A Note from Myself

A couple weeks ago my wife and I visited my family in Arizona. Among other things, we went to mass with them on Sunday, the Feast of the Dedication of the Lateran Basilica. Also, I cleaned out some old school notebooks and things while I was there. Scribbled on the back of a reader from a UD History of Germany class, I found this short reflection:

Today's flight was glorious beyond description. We were in a small plane and flew low out of the Valley, due east, over the Superstition Mountains, some open pit copper mines, and a series of canyons. The landscape was so wild, and so beautiful, and so lovely that words fail me. I suspect that standing on the peak of Olympus Mons, surrounded by such barren beauty, would be rather akin to my aerial survey. I nearly cried to think that such wonders are passing away with the rest of the created universe, longing for that same redemption I seek. But I found solace in the thought of sharing such a vision, and in seeing it reborn in the hereafter.

-Sunday, November 9th, 2003
Feast of the Dedication of the Lateran Basilica

State Tartans

I've written before about issues of heritage, suggesting that our cuisine embodies our jumbled backgrounds as Americans, and arguing that - within certain bounds - we can choose our heritage, as I choose to identify with certain elements of Scottish history and certain British regiments.

Recently I stumbled upon a series of cultural artifacts which recalled this question of Americans, their sense of heritage, and the extent to which they can choose it.

A great many states have official tartans, and several more have unofficial ones.  My instinct for all manner of pomp, symbolism, and history is immediately attracted to such things.  But it also begs some questions: must one be of Scottish - or at least some permutation of Celtic - ancestry to wear a tartan?  Should a state have a substantial Scottish-American population before adopting such a tartan?  And when does one actually use such a tartan?  While I hold nothing against those men who wear kilts, I do not, and aside from the flannel shirts I wear on Saturdays, there aren't many opportunities for tartans.  (Or are there?  Do correct me, dear readers.  Perhaps a tartan flatcap?)

Below are a few state tartans of interest to our family, with blurbs stolen from the Scottish Registry of Tartans.

Commissioned by a joint committee of Arizona State's Scottish societies, this tartan was designed by Dr Phil Smith and proclaimed by Governor Symington in December 1995. Colours: green is for the forest that covers half the state; brown for the desert; azure for copper, white for silver; yellow for gold; red for the Native Americans and the red, white and green stripes for the Mexican population.

The unofficial Mississippi tartan has dark green for the never-ending forests of Pine and evergreen leaves of the Magnolia, light green for the lustrous leaves of the Great Southern Oaks, dark blue for the waters of the Mississippi River and the many lakes within the state, red for the color of the state flag and for the blood shed in Mississippi's past, white for the sands of the Gulf Coast and the cotton fields, and yellow for the heart of the Magnolia, the state flower.

The official state tartan of Louisiana was designed by Joe McD.Campbell in 2001. For use by all those with Louisiana affiliations. Blue for the sky, lakes, bayous, rivers and waterways, green for agriculture and forests, white for rice, sugar cane, cotton and the magnolias, black for petroleum and natural resources.

Designed by June Prescott McRoberts (1922-1999), proprietor of the 'Thistles & Bluebonnets' store in Salado, Texas. The tartan was adopted as the Sequicentennial Tartan and was officially adopted as the Texas State Tartan on 25th May 1989. The colors of the Texas Bluebonnet district tartan owe their selection to the bluebonnet flower, a member of the lupin family, which is widespread in many parts of Texas. The flower changes color with the passing of time, the 'brim' becoming flecked with wine red.

The Virginia Quadricentennial Tartan is the official state tartan of the Commonwealth of Virginia. It was designed in 2003 by David McGill and in 2005, during preparations for Jamestown 2007, which celebrated the 400th anniversary of the founding of the Colony of Virginia, it was selected as Virginia's tartan because the colors reflected those of the American dogwood, the Virginia state flower and tree.

Further Comments on Immigration

My newspaper, the Financial Times, has carried two interesting columns on immigration, a topic I addressed last week.

The first, from Christopher Caldwell, points out that

opponents of [Arizona's new] law promise to resist it through boycotts and court challenges. It may indeed be overturned. But such action is unlikely to be decisive. Challenges to its constitutionality focus only on a handful of policing elements that could easily be purged in replacement legislation. The bill is long, detailed, carefully crafted and extremely popular.

Caldwell is skeptical of the grounds on which a legal challenge might be fought:

The nub of the constitutional questions surrounding the bill is that the federal government, not the states, sets immigration policy. Does this bill usurp federal authority? At the most basic level it does not – it leaves to Washington the determination of who is and is not legally in the country.

He also points out the strange twists some protests have taken:

Democratic congressman Raúl Grijalva has backed an economic boycott of his own state. His district has a Hispanic majority. Only 34 per cent of his constituents are non-Hispanic whites. (Which makes it hard to see how singling out Hispanics for racial profiling would be possible even in theory.)

