Morning Fog

The Hypocrisy Of Immigrants, The Hypocrisy About Immigrants

I think Federal Judge Bolton ruled correctly in barring the implementation of several elements of the proposed new Arizona state law on immigrants.   It was clear, to anyone with a modicum of background in our U.S. system of legal protections and constitutional guarantees, that a lot of the proposed legislation was just plain overstepping by the government of a state whose voters have established an unenviable reputation for putting extremists in office.  Other elements of the new law, if challenged, may also eventually prove untenable.

I don't condemn Arizona unqualifiedly, however, for its radical proposal to fix our broken immigration system.  Arizona is on the front line in this battle, and copes not just with the influx of illegal aliens moving into and through the state, but also with growing concerns about being contaminated by the drug violence across the border.  If immigration and border control are the province of the federal government (and they are), the exasperation of states at "Washington's" failure to deal with the issues that have gone so long unsolved is understandable.

Our problem with immigration in the U.S. is that there are truths no one wants to tell; we debate the problem superficially but hate to admit the messy actuality at its core, somewhat like talking about an egg by describing its shell and ignoring all that messy, sticky stuff inside. 

If we break the egg, the first thing to ooze out is the hypocrisy all of us share.  An old adage has it that "in the long run, we're all dead."  It might also be said, in the U.S., that in the long run, looking backward rather than forward, we're all immigrants.  Even the people we call Native Americans arrived here a historically scant 50,000 years ago and ever since, those who were here have tried to make life difficult for those who tried to come later.  We may pride ourselves on being a "nation of immigrants," but we haven't always welcomed them with open arms.  

The thing we can all learn from this is that even as we all realize uncontrolled borders could be an economic and security disaster, there's a humanitarian element involved in how we deal with those who do manage to get here.  On this aspect, I recommend the novel The Tortilla Curtain, by T.C. Boyle; it's apparently out of print now though copies can be found online, or at your library.  The Arizona law fails this basic humanitarian test, whatever its legal justifications.

Other hypocrisies relate to the question that our current situation begs: How did it get this way, and why isn't anything ever done fix it?  There are many answers but some of the key ones lie in contradictions between what we say we want, and what we really want:

We should be able to control our borders and prevent people from entering the country illegally.  Yes, of course that's true.  But the unmentioned factor is that we don't really want to pay for it.  When one of our major parties propagates the notion that no tax is a good tax, and no government is the best government, who will vote for the increased cost of more border agents, better technology, and the other measures that might be required?  Then there's the corollary:  The idea that a border as long and in most places remote as the U.S.-Mexico frontier can really be closed off like a bunker door is just plain unrealistic; we can spend billions, but there will still be gaps.

We should be able to find illegal immigrants who do manage to get into the U.S., keep them from working, deport them, prevent their getting benefits.  Maybe, though the humanitarian element arises here.  The hypocrisy, though, is that while we say immigrants ought to be able to produce documentation to show they're here legally, this collides unpleasantly with our concept that those of us who arrived here earlier have an absolute right NOT to have to identify themselves.  The question of a "national identity card" has been frequently raised, and just as quickly batted down by a host of opponents ranging across the political spectrum.  On this question, I like today's post from fellow blogger GabbyGeezer (http://www.gabbygeezer.blogspot.com - see "Profile Please," dated July 29.

Labor unions protest that we don't want immigrants flooding the market taking jobs that Americans could have.  There may be a bit of truth in that in these hard economic times, when people are looking for any work at all.  But the deeper truth is that the immigrants don't really compete for the same jobs.  They're doing work, from cleaning toilets to picking fruit, that earlier-arriving immigrants (U.S. citizens) consider beneath them.   And increasingly, by the way,  a trend I've noticed is that second-generation immigrants, like their predecessors of previous generations, are gradually filling in higher levels on the scale, like many of the technical service jobs -- the furnace repairman, the pest control technician, the dry cleaner, the mason, the electrician, even the retail clerk -- that again, except in the hardest times, well-settled Americans with their often valueless college degrees won't take.  This group takes those jobs, and gradually will own the service businesses that perform them; they're probably mostly legal, but I wouldn't be surprised if many were born to "illegal" parents.  And where would we be without them?

