Hair Trigger Sneer: In the Washington Examiner, the otherwise estimable Philip Klein sneers at Scott Walker for saying that he’d worry about wages and job prospects for American workers when setting levels of legal immigration. According to Klein this shows Walker is “just telling conservatives what he thinks they want to hear” (which is entirely possible) and that he doesn’t understand “the broader philosophical or policy implications” and isn’t “able to make the transition to the big leagues,” which seems snotty.

Why isn’t what Walker understands this: If we’re not going to have open borders, we have to set the level of legal immigration somewhere. In making that decision, it’s surely reasonable to take into account labor market conditions and wage levels.

P.S.: What Walker said seems quite consistent with standard conservative plans (pushed by GOPs who support and GOPs who don’t support “comprehensive” reform) to give more immigration slots to higher-skilled workers and fewer to the low-skilled workers who bid down wages at the bottom, since it’s wages at the bottom we worry about most.

P.P.S.: Anyway, Walker only said wage considerations should be at the “forefront of our discussion.” If that doesn’t give him plenty of wiggle room — to take into account other factors, or to argue that more immigration will improve the economy for everyone — then he’s a less skilled pol than I think he is. …

They’re Slacking about me. I just know it. Slack, a “corporate messaging app” currently valued at $2.8 billion, apparently allows employees to easily set up “private groups, which require an invitation to join and are hidden even from administrators.” This sort of cabal cabal would be poisonous in, oh, approximately 100% of the places I’ve ever worked. Managing editors would be especially endangered. (And I would almost certainly not be cool enough to be in Amanda Hess’s group.) …

Def Cab Diaries: David Frum links to an anecdote about T.S. Eliot being recognized by his London cab driver and the ensuing conversation.  (“I ‘ad that Lord Russell in the back o’ the cab the other day. …”) I suppose there are a lot of London cabbie stories. Mine is from when I went to see the Barbican production of an Ayckbourn play in the ’90s. I couldn’t make heads or tales of it — I’m a dunce when it comes to drama.

“So wot did ya see?” the cabbie asked when I got in to go home.

“This Ayckbourn play, Wildest Dreams, about a bunch of people who play Dungeons & Dragons. I didn’t understand it.”

“Let me guess,” said the cabbie. “They gradually become the characters they play in the Dungeons & Dragons game!”

“That’s it!  It all makes sense now! How did you know? Have you seen the play?”

“No, guvnor. But oy know ‘ow the playwright’s mind works. ‘Ad Mister Ayckbourn in the back ‘o the cab the other day ….”

It’s the Singer Not the Song: On Sunday, Bob Scheiffer asked Marco Rubio if as president he’d sign his own “Gang of 8” immigration bill. Rubio ducked, saying “That’s a hypothetical.” Yes, it is! A germane and highly informative hypothetical, which he should be able to answer. It’s his damn bill. He tried to foist it on us. Why won’t he tell us if he’d sign it? And if Rubio’s so keen on letting Republican primary voters know he’s learned his lesson, why isn’t the answer he gives simply “No, I wouldn’t sign it today”?

I don’t see the upside for Rubio in waffling — if he gets the nomination there will be plenty of ways to backslide and re-suck-up to Latino ethnocentrists. (And isn’t the point of nominating a Latino like Rubio that he doesn’t have to suck up?) Byron York notes that there was a lot of junk in the Gang of 8 bill, providing a smorgasbord of reasons for Rubio to cite when justifying  his change of heart. …

It’s hard not to suspect that Rubio’s potential money men — including pro-amnesty casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and pro-amnesty billionaire hedgie Paul Singer — are influencing him to leave the Amnesty First door open. That would also explain why Rubio hasn’t lately been saying what York heard him say back in August –– that he’d require immigration-control measures be actually “up and running — before legalization.” [York’s paraphrase] …

Your Dem Dogma at Work: How to raise the (stagnant) median wage? Economist Jared Bernstein will propose anything — apprenticeship programs! pre-K education! refundable child care credits! — except tightening the labor market by controlling the influx of immigrant workers. … P.S.: Bernstein also wants something called “‘fair chance hiring’ for job seekers with criminal records.” It would certainly be good if those people could get jobs. But does Bernstein really think employers will ever hire Americans “with criminal records” if they can instead hire eager workers from an inexhaustible stream of immigrants? …