The second, by Clive Crook, notes that the Arizona law does not differ so widely from the federal statues it seeks to support:

Federal law already requires non-citizens to carry their documents at all times. It is an offence not to. The law’s arcane and sometimes surreal provisions impose many other demands, some more onerous than others. These rules are so weakly enforced that few legal immigrants are even aware of them.

His description of the current system is scathing - and accurate:

A moronic compromise has been struck, one that has achieved the worst of all worlds. To satisfy public opinion, the federal government promises to exert tight control of immigration – then fails to, because it is unwilling to enforce its own laws. And it is right not to enforce them. Apprehend and deport more than 10m illegal immigrants? That would require totalitarian powers and cripple the economy into the bargain. But voters then feel they have been lied to, which they have. Their distrust of Washington increases year by year, making an intelligent solution to the problem ever more difficult.

This pathological bargain has also skewed the pattern of immigration. Illegal unskilled immigrants pour in and fuel a grey, tax-evading, sub-minimum-wage economy. Immigrants with skills, willing to pay taxes but disinclined to evade the law and the border patrol, are shut out.

Ask any US high-technology company how this crimps its productivity – and forces it to send jobs abroad. (Let those workers pay taxes to other governments. It is not as though the US needs the money.) The shortage of highly trained people pushes up the US wage premium on skills, so economic inequality worsens as well. Yes, they thought of everything. I defy anyone to propose a regime more stupid than this.

Finally, he notes what elements are needed for a successful reform package:

The three essential components of the needed reform are easy to see. First, more effective enforcement at and especially inside the border, including credible policing of companies that hire illegal immigrants. Second, wider channels for legal immigration, including a guest worker programme that allows temporary migration sufficient to meet the country’s needs. Third, conditional amnesty for illegal immigrants already in the US.
Without laws that are enforceable and enforced, most voters will oppose amnesty, because they will suspect – and in this case it really will be a reasonable suspicion – that the next amnesty will not be the last.

It is a rare day that I can read not one but two pieces in the London-based FT about my home state. Let us hope that all this media attention and the growing debate will finally lead to some comprehensive, workable and just immigration reform.

Thoughts from Afar

Arizona's new immigration legislation had drawn national and even international press. The bill has garnered widespread criticism, including from the Catholic bishops of Arizona. Though I no longer live there, my home state has a particular interest to me. And it seems to me that while the bill has a number problematic elements, some of which are talked about more than others, many of the criticisms which have been leveled do not hold water or are less important than is usually suggested.

Dubious Criticisms

First, let us consider the claim that the bill, which gives local law enforcement the power to stop suspected illegal immigrants and demand identification, will not be effective. Of all the charges against the bill, this seems least plausible. While some illegal immigrants will doubtless say, many will judge that the real possibility of fines or jail time is too much of a risk to bear. Reports are already circulating of such immigrants leaving for Mexico or other states.

Some have argued that the bill will open the door to rampant discrimination against the state's considerable Hispanic community, both legal and illegal. While this is quite possible, it strikes me as a bit of a red herring. I once heard a police officer explain that the average driver could be pulled over at any given time for three different violations. Racist law enforcement personnel already have opportunities to make life difficult for non-whites by hitting them with petty crimes and misdemeanors that usually go unenforced. But, by and large, such racist and unequal enforcement is not currently a problem: our law enforcement personnel are trained to high standards of professionalism, the courts are sensitive to charges of racism and the media quickly reports on such matters. Would the new law create new opportunities for racist misconduct? Yes. But we should not discount all the countervailing forces which currently exist and will continue to.

Another criticism raised is that the new law would take energy and resources away from law enforcement's more legitimate work elsewhere. There are two answers to this. First, the bill's supporters, including its sponsor, Russell Pearce, argue that the new law will actually free up law enforcement personnel by reducing illegal traffic at the border, leaving more officers free to operate elsewhere. Even if this does not pan out, I question the claim that this new law will draw law enforcement away from more serious crimes. Every police force has to prioritize its resources. Have you ever seen someone speeding in your neighborhood? Of course. Why? Because the police have decided that, given their limited budget, having an officer sit on your corner with a radar gun 24-7 is not the best use of their resources. There are other neighborhoods and more important crimes that occupy most of their attention. This law would add one more concern to law enforcement's list, but it would not have to be their top priority. Indeed, I doubt it would significantly alter the hierarchy of considerations.

Some people have argued that the bill will have a negative effect on Arizona's economy. This comes in two forms. First is the contention that illegal immigrants provide useful labor, stimulate the consumer economy and - even if they do not pay income tax - contribute to the tax base through sales taxes. There is some validity to these claims, but at stake here is a deeper question, namely, whether immigration limitations are beneficial or if we should simply have open borders. That is a very important question, but not the question on the table. With regard to the proposed bill, we are asking how current immigration laws should be enforced (particularly in the light of the federal government's limited success in doing so). Leaving aside the deeper question, there are some qualifying comments which can be made about this first economic argument. While illegal immigrants buy a variety of consumer products in the States, stimulating the local economy, they also send a considerable portion of their income back home. Thus, the stimulus value of one illegal immigrant is less than the corresponding value of a domestic worker who keeps the entirety of his income in the States. Moreover, while illegal immigrants do pay sales taxes, the kind of goods which they purchase - most notably food - have the lowest tax rates, so the addition to the tax base is somewhat reduced.