Illegal immigrants shouldn't be able to work.  Hah!  The biggest hypocrisy centers on this question of gainful employment.   If we really cracked down and didn't allow anyone to work without appropriate evidence of legal status, the flow of illegals would stop.  That's what most of them come for.  But we don't, and we probably won't.  As noted above, both politicians and employers (the latter by strongly but often invisibly lobbying the former) have turned a blind eye to law enforcement because they know that we need those people -- need them to steal those jobs from Americans who won't take them (above).  Denying jobs to illegals could work very effectively if there were solid sanctions on employers for hiring them, or strictly enforced regulations requiring hirers to ask for documentation.  But this self-evident fact isn't evident to the employers who dearly love a supply of inexpensive laborers who don't ask too many questions.  Those employers and their organizations have resisted tooth-and-nail the least suggestion that they should have any responsibility for checking the status of those they hire.  Too much trouble! Too much time!  And civil rights activists join them, concerned that an employer trying to carry out his responsibilities under such a law, might accidentally offend an Earlier American.

Finally, there is a citizenship issue.  I don't believe that very many foreigners come to the U.S. just to have a baby who would automatically become an American citizen.  There is evidence that some do this - i.e. a recent revelation about some Chinese groups -- but not by the hundreds of thousands.  If this is seen as a problem, though, we could simply alter our citizenship law -- very few countries use the physical place of birth as a determinant of citizenship.  Again, though, I suspect a move to change this longstanding practice would run into serious resistance.

Ultimately, to solve our immigration problem, some of our ideas about ourselves are going to have to change...or at least, become more honest.

Judiciary Committee Votes

Too frequently already has Morning Fog pointed out the dysfunctionality of the current Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process.  A President of either party proposes an eminently qualified jurist for the Court, though naturally someone whom he sees as sharing the main tenets of his own legal philosophy; opposing party Senators on the Judiciary Committee try to examine the nominee's politics and to predict how she/he will vote on various politically-charged issues that might come before the court.

Up until a couple of decades ago, though, Senators generally conceded a President's right to get an obviously qualified nominee confirmed and, absent any serious questions about the prospective justice's legal qualifications (seldom if ever have there been any), even most of the opposition would vote for the nominee or possibly abstain.  In recent years, and this week in the case of Elena Kagan, Republicans largely refused to vote in favor.  Some didn't even show up in person to vote. The one exception, Sen. Lindsey Graham, who eloquently took the high road, deserves the praise he is getting (in some quarters at least) for having done so.

The Court's authority and legitimacy rest on its remaining above the fray and on the public perception that it is politically neutral. When the opposition Senators refuse to approve a clearly qualified nominee - indeed to a lesser extent even during hearings when they persist in asking politically charged questions they know won't (can't!) be answered - they undermine public trust in the Supreme Court by making it out to be just another partisan political forum.

Let's hope that the example Graham has set may inspire broader-based willingness by overly partisan politicos to say "aye" when the time comes:  Aye to a nominee, aye to the seriousness of the process, and aye above all to having faith in the Constitution, which if I'm not mistaken, all Senators have sworn to uphold.  

Pros And Cons Of Gun-Totin'

In one short, 6-page Washington Post "Metro" section today, among the obits, homeless news, and broken water pipelines, I found all the elements of the Second Amendment debate.

First was a report on a dust-up in Prince George's County (Maryland).  A gent (we'll call him Mr. A) returning to his abode saw a woman being pushed violently into an apartment opposite his.  This good samaritan knocked on that apartment's door, and was confronted by another gent (we'll call him Mr. Z) pointing a gun at him.  Z proceeded to push A back into his own apartment where he forced him to kneel on the floor and (according to A), it was clear Z intended to kill him.  Fortunately, A just happened to be kneeling where his own gun was easily in reach.  He shot and killed Z. 

Now, there is some speculation that A isn't telling the truth/whole truth thing, and that Z may have been set up.   (Oh, by the way, did I mention that A is a Supreme Court Justice? - Hah! Gotcha!  I was just joking about that.)

But on the face of it, here's a perfect example of why every citizen should be able to have his own personal weapon, if not several, as the Supremes have recently decreed.  Mr. A saved his own life, and maybe the woman's too.

