The Death Of Compromise

Legislation involves compromise and compromise requires trust between the parties and institutional parity and safeguards.  That is not present at the federal level for most issues.

Take immigration.  My compromise is:

1. Deportation for all those who arrived illegally during the Biden Open Borders Party.

2. Deportation for the estimated 1 to 1.5 million illegals with final deportation orders.

3. Deportation for illegals with criminal records (beyond just the initial illegal entry).

- There will be some overlap between these three categories. 

4. An end to sanctuary states and cities which privilege criminal illegals over law abiding citizens (including legal immigrants and those residing here legally).(1) 

5. Anyone who arrived illegally before January 20, 2021 and (1) does not have a criminal record and (2) is not on public support, should be allowed to stay in the U.S.

However, I would oppose any legislation embodying this compromise because of a structural imbalance within the legislation and between the branches of government.  Such legislation if enacted would not operate to effect the compromise.  If Republicans agreed to such a compromise, they would look like fools the next time Democrats control the executive branch, because they would have already allowed the presence of millions of illegals, while the Democrats effectively neutered their side of the bargain.

My assessment is based on what has become clear with Democratic opposition to immigration enforcement under the Trump administration.  Democrats are opposed to removal of any illegals under any conditions and support an open borders policy.  When questioned many Democrats mumble about supporting "common sense" immigration reform but when pressed on details fail to provide any evidence of supporting practical steps to control the borders and deal with illegals currently in the country.  Their vision is of the U.S. as a bus terminal not a real country.

If legislation is enacted containing the elements I outlined above, this is how it would work in the real world.

The legislation would specifically contain Point 5, allowing millions here illegally to stay in the U.S.  If a subsequent administration tried to renege on that deal, their actions would be immediately (and properly) struck down by the courts (regardless of who appointed the judges) because of clear statutory language.

However, implementation of Points 1,2, and 3 reside with the executive branch.  If a Democratic administration decided to use its enforcement discretion to "slow walk" deportations, no court is going to order the executive branch to change its process.  The executive will be able to effectively undermine the compromise.   We have proof on this topic.  In 2024, we were told that an immigration reform bill was needed to control the border.  That was phony, because the Biden administration decided to ignore most of its statutory authority to control the border, while in 2025 the Trump administration showed it could effectively control the border using the same existing laws.  For more on the fake reform bill read No, No, No.

Although the Biden administration killed prospects for immigration reform with its open borders policy, it was President Obama who paved the way in undermining prospects for compromise with his DACA Executive Order.  I wrote about it back in 2014 and also noted the Washington Post's editorial opposition to Obama's action.  In a 2016 post, More Mush From The NY Times, I explained the damage to prospects for compromise on immigration.

The Times article fails to explore the real problem with the President's unilateral actions, and the approval it has generated from Progressive, leading Hillary Clinton to promise she will be even more aggressive in this respect - the undermining of prospects for compromise on any issue, which is ironic given President Obama's consistent invoking of the need for less partisanship.  Or perhaps, more accurately, the President's reference to nonpartisanship is a reflection of Obama's cynicism, as it has become apparent over time he's our most cynical President since Richard Nixon.

Here's an example of how President Obama's approach discourages compromise. I'm in favor of immigration reform that would both provide some increase in legal immigration and improve border security.  But, if he were in Congress today, I would never vote for such a bill or even negotiate with Democrats on it.  The reason is that the essence of compromise, is the each side has to give up something to get something.  In a world where President's push executive orders, informal rulemaking and arbitrary changing of statutory language, there is no assurance that a legislator would get the value of the deal they thought they made.  If a Progressive President has provisions in a compromise immigration reform bill they do not like, they can simply order the agency not to enforce it, or issue an executive order directly overriding the bill, or arbitrarily have the enforcing agency issue an informal notice changing deadlines and announcing a regulatory interpretation that leads to the opposite result intended in the legislation.  When Progressives control the Executive Branch, it means they can implement the sections they like and ignore or override what they don't like, leaving the other side feeling like chumps from Palookaville.  

 Under these conditions, the best course is to not change or reform immigration law.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)  It is not an exaggeration to state that sanctuary jurisdictions privilege illegals over law abiding citizens.  Every such jurisdiction has established at either the state attorney general or local district attorney level guidelines requiring prosecutors to take into account the risks to immigration status (that is, deportation) in charging decisions and plea deals.  In other words, to favor decisions declining prosecution or making terms easier on plea deals in order to minimize chances of intervention by federal immigration enforcement.  California (no surprise!) has actually enacted a statute requiring prosecutors to consider these factors in making charging and settlement decisions. The result is that an American citizen who has committed a crime will likely be prosecuted more harshly and face more several sentencing than an illegal committing the same crime.

If you want to know how insane sanctuary enforcement is, look no further than the despicable Soros-backed DA of Fairfax County, Virginia - Steven Descano.  Descano's campaign pledge:

Wherever possible, Steve will make charging and plea decisions that limit or avoid immigration consequences.  Following such a policy will keep our communities united and strong and demonstrate our Country's commitment to equal justice for all. If two people commit the same crime, but only one's punishment includes deportation, that's a perversion of justice and not a reflection of the values of Fairfax County. 

