A+ A A-

Froma Harrop -So mixed up on immigration

Right-wing primary voters booted Eric Cantor over signs he might back "amnesty" for illegal immigrants, it is said. If so, the partisans are once again taking a position totally opposed to what they claim to want. Legalizing the status of most undocumented foreigners is the condition for closing the door on future illegal immigration. There is no other politically passable road to get there.

One may err in assuming that the hard right actually desires to solve the problem, punishing others being the more satisfying activity. The targets would include both Republicans not dancing to the right's dissonant tune and brown people in general.

Thing is, illegal immigrants are in this country because they can hold jobs here. And they can hold the jobs because American immigration laws were made to not work.

Thus, the tea party brethren are correct in arguing that past immigration bills offered amnesty for millions without stopping the illegal flow. Also, another amnesty without enforcement would only encourage millions more to enter the United States without proper documents.

Unfortunately, the right wing hasn't noticed — or doesn't want to concede — that the bipartisan immigration reform approved by the Senate is different. It fixes the enforcement part.

The plan would require biometric identification (for example, a fingerprint or the iris of an eye) of all job applicants. That means a stolen or fake Social Security card would no longer pass as acceptable ID. Furthermore, all businesses would have to use E-Verify, an Internet-based system, to confirm the prospective hire's right to work in the United States.

Many on the right insist that President Obama cannot be trusted to enforce an improved immigration law. That is odd because Obama is the first president to take the current flawed law seriously — so seriously that a leading immigration advocate has condemned him as "deporter in chief."

Also note what happened when Obama — frustrated over inaction on reform and pressed by immigrant activists — did consider easing up on the deportations. Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat pushing the changes, warned him not to. The reforms would not pass if the public thought enforcement might be subject to presidential whim.
One suspects that many right-wingers would rather see their teeth fall out and cars repossessed than make common cause with Obama — even on an issue with which they have common cause. Again, populist movements fueled by emotion often bypass achieving goals in favor of nurturing resentments. It's less work that way.

Speaking of politics, it is beyond weird that Idaho Republican Raul Labrador has put himself forward as the right's champion to replace Cantor as House majority leader. Labrador opposes amnesty; it is true. But he also backs an enormous new visa program that would admit up to 200,000 foreign workers to fill low-skilled jobs in motels, restaurants and the like.

He is something of a cheap-labor twofer: Create more competition for our lowest-paid service workers while keeping undocumented workers vulnerable and thus unable to demand higher wages.

A word about the concern over "rewarding lawbreakers." The right should drop it. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are good, hardworking people. And the laws they broke were laws that our business and political leaders held in contempt.

The proposed reforms would make clear to employers, future illegal entrants and politicians that our immigration laws are not to be winked at. It would be strange if Republicans willing to go forth were threatened by a political faction that claims to hate the status quo while doing everything in its power to perpetuate it. Strange, but not the first time.

(A member of the Providence Journal editorial board, Froma Harrop writes a nationally syndicated column from that city. She has written for such diverse publications as The New York Times, Harper's Bazaar and Institutional Investor.)

Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00

Hits: 346

Sanborn — May 2014 Lakes Region waterfront sales report

There were ten Winnipesaukee waterfront transactions in May of 2014 at an average sales price of $797,100 and a median price point of $672,500. In May of 2013 there were 14 transactions at an average sales price of $907,196 and a median price point of $826,000. Four sales came in over the million dollar mark last May, this past month there were two. For those that keep score, there have been 37 sales so far this year on the big lake compared to 35 for the same period last year.

The largest sale was at 15 Olive Street in Alton. This Adirondack home was built in 1997 but was gutted in 2005 and updated. It has 6,422 square feet of luxurious living space with four bedrooms including the first floor master suite and six baths. Of course you'll find a great room, gourmet kitchen, media room, library, five fireplaces, two decks, two screened porches, and the requisite family room in the basement. Gotta have that! The home sits on a 1 acre level lot with 440 feet of frontage and a U-shaped covered dock complete with a boat lift. Oh yeah, there are long range views of Winnipesaukee and the Ossipee Mountains beyond. This property was first listed in February of 2012 for $2.95 million, was reduced eventually to $1.895 mil, and sold for $1.745 mil. That's only $1.2 million off the original list. Ouch! It is currently assessed for $2,128,600, so I guess the new owner must be pretty happy.