This whole event dovetails nicely with a second story, "Packing Some Extra Peace of Mind," in which Frederick Kunkle portrays how Virginia gun-rights activists "try out" a new Virginia law that allows -- perhaps even requires, who knows? --  patrons in bars to carry concealed weapons.  Aside from the fact the accompanying photo might make you think you must be grossly overweight to be a Second Amendment fan, this is a fairly typical tale of guys brandishing sidearms in a bar.  Hey, that's the law, it's their right now to do so.  Not a problem.  So here again, we see cause to celebrate the foresight of our Founding Fathers, who knew the value of packing heat (and only put that stuff about a "well-regulated militia" in there to confuse things) whenever they stopped by the Olde Taverne for a little grog.

On the other hand, amid all this celebration, one statement in the first article caught my eye:

"In 2008, FBI statistics show, there were 204 
justifiable homicides by civilians using firearms.

That compares with 9,484 criminal homicides involving firearms."

That puts into nice perspective the wildly exaggerated notion that by exercising their right to a weapon, "regular" people can defend themselves.   Assuming that each justifiable homicide resulted in saving a victim's life (and assuming we don't count the 204 homicidees, which I agree we shouldn't), the number of lives so saved is minuscule.     

Supreme Court Votes NRA

It was predictable.  It was predicted.  The Roberts court has struck down handgun restrictions that have been in place in Chicago for some years, using the completely insupportable argument that "bearing arms" is a fundamental right, and ignoring the context in which the framers asserted that right, to wit, the "well-regulated militia."  Note that this qualification of the right to bear arms was apparently so important to the framers that they stated it up front, even before specifying the "bearing arms" bit they were talking about.

Such blatant and purposeful disregard for the letter of the Constitution is to my mind, malfeasance by at least five justices of the supreme Court.  At the very least, as I said in February, it should dispel any claims that Roberts and his benchmen don't want to "make law," and just want to get back to the basic texts of the Constitution.  But then, we already knew that, didn't we?

Far From McChrystal Clear

"What to do about Gen. McChrystal" seems to be the question on everybody's lips today.  Should he be fired, or not?  Or something in between, like a public emasculation?  It's a tough call for Obama, one that really depends on what he decides is at stake here. 

First, I read the remarks McChrystal made in The Rolling Stone and was amazed that such a tempest could arise in the first place.  I see a military stereotype who may be effective in his calling; who reflects the biases the professional military often exhibits toward civilians, especially those who are their bosses; and, who possesses so little understanding of the civilian political world that he would make such statements knowing they'd become public.  But I did NOT see Douglas MacArthur, directly and publicly challenging the decisions of the country's civilian leaders.  The current general-in-the-spotlight may have doubts about policy, but he didn't express them in this interview.

So I'm not entirely persuaded by those like Jonathan Capehart, who says McChrystal must go; nor am I much swayed by Jackson Diehl, who argues he must stay because he's essential to the conduct of the war.  Neither is entirely true.  The general is replaceable without noticeable harm to the war in Afghanistan (Diehl exhibits his naivete in suggesting that war is "winnable" in the classic sense anyway); but his transgressions aren't the stuff of insubordination, either.

A President's response to this kind of situation will depend a lot on personality.  The irascible Harry Truman would probably already have canned him; Jimmy Carter might keep him on and hold a prayer session with him.  Obama is somewhere in between, but I think most observers would agree confrontation is not his style (if it were, he'd be a general).  Firing is unlikely, but a dressing-down, public or private, seems not only likely but essential .  Under these circumstances too, Obama will need to ride herd on "his" general a little more tightly.

Ultimately, McChrystal is in my view emblematic of what's wrong with today's military (or, if you will, what our civilian government decisions have turned it into).  In airing his petty insults publicly, McChrystal demonstrated that he doesn't really understand the relationship between our civilian and military leadership.  A general without that understanding could never have been promoted to McChrystal's level in the brown-boot army of WWII. Professionalism is to be admired, but it leads to isolation, self-cloning, and a skewed perception of the world.  Our best military heroes have always provided their best advice, but worked within the decisions made and parameters set by civilian authority.  

