I spoke with a friend of mine, Rhamey, about the recent events in Egypt, what lead up them, and what we can expect for the immediate future. The entire converstion is short, less than 20 minutes. Tell me what you think, and if you’d like to see (or rather, “hear”) more of projects like this in the future.
Israel had no choice over Gaza flotilla
Reports have surfaced claiming that an activist tore a soldier’s machine gun from his grasp and used it to shoot him with: what might have seemed a far-fetched story spun to improve the IDF’s standing over the attack is given far more credence when considered in the context of quite how savagely numerous activists greeted the arrival of the troops on to the ship. Those on board the ship had ample opportunity to defuse the situation in the days and hours leading up to the commandos’ arrival: instead, they decided that violence was the best way to play their hand, and given their intransigence, there was only ever going to be one outcome.
On Illegal Immigration (a response to the critics)
I promised some friends some more extensive comments regarding immigration and Arizona’s new law some time ago. While thinking about what I wanted to say, it occurred to me that the best approach would be to break up my comments into two parts. In this first part I address three general criticisms about Arizona’s new law. Later, I’ll write up what I consider the argument for stronger immigration laws (rather than just rebuttals against criticism).
Objection One: This law opens the door for (more) discrimination against hispanics. Arizona SB1070 permits and encourages discrimination based on skin color because while it does not explicitly state “Mexicans and other Hispanics” in the law, common sense dictates that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants in the American southwest are of Hispanic decent. By extension, just as police will now be patrolling the streets looking for brown skinned people to harass, so will every day people begin to look at Hispanics and make assumptions that they are illegal immigrants. Hispanics will not be required to demonstrate their citizenship more frequently and to a greater degree than White Americans. Even when we carry the necessary documents, Hispanics will be treated with doubt and suspicion as to the authenticity of said documents.
Objection Two: The law creates two classes of citizens. A natural outcome of the first objection is that two classes of citizens, ‘separate and unequal’ will result. One who are allowed to travel freely without documentation and another who will be required to carry their papers with them at all times. We have created yet another Orwellian big government that incrementally encroaches on our liberty. As similar laws spread from state-to-state with the potential to become law everywhere else in the country Hispanics and other brown skinned minorities will be treated as second class citizens everywhere. It shall become the new status quo.
Objection Three: We need these immigrants to do the work that Americans will not do. From hotel janitorial services, to lawn work, to agriculture, Hispanics from Latin America have for a generation incrementally increased their visibility in a variety of service sectors and have proven themselves more than apt and willing to endure hardships in order to survive and make it in America.
These main objections rest on a flaw that runs through them all. It is founded on an emotive response based on a presupposition that (all) police are racists and that (all) law as regards immigration is inherently unjust. The claims made by such critics are not-rational insofar as they are not founded on any hard empirical evidence. Let’s consider the rebuttals in order, beginning with the claim with that law promotes discrimination and racial profiling writ large.
In no way are civil rights truncated, restrained, curtailed, or encroached upon. The Arizona law merely brings a state law into compliance with a federal law that has been on the books since the 1940s. Now I suppose one could claim that the original federal law is racist and unjust, but doing so would require a suspension of reasonableness. What do I mean? Simply put, requiring legal residents to carry their immigration cards is no greater a burden than it is for citizens to carry their regular ID with them. Most states require a legal citizen to carry their driver’s license with them whenever they operate a motor vehicle (usually with vehicle registration and proof of insurance). Banks require ID to withdraw money from one’s own bank account, and I cannot write a check, or use my debit card for purchases larger than $20 without being asked for identification. Are these laws oppressive regulation that places an undue burden on me, qua citizen? No, it doesn’t. Nor then is a state law requiring legal aliens to carry their federally required documents on them a discriminatory move.
I anticipate the obvious rebuttal that there are times when we simply forget our ID, or they might be lost or stolen and we have to make due for a while until we get a replacement. What we have here is a hypothetical ‘worst case scenario’ in which we might believe a natural born citizen might have his wallet stolen, then be legally stopped for some reason, interrogated and when unable to produce genuine documents, he is deported to a land not his own. Before someone attempts this line of argument, I must state that is laughable. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely, no. What’s more, any police who legally interact with a citizen who lacks clear ID must go through a procedure to verify a person’s immigration status: fingerprints, DNA, SSN, and the like work hand-in-hand to achieve high levels of accuracy in verifying immigration status. The government does not, and will not, play fast and loose with verification because to do so would risk a class action lawsuit of unrivaled proportions. To say nothing of the civil unrest that would ensue from deportation en masse of American citizens. Could a citizen be detained for hours on end until his or her status is proven in the hypothetical? Possibly. But the uncharted waters of the new state law make it impossible for both supports and critics of SB1070 to claim absolutely what might, or will happen. We simply have no empirical evidence to say. Still, I’ll venture a guess by stating such incidents will be rare if not, non-existent.
