way to go, Joe

Here's hoping that Joe Lieberman is the next Democratic presidential nominee. Hillary's stance on terrorism in general and Iraq in particular has been decent, but Senator Lieberman has been one of the most vocal supporters of Bush on these issues over the last four years. While so many others have played politics with the war, Joe has always played it straight.

illegal aliens in college

A friend is thinking about illegal aliens and higher education:

I'm working with a group of my fellow students on drafting a bill to be introduced in the Missouri legislature next year that will forbid state colleges or universities from admitting aliens illegally present in the US. I am not exactly sure where I even stand on this issue, but that really has nothing to do with anything. And is has nothing to do with in state or out of state tuition; the issue is ADMISSION to college. My part of the project is to write a policy paper that will be useful to the legislator who is sponsoring the bill. So I have to discuss policy reasons
that support the bill, as well as those in opposition (with responses). Do any of you have any good policy reasons either for or against such a law? Pointing me in the direction of any authority that supports your reasoning will also be greatly appreciated.

At the risk of writing a research paper instead of a blog post, here are my thoughts:

• Purpose of the bill
  The reason to enact such a law isn't clearly stated. There are two implied reasons:
  1. Illegal immigrants are a problem and we would be better off if they had no incentive to stay in Missouri.
  2. Each illegal immigrant who is enrolled in a state funded school imposes a marginal cost on the state which is higher than the marginal benefits obtained by educating that immigrant.
  Other possible reasons are pretty nonsensical:
  1. Presumably we aren't trying to protect immigrants from the harm caused by state funded schools.
  2. Presumably the presence of an illegal alien in the classroom is unlikely to significantly disrupt the educational process for natives.
  3. Presumably we aren't proposing to keep non-natives out of our schools because of a racist/nationalistic desire to avoid rubbing elbows with non-Americans.
  4. Presumably we aren't proposing this bill simply for the sake of getting a grade in school.
• Analysis of Outcomes
  To understand the consequences of enacting this bill we would need to know several things:
  
  1. What is the impact (positive or negative) of illegal immigration on our society?
  2. What is the impact (positive or negative) of educating illegal aliens?
  3. What proportion of illegal aliens seek education in state funded universities and colleges?
  4. What impact will this bill have on the decision making process of illegal aliens who are contemplating a move to Missouri?
  I can't answer any of those questions with confidence, but I've got some guesses:
  1. Does illegal immigration harm America?
     • Many say that illegal immigrants are a major source of crime (above and beyond the inherent criminality of their presence in America, that is). Is illegal immigration in Missouri a significant source of crime? I suspect not, but don't have any evidence.
     • Many say that illegal aliens are major consumers of public assistance and therefore constitute a burden on American taxpayers. This seems to be true. Or not.
     • Many immigration opponents argue that immigrants harm our economy by reducing wage rates and taking jobs from natives. Others disagree: example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4 and example 5.
     • Some are afraid to see our society and culture over-run by foreigners. I tend to agree with those who see immigration in general as a good thing.
  2. Does education of illegal aliens have any positive or negative effects on our society? I'm not going to spend any time researching this--as a society we seem to have concluded that education of natives is a good thing. Presumably, the same benefits that accrue from educating a native would also accrue from educating an illegal alien. I'm not the only one thinking this, but I hardly regard that link as conclusive.
  3. Do many illegal aliens seek higher education in Missouri? I seriously doubt it.
  4. Would this bill change the incentives for illegal aliens to settle in Missouri? Possibly, but not to any significant degree. The illegal aliens who presumably cause the most harm and provide the least benefit to society (criminals, welfare recipient and the unskilled) would probably be the least likely to seek higher education. Denying access to higher education to these people will not alter their decision making process.
• Conclusions:
  1. If the purpose of the bill is to limit illegal immigration to Missouri because that immigration is harmful, I suspect that this bill
     1. will not benefit Missouri all that much because the harms of illegal immigration are overstated,
     2. will close off one mechanism (education) by which the most costly of illegal aliens can be turned into more productive illegal aliens, and
     3. will ultimately prove ineffective in limiting illegal immigration because few illegal aliens seek higher education.
  2. If the point of the bill is to limit the direct costs associated with educating illegal aliens at state institutions, I don't think anybody can tell how great the problem is. There probably aren't that many illegal aliens in our schools, but we also need to know what the marginal cost to the state is for educating these people. Whether they pay in-state or out-of-state tuition would be a significant factor in determining this cost. We also would need to know how much benefit to society we can obtain by educating our illegal alien population. I assume that there would be some benefit (economic, cultural or otherwise), but I don't know how to quantify that benefit to compare it to the costs associated with such education.
  3. I REALLY need to get a life.

