The Arizona Immigration Debate: Political Domination is Now the Ends not the Means

I was in CT this weekend and got into a brief conversation with a good friend and president of my synagogue. He was asking why there was no well balanced and informative article dealing with the immigration debate.

Sherrif Joe Arpaio the quintessential Western lawman and leading advocate of Arizona's bill to suppress illegal immigration (II), like many honest hardworking and not racist citizens argue that illegal immigration is overtaxing our states resources. Healthcare, which II’s get free when they show up in emergency rooms. Education costs for II children, law enforcement and incarceration costs, as 17% of II’s are second time offenders (all II have already broken the law, when they entered illegally), and the fact that we don’t know who is coming into the country, terrorists etc. Let us not forget the most questionable refrain made famous by South Park “they took are jooobs”.

The bill is opposed by a coalition of organizations and people. Businessman like Bloomberg argue that we need these immigrants to do the work Americans wont, i.e. American companies need a source of cheap un-union labor, as evident by the increasing outsourcing of jobs that keep some companies internationally competitive. The ACLU, which opposes the bill because they claim it leads to racial profiling. The Justice Department, under Eric Holder, because its good politics. The Hispanic community is the biggest minority population in the states, and is a major supporter of the Democratic party, specifically because of the party policies like this one.

Everyone agrees that the ideal immigrant is one that gains citizenship, like my great-grandfathers father did, legally. Furthermore most agree that this country thrives on absorbing the full spectrum of humanity, and we benefit from providing the opportunity for every community to elevate and contribute their unique talents. The obvious solution then, and the one most agree with is comprehensive immigration reform.

Unfortunately they don’t agree about how to deal with the 20 million II’s that are already here. That is the crux of the debate. Arizona has responded with their own measures, deport them like FDR did after WWII to provide returning soldiers with jobs. The pro-illegal immigration community offers different reasons why the illegal’s shouldn’t be deported. We need them, it would require racial profiling, they equal votes for a beleaguered Democratic party. So what the pro-illegal immigrants propose is amnesty with a fine. The anti-illegal immigrants respond that amnesty, like the immigration reform and control act of 1986, will result in further incentive for border infiltration and ultimately the same problem we are dealing with now, a massive undocumented population being accused of causing too many problems.

Frankly I believe that the issue revolves around one legitimate superficial issue, and another more insidious illegitimate issue.

The superficial legitimate issue is that many businesses (especially agriculture) require cheap labor to survive/remain profitable in lieu of closing or moving their business overseas. At the same time the 1986 immigration law also referenced this legitimate need, thus seasonal workers who had worked for a number of seasons were given a path to citizenship and the bill also allowed subcontracting which basically allowed employers to hire illegal’s without responsibility for their illegal status. Either way these loopholes did not achieve its intent of a narrow exception, rather it contributed to the overall disregard of immigration reform and ultimately contributed to the situation we are in now.

From this perspective it makes sense that states should do what they can until the federal government gets its act together. Especially states like Arizona ,which is absorbing more than its share of illegal immigration. We live in a Democracy and state governments have an obligation to achieve optimal results for their residents. Arizona’s electorate voted for their bill, it is legal. AG Holder and the ACLU, opposed the bill referencing the 14th amendment which imposes the bill of rights of states (Dual Process clause), and the Equal Protection Clause which requires states to offer equal protection to all people in their jurisdiction. They claim that Arizona, by virtue of the requirement for everyone to carry documents and for officers of the law to ask for them, will violate the equal protection clause because they will racially profile i.e. not all people will be treated equally.

Yet the 14th amendment, as stated in the Citizenship Clause, expressly states that only citizens are protected under the 14th amendment.
It would seem then that Arizona is acting legally and justifiably. So why the tremendous opposition?

This leads us to the insidious illegitimate issue, votes. Yes votes!

The pro-illegal immigrant coalition is basically the Democratic party. They do not really care about whether illegal’s are deported from as Arizona on the contrary, this country will be better off if we have strong borders, and suppressed illegal immigration. Yet this is an opportunity for the Democrats to firmly establish themselves as the party of the Hispanics. Just as they effectively gained and solidified the black vote by being the party of the new deal and JFK’s civil rights bill. By coming down hard on those “racist white Republican Arizona folk” the Democrats, led by Obama and AG Holder can affirm and galvanize the Hispanic vote for the upcoming election and add to the Democratic coalition of next half century. The Republican establishment is aware of the political game and sees this as an opportunity to harness their constituency for the upcoming election, by opposing illegal immigration and supporting Arizona’s efforts.

Meanwhile Arizona, California, and many other states are drowning in a sea of illegal immigrants and the unique financial/social burden that they represent. Then again political domination of America has for some times become more an ends then a means.

Raphael I hope this adds some perspective.

Why I Support Legalizing Marijuana

Who knows why now there are well funded attempts at making marijuana legal. Perhaps it is due to the sinking economy and the search for new revenue streams. Or the maturing of an open minded generation x that, unlike their parents, do not conflate hard-drugs with pot. Perhaps it is another manifestation of the information age; Scientific studies which debunk many of the myths surrounding marijuana use are now readily available. Who knows? The bottom line is that our country is moving towards legalization. California’s proposition 19, on the November ballot, seeks to control and tax it. It is legal to grow and possess marijuana in Alaska (state supreme court 1975). 14 states have legalized medicinal marijuana, and others like New Jersey are pushing ahead with an attempt to control and tax marijuana. Also let us not forget that Marijuana is the biggest cash crop in America.

