The decision of the Justice Department to challenge Arizona's new Immigration Law was widely expected. As a problem solver, I'm unhappy with both sides of the debate.
I've made it fairly clear that I believe that the Arizona Immigration Law is unconstitutional. I also think that the state is essentially subsidizing federal immigration costs, which makes for bad public policy.
On the other hand, I think the Obama Administration seems to be using disingenuous arguments against the immigration law (e.g., assertions of racial profiling without existing objective evidence of any such pattern of behavior) and has been doing a poor job enforcing immigration law and reacting to issues like escalating violence near the southern US border. With some Arizona counties having to use local enforcement having to chase multiple incursions daily across the border, clearly border protection policies, including manpower staffing, aren't sufficient. The Obama Administration has not completed border fencing activities, has reduced the number of detention centers, tolerates or even encourages sanctuary cities, has done nothing to establish a legal temporary worker program for unskilled Latino labor, has tolerated the Mexican government's attempts to supply illegal visitors with tips and suggestions to work around US border policy, has not enforced, with appropriate criminal sanctions, employee eligibility restrictions with those employers whom refuse to comply with instant verification or authorized biometric methods, and suggests that staffing the border at an appropriate level is a zero-sum game at the expense of terrorism enforcement, instead of identifying and requesting the necessary funding from Congress. The latter point is just predictable bureaucratic rationalization for the Obama Administration to cherry-pick just what immigration laws they will enforce.
What I would have preferred to see Arizona do is focus on a few key points:
First, focus on law enforcement; if crime is rising, deal directly with crime. Costs associated with enforcement of crimes attributed to unauthorized visitors (including state and local policy activity) should be billed in full to the federal government. If the federal government has mounting bills from Arizona, perhaps they will have an incentive to bring these costs under control.
Second, deny state funding to any municipality area with policies aiding and abetting unauthorized state visitors (i.e., unauthorized US visitors).
Third, demand greater cost transparency from hospitals and other organizations receiving state funds, including any subsidized products and services for unauthorized visitors. The federal government or country of origin should be charged for any relevant subsidies.
Fourth, focus on and document federal processing of unauthorized visitors. Require officers to validate identification of criminal suspects. The federal government must black-box the methods under which unauthorized visitors are detained; the only relevant issue is whether visitors, in fact, are authorized. Any detention costs are charged to the federal government.
Finally, demand tougher specific federal policies, including, but not restricted to, mandatory imprisonment of recidivist unauthorized visitor activity, and higher priority and R&D and operational funding for use of sensor and satellite technology, physiological deterrents (e.g., animals, noise, chemical, barbed or electrified fencing), layered barriers, state-of-the-art tunnel detection technology and the effective disabling of tunnel reuse.
Update: TSA Reverses "Controversial Opinion" Internet Censorship Policy
In yesterday's post, I noted that the Obama Administration might be filtering out conservative websites or blogs (e.g., Drudge) based on a "controversial opinions". [It might be one thing to filter out political content on a consistent basis based on the same independence criteria that motivate restrictions on federal employees from participation in partisan politics. But the term "controversial" can be subjective in nature] The filter in question has been dropped. So the one or 2 TSA employees who might one day find themselves on my blog by accident, relax... not a problem. However, in the interests of full disclosure, you are hereby warned that in addition to reading my dissertation, journal articles or book chapters, reading this blog may result in severe drowsiness and ensuing prolonged naps: snoring on the job may be overheard and result in disciplinary action.
Political Cartoon
Lisa Benson notes that Obama's ill-considered industrial policy, including a tax subsidy-intensive green jobs agenda, is an indulgence we cannot afford. There are some basic principles at work; for example, carbon-based energy demand and cost generally decline in tough times (e.g., fewer production lines, shifts, lower commute and discretionary driving costs, etc.) This undercuts the key breakeven points for alternative energy. What Obama needs to do to address 9.5% unemployment--mostly an artifact because discouraged job-seekers are not factored in these statistics--is a broad-based, not a pick-winners-and-losers policy. Knee-jerk decisions by Obama, e.g., to suspend drilling of 500 feet or more depth in the Gulf, despite the fact that the BP spill occurred at 10 times that depth, not taking into account the risks with the actions itself of shutting down operations, or the economic impact of businesses and workers whom are fully complying with existing permits, demonstrate a fundamental misconception of business economics.
Quote of the Day
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Albert Einstein
Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1987
Chris DeBurgh, "Lady in Red"
Suzanne Vega, "Luka" never abuse a child, a gift from God...
Linda Ronstadt & James Ingram, "Somewhere Out There"
Bruce Hornsby and the Range, "The Way It Is"
Billy Vera, "At This Moment"
