The average American’s opinion on #immigration doesn’t matter

I just finished reading an article in The New York Times concerning the minority view toward illegal immigration in the United States. The article describes the overall opposing attitude held by 10% to 25% of the American population toward foreign nationals who enter the United States without proper documentation. Included in this group of opponents are immigrants who entered the United States in full compliance with American law.

For most Americans today pushing back against illegal immigration, the argument, in my opinion, comes from a fear of cultural dilution. Liberal elites, in their advocacy for the continuance of the Deferred Action in Childhood Arrivals (DACA) are standing up for the immigrants that look more like Sofia Vergara. Those pushing back against DACA are fearful that America will be overrun, for example, by the darker skinned Garifuna or K’iche; by the immigrants that they see working blue collar labor jobs and living on Buford Highway in Dekalb County Georgia.

Most of America’s immigration history has been less about cultural integrity and more about economic necessity. America could not actualize its manifest destiny, its push to the Pacific and beyond without human capital. European monarchs issued charters to barons, lords, dukes, soldiers, explorers, and stock companies to explore North America and take possession of land by any means necessary.

Labor, whether slave, indentured, or voluntary, was brought to the Americas for the purpose of extracting resources and organizing those resources into product for sale and export. The goal was to generate returns from the land with proceeds going to the monarchs and later the nation-states in the form of taxes and to the the private parties lending to the government, in the form of bond coupon payments. Immigration is, for the most part, about contributing to the returns on America’s capital.

A public ignorant to how the American economy works should be silent on immigration policy.   Rather, the American public, especially those who occupy the middle strata, should occupy themselves with questions of relevancy in an emerging political economy prepared to replace workers with artificial intelligence, machine learning, and robotics.  The immigration issue is just a distraction for the American middle class.

Over the next two to three decades, unless one is employed in a knowledge-intensive occupation or can add value to an automated process from a design or engineering perspective, the question won’t be whether an immigrant who doesn’t look like me now lives in “my country.” The issue will be, can I really function in a society where my skill set is so useless that I have no option but to be a ward of the state?

Listening to the whiny left on net neutrality can leave you jaded about “edge” technology

Over the past week, a number of progressive grass roots groups and some 21 state attorneys general have filed suit in federal appellate courts seeking to overturn the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of net neutrality rules that were promulgated in December 2015. This early in the process the petitions have laid out general assertions that the Commission’s decision to repeal was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of agency discretion.

In other words, the Commission, dominated by three Republicans to two lone Democrats, was given to sudden and unaccountable mood swings as it went from determining in 2015 that broadband access providers should be viewed as old style telephone companies to last year’s decision where the Commission now views broadband access providers as information service providers.

I don’t see how the left’s position, that the Commission should use rules for regulating a point to point communications service, is to increase broadband access for insular communities like the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. According to Commission data, 66% of population in U.S. territories lacks access to 25 megabit per second download, 3 megabit per second upload broadband access services.  The flexibility required for deploying more advanced broadband access services in U.S. territories like the USVI and Puerto Rico cannot manifest itself in a regulatory framework that requires a body of regulators give approval or delay proceedings necessary for approving the introduction of new services.

The real arbitrary behavior took place when the Commission, led by Democrat Tom Wheeler, actually persuaded two other Democratic members of the board and some four million naive voters and taxpayers, that the Commission was actually in a position to ensure traffic neutrality throughout the entire internet; from the voter and taxpayer’s laptop to her favorite porn site hosted on a server located in the Azores. For Mr Wheeler to premise a ridiculous expansion of the Communications Act on the assertion that the Commission, via regulation, could ensure that all traffic be treated equally on the internet only resulted in creating false expectations regarding service among a public that couldn’t tell you exactly what net neutrality is in the first place.

The Commission, now led by Ajit Pai, has, if anything, reintroduced some reality into communications regulation. The first reality is that Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is not necessary for regulating advanced, broadband internet access services in the 21st century. Second, the repeal of the 2015 Wheeler order recognizes that providing American consumers with the best access to a global, interconnected computer network means being able to leverage the openness of the internet to provide new services in a permission-less environment.

It is ironic that the edge providers that want their subscribers to access their content on the highest quality communications networks are willing to endure delays that will certainly arise under a Title II regime that requires permission to innovate at every turn.

Will @ATLairport’s power outage impact its run at .@Amazon?

Atlanta is in the running for Amazon’s second headquarters. According to Amazon’s request for proposals from cities across North America, the company expects to hire 50,000 people as a direct result of constructing headquarters equivalent to those in Seattle. Amazon estimates capital expenditures of some $5 billion and on average that its new hires will earn approximately $100,000 annually in compensation.

Amazon has a location preference for metropolitan areas of at least one million people; a stable and business friendly environment; urban or suburban areas with the potential to attract strong technical talent; and communities that think big and creatively.

Access to an international airport ( under 45 minute drive) as well as access to major highways, subways, rail, and buses are also at the core of Amazon’s preferences. Yesterday’s power outage at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport raises issues of redundancy and reliability for an electrical system that powers the world’s busiest airport located in a global gateway city.

So far there has been no public expression of concern from Amazon about how this debacle could impact Atlanta’s attempts to persuade Amazon to move here. There are no specific Georgia Power tariffs spelling out any terms and conditions for service that are particular to Hartsfield-Jackson International.

Politically, this event should also raise issues about how resilient the city truly is if one of its key factors for economic growth and commerce goes offline for so long.