It could not be any clearer.  It ignores that the illegal has committed two crimes, one being entry into the U.S., and allows an American citizen to be prosecuted more harshly.  This is not justice, it is privilege for criminals here illegally. 

This wasn't just a campaign pledge by Descano.  He's followed it in practice, releasing several violent illegals, and is now mired in controversy, as those released have committed further violent acts, including murder.  Descano gives no indication of caring about the consequences of his actions for law abiding Americans.  His sole concern is protecting those who have illegally entered this country. 

This also points to another problem in arguments about illegal immigration; discussions about how to measure criminality of illegals and whether it is a problem.  After looking at a number of these analyses it is evident there is a major methodological problem.  Some studies combine legal and illegal immigrants in the analysis.  Most do not distinguish among the origin countries for illegals, despite evidence that crime rates significantly differ depending on country of origin.  There is also the data source problem because a careful review reveals that in many instances the data used in the analysis is not uniform, or missing key jurisdictions.  Finally, the sanctuary jurisdictions preference for no charging, or reducing charges, and allowing pleas to lesser offenses, brings into question any analysis on this subject.  The truth is we simply don't know about comparative crime rates between illegals and citizens and others lawfully residing here.

But that isn't the biggest problem.  Looking at comparative rates is the wrong metric in this situation.  There certainly are instances where comparative rates are the right metric, but in the case of illegal immigration every crime is one that would not have occurred but for the illegal entry.  It is the additive absolute number, not comparative rate, that is relevant.  For instance, there are about 20,000 homicides in the U.S. annually.  There are a few jurisdictions that report crimes committed by illegals by category.  A reasonable extrapolation of that data leads to the conclusion that somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 homicides in the U.S. are committed annually by illegals.  The illegal homicide rate is simply irrelevant, if you have any interest at all in preventing homicides by illegals.

Tomorrow Never Knows

On this date sixty years ago, The Beatles began recording Tomorrow Never Knows, the revolutionary and groundbreaking track from the album Revolver, released in August 1966.  Though it was the last song on the second side of that album, it was the first song recorded in the sessions for the record, something I was surprised to discover decades later.  At the time, we'd never heard anything remotely like this before, and thought its placement as the closing song was a signal that big musical changes were coming for The Beatles.  As with A Hard Day's Night, the title is from an off hand remark by Ringo.  Before settling on Tomorrow Never Knows was called The Void and Mark 1.

Tomorrow Never Knows is primarily a one-chord song with a droning tone, interspersed with weird, swirling snippets from something strange, and backwards guitar bits.  Behind it is Ringo's drum pattern, which remains unchanging throughout.  I've seen recent commentary from younger listeners thinking that because the drum pattern is so unerringly accurate Ringo must have played a small part that was then digitally repeated.  However, the technology did not exist at the time and it really is Ringo from start to finish.  George Harrison plays sitar or tamboura, depending on the analysis, on the track.

Topping it off are Lennon's lyrics, "turn off your mind, relax and float downstream/ All play the game
Existence to the end, of the beginning".  John's instruction to George Martin was to make his voice sound like he was the Dalai Lama singing from a mountaintop, which, with some studio ingenuity, Martin accomplished by feeding the vocal through a revolving Leslie speaker inside a Hammond organ (the effect starts 87 seconds into the song).

The most innovative aspect was the use of tape loops  This description is from The Beatles Recording Sessions: The Official Abbey Road Studio Session Notes by Mark Lewisohn (1988):

Perhaps the most striking sound on Tomorrow Never Knows is one of tape loops [the sound achieved by tape saturation, by removing the erase head of a machine and then recording over and over on the same piece of tape]. . . .  The seagull-like noise on Tomorrow Never Knows is really a distorted guitar. (According to studio documentation, other loops used included the sounds of a speeded up guitar and a wine glass.)  "We did a live mix of all the loops," says George Martin. "All over the studios we had people spooling them onto machines with pencils while Geoff [Emerick] did the balancing.  There were many other hands controlling the panning." . . . "It was done totally off the cuff.  The control room was as full of loops as it was people".  "I laid all of the loops onto the multi-track and played the faders like a modern day synthesizer" says Emerick.

You can watch a video about the recording here which contains additional details and differs in some respects from the Lewisohn book.  You can listen to the isolated tape loops here.

Further On Mastering The Tides Of The World

Mastering The Tides of the World told of the difficulty in knowing what courses of action are the right path to take, despite our best efforts to reason our way forward and predict outcomes.

We are at war once again, this time with Iran.  Before it started I did not know what the right course of action was.  Now that it has commenced I think it essential we achieve victory along the lines outlined by Secretary of State Rubio.  This is a circumstance where, having started the task, failure to achieve these outcomes will have serious long-term negative consequences for the United States.  I am aware of the sunk cost fallacy but, in this case, we need to continue.  I'm also painfully aware of the potential for unforeseen consequences, a theme that has prompted a number of THC posts.

The Event At Sarajevo reflects on the unforeseen consequences of World War I and the lessons for future conflicts.

