Replacing Dave

The Triad Business Journal offers great advice to any organization looking to replace a departing Dave.

It’s Tuesday afternoon and Dave ... walks into your office with an envelope in his hand. You think, “Uh oh, he’s resigning.”

He indeed resigns, and the moment he leaves you grab the phone to call HR.

...if you want to find the best possible person for your open job, stop thinking about what you want, and start thinking about what that ideal candidate wants.

When top performers change jobs, they want a position that offers something they don’t already have on their resume – something that takes their career into a new, unfamiliar realm. Maybe your ideal candidate wants to work on a larger scale, supervise a larger team, or master a new skill. Maybe she wants the prestige of working for your organization, or the pleasure of being a bigger fish in your smaller pond.

It's also great advice for any organization looking to replace a departing Pete, departing Joe, departing Chris, departing Chuck, or departing Geetha.

Tea-Party Darling and 'Anchor Baby' Critic a Dual Citizen since 1978

So it turns out that, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, the darling of the Tea Party movement, a prominent birther-enabler, and a critic of so-called "anchor babies," has held dual Swiss citizenship since 1978.

Poltico reports

Rep. Michele Bachmann tried to downplay her dual U.S.-Swiss citizenship Wednesday, releasing a statement that asserts she has actually been a dual citizen since 1978.

“I automatically became a dual citizen of the United States and Switzerland in 1978 when I married my husband, Marcus. Marcus is a dual American and Swiss citizen because he is the son of Swiss immigrants. As a family, we just recently updated our documents,” the Minnesota Republican and former presidential candidate said in a statement. “This is a non-story.”

Rep. Bachmann's dual citizenship came to light when she and her husband used a birthright technicality in Swiss citizenship law to obtain dual citizenship for their children.

Hypocritically, Rep. Bachmann has criticized the citizenship granted to children of foreign-born parents in the U.S., derisively referring to those children as "anchor babies," and she has sponsored legislation to restrict birthright citizenship in this country.

However, having Swiss "anchor in-laws" seems to be another matter altogether.

Que es mas macho? The economy, demographics, and sensible border enforcement or reactionary Republican immigration policy

In the lead up to the presidential primaries, the Republican contenders engaged in a sorry nativist spectacle of playing «¿Qué es más macho?» with respect to immigration from Mexico. Republican legislators in Arizona, Alabama, and other states have also played a similar game with draconian anti-immigrant legislation.

Yesterday, the Pew Hispanic Center released a report on recent trends in Mexican immigration and their causes.

The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. After four decades that brought 12 million current immigrants—more than half of whom came illegally—the net migration flow from Mexico to the United States has stopped—and may have reversed, according to a new analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center of multiple government data sets from both countries.

You read that right, net migration in recent years from Mexico, legal and illegal, has fallen to zero.

The Pew Center study examined immigration through early 2010, the start of the economic recovery in the U.S. From 1995-2000, net migration from Mexico to the U.S. (the difference between in-migration and out-migration) was 2.3 million. From 2005-2010 however, net migration was just below zero, with 20,000 more Mexicans leaving the U.S. than entering.

The leveling off of immigration predates the most recent round of Republican chest-thumping. For example, Arizona passed its odious anti-immigration bill in April 2010 and didn't begin enforcing selected provisions until that summer. In essence, Republicans are falling all over themselves to shut the barn door several years after the horse escaped.

If the recent state legislation wasn't responsible for the immigration standstill, what was? The study provided some understandable and predictable U.S.-based explanations--the depressed employment situation in this country especially in the construction market, strengthened border security and enforcement, and an increase in deportations.

However, the also uncovered some other explanations that were Mexico-specific, including a slowing in that country's fertility rate and a general increase in its economic development. Regardless of conditions in the U.S., these Mexico-specific circumstances will continue to act as a brake on migration in the future.

To borrow from Laurie Anderson, ¿Qué es más macho? Una piña o republicanos reaccionarios?  

Una piña.

Amnesty good for me but not for thee

Want to make a Republican apoplectic and to receive a stern lecture on incentives? Suggest a compromise that somehow involves a path to citizenship or permanent residency for some of the 11 million or so unauthorized immigrants aliens in this country.

Someone mentioned Newt Gingrich's musings about a pathway to citizenship for some long-term immigrants to Republican Representation Brian Bilbray, causing him to spew

They don’t understand that talking about amnesty to reduce illegal immigration is about as logical as somebody saying, ‘Let’s drill a hole in the bottom of a boat to let the water out.’ You’re going to cause a whole new wave of illegal immigration.