UPDATE:
There are a lot of good links here and here. Neither set of links is directly applicable to the question of whether to educate our illegals, but they do provide a lot of good background thoughts from a lot of very smart people.

Hollywood, meet Jane Austen. Miss Austen, meet Hollywood.

I saw the latest adaptation of Pride and Prejudice tonight.

Two hours and seven minutes can't contain the whole of Austen's novel, so I was prepared to see some significant changes to the plot. Fortunately, the plot doesn't suffer--it's the dialogue and character development that bear the brunt of the damage. Some of the best lines from Austen's novel were mangled or eliminated, often to be replaced by standard Hollywood tripe. Austen's cast of characters includes several who are caricatures of specific personality traits, but this screenplay muddles the distinctions between the characters I want to like and those that I expect to loathe. Lizzy, for example, ends up looking a bit like her mother (she claims not to be marrying for money, but her conversion at Pemberly is apparently brought on by the sight of expensive statuary). The dynamic between Mr. and Mrs. Bennett is... I'm not sure what the screenwriter is going for, but I'm pretty sure it's not what Austen is going for. Wickham's role could be adequately played by a cardboard cutout.

I was prepared to forgive all of this until I heard Darcy say "you have bewitched me, body and soul". Almost everything after that line was pure Hollywood fluff. The final five minutes left me rolling my eyes in annoyance.

Given the limitations of a two hour movie format, compromises had to be made. I'm not sure that those compromises were handled as well as they could have been, but it could have been worse. On the other hand, why settle for a two hour movie? Bottom line: Buy this, it's better.

crows do not sell drugs

Heh.

better late than early

Pejman Yousefzadeh's post about Bush's exit strategy for Iraq worries me. The gist of his commentary is that we can't afford to leave Iraq too early:

Make no mistake: If American troops withdraw before the Iraqi security forces are prepared to take care of themselves, we will lose Iraq to complete barbarism. And if that happens, the Administration will have won itself no friends--either among those demanding withdrawal from the very beginning or among those demanding that we stick it out until the job is done. Worst of all, American security interests, prestige and credibility will suffer a monumental setback.

The significant decision isn't "do we withdraw from Iraq", but "when and how quickly do we withdraw from Iraq"? Afterall, Iraq has to stand on its own eventually. If the invasion of Iraq was intended to result in fundamental cultural changes throughout the Middle East, we won't achieve those benefits until Iraq becomes the prototype for stable and self-sufficient democracy in the region We can force democracy on Iraq, but only by letting them stand on their own two feet can the world know that this new democracy is stable, self-sufficient and worthy of emulation.

I'd very much like to know why the Administration is talking about large-scale withdrawals over the next two years. We've been making progress both militarily and politically against the terrorists (even if the press won't acknowlege it), so it's entirely possible that the Administration feels that Iraqis are capable of managing a larger role in their own defense. It's also possible that Bush is losing his nerve and is preparing to throw Iraq to the wolves. We risk more by pulling out too soon than by staying in too long, but I've got just enough faith left in this Administration to give them the benefit of the doubt on this.

parenting in public

As James Lileks said, "I salute the owner of this place. He may be a tad too dictatorial, but it is his joint, and he seems to be peeving the right people."

I like kids and I like playing with kids. I recognize that kids aren't naturally quiet and well behaved, but that's all the more reason that they should be taught. Parents who refuse to parent in public are pernicious.

