Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Exploding the Cost/Benefits Myth of Illegal Immigrants and the US Economy - The Case of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid - Eduardo Porter has written an excellent, revelatory article in the New York Times about the real contributions Illegal Immigrants make the the Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid programs in the United States and the exploitation that they face in never being able to benefit from their contributions. For instance, read this:

Since illegally crossing the Mexican border into the United States six years ago, Ángel Martínez has done backbreaking work, harvesting asparagus, pruning grapevines and picking the ripe fruit. More recently, he has also washed trucks, often working as much as 70 hours a week, earning $8.50 to $12.75 an hour.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Martínez, 28, has not given much thought to Social Security's long-term financial problems. But Mr. Martínez - who comes from the state of Oaxaca in southern Mexico and hiked for two days through the desert to enter the United States near Tecate, some 20 miles east of Tijuana - contributes more than most Americans to the solvency of the nation's public retirement system.

Last year, Mr. Martínez paid about $2,000 toward Social Security and $450 for Medicare through payroll taxes withheld from his wages. Yet unlike most Americans, who will receive some form of a public pension in retirement and will be eligible for Medicare as soon as they turn 65, Mr. Martínez is not entitled to benefits.

He belongs to a big club. As the debate over Social Security heats up, the estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the system with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year.

How is this possible, you might ask? Well, employers demand that potential employees provide a Social Security number to prove that they can work legally in the United States. Then, without verifying or checking the accuracy of these Social Security numbers, many of which are fraudulent, employers deduct payroll taxes from the earning of these employees and turn this over, along with their own matching contributions, to the U.S. Government. This money just sits there, adding to the available pool of resources that help to keep Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare solvent. Current and future retirees in the United States will benefit from the contributions that these illegal immigrants make to the system by their hard work, and these illegal immigrants will never see a dime of their contributions in their own retirement.

Not only does this demolish the claim by the anti-immigrant, nativist crowd that illegal immigrants are leeches on the U.S. welfare state, but it also shows, once again, the double exploitation illegal migrants face in our country. They contribute mightily to the local, state, and federal treasuries of the United States by way of paying taxes (and not only payroll taxes, but also sales taxes, and property taxes via rents), but they are facing efforts to exclude them from receiving the benefits that their tax contributions have earned them.

The next time you hear anti-immigrant, pro-Minutemen, xenophobic blowhards bring out this reason to justify their border vigilantism, feel free to mention this little fact to them.

Read Porter's whole article for the full extent and ramifications of this reality. It will give you a new appreciation for the value of the illegal immigrant.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Vigilantes and Being Vigilant - I just loved this little gem from Time magazine about the new anti-immigrant Minutemen border patrol movement led by Chris Simcox:

Simcox bristles at the term vigilante, saying that his group is not detaining anyone but only fulfilling the President's post--Sept. 11 request that all Americans remain vigilant--and, in the process, providing a release valve for popular outrage. [Emphasis added.]

Tell me if I'm missing something here, but how can Simcox bristle at being called a "vigilante" when he apparently describes his actions as nothing more than heeding Bush's call to be "vigilant." The two words aren't almost exactly the same for nothing. I would have imagined that a man seriously heeding the call of his President to be "vigilant" would be proud to be called a "vigilante"!

Lagniappe: Note to the Schindlers - Stop running around in front of cameras playing politics and go BE with your daughter. Hold her hand. Comfort one another as she passes into a much better life. Grieve her passing, but celebrate the Easter promise of resurrection with her.

Lagniappe: The Easter Story and the Schiavo Situation - Something else has recently struck me about the coincidence of Terri Schiavo's death journey and this week when Christians celebrate the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. What we Christians celebrate this week, above all else, is the great gift of life through death. And all I'm hearing from self-proclaimed Christians who disagree with removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube is all about the need to desperately cling to life. There is no discussion about the mystery of the great gift of life after death that this Passion week so acutely reminds us of. There is no celebration going on about the new and better life about to unfold for Terri Schiavo, a much better life certainly than the one she has experienced in the past 15 years if you can call it life. In fact, her parents seem to think that Terri's soul will be condemned if she dies under such conditions in which she currently finds herself. What baloney! Let's remember the purpose of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Holy Week! Terri is passing into eternal life, thanks to Jesus. We are fortunate to have this Holy Week to remind us of this. I think all Christians should reflect on this, especially those who want so desperately to cling on to some form of temporal bodily existence that they call life for Terri Schiavo. We don't pretend to want to debate the what-ifs of Jesus' possible escape from death this week. No, indeed. We CELEBRATE His death. We are grateful that it happens, because it promises us new life. Let's remember that when we remember Terri Schiavo.

