Showing posts with label illegal immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label illegal immigration. Show all posts

Friday, April 3, 2020

Flashback – Build a Wall?

[Believe it or not, at the end of 2011, long before Donald Trump rode this issue to the White House, I wrote a piece with the title “Build a Fence.” Back then; when a Trump presidency was less than a minor consideration, many other people were talking about the need to control the southern border. Some of them later opposed the idea merely because of who was promoting it.

I also opposed a fence or wall because the issue could not be solved without changing the incentives that drive behavior. As long as illegal action yields positive consequences, it will continue. It called for better policies, and we are still waiting. Here are my thoughts from New Years Eve 2011.]

You are pushing your cart to check out at the grocery store and see ahead of you a man with his young son. The man is unloading his cart onto the conveyor and the toddler is sitting in the child seat. Suddenly the boy notices the candy along the side of the lane, lets out a scream and starts reaching. His father, distracted with the groceries and embarrassed, tries shushing the kid. Well, that just leads to more screaming and reaching. The father is at his wits end, trying to get control of two demands on his attention, the groceries and his son, while glancing around with an apologetic look to everyone in earshot. Finally, he relents and hands the child a candy bar so that he can pay for his groceries and get out of there.

What you are probably thinking at this time is: “Quiet, at last!” but also “That father is in for a real challenge because he has just reinforced a negative behavior." He rewarded the screaming and fussing and can surely expect more of the same in the future. You are also hoping you do not end up in the store at the same time as this family in the future. Don’t feel guilty. That’s exactly how most people would feel. Any right-thinking adult with an iota of life experience knows that for children, as well as for adults, behavior rewarded is behavior repeated. Behavior discouraged is behavior modified.

Now let’s look at the problem that some people refer to as illegal immigration. People sneak into the United States. They get free public education for their children. They are given jobs by employers who look the other way, just grateful to be able to get someone to do the work “that Americans refuse to do.” They get free medical care at emergency rooms. If that medical care is the delivery of a baby, their new family member automatically becomes an American citizen eligible for government benefits.

Some people who want to discourage this behavior think that the answer is to build a wall or a fence instead of recognizing what we all know: behavior rewarded is behavior repeated. Others think that the solution is to confer citizenship on those who have gotten away with it for a given number of years instead of recognizing what we all know: behavior rewarded is behavior repeated.

For some reason, logical thoughts like this can get a person branded as a racist because most of the people in that category are from one country. This is not about race or country of origin; it’s about behavior. If you don’t want a person, any person of any age, to sneak into your country (or have a temper tantrum in the grocery store), you set up a system or react in a way that discourages such behavior. You get more of what you reward and less of what you repress. 

There are already significant barriers, the hurdles of the immigration laws, that hundreds of thousands negotiate every year to come into this country legally from Mexico, India, China, Canada, Russia and all over to study, work and live free. Most proposals from all sides for dealing with this problem, if it really is a problem, don’t seem to recognize what we already know about human behavior.

[Eight years later the government is still trying to figure this out.]

Monday, June 25, 2018

Practical Health Advice

I have written in the past about the health advice on TV or the Internet from reputable sources that usually boils down to eating well, exercising, getting enough sleep, not smoking and drinking alcohol in moderation. It includes many of the behaviors showing strong discipline and is never a new revelation. (The health advice from not-so-reputable sources includes all the magic herbs, oils, supplements and ancient secrets and is best ignored.)

One good piece of health advice that is often not mentioned or only hinted at is to minimize stress. Although stress can be good and energizing, most stress is harmful and can lead to serious health problems. WebMD lists these facts about stress:
  • Seventy-five percent to 90% of all doctor's office visits are for stress-related ailments and complaints. 
  • Stress can play a part in problems such as headaches, high blood pressure, heart problems, diabetes, skin conditions, asthma, arthritis, depression, and anxiety. 
  • The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) declared stress a hazard of the workplace. Stress costs American industry more than $300 billion annually.
 One of the most stressful situations is that of an abused spouse or partner, and it doesn’t even have to be physical abuse. “Nearly half of all women and men in the United States will experience psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime. (CDC, 2017)” The abuse and manipulation puts a terrible strain on the individual. Friends often rightly advise her (or him) to leave the relationship for their own good. To the outside observer, it’s a no-brainer, but the person in the relationship has trouble seeing it clearly.

