Las Vegas Review-Journal (Sunday)
Editorial Roundup
Recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad:
The Washington Post on immigration (Sept. 6):
Border Patrol agents are stopping unauthorized migrants coming from Mexico at record levels. Little wonder more than half of Americans now say an “invasion” is underway at the southern border, according to a recent Npr/ipsos poll.
At the same time, net immigration in the United States — the number of all foreign arrivals, including illegal ones, minus the number of departures — has been on a downward slope for five years, partly but not only because of the pandemic. As the Economist noted recently, migrants added just 247,000 people to the U.S. population in the year that ended in July 2021, the smallest increase in three decades and an amount equal to less than one-tenth of 1% of the country’s population. The Trump administration, having launched an assault on legal as well as illegal immigration, drove down the number of entries through red tape even before COVID-19’S arrival.
Two things are simultaneously true. First, the Biden administration has mishandled immigration messaging by telling migrants not to come even as it pressed for more humane — meaning relaxed — border policies. Second, without a more forward-looking immigration policy, one more closely aligned with labor-force demands in an economy starved for workers, the nation’s long-term economic growth prospects will be stunted.
For now, the former has fouled the prospects for the latter. Despite the fact that most apprehended migrants are sent back to Mexico under a public health edict the Trump administration imposed, Republicans predictably weaponize the surge of migrants at the border, using it to scare Americans and score political points. The fact that net immigration is tumbling and contributing to labor shortages — and thereby also to inflation, by helping to drive up wages — is lost in the tsunami of political rhetoric about an “invasion.”
Credit where it’s due: Despite its contradictory messaging, the Biden administration has taken measured steps to funnel migrants legally into seasonal nonagricultural jobs in sectors where they are desperately needed. This summer, it made available an additional 35,000 temporary visas — more than double the usual cap — to help meet demands from hotels, landscaping businesses, restaurants and amusement parks, among other employers. The new summer visas were on top of an extra 20,000 seasonal visas aimed at addressing labor shortages last winter.
The bad news is that those numbers are too modest and will not offset projected stagnation in the U.s.-born labor force over the coming two decades. The nation’s anemic birthrate, which has declined in every year but one since 2014, will sap economic vitality in the absence of a robust flow of immigrant workers.
The way out of that dead end is for Congress to overhaul the immigration system to allow for higher inflows of legal workers and a path to legalization for some of the estimated 10 million undocumented migrants, many of whom have been in this country for 15 years or more. Unfortunately, there is little prospect of that in a political environment where Republicans falsely equate immigrants with higher crime, draining welfare programs, and smuggling fentanyl and other drugs. If immigration is forever wielded as a political cudgel, and not as a policy component of economic growth, everyone will suffer.
The Guardian on the evidence of shameful abuses against Uyghurs (Sept. 1):
China’s treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang — including mass extrajudicial detentions, family separations and forced labor — is by now well documented, despite the secrecy surrounding it. Yet when Michelle Bachelet visited the region earlier this year, the usually outspoken United Nations human rights chief adopted some of the Chinese Communist party’s framing of the issue. As a long-awaited report into the region remained unpublished on her desk, human rights groups grew concerned that it might be watered down or suppressed entirely.
But Wednesday night, months after its completion and only minutes before she left office, she finally issued the document. Reading its 46 pages, it is little surprise that Beijing sought to block its release. It states clearly that “serious human rights violations” against Uyghurs may amount to crimes against humanity. China embarked on what it portrays as a counterextremism and counterterrorism crackdown after deadly attacks inside and outside Xinjiang. But as the report makes clear, the official conception of terrorism and extremism is so vague that an extraordinarily wide range of normal activity has been targeted, to devastating effect.
“Resisting government propaganda” and closing restaurants during Ramadan have been listed as signs of extremism. Detainees have reportedly been sent to “vocational education centers” — Beijing’s term for the detention camps, when it finally acknowledged them — for speaking to relatives abroad or for having too many children; some were told that a quota had to be filled. Former detainees describe
enduring torture, including beating with electric batons, forced sterilization and sexual violence. The report describes these accounts as credible.
None of this is new. A mass of evidence has emerged from former detainees and their families, as well as scholars and campaigners combing through official Chinese documents, satellite photos and other data. But its publication by the UN, and especially by Bachelet, whose visit had been described as “vindication” by one Chinese diplomat, gives it a status that Beijing cannot ignore. (Instead, China released its own report, blaming “anti-china forces” for a document that “wantonly smears and slanders” the country and interferes in its internal affairs.)