The criticisms against Arizona SB1070 presume, broadly, that most, if not all cops are inherently racist. They further presume that our institutions themselves are structurally racist by creating a built in bias against minorities, especially the underprivileged. Yet there is no hard evidence to suggest this. It is easy to locate local and national news organizations reporting anecdotal cases of discrimination, but unique cases give us nothing sufficient to infer about broader trends. Every major public policy firm that I researched has no data indicating a broad systemic structure of racism and racial profiling by law enforcement.
By no means do I claim that racial profiling does not occur, nor that racist cops do not exists. Any social structure comprised of people will have members that are not suited for their profession but who have managed to get by undetected or unpunished. This fact then implies that there are some teachers who are not qualified, some doctors who commit intentional malpractice, and lawyers who take advantage of their clients, and so on. Isolated examples, however, are neither necessary nor sufficient to prove the emotive claim that all police are racists. It simply is not so. Generations of expanding civil rights legislation at the states and federal level have given us a multitude of overlapping and mutual reinforcing laws that limit what law enforcement officers can do, while also outlining the procedures and consequences for abuse of power. One cannot claim that this law will encourage racial profiling without first claiming that the entire Civil Rights movement from MLK to the present failed miserably, and they honestly believe there is not a single good police officer anywhere in the entire state of Arizona.
This to me seems the weakest of claims, that such immigration laws creates two classes of citizens. Such reasoning only holds if we assume several things: First, that all non-Hispanic Americans are racists toward Hispanics and would gladly discriminate against them except that there are laws against doing so. Two, that the overwhelming number of Hispanic citizens would do nothing to prevent such discrimination. Three, that the only driving force behind such laws is a general fear of Hispanics. None of those assumptions are true.
The American melting pot and salad bowl analogies point a plain fact that is often overlooked when talking about immigration: that there are immigrants from nearly every nation on earth. Our ethnic communities are infinite and vary across the land with various degrees of diversity depending on where one finds himself. Sure, the variation of diversity in say, Georgia, will be less than in California; and more diversity will be found in Los Angeles than in rural Kern County. But such a claim misses the point I am trying to make. Diversity exists in every state and every region. There are obvious differences about the concentration of immigrants in each state and regional area, but there are few mono-ethnic communities. What is more, those few that do exists in region to region do not dictate the general theme in American life. They are the exceptions and not the rule.
Hispanics are everywhere. In the military, medical community, teaching, business, and yes, even in Arizona’s law enforcement agencies. It is ridiculous to think that Hispanic police will discriminate against Hispanics citizens or that they will tolerate any such treatment by non-Hispanic police officers. Nor should we expect American Hispanics to sit quietly in the legal, medical, teaching, and business communities thus allowing all Hispanics to be treated as second class. It simply isn’t going to happen. What is more, it stands to reason that there are non-Hispanics (White, Black, Asian, Middle Eastern, etc.) who also will not treat Hispanics in such a way, nor will they allow such behavior by others. The American ethos of equality and liberty is deeply engrained in all of us. We each have a strong sense of fair play and giving to each what is their due. Law by itself will not change this attitude.
Strict immigration law is, despite what critics claim, not driven by fear. Fear has nothing whatsoever to do with Arizona SB1070. What it does have to do with is the rule of law, the sense of fair play I just mentioned, and maintaining order where lawlessness and disorder seem prevalent. On this point I do not want to say too much just yet as I intend to write later about why immigration control is necessary, and just for all.
Finally, let’s consider the claim that illegal immigrants do the jobs Americans will not. This is true, but only so far. There is a missing clause to the claim. Mexicans and other illegals do jobs, for wages below the legal minimum requirements and in conditions that are nothing short of indentured servitude, that American citizens will not subject themselves to, nor could Americans legally work in such conditions and for such wages. Illegal immigrants have no legal protections because they are not citizens. We must understand that there is a difference between the basic legal protections guaranteed to all, and the rights that are reserved exclusively for citizens. Yet in either case, because illegal immigrants are, by definition, in the United States illegally, they have little to no recourse for legal protections. They can be fired at will are given little or no break for lunch or sick leave and their very status makes policing their plight impossible. Imagine just one illegal immigrant seeking out the legal community for help. An employer can simply fire everyone, claim that he doesn’t hire illegals, and when he has won his case, resume his normal practice. There are huge incentives (mainly the amount of savings in production) for hiring illegals for jobs. And the legal system cannot address the business regime while the labor market is being flooded by even more illegal immigrants each week. Only when America an curb the influx of illegal immigration can the Federal and State governments begin to crack down on the practice of hiring illegal immigrants and slave labor.
