"Foreigners" are not a major problem in post pandemic USA

 

The Trump theme was that foreigners are our problem. China was a problem, all the way in China. The others were a problem here, invading our country and taking our jobs.

The numbers are now up a bit over 2020, mainly because there are now jobs again, now that the economy has largely recovered.

The Boeberts and the Marjories are screaming about the border problem because they have a few Trump era things that they need to cling to. That is how they got elected. VP Harris is to deal with the current problem, and she and the government will, but not by visiting the border. All that can be done by executive order.

And I guess they got their wish. And then they will complain anyway.

But frankly, there is nothing new to do. The methods have been the same for 20 years. Deporting is a bit of a cost. But even there, we cannot stop people traveling to the USA. We normally rely on some tourism for income. Some visitors overstay the visa and eventually are asked to leave or deported.

Problems facing the average American are now more to do with the nature of your job, leases, income, home prices, etc. Almost none of these have anything to do with Mexicans or others crossing the border. More likely you will need some of those to fix your roof when you are ready to sell your house. Also, all over the county, crime is up and gun violence is up. You don't need those guns against the illegals. They don't usually have them. It is your neighbor that has one.

Drugs? The Republicans are repeatedly blasting the "open borders" brings drugs into the US. The places where migrants cross lead to a lot of arrests, but not for drugs. The fentanyl comes in by car, and mostly with Americans. See the CATO institute story.

https://www.cato.org/blog/fentanyl-smuggled-us-citizens-us-citizens-not-asylum-seekers

We need to get the world working normally so we can have all our consumer goods for fixing up everything that broke in the past year. And we need China. We do not make much of the clothing and shoes and small end stuff.

Science and the non-college educated voter

Many things in the modern world bother the conservative voter. They are conservatives, so they do not adjust well to new ideas or new science. Even weights and measures have to be what they learned in school, no meters and kilograms. What they know of science is some buzz-words: hypothesis etc. But in general they don't get far with the arguments, and just turn away with suspicion. "That vaccine might kill me." Anthony Fauci has taken a lot of flak for us scientists lately.

He has to take a lot of questions about viruses and Covid. The CDC is the agency that deals with pandemics, though there are state level people that do most of the work. Read Michael Lewis's latest book The Premonition. Pandemics are tricky in that in the beginning there is virtually no information. Mandates are general, from the previous pandemic.

The vaccine end is entirely different. People in government provided funding, contracts and speeded up testing of tens of thousands of volunteers. Those volunteers, by and large, have the college degree. In college you learn to trust the experts, whether you studied science or not. In any case "the government" is not one large entity but experts that look at a smaller task and do cooperate.

But it is broader, the distrust. "Climate does not change now, because it did not before." Send your friend, or read the arguments here:

Climate Change

Fossil fuels are more complex than you thought, but there is a smoking gun. Burning that coal has an effect on carbon isotopes we find in the air.

Evolution is a "theory" so it too is suspect. On these matters the uneducated voter will send their kids to the pastor, who will explain that there may be evolution and all that, but God created life in the first place, so only minor changes tale place. The age of the earth is a more complicated issue. I think the pastor will not give a straight answere.

Amuse yourself with the Lenski affair, a debate between  professor Lenski and a creationist:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair

The main problem with science and the public is that the public sees things as black and white. Is it good for me or bad for me? Science has lots of things that require a more lengthy, grayer answer. The explanation may be too long, and starts to sound like the side effects list that is read out at the end of every prescription drug ad. There again the public will consult a trusted expert: their doctor. It's a little better than going to the pastor. And there are indeed issues with medicine today. There are many fantastic cures, but you have to be able to understand the benefit. And cost, the doctor may not know. You will need to talk to the hospital insurance people. The statistics for cures are available, and there are books for many diseases. But even in books, ask someone for a recommendation. Most books on vaccines at Amazon are written by antivaxxers. This one is not.

Pull-up Pants for 2024 Candidate?

 Trump gave a speech. It was the usual, the election was stolen and Biden is a terrible senile president. Well, I didn't actually listen to it. We all looked at Trump. He is wearing blue pull-up pants.

Under these he wears adult diapers. 

Trump does not actually need to say anything new. He did catch the people's attention in 2016 with his simple view of the world, with China at the focus of his hate and fear.

They do not have a candidate that will get anywhere near 45% of the popular vote for 2024. There is not even a chance to have another candidate rise to the occasion. This is simply what the Republicans are stuck doing. The voters will not move on for 2022, where Mitch and pals need all the votes they can get, or 2024. There is a small chance that Trump's diapers and other oddities will start adding up by 2024. That would be fortunate for the GOP. They need to move on and and go back to traditional taxes guns and abortions issues.

The voting itself will be affected by the Republican state laws. But it will not be enough to bring Trump back. All the gains will be in the House and Senate.

The US Constitution and Voting

 The US Constitution is less than 5000 words. Some paragraphs are really tightly written, but still leave some room for interpretation.

Oxford has a number of books on US politics. This one describes the Constitution in brief terms, but does point out the founding fathers and their thinking at the time.

Link:

U-S-Constitution-Short-Introduction-Introductions-ebook/dp/B079S9M7WJ/ref=pd_sim_9/134-8765157-6751848

The senators and congressmen were to be elected by the states. That means that mainly land owning white males were to vote. The expansion to all white males took place in the 1800s.

There is some more detail on the electoral college. The purpose of that was to vote, and then vote again by whatever rules they came up with if there was no clear winner.

So the problem we have now is that the Constitution has no guarantees on the right to vote. It clearly indicates the states have the power to run elections. There is some vague wording that suggests that congress together would decide elections, such as the day it is run, but it does not seem to imply much. This is exactly what the republicans are doing now. In the few hundred years we have run elections, some rough rules have appeared, such as "no poll tax." Women, and those who are 18, have special amendments, but it has been rather seldom that any rules were added.

If Congress decided to pass laws on voting rights, gerrymandering etc., the Supreme Court can always strike them down based on state rights.