Now I don’t want to sound chauvinistic here, but I have always had an issue with women in places of power. Not because they are women per se, but because they are not men. That inane logic comes from a lifetime of indoctrination by family, friends and role models from childhood thru adulthood. Boys are instilled at a young age with certain “Real men do not…” doctrine. From “…never cry” to “…display fear” or “…stay knocked down”.

Young girls traditionally did not have that type of incessant indoctrination from their role models. They were taught more-or-less what they could do to attract the boys with the aforesaid values. That is changing.

I know my daughter, now 22 years old, struggles with the divide between women still raised under the “male attraction” doctrine and the new breed raised under the “equality” doctrine. This new breed has been around a long time, but their numbers are now increasing at an exponential rate. My wife and her mother are good examples of the generations of self-reliant independent women that could only lead men by influence (making them think it was their idea). The new female political leadership cannot afford to lead by diversion. Most of the mainstream youth of today (those under 30) are willing to give the ‘Laura Croft” kick-ass types their due and are looking for that tough-as-nails female political leader – one that can hold a candle to the likes of Golda Meir (even though most of the under-thirty crowd has not a clue who she was).

Alas, it appears, Sarah Palin is not it.

I was hopeful that Hillary Clinton was that woman until she broke down in an interview and started crying about some election trail hardship and that about did it for me. I still respected the woman, but lost faith in her ability to ‘keep it together’ when the going got tough.

Sarah Palin sounded like a very unpolished (that’s the most favorable word I could think of) politician when she was first brought on the scene by Senator John “I’d do/say anything to get elected” McCain. A man I truly admired (and pretty much still do) but lost me when he selected Palin as his “look-I-got-a-women-too” presidential running mate.

Since Palin came on the scene I have been somewhat critical of her, I admit. But I never had the conviction to come right out and say she was unfit for office. I always had that hesitation and a hope that she would pick up the skills and knowledge she needed to be a competent leader. If the best that the GOP has is Carly Fiorina, there is a definite problem. So I remained hopeful.

In early 2010 Palin started acting more like an eccentric than a ‘woman of the people’. Much had to do with her inability to study the facts of what she talked about and debate those facts with integrity. She simply did not seem to have the I.Q. for it.

This caused a lot of attacks by the intellectual left. Rather than cause her to strike back with some intellectual reasoning of her own, she circled the wagons. And now my prior piece on the “Paradox of Power” seems all too appropriate for Palin.

In a scathing article in Vanity Fair this week, Michael Joseph Gross recounts his lengthy ordeal of following the Palin camp around the country to various Tea Party and other political events. He paints a picture of someone who not only has not the temperament for public office, but is psychologically unfit. She may be one of the scariest right wing political hopefuls since Pat Robertson. However, Robertson was scary from and ideological perspective. Palin is a whole new ball game.

If Gross can be believed, Palin is as close to a psychopath as you can get and still draw millions to listen to you as if you where coherent. The small amount of fame she garnered as McCain’s pick, has gone straight to her head. She has visions of “Queen Palin” sugarplums and she will crush anyone who gets in her way. She requires diva-like pampering and treats staff and aids like subjects before the throne. Her ability to change her bipolar personality from back stage monster to front stage country tough-girl is one of her most scary traits.

The blind-to-all-things-sensible Tea Partiers still flock to her unintelligent oratory. But the popular base of the GOP is scared stiff that she will bring down their house of cards. If enough independents associate her with GOP capabilities they have a big problem.

If they can just keep her from public scrutiny through November….

JB

References & Sources

Gross, M. J. (2010). Sarah Palin: The Sound and the Fury, Vanity Fair – October 2010 Issue; Retrieved August 5, 2010 from: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/10/sarah-palin-201010

King, D. (2008). Mining the Headlines: Sarah as “Psychopath”?, Psychology Today; Retrieved August 5, 2010 from: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mining-the-headlines/200809/sarah-psychopath

OTI. (2008). On the Issues: 2008 Presidential Candidates, Sarah Palin; Retrieved August 5, 2010 from: http://www.ontheissues.org/sarah_palin.htm

