|
David Rodeback's Blog
Local Politics and Culture,
National Politics,
Life Among the Mormons,
and Other Stuff
LocalCommentary on Twitter
This Twitter feed is mostly for pointing out good reading elsewhere on the Web, as I used to do years ago in weekly blog posts. Sometimes I use it for real-time reports on elections and other things. If you ever want to find something that was in this Twitter feed but isn't any more, check the Twitter Archive. You can follow these tweets by watching the Twitter feed below or on Twitter itself (follow @LocalCommentary). You might even consider making LocalCommentary one of your Twitter favorites, if that works for you. Let me know how you like it . . .
Ten Most Recent Comments
David Rodeback on The Ground Zero Mosque, the Uproar, and the Uproar over the Uproar (8/28/2010)
Michael Carey on The Ground Zero Mosque, the Uproar, and the Uproar over the Uproar (8/28/2010)
Todd Berbert on Immigration Reform: My Wild Fantasy and Five Postulates (8/14/2010)
Fred C. Cox on He Said, She Said, They Said, We Said (6/19/10)
David Rodeback on He Said, She Said, They Said, We Said (6/18/10)
Kathleen Handy on He Said, She Said, They Said, We Said (6/18/10)
Alison Hutt on Thomas, Patrick, Tea, and Me (6/13/10)
David Rodeback on Thomas, Patrick, Tea, and Me (6/12/10)
Michael Carey on Thomas, Patrick, Tea, and Me (6/8/10)
Jim Burr on Mike Lee over Tim Bridgewater: My Explanation (6/13/10)
August 31, 2010
Immigration Reform, Part III: The Millions of Illegals Who Are Already Here
Estimates of the number of illegal immigrants now in the United States range from 10 million to at least 25 million. What are we to do with them? Wave our magic wand and make them citizens? Herd them into cattle cars and ship them across the border? I'm glad you asked. NEW: Listen to an audio podcast of this post.
This is the third installment in my ongoing attempt to have a calm and rational discussion of immigration policy. (Here are the first and second.) As before, I am attempting to sketch the broad outlines of a reasonable approach, knowing full well both that some devils lurk in the details, and that the current political climate doesn't encourage calm and rational discussion on this topic. I'm also keenly aware that my thoughts on the subject aren't terribly innovative. For the most part, they seem like common sense to me, and there's nothing particularly original about common sense.
I began with five postulates, two of which bear directly on today's topic: both sides must be willing to compromise, and we must be humane.
The Left wants to make more than ten million illegal immigrants into citizens, which is to say, grant them amnesty. This has been done before; it has not stemmed the tide of illegal immigration, nor would we expect it to, because it rewards illegal immigration.
The Right insists that there be no amnesty for the illegals. A frequent question is, Which part of illegal do you not understand? The Left finds the Right to be inhumane -- which has also happened before -- for wanting to use the law against the illegals.
My best political guess is that neither side is in a position to impose its will on the other in this matter. So it's time to compromise -- unless, that is, we would prefer to do nothing.
Nothing?
There are two senses in which we could do nothing. First, we could keep things as they are. Second, we could enforce the laws we have.
The status quo offends the Right, because at present we wink at, rather than enforcing, the law. Moreover, the illegal population imposes an unsustainable burden on local, state, and national government budgets, not to mention medical and insurance costs. It likely also puts a downward pressure on the price of labor.
The Left isn't satisfied with the status quo, either. Its more cynical demographic sees the illegals as undocumented voters and wants to, ahem, document them. And its more humane sector knows that illegals are largely defenseless against economic and physical exploitation, including an assortment of serious crimes.
Both sides have a point; so we'll reject the status quo.
As to enforcing existing law, the other way of doing nothing (at least legislatively), the prospects aren't pretty. Either the law itself or the bureaucracy it created and charged with enforcing the law is failing badly, or both. The bureaucracy's failure is comprehensive and practically legendary; the law's own failure may be less obvious. In any case, we need a law which we can enforce and want to enforce, and which will answer the present need and serve the future well. Our present law evidently fails on all four counts. So we'll reject the thought of changing nothing.
This brings us back to compromise.
A Middle Road
For the Right to agree to a compromise, the Left will have to swallow its yearning for amnesty. This seems reasonable to me, as long as amnesty just means amnesty. So if people are here illegally, we don't just forgive them and let them be citizens. "No automatic path to citizenship" is a phrase I've heard in some of the more reasonable discussion on the right.
However, some partisans will scream "Amnesty!" at anyone who suggests any approach more moderate than herding all the illegals into cattle cars and shipping them back to Mexico. We'll ignore them as best we can, since they're not using the word to mean what it means; they're just using it as a label or a weapon -- rather like another set of partisans uses the word racist these days on its opponents.
But we do need to talk about those cattle cars, at least as a symbol for the Right's insistence that we round up the all the illegals and ship them home. I doubt that we can spare the resources for mass deportations, but even if we can, there's a more basic consideration. If we're to reverse something on the basis of which millions -- the illegals -- have made major life decisions, we'd better be on solid moral and legal ground. But we're not. Our immigration laws have largely lost the moral and legal force of law, because we have deliberately, overtly, and systematically refused to enforce them for an extended period of time. I have argued this elsewhere. In my judgment, uprooting these many millions would therefore be unjust and inhumane.
