"The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology."


Saturday, July 14, 2007

Thoughts on Immigration Reform

Our immigration problem is, generally, of two prongs: (I) an unsecured border and a flow of illegal immigration and (II) millions of illegal immigrants currently in residence in the United States. Both problems demand a solution, but the horse must come before the cart.

Over the decades various reforms have been enacted and all have failed because the border was never secure and the problem has kept rearing its ugly head. So that the next reform does not meet the same fate it is a prerequisite that we solve the first problem first. The federal government must secure the border, period. Mark Krikorian has offered many methods that would make this possible. Build the fence approved by Congress last year, verify the legality of immigrant workers, punish those who employ illegals, train local officers for border security, prosecute and jail those who enter illegally, make legal status a labor standard, etc.1

It is illogical, pointless, and backwards to try to deal with standing water when the flow is still spewing from the spigot. Stop the flow first. Once this has been accomplished—once the flow of illegal immigration has been stopped—then our second problem—what to do with those who have already illegally entered the country and taken residence—can be addressed.2

Beyond the simple and unavoidable practicality and common sense of this approach, I believe it is the only conceivable one through which any enactment of reform could be politically possible, as the rejection of comprehensive reform last year and this year have demonstrated.(I mean this from a conservative standpoint at least, as I cannot really judge what effect this first things approach would have in alleviating the labor objections from the left to comprehensive reform.)

I could very well be misreading my conservative friends, but what I think their objection to is not so much a path to citizenship—or "amnesty", if you will—per se, but that the reform recently proposed and rejected was the same bill of goods that they’ve been sold before. They’ve agreed to an amnesty-for-border security compromise in the past, most recently in 1986, only to see the flow of illegal immigration continue, if not increase, making it little wonder that so few now seem willing to accept another compromise, especially when there is every likelihood that, in keeping with history, another reform will be necessary in twenty years. As the editors of National Review have written, "Until we see that enforcement taking place—and see the government standing up to the interests that will squeal when it does—we should not contemplate providing an amnesty."3

If any reform is to be enacted, it must be done differently this time so that it will be a permanent reform and not just a band-aid. Take care of the flow first and then I do believe that conservatives will be at the very least open to a path to citizenship. As Charles Krauthammer has written, an amnesty would be acceptable if it were the last.("If these are indeed the last illegal immigrants to come in, let us generously and humanely take them out of the shadows.")4 So too would most conservatives, I think.

1. Krikorian, Mark (2007, July 9). 'Give Me The Tools'. National Review, LIX(12), 20-24.
2. Though my views on immigration have evolved since the issue first genuinely erupted onto the public consciousness about a year ago, I still maintain as I always have that the best way to deal with the millions of illegal immigrants currently in residence in the United States—the standing water—is to enact a path to citizenship, one which compels illegals to pay all back taxes and to get in line behind those who have already begun the process of legal migration.
3. Editorial, (2007, July 9). Fool Me Twice. National Review, LIX(12), 16.
4. Krauthammer, Charles (2007, May 25). Amnesty Acceptable if it's the Last. The Washington Post, Retrieved July 14, 2007, from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/amnesty_acceptable_if_its_the.html

Thursday, July 05, 2007

The Libby Commutation

Those critical of the President’s commutation of Mr. Scooter Libby’s sentence the day before last declaim it as politically motivated or, according to Sen. Obama, an instance of "ideology above the law"1, criticism that could only be valid were it describing the investigation, prosecution, and sentencing of Mr. Libby and these dissidents’ own support and conception of it.2 A simple examination of the objective facts of this strange, pathetic affair can lead me to no other conclusion.

Prior to the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald as special prosecutor in the Plame leak investigation, the Justice Department was aware of the source of that leak (then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage) and that no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act had occurred. Nevertheless, Mr. Fitzgerald pursued his investigation for months, at the conclusion of which an indictment was filed charging Mr. Libby with perjury before a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice, crimes committed during the course of an investigation whose purpose had been realized before it had begun—determination of the source of the leak and if it constituted an illegality—and in which no underlying crime had been committed.

Perhaps I’m missing something, but a criminal investigation commissioned and executed following the determination of the perpetrator’s identity and the fact that no actual crime had been committed has about as much purpose as calling in the paramedics after the death certificate has been signed. Since the purpose of the investigation had been realized before it had begun, the only purpose Mr. Fitzgerald’s inquiry seems to have taken on is a fishing expedition to catch someone within the administration somewhere in an inconsistency so they could be charged, something he succeeded in.