That’s what comes to mind when I see people freaking out on social media and in person over the latest breaking news (whatever that happens to be).  They are feeling stress similar to being psychologically abused and manipulated.  They put their health at risk by taking those news stories personally and reacting just as they have been calculated to react.  (Nothing seems to please a reporter more than the chance to get someone crying on camera.  The viewer reaction drives ratings.)

Nothing brings this home more clearly than the Time Magazine article that required correction when a “photo of a crying Honduran girl used as a symbol of the Trump administration's policy of separating undocumented migrant children from their parents turns out to not be as representative as originally believed.” Though the Time editor-in-chief issued an apology that the original version of the story “misstated” what happened, he stood by the overall reporting behind the story and the “larger issues” represented by the photo. So it doesn’t matter if it’s true or accurate, as long as it elicits the desired response.

Another source called the story accompanying the photo “factually incorrect, wildly misleading, and lacking important context” and accused Time of standing by the story because of its “Propaganda Value.” And the photographer didn’t seem to mind that it was misrepresented.

There has been much other, less blatant evidence that the media is less interested in informing than in molding opinions. But if this admission from Time doesn’t persuade people that they are being manipulated, they are like the abused spouse who refuses to see the truth and leave.  The media is not our friend.  They are trying to sell you ideas and sell you products through the ads they can get by keeping you hooked on their soap-opera-like presentation of what they decide to report as news.

It takes a lot of critical thinking – leading with your head and not your heart – to see through this psychological game playing, but your health is at risk.

Monday, April 25, 2016

Apparent Inconsistencies

The thing about these essays most commented about is my tendency to look at things differently enough to get people thinking, whether or not they agree with the conclusions.  Today let’s look at some apparent inconsistencies. 

Emerson said, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…” Perhaps these are justified on the basis that they are not foolish, but they do seem inconsistent.

First, I wonder how some people can argue that individuals have a right to move from one country to another when conditions in the second country are economically more favorable for them – even if the move is illegal; while at the same time objecting to a company moving from one country to another legally for the very same reason.

Then I ran across this article in a regional magazine.  A naturalist writes that the woodcock and grouse are disappearing from southern Indiana.  The problem is not predators, poor game regulations or farming practices, but “forest succession away from young forests to middle and older stages of forest development…the unintended result of misguided timber management.”  The problem comes from a change in forestry practice due to public pressure from individuals and conservation groups to practice “selective” forest harvest.  For sentimental reasons, they favor older trees and forests to younger ones.  It is a political decision rather than a scientific one, as every planned cutting is met with “protesters trying to shut down all timber harvest on state and federally-controlled property.”  Clear-cutting may be ugly, but so is what nature does with lightning-initiated forest fires.  It’s a shame these protesters, who claim to love the trees and animals, work against nature by not taking the time to learn more about it.

Finally, those favoring legal abortion and insurance coverage of all contraception argue that they are “pro-choice” and favor a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body.  If that is the case, and a woman indeed has a right to choose what she does with her body, why don’t the pro-choice folks also adamantly favor both eliminating drug laws and legalizing prostitution.  Drug laws restrict a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body.  If she wants to take recreational drugs or use prescriptions in any way she desires, the state forbids her to do so.  Likewise if she decides to use her body as a source of income by selling sexual favors to those who are willing to pay, she must risk arrest to do so.  Sabrina Williams uses her physical abilities to earn a very substantial living, as do other athletes, fashion models and others.  If they are allowed to choose, why is there a restriction against those who want to become prostitutes?  Of course, many consider prostitution immoral, but many consider abortion immoral as well.  This seems like an inconsistency, a selective application of a principle.


Just a few ideas to think about.

Friday, May 11, 2012

This Really Works!


