This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on July 29, 2010.
Note: this entry was written before certain provisions of the Arizona law were stayed by a federal judge.
Arizona law is unconstitutional
Two weeks ago, I wrote about the history of immigration in America, focusing on discrimination that various ethnic groups have suffered. In particular, I focused on the most recent groups to suffer, Hispanics and Latinos.
What I did not get into was the most recent issue, the state-level immigration policies that are scheduled to go into effect today in Arizona. The state law requires immigrants in Arizona to carry their immigration papers with them at all times. If a state or local law enforcement officer has a suspicion that any particular individual is an illegal immigrant, they are required to question that person about their immigration status.
The law has been excoriated by many other state and local governments, many going so far as to put official boycotts of Arizona in place, forbidding, for example, attendance at conferences held in Arizona. This is not to say that there is no support for the law. Nine states, including those as diverse as Michigan and Alabama, have officially endorsed the law in legal briefs.
According to Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, "Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws." Here, Cox is simply incorrect. Cox went on to lament that the Obama Administration was spending tax payer dollars fighting the Arizona law.
There are two major problems with this law, and they both run smack into the supreme law, the U.S. Constitution. The first is found in two parts of the original text of the Constitution, at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4; and at Article 6.
Article 1, Section 8 is all about the powers of the federal government. The powers listed therein are not shared by the federal government and state governments. They are exclusively federal. These include the power to coin money, to establish post offices, to establish patents and copyrights, and the power to maintain an army and navy. In that list is Clause 4, which grants the power to establish a "uniform rule of Naturalization." In this context, "naturalization" is an umbrella term that includes immigration policy.
States can argue that this clause does not, actually, include immigration, but they would then have to argue against almost 200 years of established legal precedent on the matter. The ability of states to convince the Supreme Court that its precedent on this issue is incorrect seems unlikely.
Article 6 simply buttresses this argument by noting that the Constitution, and laws made under it, are the supreme law of the United States. A law passed by a state that impinges upon federal powers is no law at all.
Finally, the law violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all persons due process under the law. Laws cannot be applied arbitrarily and capriciously. We rely on the judgement of our police officers for many things, and I applaud and support them in the application of that judgement. But here, Arizona police officers will have to make decisions about people based on their perception of an individual. What distinguishes a legal Latino immigrant from an illegal Latino immigrant? Is there something you can see in their eyes? A change in their skin tone? A certain scent a police officer can pick up? Anything, at all, that an officer can use as an objective measuring stick?
No, there is not. Either they will have to ignore the law or they will have to consider all persons who do not have their proper papers as illegals. The casting of this wide net will undoubtedly catch illegal immigrants. But it will just as undoubtedly catch legal immigrants and even native-born citizens of the United States.
Even if immigration was not the exclusive bailiwick of the federal government, these terms of the law are enough to render it null and void. It is my sincere hope that the courts that hear the case smack this law down with the full force of Constitution and send a message to all states that such a usurpation of federal authority will not be tolerated.
If the Obama Administration should be spending tax payer dollars anywhere, it is in fighting state violations of the Constitution. We have, after all, already fought a civil war over the issue of states trying to override federal authority over powers granted to it in the Constitution. What would be a waste, morally, legally, and constitutionally, is to not fight Arizona's law.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Solving the immigration problem
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on July 15, 2010.
Solving the immigration problem
The cliche is that the United States is a nation of immigrants. Often cliches are simply untrue, but in this case nothing could be closer to the truth. With the exception of 1.5 percent of us who, in the 2000 census, reported aboriginal heritage, the vast majority of Americans are the products of immigrant heritage.
The waves of immigration the United States has had include the English, Norwegians, Germans, Irish, Russian Jews, Mexicans, Asians, and Armenians. Throughout the 19th century, the United States was a beacon to Europeans escaping famine, economic collapse, and war.
At almost any point in history, we can find anti-immigration sentiment, often worked up to a fever pitch. The Italians; the Irish; the Chinese; the latest immigrant demon is Hispanics.
Liberals are often painted with a broad brush, and on immigration there is no exception. We're soft on illegal immigrants, willing to open our borders to anyone who comes knocking, happy to offer up tax-financed social services to anyone.