A second variation on the economic argument is that businesses will leave Arizona or will choose not to come in the first place. One perfectly valid reason is that they do not want their (completely legal) Hispanic employees being harassed by law enforcement. But I wonder if some companies are not also worried about the loss of cheap illegal labor. Even companies which do not employ such workers could feel the knock-on effects: Those involved in real estate may contract with construction companies which make use of illegal labor. Even high-tech companies make use of cleaning services which sometimes hire illegal immigrants. And even if a company is not contracting with someone who utilizes illegal labor, the very presence of illegals in the market increases the labor supply and depresses labor costs. Companies may be worried, and some for legitimate reasons, but I wonder if some are not also worried for selfish reasons.

Legitimate Concerns

One of the most troubling aspects of this bill is the requirement that people be able to produce identification at all times. This might seem like a minor item. Indeed, there was a time in my life when I thought it a perfectly reasonable policy. But I have since come to see that this is but one aspect of a troubling callousness toward our own liberties. In reading Brian Jenkins' The Fenian Problem: Insurgency and Terrorism in a Liberal State, 1858-1874, as I prepared to write a review (forthcoming in the Canadian Journal of History), I was struck by the keen sense of personal liberty present in the 19th century. Though battling terrorists, the British government could not countenance the notion of restricting gun ownership; this was, after all, a free country. The assumption was that individuals were free to live their lives as they pleased, and the state could only interfere in that for very compelling reasons. Today, even those who profess an attachment to liberty frequent assume the state will intervene in our everyday lives.

A few other aspects are worth consideration. One is the question of families: what if one parent is an illegal immigrant, the other a legal worker or citizen, and the children citizens? Should we imprison parents of young (and legal) children? Or does this cause undue harm? It seems to me that the simplest answer here would be to deport the offending parent, with the remaining parent and children having the option of staying in the States or also leaving. This is, admittedly, a difficult choice, but, I think, a fair one. The problem here is that states do not have the power to deport. So the new law would punish illegal immigrants with fines or jail time. This could pose a particular burden on children who are citizens but both of whose parents are illegal immigrants. A certain degree of leniency should be built into the law, giving judges leeway in determining sentences, and allowing them to take family circumstances into consideration. Still, the underlying problem is that the federal government, the one with the most relevant powers - those of deportation and of passing comprehensive immigration reform - has provided an inadequate response. Arizona can hardly be blamed for doing what it can.

One other concern raised has been that illegal immigrants may now increasingly become the victims of crimes because they are unwilling to call authorities for fear of being arrested themselves. This is a real problem. Faced with language barriers and short of money, illegal immigrants are already the victims of a considerable amount of crime, not least horrible abuse by "coyotes," guides who take them across the border, often forcing them to carry drugs as part of the deal. Being in the US illegally is a violation of the law and should be treated as such, but should be dealt with in a fair and legal manner; their illegal status should not make us wholly blind to the plight of illegal immigrants. That having been said, I wonder just how many fewer illegal immigrants would call authorities under then new law than currently do; many already fear law enforcement personnel. However, as with the issue of family, I would favor the inclusion of language in the new bill which might mitigate (or, at a judge's discretion, waive) punishment for illegal immigrants whose status was only discovered because they reported a crime. This is not an absurd notion, since the same concept can be found in so-called Good Samaritan laws.

The bishops complained that the bill is "mean-spirited," a charge I find particularly interesting. On the one hand, law enforcement is never going to be a very friendly or pleasant matter: it is, ultimately, the use of coercive force to uphold the law. On the other hand, I have been reading lately about Camp Hearne, in a work titled Lone Star Stalag. The camp held German POWs during World War II, and did so in a friendly and generous manner that is, frankly, shocking to the modern mindset. Reading about the humane and pleasant treatment of the prisoners, and their positive response to it, is truly uplifting. I cannot help but think that we are a lesser society for having lost that sense of generosity, even toward our enemies. But it strikes me that the present bill in question is more of a manifestation of society's mean-spiritedness, than it is a contributor to it. This spirit of vindictiveness is indeed worrisome, but we should focus on destroying it at its roots, not just its branches.

Let me be clear: I favor immigration reform. I think it should be easier, not harder, to legally come to this country, either as a permanent immigrant or as a temporary worker. What the present bill demonstrates is that the federal government has failed to provide such reform. We should not be surprised that a state like Arizona, with 460,000 illegal immigrants within its borders, would pass a bill like this. Indeed, similar measures in other states would not surprise me. Let us hope that all this furor has put a fire under Congress to take action.


H/T to my brother, Matt, with whom I disagree on some of these issues, but who keeps me informed and honest.