Rubio’s Key Fudge: Before he moves on to his Gang of 8-style mass immigration amnesty, would Marco Rubio require that border enforcement measures a) merely pass Congress or b) be “actually completed and functioning”? Byron York, after interviewing Rubio in August, thought (b). But Rubio’s recent book suggests (a). From page 49:

“Once both of these reforms have been passed, then I believe the conditions will be in place …” [Emphasis added]

It’s a key fudge point. Universal E-Verify, for example, could easily pass Congress and still be held up in the courts or undone through hostile regulations — a common pattern for immigration enforcement measures. The same goes double for a border fence (which Rubio doesn’t even call for) and an “entry-exit tracking system,” which Rubio wants but which Congress has already, futilely, mandated more than once.  A President Rubio would be way more likely to get Democratic support for (a), precisely because so many Democrats would like to knock out enforcement after pocketing Rubio’s amnesty. …

So which is it? Someone should force Rubio to choose — to clearly say what he means. [Won’t he just lie? -ed Always good to have a baseline from which the lying starts.] ….

Update: On Face the Nation Sunday morning, Rubio seemed pretty clearly to be proposing only that Congress “pass” a bill “that puts in place E-Verify,” etc. before it passed his amnesty provisions. (“It has to happen in that order.”) So it is Reagan’s 1986 reform all over again — the legalization (“work permits”) will be near-instantaneous, the promised enforcement never actually happens. Republicans who favor immigration control should not be fooled.

P.S.: It’s possible Rubio changes his position to suit his audience — he lets York think he means that enforcement measures have to actually be fully implemented, he lets CBS’ Bob Schieffer (who’s trying to shame him for abandoning the Beltway consensus bill) think he just wants to rearrange the legislative calendar. We’ll see if he tries to go all York again when facing a GOP base crowd. It’s hard to believe he thinks he can get away with that kind of game-playing on this issue, though.

Russ Smith says “phoning it in” as if it were a bad thing. ….

The Balkans have nothing on Beverly Hills ….

Dick Morris says Hillary officially declared her candidacy last Sunday so that she can pay her staff. Seems like a good reason! Better than stiffing them. Ask D.C. hairdressers about that bad habit. …

Fox Makes It Easy for Amnesty, Part XXVIII: I had forgotten this fairly explicit paragraph from Ryan Lizza’s 2013 article on the Gang of Eight Amnesty-First bill:

McCain told me, “Rupert Murdoch is a strong supporter of immigration reform, and Roger Ailes is, too.” Murdoch is the chairman and C.E.O. of News Corp., which owns Fox, and Ailes is Fox News’s president. McCain said that he, [Lindsey] Graham, [Marco] Rubio, and others also have talked privately to top hosts at Fox, including Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Neil Cavuto, who are now relatively sympathetic to the Gang’s proposed bill. Hannity voiced support for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, which he previously dismissed as “amnesty,” on the day after the 2012 election. “God bless Fox,” Graham said. “Last time, it was ‘amnesty’ every fifteen seconds.” He said that the change was important for his reëlection, because “eighty per cent of people in my primary get their news from Fox.” He added that the network has “allowed critics to come forward, but it’s been so much better.”  [Emphasis added]

Now they seem to have clamped down on the ‘allow the critics to come forward’ part. … Alternative ledes: 1) Rubio lobbied Ailes for amnesty. Hear that, Iowa? 2) Things Daily Caller can’t cover. ….

Picking up where Eric Cantor left off: AP’s Erica Warner reports on Twitter that at his “pen and pad” press conference today, GOP House Majority Leader McCarthy, “hedged on whether House will pursue legal action against Obama on immigration, saying they already achieved what they wanted.” And what was that, exactly? A District Court judge has held up Obama’s executive amnesty, but it’s by no means dead. McCarthy (and his sidekick, Rep. Renee Ellmers!) will apparently pass up no opportunity to talk tough and then wimp out on immigration. …

P.S.: Warner also tweets that McCarthy “said … he will bring back the border security bill abandoned when conservatives balked, combined with Goodlatte bills.” It was widely — and rationally — feared that these bills are seen by the House leadership as a precursor to passing some kind of amnesty before the 2016 election ( ‘See, the border is secure!’).