The fact is that McChrystal isn't necessarily entitled to the expression of any opinion about war strategy; his job is to execute it.  But the abolition of conscription, and the tendency of Presidents and Congress to turn to more and more to military men for their political opinions, has led us astray.  It's yet another situation we need to deal with, but we're unlikely to do so in the midst of an ongoing military engagement.  If Obama, the Constitutional lawyer, chooses to tackle it now, my "personality" argument may not win the day, for constitutionally, Obama could only make this point by firing Stanley McChrystal -- just because he can.

 

Banning The Burqa - Some Advice For Europe

In Europe* the headgear of Muslim women, especially those forms of it that obscure the face partly or entirely, is evoking a lot of negative public reaction from non-Muslims.  Several countries have banned, or are considering banning, the "burqa."  Belgium headed that direction last month; now France is considering a similar ukase. 

The problem with banning certain forms of dress, of course, is that if those forms are worn only by members of a certain religion, it can appear to be (in fact probably is) religious discrimination.  Muslims in Europe have noticed, and are complaining.  Commentators in the U.S. have noticed, and Michael Gerson, for one, has penned a useful review of the issues, concluding that the French ban is insupportable.

Here in the U.S., we don't seem to have this problem just yet.  So, perhaps it's time for a little more Lend-Lease -- advice instead of equipment? 

Europeans, just solve this the way we do things here in the U.S.:  Turn it over to free enterprise!  Since full-burqa'd Muslim ladies resemble nuns anyway, probably a good businessman could offer incentives to them to make a minor swap of beliefs and "get them to a nunnery," thus replenishing the dwindling numbers of nuns in Europe's cloisters.  Say what?  You find that unserious?  Irreverent?  You're right, that was just my little joke.  We don't want BP trying to keep the lid on women's facewear ... an explosion could result.

But here's a serious idea that really might work for beleaguered European governments:  You are free, democratic societies devoted to the expression of individual will.  Don't ban the burqa, don't challenge the chador, don't vituperate the veil.  No! 

Instead, pass a law declaring that all women will have a legally recognized right NOT to wear any religiously mandated headcovering, and that no woman's decision to abandon the veil may be interfered with in any way.  This leaves the decision to the woman herself and meets human rights criteria -- it's a positive right, not a ban.  Despite pressures from husbands and muftis, I believe it would not be long before at least some women - they'll need the courage of any pioneers of course -- would start deviating from the arbitrary dictates of others.  Their example would cause others to follow suit.  Some never would, of course, but over time it's likely more would exercise their right.  And from the kernel of emancipation from the veil could develop other forms of emancipation as well.

*  Footnote:  The issue is not limited to European pluralistic democracies, either.  It's been a hot-button topic in Turkey for many a year.  However, the solution proposed above is probably not practical for Turkey, a 99% Muslim country, even though many shades of religious orthodoxy, from the purely secular to the radically fundamental, do exist there.

How To Handle Pirates

I couldn't let Anne Applebaum's opinion piece from last week ("Somali Pirates' Clash with Russian Navy Reveals a Gap in the Rule of Law") without a comment.

Ms. A argues that leaving captured pirates to fend for themselves in a life raft on the high seas (as occurred recently in at least one case involving a Russian ship) is like making them "walk the plank," and that this is a serious breach of the rule of law.  

I'm all for the rule of law but it can't exist where there's no way to put it into practice.  In Somalia, there is no functioning legal or governmental structure, so chaos prevails.  The same is true on the high seas around the Horn of Africa.  Where there is no law, historically, people have organized their own, whether for pirates or for cattle rustling in the U.S. West. Haven't the captains of ships at sea always had far-reaching authority to enforce order and discipline, using whatever measures float their boats, including not making nice with pirates or mutineers?   For those who prefer more formality, ship captains can be provided a set of guidelines for holding a summary court.  So, walking the plank?  Sounds OK to me. 

Ms. Applebaum continues.  Describing the plight of a group of captured pirates who are now in the U.S. courts in the Norfolk area, she worries "how they can be guaranteed a jury of their peers, as required under American law?"  Well, I don't subscribe to the notion that imported criminals should have all the rights and legal guarantees enjoyed by citizens of this country; if they want that, they should get a green card before they go out a-pirating.  But if you think, as many do, that anybody who lands on our shores should be treated like a citizen, I think that's a good argument for not bringing them to our shores in the first place (a point with which Ms. Applebaum agrees, though for different reasons).  Which takes us back to "walking the plank," or its modern equivalent. 