I think siding with the rule of law in general is a very reasonable position, but here the Right must compromise on this point and back away from its rigid law-and-order stance somewhat. At the end of the day, an unenforced law is no more a law than an unenforceable law.
The outlines of our compromise on this point are beginning to emerge: It would let the illegals remain, rather than deporting them en masse, but it would not put them on an automatic path to citizenship.
Guest Workers
I'm essentially a law-and-order type myself. If we're going to let the illegals stay, it seems self-evident to me that we ought not let them stay illegally. We should allow them to become legal -- without putting them on a path to citizenship. If they wish to stay, we should require them to enroll in a well-organized, efficiently and competently admininstered guest worker program. After a certain date, we deport anyone we find who has not enrolled.
I am essentially proposing a two-track approach: the usual approach to citizenship on one hand, and a guest worker program on the other hand, which, I repeat, is not a path to citizenship. We can debate some other time how, when, and under what circumstances a guest worker might be allowed to switch to the citizenship track. Perhaps after a certain number of years in the guest program, a guest worker could go to the back of the citizenship line; perhaps this could only be done from outside the country, so that someone who has been here illegally (prior to our reform) must leave the country before returning on the citizenship track.
As I have suggested before, I'd be quite content if the guest worker program embraced as many people as want to come, as long as they are not already, and do not become, criminals, and assuming that we are able to administer the program in an orderly manner. In a previous installment I suggested that a guest worker visa be annually renewable, with a substantial fee.
More of a Solution than a Problem
This two-track solution is not completely different from our present approach, except that it would have to work, and it would have to be enforced. Combined with serious enforcement of the border and with a liberal attitude toward legal immigration (as I discussed in the previous installment), it answers many of our concerns about illegal immigration, rather than complicating them.
Rule of Law: It allows many workers into the country legally, while allowing us to make it difficult to enter and remain in the country illegally.
Humanity: Bringing present illegals above ground, with legal status, protects them from exploitation by employers and, significantly, empowers them to fight back against a host of crimes which illegals are reluctant to report. It also avoids wrenching millions of hard-working people out of their lives here and sending them back to the third-world tyrannies and anarchies from which they came.
Government Benefits: With legal status, these workers can be required to participate in the programs which pay for their medical care, education, and other benefits. A clear, well-defined two-track system might allow us to make sensible decisions about which benefits (and even which tax deductions and exemptions) will be available to guest workers, and which will only be available to citizens. (Perhaps Social Security would be in the latter list -- or we might want to allow them some Social Security benefits if they stay in the US, so that we have a few million more people paying into the system.) In truth, the argument that illegals manage to avoid paying taxes was never particularly sound, since they pay sales tax like the rest of us, pay property tax indirectly through rent, and generally don't make enough money that they would have to pay income tax in our twisted tax system.
Jobs: Business interests in both major parties, but especially the Republican Party, see illegal aliens as a valuable source of inexpensive labor, "doing jobs Americans won't do." Can we be honest here and concede that, while this may be partially true, it is incomplete? They may in fact be doing jobs Americans won't do for the same wage. Raise the price enough, and a lot of people will pick raspberries.
Bringing the illegals into legal status will allow them to keep working, but it will also force them to compete on fairer terms with American workers. The immigrants' wages will go up, since they can no longer be so easily exploited, and because minimum wage laws may apply. No doubt the costs of this will meet us at the grocery store. But I can't help thinking that moving millions of workers out of the shadows and into the legal economy will be a healthy thing in the long run.
Besides, we need willing workers. We can always use more workers. (Can you tell I'm not a union guy?) Let's let them work here for years and years, as long as they pay their taxes, renew their visas, keep the government informed of their current address -- as I'm required to do with my driver license and voter registration -- and don't get convicted of crimes. Maybe we should even allow them to retire here, if they've been here long enough, or if there is an active guest worker in the household. But if they want to be citizens, they'll have to get on the other track.
That's Enough For Today
I think this makes sense, and could work -- at least in a political climate where reasonable discussion and sensible compromise are possible. We're not there yet on this issue . . . but I hope we get there before we give up and apply yet another massive, inadequate, counterproductive legislative bandaid.
What do you think?
Next time, we'll fine-tune some things, talk about driver licenses and other identification, look at the minimum wage, and try to protect legal, non-voting guest workers from exploitation by voting citizen majorities. It's entirely possible that the phrase "flat tax" will also appear.
Comment on this entry
(Readable, relevant, civilized, substantive responses will be posted, regardless of position.)
Permanent link to this entry
August 27, 2010
The Ground Zero Mosque, the Uproar, and the Uproar over the Uproar
Surely, if a clear majority of Americans oppose the building of a new, prominent mosque at or near Ground Zero in Manhattan, one level or another of our government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" could stop it, right? Well, not exactly . . . NEW: Listen to an audio podcast of this post.
