Two quick questions on immigration

1) What precisely is it that the military can do that the Border Patrol cannot do to protect the border?

2) It has been five years since 9/11–why doesn’t the Border Patrol have the capability to do it?

Actually, the President’s speech demonstrates the perfection of Sir Humphrey Appleby’s syllgism on political crisis decision-making:

1) We must do something.

2) This is something.

3) Therefore, we must do this.

Author: Jonathan Zasloff

Jonathan Zasloff teaches Torts, Land Use, Environmental Law, Comparative Urban Planning Law, Legal History, and Public Policy Clinic - Land Use, the Environment and Local Government. He grew up and still lives in the San Fernando Valley, about which he remains immensely proud (to the mystification of his friends and colleagues). After graduating from Yale Law School, and while clerking for a federal appeals court judge in Boston, he decided to return to Los Angeles shortly after the January 1994 Northridge earthquake, reasoning that he would gladly risk tremors in order to avoid the average New England wind chill temperature of negative 55 degrees. Professor Zasloff has a keen interest in world politics; he holds a PhD in the history of American foreign policy from Harvard and an M.Phil. in International Relations from Cambridge University. Much of his recent work concerns the influence of lawyers and legalism in US external relations, and has published articles on these subjects in the New York University Law Review and the Yale Law Journal. More generally, his recent interests focus on the response of public institutions to social problems, and the role of ideology in framing policy responses. Professor Zasloff has long been active in state and local politics and policy. He recently co-authored an article discussing the relationship of Proposition 13 (California's landmark tax limitation initiative) and school finance reform, and served for several years as a senior policy advisor to the Speaker of California Assembly. His practice background reflects these interests: for two years, he represented welfare recipients attempting to obtain child care benefits and microbusinesses in low income areas. He then practiced for two more years at one of Los Angeles' leading public interest environmental and land use firms, challenging poorly planned development and working to expand the network of the city's urban park system. He currently serves as a member of the boards of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (a state agency charged with purchasing and protecting open space), the Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice (the leading legal service firm for low-income clients in east Los Angeles), and Friends of Israel's Environment. Professor Zasloff's other major activity consists in explaining the Triangle Offense to his very patient wife, Kathy.

4 thoughts on “Two quick questions on immigration”

  1. 1. Accidentally escalate a situation into the use of deadly force, something that the military excels at (and I am normally thankful that they do.)

  2. Reminds me of a joke. A guy comes into a new job and finds in his desk three envelopes, each to be used when a crisis occurs.
    Envelope 1 – Blame your predecessor
    Evelope 2 – Reorganize
    Evelope 3 – Make 3 envelopes for the next guy.

  3. Oddly, the Chin Legalist statesman Li Si (or Li Ssu) (280-208 BC), a soulmate of the royalist ideologues serving the Bush dynasty, penned a treatise "In Advice Against the Driving Away of Guest Immigrants".
    The Wikipedia article on Chinese Legalism says that in this doctrine, strict and harsh laws (fa) must be complemented by secret tactics (shu) "employed by the ruler to make sure others don't take over control of the state. Especially important is that no one can fathom the ruler's motivations…" Sounds familiar.
    Li Si ended up cut in two by order of the Emperor, shortly before the dynasty collapsed, taking its its totalitarian ideology with it.

  4. 1) Create the illusion that Bush is finally going to do something about illegal immigration.
    2) Because both major parties agree that "it" shouldn't get done.
    This is just a PR stunt. The problem for Bush is that he's now in a downward spiral of credibility with his own base, and so PR stunts don't work. They just accellerate the spiral. Only DOING something real would work, and that he will refuse to do.

Comments are closed.