Friday, December 3, 2010

Enemy of the State, Part II

Siege at the O.K. Corral

Now that we have weathered to Post Obama election cycle, the American electorate have spoken in a profound and unequivocal fashion: they disagree with Mr. Obama’s policies; including his administration’s opposition to and, his legal challenge of SB-1070. Punctuated by the election of Jan Brewer to a full term as Governor, the people of Arizona have also spoken.

News reports to the contrary notwithstanding, Arizona is well within its rights (as prescribed by the Constitution) to pursue enforcement where Federal Laws fall short. Governor Brewer’s summary of a Ninth Circuit Court Hearing on SB 1070 provides the relevant facts of Arizona’s argument. Arizona’s efforts are a last resort attempt to navigate the broken immigration enforcement system.

I find myself with a bit of a dilemma; I risk betraying my predecessors by announcing my unequivocal support for Arizona’s [new] immigration enforcement law. With that, I am compelled to state that I am a naturalized American citizen. I emigrated to the United States in the 1970s with my family in pursuit of a “better life.” When I took my oath of citizenship, I swore [on the Bible] to adopt America as my home and to “forsake all ties” to the land of my birth (somewhat like a vow of marriage). I further swore to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic”—that is, all laws not just the ones I like. Thus, I must obey the law which requires me to maintain a speed at 30 MPH when driving in a residential neighborhood with the same zeal with which I obey the law that restrains me from robbing my neighborhood bank because I am broke and hungry. The President is likewise obligated to “support and defend” the laws of the land. By agreeing to “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," Mr. Obama and the Justice Department are similarly compelled. It is; therefore, puzzling to see the zeal with which The Administration has attacked Arizona.

It would be hypocritical of me to deny my sensitivity to the plight of immigrants; however, it would be equally hypocritical of me to condone lawlessness by looking the other way while lawbreakers breach our borders with reckless abandon and contempt. These are “crimes against the people,” of which we are the people. Moreover, how can the American people (the We) justify the efforts and diligence of those individuals, the world over, who visit American embassies daily, in pursuit of a LEGAL pathway to American residency and citizenship? These individuals and families have chosen the legal route to American residency and should not be punished. Lawbreakers should be punished; not rewarded with the prize of their illegal pursuit. To be fair, Arizona is not the only breech point for illegal immigration, nor is Mexico the only country whose citizens seek to violate US Immigration laws. Those seeking to enter the United States do so for two basic reasons: to seek a safe harbor from political and ethnic violence, and pursuit of better economic conditions that are characteristic of the US.

Like many would-be immigrants, I too was captivated by the myth of American streets being paved with gold. In retrospect; however, the gold metaphor could be said to be true; instead of bits of precious metal, the true commodity is one of opportunity. Agreeably, the United States, like no other nation on earth offers endless opportunities for success in just about any endeavor to those with the vision, courage and fortitude to have a go at it. At the risk of over simplification, whether one pursues an education, commerce, invention or philanthropy, the only limitations are likely to be self-imposed. A short walk down any American street would validate this observation. Nowhere else on the planet do opportunities to improve one’s condition exist as they do here.

From its earliest days, America has served as a beacon to the world through its open and [somewhat] liberal immigration policy, yet reports of illegal immigration paints the opposite picture. Whether Irish, Italian, Eastern European, or in recent times, African and [Southern Hemisphere] Hispanic, recent migrants frequently encounter hostility from the largely immigrant populace.

A recent conversation with my brother, an attorney with a sizeable immigration practice, shed some light on this phenomenon. Historically, American immigration policy and laws have tightened against targeted ethnic groups as they sought entry into the US. For example, in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, Irish immigrants were met with twofold obstacles; hostile incumbents and equally hostile immigration laws. Similarly, once the Irish were adequately assimilated, they in-turn discriminated against the incoming wave of Italians. With discrimination came the inevitable legal obstacles that at a glance, reeked of anti-Italian sentiment. This phenomenon has repeated with incredible consistency over the ensuing years; and continues today with the current wave of immigrants, thus blurring the line between opposition to illegal immigration, and anti-immigrant sentiment.

As a diplomatic tool, immigration serves two essential functions; the first is economic and the second, humanitarian. When applied for the economic benefit of a nation (such as labor force expansion), both the recipient nation and the immigrant benefit from the resulting economic intercourse; however, when applied for humanitarian reasons, the immediate beneficiary is likely to be the immigrant.