Lagniappe: The Sad Case of Mary Schindler - The schreeching, almost hysterical theatre being bestowed upon us by Mary Schindler is sad and pitiable on many fronts. On the one hand, it seems irrational and excessive. Most folks who protest a perceived injustice or who have to suffer through the death of a loved one (capital punishment comes to mind) don't lapse into the hysterics that seem to characterize Mary Schindler. I feel for her frustration and the sad agony of the situation, and I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but the overly melodramatic nature of her appeals seems to ring hollow and partly false. But the saddest thing about Mary Schindler's behavior, and the most telling about what I would call her utter selfishness in this whole affair, is that she is so caught up in her public theatrics that she appears to be missing the chance to accompany her daughter on her death journey. Mary Schindler doesn't need to agree with the decision to remove her daughter's feeding tube in order to be with her daughter as she passes on. What should be a soulful, prayerful, and peaceful journey into death and (for us Christians) new life, for Terri but also for her family, is really nothing short of madness. When Terri is gone, I have no doubts that Mary will suffer pangs of grief not only for her loss of Terri, but also out of guilt for not being present to Terri as the loving, supportive, and comforting mother she might have been in Terri's final days. It really is pathetic and sad. I pity Mary Schindler.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Mexicans in the US Armed Forces - Many anti-Mexican immigrant folks will go to hateful ends to make Mexicans feel unwelcome and unwanted in the United States -- even to the point of advocating for the construction of a "Great Wall" dividing the countries along the border. Some even also advocate for vigilante border patrolling to make sure those "wetbacks" don't stay long enough on U.S. soil to let their backs get dry. But when it comes to Mexicans signing up for the U.S. military and then dying needlessly in the Iraqi deserts in an unjust war carried out by an administration whose rabid right-wing supporters despise Mexican immigrants, albeit of the "illegal" kind so they say, where are these malicious folks. It is quite something that Mexicans will die in service of the United States, without even having the benefits of full citizenship, when some of the very citizens that they die for have very little sympathy for them, their family, and their countrymen. The New York Times has a moving piece on Mexicans who die for the U.S. I wish all anti-Mexican immigrant zealots, those who also call themselves U.S. patriots, would read this article and have a change of heart.

Lagniappe: Schiavo vs. Schindler - Take a look at this picture plastered all over the web ...

and tell me if all the hoopla is really about Terri Schiavo and not about Mary Schindler.

Laginappe: The Terri Schiavo Dilemma - The whole debate about Terri Schiavo that is going on these days is not necessarily an issue of social justice, but it is an issue about the dignity of life versus the dignity of death. And this is, in some way, a justice issue. The official Catholic Church is against the removal of Terry Schiavo's feeding tube; and many so-called "pro-lifers" are staging poignant protests to keep this woman alive in a condition that no one can really claim is any kind of positive quality of life for anyone.

Personally, I am very torn by this whole ordeal. On the one hand, we have a woman who can’t speak for herself and who actually might have expressed a wish to not be kept alive by artificial means. I know that my wife has made that abundantly clear to me in our discussions, but I don’t think she has ever put this on paper. But, as a pro-life liberal, I am inclined to opt on the side of life when there is a clear question as to Terri Schiavo’s intent. I don’t think the husband and his transgressions, or the parents and their pleas, or Congress and its absurd and abusive use of its “subpoena” powers really matters at the core of this issue. What this really boils down to, in my mind, is the absolute sanctity of life versus an individual’s right to choose death.

Here we have a case where, if a living will existed, or if there were any clear indication that Terri Schiavo herself expressed her wishes not to be kept alive by artificial means, then it would somehow be morally acceptable to “pull the plug,” so to speak. Is that any way to defend the dignity of life? Why not then support assisted suicide?

Also, I read recently that there are many, many cases (in the thousands per year) where families are faced with this agonizing decision to “pull the plug” on their loved ones in “permanent vegetative states” - just like Terri Schiavo. And the fact is that many families come to the mutual consensus decision to terminate a life without knowing what is the will of the person subject to death regarding being kept alive artificially. Yet, I don’t see anyone protesting these arbitrary decisions to terminate a life.