Uproar
You've noticed the nationwide uproar over plans to build a large mosque and Muslim cultural center near "Ground Zero" in Manhattan. The outcry is understandable; "Ground Zero" -- not that you've forgotten -- is where ten Islamofascists used two wide-body airliners to murder thousands of innocent people, including Muslims, on September 11, 2001. In fact, depending on how you look at it, the proposed building site may not be two short city blocks from Ground Zero; it may be part of Ground Zero, because one plane's landing gear hit and damaged the building which still stands there.
Then there's the uproar over the uproar. Take your pick: Is it un-American to allow the mosque to be built there? Is it un-American to oppose it? Is it un-American to call large blocs of fellow Americans "un-American"?
Efforts are under way to persuade the leaders of the mosque project to find a site further from Ground Zero. Alternate locations have been suggested. Meanwhile, union workers are refusing to work on the project . Whether any such efforts will succeed remains to be seen, but they certainly don't have to. All the necessary permits and approvals are already granted, apparently, and property rights, the Bill of Rights, and the Hatch Act are lined up in favor of the mosque.
Some, perhaps not you, are asking, What happened to government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"? How can this project proceed against the will of a majority of Americans? Don't we live in a democracy? The answers are not as well-known as we might hope.
No, We Don't
We do not live in a democracy. People who understand government, including our founders, prefer to avoid pure democracy. It's capricious and tyrannical.
We live in a constitutional, democratic republic. We elect our representatives democratically, to be sure. But then, with some exceptions at the state and local levels, they, not we, vote on legislation. We are free to replace them at fixed intervals, if we choose, but we cannot force them to vote one way or another.
There's more. There's a constitution, which protects the rights of individuals against not only the government, but also against the popular will.
At issue here is the most fundamental of those rights, religious freedom. The other First Amendment rights mean little without it; freedoms of speech, press, and peacable assembly are hollow if they exclude religious activity.
Once it's established that the proposed building in Manhattan complies with zoning laws and other local regulations, as it apparently does, there's only one question left, where possible government intervention is concerned: Are the purpose and the likely uses of the mosque essentially religious?
If so, our government is helpless to intervene, no matter how many are offended. There is no constitutional protection against having your feelings hurt -- or even against having your deepest sensibilities profoundly insulted. Maybe Charles Krauthammer is right to call the plan sacrilege, but the First Amendment protects sacrilege. Maybe it is deliberate provocation, as Krauthammer claims elsewhere; if so, it is still protected, as long as the place is not used for speech which directly incites people to immediate violence.
The organizers claim, "Neither Park51 [the building] nor the mosque [it will contain] . . . will tolerate any kind of illegal or un-American activity or rhetoric." If they are sincere, then the legal debate is over. Religious freedom outweighs all the arguments about insult, insensitivity, and even sacrilege.
Even those who oppose the mosque should celebrate the freedom of religious expression which protects it from the majority's displeasure. A sober, thoughtful commitment to my own freedom should include the same commitment to others' freedom.
Sharia?
For government to obstruct the project now, someone would have to prove to reasonable minds -- not just inflamed hearts -- that the First Amendment doesn't apply, that the building's basic purpose is not religious devotion or even cultural outreach, but actual treason, which the First Amendment does not protect. The Supreme Court has sensibly declared that the Constitution safeguards individual rights, but "is not a suicide pact." (See Justice Arthur Goldberg, writing the Court's opinion in Kennedy v. Mendoz-Martinez [372 U.S. 144 (1963)], and Justice Robert Jackson's dissent in Terminiellow v. Chicago [337 U.S. 1 (1949)].)
Here's how that could work. If the building's purpose is to advance the cause of imposing sharia on America, then its purpose is to overthrow the Constitution. An organized attempt to impose Islamic law on the United States would almost certainly constitute a conspiracy to overthrow the government -- as would an attempt to impose any other system of law.
So let's investigate. Just be advised that it's not a slam dunk. Suspicion will not be enough; we'll need proof that will stand up in court. If we don't have that, the First Amendment prevails.
It's not enough that a large mosque in that location is offensive or insensitive, or that it may inflame the very relations it proposes to heal. It's not enough that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a leader of the project, blames the United States for many Muslim deaths. This is smoke, but not fire. Besides, plenty of non-Muslim Democrats on Capitol Hill feel essentially the same way. Rauf's association with the Cordoba Initiative -- named after a prominent Spanish city conquered by Muslims, which became the capital of an Islamic caliphate -- is more smoke, but not necessarily fire.
When other Muslims call the project "mischief" and "a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel," our suspicions are further aroused, but this is not proof, either. Even if we discover substantial Saudi funding of the project, we still don't have proof of treason. All we have is potentially fruitful lines of investigation.
I'm not optimistic that opponents will be able to prove their case. I'm not even sure they're right; it's possible that the mosque's essential purpose really is religious. Even if they are right, historically we're not good at discerning the peaceful and religious from the calculating and malevolent, until it's too late. (See Arnold Ahlert 's recent column for a sad example.)