The Boehner/McCarthy drive for amnesty hasn’t gone away. Stay paranoid. …

538‘s Nate Silver to Ezra Klein’s Vox: Quit jacking our charts!  First Vox steals from Slate. Now Nate. I sense a pattern. Also a subtle undercurrent of desperation! I don’t think they’d do this unless they thought they had to …

Chelsea, toxic asset? Byron York rightly mocks the Clintons for launching a campaign with an anti-inequality theme while Chelsea poses on the cover of Elle wearing a Gucci dress, Cartier bracelet, , etc. But the Chelsea “optics” are a little more complicated than the term “plutography” (gawking at the rich) suggests. As readers of Dana Thomas’ books know all too well, the market for Cartier bracelets isn’t the rich but the upper middle class. They wear them — well, I don’t know why, but it has a lot to do with status and at least a bit with snobbery. Which raises the issue of social equality. Which makes Chelsea’s cover shoot more toxic, not less. …

Update: “They’re working on her relatability,” a “former employee” tells Politico.

VAT’s Day? If you were a lobbyist for the Value Added Tax, this would be the week to make your pitch, no? I’d happily pay more in a Euro-style VAT that seamlessly skimmed money from my purchases if it meant I wouldn’t have to keep track of all these expenses. … P.S.: To simplify things, the VAT would have to either replace the personal income tax or be accompanied by some radical revisions. Half-measures (e.g. keeping the complex income tax while relying on it less) wouldn’t do, though that is what the system usually serves up. … P.P.S.: And yes, the VAT is regressive. I’m not necessarily for it. Just saying April 15th is its best day. …

Why the surge in Central American minors crossing the border? A short, clear explanation. …

Re: Paul Buff — This is the Hollywood Persuaders most famous recording, “Drums a Go Go.”  I don’t know if Buff actually played the drums on it, but this site suggests yes. …

Here’s Chelsea Clinton’s new spread in Elle. She’s the cover. “[W]riting her own story as a mother, wife, advocate, and, yes, the beloved daughter of two of the most powerful people on the planet.” Seems pretty clear she is fair game for diligent investigation — not only is she thrusting herself into the public eye, as they say, but she’s about to become an integral part of a presidential campaign. Privacy, schmivacy. … P.S.: Does Chelsea really think she will help? She does not seem to be universally beloved. … [via @ByronYork]

“Birthing centers that cater to Chinese women eager to bear American babies“: According to ICE “USA Star Baby Care Center averaged $ 5.3 million in annual revenues in each of the past 15 years.” That’s even more profitable than blogging. [via @JonFeere] ….

Smart take …

Rand Paul constructs his Pathway to Sellout on Immigration: Rand Paul on Fox —

“Right now we have 11 million people in the country who are said to be here illegally. Well, if you do nothing, you’ll get 11 million more. So I think having no immigration reform is a non-starter. We need immigration reform.”

Hmm. Marco Rubio said that without “comprehensive immigration reform” we’d have “de facto amnesty” — that was his transparent attempt to bamboozle anti-amnesty types while pushing a bill that offered near-immediate legalization. Rubio couldn’t claim that without his amnesty bill we’d “get 11 million more” since the official line of many comprehensivists was that the borders were already secure (and also that Latin America had run out of potential immigrants).

Paul is admitting, in effect, that this party line is BS. The borders aren’t secure. O.K.! So why not secure them (with E-Verify, a fence, and a visa-tracking system)? Why pretend that the only way to secure them (and prevent “11 million more”) is with a “reform” bill that also almost certainly includes an amnesty plus a dramatic increase in guestworkers?** You wouldn’t make the first part contingent on the second part unless your real goal was to sell the GOP base the second part. Like talk of “de facto amnesty” or “back taxes,” Paul’s ‘doing nothing = 11 million more’ pitch should be a reverse dog whistle alerting border-control types that a politician is not their friend.

Paul’s path to sellout is all too clear: if he waters down the “secure the border” condition enough, he eventually he winds up with legislation that only promises a secure border in the future in exchange for amnesty and guestworkers today.  That was essentially the deal that failed in 1986 (because once illegal immigrants got their legalization their lobby worked to undercut the enforcement). It was the deal embodied in the “Gang of Eight” bill in the last Congress (which Paul voted against).