Of course, the piracy problem won't be solved until governments that ply the waters of the area gin up a concerted military anti-piracy strategy.  Evidently, piracy has not yet reached the trigger level for that kind of action.   

Supreme High-Jinks

What's up with that zany, fun-loving gaggle of justices down at the supreme Court?  A couple of recent decisions got little attention as the news cycle focused on a handful of primary elections last week, but these headlines struck me as a curious and inconsistent pair:

Justices Restrict Life Terms for Youths  
Sexually Dangerous Inmates Can Be Kept In Prison Indefinitely

There's long been a dynamic in the legal system between the need to protect society as a whole and the desire to protect the rights of individuals.  The law as a system deals with entire classes of criminals, but underlying it, of course, is the consideration of individual criminal cases, in which the issue in sentencing often is whether someone who has committed a crime is beyond redemption, or whether the possibility of rehabilitation exists.  

Both the cases headlined above impinge on these gray areas, and the two decisions -- arrived at with essentially the same group of justices in the majority -- at first glance seem totally incompatible to me:  The first one leans toward individual rights and rehabilitation, while the latter favors protecting society and the belief that some offenders are incorrigible.

But the devil is in the details (and in the reporting of them).  Regarding youthful offenders, the court's decision to ban life terms without parole applies to all crimes except murder and, while it can be argued that some other crimes may be equally heinous (the example Justice Thomas offered, of rape/beating that leaves the victim for dead), the line the Court has drawn between murder and other crimes seems reasonable.  Obviously the Court thought that "youthful" offenders always merit a second chance and have a greater likelihood of reform or rehabilitation.  Given the right environment, they may be right, but prison rarely offers the "right environment."

As for 'sexually dangerous' adult criminals, the headline suggests the Court would allow such offenders to remain incarcerated indefinitely and without cause, beyond their sentences. The full story is more nuanced:  First, the Court is extending to federal penal authorities the same ability that states already have; and more important, it doesn't grant authority to arbitrarily hold criminals beyond their terms, it allows them to seek to have the individual committed (presumably to a psychiatric facility or to remain incarcerated with psychiatric treatment). 

I'm not entirely comfortable with either decision.  I don't believe "youths" should get a free pass for every offense.  There is such a thing as a "bad kid," though it isn't politically correct to hold that belief these days.  I agree that releasing a sexual offender back into society where he can do more harm is awful, but psychiatry is at best an inexact science, with a long history of locking up people who weren't really ill.   

I suspect the Justices aren't completely at ease with these decisions either, but the decisions reached may be the best we can hope for.

  

Oklahoma City Then and Now

This week marked the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, which can be "credited," if that's the right word, with truly imprinting the horror of terrorism on the American consciousness.  Nine-eleven, as we now call it, was worse, but Oklahoma City came first, and its effect was magnified because it occurred in the heartland, and maybe even because it wasn't the work of some foreign-born religious fanatic wearing a turban, but of a home-grown anti-government fanatic wearing a baseball cap.

Perhaps the event's domestic origins are the reason that it has become a touchstone and even, perversely, an occasion for celebration by groups of some political persuasions.  Former President Clinton's remarks about the dangers of incendiary language were an apt expression of concern about our current political edginess. 

Radio anger-peddler Limbaugh exaggerated his own importance by pretending to believe those remarks were aimed at him; he resorted to childish inanity (it was Clinton who was fomenting violence!).  He appeared reluctant to acknowledge that Timothy McVeigh, had he not been executed in 2001, would likely be a Limbaugh fan today (in fact Limbaugh's outraged response is understandable - he's been broadcasting nationally since 1988, so it's entirely possible that McVeigh was a listener before he decided to go bomb a building full of people.

McVeigh was in thrall to one of those wacko militia groups, and his bomb created a strong concern about the potential of those groups for violence.  In 1995, such groups were secretive, low-key paramilitary organizations playing their games in remote forests and plains.  One measure of the pernicious influence of talk radio and the willful fear-mongering of conservative politicians over the past decade and more is that many of the militia groups now seem emboldened to go public.  They (as well as more mainstream gun-rights organizations) were much in evidence in demonstrations this week around Washington DC which sought, apparently, in a climate in which the Supreme Court is busy ensuring that every American can carry a gun wherever he goes, to expand guntoting even more and to resist "government inferference." 