Rep. Bilbray even criticized the mere discussion of these proposals.

It’s sending a signal to the world that a candidate for president, or worse, the president himself, has announced that if you break the law and come to this country illegally — if you risk your life or be one of those who die along the border and try to come to the country illegally, we will reward you if you come in here ... Everyone who is given a job and any elected official who is announcing to the world that Washington and the federal government is going to reward illegal immigration are part and parcel to the problem of sending a clear and defining message. Even Newt Gingrich would say that our problem is that we’ve sent mixed messages in the past and that’s enticed people to come here and be here illegally.

Once you get past the spittle and snarling, Rep. Bilbray and other Republicans seem to be making the point that amnesties, even partial ones, create some awful incentives. While the policy addresses some immediate concerns, it also creates future problems if the next set of people considering whether to enter and stay in the country without authorization come to expect periodic amnesties.

So if amnesties encourage such bad behavior, why are Republicans (regrettably abetted by some "centrist" Democrats) advocating a one-year, no-strings-attached, "olly olly oxen free," tax amnesty for multinational corporations who have hidden their revenues in other countries?

Specifically, corporations are allowed to defer taxes on profits that are held abroad. The tax amount, which would generally equal the different between the applicable U.S. tax rate and what the corporation pays in the country where the profits are initially parked, is only due when the company brings the money back into the country. Instead of this eventual amount, Republicans are proposing a special low-low rate of as little as 5.25 percent if corporations rebate the money now. Rep. Bilbray (the same don't-you-idiots-understand-incentives guy) has even submitted a bill that would temporarily reduce the tax rate to zero.

Republicans main argument about the tax amnesty is which hostage to take to pass one--the payroll tax break that is due to expire this year or the broader set of Bush-era tax cuts that are due to expire next year.

Absent from those arguments, however, is any discussion of the bad incentives that tax amnesties create. One reason why corporations delay repatriating money to the U.S. is the possibility of a lower tax rates, including special amnesty deals, in the future. There's precedent for this thinking because a similar "one time" amnesty was granted in 2004. And consistent with the incentives argument, multinational corporations greatly increased the amounts of profits that they stashed overseas following the 2004 amnesty. If a similar policy were enacted today, the professional staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation predict that the bad incentives would lead to a net cost of $79 billion over 10 years.

When human beings are concerned, these policies are nasty "amnesties." When corporations are concerned, they're "holidays." Go figure.

Diminishing returns along the border

Arrests of people crossing the border with Mexico have fallen to historic lows. The Washington Post reported on Saturday

The Border Patrol apprehended 327,577 illegal crossers along the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal year 2011, which ended Sept. 30, numbers not seen since Richard Nixon was president, and a precipitous drop from the peak in 2000, when 1.6 million unauthorized migrants were caught. More than 90 percent of the migrants apprehended on the southwest border are Mexican.

...“We have reached the point where the balance between Mexicans moving to the United States and those returning to Mexico is essentially zero,” said Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center, whose conclusion was shared by many migration experts.

Yet the Obama administration continues to deploy 1,200 National Guard troops along the border, mostly for show.

President Obama’s decision last year to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border may have been smart politics, but a growing number of skeptics say the deployment is an expensive and inefficient mission that has made little difference in homeland security

The rules of engagement, rightly, limit the role of the National Guard to observation. The net effect, however, is that the troops increase the cost of securing the border by about $110 million per year but have little impact on security itself. The Post story continues

In an August report on the costs and benefits of an increased role for the Defense Department along the U.S.-Mexico border, the Government Accountability Office told Congress that it takes three people to do the job of one: two Guard soldiers to spot an illegal crosser and one federal agent to catch him.

Since 9/11, the United States has greatly strengthened its fence along the border. It has also doubled the number of Border Patrol agents, with predictable effects on border crossings and apprehensions.

At a time when the military is already strained and where the government is looking to save every penny that it can, an ineffective $110 million National Guard "troop surge" along the border seems especially wasteful and a bad return on investment. President Obama should end the deployment at the end of this year and allow the troops to return to their home states and bases.

Job-killing regulations

Want a great example of a job-killing regulation? Take a look at the new immigration law that Alabama Republicans enacted. Last week, the law's provision requiring police to detain undocumented foreigners netted an executive from Mercedes-Benz. CNN reports

Fierce critics of Alabama's controversial new immigration law -- and one of its staunchest supporters -- are pointing to the arrest of a German Mercedes-Benz executive last week to make their case.

