Arizona and Religious Freedom

Personal freedom is sometimes an elusive goal.  We are no longer hunter gatherers.  We live in populated cities and recognize we must stop at red lights where we want to or not.

It seems at times, there is always someone else who knows better, they say, and what you may want to do is not what they think is proper.  And when that someone invokes providence in the form of some mighty spirit, any argument attempting to refute that someone’s position becomes very difficult.  But, we are fortunate that there is a US Constitution to help put some stiffness in otherwise rubbery backs.

The 1st Amendment provides Americans with important protections.  One ensures that they will be free to practice their religion.  Too many religious people, this means that they have freedom to impose their personal views on other Americans.

The Catholic Church maintains that they should not be forced to conform to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement dealing with women’s health.  Specifically, the Church claims that their religious beliefs do not condone the use of any family planning methods and therefore they should not be required to provide birth control methods as part of their employee’s insurance even if the employee is not catholic.  The Catholic Church view is that the badge of religious freedom allows them to prevent others from obtaining some benefit guaranteed by US law.

Arizona is now poised to do one better.  The State legislature has passed a bill which allows Arizona businesses to withhold services from those whose life style their religious views do not accept.  What does this mean?

The Arizona law says that if someone’s religion does not accept same sex life styles, that person would be free to deny service to those exhibiting same sex life style.  Hmmm.  I could be running a public hotel or restaurant and perfectly free to deny service to certain other Americans.

It is becoming more difficult to comprehend this view of religious freedom.  How can one person’s views trump the rights of another?

Of course, these truly religious people may sincerely believe that contraception is immoral or that same sex life styles is unacceptable.  For those people, no one is asking them to participate.  That is religious freedom.

Governor Brewer can veto this bill, or sign it into law.  If she signs the bill, it will be moments before the courts strike it down.  I wonder whether Governor Brewer will choose the Ugandan path for Arizonans?

 

Antonin Being Antonin, Or Has Time Passed Him By?

In the Supreme Court’s Arizona’s SB-1070 ruling, Antonin Scalia took the time to issue a 22 page dissent.  The Court’s majority opinion was a 5-3 majority with Elena Kagen sitting this one out.  The decision could have been 6-3.  So why dissent, and why 22 pages?

Some might say it is the sign of a well working court where a lot of legal research has gone into the rulings.  Others might say that Scalia enjoys center stage and even more so when he can pontificate his views.  Take your pick.

What it does say, however, is that at least one Justice views the world as if he were living in the 18th century.

Scalia’s dissent was sprinkled with clearly political references.  He derided the Obama Administration for its decision to selectively enforce the deportation of undocumented aliens.  Scalia called the Administrations efforts on enforcing immigration laws “lax”.  On this basis, Scalia says States should have the right to enforce these laws themselves.

The Constitution does establish protecting the boarders and setting immigration rules with the Federal Government.  Can you imagine New York allowing only 50 Canadians a year to enter the US while Vermont set no limits?

It has not registered that President Obama’s Administration has deported more undocumented aliens than previous Administrations.  The overall undocumented situation is estimated at about 11 million.  This cries out for a comprehensive solution.  Scalia thoughts on a comprehensive solution are unknown but his views (dare I say) are that Democrat Barack Obama has been lax.

Scalia could have said all this in 2 pages but 22 seems heftier.  One of his best examples of why he is no longer fit to sit on the highest court in the land is as follows:

So the issue is a stark one: Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?

A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? 

Imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, ci. 4, the Naturalization Clause— which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits from Independence Hall. 

The ship the founding fathers sailed left the dock a long time ago.  The question is not whether the original 13 Colonies would or would not have formed a Union.  Had the 13 not formed a Union, what we call the US today, most probably, would have taken a different path.  The US geography would likely look more like Europe or South America with many States and separate currencies.  The great wealth created as America “manifest destiny” was achieved would be someplace else.

Like so many other Scalia favored decisions, most recently striking down gun laws and affirming that corporations are people, they flow from a different era and do not reflect the American history in between.

Immigrants have been the backbone of America.  Most of us are descendants of immigrants who came here within the last century.  Never the less, having 11 million undocumented aliens living within the boarders is patently a failure.  Clearly immigrants with skills are desirable and those who cannot or will not work are a burden.

We also have a history of assimilation so immigrant groups who do not want to learn English or wish to practice customs which are not compatible with existing US customs or laws present real difficulties.   This is not the subject for States individually to solve.  Rather it will require a comprehensive approach.