That said, many are opposed to marijuana legalization for the following reasons. It is a moral vice. It causes a drop in productivity and motivation, which could reduce national productivity. It is a gateway drug. Finally, legalizing marijuana is a slippery slope, what’s next... These arguments are ubiquitous, but are they valid?

Well I agree if x is abused then x becomes a vice, but any x (substance) that is abused is a vice. Yes I have SEEN people become less productive and motivated when abusing marijuana. At the same time alcohol, cigarettes, and obesity can and do, negatively affect individual and national productivity… Study after study have debunked the myth that marijuana is a gateway drug. In most cases a person who abuses marijuana and then other drugs, is doing so for personal reasons that precede marijuana use. As far as the slippery slope argument: I completely agree. America is a society that changes incrementally. In other words, civil rights were the long term consequence of the Civil war. Gay civil marriage is the precursor to full marriage, just as legalizing sodomy was a precursor to gay civil marriage. So one could argue that in 50 years from now we will attempt to legalize cocaine. Then again illegal drugs are already there for the taking. It’s just that they are more expensive. I.e. the slippery slope analogy only has legal implications, in reality the slipping on the slope of drugs is already here.

On the other hand here are 4 reasons why I support full legalization of marijuana.

1. We need the tax revenue. True, if we legalize marijuana use prices will drop and so will tax revenue, but it will still create a significant amount of revenue. It would also create jobs, in agriculture, distribution, and even manufacturing (marijuana paraphernalia, hemp exports etc).
2. We would eliminate a major stream of revenue for drug dealers and the violence that comes along with it. This would also reduce incarceration rates and the hefty chunk of tax dollars that go to incarcerate marijuana related criminals.
3. It would desensitize much of the illicit activity on the Mexican-American border and it would reduce drug related crime in Mexico which exports marijuana here.
4. Liberals support it because they love it and small government-conservatives support legalization because it shrinks government. It is a unifying factor.

The Current Economic Downturn: Crises or Opportunity?

As an ambitious student with a very high GPA, one of the most difficult experiences I have faced was revaluating my commitment to a Law Degree. One symptom of the same malady that was bothering me was evident at Brooklyn College. Here I pursued my undergrad degree in psychology and political science. Through out that time I noticed a direct and positive correlation between the wait time for a computer and a weakening economy. This comes as no surprise; a higher education is a patently positive way to spend your unemployed time.

Yet this influx of students was a symtpom of a shrinking job market that has affected every industry and vocation. The blogosphere and conventional media is alight with reports of a ever weaker job market-healthcare aside. Law, a highly competitive and lucrative career has also been affected; even a degree from Harvard does not ensure a “good” position.

So here I was a student with a plethora of prestigious internships under my belt, a Rabbinical degree, and a transcript replete with honors designations, yet I was truly daunted by the prospect of graduating from a top-14 law school with 150,000 in debt and a public sector job.

So began a period of indecision, self doubt, fear of failure, and a glut of other phobias. Was I what I thought I was? Could I really compete with those Ivy League 5th avenue residents? Was I destined to be a nobody-PHD withering away in a dusty library turning my nose down at all those active people making a real difference? These negative thoughts consumed me.

Out of desperation I reached out to my professors, my mentors, my family, and ultimately myself.

Then I heard a whisper. The whisper, like nature, was dictating not what I can do but what I should do. At first I thought I was crazy, after all I never heard this whisper before. But it occured to me that until now the whisper was drowned out by the shouts of monetary successes of my neighbors, my friends, even my family. The shouts proclaimed “look at what they have, look at what they have achieved, and look how happy they seem”! The shout was asserting that, if I wanted to be somebody, I neede to succeed in what everybody was pursuing. In our capitalist society that means one thing, MONEY.

Don’t get me wrong I know the role money plays in our lives, as I have very little of it. Yet the shouting was affecting how I thought of myself, it drowned the whisper of truth that I only recently was able to hear. The whisper offered a rational evaluation of what I am, and how what I am dictates what I will be successful at. A success that will result in a decent income but that will not be dictated by income. A success that will be achieved because it is my purpose to achieve; the whisper asserts that it is natural for me to be successful at what I am intended to do.

I am neither advocating complete submission to fate, nor total rejection of existentialism (in short, that we are in total control of who we are), rather the realization that just as athletes are athletic, and that writers can write, I too must look for what I have a natural affinity for. Thus an athlete can go professional or become a banker, or a writer can write books or they can jump at an opportunity to make money in mortgages. Yes I can listen to the irrational shouts of society or I can discern the whisper of the self pointing to my place in nature.

I heard my whisper as I direct result of the recent downturn in the economy. The downturn forced me to search for the whisper, the mission, the role, and I believe that I have started to hear its faint but unyielding argument. It is telling me to pursue law , but not because it will make me rich- in this economy it will not- but because it is what I have the natural capability to do it. Not only because it offers a measure of respect (respect diminished by the proverbial ambulance chaser), but also because It is my role in nature, and I can only be successful AND happy if I do what I am supposed to do.

I wonder if this downturn has forced others to disregard the irrational shouts. True there are still those elite groups of rich people, and those that continue to become rich, yet that may be their role or it may be that they are disregarding their role. It is irrelevant to me, what matters are the rational whispers in myself.