I certainly agree, but would like to focus on what I see as a more fundamental violation of the Constitution in this new law. It violates the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, which begins
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The new Arizona law is intended to identify illegal aliens. But on the basis of "reasonable suspicion," an officer could pull over and demand papers from an American citizen, simply because he or she looked like the officer's expectations of an illegal alien. (*Note added 1 May 2010: The same applies to the amended law - see discussion in comments below, and my podcast on this topic.) More specifically, someone who has dark hair and a mustache (as I proudly do) would be more likely to be stopped by a cop in Arizona, under this law, than a clean shaven guy with blond hair and blue eyes. That seems to me to be ipso facto a violation of the equal protection provision of the 14th Amendment.
Now, police stop people who may look like suspects all the time. If there's a description of a serial killer, which unfortunately happens to look like me, I think it's entirely appropriate that I be stopped and questioned (hey, I watch Criminal Minds). But that's a very specific situation, and unlike what the Arizona Immigration Law does, which singles out a whole class of people, who happen to look like whatever the Arizona police might envision an illegal alien to look like.
I hope this law is struck down as soon as possible, as the unconstitutional, un-American piece of state legislation it is.
10-min podcast discussion of this issue, with consideration of the amended law, and a response to Chris Matthews
44 comments:
Umm, Paul, that isn't what the law actually says. They explicitly are not allowed to profile that way. Indeed, you can't pull anyone over because they look like an illegal immigrant; you can only check on their status if you've already pulled them over for a traffic violation. So no, this law isn't any different than existing laws in other states, including existing federal law with respect to illegal immigrants (which are going largely unenforced). I'm sure opportunities for abuse will abound, but that doesn't make this law any different than a host of other laws either.
Jeff is right. There is no "looking for" illegal immigrants. It is only as a secondary violation. I stopped you for x, but by the way... Half of the state is minority anyway, so there's no way that racial profiling is feasible or practical. And the law applies equally to illegal aliens from Europe, Asia, Africa, or anywhere else.
And as far as I can tell, the law only mandates that they enforce the law where prior to the law they had the *option* to enforce it. So there's really nothing new except they don't have the option to turn a blind eye.
Paul,
I am not sure what part of the 14th amendment you feel the new law violates.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. <-not affected
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
<-- the new law does not abridge any priveleges or immunities
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
<-- I don't see how asking for proof of citizenship impacts life, liberty or property in any way
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
<-- not affected either.
Tony
(from Tucson, AZ)
Jeff and anon: my point still holds. If I'm pulled over for a traffic violation, it violates my constitutional rights, under the 14th Amendment, to be asked for immigration papers. The only reason I would be asked for such papers is if I, an American citizen, were thought to look like an illegal alien. That means that I'm being treated unequally - not the same as someone not deemed to look like an illegal alien.
Tony - no - my "equal protection" rights are affected and being violated, for the reasons I just explained above.
Paul, again, wrong. A valid Arizona Driver License is considered proof of citizenship or legal residency. Perhaps you should actually READ the law yourself?
First of all, anon, learn to write without being nasty - otherwise you'll get no further reply from me.
Also - you have a problem with using your name?
But to the point at hand: if I forget to take my driver's license with me, and I'm pulled over, I deserve to be issued a summons for driving without a license.
I don't deserve to asked for immigration papers. And, according to the law, I might be, if something about my appearance led the officer to have "suspicions" that I was an illegal alien. That's why the law is unconstitutional.
@Jeff: you're wrong.
quote: you can only check on their status if you've already pulled them over for a traffic violation.
Wrong!!! The law states "for any lawful contact". That is much lower than probable or reasonable.
Cop is interviewing you about something you may or may not have seen, perfectly lawful, this law is now in play.
Cop is walking down the street, says hi, how's the weather, you answer, this law is now in play. Nothing illegal there, perfectly lawful contact.
Further, as you mentioned, a DL provides the presumption of not being illegal. Therefore, every American citizen better carry their paper on them at all times.
There are numerous other problems with this law.
Further, you claim under the law, "They explicitly are not allowed to profile that way".
Wrong again. The bill only says that race, color, origin may not SOLELY be the basis. Therefore it can be a factor.
Excellent points, Dr. B - thanks!
I personally feel the use of the word "suspicious" is WAY too ambiguous to be used on these bills.
It is clear that “suspicion” on the part of LE is what caused the man, highlighted in 4409's video quite a hardship being apprehended and hauled off to the ICE offices.
I worry about my own family. My wife a citizen but still has a Mexican accent. Her father still lives in Mexico, those were the two things that triggered the "suspicion" in that 4409 video.
Unfortunately we do not have a United States Birth Certificate and once she swore in they took her residency card. Like the man in the video she now only has a Driver's License and a Social Security card.
She could carry a passport and even pictures of her "swearing in" but really? Is that where we are at?
We live in Utah and were even planning a trip to "warmer" Az this weekend for our anniversary but I certainly do not want to spend our meager vacation in some ICE office trying to explain why her dad still lives in Mexico.
The government know so much about us, where we work, our bank accounts and so on. They know where the illegals live and work due to the use of fraudulent social security numbers.
This thing about enhancing internal checkpoints and stopping people on the streets is just what “they” have wanted for quite some time and both Libertarians and Constitutionalist are being sucked back into the same system they often denounce out of sure desperation.
Kuerno
Your final point about irony of any Libertarian or Constitutionist supporting this new law - which both increases government power over our lives, and is unconstitutional - is very well taken.
I hope it gives you strength to know that many people in this country feel the same as you do about the law. I also expect that the law will be struck down as unconstitutional.
Be strong, Kuerno, and take care of your family. Time and reason are on your side.
This is what happens when you wait decades to correct problems. Now, we are bankrupt as a state and nation and there is no way out.
In Congressional hearings we find that we can't grow or tax out of this and if we cut spending with 1 in 4 jobs tied to government spending, we start a depression.
