to first honestly admit there is a problem. By refusing to call them illegals, and instead opting for euphemisms like “Individuals Living Outside the Rule of Law,” they are showing that there is no commitment to clamp down on illegal immigration in the future.
• There is no mention of a border fence. A physical fence is the only thing proven to work. Also, it is not subject to manipulation or “prosecutorial discretion.” It actually works, and that is why they don’t want it.
• There is no mention of the 800-pound gorilla – the magnets of welfare and unqualified birthright citizenship. The only way to offer an amnesty [after enforcement] without repeating the mistakes of the past is to finally cut off the incentives to come here illegally in the future. All they have to do is come here and drop a baby on American soil. At that point, the baby is an American citizen and can secure welfare on behalf of the family. Additionally, this is the same flaw with any temporary worker program. If they have kids, these workers will never be temporary. Also, the whole idea of a guest worker program is so the special interest lobbies can secure slave wages on behalf of agribusiness. With American-born children they would have the need and the ability to secure welfare payments.
• Finally, it is dangerous and irresponsible to begin pushing any of this before Obama begins to follow the current laws. We are ostensibly advertising for people to come here from across the border and overstay their visas. If there is a long period of time when legal status is offered before the Fence is built and Exit-Entry is put into place, millions more will flood our country. Once deportations are ostensibly halted, there will be no way or desire to sort out those who came later, and God-forbid, actually deport those who came for the free ride.