Monday notes

Noted here and there:

'Twas a busy weekend.  Like so many others, I'm honoring the passing of Buck Owens.  I'll admit, I didn't grow up on him -- I first started listening to Buck after he was referenced in a Dwight Yoakam song.  This makes me uncool, I know, but I did grow to love that "west coast" country sound of his.

I'm interested to know how many Americans successfully picked George Mason, UCLA, Florida, and LSU in their men's final four. I did pick UCLA correctly, but the other three are stunners.  At this point, I'm predicting UCLA over Florida in the final, but wouldn't be surprised if the Patriots beat the Tigers a week from tonight either.

I'm surprised by Oklahoma's loss in the women's tournament -- Courtney Paris just seemed so unstoppably dominant to me.  I'm rooting for the Tennessee Vols now.  But please, sweet Jesus, not UConn again.

I'm grateful to Inside Higher Ed for linking to Friday's post on student crushes.  It's worth another 1000 visitors a day at least; if you came here from IHE, welcome!

Thanks to Feministe, I learned that this blog has been listed at About.com as one of the "Top Ten Blogs on Civil Liberties and Women's Rights".  In addition to Feministe, Feministing, Alas, and The Happy Feminist were selected.  Mysteriously, Pandagon was not.  The list was put together by writer and activist Tom Head, who says such kind things about this blog that I am going to (as ever, immodestly) repeat them:

Male feminist bloggers want to be Hugo when they grow up. He has both an intuitive understanding of feminist values and an intuitive understanding of how to try to humbly live into those values as a heterosexual white man--dealing as much with the business of day-to-day life, and the day-to-day values and relationships that give it meaning, as he does with policy issues. And with rational humility, but without a hint of self-mortification, he makes it all look easy.

Matilde the chinchilla sends kisses to Tom.

And of course, the big story in Los Angeles wasn't the Bruins beating Memphis. It was the massive demonstration for immigrant rights held on Saturday in downtown.  We weren't there; I was on the El Prieto trail when the march began, and was at Pilates class when it ended.  (Then again, I only found out about it early Saturday morning before heading out for a run.)  I've posted about immigration before, and recommend this piece from Maia at Alas, A Blog.  She makes the old  point that if capital is going to be free (something NAFTA has accomplished) then labor too must be free.  If money can move effortlessly across borders, than human capital must be allowed to do the same.  Whatever standard you use, human capital and cash must be treated by the same set of rules. 

For different perspectives from two L.A. Christians whom I respect, read what Rudy and Christy have to say.

I'm going to quote what I wrote last year, because my feelings have not changed an iota:

"In general, we Christians are called to follow the laws of the secular state.  We are to render obedience to Caesar, save in those instances when Caesar's imperatives conflict directly with God's call to radical, biblical, universal justice.  Civil disobedience has a place, after all; I am convinced that Christians are called to be disobedient to the state when the state demands that we treat folks differently based upon their immigration status. 

But those of us who hire the undocumented must be very careful not to exploit them financially.  After all, giant corporations regularly hire "illegal aliens", not out of biblical compassion but out of a desire to save money by hiring vulnerable, non-union labor.   Having hired many, many day laborers over the years to help with everything from moving to landscaping to very minor construction, I've always made sure to pay wages that are well above the minimum.   (I've never hired anyone for under $20 an hour, frankly, and I've often paid more.  Indeed, I try to pay day laborers what I think I would pay someone whose name I got from the Yellow Pages, though that is often tough to gauge.) 

I know that many of the men I've hired are sending money home to Mexico, Central, and South America.   Our church has an ongoing, long-term mission project in a small Sinaloa town near the Pacific.  On my visits there, I've seen the tremendous good that the money sent home by those working in America has brought about.  (When I visited my fiancee's family last year in rural northeastern Colombia, I saw the same enormous benefits that remittances from America had provided.)  When I hire a day laborer, and pay him well, I'm not merely enabling him to eat; I'm helping to support an entire community.  And as a Christian, I believe I am called to love a Latin American community every bit as much as one here in the United States.   Yes, my salary is paid by taxes -- but villages in Mexico and Colombia survive on the money I pay to their sons and daughters here.  Is it not contradictory to the gospel to prefer one's own people to those who live abroad? "

Comments

[Barbara]

Hugo, could you provide some principled analysis for your last statement that people and capital have to play by the same rules? Is that because it sounds good or because you have thought through all of the social and economic implications of the two and decided that there is no difference between the infusion of capital (basically, money) into an economy and the infusion of a large number of people into a society? Do you imagine a world in which people scoot around the globe chasing after the capital that has been exported by their countries? In truth, capital flows to labor markets with, generally, an excess of labor (depending on what kind of labor is needed, of course) while labor tends to gravitate to those places where capital has been created or stored -- not to where capital is being newly invested. Neither one of these things has much bearing on what are perceived to be the issues raised by robust immigration from countries with small economies and corrupt governments into, largely, a single, very large economy with an increasingly corrupt government -- ours.

So go read the following:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/03/immigration-conundrum.html

[Hugo]

Gosh, it's Adam Smith, isn't it? I'm with the socialists, who want free movement of labor and restricted movement of capital. But if you are a free trader in the Adam Smith tradition, then you must also support free movement of human capital.

I don't have Smith in front of me, but if I google it, I'm sure I'll find the Smith reference.

[Barbara]

No, Hugo, I'm not preaching Adam Smith, and I guess I'm not surprised that you thought my rejoinder is anti-people and pro-capital when it's really the opposite.