Alliteration is also pernicious, but it's my blog, so deal with it.

feminism and rape

Megan McArdle's post about feminism and rape is a must-read:

In my ideal world, men would not be tempted to commit rape. Sexual encounters would be handled with negotiation, not with one partner's insistence on getting what he wants at the expense of another. Men would respect the desires of women to control what happens to their bodies, whether they've known each other for ten minutes or ten years.

And in my ideal world, the fear of rape could not be used as a justification for slut-shaming.

Let's rephrase that bolded part a little bit: "In my ideal world, people would not be tempted to take things from other people that those other people do not freely choose to give them." I endorse that statement wholeheartedly. But that doesn't mean I leave the door unlocked.

There is a strain of feminism that encourages women to behave as if we have arrived in some feminist utopia where rape is impossible. This stems from a very admirable desire to put the responsibility for rape on the men, not the women, and is an understandable backlash to rape trials that used to investigate whether the woman was "asking for it".

Nonetheless, it's stupid. Not only are we not in this utopia, we are never, ever going to be in that utopia. Even if we achieved a marvelously gender-blind society, there would still be some people who want to have sex with people who do not want to have sex with them. Indeed, the variety of human sexual fantasy being what it is, there will be some people who are almost exclusively interested in that sort of activity.

That means women are going to have to take action to protect themselves. If you don't want to stop engaging in risky behaviour, then vote libertarian and buy yourself a gun. But don't just stick your head in the sand and claim that it's all society's fault, so you're not going to do anything until society takes care of the problem.

Feminists (and liberals in general) would be wise to stop confusing the ideal world for the real world. I've heard too many date rape stories in the press that could have been easily avoided if the victims had understood that parties featuring hormone-driven men, alcohol and an absence of sober friends are a really bad idea. This doesn't excuse the perpatrators--any man that would take advantage of a woman in those circumstances fully deserves to be locked up until he needs Viagra to pose a threat.

the problem with conspiracy theories

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they are sometimes wrong. For instance, my theory that France was behind the yellowcake forgeries.

It appears that my conspiracy theories are bogus:

The FBI has determined that financial gain, not an effort to influence U.S. policy, was behind the forged documents that the Bush administration used to bolster its prewar claim that Iraq sought uranium ore in Niger.

The FBI had refused comment on the matter until Italian news sources reported this week that FBI Director Robert Mueller sent the Italian government a letter in July with the results of the bureau's two-year investigation.

The investigation "confirmed the documents to be fraudulent and concluded they were more likely part of a criminal scheme for financial gain," FBI spokesman John Miller said Friday, describing the contents of the letter.

Miller did not say what led the FBI to its conclusion or identify the perpetrators of the hoax.

So, France wasn't behind the fraudulent documents. My bad.

Q.E.D. (part 2)

Panera Bread serves a very good Spinach Artichoke Baked Souffle. Panera Bread serves a very good Hot Chocolate. Both of these statements are true until one attempts to prove both at the same time. Consuming both the souffle and the chocolate in a single sitting reveals that these statements are, in fact, mutually exclusive.

It's probably because of quantum.

Stare Decisis

David Bernstein says that:

conservative judicial originalism is currently in a state of crisis, precisely because of Justice Scalia's "fainthearted" originalism. If Justice Scalia, originalism's supposed great champion, is unwilling to overturn or even go out of his way to distinguish as anti-originalist opinion as Wickard v. Filburn (holding that growing grain on one's own land for consumption on one's own farm can be regulated under Congress' power to regulate "interstate commerce"), then what is left of originalism?

I expect that Scalia's problem is that to be a true originalist, many New Deal precedents would have to go out the window, and this is neither politically, nor, in many instances, practically feasible. But to be a sincere originalist, one has to grapple with how to resolve this quandry, not simply refuse to apply originalist reasoning out of "faintheartedness."

What should happen when original meaning and stare decisis are mutually exclusive? My instinct is to say that the approach of Bernstein, Randy Barnett and Justice Thomas is correct--stare decisis should hold less weight than original meaning. I'm not holding my breath waiting for a majority on the Supreme Court to agree with me, though...