On the other hand, if a serious investigation finds convincing evidence of treasonous intent, I would look for some official government action to block the project -- whether it's 2000 feet or 2000 miles from Ground Zero.
Messages
One final note. There is concern on both sides over what messages or lessons this affair might convey to our enemies, friends, and potential friends in the Muslim world. Depending on the outcome, one can imagine several different messages, some good and some bad. Are we friendly? Hostile? Shrewd? Naive and vulnerable? To a degree, the answer will be in the eye of the beholder, no matter how this ends.
For my part, I keep hoping to hear some mention of these possible lessons: That in a mature, modern society people can disagree passionately on the most fundamental principles . . . without blowing each other up. That in a free society government is not the only approach or solution to a problem or dispute. And that in the United States of America, the rule of law prevails even over public opinion.
So . . . is the Ground Zero mosque an earnest religious expression, or is it treason fashionably dressed? That is the crucial question.
A lot of people on both sides seem to think they know. I wish I knew.
Comment on this entry
(Readable, relevant, civilized, substantive responses will be posted, regardless of position.)
Permanent link to this entry
August 24, 2010
Immigration Reform, Part II: A Border Is a Border, and the Benefits of Legal Immigration
My discussion of immigration policy continues with talk of the border and of the benefits of legal immigration. Within reason, where legal immigrants are concerned, I say: the more, the better. NEW: Listen to an audio podcast of this post.
In a recent post (regrettably, not as recent as I hoped, due to chronic TTTB), I articulated five postulates, on the basis of which I believe it is possible to build a reasonable, coherent, sustainable, politically viable immigration policy for the United States. You may want to review that discussion before proceeding, but here I'll merely list the postulates themselves, without rehashing the discussion:
- Compromise is necessary.
- Legal immigration is good.
- The invasion of the southwestern United States by criminal organizations trafficking in drugs and humans must be repelled.
- The current immigration bureaucracy is grossly dysfunctional and must be remade.
- A healthy sense of humanity should guide our efforts.
My intention here is not to pin down every detail of an appropriate immigration and border policy, but to draw the general outlines. I'm well aware that the topic is more complex than my treatment of it can be, and many of the details themselves can be quite difficult. But we have to start somewhere, and agreeing on the general outlines of a policy seems like the sanest starting point.
Oh, one more thing. For this to work, you really have to be in the mood for a good fantasy, because we're fantasizing together that it's possible to have a calm, rational discussion of immigration policy. I tried to help you get in the mood last time.
Three Basic Questions
We might divide the issue into these admittedly interrelated questions:
- What should we do at the border?
- What should we do with the illegals who are already here and with those who employ them?
- What should we do with those who are here or want to come here legally, and how much access should they have to government benefits and services?
We ought to bear in mind, as we proceed, that doing nothing -- or making no changes to what we're already doing -- is always an option which deserves consideration. I offer this as a general principle, but I'm certainly not suggesting that we change nothing and call that our comprehensive immigration strategy. Soon enough, if we take that course, the sociopolitical pot will boil over. Or it will boil dry, and we'll have a whole different kind of melting pot on the stove. Then, as politics tend to go in desperate times, we'll do something radical and stupid -- which precise thing depending on which half-baked political faction is ascendant at the moment.
Still, the possibility of doing (or changing) nothing with respect to one or more of these smaller questions exists and deserves at least passing mention.
The Border
I know it's easier said than done, both practically and politically, but the goal of our border policy should be to close the border to illegal immigration and other illegal activity, and to leave it wide open to legal immigration and other legal activity. Both of these, as it happens, are controversial positions. There is a large contingent which would prefer to act as if borders did not exist, because they view nationalism as evil or old-fashioned. There is another contingent, generally small but perhaps slightly swollen now by federal inaction, which would prefer that there be no immigration at all. For my part, I think we need a border -- which is good, because we have one -- and, if we're going to have one, it ought to be a border. That is, it ought to be crossed legally but not illegally.
I believe we have the technical and military capability to close the border to illegal activity -- and make no mistake, securing borders is an appropriate mission for military forces. However, this capability will matter little, if our policy is not also politically viable. At least some of the factions involved will not support serious enforcement of our border unless they are satisfied by the rest of our proposed policy, so we need a more comprehensive policy than a-border-is-a-border-is-a-border. (By the way, whether the Mexican government will support our policy or not seems immaterial; our policy cannot depend on their support, if it is to succeed.)
Forgive my optimistic assumptions, but depending on how catastrophic the 2010 and 2012 elections are for Democrats and how triumphant they are for conservatives (not quite identical outcomes), closing the border to illegal activity may actually seem like enough of a policy, at least to a temporary political majority. But even if such a policy could emerge from Congress and the Oval Office, it would not be sustainable. Power changes hands fairly regularly in the United States; within a few years, that temporary majority would dissolve. We want a greater consensus and more continuity than that.
As to the viability of doing nothing -- more precisely, changing nothing, leaving things the same as they are -- it is possible that the current (supposedly, lately increased) level of border enforcement will be adequate sometime in the future, if the rest of our policy is functional and coherent. That is, it may be enough to keep a closed border closed. But we're not there yet, or even close; it's currently a porous border, with organized criminal enterprises operating on both sides of it. For the present, for the sake of the rest of our policy, I believe we must substantially increase our efforts in the border zone while everything else shakes out.