Ironically the one provision of the Arizona law that survived was the “show me your papers” provision.  There is little chance for this to survive in real time since any good lawyer will point out that only brown skinned people are being asked for proof of citizenship.  That is profiling.

The ironic part is that in order to control undocumented residents, every one of us must be subject to “show me your papers” and that means all of us carrying a national identify card.

I wonder whether the founding fathers and Scalia were thinking that way?

SB 1070 Thinking

This week the Supreme Court will hear arguments over the Constitutionality of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law SB-1070.  It is a bit of a mystery why the Court accepted the case but all this will be revealed soon.

The Constitution clearly places the power of immigration in the hands of the Federal Government.  Arizona contends that the Federal Government has failed to secure the boarders and Arizona wants to “help”.  The first part of Arizona’s assertion is demonstrably correct, the second part is a bit suspect.

We should be clear that Arizona is talking about primarily Mexican undocumented workers but other Central Americans fit their definition too.  Arizona is not worrying about Uighurs, Iraqis, or Indonesians.  They will let the Federal Government worry about them.

The Mexican and Central Americans immigration mess is perplexing.  The demensions of this problem have been well known for several Administrations, yet nothing has been done.

One reason is that there is an estimated 11 million undocumented aliens, mostly Mexicans, already living in America.  Short of ethnic cleansing, there is no practical way to deal with relocating (read deporting) this many people.  Yet the same politicians who breath fire when denouncing the porous boarders, utter the sick words, “no cutting in line” for these undocumenteds when a process to document and allow a means to gain citizenship is discussed.

These same politicians call for only a limited number of work visas citing the need to provide Americans jobs first.  As a sound bite, these words are like honey.  The after taste, however, makes you wonder.  Americans do not want those low paying, hard labor jobs.

It is often argued that if these jobs paid more, there would be a long line of Americans willing and ready.  The problem of course is that your local grocery store will buy imported produce if it is cheaper.  Why?  Because we as consumers look for the lowest price all other things being equal.

So immigration actually comes back to all of us.  If we did not buy so much from Walmart, or chose not to buy Hyundai autos, or only bought American made textiles, there would be a lot more jobs for those Americans qualified and willing to work.

Picking avocados, however, does not take much skill.   It does take patience and willingness to stoop over for long periods in hot fields.

So back to SB-1070.

Arizona is already feeling the impact of fewer workers.  The previous employers of these undocumented workers, day workers to laborers to agriculture hands, have not raised their wages and are generally going without.  Reports indicate employers are dissatisfied with these results.

The citizen groups and law makers who pushed through legislation where a child could not register for school with out providing their “documents” or where police officers “could” ask to see documents if someone they stopped looked suspicious, should be looking in mirrors.

They will see someone who doesn’t look like the undocumented.

This is probably the greatest problem with SB-1070.  It tends to divide us into “us” and “them”.  “Them” are Mexican and they do not belong here.

That is, unfortunately, how America, from time to time, was made.  Each time this phobia arose, the Country lived to regret its rejection of those immigrant groups.

The peculiar aspect of SB-1070 is it focuses on the wrong end of the problem.  If someone is stopped and found “undocumented”, immediately that person should be “documented”.  If employed (or a member of a family unit where there is a bread winner), the real issue is about the newly documented person paying taxes and choosing whether to follow a path to citizenship or to one of temporary guest worker status.

Stranger still is the observation that Mexicans, as a group, are family oriented, hard working, religious, and proud people.  These are all qualities most Americans as well as those currently determined to exclude undocumented workers from citizenship have prized.

Making Matters Worse

Arizona is back in the news.  The State legislature is considering a bill which would require women to tell their employer about their personal medical condition for which the use of birth control pills were prescribed.  Avoiding pregnancy is not one of the allowed conditions if the women wanted to obtain the pills under their health care coverage.

What are these people thinking?

The great hue and cry, most righteously, is about not offending the employer’s religious beliefs.  How can the government make anyone go against their deeply held beliefs?

In Kentucky, there is litigation underway right now pitting a certain Amish sect’s religious beliefs against the State motor vehicle code.  The Amish avoid the appearance of self importance by not using bright colors.  No problem until they drive one of their buggies onto a State road.  The State motor vehicle regulations call for slow moving vehicles to display a red triangle on the vehicles back side to warn approaching vehicles of a slow moving car ahead.

Seems quite sensible to me.  Not to this Amish group, however.

Is this religious prosecution?  Is this an invasion of religious freedom?  The courts will decide soon.

The birth control issue and the Amish red triangle have one thing in common.  In both cases, religions have stepped into the secular world and have tried to impose their religious views on others.

Catholics as well as many other fundamentalists believe strongly that birth control should not be allowed, not just for themselves, but for everyone.  The Amish live peaceful and respectful lives and normally just prefer to be left alone.  When they drive their buggies on State roads, however, they represent a potential danger to others.

So back to Arizona.  The intrusion of religious freedom is seen when employers “have to give” birth control as part of their employees’ health care coverage.  Why should an employer have to pay for birth control when they don’t believe in it?  When you say it fast, it almost sounds reasonable.

The conflict arises over two points.  A secular process has reached the conclusion that birth control coverage is a valuable options.  If an employer offers health care coverage, birth control has to be part.  The second point is that the employer is not giving anyone anything.  Health care is just wages not paid.  On top of that the employer and the employee get favorable tax breaks from the government for having provided health care coverage.

Consider also, that the spot light has been on birth control but opening the door for the principle of religious based exemptions will cast a much broader shadow.  Same sex couples could be subjugated to second class status.  Racial discrimination could be open again.  And, religious intolerance could flourish since religion A believes they are the only ones destined for the next world.

Religious beliefs are fine and should be honored.  By their very nature, however, beliefs for the holder and not ever be pushed for mass distribution.

Back Together Again

It was actually satisfying to see John McCain and Sarah Palin on the stage again yesterday. Following McCain’s defeat in the 2008 Presidential election, McCain never once bad mouthed Palin who had proven to be all show and no substance during the campaign. McCain never took the opportunity to throw her under the bus.

Yesterday was pay back time.

McCain is in a tough primary battle against ultra conservative J D Hayworth. The prospects of McCain winning are in question because of all things, McCain is viewed as not conservative enough.

So Ms Tea Party agreed to come and make a campaign appearance with McCain (or is it McWho?). It might as well have been Oprah. Palin was dressed in a black “motorcycle-ish” jacket and treated the friendly crowd to humorous one liners after another. It was really show business and Palin was the star.

It has been sad to see McCain groveling for right wing votes when the Country desperately needs fiscally conservative, straight shooters. McCain’s career has had a number of moments where he has acted on conscience and voted moderately. Just as Mit Romney went to the dark side in hopes of winning the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination and totally lost the nomination and his credibility, the same fate could await McCain.

None the less, it was satisfying to see that loyalty and class on the part of John McCain repaid by Palin. For sure it did not hurt Palin’s star power and only time will tell if it helped McCain.

In the land of 30 second “he’s my good friend” sound bites, it was nice to see a genuine payback.

Foreclosures

The world of economic prognosticators continues to worry about more home mortgage foreclosures. These pros point to the lack of jobs creation and that so many homes are “underwater”. There are now numerous reports of home owners who can afford their payments and who simply walk away from their home or condo because its mortgage value is more than if they sold it outright. Is foreclosure a big problem and how did it come to be?

As with most complicated problems, the first step should be to break the big problem into pieces. When one disaggregates the national foreclosure problem by states, an interesting phenomena emerges. For most of the country there is no exceptional problem.

Saying it another way, the US foreclosure problem consists of (1) a special problem with California (2.1%), Nevada (3.8%), Arizona (2.7%), and Florida (2.8%), and (2) every place else (less than 1% except Michigan and Illinois which are less that 1.4%). The foreclosure rates in these 4 states is 2-3 times that of all other states. There must be a special reason for these states varying so much from the average.

We have heard over and over about sub-prime mortgages and the killing effect that resetting the mortgage interest rate has on the home own. But these are nationwide phenomena. We have heard that the sinking economy has left many people without the means to pay their mortgage.  This too is nationwide.  We have also heard racially based reasons for increased foreclosures.  Alas, this too is nationwide.  Why does not Congress simply look at the real data for these states and share the facts with the public?

Each of the states with high foreclosure rates possess one or more of these characteristics. The are warm and desirable for living, they offer (offered) jobs in the service area to accommodate the State’s growing population, they possessed State Governments friendly to investment and growth in population, and these States were magnets for all sorts of high risk housing sector investment funds.

Until the root causes are established, Government will be wise to halt the bleeding. First, there should be no further unsecured loans (no liars applications and no zero down payments). Second, there should be no changes in interest rates (for say 5 years) unless agreed to by the borrower. If the economy has not recovered in 5 years, we have a much different problem on our hands and we will need a much different solution.