Japan's disastrous 1941 decision to attack the U.S. and other Western nations is the subject of Japan Decides On War. 

Dereliction Of Duty discusses the U.S. decision for escalated involvement in Vietnam in 1964-65. 

America's flawed decision to attack Iraq in 2003; Pausing At The Precipice. 

In his Second Inaugural Address (March 4, 1865), President Lincoln spoke of the unpredictable nature of war:

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. 

We see that unpredictability in how the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, a resolution I had not thought possible nor, for that matter, had the legions of American experts on the Soviet Union.  Perhaps Ronald Reagan was the only one with the foresight to predict that ending and he was considered delusional until it happened. 

There is also a delusion that those opposed to the use of force can fall prey to.  That inaction will allow things to continue unchanged on the same course.  They don't.  I wrote about this in the Iraq section of the essay Reflections On The Middle East Wars. 

Nor does it mean that victory is an end to history.  In his Finest Hour speech on June 18, 1940, Prime Minister Winston Churchill held out a vision of victory that would lead the world into "broad, sunlit uplands". 

The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.  

Yet only fifteen years later on March 1, 1955, merely a decade after victory over Hitler, the emergence of the Cold War and the threat of mutual annihilation by nuclear weapons led Churchill, only weeks before his resignation as Prime Minister, to address these words to Parliament:

The day may dawn when fair play, love for one’s fellow-men, respect for justice and freedom, will enable tormented generations to march forth serene and triumphant from the hideous epoch in which we have to dwell. 

Of course, being Churchill, he closed his remarks with the stirring admonition:  "Meanwhile, never flinch, never weary, never despair.” 

Godspeed

ARTEMIS II AS SEEN BY THE OFFICIAL NASA CESSNA

THIS IS THE BEST LAUNCH VIDEO AND IT ISN'T CLOSE pic.twitter.com/ikLxSYbHKW

— Chris Combs (iterative design enjoyer) (@DrChrisCombs) April 3, 2026

 

It's good to see America returning to the moon with the launch of Artemis II, after an absence of more than a half-century.  Though this mission only entails a fly around, future missions will be landing.

Twenty four Apollo astronauts flew around or landed on the moon between December 1968 and December 1972.  Of the twelve who remained in the command module, only one still survives; Fred Haise (92).  Of the twelve who walked on the moon, four are living; Buzz Aldrin (96), David Scott (93), John Young (87) and Harrison Schmitt (90).

The astronauts were selected in part, because of their good health, and it is reflected in their longevity.  All were born between 1923 and 1936 and were in their 30s and 40s at the time. Even in a worst case assumption that all of five living moon astronauts die this year, the average age for the moon walkers would be 82.7 years and for the circumnavigators 82.3.  Under the same assumptions the median age for moon walkers is 86 and for orbiters 89.  Ten of the 24 made it to 90, with one more possible, and another five between 87 and 89.

Godspeed and may the mission be a success.

We'll close with The Byrds' tribute to Armstrong, Alden, and Collins;  "The team below, that gave the go, they had God's helping hand" 

Thoughts For Another Day

 "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.  Do you understand?"

- The young Tancredi to his uncle and guardian, the Prince of Salina, explaining why he is joining the rebels seeking to unite Italy in the 1860s.  From The Leopard, the masterpiece by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa which I am currently reading for the second time. (1958)

The quote is well-known.  What is less known are the passages just before and after Tancredi's remark:

Before:

"You're mad, my boy, to go with those people! They're all in the maffia, all troublemakers.  A Falconeri should be with us for the King."

"The eyes began smiling again. 'For the King, yes, of course.  But which King?'" 

After: 

"What a boy!  Talking rubbish and contradicting it at the same time. . . . The Prince jumped up  . . . and rummaged in a drawer.  'Tancredi, Tancredi, wait!'.  He ran after his nephew, slipped a roll of gold pieces into his pocket, and squeezed his shoulders." 

"On his way downstairs, he suddenly understood that remark of Tancredi's, 'If we want things to stay as they are . . .'  Tancredi would go a long way: he had always thought so."  

----------------------------- 

There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

 

- Pete Townshend, Won't Get Fooled Again by The Who (1971)

------------------------------- 

 

"Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains" 

 

-  Rookie Ebby Calvin "Nuke" Laloosh in Bull Durham (1988), explaining to a reporter about what  a good friend told him of the common understanding required of citizens in order to preserve stability in a democracy; the necessity of accepting occasional defeats along with a lot of muddling through.

Thought For The Day

 

Hey, nineteen
That's 'Retha Franklin
She don't remember the Queen of Soul
It's hard times befallen
The soul survivors
She thinks I'm crazy
But I'm just growin' old

 

Hey, nineteen
No, we got nothin' in common
No, we can't dance together
No, we can't talk at all

When Hey Nineteen was released by Steely Dan in 1980, composer Donald Fagen was 32 and Hey Nineteen was, well, 19.

 

It occurred to me that Nineteen is turning 65 this year and applying for Medicare while Fagen is now 78.  They probably now have something in common to talk about.  Time heals everything!