On June 28, CNN published an article written by Fareed Zakaria.  Zakaria is the author of the best-selling book "Post-American World".  The CNN article is titled:

"America risks losing its immigration advantage"

If you're American, it doesn't matter what your background is...if you're a knowledgeable person, and you want your country to do well, you should be horrified by the title of Zakaria's article!

Before I get into the title's topic, you need a bit of context first.

A brief overview of the Secure Communities program, from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement website:

"Secure Communities, an information sharing partnership between two federal agencies – ICE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) – prioritizes removal resources on individuals who are found to be illegally in the country after being arrested for other crimes. "

"Only federal officers make immigration decisions, and they do so only after an individual is arrested for a criminal violation of state law, separate and apart from any violations of immigration law."

Keep this in mind while you read the following gem, published by MSNBC.

It was reported today: 

"...New York State followed the lead of Illinois and opted out of the federal Secure Communities program, which is designed to identify and deport illegal immigrants in US jails who are convicted of certain felonies. They have criticized the program as casting too broad a net, deporting even 'busboys and nannies.'"

So, New York State feels that jailed criminals who used to be a busboy or a nanny are more desirable than other jailed criminals?  How does that make sense?

Shouldn't the relative desirability of a criminal (for lack of a better term!) be determined by the severity of the crime they committed, and not the occupation they had while they committed the crime?

The report continues:

"In the broadest terms, states with a long history of assimilating foreign-born migrants are largely defending the ideal of the United States as a 'nation of immigrants,' legal or illegal. Meanwhile, states that have before been largely isolated from immigration patterns are now taking a 'the law is the law' approach."

So, there could be at least three factors that influence the tendency of states with a long history of immigration to go easy on illegal immigrants:

1) There could be an effort by these state governments to act in a manner that would pander to immigrant communities, in an effort to get their vote

But would pandering to the illegal immigrants themselves help these politicians in future elections?  After all, these illegals can't vote themselves, can they?  Well, they aren't supposed to be able to vote, but that doesn't mean that some fraud doesn't occur!

And remember, these illegals often have children who automatically become US citizens.  Who do you think these children will vote for when they become eighteen?  The party that is pro-illegal immigrant, or the party that is pro-law enforcement?

These state governments may also be pandering to the ethnic legal immigrant communities, expecting them to be pro-illegal immigration.  However, they'd be wrong on that one: 52% of Hispanics support enforcement of illegal immigration, while another 34% support conditions being placed on illegals in return for amnesty.

2) Given that the states in question have a greater percentage of ethnic persons than have the other states, it's possible that their state governments are also composed of a greater percentage of ethnic persons.  As a result, their decision as to whether to support the Secure Communities program is more likely to be in favor of the pro-illegal immigration choice.

3) Since these states have seen the effect of heavy illegal immigration on their economy, perhaps they believe illegal immigration to be positive for the economy, and hence are more likely to be in favor of it?

Well, it's hard to say whether they genuinely believe illegal immigration favors the economy.

One thing is for sure:  If they genuinely believe illegal immigration favors the economy, they are certainly not intelligent enough to be the ones that should be given the power to make those decisions!

Illegal immigration does not favor the economy!

And how could illegal immigration provide a net benefit to the economy?

By definition, illegal immigrants are taking jobs that some unemployed Americans could be hired for!

Sure, some Americans might not be willing to take some of the jobs that illegals do, but many certainly would, considering that a large percentage of unemployed Americans don't have a high school degree.  Those without a high school degree are certainly the ones that are more likely to be hired for the jobs illegals tend to do!

But what about illegals stimulating the economy?  When they do get paid the salary that they take from Americans, aren't they stimulating the economy just as Americans would, by spending their salary?

No.  They are not!  They don't stimulate the economy by nearly as much as Americans employed by those same jobs would have! Here's why:

Illegals send a large portion of their earnings back to their home country, to support their family.  Therefore, not only is that money not making its way back into the USA economy, it is actually a drain of wealth from the US economy to one of their competitors!

Also, many, if not most illegal immigrants, don't pay income tax.  Therefore, the government is missing out on revenue!  In the meantime, those illegals are benefiting from government action while not paying for any of it!

And even if illegal immigrants stimulated the economy as much as Americans would...it is, of course, wrong to reduce the quality of life of an American by providing the job to someone in the country illegally!

Keep these three points in mind as you read more from the report.  It's clear that some people just don't get it: 

"'There is some party politics, some short-term electoral gains at hand, but by and large it has to do with the fact that [people] are a lot more receptive to anti-immigrant laws in places where they're not used to immigrants – and the opposite in places where they're used to having immigrants and where people understand the value proposition' behind welcoming immigrants, says Allert Brown-Gort, associate director of the Institute for Latino Studies at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind."

So, Allbert Brown-Gort believes that there is a "value proposition" behind welcome immigrants?  I assume he's including illegal immigrants, considering that's the context of the discussion, right?  If so, does he believe it's valuable about allowing illegals to take jobs from Americans and drain America's wealth back to their home country?

Here's another doozy:

"Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) has rejected this line of thinking. 'We will give up more than we get' with Secure Communities, Mr. Patrick said recently. 'We run a serious risk of ethnic profiling and, frankly, fracturing incredibly important relationships in communities that are important for law enforcement.'"