You can’t help but feel that this is the direction Paul would like to go — he proposed a mass amnesty early in 2013, and — most tellingly — he participated in a pro-“reform” stunt with Amnesty-First zealot Grover Norquist (hilariously mistimed on the day after Eric Cantor’s defeat by an anti-amnesty Republican).  Paul opposes a key enforcement tool, the E-Verify program for checking the legality of employees when they are hired. And he seems positively enthusiastic about the prospect of additional guestworkers. ***

Yes, if Paul is untrustworthy on the issue it doesn’t really set him apart from Scott Walker, Rubio, or Ted Cruz (the other conspicuous alternatives to the passionately pro-amnesty Jeb). The best Republican voters can do, in this situation, may be to secure clear, specific, high-profile promises**** that will restrict an untrustworthy candidate’s ability to backslide should any of them actually be elected. There’s a whole campaign left to do that.

But Paul would appear to have the furthest to go. Where Walker comes off like a pro-open-borders politician trying desperately to sell-in to GOP the grassroots’ pro-enforcement preferences, Paul seems like a grassroots politician itching to go the other way.

__________

** — Paul might argue that a big guestworker program would provide a legal avenue for foreign workers and stanch the flow of illlegals. This seems hard to jibe with his claim that “11 million more” will come if we do nothing. Suppose we instead have a giant guestworker program legally importing, say, 5 million workers. Are the other 6 million just going to stay home in Oaxaca, figuring “Hey, they let in some people from around here so I don’t care about finding work in the U.S. anymore”? It seems likely they’ll come illegally as they would have before — maybe more likely, if others from the neighborhood are now already in El Norte as guestworkers. And that’s before those 5 million guestworkers decide to overstay their visas, bring their families, and wait for the next amnesty.

*** — Paul’s also left himself a pathway to not sell out — he says he wants “do to little bits of what are doable and what really people believe in,” which might be effective enforcement measures, or might be millions more high and low-skilled visas.

**** — It would have to be way more specific than “I will secure the border first” — or “I will require ‘Congress to write and enforce a border security blueprint.'”

Trying to explain the perverse “progressive” support for an open borders policy (that would batter living standards for low-skilled workers, Alan Tonelson reaches for an old concept that seems to have fallen into unjustified disuse: liberal guilt (in this case,  guilt “over third world poverty, run truly wild”). … Matthew Yglesias, I think this means you. …

Stan Freberg, R.I.P.: From  “The History of the United States of America, Vol. 1 The Early Years”

Columbus: I only have a few dubloons on me, so if you’ll direct me to the nearest bank, I’ll get a check cashed.

Native: You out of luck today. Banks closed.

Columbus: Oh? Why?

Native: Columbus Day.

Columbus: Oh, yeah…We going out on that joke?

Native: No, we do reprise of song, that help.

Blinders On? Check! Fox News isn’t giving Rand Paul’s campaign a very enthusiastic send-off, some have noted. So which candidate is highly influential (on the right) Fox favoring? Seems like a big part of the story! You’d think a political site like Daily Caller would want to cover it. But no! …. OK, that just popped out. We’re moving on here. … For sure. ….Yessiree!….

Green vs. Green? California, where I live, is in the middle of a bad drought. The governor has ordered unprecedented mandatory water restrictions with the aim of reducing water use by 25 percent.  Restrictions on watering lawns, washing cars, and even showering are expected, as well as price hikes.

Here’s another potential water-saving idea: A moratorium on mandatory recycling. I would guess at least 10% of my water use comes from washing/rinsing all the recyclables I am required to separate out from the regular trash. We single yuppies use a lot of plastic take-out containers. Rinsing them makes recycling them easier and, more important, avoids having the recycling bins become a magnet for rats. All that rinsing is a huge hassle. I assume it is normally worth it because it cuts down on land fill use and conserves raw materials like aluminum.

But are those worthy ends more important, right now, than saving us from running out of one of the necessities of life? Seems like a no-brainer: It’s more important to save the water. We could start recycling again when it starts raining again.

Why hasn’t there been conspicuous talk by politicians of a pause in recycling? I don’t know. Maybe because environmentalists have too much invested in the recycling-industrial complex to even admit there are higher priorities. Maybe because greens don’t like to fight greens. Maybe nobody wants to depart from the pat, moralistic narrative of humans using too many resources and now paying the price. Or maybe there is some technical problem I don’t know about.

It seems worth at least discussing. Wouldn’t we make more progress fighting the drought if we made it the easy thing to do — i.e. by simply  not doing something most people don’t like doing anyway. “You don’t have to eat your spinach!” is apt to find a more receptive audience than “Stop taking showers.” Or do environmentalists only know how to hector?