Why all the fuss about Immigration?

The United States has never had anything close to an Immigration Policy, so why worry about it now.

Prior to the mid-19th Century, the United States had an agrarian economy, as it expanded geographically, and there was no real need for an immigration policy. Since then, the common thread in any discussion on this Country’s “immigration policy” has been the industrial revolution. Closely following the Civil War the Industrial Revolution kicked into high gear. There became an urgent need to staff the growing number of factories. Many workers came from the farmlands and overseas to realize the promise of higher incomes. In a nutshell, as the western Nations industrialized, they needed a workforce to staff and operate their modern-day manufacturing facilities (the factories). The United States seemingly dropped all attempts at immigration policy for the same reason Europe did: industrialization.
“Most Counties, however, have not reconciled the old need for a work force and the need to regulate modern day immigration trends. With the recent failures in many economies, the lack of immigration regulation has bloated the ranks of the poorer classes and is increasing the tension and squeeze on what is left of the middle class. This is a lose-lose proposition in that the poor require certain attention that the middle class tax base can support. Without the middle class tax base, the poor are being hung out to dry (kicked to the curb). The "upper class" has never shown much of a penchant for supporting the lower classes. If you follow a logical train of thought on this, you come to the conclusion that at some point the upper class has no one left to do, their bidding.

Post World War I, the U.S. began struggling with immigration policy. President after President, Congress alter Congress in the 20th century have tried to figure this out, and have failed time and time again. So, for the last 146 years or so, the U.S. has virtually had no immigration policy, and that is large part of our current situation. I have quoted a few sources to detail the chain of events that got us here.

The Rise Of Industrial America, 1876 - 1900: ^[1]

“In the decades following the Civil War, the United States emerged as an industrial giant. Old industries expanded and many new ones, including petroleum refining, steel manufacturing, and electrical power, emerged. Railroads expanded significantly, bringing even remote parts of the country into a national market economy.”

“Industrial growth transformed American society. It produced a new class of wealthy industrialists and a prosperous middle class. It also produced a vastly expanded blue-collar working class. The labor force that made industrialization possible was made up of millions of newly arrived immigrants and even larger numbers of migrants from rural areas. American society became more diverse than ever before.”

Allison Morey on the Center for History and New Media: ^[2]

“During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, millions of immigrants were coming to the United States. The majority of these immigrants came from eastern and western Europe. Immigration increased during this time-period for several reasons. One reason was the hope for a better life, which included economic opportunities and an escape from oppressive governments. Another reason was for the adventure. A final reason includes religious freedom, especially for the Jewish people who were facing religious persecution in Russia.”

Nancy Birdsall, in Foreign Affairs Magazine: ^[3]

“It is interesting to note that, almost to a Nation, the Industrial Revolution had a direct and lasting effect on Immigration Policies. There are a handful of European Countries who chose to readjust their Immigration Policy once they had established a firm manufacturing base. The folks that filled the factories were to become the much needed Middle Class.”

                                    “Say hello to the new Dark Ages!”

“Why is this Middle Class the topic of so many economic and governmental discussions? The answer lies in the realization of just who pays the taxes that allow the wheels of industry and government to turn. The height of the Middle Class in the United States was achieved in the 1960's. The apex was reached as a direct result of our Military Industrial Complex. As much as people like to bash this sector for economic prowess, the Military-Industrial Complex gave this Country its incredible ability to out produce any other Nation on the Globe. It was the sole reason that our Standard of Living was, and still is, head and shoulders above anyone.”

“Unfortunately, in the 1990's there was a Trade Agreement reached, initially involving Canada, The U.S., and Mexico, that started the downhill spiral of our middle class by allowing our manufacturing jobs to be shipped outside our borders. The politicians at the time reassure the American public that this mass migration would never occur. We the people chose to listen without questioning a thing. It seems ironic that the exact opposite of what they promised us happened.”