Police in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, pulled the man over because of a problem with the tag on the rental car he was driving, and then detained him when he didn't have proper identification on hand, according to Alabama's homeland security director.

What could be more business friendly?

You better believe that foreign and multinational businesses are going to think twice before setting up shop in Alabama and other states with similar provisions.

'Irresponsible' and 'misguided' are an apt descriptions

In an April 23 speech, President Obama described Arizona's new immigration law as both "irresponsible" and "misguided."

...our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.

In fact, I’ve instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation. But if we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country

Remarks yesterday by city law enforcement officials describe how the new law is counter-productive, leading to more crime and less safety.

Arizona's new crackdown on illegal immigration will increase crime in U.S. cities, not reduce it, by driving a wedge between police and immigrant communities, police chiefs from several of the state's and the nation's largest cities said Tuesday.

The new Arizona law will intimidate crime victims and witnesses who are illegal immigrants and divert police from investigating more serious crimes, chiefs from Los Angeles, Houston and Philadelphia said.

..."This is not a law that increases public safety. This is a bill that makes it much harder for us to do our jobs," Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said. "Crime will go up if this becomes law in Arizona or in any other state."

Census shenanigans blocked

The Washington Post reports

Senate Democrats Thursday blocked a GOP attempt to require next year's census forms to ask people whether they are U.S. citizens.

The proposal by Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter was aimed at excluding immigrants from the population totals that are used to figure the number of congressional representatives for each state. Critics said Vitter's plan would discourage immigrants from responding to the census and would be hugely expensive. They also said that it's long been settled law that the apportionment of congressional seats is determined by the number of people living in each state, regardless of whether they are citizens. A separate survey already collects the data.

The article quotes Sen. Vitter,

"The current plan is to reapportion House seats using that overall number, citizens and noncitizens ... I think that's wrong. I think that's contrary to the whole intent of the Constitution and the establishment of Congress as a democratic institution to represent citizens."

Instead of "thinking" that he knows what the Constitution says, Sen. Vitter should actually read the document, specifically the 14th Amendment, which states

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

The word "persons" is purposeful. Other language in the 14th Amendment, including language that describes how representatives and electors may be proportioned in other ways, explicitly mentions citizens.

The decennial census is due to go out early next year. Sen. Vitter's proposal would have increased the cost of the count, delayed the census, and reduced compliance (further raising costs). Moreover, citizenship information is already asked of 3 million households from all 50 states and DC each year (including census years) as part of the American Community Survey (ACS).

Although the proposal was blocked, Sen. Vitter had the support of 38 other Republican senators who were equally willing to waste money and monkey with the decennial census.

Diversity

It's news like this that makes me regret goofing off in Spanish class.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported Thursday that the minority population reached an estimated 104.6 million - or 34% of the nation's total population - on July 1, 2008, compared to 31% when the Census was taken in 2000. Nearly one in six residents, or 46.9 million people, are Hispanic, the agency reported.

Even more telling for the future: 44% of children under age 18 and 47% of children under the age of five are now from minority families.

My wife and oldest son have taken French classes; my youngest son is also signed up for French. That should help.

Deporting suspected aliens -- a cautionary tale

The News & Observer reports today about a mildly retarded, mentally ill citizen, Mark Lyttle, who was deported to Mexico and subsequently other Central American countries after serving a short prison sentence.

U.S. immigration officials confirmed this week that they wrongly deported Lyttle, 31, who his family says is mentally ill and suffers from mild retardation, in December after finding him in a North Carolina prison. He and his lawyer say he spent four months bouncing among Latin American prisons and homeless shelters before ending up this month at a U.S. embassy in Guatemala, where officials confirmed his citizenship.

When Lyttle finally arrived in a U.S. airport, federal officials again tried to deport him.

Lyttle's story should give pause to proponents of deportation, like our local sheriff BJ Barnes. Proving citizenship is a simple matter for most people; however, for poor people, especially those who may be homeless, mentally challenged, mentally ill, or otherwise marginally connected to society, it can be incredibly difficult.

In their rush to throw all illegal aliens out, proponents of deportation overlook the fact bureaucracies make mistakes and that citizenship and residency status can be misidentified.

In this case, the mistake sent a disabled citizen on a bewildering four-month odyssey through Central America. It shouldn't have happened.