Legal Immigration (First Pass)
I postulated that (presumably legal) immigration is good. I know this is not a consensus, but most of the people who think otherwise are themselves the offspring of immigrants. I do not want to turn the present discussion into an extended debate about whether immigration itself is good, but I will explain at least some of my reasons for favoring a very generous legal immigration policy.
One reason is economic. Immigrants are a major and necessary part of the American work force. Moreover, there's plenty of room for more. Our economy is capable of creating many new jobs, especially when people are generally hard working. It is economically naive to believe that there is some fixed number of American jobs, so that immigrants necessarily displace natural-born citizens, leaving them unemployed. In a properly functioning free economy, growth allows larger and larger numbers of people to enjoy progressively larger pieces of the proverbial pie.
Furthermore, greater productivity and a substantially larger tax base will help our urgently necessary efforts to address gargantuan debts and deficits, which are complicated by expensive promises made by government to citizens. We have too many people trying to ride in our cart and too few trying to pull it; more able-bodied workers would help quite a lot.
Three reasons for favoring immigration might be called moral.
First, in my experience immigrants are more likely to be hard working and family oriented than citizens who were born here. This is true of Hispanic immigrants and others, and at present it is true of both legal and illegal immigrants. I know there are cases of immigrants becoming leeches on our society, but in my observation the rest of us are much more likely to be leeches. I think our society is healthier because of immigrants' industry, their example of industry, and their commitment to family. More of these things is better.
Second, there are many places in the world where, for political reasons -- and because of poverty, famine, and other problems which themselves are inherently political -- it is very difficult to live and raise a family. Mexico is one of these and long has been; in many ways it is a failed state. When we Americans, through our proxies in Washington and in state capitals, are not systematically destroying our free market economy, as we have been doing lately, we can healthily absorb droves of refugees from less happy places every year, whether they aspire to citizenship or merely want to work for months or years. Given that we have the capacity to be a great humanitarian blessing to the world in this way, and given that the need exists in perpetuity, I believe we have a moral obligation to welcome the people of the world to (what's left of) our freedom.
Third, the habits, instincts, and disciplines of political and economic freedom are more difficult to achieve in a society than the government structures common to free societies, and the structures aren't worth much without that culture of freedom. Every immigrant from a more repressive society and tradition who comes to live and work in the United States for years, then returns to his or her native country (as some do), takes back to that country some of those precious habits, instincts, and disciplines. As a result, that country is better situated to gain, enjoy, and preserve freedom eventually -- and prosperity too. Among other things, this actually promotes world peace, because free nations tend not to make war against each other.
As far as I'm concerned, we ought to let into the country -- in a legal, orderly manner -- anyone who wishes to come to work, especially those who seek refuge from a more oppressive regime. It's perfectly fine with me if they stay as guest workers as long as they are willing and able to work, if they obey our laws. And if they wish to become citizens and stay forever, that's fine with me, too.
There might be some practical limits to how many new guest workers and citizens we could receive in a legal and orderly manner in a given year, and we might have to ease the incoming numbers down somewhat, if we find that they're coming a little faster than our (someday healthy) economy can create jobs for them. We may want to built some related metrics into our legislation from the beginning. But let's make sure we err on the side of favoring abundant immigration.
I'm well aware that our current immigration bureaucracy cannot handle its present load, which is far smaller than the load I've just proposed. We'll have to remake that bureaucracy and simplify its abstruse processes as much as we can, without undermining the necessary scrutiny of prospective and current immigrants. We may want to have the states administer the day-to-day workings of a large guest worker program, for example. They've more or less figured out the driver license thing, after all. Perhaps we should also consider privatizing many of the necessary functions.
We're past 1500 words already, so I'm putting off until later some major questions about economics and government budgets, as they relate to my very liberal preferences for legal immigration. (No, not that kind of "liberal"!) For the moment, I'll simply say this: If it makes sense, to minimize economic shock, let's start with a lower minimum wage for immigrants on a guest worker visa, and gradually raise it to (or near) our regular minimum wage. (A minimum wage is bad economics, but it's a fact of life for now.) Let's make sure these immigrants are part of our regular tax base. And let's require annual renewal of those guest worker visas, with a substantial annual fee.
Coming Next . . .
Next time, I'll address the question of what to do about the illegals who are already here. This will include more discussion of a guest worker program and, length permitting, attention to some of the economic and budgetary issues I mentioned.
Terminal, Parenthetical Metachatter
(I can't help it. I love big words.)
In case you're wondering, I haven't written the subsequent posts yet. I've tried to think through things fairly thoroughly and outline what is to come, before writing what I've already written, but the possibility exists that I'll run into something later which will invalidate something I've already written. Such is the adventure of publishing a thing serially, not to mention of keeping an open mind.
There's an even greater possibility that one or more of you will pose a question or point I haven't heard yet and force me to rethink some of what I've written. That said, I welcome, not fear, your input.