“Here we are in 2016 wondering if we will ever again see the likes of our old middle class. Another Industrial Revolution does not appear to be in our future; hence, a resurgence of our middle class seems unlikely, at best. The big question facing our young adult population is that of actually paying for things we so easily take for granted; Social Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, affordable housing, and, yes, government itself. The Baby Boom generation could probably come up with the solution, but we're just to tired and burnt-out. Our children and grandchildren will have to figure this out on their own, and all we can tell them is, “Good luck"”.

I spent much of my adult life in our manufacturing sector. When I learned the details of this NAFTA deal, it was painfully obvious the Middle Class was going the way of the dinosaur. I witnessed, first hand, the steady decline in my regional manufacturing base, and it was clear that our Nation's tax base was going to suffer from this ill-conceived trade agreement. The politicians, and Lords of Industry, fiddled while “Rome” was burning!

Well, just maybe, Ms. Birdsall’s admonition of “good luck" is not enough. What is left of the middle class could easily team up with the lower classes and forcibly make a change in the status quo. The upper class isn^’t going to like it much, they will try everything in their power to fight back. I have a fairly good grasp on how the rank and file of the Military think, and, if the Military comes around, as I suspect it will, the upper class will have no option but to capitulate. Everything I see happening around me keeps pointing me in this direction of analysis. Yes, we could have a “bloodless” coup d’état, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Our economic and financial structures have become so polarized I don’t see a peaceful solution to the combination of no immigration policy and a disappearing tax base.

Taking a little bit from a number of points of view could possibly solve the problem of this Country ceasing to be a democracy. Take a little bit of isolationism. Take a little bit of libertarianism. Take a good bit of fiscal conservatism. Make our borders a little more secure. Take a little bite out of our financial sector. Make an investment in our infrastructure. Make a few less abominable trade pacts. And, come up with a logical immigration policy that stems the depletion of governmental resources to anyone who can enter this Country: legally, or not. Now, if we don’t get the ball rolling on this, our States will start declaring bankruptcy at an alarming rate (14 of them are on the brink right now). You think you know what true anarchy might look like. Believe me you have no idea what this Nation in total chaos would look like.

Watch this space.......................

References:

[1] Library of Congress, web site-

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/riseind/index.html

[2] Center for History and New Media-

Author: Allison Morey

Emergence of Modern America

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://chnm.gmu.edu/tah-loudoun/blog/lessons/immigration-why-come-to-the-united-states/

[3] Foreign Affairs Magazine, March/April 2016 - Nancy Birdsall, President of the Center for Global Development

Big money behind war: the military-industrial complex

- I hate to say, “I told you so!”, 

but the truth will always come out

More than 50 years after President Eisenhower's warning, Americans find themselves in perpetual war.

Jonathan Turley Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and has testified before Congress on the dangerous expansion of presidential powers.

In January 1961, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower used his farewell address to warn the nation of what he viewed as one of its greatest threats: the military-industrial complex composed of military contractors and lobbyists perpetuating war.

Eisenhower warned that "an immense military establishment and a large arms industry" had emerged as a hidden force in US politics and

that Americans "must not fail to comprehend its grave implications". The speech may have been Eisenhower's most courageous and prophetic moment. Fifty years and some later, Americans find themselves in what seems like perpetual war. No sooner do we draw down on operations in Iraq than leaders demand an intervention in Libya or Syria or Iran. While perpetual war constitutes perpetual losses for families, and ever expanding budgets, it also represents perpetual profits for a new and larger complex of business and government interests.

The new military-industrial complex is fueled by a conveniently ambiguous and unseen enemy: the terrorist. Former President George W Bush and his aides insisted on calling counter-terrorism efforts a "war". This concerted effort by leaders like former Vice President Dick Cheney (himself the former CEO of defense-contractor Halliburton) was not some empty rhetorical exercise. Not only would a war maximize the inherent powers of the president, but it would maximize the budgets for military and homeland agencies.

This new coalition of companies, agencies, and lobbyists dwarfs the system known by Eisenhower when he warned Americans to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence… by the military-industrial complex". Ironically, it has had some of its best days under President Barack Obama who has radically expanded drone attacks and claimed that he alone determines what a war is for the purposes of consulting Congress.

