With regard to the "guest worker" issue: I can understand the motivation to do something.

Undocumented workers in this country are not going away - the social and economic disruption involved in tracking them all down and deporting them is just not going to happen, Lou Dobbs' nightly rant notwithstanding. Not. Gonna. Happen.

At the same time, actual "amnesty" would be a huge moral hazard and profound injustice to those who played by the rules to get their green card.

Finally, security considerations would favor creating some kind of documentation for undocumented workers - both for their own security as well as ours.

The sum of these considerations point to some kind of temporary worker documentation. This occurs today with H1-B tech workers, who prefer to come to this country on legally on planes as opposed to illegally in shipping containers. Why can't we treat Mexicans with similar dignity? Why can't they line up for documents as opposed to playing deadly cat and mouse in the desert?

Either that, or publicly commit to rounding up and deporting all the illegals. Either way, I'd claim that post 9/11 the status quo is unsound.

Actually, guest workers have worked out pretty well in Germany: they've got a bunch of new residents who did jobs that Germans did do (and still do --- the unemployment benefits are good enough it makes a significant disincentive to take a less desirable job.)

The only real problem is that these new people aren't "real" Germans: they find it difficult to become citizens, they talk funny, and they look funny.

At least the USA doesn't have the same demographic aging bomb as Europe or Japan. But who steps up with a tough debate about overhauling their system? America.

This is a brilliant point. It applies to economic reform. Thatcher started it in '79 and Reagan picked it up in '81. Both took on overpowering unions and freed up the economy.

France and Germany still haven't reformed and neither has created a new job in 20 years. Germany passed 5 million unemployed at 12% and 20% in the East. France is avoiding all decisions, while Germany is barely addressing its problems.

worth noting

Living in So. Cal (born & raised in LA) I see first hand the devastation that illegal aliens have on the infrastructure (I work in the judiciary and my oldest daughter is a paramedic).

Emotionally, I would love to immediately physically close the border and send troops house to house to round up and ship every illegal alien back to Mexico.

Realistically, won't/can't happen.

Somewhere between an open border and the wink wink nudge nudge that now exists in regards to illegals and the draconian Prohibition stance I and many others would love must live a reasonable solution that recognizes the reality on the ground.

Once upon a time, I'd have gone out and done a blog reaction round-up.

S'ok, Joe-- Dave Schuler did the round-up

You need to conserve your energy for more important things. :)

So George W. Bush is still fully committed to a Gastarbeiter system. Oh boy. Like Joe said - it worked so well for the Germans. On the good side, you can say he's left the next few presidents with an opportunity to win fame by taking on a huge problem that everyone up to them will have passed by or implausibly redefined as a non-problem.

Apart from that, I thought this was an excellent speech. It was clear. It cleared up adequately and briefly what I was uncertain about from his inaugural address. And it was what I wanted to hear on every issue where you have to get the fundamentals right because otherwise lots people will die.

(I'm gung-ho for the war on terror and very pro-life, so every time George W. Bush switches to a life and death issue, foreign or domestic, I hear good news and more good news. For that, I can forgive a lot of doubtful ideas and even clear mistakes that nobody will die of.)

Plus, he sounded great. Well actually he sounded like a garbage grinder on full, but that's his accent; what I mean is he sounded confident, in charge and purposeful. That is how I think we all need him to be.

(Hearty applause!)

PS:

George W. Bush: "For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."

Joe Katzman: That's nice. I support someone giving me a billion dollars.

I wish you the best of luck, Joe, and I hope you keep blogging after you're rich. But I don't see how your public wish is going to help anything unless it comes off.

I do see a big payoff for George W. Bush publicly dreaming about a constitutional amendment from time to time. I think the only thing holding back a judicial coup on this issue is fear that if you bring forward the "right" cases to the "right" courts and shut the public and especially conservatives out of any say in the future of marriage in America, the balance of power may change and George W. Bush's wishes may come true. Any genuine discussion that takes place, any spirit of compromise, any hint of a breather on this difficult issue, is due to George W. Bush.

Given the balance of power on this issue, I think there's nothing more he can or should do. Besides, it's not like he hasn't got anything else to attend to all day.

George W. Bush: "I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought and sold as a commodity."

Joe Katzman: " . . . all W. has to do is keep repeating this refrain, and he wins."

Exactly. All he has to do, having figured this out long ago, and having brilliantly set it up with his original stem cell compromise, is press the button marked "save" and not the button marked "kill." The rest will take care of itself. All he has to be is willing. And he is.