Companies and countries can no longer claim, as they have done, that it isn’t clear what is happening in the region, or that action can be left to the UN. China has said the centers have closed; while at least some have, many of the detainees appear to have been transferred to work in factories or jailed on the flimsiest grounds. Intensive surveillance polices Uyghurs outside custody. Families remain separated. Countries — including the many Muslim-majority nations that have remained silent — should take this report as a spur to action and an opportunity to press China on these terrible abuses. It must now be tabled at the Human Rights Council, where member states should push hard for investigation. The council also notes the credible accounts of “intimidations, threats and reprisals” — including the prospect of forced return — for Uyghurs campaigning from abroad, without whom many abuses would not have come to light. They must be given the protection that other countries cannot provide to Uyghurs inside China.
The South Florida Sun-sentinel on Florida Gov. Ron Desantis avoiding a statewide TV debate (Sept. 7):
The tough guy in the flight helmet is afraid of Charlie Crist.
“Never, ever back down from a fight,” Florida Gov. Ron Desantis insists in a campaign ad. Then he runs away from an invitation to debate Crist on statewide television.
Considering Desantis’ obvious vulnerabilities in a format he can’t control — especially on the subjects of abortion and guns — his debate avoidance strategy may be politically savvy. But it cheats Florida voters. It shows how he loathes transparency. It’s bad for democracy.
Florida’s “Decision 2022: Before You Vote” debate series looks impressive with its statewide alliance of 10 television stations from Miami to Pensacola, coalition of prominent sponsors across the political spectrum, statewide public radio hookup and a national rebroadcast on C-SPAN.
Crist accepted, but Desantis chose an alternative that’s comically insignificant by comparison: a live evening debate Oct. 12 on WPEC, Channel 12, the CBS affiliate in West Palm Beach. WPEC is owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group, a large nationwide chain of stations with a reputation for airing conservative, pro-trump commentary, alongside Fox in the dark corner of the “corporate media” Desantis disdains. It’s an electronic security blanket for the tough guy.
A statewide poll commissioned for AARP Florida and released Wednesday showed Desantis with a three-point lead, 50% to 47%, and a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4% — a statistical tie. The survey of 1,626 likely voters by pollsters Fabrizio Ward and Impact Research showed Desantis running stronger with voters over age 50 and Crist stronger among younger voters (18-49), who are less likely to vote.
Through the years, live statewide debates have provided dramatic Florida moments, from Lawton Chiles’ “he-coon”
quip to Jeb Bush in 1994, to Bill Mcbride’s mishandling of a question about the cost of the class size amendment in a 2002 debate with Bush. There’s the wild “Fangate” episode in Davie in 2014 when Rick Scott briefly refused to show up because Crist had a portable fan on stage at Broward College.
Debates are not perfect. The format is often too rigid, and candidates can’t be forced to give straight answers. Their greater value is in raising money after the event itself, especially if one candidate draws blood or commits a serious gaffe.
Still, these unscripted long-form appearances with real journalists are needed more than ever in an era of disinformation, misinformation and an endless stream of 30-second ads filled with inaccuracies and distortions.
Voters deserve to see Desantis defending his record, including his signing of an abortion law with no exceptions for rape or incest.
Four years ago, Desantis was more willing to debate. A then-obscure Desantis took part in three televised debates in 2018, two against Democrat Andrew Gillum and one with Republican primary rival Adam Putnam, who mocked Desantis as an empty “Seinfeld candidate” running a campaign out of a Fox TV studio.
A high-stakes statewide race with no statewide debates is rare, but not unprecedented. Then-gov. Rick Scott and Sen. Bill Nelson avoided a debate stage in 2018 when neither would commit to an appearance. Scott prevailed in a close race that went to a recount.
This may be the first time in decades that viewers statewide won’t see a debate for governor.
Desantis should reconsider his refusal to take on Crist. They should meet as scheduled Oct. 20 at Palm Beach State College’s Lake Worth Beach campus. Crist calls Desantis a “chicken” for his refusal to debate, but the Democrat would be on stronger terrain if he had been more willing to debate rival Nikki Fried in the Democratic primary.
The same 10-station consortium plans to broadcast a live Senate debate from 7 to 8 p.m. Oct. 18 between Republican Sen. Marco Rubio and Democratic Rep. Val Demings.
It is never easy to get 10 television stations to each forfeit an hour of weeknight programming when most lucrative commercial ad revenue is kept locally. The sheer size of Florida makes it impossible to reach all parts of the state without a cooperative effort among stations that believe in informing voters.
Desantis sure looks tough in that internet ad sendup of the hit movie “Top Gun: Maverick.” But the Hollywood storyline falls flat. Everybody knows the leading man never backs down from a fight.