Vozick-Levinson, S. (2010). Sarah Palin stands by made-up word ‘refudiate,’ compares self to Shakespeare, PopWatch, Entertainment; Retrieved August 5, 2010 from: http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/07/19/sarah-palin-refudiate/

You’ve heard about the Arizona “Immigration” law (who hasn’t).  Overall, it’s not a big deal. But there’s one provision hidden in the small print that has everyone concerned.  It allows anyone to SUE the state or local police if they do NOT comply (or appear to comply) with the new law requiring police to check the legal residence status of individuals.  It also restricts the use of ‘racial profiling’

This idiotic juxtaposition of regulations (no profiling – must comply) means the ONLY way to make this law work is to check the residence status of EVERY SINGLE person that is stopped or questioned in any case.

The most conflicting language is that officers MUST check the residency status of any individual that they have “reasonable suspicion” is illegal.  If profiling is not to be used, then the only way to apply the law – so that you do not get sued – is to check EVERYONE.

I don’t know how many of you have ever been to a bar or club that ‘cards’ you at the door, but recent actions and laws have become so restrictive on these club owners, that many now card everyone – even people in their 60s.  That is how they protect their business from frivolous legal attempts at making them the fall guy when someone underage ‘says’ the club served them – even if they did not.  If the club is selective in who they card, there is always a ‘reasonable doubt’ that they missed someone.

Now in Arizona, illegal immigrants are being sought – and the lawyers are chomping at the bit.  The first case brought to court wherein the cop will take the stand and say he/she does not require proof of citizenship for everyone – and bingo – Reasonable Doubt.

As long as politicians come from the ranks of attorneys and political parties, they will think with their heads up their asses.  They simply don’t get it.  Arizona now must require proof of residency; or citizenship; or legal status (e.g. a visa) – for everyone in their state, or passing through their state, if they are truly going to enforce this law without profiling.  Thus, the logic holds, that the state must provide to every resident a method of obtaining such document(s) needed. I don’t know about you, but I have no way of proving I’m a citizen without a Passport.  Less than half the citizen population has passports. And fewer yet carry them wherever they go.

So I’m going to Arizona.  I’m going to go 10MPH over the speed limit and catch me a cop.  My attorney will promptly sue the State of Arizona for not requiring me to provide proof of citizenship (a drivers license is not proof).  However, if they DO ask for proof of citizenship I will sue the State of Arizona for not providing me with any.

My attorney’s name and contact information is available to all who would like to follow suit. Pun intended.

JB

Sources:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/04/22/20100422arizona-immigration-bill-police-impact.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5je28hmgbQV7AumzArZS7M_OWoF-wD9F7VHS00

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/22/ariz-immigration-bill-may-have-broad-implications/

I’m sitting here this evening watching the CNN election returns on the Massachusetts Senate race. You know the one to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s seat. And to my amazement – the Democrat lost!  How could this be –OMG!!!.

I am just a guilty as any other intellectual leftist that thought the election in Mass was not much more than a formality.  The Tea Party wackos were not going to have any effect on this race!

Sorry ol’ timer… wrong again.

Republican Scott Brown successfully heaped fears of big government, excessive costs, huge tax increases and “nationalized medicine” on Mass voters… and it worked.  Never mind that many of the trappings of the healthcare package were formulated from very successful state insurance commissions and statutes. Never mind that much of the core principles of the healthcare bills – both House and Senate – were those that Ted Kennedy fought for – for decades.  And never mind that both Republican and Democratic controlled congresses have tried to get many of these same laws enacted.

His challenger made absolutely no attempt to give this information to the public. And, Massachusetts is the Insurance Company capital of the U.S.  The Lobby money was absolutely intense.  And yet Obama and the Democrats fiddled.

Brown was effective because Democratic leadership – including Obama – thought that their liberal base would follow their lead. They did not have to educate anyone on the workings of the proposed legislation.  There was no need for the Party to combat the Insurance lobby’s ad campaign.  Not to mention the Right Wing’s scare campaigns – led by crackpots like Limbaugh and Beck – had no chance of swaying the savvy intellectual left.

Right.

If there is one thing that is always going to be true in politics – its that if you ignore someone long enough they will flip on you.  From lobbyists to constituents, it is a political law of nature.   They will switch to the Nazi party if it treats them with respect. I’d keep this from Lieberman.