Is a simple consensus of guardians who decide to terminate a life any morally different that a decision to terminate a life without a consensus of guardians? This is what troubles me about singling out this particular case and making it such a “pro-life” cause celebre. Where are the pro-lifers when the thousands of others in permanent vegetative states are starved to death because someone else (parents, spouses, children, legal guardians) says its o.k. to disconnect the feeding tube, but when no one else has the heart to challenge this decision?

Do we as a society respect the right to die with dignity via the whole "living will" process? Do we who are Catholic accept the right to die with dignity even if technology exists to artificially lengthen our lives? Does the "quality of life" matter in terms of respecting the "dignity of death"? I would appreciate your thoughts on this to help me sort through this isse.

Liberal Lighthouse: Daniel C. Maguire and "The Pro-Life Lie": Daniel C. Maguire writes that "People shoud be judged by the ideals they most loudly profess." What else does Maguire say? Try this:

Pregnant women and their fetuses suffer from these same lethal deprivations and pregnant women and their fetuses are being bombed in their homes. If you who sanctimoniously wear the 'pro-life' banner were really pro-life-and pro-fetus, that would bother you and we would be hearing your voices raised powerfully in peace protests around the world. We don't. Therefore we must conclude that you are not 'pro-life' and that if you say you are, you are liars.

Reminds me of a scene from the movie Romero when Archbishop Oscar Romero (played by Raul Julia) tells the Salvadoran President (and Military General): "You are a liar." No mincing words. No splitting hairs. No regrets. No hemming and hawing. Crystal clear. ... "You are a liar" ... "You are liars." And, absolutely, 100% right. Daniel C. Maguire's recent piece is scathing and reminds me of what true, Christian fire-and-brimstone moral clarity ought to be. Read it all, revel in its delicious boldness. George Bush likes his advice "unvarnished." Well, he just got what he likes. Good for you, Danny-boy! You speak for a lot of us!

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: "Cuaderno Latinoamericano" - Hi, folks. As a professor of Latin American Studies (and as an erratic blogger who recognizes the importance of the new medium) I am trying a pedagogical experiment in my Latin American content courses at Tulane University by requiring my students to participate in a Latin America-themed blog. So, what was once (and still is) a category of this blog site -- "Cuaderno Latinoamericano" -- is now its own blog, though with many new contributors. If you are interested in Latin America, or just want to see how university students are at blogging, I encourage you to visit the Cuaderno Latinoamericano blog. Help my students see the power of the blogosphere. Visit the Cuaderno Latinoamericano often and leave your comments.

Lagniappe: A Call to Inaction - "Not One Damn Dime Day - January 20, 2005"

Since our religious leaders will not speak out against the war in Iraq, since our political leaders don't have the moral courage to oppose it, since Bush is wasting 40 MILLION dollars on his inauguration party...while the soldiers have inadequate armor and too few of them to create or maintain peace in Iraq... Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20th, 2005 is "Not One Damn Dime Day" in America.

On "Not One Damn Dime Day " those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending. During "Not One Damn Dime Day" please don't spend money. Not one damn dime for gasoline. Not one damn dime for necessities or for impulse purchases. Not one damn dime for nothing for 24 hours. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" please boycott Wal-Mart, Kmart, Target...Please don't go to the mall or the local convenience store. Please don't buy any fast food (or any groceries at all for that matter). For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the retail economy down.

The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that it is their responsibility to stop it. "Not One Damn Dime Day" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America, not for the International corporations and K Street lobbyists who represent the corporations and funnel cash into American politics. "Not One Damn Dime Day" is about supporting the troops. The politicians put the troops in harm's way. Now 1,300 brave young Americans and (some estimate) 100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe our troops a plan - a way to come home.

There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" you take action by doing nothing. You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed. For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one damn dime, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people.

Please share this call to action with all your friends and colleagues.

(Thanks to Semillas member Dan DeMers for circulating this message.)

Lagniappe: The "Salvador Option" in Iraq - Newsweek reports that the U.S. Government (and particularly the Department of Defense) is pondering the creation and support of Iraqi "Death Squads" much like the Reagan Administration did in El Salvador in the 1980s. These paramilitary units would be used to "crush" the Rebels. We know what happened in El Salvador ... a protracted, violent, and bloody civil war in which the U.S. paid mere lip service to democracy while the forces of repression went to work with impunity. This is a frightening story, and if it is true, the sham of Bush's Iraq policy is exposed. Thanks to a friend of mine for bringing this disturbing story to my attention.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: Buddy "D" - RIP - A sad day for New Orleans and Louisiana sports. The great and colorful radio sports personality Buddy Diliberto has died. A sudden and unexpected heart attack claims the life of an icon. He never got to see the Saints win a Superbowl. May God bless his soul and may he rest in peace.