The mid-priced sale was at 125 Pinnacle park Road in Meredith. This house is a nice 1,524 square foot cape with wood shingle siding built in 2006. It has two bedrooms, two and a half baths, a beautiful open concept living area, a walk out basement, and deck overlooking 97' of water frontage and a dock. The house sits on a challenging half acre lot. By challenging, I mean steep. So steep that from the street you look straight down on the roof. Scary actually, but maybe the buyer is a mountain climber or skydiver. This home was listed at $709,900 in June of 2013, was reduced to $689,000, and sold for $650,000 after 282 days on the market. It is assessed for $634,000. Good deal? Only if you have good brakes on the Family Truckster.

The least expensive sale was, not surprising, an island property at 372 Rattlesnake Island. This circa 1965, 1,032 square foot, five room, two bedroom, one bath camp is well maintained and sits on a .83 acre level lot. It has 105 feet of frontage with a sandy bottom and two docks. Now, someone really wanted this sandy bottom because it was on the market for only two days. It was listed at $329,900, sold for $301,000, and is assessed for $311,700 by the good folks down in Alton. I bet the new owners are out there this weekend killing rattlesnakes and having a grand time.

There was just one sale on Winnisquam and that was at 25 Bay Shore Drive in Sanbornton. This 1930s vintage, 2,975 square foot, cape style waterfront home has four bedrooms, two and a half baths, a spacious living room, kitchen with breakfast nook, four season sunroom, and a two car garage. The home sits on a .18 acre beautifully landscaped lot with 100' of frontage. This property is conveniently located not far from the Winnisquam Bridge. This home was listed at $578,500 and quickly went under agreement for $544,900 in just eleven days. It is assessed at $482,800. Nice.

Once again, there were no sales on Squam, but they are all about quality, not quantity, up there.

Please feel free to visit www.lakesregionhome.com to learn more about the Lakes Region real estate market and comment on this article and others. Data was compiled using the Northern New England Real Estate MLS System as of 6/11/14. Roy Sanborn is a realtor at Four Seasons Sotheby's International Realty and can be reached at 603-455-0335.

Last Updated on Friday, 13 June 2014 06:30

Hits: 387

Susan Estrich - President needs someone on team who's not blindly loyal

One of the hardest things to understand about the whole Bowe Bergdahl exchange is how the White House could be so hopelessly tone deaf as to not understand what was going to happen next.

They knew that the circumstances surrounding Bergdahl's capture raised serious questions as to whether he had deserted his post.

They knew that other soldiers had risked, and reportedly lost, their lives searching for Bergdahl.

They knew that Congress not only had expressed concerns in the past about such an exchange, but also established a 30-day consultation period before prisoners could be released from Gitmo.

Yet they did not consult with anyone in Congress.

And — worst of all in terms of optics — they actually staged a celebratory press conference on the White House lawn, effectively pumping up the media balloon with so much air that it was bound to explode with equal force. As it has.

Why? "How could they be so stupid," friends ask me.

It's a hard question because the short answer is absolutely clear: You may agree or disagree with Barack Obama, approve or disapprove of his performance, but when it comes to politics, the one thing you have to admit is that the president and his team are not stupid. They beat today's 600-pound gorilla, Hillary Clinton, in the primaries. Only two Democrats since FDR have won two terms in office, and Obama is one of them. Even if they were once newcomers to Washington, that is hardly the case anymore. At six years in, Obama and his team understand this game.

So how did they end up playing it so poorly? Even the Democrats in Congress are confused and angry.

Didn't anyone say in any of the meetings leading up to the announcement, "We'd better get in touch with key members of Congress"? Sure, we all know that Congress leaks like a sieve. I'm not suggesting that they should have done an "all points bulletin" to every member of Congress. But you at least consult with the leadership. You lock in some allies before you begin. You convince them to take the lead with their colleagues. You don't blindside Dianne Feinstein.
And the press conference on the White House lawn, with the parents, who just "happened" to be in Washington? One of the worst ideas in the world. Here you have a soldier who may or may not be facing a court-martial, from a unit whose members have been told (and with good reason) not to speak publicly about the incident lest they further endanger Bergdahl's life, but who certainly will tell their stories upon his release, stories not only of his disappearance (or desertion), but of lives lost trying to find him, and you stage a press conference on the White House lawn, as if Osama bin Laden had just been found and killed. A day of celebration? That's what they were calling it. But what was there to celebrate? I'm not saying Bergdahl deserved to die at enemy hands. Hardly. I'm not convicting him in advance of any trial. Exchanging him as we did might have been our only option. But it was hardly a cause for celebration.