I don’t want to dig too deeply into this last point. I hope to write about later this week. Let me conclude by making a general observation. The dividing line in how immigration is perceived in America does not cut across the usual left/right distinction (though there is some overlap). One group of Americans sees all immigration as the same and labels it good. Those on the left see future demographic of labor union members and Democratic voters; those on the right have a wink/nod arrangement with business because they see a labor supply not constrained by minimum wage laws. But there is another group of Americans that sees two kinds of immigration. There is a legal, and hence, good kind. And there is an illegal, and hence, bad, kind. This group is loosely composed of those on the right, but includes many hispanics and other minority immigrant groups that understand all too well that illegal immigration is unhealthy for all: American’s, the Immigrants, and home country from which these immigrants come from. A more controlled, ordered system of immigration by contrast is a positive good for all. But more on that later.
Reading List for 16 May 2010
With all this “unplanned time away from work”, so to speak, I decided to get back to a few books that I had left on the one day pile. It’s a good feeling to get a couple more books off that pile. At times it’s as if the pile grows without my knowledge or consent. Making what little progress I can is good for the sanity.
- A Natural History of Latin, by Tore Janson. Think of it as a history survey of Western Civilization as seen through the language that was the most influential. I started it some time ago and am only now picking up where I left off to finish.
- The Father of Us All: War and History – Ancient and Modern, by Victor Davis Hanson. I started reading Hanson’s commentaries during the build up to the Iraq war while I was in Australia. As uncomfortable as it makes us to think about, the study of war is necessary and vital to civilization. This work is his reflection on the topic as a whole.
- Augustine and Politics, edited by Jack Doody, Kevin L. Hughes, Kim Paffenroth. A collection of essay that treat Augustine’s thought and political theory. Anyone interested in contemporary Augustinian scholarship should begin with this volume.
Tigers, Journalists, and Senatorial transgressions
… or “Tolerance for me, but not for you.”
I missed a lot of political news this week and last as I feebly attempted to catch up on emails, and other projects after a longer than planned new year’s break. But two stories jump out at me that seem somewhat related if only tangentially. Brit Hume, a semi-retired journalist from the Foxnews channel made a public appeal to Tiger Woods to accept Christianity’s forgiveness through Christ. One week later we hear reports that during the campaign Senator Harry Reid said privately to a pair of journalists that Barrack Obama would do well because he is “light-skinned” and lacked a “Negro dialect.”
Re: On religion and politics, by Grant Marlier
In writing about two articles in this week’s Economist a friend of mine closes with this thought about the role of religion in political affairs in Britain.
Here, the fight should not be fought by technocracy but, instead, a real heavyweight which is the western thought developed over so many centuries and so many great minds, i.e, the western philosophy. British politicians would make a serious mistake if they are driven by social and economic problems to look for more religion instead of looking for a really rational thought and a serious understanding about the real problems of their society. Moreover, it can set a very bad precedent for less-developed societies that tend to rush to copy what is done in the more developed ones
I’d like to address two points here. First, the Western Philosophy is not, nor has it ever really been entirely divorced from religion in general and Christianity in particular. The overlap and intertwining of these two themes, faith and reason, give the West its vitality. Indeed, an argument can be made that it was secular rational project that brought forth so much misery during the last century. (Let’s be honest, Hitler, Stalin, Mao were no advocates of an religion.) To paraphrase Maritain, pure reason has proven itself even less capable to building a genuine community devoid of social problems and uniting mankind under the banner of peace. Real tyranny and oppression arise out fervently democratic polities. This is a lesson that goes back at least as far as Thucydides.
Second, Christianity has a unique status in explicitly stating that the secular has its own justification. We are right to grant Caesar what is his (Mt 22:22), and St. Paul stresses that we are not to resist government authority (Rom 13). The strength of religion, genuine religion is its ability to withstand the post-humanist world and order of things that pure rationality seeks to bring out. Revelation speaks what is, and aids in the moral development of mankind. But don’t misread me, I do not advocate for the church to subsume politics. I simply assert that there is a place for religion in the public sphere and we would be wise not to think otherwise.