Lagniappe: Keeping the Christ in Christmas - What does it mean to keep the "Christ" in Christmas? One hears it a lot these days. At the very basic level, I think when folks say this they intend two things: (1) to protest in some way the hyper-commercialization and materialism of the season at the expense of the religious meaning of the holiday; and (2) to attack a perceived "politically correct" attitude that questions whether government promotion of the religious symbolism of the event violates the principle of the separation of church and state.

I've been thinking about this a lot, and I think these two intentions undergirding the phrase are somewhat misplaced -- at least for me. On the one hand, they both seem to come out of a confrontational or reactionary motivation. They're both rather scrooge-like and embittered motivations, if you ask me. They certainly are not celebratory motivations.

For me, the phrase bears a positive, celebratory meaning, as well as a moral challenge. First off, whether the ACLU protests the exhibit of a nativity scene on public property shouldn't have any bearing on whether I am keeping Christ in my Christmas. Keeping the Christ in Christmas means that I need to make sure that what is front-and-center for me during Advent is Christ, and not some distracting preoccupation with what City Hall or the ACLU is doing. And second, if I keep Christ front-and-center in a special way during this Advent season, I should be obligated to keep the "least of my brothers" front-and-center in a special way during this Advent season also.

So, for me, at the end of it all, the phrase "keeping the Christ in Christmas" means that I should strive to exhibit my solidarity with the poor and dispossessed of this world all the more forcefully and to work towards a justice for them worthy of God's becoming flesh in the birth of Jesus and worthy of Jesus' life-long embrace of the marginalized. That's what the phrase "keeping the Christ in Christmas" means for me. What does it mean for you?

Lagniappe: Maryknoll - New Orleans: Social Justice Network Blog - If you are interested in Social Justice and Progressive Catholicism, check out this new blog that I set up as part of a Public Discipleship group to which I belong. It's called "Maryknoll Affiliates - New Orleans: Social Justice Network." It's a multi-member blog, and so you should see over time postings from other members of the group. I look forward to hearing from you over at the Social Justice site as well as here at my own personal website. Oh, and by the way, any time you come across some interesting link or story that pertains to issues of Social Justice, please let me know and I'll link to it from the Social Justice Network blog.

Lagniappe: Bushisms - If you ever want to laugh so hard you'll wet your pants, just visit Jacob Weisberg's Complete Bushisms column at Slate. One of my recent favorites:

"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country."— [George W. Bush,] Sept. 6, 2004, Poplar Bluff, Mo.

Go get 'em, cowboy!

Liberal Lighthouse: Kaplan on Rumsfeld ... "What a leader of men." - Well, I'm back in the saddle. Election mourning period is officially over. Lot's to write about. I'll start with a reference to this piece from Fred Kaplan at Slate. Kaplan writes:

Donald Rumsfeld gave every grunt in the Army a good reason to hate him today.

At a cavernous hangar in Camp Buehring, Kuwait, the secretary of defense appeared before 2,300 soldiers to boost their morale before they headed off to Iraq. During a question-and-answer period, Army Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team, a unit that consists mainly of reservists from the Tennessee Army National Guard, spoke up to complain about their inadequate supply of armor.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?" Wilson asked, setting off what the Associated Press described as "a big cheer" from his comrades in arms.

Rumsfeld paused, asked Wilson to repeat the question, then finally replied, "You go to war with the army you have." Besides, he added, "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can be blown up."

Such a leader of men.

Rumsfeld's answer was, first, unforgivably glib, reminiscent of his shrugged line about the looting in the days after Saddam's fall ("Stuff happens"), but more shocking because here he was addressing American soldiers who are still fighting and dying, 20 months after Baghdad's fall, as a result of Rumsfeld's decisions.

More than that, his answer was wrong. If you're attacked by surprise, you go to war with the army you have. But if you've planned the war a year in advance and you initiate the attack, you have the opportunity—and obligation—to equip your soldiers with what they'll need. Yes, some soldiers will get killed no matter the precautions, but the idea is to heighten their odds—or at least not diminish them—as they're thrust into battle.