This is not the stuff of political genius. Everything that has happened since that Saturday press conference has been totally predictable, except apparently to the White House.

I wasn't there, of course, so I can only speculate. But from my experience in politics, one of the hardest things to do is to speak truth to power. Telling a powerful leader something they don't want to hear is more difficult than you can imagine. Eisenhower's chief of staff used to tell the story of setting up meetings with the president's critics and encouraging them to voice their criticism, only to have them enter the Oval Office and tell the president what a great job he was doing.

What a president needs from his team is not blind loyalty, but honesty and courage. He needs people who don't need their jobs, who don't need the patina of the White House, who could walk any day. Otherwise, it's just too hard to say no. If this president doesn't have people like that around him, he should find them.

(Susan Estrich is a professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California Law Center. A best-selling author, lawyer and politician, as well as a teacher, she first gained national prominence as national campaign manager for Dukakis for President in 1988.)

Last Updated on Wednesday, 11 June 2014 09:28

Hits: 443

Pat Buchanan - The endless invasion

For 10 days, Americans have argued over the wisdom of trading five Taliban senior commanders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

President Obama handed the Taliban a victory, critics contend, and imperiled U.S. troops in Afghanistan when the five return to the battlefield. Moreover, he has inspired the Haqqani network and other Islamists to capture more Americans to trade.

But which represents the greater long-term threat to the safety and security of our people and nation: sending those five Taliban leaders to Doha, and perhaps back to Afghanistan, or releasing into the U.S. population last year 36,000 criminal illegal aliens with 88,000 convictions among them?

According to a May report of the Center for Immigration Studies, of the 36,000 criminal aliens who, while awaiting deportation, were set free by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 193 had been convicted of homicide, 426 of sexual assault, 303 of kidnaping, 1,075 of aggravated assault, 1,160 for stolen vehicles, 9,187 for possession or use of dangerous drugs, and 16,070 for driving drunk or drugged.

Those 36,000 criminal aliens are roughly equivalent to three-and-a-half divisions of felons and social misfits released into our midst.

And this does not include the 68,000 illegal aliens against whom ICE declined to press criminal charges last year, but turned loose.

How goes the Third World invasion of the United States?

According to the AP, the U.S. Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley sector made 148,017 arrests from Oct. 1 to May 17, while 62,876 were caught in the Tucson sector, the second-busiest crossing point.

That is almost 211,000 illegal aliens caught in just over half a year in just two sectors of the border. And that figure only tells us how many were caught, not how many got in, or how many of those caught were released and now reside among us.

Among those caught crossing into Texas these last seven months were 47,000 unaccompanied children. Border Patrol estimates that by Sept. 30, apprehensions of children and teenagers in this fiscal year could reach 90,000.

According to Gov. Jan Brewer, the feds have begun shipping illegal aliens, adults as well as children, from Texas to Arizona, "dumping" them into her state.

"This is a humanitarian crisis and it requires a humanitarian response," says Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski of the surge in children from Central America across the U.S. border.

Attorney General Eric Holder has risen to the crisis. The U.S. will now provide lawyers for children who enter illegally, to fight their battle in U.S. courts to stay. "We're taking this historic step," says Holder, "to protect the rights of the most vulnerable members of our society. How we treat those in need — particularly young people who are fleeing violence, persecution, abuse or trafficking — goes to the core of who we are as a nation."

Somehow the core contention of James Burnham's "Suicide of the West," out 50 years ago this year, comes to mind. "Liberalism," wrote Burnham. "is the ideology of Western suicide."

America and the West must face up to what is happening to our countries and our civilization. Or we are going to lose them both forever.

Treating with contempt U.S. and European laws, peoples from failed states of the Third World are steadily filling up our countries and reducing our native-born into slowly shrinking national majorities.

If this continues over many more decades, Western nations as we knew them will disappear forever, and be remade in the image of those who have newly arrived, and the countries whence they came.

When, ever, did Americans vote for this?

What would constitute a pro-American immigration policy?

A moratorium on all immigration until unemployment among U.S. citizens falls below five percent. A 15-foot security fence from San Diego to the Gulf, with Border Patrol outposts every 10 miles. Fines and community service for businessmen who hire illegal aliens.