Hardly anybody else at the top level is. One (1) man bars the gates of Hell on these issues, nobody else could have replaced him, and there is nobody obvious to come after him. Cheap lines on indispensable men don't cut it in this case, any more than with the liberation of Iraq.

He doesn't have to say the a-word either. He can talk in code if he likes. It only has to be clear his heart is in the right place.

In other words, George W. Bush still scores near enough to 100% for me on vital moral and social issues; and I think enough other people will agree that he's going to keep the bulk of his "values" fan club intact, not needing to do more than he already is doing.

All those voters will still potentially be there for the next Republican that convincingly sings the same song, because the trust they put in George W. Bush will have been (sufficiently, never perfectly of course) rewarded, not let down.

Well, I am pretty sad about the part that puts the kobosh on new stem cell lines. As I suspected, Dr. Krauthammer and the Bioethics Council have been having us on about the suitability of existing stem cell lines for human research.
Zimmer cite from the Loom
press release in Nature Medicine
Varki's research
I am greviously sad. I guess any basic research will wind up in Europe or China, and it will be their sandbox, not ours. :(

So George W. Bush is still fully committed to a Gastarbeiter system. Oh boy. Like Joe said - it worked so well for the Germans. On the good side, you can say he's left the next few presidents with an opportunity to win fame by taking on a huge problem that everyone up to them will have passed by or implausibly redefined as a non-problem.

I’m betting and this is what the Ostrich Caucus fears that it won’t stop with 4 percentage points. When younger workers see that they easily get a higher rate of return (not hard considering they’re pretty much guaranteed a negative rate of return now) from personal retirement accounts, they’re going to want to invest 6%, 8%, etc. When that happens you’re going to see a demand for opting out of the system entirely which removes one more source of government dependency and further erodes the Democrat’s power base.

David, good point re: what musing about that does to the balance of power. I had not considered that angle.

It's one of those tactics that damages both sides, however, because every time he opens his mouth on this he kicks good folks like GayPatriot, The Pink Triangles, Sullivan, et. al. in the teeth. I don't like that, and I don't like a GOP that's hostile to patriotic, hard-working people who believe in its core values - including stable personal relationships. Plus, working on a constitutional amendment doesn't address any of the legitimate issues with the present system, or help anybody in the short term.

I wish W. would work to redefine the way the marriage system works instead, in a way that would be good for homosexuals and heterosexuals. But politically, his time and focus are limited.

If he's musing about this stuff to keep the standoff going (and I must admit, the 2004 election has to give his opponents pause), while appointing judges in the background who will leave this to the legislatures (many of whom will get down to the work I was talking about), it's politically preferable overall vs. making the massive time investment on this issue and leaving stuff like the war, social security, et. al. under-addressed. Like you said, he has other things to do.

If he actually starts spending time, effort, and political capital on this no-hoper amendment, however, I'm gonna be upset for a whole bunch of reasons.

P.S.

“Hardly anybody else at the top level is. One (1) man bars the gates of Hell on these issues, nobody else could have replaced him, and there is nobody obvious to come after him. Cheap lines on indispensable men don't cut it in this case, any more than with the liberation of Iraq.”

Poetry man, sheer poetry.

Undocumented workers in this country are not going away - the social and economic disruption involved in tracking them all down and deporting them is just not going to happen, Lou Dobbs' nightly rant notwithstanding. Not. Gonna. Happen.

That's a strawman. If employers stopped hiring illegal aliens, many or most of the illegal aliens would simply deport themselves. No mass roundup necessary, just start enforcing the laws against hiring illegals.

What most people don't know about Bush's Gastarbeiter program could fill a whole post: The Big Show on the Border.

Bush's plan isn't just for field workers, it might affect your job. And, it would be an amnesty despite Bush's statements to the contrary.

Jinnderella:

Repeating the known but not well publicized: it's only use of federal funds for research using new embryonic stem cell lines that's verboten. Private enterprises can do what they want. Enterprises wanting access to federal funds can still use new, adult stem cell lines (which, last I checked, are still the only variety of stem cells that have panned out so far).

I see this ban as a hedge against the Law of Unintended Consequences. What about "abandoned" eggs, if fed. funding were allowed to go to new embryonic lines? Could they be fertilized JUST for research? Is it possible to argue that a human zygote is NOT a potential human, no matter what you believe about abortion, simply because you (the researcher) don't intend to allow it to become one?