In any case, please stay tuned.
Comment on this entry
(Readable, relevant, civilized, substantive responses will be posted, regardless of position.)
Permanent link to this entry
August 14, 2010
Some Housekeeping: Proposition 8, Etc.
Two of the most interesting columns I've read in the aftermath of the US District Court overturning California's Proposition 8, plus a quick note on immigration reform and two more interesting things to read.
This is not the promised next blog post on immigration reform, to which some readers have kindly said their are eagerly looking forward, after the last one. There's a little note on the subject here, but it's really just housekeeping.
Proposition 8
In the meantime other readers have been asking me whether I'm going to blog on California's Proposition 8, in which that state's voters amended their state constitution to define marriage as involving a man and a woman. A federal district judge recently declared it unconstitutional -- a violation of the US Constitution, that is -- and it's hard to imagine the next stop, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, bringing a different outcome.
So the question ultimately is, what will the US Supreme Court eventually think? I'm not sure --which is already an improvement over the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court is the most conservative branch of the US government at the moment, which means there's hope, but I see nothing resembling certainty. The eventual outcome will depend in part on who's on the Court at the time, and it could be quite a while. But even if the faces don't change, it ain't over until it's over -- if even then.
While we watch and wait, here are two of the more interesting columns I've read on the subject. Matthew Franck analyzes the district court's decision and finds its logic . . . wanting. And David Harsanyi wonders if it isn't time to do away with government's role in marriage altogether; I'm not convinced yet, but it's an interesting argument.
A Moment for Immigration
A couple of months ago, I blogged about anchor babies and the Fourteenth Amendment, suggesting that its language may not unambiguously embrace the children of illegal immigrants. The Washington Post's Michael Gerson doesn't think that's what the language means -- but at least he notices the language and discusses it. Meanwhile, the Post's Edward Schumacher-Matos describes increasing efforts to enforce our southern border.
Comment on this entry
(Readable, relevant, civilized, substantive responses will be posted, regardless of position.)
Permanent link to this entry
August 3, 2010
Immigration Reform: My Wild Fantasy and Five Postulates
Just wait 'til you see how I try to get you in the mood to share my fantasy. I figure you might need some help with that, since you (unlike I) did not just return from Disneyland. NEW: Listen to an audio podcast of this post.
A Necessary and Necessarily Fanciful Introduction
For the last six weeks, I've spent my blogging time buying a new home, moving into it, painting the old home, and going on vacation to Disneyland. The family and I are quite fond of the new home, but I much prefer blogging to the actual buying, moving, and painting. I almost prefer blogging to Disneyland, which I very much enjoy. If I hadn't spent so much of my sleeping time doing those other things, too, I'd still have found a way to blog. Alas.
I'm back.
Last Saturday night, I was tucked snugly into my spacious and comfortable hotel bed at the Howard Johnson across the street from Disneyland, when I had an odd dream. (I'm not making this up.) In my dream Hillary Clinton came to stay with us at our new home for a while. It seemed clear to me in the dream that she was trying to escape the paparazzi, who were especially invigorated by Chelsea's lavish, highly publicized, but private wedding over the weekend. Maybe the mother of bride was trying to escape the father of the bride, too; he reportedly tried to moonwalk at the wedding.
Madame Secretary arrived in a plain and modest vehicle, without publicity or attendants, and in the dark of night. We situated her in our new guest room. In my dream it was obvious: our home was the natural place for her to hide from everything for a while. No one would ever suspect her of hiding away in the modest home of a very minor but decidedly conservative blogger in the Mormon heart of Utah.
Hospitality and good guest manners plainly dictated that we would not discuss politics with the former First Lady, US Senator, and presidential candidate. With profound political differences off the table, she was a gracious, quiet, and pleasant guest. I recall being surprised that she didn't seem shrill at all.
The Meaning of It All
I mention this nocturnal weirdness in part because I know some of you enjoy my weirdness, which is pretty weird of you, if I may say so. But mostly I indulge it because, although I am just back from Disneyland, you are not. I think the wild and strange political fantasy I'm about to describe might fare better if I first invite you to join me in the proper fantastic mood.
(I hasten to assure certain wags among you that my outlandish political fantasy has nothing directly to do with Secretary Clinton, whose role in this blog post has already ended.)
The Fantasy and the Postulates
Are you ready? Here's my wild, strange, outlandish political fantasy:
Let's pretend for a few minutes that it's possible to have a calm, rational discussion of illegal immigration.
We won't finish our discussion today, but we'll get a good start in the form of some postulates. A postulate ("PAW - styoo - luht") is something we accept as a starting point for our reasoning, without systematic proof -- either because we don't know how to prove it properly, even if we believe it to be true, or because we want to get past it quickly and on to other things. In Euclidean geometry, the kind I hope you studied thoroughly in school, the most prominent example of a postulate is the Parallel Postulate, which more or less states that parallel lines never meet. It has defied proof for millennia, but it is nonetheless useful.
Today I offer five postulates to begin our calm, rational search for a solution to our thorny immigration problem. Each has the capacity to offend, even to arouse the full-throated opposition of, one faction or another in the debate, so it may really be necessary to keep that fantastic mood about you as you consider them.