This is my 100th blog – 2 per week for 50 weeks.  In each I have discussed the direction of the country by relating our problems to faulty behavior in the five key categories.  Recently I noticed a couple of articles reinforcing this belief.

On December 30, I wrote “Build a Fence” arguing that the approach to illegal immigration was not to spend a lot of money trying to wall it off, but to find ways to lower incentives for people to come to the US illegally.  In April I find an article about the drop in illegal immigration tied to a less vibrant economy and to stricter enforcement, two things that lower the incentive.  (There was no mention of having a better fence.)

On April 20, I wrote “Healthcare Cost” enumerating at least 8 reasons for the rise in costs and elaborating on two of them.  One was the variation in services among providers and pure, somewhat arbitrary pricing differences.  I argued that the system must be more akin to an automobile check up where you know what to expect and get a cost estimate as opposed to the current system of somewhat secretive negotiations between care providers and your insurance. The following week, the headline from AP was:  Medical sticker shocks: ‘No method to the madness’ telling how the system is broken and that there is no way to explain vastly different costs for the same basic medical procedure.

I am getting to these solutions not because of any particular genius on my part (though I’d like to think so), but because the model I am using works.  Behavior has consequences, and individual behavior accumulates, leading to societal consequences.  Look at what you don’t like about America and trace it back to faulty decisions and detrimental actions and habits of our society in the five dimensions:  discipline, understanding the economic cycle, critical thinking, perspective and responsibility.  If we want to find solutions we will look for them not from the government or other big institutions, but here in individual behavior and posted on these pages twice each week.  So tell your friends, tell your enemies, spread the word!

Friday, December 30, 2011

Build a Fence?

You are pushing your cart to the checkout at the grocery store and see ahead of you in line a man with his small son.  The man is unloading his cart onto the conveyor and his son, maybe two or three years old, is sitting in the child seat.  Suddenly the boy notices the candy along the side of the lane, lets out a scream and starts reaching.  His father is distracted with the groceries and embarrassed and tries shushing the kid.  Well, that just leads to more screaming and reaching.  The father is at wits end, trying to get control of two demands on his attention, the groceries and his son, while glancing around with an apologetic look to you and everyone in earshot, which by this time is about half the store.  Finally, he relents and hands the child a candy bar so that he can pay for his groceries and get out of there.

What you are probably thinking at this time is:  “Quiet, at last!” but also “That father is in for a real challenge because he has just reinforced a negative behavior."  He rewarded the screaming and fussing and can surely expect more of the same in the future.”  You are also hoping you do not end up in the store at the same time as this family in the future.  Don’t feel guilty.  That’s exactly how most people would feel.  Any right-thinking adult with an iota of life experience knows that for children, as well as for adults, behavior rewarded is behavior repeated.  Behavior discouraged is behavior modified.

Now let’s look at the problem that some people refer to as illegal immigration.  People sneak into the United States.  They get free public education for their children.  They are given jobs by employers who look the other way, just grateful to be able to get someone to do the work “that Americans refuse to do.”  They get free medical care at emergency rooms.  If that medical care is the delivery of a baby, their new family member automatically becomes an American citizen eligible for government benefits.  Some people who want to discourage this behavior think that the answer is to build a wall or a fence instead of recognizing what we all know:  behavior rewarded is behavior repeated.  Others think that the solution is to confer citizenship on those who have gotten away with it for a given number of years instead of recognizing what we all know:  behavior rewarded is behavior repeated.

For some reason, logical thoughts like this can get a person branded as a racist because most of the people in that category are from one country.  This is not about race or country of origin; it’s about behavior.  If you don’t want a person, any person of any age, to sneak into your country (or have a temper tantrum in the grocery store), you set up a system or react in a way that discourages such behavior.  You get more of what you reward and less of what you repress.  There are already significant barriers, the hurdles of the immigration laws, that hundreds of thousands negotiate every year to come to this country legally from Mexico, India, China, Canada, Russia and all over to study, work and live free.  Most proposal from all sides for dealing with this problem, if it really is a problem, don’t seem to recognize what we already know about human behavior.