These are not the positions that we take, however, and anyone who is willing to do more than sixty seconds of research on the Internet or to talk to a liberal friend will confirm it.
What, then, can we say about how liberals think about immigration?
Liberals are, if nothing else, realistic pragmatists. We recognize that the United States is still a great beacon to people of the world. Department of Homeland Security statistics show that we accept legal immigrants from every corner of the globe: 660 thousand in 2007, just over 1 million in 2008, and 744 thousand in 2009. The top countries of birth in 2009 were Mexico, India, the Philippines, China, Vietnam, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and South Korea. In that small list, we can see a wide variety of languages, religions, and ethnic groups. Just the sort of melting pot that our children still learn about in civics classes.
People want to come here for all the right reasons, and we, as a nation, are willing to let immigrants come. Thankfully, the current debate is less about legal immigration, but what to do about illegal immigrants. These are people we all know are here, whom we all rely on to some degree directly or indirectly, but who we often prefer to pretend don't exist.
Perhaps it is time to create a new immigration status. Many illegal immigrants don't want to become citizens - they just want to work to support their families. We are more than happy to allow skilled workers into the United States. We encourage it even, with special visas. The H1-B visa allows people to come to the United States to work, where the intent of the worker is not to be an immigrant. The visa is only good for specific positions and only as long as the person is in the specific job.
There is no equivalent for unskilled workers, however. Perhaps there should be.
Let's face it — illegal workers are willing to do things that most Americans are not. Whether it is to clean hotel rooms, pick fruit, milk cows, do simple construction, sew garments, or take care of children, the jobs are there because there are illegal immigrants willing to take them. With a special non-immigrant status, allowing certain persons to come to the United States to live and work, we could control the flow better, keep better track of people, even increase tax revenues. Not quite an H1-B visa, with all of its paperwork and sponsorships, but something much more than the illegal status most such workers now have.
Closing off the border is not the answer. Border walls and fences can help stanch the flow of illegal immigrants in some specific places, but we cannot enclose the United States in a protective wall. It is impractical and would give us all a bunker mentality we have been lucky to avoid so far.
Above all, the United States is a place that should be a beacon to the world. To live up to that ideal, we must be compassionate even as we enforce our laws. In creating a new class of visa, we might eventually prevent most illegal immigration — with the added benefit of preventing these poor souls from falling victim to desert heat or, often worse, the villainy of organized crime.
I'm not sure what the answer to the question of illegal immigration is, but I am sure that demonizing illegal immigrants is not it.
Solving the immigration problem
The cliche is that the United States is a nation of immigrants. Often cliches are simply untrue, but in this case nothing could be closer to the truth. With the exception of 1.5 percent of us who, in the 2000 census, reported aboriginal heritage, the vast majority of Americans are the products of immigrant heritage.
The waves of immigration the United States has had include the English, Norwegians, Germans, Irish, Russian Jews, Mexicans, Asians, and Armenians. Throughout the 19th century, the United States was a beacon to Europeans escaping famine, economic collapse, and war.
At almost any point in history, we can find anti-immigration sentiment, often worked up to a fever pitch. The Italians; the Irish; the Chinese; the latest immigrant demon is Hispanics.
Liberals are often painted with a broad brush, and on immigration there is no exception. We're soft on illegal immigrants, willing to open our borders to anyone who comes knocking, happy to offer up tax-financed social services to anyone.
These are not the positions that we take, however, and anyone who is willing to do more than sixty seconds of research on the Internet or to talk to a liberal friend will confirm it.
What, then, can we say about how liberals think about immigration?
Liberals are, if nothing else, realistic pragmatists. We recognize that the United States is still a great beacon to people of the world. Department of Homeland Security statistics show that we accept legal immigrants from every corner of the globe: 660 thousand in 2007, just over 1 million in 2008, and 744 thousand in 2009. The top countries of birth in 2009 were Mexico, India, the Philippines, China, Vietnam, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and South Korea. In that small list, we can see a wide variety of languages, religions, and ethnic groups. Just the sort of melting pot that our children still learn about in civics classes.