So, does he believe states give up more than they get by preventing illegals from draining wealth away from America?

So, does he believe it's wrong to ethnically profile and prevent wealth from draining from America, because it would fracture relationships needed by law enforcement?  I doubt the negative effects on law enforcement, if any, would outweigh the massive damage done to the economy by illegals draining the economy!

Regardless...even if the damage done to law enforcement were great enough to warrant avoiding participation in Secure Communities...the choice to participate in the program itself would then result in greater numbers of illegals remaining in and coming into the country; and since illegals commit much greater rates of crime than do Americans, law enforcement problems would end up rising anyway!  There'd be a negative effect on law enforcement regardless of whether states participate in Secure Communities!

Conclusion

This article is representative of the shape America is in today.  I'd say it shows that there just aren't enough people in power who are capable enough, or willing enough, to make decisions that benefit America!  Don't you think?

This is the first article in a new series titled "Evolution's Impact".

The series will spotlight "a-ha!" moments of mine.  Moments when I suddenly became aware of something interesting that others don't seem to be aware of!  In hindsight, you may feel that my views are common sense, but I suspect that you will find that I'm the first person you've encountered who's made the point that I make!

The series will examine specific human behaviors and attempt to determine the evolutionary reasons leading to the creation (or evolution) of that specific human behavior.

The series will examine interesting evolutionary roots of behavior.  It will not focus on more obvious roots, such as the evolution of opposable thumbs in response to the need to grasp objects with one's hand.

Today's article will focus on human accents.  Accents, as in the way a given language sounds different when spoken in different regions.

What are the evolutionary roots that led to accents being developed?

This is my theory:

Before cars were developed (and perhaps before other methods of transportation, such as ships, were developed), people traveled much less often than they do today (and when they did travel, not as far).  This is obvious not only because of the lack of speedy transportation available at the time, but because people tended to have larger families, with many children.  Having many children (and having any children at all) meant that parents felt more obligated to stay with their family in order to shelter, protect and provide for their children.  In those days, you couldn't work out of town and Fedex money to your family!  Also, farms were very common back then.  Daily harvesting wouldn't have allowed for much traveling at all, unless it was out of season.

Because people tended not to travel as much, you ended up with many settlements of different groups of people located in multiple locations within a country.

However, travel was not impossible.  One could travel by horse, for example, or walking.

Now think of the community and it's relationship with crime.  I would say that a member of a community is more likely to be robbed by someone from outside their community than by another member of their community, for several reasons: 1) the shame and economic hardship it could bring on the criminal and his family; after all, in relatively small communities there are stronger social links.  2) People often associate with their in-group more than they do an out-group.  They have incentives to help other members of their community.  3) It's easier to commit a crime against a total stranger rather than someone whom you are more likely to know

Also, consider that in those days, committing violence with the aim to steal resources may have been considered more acceptable, and been more common, than it is today. Look at how common wars were back then.  You also had colonialism and slavery.

How could people living in larger communities be sure that the people they meet are indeed members of their community and not outsiders that may rob or kill them? After all, people living in different communities often look very similar to each other!

The answer is simple:  people living in different regions would develop speech accents!  People from different communities were immediately able to spot the outsiders.

I also argue that people's faces have evolved over time in such a manner to allow differentiation between members of different communities.  I've noticed that when I compare members of the same race who live in different cities, there are subtle facial differences to be found, even between residents of neighboring cities.  My ability to predict a stranger's city of birth (or at least narrow down the choices) has made more than one person feel uncomfortable with me!

But back to accents.

If accents developed according to an evolutionary need to identify the region that someone was born in, you would think that, in order to be most effective, accents would develop for 100% of the people born in a given region, correct?  Well, that seems to be the case, as far as I know!  I don't know of any cases whereby a newborn developed an accent that didn't match the prevailing accent in their region.

Now think about this:  you often hear about how slow evolution can progress.  There are plenty of examples of children who possess traits that aren't visibly evident in their parents.  Children have eyes that are colored different than their parents' eyes.  Tall children are often born to two short parents (this wouldn't be the most common scenario, but it occurs often enough that you can recount such instances).  Smart children are born to two parents of average intelligence.  The list goes on and on.

Although genes do pass down from parents to children, it would seem that, for some reason, the visible traits exhibited by the parents don't always pass down to their children.

But for some reason, a child always has the accent that their parent does! (Assuming, of course, that they were both born in the same region).

This is strongly suggestive of the following:  evolution considered an accent to be extremely important; so important that every single person in a region develops that trait!

And how about the fact that it takes a long time for people to lose their accent once they move to a new region?  It often takes years for people to lose their accent.beneficial for accents to take a long time to diminish!

At the same time, one that has resided in a new community for a lengthy period of time is now more likely to be loyal to their new community (this is evidenced by the fact that they have resided there for so long!)  Evolution has provided a way for these people to be recognized; their accent diminishes, or is completely eliminated.  And for the people that have only a trace of their accent audible, that's an evolutionary sign too:  a sign that someone was once a member of another community, but has been a member of the current community for a very long period of time.

I'd be interested in learning how far back in history one can find records that attest to the existence of accents.  Readers, please let me know!

Why are hate motivated crimes punished with sentences that are harsher than the sentences given for other crimes?

Is stabbing someone multiple times somehow more admirable than shooting someone because of their race or sexual orientation?