Whose Power Is It?

United States immigration policy has long been formed at the federal level, with Congress and the president setting the agenda. The state of Arizona, however, just passed a bill giving local law enforcement authority over immigration and illegal immigrants. Under the new bill, which Governor Jan Brewer signed into law on Friday, it will be a state crime for illegal immigrants to be in Arizona; more than that, all immigrants will have to carry their “alien registration documents” at all times. The new bill also gives local law enforcement the power to ask people about their immigration status if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that those persons are undocumented.

Critics of the law claim it will lead to racial profiling. Anyone who appears as though they are not a natural born American citizen can be asked to prove their citizenship. And the most obvious way of guessing whether one might be a citizen or an alien? Ethnicity, of course. So perhaps these fears aren’t entirely unfounded. It seems clear that certain people will be stopped and questioned more than others.

One cannot entirely blame Arizona for taking a step towards combating the influx of illegal immigrants. Arizona does have the right to protect its borders against illegal immigration. And like any state, Arizona pays many costs for housing illegal aliens. Given that federal action against the illegal immigration problem has fallen by the wayside as a result of the financial crisis and conflicts abroad, it makes sense that Arizona chose to try and solve the issue on its own.

It seems, however, that there are still issues to work out regarding this legislation. Many question the law’s constitutionality by arguing that only the federal government has authority over immigration. Furthermore, with claims that the law will lead to racial profiling, regulations and oversight mechanisms need to be put into place to prevent such profiling—which maybe impossible, given the subject and the law. At this point, however, it’s up to the courts to decide. Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon has already promised to take the law to court, where a judge can decide whether states have any authority over immigration.

SARAH WENTZ

Read more...

A Victory for American Power

At first glance, an agreement that will send hundreds of deployed warheads back into their silos might not seem like a boon for US power. But by restricting America’s hard power, the “New START” treaty recently signed by President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will amplify America’s soft-power capabilities. Soft power is the amalgam of economic, social, and cultural influences that a country projects to improve national prestige and to increase its influence on other nations. Footage of the President of the United States signing an agreement condemning hundreds of missiles to the scrap yard is a powerful way to show that America is not an aggressor nation. This symbol is even more powerful considering that, twenty years ago, Obama and Medvedev would have been at each other’s throats. Although the treaty alone will not convince Jihadists on the river Euphrates—or even fellow-travelers on the river Seine—that America does not aspire to global hegegmony, voluntarily reducing our arsenal could strengthen the international consensus for tough sanctions on Iran by demonstrating that our purpose is reducing the threat of nuclear war, not toppling the Iranian government and setting up a neo-colonial oil venture. And should worst come to worst, our newfound credibility will allow us to vigorously check Iran’s aggression if and when that country acquires nuclear weapons.

This strategy of voluntary arms reduction could reinvigorate the tradition of the morally humble liberal hawk. Better suited to conduct foreign policy than either the pacifist left or the Manichean, interventionist right, the liberal hawks have suffered over the last decade due to the polarization of the post-9/11 era. An anti-proliferation agenda would help to improve America’s flaws while ensuring peace and safety around the world—precisely the principle upon which the liberal hawks base their ideology. Reciprocity is the key; any attempt to improve the world must begin by recognizing that America itself is not morally pure. Cutting our nuclear arsenal while acting to reduce proliferation abroad will put this principle into practice; enhance the internal consistency of America’s defense policy, and re-establish the foundations of a foreign policy tradition that should not have been allowed to atrophy.

ALEX JONES

Read more...

Environmentalism in the Balance

Recently, The New York Times ran an unusual headline: “Obama Proposes Opening Vast Offshore Areas to Drilling.” Unusual, that is, to anyone who hasn’t followed the debate over climate policy taking place in the US Senate during the last few months. Amid the public options and accusations of Hitlerism, a quiet revolution is taking place in the most important environmental debate of our time. Environmentalists, long caricatured as beatniks prepared to sacrifice the economy on the altar of the polar bear, have in fact become ruthlessly pragmatic, cutting hard bargains with business interests and their satellites in Congress to reach deals that balance the dual imperatives of economic growth and climate protection. The best strategy for emissions reduction—a simple carbon tax—was dismissed as politically impossible. The best alternative—cap-and-trade, with all permits auctioned—is eroding, as nervous senators worry about high energy prices depleting the industrial base. Nevertheless, all the major environmental groups maintain their support for the bill. Given all the compromises that brought climate legislation to this point, the failure or passage of this bill will likely determine the direction of the environmental movement. To paraphrase Al Gore, environmentalism hangs in the balance.

If the climate bill passes and the US begins reducing emissions, environmentalism will remain largely intact. Some elements may complain that the mainstream organizations are too close to the industries and government institutions they are supposed to check, but these frustrations will go mostly ignored. If, however, Congress fails to take action, the environmental movement may become more stridently anti-establishment, more interested in civil disobedience and less inclined to seek a balance between nature and commerce. In short, the movement could become more disruptive and less predictable. The results might veer in one of two diverging directions. On the one hand, a die-hard environmental movement could be a useful counterweight to the polluters, who have often shown little concern for the objections of environmental advocates (or citizens in affected communities, for that matter). On the other hand, aggressive, narrowly focused advocates might not be able to influence policy effectively—especially on mundane matters that require a great deal of expertise and receive little publicity. Plus, influencing legislation is difficult when your representatives on the Hill have little clout or connection to the grassroots.

A moderate, establishmentarian wing is essential to ensure that environmental objections are met without sacrificing too much prosperity or alienating too many erstwhile allies. In order to build broad-based support—a necessity for any successful social movement—environmentalism must appeal to as many potential partners as possible. If we want to continue to see clean air, clean water and intact wilderness—and if we want to avoid climatic catastrophe—we must pass this imperfect bill. Otherwise, the earth and its advocates may slip from the balance, and we will lose what many have worked to protect.

ALEX JONES

Read more...

You Still Gotta Play Nice

Politics is tough, I get that. When you’re president of the United States, you have to make tough decisions. But I think that good manners and civility should be indisputable, irremovable components of political strategy. President Obama’s recent actions regarding Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu seem to suggest otherwise. Never before has a United States president snubbed a fellow world leader within the White House itself.

Admittedly, Israel came in unwilling to make concessions. President Obama met with Prime Minister Netanyahu, but the prime minister refused to make any written agreements of concession. After a while, President Obama excused himself but invited the prime minister to stay and “let [Obama] know if anything changed.” The Israeli delegation felt so uncomfortable and embarrassed that they eventually left for the Israeli embassy, not even feeling secure enough to use the White House telephone lines.

Sources report that Prime Minister Netanyahu failed to convince President Obama that he was not responsible for the timing of announcements of new settlement projects in east Jerusalem. Some suggest that Israel hoped the president would be too busy with domestic issues to pay much attention to the Middle East. In the end, not much got done, and the Israel delegation left in a huff.

Playing hardball is well and good, but actions like abandoning a world leader because they don’t want to negotiate seem petty. The United States has garnered a fair amount of international respect, but when our president embarrasses a diplomat who has come to negotiate, it does not reflect well on our country.

Obama aides report that bonds between Israel and the United States are still strong, and that the two allies can disagree without much damage. It looks as though the incivility didn’t hurt the process too much, but such tactics hardly seem like good political strategy. Nations are less willing to make concessions if you don’t treat them with respect.

SARAH WENTZ

Read more...