Europe is facing the same crisis. This past weekend, 5,200 migrants were caught on boats crossing from Africa to Italy. Spain and Greece, too, are major crossing points from sub-Sahara Africa and the Arab and Islamic world into the heart of Europe.

Yet as we saw in the May European parliamentary elections, the peoples of Europe are not going quietly into that good night that their elites have prepared for them.

They want to preserve the unique countries that they once were. Frenchmen want France to remain France, as the Brits want to remain British.

And despite the names they are being called, there is nothing wrong with that. As Euripides wrote, there is no "greater grief than the loss of one native land."

The Republican establishment of Jeb Bush, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and the Senate hierarchy is prepared to collaborate with Barack Obama on a halt to deportations and partial amnesty. If so, we shall find out whether the Republican Party still has a heart and soul, or whether, in the last analysis, it comes down to the money.

(Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three presidents, twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000. He won the New Hampshire Republican Primary in 1996.)

Last Updated on Tuesday, 10 June 2014 09:24

Hits: 429

Bob Meade - Be careful what you wish for

I think we need to make politicians pass some sort of common sense test before they're put on a ballot. There are a few "givens" they must recognize. First is that American people are addicted to low prices, for everything. Everyone is always looking for the next sale or the best deal they can find. That addiction has led to jobs being moved overseas where less costly labor markets are available.

In my lifetime, jobs have migrated from New England to various southern states because of a less costly labor market. Then, those jobs in the south lost the labor market competition to other countries . . . Guatemala, Bangladesh, China, India, and others. For the most part, the quality of the products didn't suffer as many foreign providers followed the quality control processes of W. Edwards Deming and Joseph Juran. (The outstanding contributions to society of these two men may appear in a later column.)

The stimulus in creating job migration to other labor markets is easy enough to understand . . . it is the cost of producing the finished product. And, as we all recognize, the single greatest contributor to the cost of producing a product is the cost of labor. Labor, in this country, also includes the cost of matching Social Security and Medicare taxes to be paid by the employer, along with the employer's contribution to health benefits, a variety of employee "perks" such as holidays, sick days and vacation, and, of course, either employer provided retirement plans or employer contributions to the employee's 401K plans.

We recently read that Seattle, WA, is going to implement a plan to raise their minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. While that may make some people jump for joy, their joy will be short lived. Before going into the various consequences of such an action, let's look at the numbers.

If the minimum is $15.00 per hour, that is $600.00 per week, $31,200.00 per year. The employer then incurs these other costs:

— The employee and the employer each must contribute 6.2 percent of that amount for FICA (Social Security), and 1.45 percent for Medicare; $45.90 each per week; $2,386.80 per year.
— The employer benefits may include a two week vacation, five or more holidays, and perhaps a sick day allowance of five or more days; $2,400.00 per year.
— Under the new health care laws the employer must offer and contribute to the employee's healthcare insurance. A fairly modest plan may cost about $500.00 a month, or $6,000.00 per year. At 60 percent, the employer's share would be $3,600.00.
— Many employers provide matching funds for an employee's 401K retirement savings plan. As an example, if the employees contribute 6 percent of their salary, and the company offers a 3 percent match, the employer would incur another $936.00 in benefit costs.

These costs amount to $9,322.80, which is to be added to the $31,200.00 annual minimum wage . . . 30 percent more in costs to the employer.

The minimum wage was intended for entry level jobs, not for skilled labor. Young people get paid to "learn to earn" so they can develop their skills and move up the compensation ladder. The consequence of demanding the so-called "living wage" for entry level jobs will result in a further migration of jobs to other countries . . . where that additional $9,322.80 in costs would not be incurred, nor would the gross wage of $31,200.00 be paid. And part of that is because Americans demand their addiction to low prices be satisfied.

Another consequence will be an increase in automation. Companies will find that there are some jobs being performed by unskilled labor because that is less costly than making a capital investment in machinery or equipment that could perform those jobs. With higher wages and overhead costs, companies will re-look at their options and, in many cases, will make decisions to automate, not hire.

An additional likely consequence will be that companies will expect, demand, more maturity and more productivity from their workers because the minimum wage in cost and benefits will exceed $40,000.00. The days of high school kids being paid to "learn to earn" will be a thing of the past.

The truism is, if you make something cheaper, or if you make it easier to do, more of it will happen. The corollary is that if you make something more expensive, or if you make it harder to do, less of it will happen.

Be careful what you wish for.

(Bob Meade is a Laconia resident.)

Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00

Hits: 322

The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette