Bias and Immigration

For this week’s post, I decided to take a look at how various sources reported the Arizona law pertaining to illegal immigration. The law makes it a state crime to be an illegal citizen, and enables police to search people they suspect of being illegal immigrants without warrant or repercussion. Needless to say, this is controversial legislation and tempers have flared on both ideological sides of the isle. To get a glimpse into every side’s perspective, I looked at an article from the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the Associated Press. 

First, a look at the article from the Associated Press. The AP tries to remain neutral in its reporting. The AP does not have an ideology to win readership and they simply try to report the news as balanced as possible. Their report of the new immigration law in Arizona is no different. They present the law in fair terms, and then delve into the controversy, getting quotes from both supporters and dissenters of the law. The AP article tried to give all sides an equal say, and let the reader come to his own conclusion.

The New York Times also looked at the legal writing of the law, but differed from the AP in its approach from that point. After explaining what the law is, and the ramifications it may cause, the Times delved into the issue from the standpoint of those that would be facing the brunt of the new measure. This is consistent with the impression that the New York Times is a liberal newspaper. They got quotes from both sides, quotes from Mexicans illegally living in Arizona as well as wealthy Arizonans that approved the new law, but the quotes painted those supporting the legislation in a bad light. 

The Wall Street Journal also showed elements of bias. The article was a bit shorter than the other two I examined, but followed a similar format. The Journal acknowledged the ramifications the new law presented (as well as described what the law was) with quotes from both sides. After that, the author took a shot at Barack Obama. He said that Obama will use this as a chance to accuse Republicans of being anti-Hispanic, and that it presented the administration the perfect opportunity to “play politics.” Such an attack is representative of the WSJ’s perceived conservative bias. 

Despite the bias in the NYT’s and WSJ’s article, I wold not accuse either side of stacking the deck in their favor; rather, they are simply seeing the issue from two different view points. They present the information fairly, and then weigh in with their personal opinion. Yes, bias is present, but it is not overbearing, and one could read either article and come up with two different conclusions. 

Turning this issue internally, it was somewhat strange how I perceived the bias in the two different sources. I am sympathetic to the NYT’s point of view, so at first glance, that article flowed more naturally. I was initially upset at the WSJ’s dig at Obama, and I thought it was unnecessary. Upon further reflection, it seems to be that my reaction was only because I am used to seeing the world through a liberal lens; anything conservative is foreign and draws my attention easily. This exercise taught me a valuable lesson of the importance to consider multiple sources, to get a variety of perspectives.

Interest Groups

As a soon to be nineteen year college student, I have taken a greater interest in the politics of the United States in the past few years. Two interests of mine in particular are the drinking age and the laws regarding student loans. Both interests are likely to be of more concern to a college student than to any other demographic. However, even though these two issues will be more controversial, and met with more interest among my demographic, the questioning of the fairness of the current laws merits discussion. 

The twenty-one year old drinking age is one of the more controversial laws on the books in the US. I personally take the side that the drinking age should be lowered to nineteen years old. I think that lowering the drinking age would be good for business, and would reduce crime; college students will drink either way,but  less would be hauled to jail if it was legal. With that in mind, I believe lowering the drinking age would be for the greater societal good, though I certainly understand the point of view of those that disagree. I am also probably biased because I wish I had the ability to purchase and consume alcohol legally. 

Another policy that I have a clear bias towards is student loans. I believe that the interest rates on student loans are far higher than what is fair, and I applaud the federal government’s attempt to regulate them. Again, I would argue that reducing student loans would be to the benefit of the common good. The money college graduates would save by not paying off their massive student loan debt could be put to good communal use, namely in the form of spending. Consumer spending helps the economy grow, and function smoothly. Any policy that can increase spending is worth pursuing, and in this case, seems like a no brainer. 

Two prominent interest groups are the American Bankers Association, and the American Medical Association. The AMA’s mission is to promote the art and science of medicine, and one the main ways they seek to carry out their goal is by influencing legislation in their favor. They were against the new health care plan from Barack Obama, and do not want to see medicare fundamentally altered. Their interest is in the betterment of doctors throughout the country, and this does conflict with my interests. I want my health care to be as cheap as possible, and groups like the AMA make that more difficult. Similar to the AMA, the ABA attempts to get favorable legislation passed to improve banking. Their interests conflict less with mine, as we both have several similar interests (for example fighting money laundering, or pro-cyclical regulation policies.)

The interests of the ABA are more to the common good than the AMA. The AMA was against the health care bill recently passed, which even the legislation’s  staunchest opponent would have to agree was good for a large number of people. I do not believe either group is particularly interested in the common good. Rather, they are simply trying to get their voice heard amongst the large crowd of other interest groups trying to do the same thing. 

The ultimate question of whether or not interest groups can be for the greater good is subjective. While in a perfect world they certainly good be, the nature of the American political system has made it difficult for all but the best funded groups to have any impact on Washington. The best funded groups tend to represent the interests of big businesses, a small minority of the population. So while interest groups have their benefits, in American politics they do not positively contribute to our democracy.

Jay Inslee and the Democratic Party

On the front page of Congressman Jay Inslee’s official website, there is no mention of his position in the Democratic Party. His biography, which does mention his career in Congress, also does not contain any information about his party affiliation. Despite these absences, Inslee for the most part seems to vote and sponsor legislation along party lines. The issues specifically mentioned on the front page – health care, economic recovery, carbon calculator – are all issues he sides with the Democrats on. With that in mind, the absence of party identification on the front page is conspicuous, and indicates that he might consider himself more responsible to the citizens of his district and the nation as a whole than to the party. 

His reelection page has a different message. The front page has little about critical issues: rather, it calls on voters to again vote for Inslee, and this time, mentions the Democratic Party. Specifically, he refers to the “new Democratic majority,” though he does mention his desire for bi-partisanship. He does have a tab near the top of the page called “issues,” though these are more prominently featured on the front of his Congressional web page. The issues for the most part appear to be the same though. The issue highlighted on the front of his re-election page relates to energy, which makes sense, considering that one of his primary campaign donors was Puget Sound Energy.

I was a little surprised that he did not feature his party more prominently on either of his websites. However, this was not limited to Inslee. I searched a number of other Congressional websites, and the majority did not mention which party the particular representative belonged to. I would guess that this is indicative of a common philosophy among representatives of Congress: issues, constituents, and news is more important than party identification. 

It’s hard to say whether this is or is not significant. Inslee follows the party line on his policies and his legislation, and he has plenty of help from the Democrats with respect to campaign finance. My guess would be that political parties have lessened in their role over the life of the United States, to the point where ones political party defines representatives less than specific issues do. And as parties split further along ideological lines, I find this to be a welcome development.

Representative Jay Inslee

Jay Inslee is my REP, and is the representative of the first district in Washington State, a post he has held for twelve years now. Inslee’s top donators for the upcoming election include Microsoft, Puget Energy, the National Venture Capital Association, American Cable Association, and Strategic Marketing Innovations. Microsoft and Puget Energy make a lot of sense, considering that both companies operate out of locations either in, or adjacent to Inslee’s district. Puget Sound’s contributions particularly make sense, considering that Inslee sits on the Committee on Energy and Commerce (as well as the Committee on Natural Resources.) He also is in three sub-committees: Energy and air quality, Oversight and Investigations, and Telecommunications and the Internet. 

Much of the legislation that Inslee sponsor’s is related to the committees he serves on, including legislation dealing with oceanic acidity, geothermal production, and the National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Act. On those pieces of legislation, its difficult to determine whether Inslee’s sponsoring is a kickback or if the funding from companies like Puget Power is as a thank you for his views. His participation on this bill, however, might indicate why he received funding from Microsoft. 

I really don’t have any problems with the way the current system of campaign finance works. True, representatives may be swayed on certain issues by donations they receive. However, I can’t envision any representative abusing this; no Congressman is going to attach himself to damaging legislation because a $10,000 donation hangs in the balance. I think Congressman Inslee does a good job representing his district, and his values are consistent with the community he represents.

Judicial Activism

            The judiciary is probably the least biased of the three branches of government, mostly because of their lack of identification with a particular party. While the executive and legislative branch members ally with either the Republican or Democratic Party, judges are selected based on their ideological views. The benefit to this is they are not held down by party stances on particular issues, and thus are not subjected to the criticism of sitting on both sides of the aisle. This flexibility justices have gives them the best chance to render an unbiased decision. Consequently, I feel that judicial activism is a benefit, not a liability.

            First, let’s consider what judicial activism is. Judges, for good reason, cannot actually legislate or even suggest legislation. Rather, their activism centers on their interpretation of the law. An open ended, broad interpretation of a given policy would be considered an activist interpretation. Going beyond the words of the constitution and considering the implications of potential laws is another way to look at activism. The opposite of activism is judicial restraint. Judicial restraint is the philosophy that judges should only interpret the laws according to the intentions of the framers, and should defer to Congress when interpreting federal statutes.

            With that basic introduction to the two main judicial philosophies out of the way, I’d like to explain why I believe that Supreme Court judges should for the most part subscribe to the activist philosophy. Keep in mind, however, that this only applies to the Supreme Court. If the lower courts were activist, a potentially messy situation of one bill being interpreted in several ways by many justices would be imminent. To avoid confusion, I think that county, state, and appeals courts should subscribe to judicial restraint. The Supreme Court though, should be active for several reasons.  

            The first reason is that the constitution and legislation are often messy and vague. Most bills have a plethora of clauses, any one of which can be subject to different interpretations. Someone needs to be able to decide exactly what the law is, and the experience justices have gives them an advantage in properly deciphering how the law should act. Secondly, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, justices are a relatively unbiased group. They each have their own personal ideologies, but because they are not tied to a party (and because at the Supreme Court level they are elected for life) they can make decisions without repercussion. Finally, justices should be active because they can represent the people better than their governmental colleagues in the executive and legislative branches. Congressman act in ways that will help get them elected again when their term is up and as such cannot necessarily act in the best interests of everybody. The judiciary on the other hand is not an elected body, and can best consider the ramifications of its interpretations without being biased.

Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy in the United States, despite its poor image, is a necessity. In a country of hundreds of millions of people, bureaucratic regulation is a hassle that people just have to put up with. Anybody that has stood in line for too long at the DMV, ballot box, or post office may be frustrated enough to clamor for a serious reduction in the size of the government. But it is important to not label the entire organization with its most inefficient programs and tendencies. The Federal Bureau of Investigations, Environmental Protection Agency, and NASA all operate as part of the bureaucracy.

Consider briefly where the nation would be without the EPA. Consider what our water might taste and look like without the clean water act or what our air would smell like without the clean air act. The EPA is responsible for measures that resulted in a cut in diesel emissions from trucks and school buses and gives information to the President concerning global warming. The EPA also responds to emergency situations, and their cleanup contributions greatly defused crises like Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. The agency also employs over 17,000 people throughout the nation. If anything, the scope of the EPA is not wide enough: more employees searching for ways to reduce fuel emissions or find other ways to lower greenhouse gas release could greatly benefit the United States as well as the entire planet.

Of course, the bureaucracy has many branches that are nowhere near as productive as the Environmental Protection Agency. One such place that nearly every American can share a horror story from is the Department of Motor Vehicles. The DMV is responsible for licensing and testing potential drivers, as well as occasionally testing already registered motorists, and a few other tasks. The DMV also employs some of the grumpiest people, which isn’t too surprising considering how understaffed the agency generally is. The result is that a visit to the department takes far longer than it should. I would propose hiring more workers. Waiting time would go down, employee happiness could only go up, and the result would be more employment throughout the country.

Clearly the bureaucracy in the United States is a mixed bag. Organizations like the EPA benefit the country in a large, versatile respect but oftentimes it is difficult to understand that when more visible institutions such as the DMV mope their way through existence and waste our time. Citizens can’t do much more than simply live with the good and deal with the bad, but if the bureaucracy was to actually grow at its bottom level, it might be easier to put up with.

Congress and Health Care

The ongoing health care debate has been horrible for Congress’ public image. Squabbling amongst the parties, arguments over vague procedural rules, and a seeming inability to get anything of consequence done in regards to health care has been damaging to the reputation of the legislators. While it may be frustrating to watch the nation’s elite struggle to overhaul a decaying health care system, the structure of Congress is to blame for much of the gridlock. The two party system, the labyrinth of procedures necessary to bring a bill to law, and the constant turnover of legislators make addressing controversial topics difficult. 

The most important structure in Congress is the two party system. While there are other political parties, (and are currently two independents in the Senate,) the Republicans and Democrats dominate the scene. With regards to the health care debate, political affiliation has made compromise almost impossible. The entire Republican Party is against the plan unveiled and favored by almost call Democrats. The Leaders of each house from their respective party help keep their members in line.

The two party system is not the only roadblock to overhauling health care. The path a bill must take to become a law is tedious and difficult. In the case of the current health care proposal, even after the meticulous process of pushing the bill through its respective committees, the bill must not only pass through the House of Representatives with a majority vote, but also needs to get through the Senate with a sixty vote supermajority to avoid being filibustered. Should the Democrats get more than fifty, but less than sixty votes, a Republican Senator would assuredly filibuster to stop the legislation in its tracks. To bypass that, Democrats might try to use a procedure called reconciliation, a process to push through a budgetary bill with just a simple majority. Reconciliation is controversial, and top Republicans are arguing that it should not be allowed in this case.

One more important factor that has been key in slowing down the health bill is the upcoming elections. In 2010 one third of the Senate and all of the Representatives are up for reelection. With an election so near, many Congressman have been unwilling to support legislation they might otherwise agree with out of a desire to appease a majority of their constituents. No Republican up for election is going to break party ranks just months shy of a vote on such an important and highly watched issue, for instance.

The United States desperately need a new health care system. Rising premiums, malpractice lawsuits, and the recession are among the factors that have caused a record number of Americans to be without health insurance, a scary reality considering unemployment in the nation is over 10%. But rather than blame the members of Congress for butting heads on the topic, it is important to look at the structure of the legislative branch. The two party system, procedure for bills to become laws, and upcoming elections are more to blame than individual lawmakers. While it is certainly understandable that millions of Americans are frustrated with the current debates, they should take their anger out on the system designed to slow legislation, not the individuals they elected.

Civil Liberties

            The United States government’s surveillance of its citizens increased dramatically after the attacks on the World Trade Center eight and a half years ago. In the immediate aftermath of such a surprise and public attack, citizens were willing to trade liberties for security. National paranoia was high, and the government was able to pass measures encroaching on privacy. Legislation like the Patriot Act, a bill giving the government permission to tap phones, computers, limit free speech sailed through Congress. 

            In a perfect world, the government would be able to determine terrorists with ease and bring them to justice through tactics permitted in the Patriot Act with no disruption to normal citizens. Realistically, the government’s authority to listen to every phone call, read every email, and seize every voice mail presents a serious breach on personal privacy. Given that the recent crackdowns on liberty and rights were an immediate response to terror attacks, hardly anyone would accuse the government of deliberately taking rights simply for increased governmental power. However, now that the government can peer into the lives of its citizens, there is a legitimate fear that police will unearth significant information they have no business obtaining.

            To me, the pendulum has swung too far. If the government has the ability to view every website I view, every purchase I make, track where I donate my money (and they do have the capability to do all of these) then I do not feel like a citizen in a free nation. Rather, the government has taken on a parental role. Did you clean your room? I heard you got in late. Where were you last night? Did you go to class? What’s that in your backpack? What do you have to hide? Why were you looking at this website? Why is this person in your contact list? Why did you buy this? We saw you at a rally. Why were you running through the park last night? What do you have to hide?

            With so much surveillance capability it is only a matter of time before the government gets the power to track citizens on issues that have nothing to do with terrorism. We as a nation are already on a slippery slope. It isn’t difficult to picture a scenario where each citizen needs to carry a national ID card and every car (or person) is outfitted with a GPS tracking device in the name of safety. These are tangible threats; technology is sufficient to implement each of those measures effectively. They should never be implemented in a free society, but our liberties have already been compromised to the point where the United States are not as free as they once were.  

            The problem is determining where the government should stop. Free speech comes with some necessary disclaimers, such as the illegality of yelling ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater or using fighting words intended to provoke. Beyond that, I have no problem with the government keeping a close eye on known terrorists, though I have no idea how to put such a clause into words effectively. For me, that is pretty much the limit as far as governmental monitoring is concerned. I think government ‘checking up on’ its citizens is unconstitutional, courtesy of the Fourth Amendment’s clause pertaining to the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause.

            As for the argument ‘you don’t have any rights if you’re dead,’ I’m not buying. The threat of terrorism, while real, is exaggerated by the publicity generated whenever there is an attack. And while I cannot speak for everyone, I would rather die in a terrorist attack with my personal liberties than have to constantly live in fear of the government’s surveillance power. Besides, while legislation like the Patriot Act may curb domestic terrorism, it does nothing to crack down on the threat of international terrorists. All things considered, I have a hard time defending crackdowns on civil liberties (such as in the Patriot Act). They are bordering on unconstitutional, are unnecessarily pervasive, and are leading the nation to even more stringent security measures.

Same sex marriage and federalism

            One of the advantages of federalism is that the system allows for different interpretations and values throughout the country. This is a system that is particularly relevant in countries with a wide diversity of opinions on controversial topics, and thus is necessary for the United States. Texas, for example, is more likely to be a hotbed of Republican candidates and conservative ideas than Seattle. Fortunately, because of federalism, the two differing points of view do not always need to compromise. Citizens in Washington can elect their own representation and make laws based on their own beliefs, and Texans can do the same.