Even the President's 2011 budget proposal shows that there is no real recovery as things in his budget get worse every year, esp. the amount of debt and interest on debt eating more and more of tax revenues up.
We now face a situation where legal citizens will be facing the loss of health care services, unemployment benefits, S.S. payments (in buying power if not actual cuts in amount) and a collapse of the currency leading to food shortages and riots and looting by people who can't feed their families.
Regarding the Constitution, we have often done drastic things in times of a national emergency like we are in. Right or wrong, we detained lead citizens in detainment camps in WW II, and during other times of war, imprisoned people using free speech to protest the military draft or the war. We confiscated people's gold
quote:
"All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed... and may only be opened in the presence of an agent of the I.R.S."
- President F.D. Roosevelt, 1933
And the Supreme Court upheld these things.
We are talking about 9 million people that have used the S.S. number 000-00-0000 on their tax information sheet at the place they are employed, so both business and government are to blame for much of this but, the emergency still exist.
We have Russians, Chinese, Guatemalans, Indians, Vietnamese, Mexican, and countless others here illegally and using our entitlements like health care, education, and food programs illegally (since they are here illegally) to such a point we can't fund the programs with what is left of the private sector.
One in four jobs are tied now to government spending and that is unsustainable. It will take a major depression for years to get debt under control in which we either default or hyperinflate during the depression to get government down to a size the private sector can pay for.
That means that 10's of millions of legal citizens are going to suffer even more than now. It means there won't be jobs for them, let alone those here illegally and we can't afford to care for the legal citizens anymore than the illegal but, if we deport the illegal, we can pay a little more, maybe, for the aid to legal citizens, especially in food and health care areas.
Fair? Of course not. No government is fair. Never in history and never in the future can a government be "fair." It can only do the best it can with "one-size-fits-all" policies but, the more you centralize those policies, the more unfair they become.
Immigration of legal immigrants has been an important part of our history. They came here and assimilated because the "dreams" of Americans became their "dreams" and they didn't force their own culture on the nations. At times the nation accepted things from their culture that improved then nation but, it wasn't forced on the nation.
There is no "fair," way out of this mess. Letting them stay, even if legalized is not a solution as we can't afford to continue to support low income workers. Deporting them is a hardship on the and all the businesses that depend on them for income.
This is only a problem that could have been solved without a lot of pain decades ago. Now, like the standard of living we have, there is no way out without a huge amount of pain for both legal and illegal citizens. All are going to pay the price for decades of bad policies.
You're completely right that this is very difficult situation, but attempting to help resolve it by an unconstitutional law only hurts and never helps.
The Supreme Court has indeed upheld many an unconstitutional law - including, repeatedly, the act that established the FCC, in the face of the First Amendment, which says Congress shall make no law abridging speech and press.
The best we can do as concerned citizens is speak out to the fullest any and every time a law violates the Constitution. And sometimes, the Supreme Court does strike down a blatantly unconstitutional law, as they did with the Communications Decency Act in 1997.
That's the rub. It isn't unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is unless they let a lower court ruling stand and refuse to take the case. This case is one I think they would take, however.
The thing is that it is unconstitutional to not deport the immigrants either, as we were to apply the law equally to all people. If we only deport Mexicans, then and only then is it unconstitutional. But, if we deport Mexicans, Guatemalans, Russians, Chinese, Pakistanis, etc. then it is constitutional. I don't think the "law" is the problem but, how it is enforced may be. As state has the right to demand all citizens in it show legal residents but, if they only require some and not all, then it is unconstitutional.
Also, profiling, per se, is not unconstitutional. If a robbery takes place and the suspect was white, then stopping brown and black people is unconstitutional and if the robber is black then stopping brown and white citizens is unconstitutional but it isn't unconstitutional to stop people who match the race of the suspect or known criminal.
What nations do you know of that don't racially profile for some reason or another?
Now, granted, the profiling adds risk to acting unconstitutionally, but, to deny it totally would be foolish.
When I was in police work, which I left for a couple of reasons, one being egotistical and power hungry police making my job more difficult, I profiled constantly but, it was things more to do with evidence than race.
For example, when I went to a burglary and saw the prints of a hiking boot below the broken window used for access, I would talk to any person I saw wearing hiking boots but, not in a rude or disrespectful manner. I would explain why I was interested in their shoes, or some other thing that matched evidence.
I would not stop somebody if I couldn't see their shoes nor would I assume they were guilty just because they wore the same kind of shoes nor would I demand they talk to me if they didn't want to if they hadn't committed a crime that allowed me to go further.
I remember a Prosecutor stopping me after court. He said, "What are you doing?" I asks about what and he said, "You arrested 65 people in the last two weeks and not a single one complained. I have police that every time the make an arrest I get a complaint."
I simply replied that I said "Please, thank you, may I, would you mind," and other things that showed respect to the person I was dealing with even though I was going to arrest them.
I look for a lot of unconstitutional behavior but, the law itself may not be unconstitutional depending on the state constitution involved and whether or not the Supreme Court feels the state constitution is in violation of precedent already set by previous Supreme Court rulings. Or if they decide that current Court thinking where precedence takes a back seat to their view of what is "fair."
Remember, no government can be fair to all and thus, at some point, governments have to decide who to be the fairest with. Usually that is going to be the majority unless the majority has already set into their Constitution for the state or nation, that the minority must be protected.
That is why we have different ages of consent in some states. We still have two states that require a belief in God to hold state office (they can't block people running for national office). It is why we had different laws about businesses being open on Sunday or still have laws that ban the sale of alcohol in some state's counties.
We also have legalized prostitution in some counties but not all counties in Nevada and the rest of the states outlawing it.
State constitutions have always played top role in protecting the rights of the majority and minorities in states but, some things were delegated to the Federal government or were adopted by amendment where 3/4 of the states caused the other 1/4 to comply with the majority's views.
We are still a nation that is evolving and just like the 18th amendment we may later decide to reverse what we are doing and repeal the right or prohibition, in the case of the 18th.
If we have a one seat change in the Supreme Court to a more restrictive view than many of the rulings since 1925 may be reversed and the Court return to what is called "original intent" where the "general welfare" of the nation allowed some unfair rulings for minorities but, done so if the long term health of the nation was maintained or improved.
The general welfare clause for 150 years had nothing to do with people as much as the nation as a whole and if that meant denying people some things that the nation couldn't afford, unfair or not, they did it.
That is because if they didn't we would end up where we are where we can't afford to take care of the most basic needs because the nation is bankrupt and faces the collapse of government, the currency and our standard of living.
We have tried so hard to be fair that we can't even be fair to our own citizens any more and face a deep and long depression where we have to rebuild the nation from the local and state level up again, just like at the founding.
So many excellent anonymous comments - since there's no way I can keep track of one anon vs. another, I'll here just respond to excerpts from the last two:
[first anon]
"That's the rub. It isn't unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is unless they let a lower court ruling stand and refuse to take the case. This case is one I think they would take, however."
Technically and legally, you're right, of course. But the essence of our Jeffersonian democracy is that citizens read and comment upon and publicly discuss and debate issues. I think it's therefore helpful and necessary to denounce a law as unconstitutional, especially if the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on it.
"Also, profiling, per se, is not unconstitutional"
I agree - that's why I made the joke about Criminal Minds in my blog post. If I happen to look like serial killer, police not only have the right but the obligation to pull me over. But the Arizona law is very different, because it is singling out a big portion of the population.
[second anon]
"when I went to a burglary and saw the prints of a hiking boot below the broken window used for access, I would talk to any person I saw wearing hiking boots but, not in a rude or disrespectful manner. I would explain why I was interested in their shoes, or some other thing that matched evidence."
You sound like you were an exemplary officer. You have my respect and appreciation.
"We have tried so hard to be fair that we can't even be fair to our own citizens any more and face a deep and long depression where we have to rebuild the nation from the local and state level up again, just like at the founding."
I agree about not being fair in many ways to our own citizens. But surely the way to remedy this cannot be to increase the unfairness - which is what this new law would do.
Paul,
I don't see how being or not being asked for your citizenship diminishes your equal protection under the law?
I also don't see how the original federal law passed "constitutionality' but this Arizona option to enforce the federal law did not? How do you explain that the existing federal laws are constitutional?
Arizonans have two options, a drivers license if you drive, or a non-drivers ID card if you don't. If you don't happen to have either with you when you are asked, you can provide name and birth date and they can look up your photo on their computer. All non-citizens are required to carry their visas, green cards or whatnot already.
After only a week, many illegals are packing up and leaving Arizona, to Nevada, California or New Mexico now.
-- Tony (Tucson, AZ)
If a police office says hello to me, that's fine.
If a police officer asks to see my papers, surely you see that that's an invasion of my privacy. It also means that, even though I'm an American citizen, I better make sure I have my Driver's License or other ID with me, even if I'm just a passenger in a car an officer stops, if, under this new law, the office has "reasonable suspicion" that I may be an illegal alien.
Please specify the "original Federal law" you have in mind, and I'll be glad to specify the differences between that and new AZ law.
But without the new law, you are being unfair to even more people and they are here legally.
Remember, our own citizens are not going to get full health care, unemployment benefits, Social Security or welfare once we enter the depression that is coming.
We have to rebuild the nation from the ground up out of the rubble that depression will leave. We will have to find a new currency or restore faith in the dollar to get the things we need. Even our own farmers won't sell to us if they are going to be paid in dollars. They can export and get paid in currencies that hold value or sell to those here who have those currencies to buy with.
This law is being considered by other states that are facing economic hardships as well and that is going to cause more pressure on the Court to rule but, it may be pressure to rule for the law more than against it.
Somebody is going to pay dearly for these decades of illegal immigration. That somebody is going to be all low and middle class people and even some wealthy that haven't placed their wealth and savings in things other than bonds, annuities, CD's, etc. Even TIPs will be basically worthless as they won't readjust the interest often enough to offset inflation rising hundreds of percent a month.
Only those who have moved savings and investment so things not attached to the dollar or other weak fiat currency will be able to afford the price of bread.
Just like in Zimbabwe where a Big Mac went from a few of their dollars to 2 and 1/2 million dollars, we will see bread go up to $1,000 or more a loaf and if you haven't put your savings into things that hold value, even millionaires won't be able to afford to live here in a high standard of living.
The power outages will cause water and sewer systems to be shut down in cities. Tens of thousands of seniors and sick will die from lack of heat or A/C in the hot parts of the nation.
This is what the GAO is warning of. At that time, the law may not be necessary as many illegals are already starting to leave due to the economy.
However, we have to try and cut spending. That means reducing social security, Medicare and Medicaid spending and welfare programs. The more illegal people we have here, the worse the cuts will need to be.
You are going to be very unfair to all people but, who should you be the fairest to? Legal or illegal residents?
Again, no government can be fair to all people. At some point a government has to decide who they will be "unfair," to or they can't continue to be fair to the rest.
For example, "free markets" may be fair to some more than others but, at some point monopolies occur and there is unfairness and so government has to step in and regulate but, then if the continue to regulate more and more to make the business environment more fair, they actually end up making it more unfair for so many that the economy suffers, the nation collapses and you can't be fair to any of the businesses.
That is why the founders feared a centralized government so much. Not that states wouldn't be unfair but that at least they would have to compete with better run and more fair states and thus, people leaving the unfair states would force them to reform or "die."
But, when you have the entire nation under the control of a single government that has the right to "print money," you are asking for more unfairness than is possible to survive with, as a nation You become a 2nd or 3rd world nation where only the wealthy have a high standard of living.
How do you not have a law like this (enforced constitutionally) without being unfair to legal citizens. Maybe this law isn't the best but something like it needs to be in place. If we don't do it now, we will have to do it when we rebuild the nation out of the depression when there is 25% unemployment. No! that number may be too low as U-6 in the government report is already over 17%. We may see 30-40% unemployment and to give jobs to illegal people or to ask for legal citizens to pay for their care with unemployment that high would be so unfair, that it wouldn't even be considered.
So what do we do if we aren't going to employ them, educate them or treat them when ill during that depression when we can't even do it for our own citizens adequately?
anon 1: "But without the new law, you are being unfair to even more people and they are here legally."
No, the new law is unfair to any American citizen who may be asked to show papers, because she or he is stopped for some reason, and happens to raise "reasonable suspicions" on the part of the officer.
anon 2: "our own citizens are not going to get full health care, unemployment benefits, Social Security or welfare once we enter the depression that is coming."
I disagree. Many signs show the economy is improving - we're moving away from, not towards, a Great Depression.
anon 3: "You are going to be very unfair to all people but, who should you be the fairest to? Legal or illegal residents?"
Legal residents, of course.
But see my response to anon 1 above, and what I say in my blog post: American citizens can and likely will be treated unfairly under this new law, if they happen to raise "reasonable suspicions" that they are illegal aliens.
I disagree. Many signs show the economy is improving - we're moving away from, not towards, a Great Depression.
Sorry but that is totally wrong thinking. More and more in and out of our government are saying the opposite. Even the President's own 2011 budget shows continued declines with a brief uptick. Remember, we haven't had a recovery for decades.
We have only had lower highs and lower lows in a continuous down trend as can be seen in this chart on the return we get on our debt spending.
http://www.leap2020.eu/photo/2028982-2806916.jpg?v=1271440965
and in the article that chart is from
quote
as regards the United States, no one; because the size of its financing requirements exceeds the capacity of other players (including the IMF (15)) and, in winter 2010/2011, this event will lead to the explosion in the US Treasury Bond bubble founded on a huge increase in interest rates to finance sovereign debt and private debt refinancing needs, causing a new wave of financial institution bankruptcies. But it isn’t only countries that can default on payment. A Central Bank can also go bankrupt when its balance sheet consists of « ghost assets (16) » and the Fed will have to face up to a real risk of bankruptcy, as analysed in this GEAB issue.
... which creates US public debt which is now counter-productive: a borrowed Dollar now causes a loss of 40 cents (see chart below).
http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-44-is-available-Global-systemic-crisis-USA-UK-The-explosive-duo-of-the-second-half-of-2010-Summer-2010-The-Bank_a4531.html
----------------------
That report from the think tank our international banking and financial community use shows how bad things will get, possibly as soon as this winter.
In the President's budget, which has the CBO approval and warnings, we find that interest on debt alone will rise from $188 billion on public debt to over 1/2 a trillion in 3 and 1/2 years. The portion of tax revenues consumed by interest on just public debt, according to the President will rise from a current level just over 8% to almost 20% this decade.
Deficits will briefly drop to $700 billion and then rise to over a trillion again. GDP will rise to 4.3% and then start dropping again.
There is nothing about a recovery indicated anywhere because a recovery would mean we could grow without constant deficit spending with rising interest rates.
We have 9 years of home inventory to get rid of at the rate banks are putting foreclosures on the market.
quote:
Based on the rate at which banks have been selling those foreclosed homes over the past few months, all that inventory, real and shadow, would take 103 months to unload. That’s nearly nine years. Of course, banks could pick up the pace of sales, but the added supply of distressed homes would weigh heavily on prices — and thus boost their losses.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/04/24/number-of-the-week-103-months-to-clear-housing-inventory/
We have almost to more years of Alt A and option ARMS facing us, rising commercial loan defaults and cities and states saying the will have to layoff 900,000 workers if not bailed out. Even if bailed out, due to reduced tax revenues they face for years, they will have to layoff a lot of workers anyway and cut spending.
Cutting spending causes layoffs in the private sector that sells asphalt, copiers, vehicles, contract services, etc. to cities and states. The number of people being laid off in education and health care is growing where states can't afford to keep them.
We are also facing the problems in Europe that will impact our economy as things get worse or stay like they are there. That could also lead to a global downturn that would crush our economy.
As you have seen, many of the companies reporting good earnings got 75% to 90% of their growth from overseas that in some cases countered loses here.
The GAO says we will lose our standard of living and domestic tranquility due to the policies we are using.
"totally wrong"? "even the President"?
Well, here's what he said today:
http://www.examiner.com/x-38737-Social-Justice-Examiner~y2010m4d30-Obama-says-economy-improving-but--long-road-still-ahead
I'm afraid you're the one whose facts are wrong. We're still in difficult straits, but the economy is improving.
The statistics you site are just one part of the picture. On the plus: new homes sales have been increasing, Chevy has paid back its government loan, unemployment has leveled off and is beginning to recede, etc.
We can have rising employment, rising GDP, rising tax revenues and still not have a recovery because the private sector can no longer pay for the government it has and cutting spending would also cause a major depression. We have only two choices when we can no longer kick this decades old can down the road.
We can have a default depression or a hyperinflation depression. There will be no Japanese style muddle through because there debt was mostly funded by it citizens and they don't have the global reserve currency.
Our debt is funded by foreign lenders who are starting to go only to short term debt they can let mature and not buy back or demand interest rates so high that all tax revenues would go for interest (see CBO warnings below).
Testimony by Bernanke in Congress reveals that we can't grow out of this even if we had double digit growth for decades. He also agreed that tax rates that would theoretically be high enough to help would actually damage the economy.
So, how can we have a recovery or avoid a depression if we can't grow or tax or cut spending enough to avoid it?
I better put the CBO warnings in the next comment but basically they are saying that the projections are too optimistic, as bad as they are, because they can't factor in downturns; when they will happen or how bad they will be so they assume constant growth that isn't possible. We have had a full decade without a down turn before and with things getting worse, won't have this time either.
They also said they can't factor in human nature in that they can't predict how investors will react to what is going on.
The biggest doom and glomers out there are in our own government accounting departments because they have the real data that shows the course we are on is mathematically impossible to sustain.
CBO report
The Long-Term Budget Outlook
page 15
The systematic widening of budget shortfalls projected under CBO’s long-term scenarios has never been observed in U.S. history.
International comparisons show that the debt projected for the United States under CBO’s two scenarios would also be greater than the amounts that other industrialized nations have accumulated in the post-World War II period.
Page 16
The large amounts of federal debt that would accumulate under each of CBO’s long-term budget scenarios imply that the government would have to spend increasing amounts to pay interest on that debt. The growth of debt would lead to a vicious cycle in which the government had to issue ever-larger amounts of debt in order to pay ever-higher interest charges. Eventually, the government would need to adopt some offsetting measures—such as cutting spending or increasing taxes—to break the cycle and put the federal budget on a sustainable path.
page 17
As investment was displaced by government debt, GDP would grow more slowly and eventually decline. In the longer run, as the debt continued to grow and unless the interest premium was very large, capital would probably flee the United States, further reducing investment.
Because the textbook growth model is not forward-looking, the analysis assumes that people will not anticipate the sustainability issues facing the federal budget; as a result, the model predicts only a gradual change in the economy as federal debt rises.
In actuality, the economic effects of rapidly growing debt would probably be much more disorderly as investors’ confidence in the nation’s fiscal solvency began to erode. .....All in all, the U.S. economy could contract sharply for a long period.
Page 18
Although an unexpected increase in inflation would let the government repay its debt in cheaper dollars for a short time, financial markets would not be fooled for long, and investors would demand higher interest rates going forward. If the government continued to print money to reduce the value of the debt, the policy would eventually lead to hyperinflation (as occurred in Germany in the 1920s, Hungary in the 1940s, Argentina in the 1980s, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, and Zimbabwe today).
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10297/06-25-LTBO.pdf
=======================
We have our own government warning us, international think tanks warning us, economists around the world warning us, and yet people continue to believe there is some miracle that will come along and prevent the depression whether it is this year yet, or in a couple of years or so.
Today, the President gave a speech and Maria Bartiromo commented afterward that she wondered why he sounded so bearish on the economy in spite of all the current good news.
Well, Maria, how about you read the data he reads. How about you listen to the people telling him what we face. This is not his fault. This is just decades of bad policies based on flawed economic and monetary theory catching up with us and a depression is how you clean up the mess.
Recessions are supposed to do that but we kept spending out of them to avoid pain and thus, kept making things worse for when that would no longer be possible to do. Now we have reached or soon will, that time when we can't spend our way out.
We have not had positive GDP for 10 years when you take out debt based government spending which is part of the GDP formula and distorts reality so bad it isn't recognizable anymore.
It's also worth noting that increased spending by government - along the lines of Keynesian capitalism - is one of the factors that got us out of Great Depression in the 1930s.
Increase of debt is bad for individuals and corporations. It is not necessarily bad for governments. (See also the work of Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman on this issue.)
Regarding the President's speech, I was only saying what person covering it said about it.
The article you referenced is very bearish and I can see why Bartiromo said so.
quote from that article
Obama concluded his speech by saying that while today's new was good, that there is still a long was to go to economic recovery. 'So we've still got a long way to go on our road to recovery. There are going to be more ups and downs along the way. But today’s news is another sign that we’re on the right track. And we’re going to keep doing everything we can to help our businesses take the baton and power our recovery today -– and lead us to more hopeful and more prosperous set of days in the future.'
-----------------------
On the right track but unfortunately, according to his own government accountants the bridge is out and that track doesn't run long enough to avoid the crash that is coming.
Again, this is not my opinion. It is our own government accountants, not some politician trying to get votes for this fall's election.
Notice how carefully he chose his words to say we would actually recover and were only on the track to it.
Notice that he says he has to pass the baton to business but business can't carry it. We are still sending them and jobs and investment dollars overseas. We have been in decline for decades and yet you seem to think we can turn it around without a depression. How? Don't go by what a politicians says is "hope," but how.
Name one way we can get out of this without a depression. I am sure the government would love to know what it is, especially the accountants that are warning we are going to lose our standard of living because they live here too and will lose theirs when we lose ours.
Why to you think 10 million people are now expatriates and people renouncing U.S. citizenship has doubled. Small number yet but the trend is growing.
Millionaires are buying homes in other nations to move to as things get worse here. More companies are leaving for headquartering in Switzerland.
quote
The tidy towns and mountain vistas of Switzerland are an unlikely setting for an oil boom.
Yet a wave of energy companies has in the last few months announced plans to move to Switzerland -- mainly for its appeal as a low-tax corporate domicile that looks relatively likely to stay out of reach of Barack Obama's tax-seeking administration.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL312427120090312?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssEnergyNews&rpc=22
I don't care if it is oil companies or high tech or R&D, they are leaving and taking jobs with them or at least reducing U.S. operations. Caterpillar now has operations in 130 nations and 6 continents and depends on them, not us for revenues more and more. There is nothing to prevent them from headquartering in another nation and ending paying taxes here like property, phone, state and federal tax on profits, etc.
This trend is growing, not shrinking. There are $9 trillion dollars on deposit in Chinese banks from corporations and retailers. Why aren't they on deposit here?
Investing in the U.S. has become a diminishing trend and it is growing.
Then add this to show what some think of our state's conditions.
quote
Amidst growing pessimism about the financial condition of U.S. cities and states, investors are increasingly buying financial instruments that essentially allow them to short sell - or bet against - cities and states, says a Wall Street Journal report.
Offered by banks like JP Morgan, Bank of America, and Citigroup, the so-called municipal credit default swaps can be used by investors to bet that insurance contracts protecting holders of municipal bonds will default.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/banks-bet-against-us-citi_n_553891.html
I can guarantee they aren't making those bets because they think they will lose because we are "talking" about a recovery that can't be sustained.
Again, the President's budget speaks louder than his words.
2011 Budget request from President Obama
Tax revenue projections
2009... $2,105
2010... $2,165 ( Interest as percent of tax receipts ($188 billion interest in budget projections) 8.6%)
2011... $2,567
2012... $2,926
2013... $3,188
2014... $3.455
2015... $3,634
2016... $3.887
2017... $4,094
2018... $4,299
2019... $4,507
2020... $4,710 (Interest as percent of tax receipts ($912 billion interest in budget projections) 19.3%)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/budget.pdf
Page 150
Deficit projection President's 2011 budget ...
2010--$1.556 trillion
2011--$1.267 trillion
2012--$827 billion
2013--$727 billion
2014--$706 billion
2015--$752 billion
2016--$778 billion
2017--$778 billion
2018--$785 billion
2019--$908 billion
2020--$1.003 trillion
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/budget.pdf
============
No wonder he says he has to pass the baton to business.
Again, you have our government, international think tanks, global economists all saying the same thing whether Paul Krugman agrees or not.
But here is what Paul Krugman has said
quote
Along with this will come a process of defining prosperity down. All the wise heads will tell us that 8 or 9 percent unemployment — maybe even 10 percent — is the “new normal”, and that only irresponsible people want to do anything about the situation.
So what I see is years of terrible job markets, combined with political paralysis.
I hope I’m wrong about all this. But my sense is that to have any hope of breaking out of this trap, Obama and company have to take risks — they have to propose new initiatives that might not pass, and be prepared to run against the do-nothing Republicans if the initiatives fail. That’s not happening now; as best as I can tell, the administration strategy is to insist that only a few minor course corrections are needed, and to wait for the jobs to start coming in.
Maybe they’ll get lucky. But hope is not a plan.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/things-to-come/
Now, I believe he has changed his view somewhat but that is try and help keep "hope" in the consumer alive but since the consumer is tapped out, how can we "hope" to pass the baton to business who has to have customers to survive.
Spending has picked up due to people stopping payment on mortgages and spending it on "things."
I have a friend where the people on both sides of him have stopped paying their mortgages and both have gone out and bought new cars with the money they aren't paying on mortgages. I am sure you have seen the articles on this trend growing.
Then we have incentives that have helped home prices along with banks keeping homes off the market. As the article stated, at the current rate, we have 9 years of home inventory to get rid of. That will get worse with the city and state layoffs and cuts in spending coming.
Even Keynes would not approve of what the government is doing. He said that governments should save and have positive account balances to spend from during hard time, not just rely on debt that destroys tax revenues with interest payments. Keynes would be spinning in his grave if he saw what this government as done with his theories.
But, again, it is total debt, not just federal debt that is 400% of GDP and can't be controlled or brought down in time to avoid the lenders from pulling the money we need for deficit spending.
Why do you think more and more nations are entering non-dollar trade agreements and calling for a new global currency. They see the path we are on and that it is unsustainable.
Also, again, how do you look at decades without a recovery and say that you think we can have one now when things are so much worse than in the other recessions we never recovered from. Remember that each attempt to end stimulus applied to those recessions caused the next one due to so many jobs that had been tied to the stimulus.
Many think there was recovery in the 90's when one year we only increased debt by 18 billion (the rest were over $100-200 billion)
Yet, jobs were in deep trouble then.
quote
Nondurable manufacturing employment peaked at 7.9 million workers in January 1995. Components that peaked under Clinton included: food and kindred products (October 1995); textile mill products (November 1994); printing and publishing (May 1998); and rubber and miscellaneous plastics (February 2000). Many of these jobs were once concentrated in the South.
Durable manufacturing peaked at 11.2 million workers in April 1998. Components that peaked under Clinton included: lumber and wood (February 2000); furniture and fixtures (July 2000); primary metals (January 1998); fabricated metals (July 2000); industrial machinery and equipment (March 1998); electronic and other electrical equipment (November 2000); transportation equipment (October 1998); instruments and related products (March 1998); and miscellaneous manufacturing (April 1998). Some of the largest durables goods employment is in the upper Midwest.
http://article.nationalreview.com/268853/the-clinton-manufacturing-recession/greg-kaza
I have been studying this since the 90's. There is hardly a day I don't search for articles written by experts who understand global economics and financial systems. I read the government reports and get email alerts for them when they come out. I read what the GAO and CBO reports to Congress and the projections they make.
Show me hard data that we can recover when we haven't for decades and I may change my mind but, I haven't seen anything but "talk" so far and some "better than expected" news that is so far from an actual sustainable recovery without deficits, that I don't see how anyone can even dream we are in recovery.
We are only heading for another lower high in this decades old downtrend.
Back to immigration. There are several federal laws that are like this
quote
Sec. 211. [8 U.S.C. 1181]
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and subsection (c) no immigrant shall be admitted into the United States unless at the time of application for admission he (1) has a valid unexpired immigrant visa or was born subsequent to the issuance of such visa of the accompanying parent, and (2) presents a valid unexpired passport or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality, if such document is required under the regulations issued by the Attorney General. With respect to immigrants to be admitted under quotas of quota areas prior to June 30, 1968, no immigrant visa shall be deemed valid unless the immigrant is properly chargeable to the quota area under the quota of which the visa is issued.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&CH=act
For any state to pass legislation on how to best enforce a federal law is not unconstitutional and they may run afoul of the Constitution in how they apply federal law and may even have to change some things in this law but, they have a right and should enforce federal laws regarding illegal residents from any other nation regardless of race or nationality.
However, the state must also be prepared for boycotts, loss of business, tax revenues, etc. Many state politicians may lose their seats over this law.
Time will tell but, I believe that our state is so desperate due to an out of control budget they are ready to risk careers to do something that stops spending so much on health care, education, food programs, etc.
Even with federal funding the state doesn't have enough money for those programs.
The point about Krugman is that he thinks the best way out of this crisis is by dramatically increasing government spending. He's a Keynesian. "In the wake of the 2007-2009 financial crisis he has remarked that he is 'gravitating towards a Keynes-Fisher-Minsky view of macroeconomics.' Post-Keynesian observers cite commonalities between Krugman's views and those of the Post-Keynesian school." - from Wikipedia's article about Krugman.
Krugman's pessimism about the country's economy stems from his conclusion that the Fed gov is not spending enough money - or, the complete opposite of your concerns about government spending bankrupting us.
About Obama: he didn't say, nor does he think, another crash is coming. Precisely the opposite: he says it can be avoided, and we can prosper, and continue to recover, if we continue to do the right things.
That's what he said. What a given adviser may or may not have said is not the point here. I said our economic situation is getting better. You cited the President as saying it wasn't. I cited the President in a speech today, saying it was.
And this relates to immigration as follows: basing immigration policy on an apocalyptic view that our lives are going to ruin would be basing that policy on a factual error.
I didn't say I agree with Krugman because he is not the brightest bulb in the pack but wanted to show you that he twists in the wind when it suits hem. At one time he said we won't see 8% unemployment again until late in the decade. The President's budget shows that we will have unemployment down to under 8% by 2013.
However, the problem with Krugman is that he doesn't follow Keynes theory fully but only partially and that is why I say he isn't the brightest because if Keynes is right then Krugman is wrong and so is the President because you are supposed to use surplus, not debt and Krugman seems to not understand that debt, or rather the interest on debt kills the budgets of the future and the President proves this in his budget projections where interest in the most optimistic conditions forces interest to consume 20% and send deficits back over a trillion. Again, that is with no downturns, no changes in investor or lender sentiments and that, as the CBO warns is bad thinking.
Krugman and the President are trying to keep a good face on and delay this as long as possible. They can delay it but can't avoid it because there isn't enough money in the world to lend us at the deficits we are running up.
As you know, as a nation, we have to borrow $5 trillion this year for total debt needs. But, it is worse because for federal debt, we not only need $1.6 trillion, in new debt, we have to redeem 1/3 of federal debt and find new borrowers for that and do it with low interest rates that don't force us to borrow more to cover the loss of tax revenues going to interest on debt.
We now have to borrow money to send relief to Haiti because it wasn't in the budget. We have to borrow money now to pay social security benefits and fund Medicare and Medicaid and the new health care bill doesn't kick in significantly until 2014.
By the way, the trust funds the bill created won't have any money in them in 2014. We will have to borrow money to fund the bill's programs.
quote (from the bill)
‘‘SEC. 3206. CLASS INDEPENDENCE FUND.
‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF CLASS INDEPENDENCE FUND.—There is established in the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the ‘CLASS Independence Fund’. The Secretary of the Treasury shall serve as Managing Trustee of such Fund. The Fund shall consist of all amounts derived from payments into the Fund under sections 3204(f) and 3205(c)(5)(C)(ii), and remaining after investment of such amounts under subsection (b), including additional amounts derived as income from such investments.
‘‘(b) INVESTMENT OF FUND BALANCE.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest and manage the CLASS Independence Fund in the same manner, and to the same extent, as the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund may be invested and managed under subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section 1841(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395t).
http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr3590_engrossed.pdf
======================
Just like the Social Security trust funds and Medicare trust funds, we have to borrow money to buy the bonds back that are in them. Thus, the trust funds for the health care bill, will be loaned to the general fund and the trust fund will be just bonds we have to buy back. We won't have cash as the President says we will still be running $700 billion deficits or higher, and so we will have to borrow even more to buy the bonds back with.
These trust funds and taxes for the health care bill that can only be spent on the health care bill in 2014 (there are other trust funds in the bill for between now and then. I believe I read at least two others as I was reading the bill), allow the government to reduce deficit spending now with these off-budget loans (most trust funds are used as off-budget loans, as you are probably aware).
So, maybe that is why the President sees deficits rising again after 2014. We will be having to borrow money to buy those bonds back to fund the bill's provisions.
These are all policies that the GAO says are unsustainable and have been for years even before this crisis hit. This is from the 2007 report.
quote:
Further, GAO’s audit report also included an emphasis paragraph for the 3rd consecutive year noting that the nation’s current fiscal path is unsustainable and that tough choices by the President and the Congress are necessary to address the nation’s large and growing long-term fiscal imbalance.
....the federal government’s current fiscal policy is unsustainable. Continuing on this imprudent and unsustainable path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our domestic tranquility and national security.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07362sp.pdf
We have not only not stopped using those unsustainable policies but have increased their use. We have $120 trillion in debt and obligations now. This is from when there was only $111 trillion, last year but, it shows where that amount comes from the GAO is so concerned about.
quote
GOVERNMENT DEBT
Federal Debt: $9 TRILLION
State & Local Debt: $2 TRILLION
Total Government Debt: $11 TRILLION
UN-FUNDED, OFF BUDGET DEBT $62 TRILLION
PRIVATE DEBT
Household Debt: $13 TRILLION
Business Debt: $9 TRILLION
Financial Debt: $14 TRILLION
Foreign Debt: $2 TRILLION
Total Private Debt: $38 TRILLION
SUM TOTAL DEBT
Government Debt: $11 TRILLION
Private Debt: $38 TRILLION
Unfunded Debt: $62 TRILLION
Total Debt: $111 TRILLION
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/andros/2008/0611.html
----------------------
As I stated earlier, it is not just the federal debt and interest on debt but the total debt, interest on debt and unfunded liabilities that we can't avoid that will bring on the depression.
The Federal Government just simply can't erase $120 trillion and go back to normal. I must either default or hyperinflate. There are no other choices and both will cause a depression that is worse than the one in the 30's.
Now, keep in mind that this is normal for a nation that rose, peaked and is in decline. Thousands of years of history teach us that this is normal but, being normal doesn't ease the pain our citizens will suffer.
Again, don't go by what the President says because he is a politician and needs votes for his party.
Show me a way out with data and projections that include downturns and changes in the things the CBO warns will happen. Show me with cold hard data how you get rid of $120 trillion of debt and obligations without default or hyperinflaton.