Investment in homeland security companies is expected to yield a 12 percent annual growth through 2013 - an astronomical return when compared to other parts of the tanking economy.

Good for economy?

While few politicians are willing to admit it, we don't just endure wars, we seem to need war - at least for some people. A study showed that roughly 75 percent of the fallen in these wars come from working class families. They do not need war. They pay the cost of the war. Eisenhower would likely be appalled by the size of the industrial and governmental workforce committed to war or counter-terrorism activities. Military and homeland budgets now support millions of people in an otherwise declining economy. Hundreds of billions of dollars flow each year from the public coffers to agencies and contractors who have an incentive to keep the country on a war-footing - and footing the bill for war.

Across the country, the war-based economy can be seen in an industry which includes everything from Homeland Security educational degrees to counter-terrorism consultants to private-run preferred traveler programs for airport security gates. Recently, the "black budget" of secret intelligence programs alone was estimated at $52.6bn for 2013. That is only the secret programs, not the much larger intelligence and counterintelligence budgets. We now have 16 spy agencies that employ 107,035 employees. This is separate from the over one million people employed by the military and national security law enforcement agencies.

The core of this expanding complex is an axis of influence of corporations, lobbyists, and agencies that have created a massive, self-sustaining terror-based industry.

The contractors

In the last eight years, trillions of dollars have flowed to military and homeland security companies. When the administration starts a war like Libya, it is a windfall for companies who are given generous contracts to produce everything from replacement missiles to ready-to-eat meals.

In the first 10 days of the Libyan war alone, the administration spent roughly $550m. That figure includes about $340m for munitions - mostly cruise missiles that must be replaced. Not only did Democratic members of Congress offer post-hoc support for the Libyan attack, but they also proposed a permanent authorization for presidents to attack targets deemed connected to terrorism - a perpetual war on terror. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) offers an even steadier profit margin. According to Morgan Keegan, a wealth management and capital firm, investment in homeland security companies is expected to yield a 12 percent annual growth through 2013 - an astronomical return when compared to other parts of the tanking economy.

The lobbyists 

There are thousands of lobbyists in Washington to guarantee the ever-expanding budgets for war and homeland security. One such example is former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff who pushed the purchase of the heavily criticized (and little tested) full-body scanners used in airports. When Chertoff was giving dozens of interviews to convince the public that the machines were needed to hold back the terror threat, many people were unaware that the manufacturer of the machine is a client of the Chertoff Group, his highly profitable security consulting agency. (Those hugely expensive machines were later scrapped after Rapiscan, the manufacturer, received the windfall.)

Lobbyists maintain pressure on politicians by framing every budget in "tough on terror" versus "soft on terror" terms. They have the perfect products to pitch - products that are designed to destroy themselves and be replaced in an ever-lasting war on terror. 

The agencies 

It is not just revolving doors that tie federal agencies to these lobbyists and companies. The war-based economy allows for military and homeland departments to be virtually untouchable. Environmental and social programs are eliminated or curtailed by billions as war-related budgets continue to expand to meet "new threats".

A massive counter-terrorism system has been created employing tens of thousands of personnel with billions of dollars to search for domestic terrorists.

With the support of an army of lobbyists and companies, cabinet members like former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, are invincible in Washington. When citizens complained of watching their children groped by the TSA, Napolitano defiantly retorted that if people did not want their children groped, they should yield and use the unpopular full-body machines - the machines being sold by her predecessor, Chertoff. 

It is not just the Defense and DHS departments that enjoy the war windfall. Take the Department of Justice (DOJ). A massive counter-terrorism system has been created employing tens of thousands of personnel with billions of dollars to search for domestic terrorists. The problem has been a comparative shortage of actual terrorists to justify the size of this internal security system. 

Accordingly, the DOJ has counted everything from simple immigration cases to credit card fraud as terror cases in a body count approach not seen since the Vietnam War. For example, the DOJ claimed to have busted a major terror-network as part of "Operation Cedar Sweep", where Lebanese citizens were accused of sending money to terrorists. They were later forced to drop all charges against all 27 defendants as unsupportable. It turned out to be a bunch of simple head shops. Nevertheless, the new internal security system continues to grind on with expanding powers and budgets. A few years ago, the DOJ even changed the definition of terrorism to allow for an ever-widening number of cases to be considered "terror-related".