Obama may be the best communicator since Reagan. But he has not instilled that ‘fire-side chat’ type of trust that you had with Regan or even Roosevelt.  He never quite developed that ‘connection’ to the average American that we all thought he embodied back in 2008.

Most representatives and senators vote however they are told to vote by the party brass. They blindly follow in hopes of getting a treasure trove of support for their next election. There are a few however who think for themselves.  Not getting at least a few independent thinking members of the opposition on board with your policies is usually a recipe for failure.

I truly believe that the Left was so enamored with their sweeping victories in 2008, that they became incongruous persecutors of Republican ideals.  Pelosi and her ilk felt so sure of their superiority that they failed to maintain the essence of the election. That essence was “HOPE”.  They’ve took it away by making a partisan mockery of the problems before us.  They have not tried to keep the hope alive. They needed constant communication with their constituents to inform, educate and solicit feedback. They closed the door and made their deals amongst themselves – sans Republicans, C-SPAN, et al.  The vision of hope, blurred beyond all recognition, was waiting to be resurrected.

And a Republican did it.

So, as one of my favorite mentors would say, my Democratic friends: “We have been presented with an opportunity”.  Not to be viewed as a setback but rather an awakening (imagine if Democrats had not considered this until the mid-terms!).  The Democratic Party has been given a slim chance of resurrecting that which was. The message of hope. A change in the way we face problems and develop solutions.

Mr. Obama… The ball is in your court.  A change in congressional leadership may be in the offing.  But, more to the point, you need to spend time with the American people. News conferences (you remember those) , Q&A sessions (where you do not control the ‘Q’ only the ‘A’ – and try to shorten the ‘A’… boring!), and some good old ‘debates’. Yea, debates. You need to take some of the Republican leadership on – in a public forum – and debate the facts of stimulus, healthcare reform, financial reform, foreign policy… you name it. The time to take your view of government to the people is not ONLY during a political campaign anymore.

Oh, by the way – if you do not have a good argument for the debate at hand… it’s probably not a good position to keep.

We are in the “Information Age”. I thought you Mr. President, of all people, would know that. And keep this in mind, Mr. President, we voted you into office not because we wanted more government – we wanted better government.

Better start ‘informing’ or your whole agenda will be out the window right along with the hope we are losing…

JB

Dwyer, D. (2010). Article: Republican Scott Brown Defeats Democrat Martha Coakley in Mass. Senate Race; ABC News; Retrieved January 19, 2010 from:  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republican-scott-brown-defeats-democrat-martha-coakley-massachusetts/story?id=9602776

Babington, C. (2010). Analysis: GOP win forces review of Obama’s mandate; Associated Press; Retrieved January 19, 2010 from:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/19/AR2010011903444.html

There’s certainly no lack of political pundits, on the right and left, second-guessing Obama’s 2009 attempts at diplomacy.  From The Middle East to Europe and from Asia to the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, he is on a mad carousel that gives the term ‘whirlwind diplomacy’ a whole new intensity over the last 10 months.  It seems a lot longer, doesn’t it?

Being a bystander, like so many of us bloggers are, and watching with interest something we know next to nothing about, has its benefits.  It gives one a certain detachment and allows you to see a bigger picture as causes and affects seem to come together.  A ‘method for madness’ seems to form as results come into focus.  Obvious successes and failures can be identified.

We can also easily pick out the idiots.

John Bolton may have been the worst UN Ambassador in history and his recent article in the Taipei Times is clear evidence that he continues to be a pitiful excuse for a political or diplomatic activist.  His bashing of Obama’s Asian trip as a ‘submissive’ & ‘post-American’ exercise was underscored by this quote:

“…Obama’s trip truly was a disappointment. On economics, the president displayed the Democratic Party’s ambivalence toward free trade, even in an economic downturn, motivated by fear of labor-union opposition. On environmental and climate change issues, China, entirely predictably, reaffirmed its refusal to agree to carbon-emission limitations, and Obama had to concede in Singapore that the entire effort to craft a binding, post-Kyoto international agreement in Copenhagen had come to a complete halt.” – John Bolton

A week later China announced the most significant commitment to carbon emission reduction ever made by that country (or any developing country for that matter).