I'm not a Luddite; I want medical research to proceed at the pace of the minds doing the research. But we're talking about human embryos here. It strikes me as a time to include the government out, as they say, rather than to proceed with a policy that could lead to the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of destructive testing. As I said, if private parties can get comfortable with it, OK, they're free to foot their own bill. But fed. funding throws the weight of America behind the work, and if we claim that life is an inalienable right (as we do), it seems to me that we ought to tread VERY carefully where human life is concerned.

So first I should say I thought that Bush hit a home run on foreign affairs, and a double on the SS issue. Love him or hate him, win or lose, this is going to be a historic term.

That said, of course I'm going to pick at it where I disagree or have doubts.

Yeah, the amendment thang. So far, 'support' seems to equate to lip service. Dubya will go to the mat for SS reform and the War, but he'll offer a little polite applause on this issue. Personally, if an entire section of society that has been stereotyped as sexually and socially irresponsible wants to step up and undertake binding legal obligations to one another, I'm all for it. Never have figured out why that threatens my marriage of 25 years. I think the winds of history and freedom are set in that direction, but making it formal should come up from the people, not down from the courts.

Stem cells. Not regarding embryos as human life, I have no moral qualms here. But, just as I'm pro-choice, but rather equivocal on government (i.e., taxpayer) funded abortion, I can see the case that government should not fund something morally repugnant to a large fraction of the citizenry. But, fear not, Jinn, some of these lines of work are looking promising enough that you're already seeing dribbles of funding from my trade (venture capital), which can easily grow - there's a lot of money out there. Contra Joe, I don't think this is a no-lose position. When/if stem cell based research shows real promise for therapeutics and life extension, it turns into a 'life vs. life' debate, with one of the sides being very personal, shall we say. Won't happen in this term, but it's probably coming.

Mexicans. We can use that word, can't we? At least those who make at as far as the Bay Area come to work. And they do, they work their asses off. On net, they build quite stable families given their financial status, and their succeeding generations do acculturate and move into the middle class. In short, they make good Americans.

Just one catch, and that's the key: There's no way an unskilled laborer can produce enough value to cover costs of living and the social benefits that Mickey Kaus calls the 'social minimum'. Particularly not with larger than average families and real-estate-inflated costs of living in California. Set against that, we have the real benefit of ameliorating our demographic inversion in the next generation, as well as doing some crummy jobs difficult to get staffed otherwise.

The de facto outcome is that the illegals are 'off the books' - they cover their own costs of living, and there's a continual struggle re what portion of their 'social minimum' will be picked up by the rest of society. But because the whole situation is laden with political correctness and political implications, we never have that cost/benefit discussion explicitly. The security implications may finally force us there, and high time.

I regard the whole "Mexicans will compete for your skilled job" argument as a canard. Look, part of Mexico's (and Latin America's) problem is that the highly educated are too small a part of society there. College level education is not widely available across all classes. That labor pool is just too small to make a big difference here, given the size of our economy, even if we brain drained the whole place. (And I'll add that I've been personally responsible for importing and green-carding two extremely bright techies from points South. I'm proud of it. They made damn fine workers, friends, now Americans, and are big contributors to two great and profitable American companies. I doubt their home governments would be quite so pleased with me.)

Lonewhacko

If employers stopped hiring illegal aliens,

"Just say no?"

BTW .. I just input yet ANOTHER case earlier today... defendant purchased an "id packet" went out, got credit, bought a new car.

Only came to law enforcements attention when victim was checking his credit report and saw a car loan on it that wasn't his ... MONTHS afterwards.

Do you know where you SSN is? People can assume your identity and it can be months or years before you find out, usually by accident. Think employers are any different? They are presented with what looks like valid ID, it comes back as a "valid" id and they go on with hiring the person who presented it.

Guys, I'm not whining. This is majority rule. And Tim, sadly, basic research usually needs government funding to get started. But maybe this will be different.

But the thing I am the saddest about is that Dr. Krauthammer and the Bioethics Commission pushed the contaminated stem-cell lines as being suitable for human research, and I know there have been doubts about them for a very long time. I can only read that as political expediency. :(

I regard the whole "Mexicans will compete for your skilled job" argument

Strangely, I don't recall too many people making that argument.

Go read "What is it about Mexicans?" Your claims of acculturation might be a tad optimistic, especially given that there are powerful forces working against such acculturation, such as the Mexican government and Mexican-"American" leaders in the Southwest.

I believe college education is free in Mexico, although I'm willing to be corrected that indians/mestizos are unable to get such free education.

Regarding the other person's SSN canard, I recently heard John Fund trying to say the same thing. The point is there's a one-one relationship between a name and a SSN (or so I assume). If Slava Polizhopi applies for a job using John Fund's SSN, then I guess we can assume something strange is going on and Slava shouldn't be hired.

This guy had parked a car in a parking lot with a for sale sign. Called the number, and he met me there. He was middle eastern. The pink slip wasn't in his name, he said it was in the name of his in-laws, and if I wanted it we'd go to their place. On the dashboard was a cover with 'Julio y Maria'. Now, it's not impossible that his in-laws were Julio y Maria, but it certainly seemed like a scam to me.

Another one: Jeep with cracked head. Pink slip not in seller's name: "you see, my buddy started to buy it from me but he ran out of money. But, I signed it over to him. So, we need to go over there, etc. etc."

I really don't buy any arguments about poor innocent employers being taken in by deft document forgers.

Hi jinnderella.

I followed the links in your post. Interesting stuff, but it doesn't affect my reasons for supporting the line George W. Bush has taken.

The political issue is, to construct or not to construct a bio-industry funded on the lethal exploitation of human life? The pro side says yes, and you are morally obligated to give us government money to do that. (We will them make private fortunes exploiting the results - in ways profoundly repugnant to you.) The anti side says no, and the way we are going to make that stick is to pour lots of money into an alternative that has no ethical down side. The idea is, when adult stem cells get far enough ahead, nobody will care any longer that there is a less mature, less reliable, more expensive alternative that involves killing.

I have to admit: both sides are using the federal American government as a piggy bank to push a certain agenda.

A foetal stem cell industry would be like the abortion industry, or like the slave-based cotton industry: it would have a huge self-interest in the destruction of ideals of our common humanity which are obviously incompatible with it. It would donate big money in perpetuity to the worst people, and lobby for heartlessness in its self-interest. It would push for more and more terrible follow-up technologies, putting as much traffic as possible across the lines of moral taboo, to desanctify and erase them. It would want everyone as hooked into this as possible. "Blood glue" - getting everyone implicated so that nobody can face the moral implications of what's happening without exceeding their personal threshold of moral pain, works. (I won't give examples of that thinking because they would be overly inflammatory.) You don't get any more hooked than when the technology is actually keeping you alive. And when the deadly technology gets far enough ahead, nobody will care that there was once an alternative. People won't even want to hear about unproven alternatives to stuff their health depends on.

Funding adult stem cell research is a profoundly moral response to this challenge. It is a wise, ethical and forward-looking solution. And by providing more research money, it should satisfy everyone who just wants the government to put up money so they can do interesting research and do good.

But George W. Bush gets little credit for adult stem cell funding, because disinterested science and benevolence are not what this is about, and all the posturing in the first link about disinterested science versus flat earthers and creation science is inappropriate.

Jinnderella: "Well, I am pretty sad about the part that puts the kobosh on new stem cell lines."

I wish that you were happy, not sad.

And I certainly don't suspect you or anyone else here of pressing this because it's evil, or more precisely so that some people can make scads of money doing things that other people would (rightly) be ashamed to do.

But I think that's what it comes down to.

I'm cheering George W. Bush and the swift and ethical advance of bio-science. I hope the Americans stick to his line, and out-race the Chinese and the Europeans in bringing worthwhile technologies to market, so that bio-technology takes a course that combines the spirit of exploration with concerns for human life and dignity instead of creating for private gain a dilemma that would certainly be resolved at the expense of our humanity. I also like my odds, since the Americans are so entrepreneurial.

Can't you just be happy that a lot of science is being funded?

I've said why the stem cell research pie has to be cut a certain way to suit me. (Plus a very cunning compromise that gives foetal stem cell research everything that they can be given short of federal funds for new killing). You're neither deluded nor one of those that simply (though without saying so) wants respect for human life destroyed, because they see it as an irritant and an obstacle. I don't understand why the government stem cell research money pie, regardless of the size of that pie, needs to be cut a certain way to suit you.

jinnderella: "Guys, I'm not whining."

I know that. It's not your style. :)

Thorley Winston: "David, perhaps you might want to consider that just as the POTUS doesn’t use the "A-word" in reference to prolife issues because he doesn’t have to, he doesn’t use the "P-word" in reference to Social Security reform because he doesn’t have to."

Yeah. I'm not a big fan of evasive political buzz-phrases, but I accept them more from George W. Bush because he's consistently clear what he's going for in practical terms. He isn't trying to trick anybody into anything.

And thanks for the kind words. :)

Joe Katzman: "It's one of those tactics that damages both sides, however, because every time he opens his mouth on this he kicks good folks like GayPatriot ..."

Which sucks. (And I like GayPatriot.) But I accept that in all the circumstances George W. Bush hasn't got a better option than the one he's pursuing.

About the only thing I won't forgive him for is if he appoints the next David Souter. The record of Republican presidents and their Supreme Court judges is awful. If George W. Bush contributes to that lamentable record, then nothing anybody can say about "buying time" is going to wash.

The Lonewacko Blog - The Big Show on the Border was a good and highly relevant post. Thanks for linking it.

Border control is primary, but in the long run assimilation will become the key issue.

I wouldn't want total assimilation even if it was possible. I was talking today with Assyrian Christians who are in Australia because they have no country and suffer oppression under Islam in Iraq. They won't be allowed to continue their own religion and culture without the deadly burden of Muslim majority hatred, and they have no country of their own to defend, so that's pretty much it. Even though they all spoke Assyrian, in one generation we are going to have a bunch of (great!) Australians and their children, and nothing else. What a gift - but what a loss. :_(

Mexiforina, is something else. It's nothing like the Muslim demographic face-hugger, but it's still a serious thing, requiring a serious response that must defeat those with agendas that cut against good, adequate (not absolute 100%) assimilation.

You can't let someone else's culture dominate. (A thousand times as much if that culture is Muslim and Arab.) How I feel right now is: we should be ready to fight and to die and to kill anybody rather than to fall under the yoke and have the kind of future Assyrians (non-Muslim, non-Arab) have under Muslim Arabs. To keep your own national "house" for your own language, culture and so on, nothing is going too far and nothing is being too pushy.

I keep asking my friends on the farther right these questions:

What is the purpose of making a black market in abortion?

What is the purpose of making a black market for drugs?

What social purpose is served by creating and enriching a criminal class?

What is the lesson of alcohol prohibition?

What is the point of passing laws that will be widely flouted?

What is the difference between passing laws and solving problems?

In fact if passing laws works so good why didn't laws against crashing planes into buildings work on 9/11?

How does multiplying the number of people with experience with violating serious laws help create a civil society?

Is an experienced smuggler class a good idea?

How many agents per mile are required to seal a border?

Do laws against guns really work? (you see this kind of stupidity is not just on the right)

I'm still waiting for answers.

A few questions

M. Simon is right as usual. Tell me, guyz, if your personal dad is full blown Alciemers, what would you pay for a black market dose of stem-cells to cure him? Or how about you're getting really old, and those new Chinese stem-cell derived gerontology drugs work so well....everyones' ethics will be flying out the window.
Like Tim, I am absolutely sure that a blastula or nerula is not a "human being". Take an embryology course, it'll convince you too. But I am more than willing to allow people their personal belief. Just don't try to tell me that adult stem cell lines are equivalent, or better-- No Way! They lack the plasticity of fetal cells.
Look, Instapundit gets it
Transhumanism is the wave of the future, and if we don't start "getting it" we'll be left further behind in the dust than the post-Lysenko Russians ever were.

In the post-Darwinian era, biotechnology will be domesticated. There will be do-it-yourself kits for gardeners, who will use gene transfer to breed new varieties of roses and orchids. Also, biotech games for children, played with real eggs and seeds rather than with images on a screen. Genetic engineering, once it gets into the hands of the general public, will give us an explosion of biodiversity. Designing genomes will be a new art form, as creative as painting or sculpture. Few of the new creations will be masterpieces, but all will bring joy to their creators and diversity to our fauna and flora.

We've passed through the Age of Agriculture, the Age of Industry, and we're in the Age of Information-- what's next? The Age of Bio-engineering?

"Or how about you're getting really old, and those new Chinese stem-cell derived gerontology drugs work so well....everyones' ethics will be flying out the window."

I couldn't agree more.

The aim is to make a different technology succeed, so everyone's ethics won't fly out the window.

This is not so mysterious. Clunky technologies win out all the time. It's just like getting VHS to beat Beta, or Windows to beat OS/2 and Linux, only with vastly higher stakes.

But, you did answer my question. My question was: why is it not how big the research pie is but whether the government favours lethal stem cell technology over non-lethal stem sell technology?

"Transhumanism is the wave of the future, and if we don't start "getting it" we'll be left further behind in the dust than the post-Lysenko Russians ever were."

There have been many "waves of the future" that everyone had to conform to, or else be swept aside by history. Some of them worked out. More than a few of them didn't. This one is yours.

It's not mine.