If they are ready to go public, they're obviously not afraid of retaliation or persecution, so the question arises:  what's all the shouting about?  Clearly, about something else - maybe shaping a political dialogue?  Maybe it's a good thing that they're out demonstrating rather than home cooking up plots, but some of these folks are the psychological heirs of McVeigh, and it only takes one or two.

Could Health Care Reform Be Reversed?

Republicans, their corporate sponsors, and the hive of thousands of angry bees that they've purposely stirred with a stick, have fanned out in fevered activity to stop or reverse health care reform.

The first effort, put in the hands of Sen. Mitch "Confused" McConnell and Sen. John "Man-tan" Boehner," was to destroy the new law with a batch of poison-pill amendments, but that fell predictably flat, since the Democrats still have a majority in the Senate.  A silly, foredoomed effort.

But there are many others:  There's the "Tea Party" gang, seeking to persuade politicians that they represent the majority view in the country, fighting a rear-guard action against changing times.  Tea-party-goers, beware, you'll be used and tossed aside, with nothing for your efforts except perhaps a good opportunity to vent for a while.  Look around the party... there's Sarah Palin, playing the Mad Hatter, but also wanting to transform herself into the Queen of Hearts, and then it'll be "off with your heads!"  She's mainly interested in manipulating you for her own benefit, as are the others who work so hard to goad you into political action.

Then there are the dozen or more (who's counting?) state attorneys-general challenging the legality/constitutionality of the "mandate" - the idea that everyone must either buy health insurance or pay a tax instead.  Particularly weird is the activity in my own state, Virginia, whose assembly has already passed a law making it illegal to require the purchase of insurance, and whose Attorney-General evidently hopes to make the case that state law prevails over federal.  (Leave it to those boys in Richmond, the former capital of the Confederate States of America -- they haven't got over the Civil War - er, the "War Between the States" yet. This question was decided in 1865 but they're still whistlin' Dixie).

I've argued before that the legal basis for that claim is nil, but there are those who suggest it may have some merit.  The Obama administration professes itself unconcerned by the constitutional challenge, but I think they have to be a little bit worried. 

It's not that there's merit in the argument, but that the Roberts Court has demonstrated a precocious tendency to reach out and yank in cases no one has asked it to take on, like a frog snapping up a fly.  Roberts may be thrilled at the chance to tackle this one, being presented to him on a silver platter, and his record to this point gives us a good clue as to how he might decide it.  The third leg of the anti-health care trio, the companies of the health care industry, are (for the most part)lobbying furiously against the changes.  Whether they manage to change any opinions in the Senate or House or not, or defeat some current members, they have a not-too-secret admirer in the Chief Justice.  I fear that legal arguments will play second chair.

So:  Can health care legislation be killed, or rendered ineffective, by its opponents?  I'd say it could be weakened, or that some of the opposition actions could deal a mild political setback to the Obama administration (which is really the purpose of the exercise anyway).  But I don't see it as having potential to destroy the core achievements of the new law. 

The tea party folks are likely to be disappointed.  Recently the Washington Post carried a human-interest profile of Randy Millam, an Iowan who opposes the changes and drove fifty miles to participate in a demonstration against it.  He was a sympathetic enough character, sincere in his beliefs and not going to extremes of violence.  "When will 'they' listen to us?" he lamented. He's made the natural supposition that if everybody he knows is against it, the whole world must be against it.  It does not seem to have occurred to him that, as polls have demonstrated frequently, a majority in fact does support most of these changes.  And 'they' are listening to that majority, as they should in a democracy.

The movement to declare the mandate unconstitutional may have a greater chance of success, but this wouldn't derail the reform as a whole.  The same result may be achieved in different ways.  In the meantime, while celebrating this "success," those who sparked it may want to reflect on the fact their actions will have made it harder to reduce the costs of health care (one of their supposed goals); will have denied the insurance companies (their allies) 30 million new customers they're eager to get their hands on; and will have restored those same companies' stranglehold over people's relationships with their physicians.  It's the law of unintended consequences.