I suspect, it is this latter application that engenders hostile emotions in incumbents. A closer look at the current immigration debate, especially as it pertains to Mexico, reveals coexisting humanitarian and economic triggers to the immigration wave. While Mexicans flee deteriorating economic conditions, and increasing drug violence, they make ideal targets for American anger, especially in communities hardest hit by the recent global economic downturn. Nowhere is the disruption caused by the economic slump starker than it is in Arizona. With state by state unemployment ranging from 4% to 12.9%, Arizona is near the top at 10% of its workforce unemployed. Furthermore, Mexican citizens who receive medical care in the United States, effectively shift the burden of health care cost from one failed Welfare State (Mexico), while threatening to create another (Arizona). A review of Arizona’s government support systems, revealed that utilization by Mexicans outstrip that of native Arizonians and non-Mexican immigrants in 8 of the 9 categories reviewed. Allowed to continue, the daily influx of illegal immigrants will, in short order, overburden the State of Arizona, while inflaming anti-Mexican sentiments. With this approach, everyone loses—the taxpayers, by having to shoulder the burden of inflated social programs (including law enforcement costs); and the illegal immigrants, by perpetually settling for substandard living conditions and recipients of the wrath of angry citizens.

A solution to the illegal immigration dilemma will come only after those responsible for devising one, take the time to understand, fully, the historical and behavioral nature of the debate. This is only achievable with a dispassionate approach to the situation. Unfortunately, if Washing’s emotional response to Arizona’s SB1070 is any indication of the intended approach, this debate will continue unabated into the foreseeable future.

Historically, there have been periods when the United States was compelled to relax its immigration policies in order to accommodate displaced and economically deprived peoples. We saw this during the industrial revolution, where in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, large numbers of Europeans, fleeing economic distress, migrated to the United States. As fate would have it, the United States was also in the throes of its own economic crisis. Then, as now, new immigrants received much of the blame for the state of the economy. Are we to, once again, head down the same road, that of knee-jerk tightening of immigration laws? Or are we better off seeking a solution that, once-and-for-all, puts the on-again, off-again debate to rest. Immigration has the potential to catapult a nation to social and economic heights never before imagined. Tragically, however, immigration does not always lead to redemption. Whether as a result of misapplication, or mismanagement, immigration can, equally, account for the destruction of a culture as it can for its advancement. By failing to equitably enforce existing immigration laws, the United States faces such a danger.

In the final analysis, consistent and equitable enforcement of existing immigration laws would go a long way to quashing the racial tensions that fester around this topic. In addition, a solidly bipartisan effort to derive a legislative solution is mandatory. To be effective, any solution must be made to remain intact with every coming wave of immigrants. The legacy of shifting policy to stem the current tide is wrongheaded and immoral. In the words of Glendoval J. Stephens, Esq., “we create illegal immigration by not allowing legal immigration.” This is tantamount to social cannibalism, and betrays the legacy of what makes America exceptional—its “melting pot” of diverse cultures operating as one harmonious body. Stephens further emphasized the need to include cultural education in primary and secondary schools. By learning what makes us different [culturally], we can better understand and accept what unites us socially.

GOD bless America.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Enemy of the State, Part I

Arizona’s New Shootout at the O.K. Corral

Rare is the occasion when an elected official appears willing to be tossed out of office because he or she has taken a position on a particular issue, that is unpopular or cuts against the mainstream political current. It is, therefore, rather refreshing to see Jan Brewer, Governor of the embattled State of Arizona put it all on the line for the lawfully passed Immigration Bill SB-1070, which calls for cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws. Brewer, and a majority of the State Legislature, has committed to doing the will of the people of Arizona: “to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.”
If the resulting furor over this act is any indication of the price these individuals would pay at the ballot box, upcoming elections in Arizona could set the stage for national debate on this issue.
I am reminded of the words of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who, in Federalist # 52 stated as follows: [elected office is open to all citizens] “whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.” They further called for frequent election of fresh representatives who are expected to “have a common interest with the people” whom they represent. Most would agree that Hamilton, Madison and their contemporaries never intended for elected representatives [at any level] to aspire to life-tenure in office. The Arizona contingent appears to have taken this message to heart.
Spurred on by the Federal Government’s refusal to enforce existing immigration law, the Arizona Legislature exercised, what could be deemed a last resort option: passage of laws to compensate for shortfalls in Federal enforcement, at the potential loss of their jobs.
While enforcement of immigration laws fall under Federal jurisdiction, Arizona was compelled to take appropriate action in the face of growing violence and an ever growing drain on its law enforcement and other resources.
Whether you agree or disagree with Arizona’s decision to pass SB-1070, one thing is indisputable: the immigration debate is far from over. In fact, immigration issues are certain to play a major role in upcoming midterm elections as well as the 2012 presidential election. The president’s decision to pursue legal action against Arizona sets the stage for a constitutional battle over states’ rights. Furthermore, the Administration’s actions have unleashed the hounds of racial tension, the likes of which we have never seen before.
In previous articles I have commented on the intensification of racial tensions since Mr. Obama’s election. Mr. Obama’s public denouncement of the new law, and his subsequent comments and actions served only to embolden agitators who would like nothing more than to stir-up racial conflict. Contrary to the pronouncements of its opponents, SB-1070 is not an anti-immigration law, nor is it an anti Mexican law; in fact, this law would pave the way for improved legal immigration from Mexico. This country is built on immigrant culture, albeit, legal immigration. End part 1