And the party continues. I wonder ... Is GW Bush still looking for WMDs under the furniture of the White House?

Lagniappe: The New Post-Election Map of North America

Lagniappe: Spinning RealClearPolitics - As many of you poll watchers are probably aware, RealClearPolitics is a conservative leaning site that gathers national polling data (as well as state and local polling data) and tallies an average of such polling data to indicate the favored candidate. This "meta-poll" averaging methodology has consistently indicated that George Bush maintains a consistent, though small, lead over John Kerry. In fact, George Bush has NEVER trailed Kerry in any of these daily tallies. Consequently, as you might imagine, many conservative bloggers and pundits often refer to RealClearPolitics for some "comfort" and reinforcement in their hopes of a Bush victory.

However, there is an interesting trend in at least one aspect of RealClearPolitics' poll tracking and averaging methodology that portends bad news for George Bush. And it's the trend that never gets mentioned or analyzed at RealClearPolitics, but the one trend that is perhaps the most relevant and likely to predict the outcome of the election. What is this trend? Let me explain ...

In addition to averaging national polling data, RealClearPolitics also breaks down this polling data by state and uses these state polling averages to work up an state-based, electoral college vote-mapping scenario. It is ultimately this state-based, electoral college vote-mapping scenario that should garner the most attention, because that's how presidents are determined, after all. Furthermore, RealClearPolitics has been mapping its state-based averages daily for a while. As of today, their website lists these daily average since September 21 up to today. And because of shifts in these averages, adjusts its electoral college mapping predictions accordingly. So, in other words, as the race dynamics change in each state, the results force the folks at RealClearPolitics to adjust their predictions of who each state will go for.

Here's where the troubling trend for Bush comes into play. If you look at these trends, you'll see that RCP's (RealClearPolitics) state-based poll averaging methodology has George Bush's predictable (according to their averaging methodology) electoral college vote lead dwindling from a high of 291 in late September to a low of 227 as of today - a dramatic loss of 64 likely electoral college votes. And as this number declines, so too does George Bush's margin of victory in national polls decline (from a high of 5+ percentage points in late September to a thin 1-2 percentage points as of today). But, while the former trend shows Bush losing critically at the state-level and in electoral college votes, the latter trend shows Bush just slightly dipping at the national level, but still always ahead.

Conversely, RCP's state-based, poll averaging methodology shows John Kerry's predictable electoral college vote tally consistently in the range of 200+, with a high of 228, but, with the exception of a one-day low of 189 (October 21), never dipping below the 200 mark.

Electoral votes not allocated to either candidate by RCP come from those states whose poll averages fall within a margin of "too-close-to-call."

All of RCP's daily tallies and electoral vote allocations are supposedly based on a consistent and objective standard of measuring state polling data. Let's assume that its method is fair and objective. Given that assumption, what do we know?

Well, what we know from RCP is that Bush has experienced a significant and consistent decline in battleground states, so much so that states once considered by polling averages to be in his corner are now either toss-ups or trending towards Kerry. Kerry, on the other hand, seems to be holding his own and, if not gaining states out of the toss-up category, at least not losing the states that lean his way to the toss-up column as George Bush has done.

In a nutshell, Bush's once solid footing in battleground states has been consistently slipping and eroding, and thus the electoral votes of these states are now up for grabs. And Kerry's footing remains the same, with more of the previously Bush-leaning toss-ups now his for the taking. It is this trend, heading into the elecion booths today, that should have the Bush folks worried. And, even though RCP, given its pro-Bush leanings, doesn't comment on this trend, we Kerry-supporters have RCP to thank for such hopeful and good news.

Lagniappe: FOX News - Fair and Balanced? - I report, you decide: Is FOX News really "fair and balanced"? Check out the following Headlines:

Oct. 30, 2004 - FOX News Election Poll: Bush 47, Kerry 45. (Bush shows a 2 point lead.)
Article Headline: "10/30/04 Poll: Bush Up By Two Points Over Kerry"

Nov. 1, 2004 - FOX News Election Poll: Kerry 48, Bush 46. (Kerry shows a 2 point lead.)
Article Headline: "FOX National Poll: Voters Split"

Fair and balanced my a**! Kerry/Edwards!!! (Hat tip to
Andew Sullivan.)