People want to come here for all the right reasons, and we, as a nation, are willing to let immigrants come. Thankfully, the current debate is less about legal immigration, but what to do about illegal immigrants. These are people we all know are here, whom we all rely on to some degree directly or indirectly, but who we often prefer to pretend don't exist.
Perhaps it is time to create a new immigration status. Many illegal immigrants don't want to become citizens - they just want to work to support their families. We are more than happy to allow skilled workers into the United States. We encourage it even, with special visas. The H1-B visa allows people to come to the United States to work, where the intent of the worker is not to be an immigrant. The visa is only good for specific positions and only as long as the person is in the specific job.
There is no equivalent for unskilled workers, however. Perhaps there should be.
Let's face it — illegal workers are willing to do things that most Americans are not. Whether it is to clean hotel rooms, pick fruit, milk cows, do simple construction, sew garments, or take care of children, the jobs are there because there are illegal immigrants willing to take them. With a special non-immigrant status, allowing certain persons to come to the United States to live and work, we could control the flow better, keep better track of people, even increase tax revenues. Not quite an H1-B visa, with all of its paperwork and sponsorships, but something much more than the illegal status most such workers now have.
Closing off the border is not the answer. Border walls and fences can help stanch the flow of illegal immigrants in some specific places, but we cannot enclose the United States in a protective wall. It is impractical and would give us all a bunker mentality we have been lucky to avoid so far.
Above all, the United States is a place that should be a beacon to the world. To live up to that ideal, we must be compassionate even as we enforce our laws. In creating a new class of visa, we might eventually prevent most illegal immigration — with the added benefit of preventing these poor souls from falling victim to desert heat or, often worse, the villainy of organized crime.
I'm not sure what the answer to the question of illegal immigration is, but I am sure that demonizing illegal immigrants is not it.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
The oil spill's biggest victim: BP?
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on July 1, 2010.
The oil spill's biggest victim: BP?
The latest liberal-leaning Internet meme is a new take on the Republican Party's venerable elephant logo. You know the one — the red-bodied elephant with the blue upper body emblazoned with three big white stars.
The new meme converts the elephant to BP greens, with a dark green body and a light green upper body. The stars are replaced by the BP rosette, and the elephant's truck has a oil gusher squirting out of it. The meme also renames the "Grand Old Party" to the "Grand Oil Party," inserting the "B" from BP to make the point painfully clear: GObP.
The new icon comes from the creative staff of left-leaning news show host Keith Olbermann, and is intended to poke fun at (and speak truth to) the Republican members of Congress who have taken to defending BP from criticism.
The most blatant example was that of Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who went on record in a House committee hearing on June 17 and apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward. The day before, the Obama White House and BP had announced that BP would set up a $20 billion trust fund to help fund clean-up efforts and to compensate victims of the economic damage caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Barton called the agreement a "shake-down," said that the agreement violated due process, and that it was illegal. Barton was "ashamed" of the agreement, and apologized to BP and Hayward for it.
What the rest of us might call "the right thing," or, "the least BP could do," Barton was calling an illegal shakedown for which he was ashamed. The only shame should have been Barton's. What he exposed himself as, as though we couldn't already tell considering his accumulated campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry generally and from BP specifically, was a shill for the industry.
One member of Congress bending over backwards for the industry does not deserve a whole new logo, though. Fortunately for the logo makers, there were plenty of other Republicans who were more than willing to bend for BP.
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) also put his foot in his mouth. After rightfully praising BP for paying out what claims it has already, he also lambasted the President for meeting with BP and coming to an agreement with them. What Barton and Price seem to forget is that it is the President's job, the government's job, to protect our nation and its people from all threats, including the threat of irresponsible companies and the threat of on-going economic damage.
Frequently shrill Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) worried aloud that BP was going to get "fleeced" by claims and that the victims' fund would end up being just a "redistribution of wealth." Yes, from the cash-soaked BP to the broke and possibly bankrupt people of the Gulf region whose jobs and even careers were ruined by BP's spill. If there is to be any redistribution of wealth, this is the place for it.
Finally, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, of "Drill, Baby, Drill!" fame, has been using Twitter and Facebook to come to the defense of BP. Citing an article that equates the trust fund to Nazism, Palin called the agreement "an unconstitutional power grab."