People have more tangible needs for protection, social support, education, health care, etc. than capital does (capital's needs are for things like a banking system with integrity and not a whole lot else). Likewise, the free flow of capital is VERY free; it simply looks for the greatest rate of return, and cares nothing for any other value -- and it has different consequences for society than the flow of people (who, in reality, don't really want to move if they don't have to and may properly refuse to move for reasons like, oh I don't know, taking care of their elderly parents). People should be treated as permanent, and capital as evanescent based on the reality that capital can vanish, forever, not just hop from location to location, but people do not, and once they are in your midst, you might forgive me for thinking that we ought to take care of them -- which also means that we might try to decide how many people we can assimilate into our existing safety net, frayed as it is.

In short, people are not commodities. While your formulation, I know, is intended to lift up people, in reality, it debases people to view them as being "just like" capital.

And for these and many other reasons it may make sense for a society to pass laws that don't treat the two identically. Slogans are nice, but they are usually too simple to result in very good policies.

[Hugo]

Barbara, we're on the same side. I'm not making myself clear: I am taking issue with the free traders who want a different standard, because they are at odds with the founding principles of the free trade movement. You can't be anti-immigration and a disciple of Adam Smith; you can be a disciple of the Gospel (or Marx) and want to privilege human labor over faceless capital.

[flawedplan]

Hiya Hugo,

I come by occasionally for the poetry, but hadn't heard about the passing of Buck Owens and wanted to offfer quick congrats on the recognition before I blow the dust off some long lost elpees, God rest him.

[The Gonzman]

If you have restricted movement of capitalism, the only free movement of labor will be from the closed doors of the business to the unemployment line. Then when everyone is out of work, who is going to pay the taxes for these social programs and the social engineering you are so fond of?

I'm with the people, though, who think it is high time to crack down on businesses which employ illegal invaders, be they the Irish that invade the northeast, or the central Americans which invade the south. The next step is to police people overstaying visas, and in policing the banks who enable such illegals to stay under the radar, and continue to buy property, use credit, and end run the system.

We have laws governing the influx of immigrants for several reasons, which include both economic ones and reasons of national security. And if it takes a wall and militarizing our border to show we mean business on it, I am for it. It's a slap in the face of those who have played by the rules to extend the benefits they waited for, paid their dues for, and earned to cheats who sneak into the country.

There's a way to get all the consideration due to immigrants by illegal immigrants - go home, and come back through proper channels; and if your government is so bad and corrupt your home country is a hellhole, either renounce it, or have the moral courage to stay and change it.

[Lee]

"Is it not contradictory to the gospel to prefer one's own people to those who live abroad?"

I'm not sure what the answer to this is, but I'm guessing a lot of it depends on what you mean by "prefer." Don't we prefer our countryman by the fact that our government only (as a rule) protects U.S. citizens, provides benefits to U.S. citizens, etc.? If we were really being impartial shouldn't we advocate that all the money we spend on domestic needs be diverted immediately to, say, Africa?

I'm not saying we don't have any obligations to non-fellow-citizens - far from it - but it does seem to me that there is a preferential ordering of our attention that is justifiable. We - justifiably, I think - dedicate more of our resources to our family and friends than to strangers for instance (though maybe too much in many cases). The particularity of our relationship to certain people seems to license a certain partiality - or at least I think most of us think it does.

[Antigone]

I also feel that as a moral country, we should make it illegal for US corporations to out-source to countries that don't meet OSHA and min. wage requirements.

No more importing goods that was made in the US would be considered illegal. The people in devoluping nations are just as much people as people in the US.

And I would also advocate for making it easier to apply for refugee status in the US. Fleeing FGM? Refugee status. Fleeing honor killing? Refugee status. Fleeing blood wars in Sierra Leone and Liberia? Refugee status.

[The Gonzman]

I also feel that as a moral country, we should make it illegal for US corporations to out-source to countries that don't meet OSHA and min. wage requirements.

Or tax them on the savings. I'm with the left when it comes to corporate welfare - I call mine "Economic Darwinism."

No more importing goods that was made in the US would be considered illegal. The people in devoluping nations are just as much people as people in the US.

Agreed. Slave Labor and such is repugnant, and US corporations profiteering from them is even more so.

And I would also advocate for making it easier to apply for refugee status in the US. Fleeing FGM? Refugee status. Fleeing honor killing? Refugee status. Fleeing blood wars in Sierra Leone and Liberia? Refugee status.

I agree too. And I'd extend and expand that to western hemisphre nations like Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico, and such.

[Ben Martin]

You mention the socialists, Hugo, but I note that, somewhat ironically, many Marxist and conflict-theorist types think that we shouldn't have free movement of capital OR labor, in some sort of anachronistic attempt to preserve locality of economy. I think that's terribly short sighted, but there you have it.

And, incidentally, to kick up a notch as it were, I've decided to claim, officially, that I believe that freedom of movement (which would encompass immigration) will within a few decades (though hopefully sooner) be recognized as a fundamental democratic right. And then all these economic arguments will just go away (assuming we try to be principled democrats - hah!), just as they should. Unfortunately, until then, here we are.

[Col Steve]

GMU was a stunner; however, Florida and LSU were not. Florida or BC were the more likely choices as well as LSU or Texas in their respective brackets (Villanova and Duke lived by the 3 pt shot and few teams will shot consistently well for 4, let alone 6, consecutive games).

The women's game has not reached the point where a team ranked higher than # 4 still has any realistic shot (okay, Utah at 5 this year). But, what's with the rant against UCONN? Is that personal about their coach or just one team dominating - because would you have the same sentiment if UCLA went on a similar run as during the John Wooden era?

[Hugo]

Oh, it's personal about Auriemma. Nothing against a man in women's basketball (Leon Barmore, one of my heroes), but his personality grates. I don't like UConn's men's team either.