“China actually promised Thursday [26 Nov, 2009] to reduce its ‘carbon intensity,’ a measure of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product, by 40% to 45% by 2020, compared with 2005 levels.” – L.A. Times

What Bolton, and those that share his ideology, seem not to understand, is that these types of concessions and agreements are best served cold.  Months of negotiations and planning preempt these types of successes.  Often a government does not like the connotation that they were ‘strong-armed’ into making a concession. They want it to appear as if it was a product of their diligence, not America’s insistence, that brought about change.

“It’s amazing how much one can accomplish when no one cares who gets the credit.” – Ronald Reagan

Bolton has always been about ‘credit’. Obama’s statements in Singapore were obviously crafted and aligned with Chinese diplomatic needs that required their decision to be unexpected and completely their responsibility.  A move more like genius than naiveté; and a move to which the Bush administration would never have agreed.

In Afghanistan, one can see a change in language and rhetoric emerging as the Obama Administration tries to redefine Bush’s ‘War on Terror’ to a more palatable “combating extremism”.  In his recent speech on Afghanistan, the President cited the “al-Qaeda’s terrorist network” and “acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people”, but not once did he mention the now defunct ‘War on Terror’.  The term used by the Bush administration to justify any transgression, from the invasion of Iraq to the imprisonment of anyone even suspected of extremist sympathies, made the term ‘War on Terror” the laughing stock of the Islamic world.  The very people that are needed if we are to succeed in stopping state sponsored terrorism.

Obama’s biggest critics are, like Bolton, some of the same people that got us into this mess with their fascist style of foreign diplomacy.  None other than Dick Cheney remarked, during his long winded speech defending his “Interrogation techniques”, and other constitutional atrocities in the name of the ‘War on Terror’, that setting an exit strategy would be viewed by Afghans as a weakness.  No one ever told him that not setting one is viewed as an ‘occupation’.  Cheney and his “right blind” ilk have been getting it wrong for 7 years, they need to shut up and let this administration try to fix the mess they made.

While Cheney and others bashed Obama for setting a troop pull-out ‘begin’ date (a date, by the way, purposely ambiguous) NATO and ISAF allies this week announced they will add 7,000 more troops to the cause.  Now why would they do that for this administration while under Bush they made no new commitments since 2006?

Because there was a commitment to a real strategy – rather than an occupation.

Why will the Afghan army make more progress in the next 18 months than they did in the last 6 years?  Because, like Iraq, the knowledge that they are being given the responsibility and accountability for success – will bring about a pride and resolve not demonstrated while under foreign command.  Let us not forget, that the pull-out date in Iraq did not come about until the left wing politic and a presidential candidate by the name of Obama made it a populist movement in the U.S..  The resulting changes in the Iraq army competence and commitment were nothing less than extraordinary.

We also need to discuss the apparent failures of Obama diplomacy.  Like so many before him, Obama appears to have failed to find a simple solution to the Palestinian issue or placate the ‘Arab Street’.

An intractable stance by an Israeli government that considers most of the West Bank and all of Jerusalem part of their ‘Jewish state’, has made a confrontation between Israel and the West in general – and the U.S. in particular – inevitable.  An inevitability that Obama cannot yet address.  His administration is stretched to the limit, as is the U.S. military and world economy.  The Palestinians will have to continue to wait.

However, behind the scenes, where real diplomacy is exercised, the pressure on Israel mounts. The EU has threatened to recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian State. A move that undoubtedly has the hesitant blessings of Obama foreign policy engineers. The chess pieces are being strategically positioned. Don’t be surprised if someone in Israel gets the ‘credit’ for breaking the impasse by 2012.

Iran continues to befuddle even Iranians.  While completely void of outward progress, efforts to limit Iran’s threat to a Middle East nuclear arms race have been ponderous at best. Iran has strategic advantages in not only oil production; but the capability of closing – or at least restricting – the Strait of Hormuz; a key choking point in the world’s oil supply.  The world economy cannot afford a confrontation that threatens the Strait.

What’s going on behind the scenes in Iran is anyone’s guess; but the fact that such a relatively simple goal as freeing three American hikers from Iranian spy charges, has not been achieved, I’d say we are just as frustrated as the Iranian people where their government is concerned.

Both Iran and Israel are extreme opposite examples of how self-delusional ideology can turn into self defeating policy.  These countries, for differing reasons via differing cultures, pose similar threats for dissimilar reasons.  They both invite some type of intervention to break a sociopolitical impasse.  In some cases it simply makes no difference how good a diplomat or negotiator you are, the only real chance for a breakthrough will come from within these countries – not from without. The most important thing a diplomat can do is recognize when intervention will help and when it will not. Know when to hold ‘em and know when to fold ‘em.  Obama is waiting for the flop.

I’m no diplomat. But all-in-all I think the biggest difference between Obama foreign policy and Bush foreign policy is the difference itself.  We are simply not accustomed to treating other nations as equals and allowing others to take credit for success.  We also have not been willing to let other nations clean up their own messes. We may be seeing a change in that approach.  An approach the Bush administration’s so-called professional ‘diplomats’ never thought of.

I just wish our President would learn to do a proper Japanese bow. That one to the Emperor was tragic.

JB

Sources & References:

AKI (2009) Mideast: EU ‘ready to recognise East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital’, AND Kronos International, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=3.0.4058204456

Bolton, J. (2009). Obama’s self-defeating Asia tour, The Taipei Times, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/11/29/2003459714

ISAF. (2009). ISAF placement – Afghanistan, International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] Kabul Afghanistan, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://operatsioonid.kmin.ee/public/files/isaf_placemat.pdf

McChrystal, S. (2009). Commander’s counter insurgency guidance, International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] Kabul Afghanistan, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/official_texts/counterinsurgency_guidance.pdf

MOFA (2009). Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements, Ministry of Foreign Affairs [MOFA] of Japan, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/index.html

Pierson, D.; Tankersley, J. (2009). China makes a pledge on greenhouse gas emissions [Corrected], Los Angeles Times, , retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-china27-2009nov27,0,3694292.story

Pilling, D. (2009). Hong Kong tiptoes towards democracy, Financial Times, retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f8086b4-df77-11de-98ca-00144feab49a,dwp_uuid=9c33700c-4c86-11da-89df-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1

PRA (2009). Profile of John Bolton; Political Research Associates, retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Bolton_John

Sheridan, M. (2009). NATO allies pledge 7,000 more troops for Afghanistan mission, The Washington Post, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120400621.html

Unintended consequences.

On November 24, 2006 ABC News did a special based on an article (Quinones, 2006) about the devastating effects of closing the Mexican border to migrant crop workers in California. Thanks to increased security along the Mexican border, thousands of migrant workers who harvest the nation’s fruits and vegetables never showed up for work last season. With no one to pick them, bumper crops ripened and then just fell off the tree. Jack King of the California Farm Bureau stated: “We couldn’t get by without foreign workers in California. We employ some 450,000 workers.” What he did not say is that few, if any, farmers ask for proof of citizenship or a valid visa. They know better.

Business and borders:

One of the trends that main-stream news commentary seems to misunderstand is that the ongoing (for about the last 500 years) globalization of business, culture, communication and ideology is a non-interruptible process. The new millennium brings such technological momentum and consistency, even communist and dictatorial governments, that were once staunch isolationists, are becoming dependant on global markets.

Bank of America does business in over 100 countries. If an account holder has an address and ID (e.g. SSN) for that country why ask for a passport, proof of citizenship, etc.? It’s a free world out there now. Banks – as well as other global business – rarely worry about borders anymore. And you know what – they really should not have too. Not if human society is going to take the next evolutionary step and become a global society. If a person has valid documentation from their country of origin, or their host country, they should be afforded the same business services as anyone else. That’s the way global business competes these days. And this process will become more prevalent each and every day.

The issue is that global government policy has not followed the global economy. We lament over the poor state of communication and data sharing within our various U.S. government agencies, but we are seamless and integrated in comparison to global governance communication and cooperation between countries.

“Aliens” from border countries.