Postulate: Compromise
Both sides of the rancor resist compromise. The hard right wing finds any suggestion of compromise to be a hopeless breach of divine morality and the United States Constitution. The hard left doesn't think it will need to compromise; even the problem itself serves their ends to a degree. For my part, I don't see either side prevailing anytime soon so completely that it could enforce its will on the issue, and I'm really not comfortable with the extreme positions, anyway.
So I take it as a given: a reasonable, effective solution will require compromise.
Postulate: Immigration Itself Is Good
There are some -- whose ancestors already immigrated successfully sometime in the past -- who think immigration in the present or future tense is a bad thing. A few of these are racists or some other sort of bigot, I suppose, but a lot of them are not. Many of the others buy into some knee-jerk zero-sum world view, in which the size of the pie is fixed, and the fewer there are among whom to divide it, the better. I'm not one of these. I am wholeheartedly in favor of the orderly, legal immigration of law-abiding people. I'd actually like to see a lot more legal immigration, not less. So I postulate:
Immigration is good.
Postulate: Large-Scale Drug and Human Trafficking Must Stop
The situation now is not simply that nice, hard-working people who want a better life are seeking it by flooding over our southern border into Texas, Arizona, and California. We are seeing the systematic, deliberate invasion of the United States not by the Mexican nation itself, but by criminal organizations which the Mexican government does not support, exactly, but which it tolerates and sometimes seems almost to justify and defend. These criminal interests now reportedly control some territory within the United States.
Among other things, these criminal organizations traffic in drugs and -- worse -- in humans. This ongoing trade is far more brutal and far less tolerable than the legal violation committed by someone who simply crosses the border without the proper authorization. It is also far more urgent a problem. Unabated, it would make a mockery of any serious attempt at immigration reform.
I take this as a given: When the United States has been invaded by hostile forces, the use of overwhelming military force is justified and required. Surely we have the military capability to seal our entire southern border, except for the established, legal crossing points. It's past time to muster the political will to do so.
Please note that I have not advocated a military solution to the presence of many millions of illegal immigrants who are already in the United States. That is a different sort of problem; a military solution would be quite inappropriate.
Postulate: The Existing Immigration Bureaucracy is Dysfunctional
The Obama administration's political and legal war on Arizona for trying to enforce federal immigration law fairly screams to the whole world that being in the United States illegally is perfectly okay with the US government. But this is by no means a new message. For a long time the slow, disjointed legal immigration process itself has all but begged -- and in some cases, has forced -- good people who try to comply with our law to remain in the country illegally instead. The bureaucracy cannot handle its present load competently.
Therefore, I postulate any serious immigration reform must radically remake the immigration bureaucracy, and it should simplify the immigration process as much as reasonably possible.
Postulate: Humanity
There may be related legal or even constitutional principles, but I don't need them in order to believe that, insofar as it is possible, our immigration reform should treat humans humanely. I do not believe that a person's violation of some immigration law in itself justifies brutality or summary judgment.
A lot of people on the right think that any lawbreaking makes a person a criminal. I assume that none of these ever breaks a speed limit in driving to and from work, school, or Disneyland. But there is something here of greater moment than the glass houses principle. When a government systematically, deliberately, conspicuously, and for an extended period leaves a given law largely unenforced, that law, even if it remains on the books, ceases to have the full force of law, even if it has never been formally repealed. When a government openly attempts to prevent other levels of government enforcing its law, this is doubly true.
I'll say more of this later, but for now: Our immigration reform must be humane, and the existence of a systematically unenforced law does not justify inhumanity in a suddenly renewed effort to enforce it.
Recap
Before we move on to the next installment of this discussion, let's review our postulates:
- Compromise is necessary.
- Legal immigration is good.
- The invasion of the southwestern United States by criminal organizations trafficking in drugs and humans must be repelled.
- The current immigration bureaucracy is grossly dysfunctional and must be remade.
- A healthy sense of humanity should guide our efforts.
Next time we'll begin to work our way from these postulates toward some actual solutions. Please try to keep the spirit of fantasy alive in your mind as we do so, else we slip back into the useless mire of partisan posturing.
Comment on this entry
(Readable, relevant, civilized, substantive responses will be posted, regardless of position.)
Permanent link to this entry
June 23, 2010
Disenfranchised? Not . . .
Ethan Millard claims that most of Utah's 1.5 million registered voters were disenfranchised yesterday. I think none of them were. What do you think?
KSL Nightside's Ethan Millard was wigging out all last evening about the low turnout, the closed Republican primary, and the large statewide Republican advantage -- all of which adds up, or rather multiplies, in his mind, to the disenfranchisement of most of a million and a half Utah voters.
I haven't seen final voter turnout figures from the Republican primary, but I think it will be between 15 and 20 percent. For the sake of round numbers, let's say that it was 20 percent, though I suspect it will prove to have been closer to 15. Roughly one-third of Utah voters are registered Republicans, if Millard's numbers are correct. (More are undeclared.) About one-fifth of those voted. About half of those who voted cast their ballots for the winner in the Lee-Bridgewater race. And it is highly unlikely that Lee will lose in November. You can see why Millard would calculate that about one-thirtieth of Utah's registered voters were enough to elect Utah's next US Senator.