Monday, August 2, 2010

High Crimes on the High Seas Part III

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
In the past one hundred years, the Middle East has seen its fair share of meddling from Europe, the Americas, Asia and Russia (and the former Soviet Union). It would be hypocritical of me to deny America’s primary interest in the region -crude oil- has not led to some past misdeeds. While I speak only to America’s reliance on crude, I would speculate that any nation’s interest in the Middle East over the past one hundred years was predicated primarily on oil. A consequence of this multi-lateral international meddling is the ever-present need to prevent any one nation from becoming too powerful, thereby threatening regional stability and the flow of oil to the world’s consumers. A consequential outcome is a dearth of local leadership; the very thing the region needs in order to assure long-term stability.
The following list of once dominant nations in the region have seen their fortunes (monetary and political) ebb through the years; and with them all chances for regional leadership:
  • Egypt—waning significance since the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1979. The Muslim Brotherhood (a precursor to Al-Qaeda), believed to be responsible for Sadat’s assassination, continues to exert its influence by quashing any attempts at moderation;
  • Saudi Arabia—no real interest in leadership; quite comfortable with living on its oil-wealth;
  • Syria—viewed as corrupted by Iranian meddling and instigation;
  • Lebanon—ruled by Hezbollah, a puppet Terrorist State whose strings lay in the hands of the Mullahs in Iran;
  • Jordan—content to stay out of the fray. Jordan has since reconciled to having Israel as a neighbor;
  • Iran—in spite of the hostage crisis, which ended as Ronald Reagan took office, Iran continues to squander its chances for leadership significance.
Iran has so infuriated the international community that it has lost any credibility it might have had in the region. The Iranians are even at odds with the Saudis; more than 100 Iranian newspapers have been banned in Saudi Arabia. None of the nations listed here possesses the capability or the credibility to effectively fulfill the role of leader of the Middle East. Unmistakably, unless a strong Middle East leader emerges, the Israeli/Palestinian question is not likely to be resolved in the foreseeable future.
Curiously absent from this list is Turkey, which by all appearances has the potential for providing some stability within the [Muslim] Middle East. The central flaw with this wish is Turkey’s desire to join the European Union (EU). Having abandoned its Middle East roots, Turkey has sought a European identity—a pursuit that has occupied most of Turkey’s recent history (since its founding in 1923; following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire). In the interim, Turkey has seen its chances for EU membership diminish. It could be argued that Turkey is more than ten years away from meeting the basic qualifications for EU membership.
This explains why Turkey has seized upon the opportunity to supplant itself into to picture by flagrantly sponsoring and flagging a ship to sail on a military blockade. Moreover, since the conclusion of World War I, Turkey has sought a European identity. Having abandoned its Middle Eastern heritage in favor of courting the Europeans, Turkey appears to be losing hope of ever joining the EU. Furthermore, Turkey would be required to conform to many rigorous standards [such as human rights requirements and women’s’ rights, to name a few] in order to qualify for EU membership. Needless to say, irrespective of European attitudes towards Turkey, the Turks are a long way from being ready to comply with EU membership requirements. Turkey’s quest for legitimacy has led it back to the Middle East, where it hopes to emerge as the de facto leader.
If Turkey’s initial strategy is any indication of how it plans on establishing its dominance (by going after Israel), the world community could be in for far graver events in the Middle East in years to come. U.S. Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, has voiced his concerns over Turkey’s growing influence in the Middle East, and in the Balkans. Gates has also expressed grave concern over Turkey’s relationship with Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan vis-à-vis its willingness to become embroiled in local politics.
Turkey’s play for Middle East leadership has a two-pronged strategy: first, normalizing relations with its neighbors (including Armenia—home to the oldest existing Christian community); and second, mounting a credible anti-Israel effort. The anti-Israel tactic is essential if Turkey is to have any credibility with its proposed Middle East constituents. Robert Gates is right on target by monitoring Turkey’s relationship with its neighbors; however, its attitude towards Israel poses far graver consequences. Worst still, should Turkey succeed in normalizing relations with Armenia, this would give the appearance that the Muslims and the Christians have joined forces against the Jews; a prospect I do not relish.
My singular hope here is that Mr. Obama puts aside any personal/ideological differences he might have with Israel and demonstrate his willingness to defend our most loyal and stalwart ally in the region. Anything less would betray the efforts of his predecessors to cultivate a loyal ally and lay the groundwork for any future chances for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Furthermore, an abandonment of Israel would backfire on the United States by putting our other allies on notice that we cannot be trusted to be there in times of need.
These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Published December 23, 1776, these words from Thomas Paine [an immigrant at the time] sum up the moral and strategic necessity to stand with our ally, Israel. We cannot afford the shroud of personal ideological fragments to cause us to squander what hundreds of thousands of men and women have fought and died for—FREEDOM—whether ours or Israel’s.
Contact your elected representatives and tell them that you expect the United States to stand with Israel, and any of our allies or you will not stand with them on Election Day.