Then there is the issue of Border States. In a very true sense most neighboring countries (with the obvious exclusion of the likes of Israel, the Balkans, et al) have developed homogenized laws – regulations, treaties, and so on – to facilitate the free flow of goods, services and citizens across borders. From NAFTA to the EU, this practice is in step with the overall globalization of business, culture and democratic reform. In my opinion it will continue and accelerate. But these types of treaties and laws traditionally focus on business facilitation – not mutual security or governance commonalities.

The recent terrorist attacks on the U.S. triggered an isolationist response. While that is an understandable reaction, it is not, and never will be, a “solutionist” reaction. Solutions begin with root cause analysis and go forward. A good firefighter will tell you, when extinguishing a blaze you put water on the source of the fire not the top of the fire. The same is true of this present crisis. Immigrants are not the problem – they are the symptom of a problem – A different problem, by the way, than terrorism. Linking the two is just convenient for the isolationists it has little, if anything, to do with the terror threat. However, using terrorism policy to address border immigration could lead to a conflict of a higher order – Once again, showing America’s propensity to solve one problem by creating several others.

Radical proposal

You want a solution? Open up our southern border all the way. No restrictions – either way. U.S. citizens and U.S. corporations can move into Mexico with no appreciable difference in law, taxes, regulations – nor any added burden for business formation or establishing individual residency. A true ‘open border’ policy that invites U.S. interests into Mexico, and Mexican interests into the U.S.

The affect? The flow would reverse itself almost overnight, with U.S. residents and business flooding into Mexico to take advantage of low taxes, cheap land, inexpensive labor, you name it. A complete ‘Americanization’ of northern Mexico could be the result in as little as 10 years. And we would build modern highways, utility delivery systems and other infrastructure along the way,

The kicker? Mexican Law and social infrastructure issues.

Why is Canada so much like the U.S.? You hardly know you have crossed a border. It’s the Law. It’s the social policy. The same British Law System that influenced our constitution influenced theirs, so the two legal structures (from business to individual law) are nearly the same. And the laws are ENFORCED. The social values, common law and federated approach to states and provinces balances the equation.

Mexico has a completely different foundation for law. It was, after all, a dictatorship for many years after being a Spanish “conquest”. Democratic doctrine is poorly defined, government corruption is commonplace – both federal and regional – and the country’s basic infrastructure and social policies reflect this lack of a “We the People” type legacy. What law there is, is enforceable only to the extent that it supports the status quo. No wonder so many people want to leave.

This particular area – the Mexican rule of Law and Social Policy – must be the focal point of our efforts to stop illegal immigration across this border. NAFTA is a patchwork of business welfare policies. It does little to address the true causes of economic imbalance between the U.S. and Mexico.

Mexicans in America

But this debate is a much deeper one that the superficial media pundits seem to understand. Mexicans do not flood over our borders to terrorize or to degrade the U.S. economy in any way. In many ways they are coming to this country for the same reasons refugees and immigrants have fled to this nation for 400 years. Our rule of law, its equitable enforcement, and our political system, while not perfect, allows for some of the highest levels of personal freedom and accomplishment anyone can find anywhere. But there is a stark difference between Mexican immigration and that of any other nationality. It must be realized that the southwestern U.S. was once Mexico. Comparing Mexican immigration to European or Asian immigration is a gross distortion of the underlying cultural issue. In many ways Mexicans consider themselves, by-and-large, having Native American heritage. I thoroughly understand their frustration with the “illegal alien” handle. While semantically correct, it is not culturally correct.

Now I have a serious aversion to “PCness”. I can be the most non-Politically Correct person I know. But this issue transcends politics. It goes much deeper and is truly a different issue than traditional Illegal Immigration policy can address. If you want to stop immigration from, say, Turkey, you can do so by simply restricting visas and screening ports of entry. Restricting flow from a Border State takes a more holistic policy. Either you build fences and position armies at your borders – like Israel – or you attempt to influence your neighbors economic, political and social convergence with your own.

I vote for option 2.

JB

Quinones, J. (2006) Pear Crop Rots as Field Hands Kept from Crossing Border, ABC News. Retrieved November, 2006 from: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/US/story?id=2677661&page=1