If you can show me, then you can show the government the way out they are looking for.
You said the President said we will recover. But, didn't all the previous Presidents that had recessions say we would recover and yet we haven't. All we have had is lower highs and lower lows for decades without any real recovery that created a sustainable uptrend with higher highs and higher lows.
Do you really think all the people in the international think tanks the World Bank and IMF uses are idiots that can't read data? If they and the other global analysts can't see a way out, then why would you believe a politician seeking votes or a stooge of his like Krugman that doesn't even know Keynes theory well enough to know that what he is suggesting isn't Keynesian and is a road to disaster.
China is using Keynesian economics. They are spending from an account surplus and they are having trouble even using real Keynesian theory. I think they may pull it off but, it is very "iffy" still.
I am giving you data and expert opinion. At least give me back data and projections and expert opinion rather than political "happy talk" so we can really look at what you are basing your opinion.
Neither party is good for this nation and to listen to what either party says about recovery just doesn't make sense. You have to base what you believe on hard data.
That is all I am asking for is that you provide the data your opinion is based on because I know you surely don't trust what this or any President says. You have to look at what they do and put in writing to Congress, like in the budget proposal he has.
off to bed now so I hope to remember to check this tomorrow. I am enjoying the debate but wish you would provide more data and real experts, not people like Paul Krugman who doesn't even advocate Keynesian economics properly.
I don't see how anyone, especially the administration, can argue that this law is unconstitutional. It has been a cornerstone of America, that all rights not specifically given to the federal government , belong to the states.
I just finish reading the Constitution again. I cannot find anything in it, that gives the feds control over immigration. Naturalization, yes. Immigration, no.They are different.
If someone wants to attack the law, pick a better reason than constitutionality.
Apparently you missed the 14th Amendment in your re-reading. It says no state can deprive a citizen of rights listed in the Constitution. That includes equal treatment under the law.
Well Paul, everyone is still being given equal protection under the law. Police have a reason to ask for documentation of citizenship, just like they have a reason to pull anyone else over for something or another. If they suspect that you have committed a crime (which illegal aliens are doing by entering this country illegally), they will have reason to ask for whatever they want to ask for. Thats their job. Just like people get pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving, bad driving, murder, illegal citizenship, whatever the case may be, the police are justified in doing so. Asking illegals for papers on reason of suspicion is no different from asking someone to take a sobriety test on reason of suspicion of drunk driving. Besides, if the person being stopped is not an illegal, what problem do they have? Just show their citizenship and get outta there. They're just trying to filter out all the ILLEGALS.
No, everyone is not given equal protection under this law.
Person A: Blond, pulled over for speeding, not asked for papers.
Person B: Black hair and mustache, pulled over for speeding, asked for papers.
Persons A & B are not being treated equally.
Paul, if anyone gets pulled over for a traffic violation in Arizona, they will be asked for papers in ALL CASES. Citizens have to carry their drivers license at all times when driving. Tourists from Mexico must show their visa or temporary permit. Guess what? Mexico has similar requirements when Americans drive in their country.
The law does not take effect until this Thursday, July 29, but already has had positive benefits. Illegals are packing up and leaving the state, and Mexico has warned all of its drug and human traffickers to avoid Arizona. And the Federal government has stepped up its support with 1000 more troops to defend the border, and 600 million dollars to the state of Arizona.
The laws being enforced are the same federal immigration laws that apply to California, Texas and New Mexico. The only difference is that Arizona is enforcing the laws already on the books.
The traffic violation scenario is just one of many possible examples.
I'm pulled over for J-walking, or crossing on foot against a light, I would not be expected to have my driver's license in hand, or any other papers.
So ...
If I'm blond, and stopped on some pedestrian charge, I'm not likely to be asked for papers under this new law.
But if I have black hair and a mustache, I might be asked for papers.
Unequal protection under the law.
Hi all, did not read all the posts, so if this has already been answered, I apologize.
My question is, if under all the reasons previously given, it is illegal or unconstitutional for state authorities to detain or question suspected illegal aliens, is it not also then the same for federal authorities ? Do the feds not operate under the same restrictions ? If that is correct, then what you are saying is that the Constitution provides no lawful way for the United States to protect her borders.
Thanks for letting me express my opinion here.
Thanks for the comment.
Current law allows and encourages both federal and local authorities to detain and, if appropriate, arrest illegal immigrants. That's what we want.
The problem with the new Arizona law is that it encourages local offiails to ask anyone - American citizen or otherwise - for immigration papers, based on the officer's "suspicions". This is a form of racial profiling, and could result in law-abiding people being asked for their papers.
Such police conduct would be wrong for both Federal and local police.
Well folk I enjoyed reading these comments.
It seems to me that Mr. Paul Levinson here forgets that any cop can ask for ID already at any time for any reason - IT"S CALLED probable cause?? Try and not comply with a cops requests and see what happens?
You are (today in any state) required to have and furnish ID if its requested by the police. And yes that goes for walking down a street whistling dixie at 2am and saying howdy to a cop trying being friendly.
I'm speaking from experience when I almost got arrested for not proving who I was during a traffic stop. I wasn't even driving. Thanks GW..and homeland..so police "can" if they feel its warranted,, detain you and verify your identity under a host of homeland security legislation without ever menitoning this AZ immigration law (which is derived from federal law). They've got 24hrs to hold you....Thank GW
For myself I'd like to know what Mr. Paul Levinson's solution is to putting restrictions on illegal immigration.
It's very imbalanced world. We are the bad guys for asking if you have ID and then deporting violators when many other countries in the world have their armed forces siting on their borders enforcing "IMMIGRATION LAW".
Please note that the mexican army has shot lots of guatemalans for crossing into mexico.
So I guess we should just open our doors and stop asking questions?
One way or the other immigration will come to a boiling point. I rather it be a bunch questions with civility then mine fields layed in front of border towns and police checkpoints.
that's my two cents
Post a Comment