The Los Angeles Daily News on California’s gas car ban (Sept. 7):
On close inspection, California’s splashy new ban on the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles looks less like a bold new future and more like a tired old tactic — using government force to make people choose “voluntarily” to do what the government wants, and calling that a “market” solution.
The California Air Resources Board calls the alternative “command and control,” meaning regulators just set rules and enforce them.
That’s apparently what at least one environmental group was hoping CARB would do with its new rule banning the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035. Roman Partida-lopez, legal counsel for transportation equity at the Greenlining Institute, told the Associated Press that the rule “missed the mark” by failing to “really set the path for lower-income households to have increased access and affordability” to make the switch to electric cars.
The Advanced Clean Cars II rule doesn’t compel automakers to provide electric cars to disadvantaged Californians at deep discounts or with low-cost financing, but it sets up a new regulatory regime of credits for good behavior. Automakers will be required to sell a steadily increasing percentage of zero-emission vehicles, and if they can’t, they can get extra credit toward their government sales quota by choosing to take certain actions, such as providing cars for carshare programs in designated areas to meet equity goals.
CARB’S rule follows Gov. Gavin Newsom’s 2020 executive order setting a “goal” of 100% zero-emission new vehicle sales by 2035 and directing CARB to implement the order. This is government central planning of the automobile market, achieved by essentially making free enterprise unlawful and then granting forgiveness to “lawbreakers” who agree to do community service.
That’s the CARB model. Like the capand-trade program, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by requiring utilities, refineries and manufacturers to buy emissions permits at auctions, it’s all “voluntary,” because any company that doesn’t want to do it has the option to go out of business. Carmakers that don’t meet the sales target for electric vehicles or earn enough “credits” toward it can always stop selling cars in California. Voluntarily.
CARB adopted its first Advanced Clean Cars rule in 2012. In a 2017 review, the agency concluded that it would “continue with existing technology-forcing zero-emission vehicle requirements to develop the market.”
It might strike some people as presumptuous for regulators to declare that they will force the invention of technology by mandating it. That can lead to a tremendous waste of money developing and manufacturing products that are brought to market to meet the requirements of government, while customers buy something else.
Nonetheless, the newly adopted Advanced Clean Cars II rule requires all new passenger vehicles sold in California to be zero emissions by 2035, whether the technology is ready or not, whether the electric grid is ready or not, and whether the customers will be there or not.
California has a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act that allows the state to set its own vehicle emissions rules, and other states have the option to follow California or federal standards. We’ll see how many states go along with a ban on the sale of gas-powered passenger cars.
Meanwhile, California energy officials asked electric car owners last weekend not to charge their vehicles, to help protect the state from rolling blackouts.
The new rule is off to a roaring start.
The Whittier (Calif.) Daily News on new UK Prime Minister Liz Truss (Sept. 7):
Appointed prime minister Monday by Queen Elizabeth, Liz Truss faces the United Kingdom’s biggest crisis in four decades. Appropriately, as a young woman she looked up to the great Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, whom she has pledged to emulate.
Times are different today, but there are similarities. In 1979, Thatcher headed a country dubbed “the sick man of Europe” for its economic malaise, including rickety old government-owned industries, staggering inflation and taxes so high the Beatles blasted them in the song “Taxman.” Today industries are more private, but inflation is 13% and the top income tax rate in the UK is 45%, compared with 15% in Hungary and 20% in Estonia. America’s currently is 37%, plus another 13.3% in California.
Truss has promised sharp tax cuts and pledged, “I will be unashamedly pro-business and show Global Britain is thriving and open to the world.” Unfortunately, she also is advancing price controls on energy, which won’t work there any more than they did in the United States in the 1970s. But overall, Truss has the right ideas.
UK politics sometimes presage those in the United States. The 1979 election of Thatcher, dubbed the Iron Lady, came just before the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, also on a platform of cutting taxes and regulations. Truss also has praised the Gipper.
As foreign secretary, Truss has been a major hawk for arming Ukraine against the Russian invasion. Thatcher also played a critical role bolstering Reagan’s confrontation with a very different Russia of that day, when it was the center of the Soviet Union. But in 1985 she also played a crucial role when Mikhail Gorbachev, who died last week at age 91, became the new leader in the Kremlin. She met with him and said he was ready for change. That eventually led to the Reagan-gorbachev summits that ended the Cold War.
It should always be remembered it was the Thatcher-reagan tax cuts and market reforms that gave the West the economic prowess to negotiate with Moscow from a position of economic strength.
If Truss can make the UK a catalyst for such reforms throughout the world, she will have lived up to Thatcher’s remarkable legacy, enriched her nation and stood up against Russian tyranny.