But leaving to the side the context, one has to question once again the legal validity of Mr. Libby’s conviction on its face. As the editors at National Review point out, the perjury he was alleged to have committed was based on nothing more than "discrepancies between Libby’s grand jury testimony and that of a few journalists who contradicted him...a reasonable person listening to the faulty memories of the witnesses who testified could have concluded that Libby simply had things mixed up."3

The probability of this is only increased by the fact that former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer testified under oath during the trial that he had not told a reporter for the Washington Post about Mrs. Plame while the reporter testified he had. According to common sense one or the both of them simply has a faulty memory about a conversation which happened in the past. According to Mr. Fitzgerald’s logic however, one of them committed perjury.

The bankruptcy of this is evident. As Charles Krauthammer has written, at the time of the affair Mr. Libby "was famously multitasking a large number of national-security and domestic issues, receiving hundreds of pieces of information every day from dozens of sources. Yet special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald chose to make Libby's misstatements about the timing of the receipt of one piece of information — Mrs. Wilson's identity — the great white whale of his multimillion-dollar prosecutorial juggernaut."4 Prosecutions for jay-walking across an empty street have made more sense.

Nevertheless the jury convicted, a determination I may disagree with but can respect (they could not control the fact that an absurd case was placed before them).

What does extend beyond reason and respect is Mr. Fitzgerald’s request following that conviction that Mr. Libby be sentenced as if he had committed the crime of illegally revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence agent. Say what you will, but I am of the belief that, if one has committed a crime in the opinion of a jury of his peers he should be punished for only that crime, and that if a prosecutor wants to punish him for a certain crime he ought to charge him with it and go through the trouble of prosecuting him for it. That the judge eagerly granted Mr. Fitzgerald’s wish only compounds this affront on justice, which was nothing more than a legal bait-and-switch (convict him of one crime, then punish him as if he had committed another).

From the beginning, this affair has been little more than politics waged in the legal arena.5 It was and always has been a vehicle through which, quoting Robert Novak, critics have sought to criminalize "Bush’s military intervention" in Iraq. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid admitted as much when he described Mr. Libby as part of "White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq War."6 The circumstances of the case do not support the extravagant implications Sen. Reid sees in it.

To commute the sentence of Mr. Libby was the very least the President was compelled to do. Mr. Libby should not have had to go to jail for two years because the Washington establishment seeks to punish the Bush Administration for the Iraq War. This is nothing more than the criminalization of politics, where the resources of justice are used to settle political disputes.

Explaining his pardon of the Iran Contra indictees nearly fifteen years ago, President George H.W. Bush denounced this phenomenon, saying that differences in policy "should be addressed in the political arena, without the Damocles sword of criminality hanging over the heads of some of the combatants. The proper target is the president, not his subordinates; the proper forum is the voting booth, not the courtroom."

The wisdom and benefits of this principle is evident, and under it this long, sad affair is condemned, as well as those who perpetrated and supported it. If any crime was committed by Mr. Libby, then it was not nearly as obnoxious as the insult on blind justice which was perpetrated by Patrick Fitzgerald et al.

1. York, Byron (2007, July 3). Why Bush Saved Libby. National Review Online, Retrieved July 4, 2007, from http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2RjNDYzNGIwNDNiOGUwOTMyODZhZDJmYzZhNDhkMGU=
2. Neither would it seem like crocodile tears if those offering it had risen in similar righteous indignation when President Clinton pardoned crook and campaign contributor Marc Rich and also Susan McDougal, who refused to testify as to whether President Clinton had lied under oath
3. Editorial, (2007, July 3). Appropriate Presidential Mercy. National Review Online, Retrieved July 4, 2007, from http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzQ4ZDQwYzA2Yjk5YmEwZGVhMzVhZGYxMDQ1MWU5MjI=
4. Krauthammer, Charles (2007, March 9). Time To End Fitzgerald's Folly. The Washington Post, Retrieved July 4, 2007, from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/bush_should_pardon_libby_now.html
5.I would be remiss if I did not mention the glaring contradiction between the application of justice in this case with that which occurred when former national security advisor Sandy Berger deliberately attempted to steal and remove highly classified documents from the national archives and then lied about doing it, with little more than a slap on the wrist. That seems to be an offense much steeper than failing to recall when one heard of a certain person’s identity months in the past. Mr. Libby could reasonably claim to have a hazy memory, it is hard to claim that one inadvertently walked out of the archives with documents stuffed in your socks and underpants. Yet Mr. Berger was fined $50,000, given probation, and sentenced to community service, while Mr. Libby was given a fine of $250,000, two and a half years in prison, and then two years probation. Justice does not seem to be blind in this case, but instead has a poor sense of balance.
6. Novak, Robert (2007, July 4). Bush as Solomon. Creators Syndicate, Retrieved July 4, 2007, from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/bush_as_solomon.html