Symbiotic relationship

Our economic war-dependence is matched by political war-dependence. Many members represent districts with contractors that supply homeland security needs and our on-going wars.

Even with polls showing that the majority of Americans are opposed to continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the new military-industrial complex continues to easily muster the necessary support from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. It is a testament to the influence of this alliance that hundreds of billions are being spent in Afghanistan and Iraq while Congress is planning to cut billions from core social programs, including a possible rollback on Medicare due to lack of money. None of that matters. It doesn't even matter that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has called the US the enemy and said he wishes that he had joined the Taliban. Even the documented billions stolen by government officials in Iraq and Afghanistan are treated as a mere cost of doing business.

It is what Eisenhower described as the "misplaced power" of the military-industrial complex - power that makes public opposition and even thousands of dead soldiers immaterial. War may be hell for some but it is heaven for others in a war-dependent economy.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and has testified in Congress on the massive counter-terrorism budgets and bureaucracy in the United States.

*The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Source:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/01/big-money-behind-war-military-industrial-complex-20141473026736533.html

Heads in the Sand

The out of touch world  

inside the Washington 

Beltway

https://www.facebook.com/ACauseForIdeas

The more I read about the U.S. Government’s view on what happened to the Economy in 2008, the more I am convinced that there is a rather large Ostrich Farm located within the confines of the Washington, DC Beltway. The Beltway is the area inside the I-495 highway that circles the Nation’s Capital. Within this circle reside our federally elected officials and an enormous number of Government employees. These good folks seem to be of the mind that all is truly well with the Union; after all, the President told us it was back in January. I can understand a little of their “head-in-the-sand” mentality, but, come on. Someone there must watch the News, or C-Span, or some form of media that gives them some sense of where the American Public stands on issues as large as the Economy.

As I’m reading “Foreign Affairs” (Jan./Feb. Issue), I realize that the article I’m most interested in is written by an ex-U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary. I figure that, now that he’s out of the political circus, he may actually be in touch with reality and make a rational argument for his theme, “The Fall and Rise of the West”. And, then I hit upon the excerpt below:

“While the grim effects of the 2008 financial crisis still resonate across the globe, the recession wasn't all bad:” ^[1]

“…the recession wasn’t all that bad..?.” If it was just a recession, perhaps it would not have been that bad, but we encountered a modern-day Depression: not a recession. Anyone who was paying attention will agree. A look at the real numbers will tell you right away that our Financial system, backed by our Corporate giants, brought this Country and the entire World to its knees. Since its inception in 2008, this Depression has effectively bankrupted the Economies of some heretofore stable Countries; Greece, Spain, Great Britain, Russia, Japan, the United States, and Mexico to mention a few.                                    

 “…the result is a U.S. economy poised to emerge stronger than it was before...” ^[1]

We have a “bought-and-paid-for” Congress that keeps trying to secure our National slide into the gutter. We have a large group of “higher moral” States that feel they, too, can run roughshod over the American Public. All this is fully supported by a relative handful of U.S. based multinational Companies, and their puppets in Washington, DC. If you doubt this for one second, I refer you to ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council.

Here are a few demographic numbers that will bear out an argument for Depression:

BLS = U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Who would ever have thought that the Carter years saw the highest manufacturing employment years? (almost 20 million jobs) There are figures that some believe describe the true unemployment rates in the U.S. (the SGS Alternate) With the true unemployment figures alone, this statement is ridiculous.

                                           SGS = Shadow Government Statistics

                                                         http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

Definition of an Economic Depression:

1. a decline in real GDP exceeding 10%, or

2. a recession lasting 2 or more years.

 http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Still, none of our financial “leaders” have been indicted, stood trial, or gone to jail.

^[1]    Roger C. Altman, Why America and Europe Will Emerge Stronger From the Financial Crisis

       Foreign Affairs Publication, Jan./Feb., 2013