Who are all these people kidding?
Every day, at nearly any hour, we can still turn on the television and watch as barrel after barrel of oil leaks out of the Deepwater Horizon well. I'm certainly troubled that our federal regulations did not require companies to have better plans for this sort of thing, but that is no excuse for this disaster.
In my last column, I wrote that the time to assess blame for the long-term effects of this disaster was not yet here. But there has been more than enough time to assess blame in the short-term. Any reasonable person would place that blame firmly on BP — heck, BP itself is taking the blame in interview after interview and hearing after hearing.
The attempts by these members of the GObP to deflect this short-term blame by raising the flag of unfairness, illegality, or unconstitutionality, are so transparent as to be laughable.
So don't blame yourself for having a small chuckle over the BP-green elephant logo and the new moniker. A little dark humor helps us cope with disasters of this scale. It's just unfortunate that we seem to need so much dark humor these days.
The oil spill's biggest victim: BP?
The latest liberal-leaning Internet meme is a new take on the Republican Party's venerable elephant logo. You know the one — the red-bodied elephant with the blue upper body emblazoned with three big white stars.
The new meme converts the elephant to BP greens, with a dark green body and a light green upper body. The stars are replaced by the BP rosette, and the elephant's truck has a oil gusher squirting out of it. The meme also renames the "Grand Old Party" to the "Grand Oil Party," inserting the "B" from BP to make the point painfully clear: GObP.
The new icon comes from the creative staff of left-leaning news show host Keith Olbermann, and is intended to poke fun at (and speak truth to) the Republican members of Congress who have taken to defending BP from criticism.
The most blatant example was that of Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who went on record in a House committee hearing on June 17 and apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward. The day before, the Obama White House and BP had announced that BP would set up a $20 billion trust fund to help fund clean-up efforts and to compensate victims of the economic damage caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Barton called the agreement a "shake-down," said that the agreement violated due process, and that it was illegal. Barton was "ashamed" of the agreement, and apologized to BP and Hayward for it.
What the rest of us might call "the right thing," or, "the least BP could do," Barton was calling an illegal shakedown for which he was ashamed. The only shame should have been Barton's. What he exposed himself as, as though we couldn't already tell considering his accumulated campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry generally and from BP specifically, was a shill for the industry.
One member of Congress bending over backwards for the industry does not deserve a whole new logo, though. Fortunately for the logo makers, there were plenty of other Republicans who were more than willing to bend for BP.
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) also put his foot in his mouth. After rightfully praising BP for paying out what claims it has already, he also lambasted the President for meeting with BP and coming to an agreement with them. What Barton and Price seem to forget is that it is the President's job, the government's job, to protect our nation and its people from all threats, including the threat of irresponsible companies and the threat of on-going economic damage.
Frequently shrill Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) worried aloud that BP was going to get "fleeced" by claims and that the victims' fund would end up being just a "redistribution of wealth." Yes, from the cash-soaked BP to the broke and possibly bankrupt people of the Gulf region whose jobs and even careers were ruined by BP's spill. If there is to be any redistribution of wealth, this is the place for it.
Finally, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, of "Drill, Baby, Drill!" fame, has been using Twitter and Facebook to come to the defense of BP. Citing an article that equates the trust fund to Nazism, Palin called the agreement "an unconstitutional power grab."
Who are all these people kidding?
Every day, at nearly any hour, we can still turn on the television and watch as barrel after barrel of oil leaks out of the Deepwater Horizon well. I'm certainly troubled that our federal regulations did not require companies to have better plans for this sort of thing, but that is no excuse for this disaster.
In my last column, I wrote that the time to assess blame for the long-term effects of this disaster was not yet here. But there has been more than enough time to assess blame in the short-term. Any reasonable person would place that blame firmly on BP — heck, BP itself is taking the blame in interview after interview and hearing after hearing.
The attempts by these members of the GObP to deflect this short-term blame by raising the flag of unfairness, illegality, or unconstitutionality, are so transparent as to be laughable.
So don't blame yourself for having a small chuckle over the BP-green elephant logo and the new moniker. A little dark humor helps us cope with disasters of this scale. It's just unfortunate that we seem to need so much dark humor these days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)