I didn't follow every turn of every iteration of Millard's repeated rant, but his basic point was that, except for the one-fifteenth of the registered voters who voted in the Lee-Bridgewater race, Utah's other registered voters were disenfranchised. Look it up; it means they were deprived of the right to vote. The villains in Millard's mind are the Utah Republican Party and the elected Utah officials who guard the Utah GOP's gates with all the energy and effect that we wish we could see in the guarding of the United States' southern border. Fourteen-fifteenths is more than 93 percent, by the way.
Millard kept asking, "Why weren't they allowed" to participate in this process?
This kind of angst may make for good radio ratings; I don't know. Last night, at least, I was willing to listen to KSL in spite of it, where on most evenings I simply would have changed the station -- even if I like Millard's wit and insights on some occasions. But there's another side to the argument, and it makes a lot more sense to me.
First of all, Millard is using the word disenfranchised incorrectly. No one was deprived of the right to vote. Any registered voter was free to declare himself or herself a Republican -- even if only long enough to vote in the Republican primary. Those who chose not to . . . chose not to. No one deprived them of anything.
Second, there is a constitutional issue, based on the First Amendment's freedom of association. If a political party does not wish to allow nonmembers to help select its candidate, it is within its rights to have a closed primary. The fact that the Republican candidate typically -- almost always -- wins in statewide contests in Utah has nothing to do with disenfranchisement.
Remember how upset Democrats got a few weeks ago, when someone suggested that Republicans cross over and vote in the Democratic primary for Claudia Wright against Jim Matheson, because Republican Morgan Philpot could almost certainly defeat Wright much more easily than Matheson? You cannot (a) be upset by that, (b) complain about the closed Republican primary, and (c) be logically consistent.
One of Millard's morsels of evidence is his sure conviction that Senator Robert Bennett would have won reelection if he had been allowed on the ballot. We don't know this to be true. But even if we did, the system which dispatched Senator Bennett in convention is not a lot different from the convention system which turned away Mitt Romney in favor of John McCain in 2008, or George H. W. Bush in favor of Ronald Reagan in 1980. I'm all for having a calm, reasonable, ongoing discussion of our electoral system, but that's impossible to do when you're still upset because your candidate lost.
Look at it this way:
- I chose to be a registered Republican and to vote in the Republican primary. Because of this, I was not allowed to cast a vote in the Democratic primary race in my congressional district, even though there was no Republican primary for that seat. Was I disenfranchised?
- One of my neighbors is a registered voter who is uninterested in politics and too busy to study all the candidates. He is content not to vote, thereby allowing those of us who want to vote to choose his leaders. Is he disenfranchised by some malevolent outside force?
- When I lived in Ithaca, New York, a heavily Democratic area, I voted in election after election for Republican candidates who lost -- many of whom never really had a chance. Was I disenfranchised?
- I really want Senator Harry Reid to lose in November, but I'm not allowed to vote in that race, unless I move to Nevada. Am I disenfranchised?
- This fall, the junior high chess club will elect a new president. I'm not allowed to vote in that election. Am I disenfranchised?
- I think it would be really cool for BYU to win a Big Ten basketball tournament, but they're not allowed to, because they're not in the Big Ten. Are they disenfranchised? Should Iowa be allowed to compete in the Mountain West tournament, so they won't be disenfranchised?
Answers: no, no, no, no, no, and no. In #3 above, I was serially defeated, but not disenfranchised.
All of the people whose self-chosen party affiliation kept them from voting in the Republican primary yesterday were free to choose otherwise, and in any case they have an opportunity to cast a vote in the Senate race in November. The fact that their candidate will likely lose, unless it is Mike Lee, does not disenfranchise them. There is no right to win. There is only a right to vote.
There are some things I can do to effect races in which I cannot vote, such as #4 above. For example, I can contribute to Senator Reid's opponent or her party. Ironically, Ethan Millard doesn't like out-of-state contributions, either -- at least not in Mike Lee's case. So he wants outsiders to be able to vote, but he doesn't want outsiders to be able to contribute. I'm guessing he doesn't see the inconsistency there. (I don't mind outside contributions, but I think the primary funding of a campaign should come from within the boundaries of the constituency.)
If Ethan Millard wants to rant about the grand Utah Republican conspiracy to "systematically disenfranchise more and more and more and more voters," that's okay with me. As long it's okay with his management, he can even keep doing it on the radio, exercising a mix of his own and the station's owners' freedom of speech (or press, whatever). The beauty of the situation is, I have the same freedoms. They allow me not to listen. They allow me to disagree. They even allow me to blog about it.
True, the Dems in Washington want the power to require me to purchase a license from them to blog, but that's a discussion for another day.
Comment on this entry
(Readable, relevant, civilized, substantive responses will be posted, regardless of position.)
Permanent link to this entry
|