            A critical issue that is often divided along state boundaries is same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is a hotly debated topic throughout the country, and not surprisingly, different states have a different general consensus on where they stand on the issue. This is a perfect example of why federalism is a good idea. Because they are given power along with the national government, states have the ability to legislate their values within a narrower and more agreeable population. Forcing a national standard on a divided issue on a huge population could lead to resentment amongst millions of people. But because of federalism, each state can decide how they want to interpret a controversial topic (such as gay marriage) and achieve a clearer consensus.

            However, the federalist system does not solve all the problems. Because each state must grant each other full faith and credit according to the constitution, what is licensed in one state must be recognized in another. Without the full faith and credit clause, driving between states would be almost impossible, marriage benefits would not apply to couples leaving for a new state, and each state would function more like an individual country than a collection of territories. This becomes a bit tricky when such a divisive issue like same sex marriage is concerned. Massachusetts may be perfectly willing to let gay and lesbian couples wed, but Tennessee certainly won’t be.

            This leads to the question of whether or not full faith and credit should be granted for a gay couple from a state that allows same sex marriage to a state that does not. I believe that states must honor the full faith and credit of such marriages no matter where in the country a homosexual couple chooses to live. I do not believe that each state should need to legalize such marriages; that is a requirement that clearly does not reflect on the values of the majority of states at this time. But if the full faith and credit clause is to carry any weight, if one state says a gay marriage is a marriage, then each other state must be willing to honor that ruling. This is does not reflect my personal beliefs on same sex marriage at all. Rather, I see this as an issue of the interpretation of the constitution, no matter what the issue itself may be.

            As to whether or not the federal government should have any role in this debate, I tend to think they should not. I do not believe that the federal government should be able to legislate morality, and I think a troubling precedent is set when Congress is able to do so. When an issue of values and beliefs must be set to some standard, as in the issue of gay marriage, the states will be able to do a better job reflecting the values of the majority of its citizens. Enforcing a national standard on a controversial issue means that roughly half of the nation will be upset over the final ruling. By allowing each state to decide for itself, perhaps a quarter of the population will disagree with the result. States provide a better forum to legislate and enforce values than the federal government. Given their right to do so granted in the constitution, we should let states legislate as they see fit.

Constitutional Amendment Proposal

            Ask any citizen, and he or she will tell you that the American political system moves pretty slowly. For the most part, this is for the greater good of society. If legislation could be passed on a whim, policies would change back on forth depending on the administration, leading to a nation with a lot of change but little stability. However, there are times when new laws to speed up American government make sense. One such measure would be to create new courts to specifically deal with immigration procedures.

            First, a bit of background is necessary. Immigration judges are not part of the judiciary system. Rather, they work for the Attorney General, and thus are employees of the Department of Justice. Given the government’s recent crackdown on illegal immigration it seems as if immigration judges have a conflict of interest in their cases. As employees of the branch trying to eliminate illegal immigrants, they might not be completely unbiased.

            Beyond that problem is the issue of overwork. There are 237 immigration judges in the United States and those judges heard more than 300,000 cases in 2009. In 2008, immigration judges deported well over 360,000 immigrants. Judges simply hear too many cases to give each candidate a fair shake, even without considering their position in the government.

            To fix this problem, I would propose amending the constitution to create separate courts specifically for immigration. Out from under the Department of Justice, the courts could potentially add more judges and operate independently of an organization seeking to crack down on immigration. Judges would hear fewer cases, be able to spend more time deliberating individual cases, and not face pressure from the Attorney General. Additionally, adding immigration judges creates more jobs.

            Opponents of this idea might point out that establishing a new court could take a long time to pass into law. With judges already under duress and more cases coming to court each year, it could be argued that a quicker solution such as raising the number of immigration judges in the country would be sufficient. I would disagree, because that only responds to one of the two problems facing immigration judges. Justices would have a lighter caseload, but they would still be under the influence of the Attorney General, potentially damaging their impartiality.  

            Considering that the constitution has only been amended seventeen times, it is hard to say an amendment proposal ever would have an excellent chance of getting the necessary 2/3 approval in each house of Congress and being approved by 3/4 of the states. That said, it is difficult to imagine who would oppose a proposal to add immigration justices. Congressional representatives would seemingly want migrant constituents to have their cases heard in a fair and prompt manner and the states would benefit if justices could decrease their backlog on immigration cases. Should an amendment be posed to create an independent immigration court, I think it stands a decent chance of passing into law.