SB1070 - Justified Profiling?

After reading AZ SB1070, I'm still opposed to supporting the state's efforts. The portion that offends me "FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)."

What the heck is "LAWFUL CONTACT"? If I call the cops because I got robbed, will the police ask me for my immigration documents? Will they ask if I have Spanish accent? If I say I'm a citizen and don't have "papers", will they let me go while they verify my story? This one section seems rife with opportunity for abuse.

While I disagree with the AZ law, I understand why they feel the need to take action. Our current immigration policy is nonexistent - we appear to have no actual policy. We have no strategy for deciding how many immigrants we want, no way to ensure that immigrants are interested in learning about our laws, culture, and heritage - because there is a huge demand for immigrants and no legal way to fill it. This lack of policy allows our economy's labor needs to be filled by non-citizens, who are treated poorly by their employers because of their lack of access to the legal system. Costs for healthcare, schools, and other social systems are passed on to taxpayers because illegal immigrant employees are paid at below market wages and don't have the money for health care, adequate housing (and resultant property taxes), etc.

Part of the states' difficulty to cope with illegal immigration is that they don't really have the tools to deal with the issue - the federal government needs to lead in drying up the demand for illegal immigrants by punishing those who employ them. This effort might not be popular (increased costs for agricultural goods, fewer political donations by the impacted business community) but it is their job. The tools states have tend to be hamhanded ones like the first paragraph of SB1070. The federal government needs to develop a real strategy that manages the need for labor with enforcement that will prevent illegal immigrants from remaining in our labor force.

But none of that justifies a law that brings to mind images from Nazi Germany or the pre-Civil War American south - where people could have their liberty curtailed or ended by a peace officer who might be merely mistaken, might want an additional payoff, or who might just be a bad guy who thought they loved Jews or should be treated like the other enslaved blacks. And while the law might indeed find some illegal immigrants, is it worth humiliating and inconveniencing countless citizens in that effort? If you think that you or someone you care about might be one of the ones harassed, the answer has to be no. While the language in SB1070 means we could all be subject to its questioning of our immigration status and proof thereof, regardless of our appearance or accent, increasing the number of people who might be harrassed by a law doesn't make it better. THis is a bad law, which our own nation's history indicates will be used for nefarious purposes.

None of this even considers the moral dimension - caring for strangers, the poor, and the least among us are only a few of the Christian values violated by this law. Jim Wallis' take on this issue is valuable for the issues he raises.

There may be a lot to like in SB1070, but America should be way past allowing for harassing people about their immigration status.

Libertarianism, Atlas Shrugged, and Faith

Some who associate with Libertarians are stone crazy, like this nut. And this one, who worked with him.

This is what the Libertarian (large L) said about themselves, in 2008. It's mostly reasonable - of course, with political platforms it's what is unsaid that is generally the most troubling. I personally could support some of the more controversial planks, such as their belief in the right of personal privacy, and it's extension into elimination of "consensual crimes" such as drug use.

But that raises an interesting question - who are libertarians (small l), and what do they believe? The Libertarian Party only rarely wins an election, which is the truest measure of the effectiveness of a political party. So, who would ally themselves with a group so unlikely to, you know, win elected office?

One portion of the platform, which is probably the most popular among its members, is as follows "Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent." Sounds pretty paranoid about government to me. What sort of government action would it take to create that mindset?

For many libertarians, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged creates such a world. Atlas Shrugged introduces John Galt, who believes and espouses a set of values which are almost identical to the Libertarian Party principle above. The difference is that the fictional Galt knows how to enact his vision. His solution - let workers (especially business executives, etc.) withdraw from society. The world that requires this drastic action is a stark one - where trade associations ban competition, where workers have to beg employers for additional money solely based on their "needs", where government takes over businesses which are functioning well. This world is not like the one in which we live.

The belief that many libertarians hold appears to be right out of Atlas Shrugged. It is a pessimistic view about other people - one that assumes almost everyone is a "looter" who would forcibly take the wealth of others or a "moocher" who would force the owners to give his wealth out of compassion. It parallels Ronald Reagan's belief that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem". It assumes that there is no worthwhile objective (besides military defense, police, and courts) that requires taxes to pay for it. It assumes that many other businesses are looters and moochers who will manipulate (lobby) government to do their bidding. It assumes government is best kept small so that it can do little damage. It celebrates the individual at the expense of the group.

This belief is held by many other groups in our political discourse. Politically active religious conservatives claim many of the same beliefs, but a close examination reveals a flaw - the true libertarian views religion as a tool to cause people to stop thinking, to cause people to cease to reason, to cause people to fear. In Part III, Chapter VII, the fictional John Galt says that:

• "man's reason IS his moral faculty"
• "... the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind - that the acceptance of a mystical invention is a wich for the annihilation of existence and, properly, annihilates one's consciousness."
  

The Christian who claims the libertarian belief has a challenge to reconcile his faith with his politics. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1, NIV) is a long way from "short-circuit destroying the mind". If you worship the God who mandated the Jubilee (Leviticus 25:8-31) and you believe that every Word of God is to be followed, it seems difficult to support a political policy based solely on private property rights and trade. It's hard to imagine the Jesus who served the poor fearing "socialized medicine" for the poor at the expense of the wealthy.

No political reality works perfectly for anyone - the reality is that we must all pick and choose what we believe and ally ourselves politically as the situation requires.

Public Perceptions of Scientists (& what about Engineers?)

This is a pretty good article (Thanks to Eric Addo for posting) explaining results of a Pew survey addressing public perceptions of science issues and scientists, and scientists perception of science issues and the public. As we move further into a future dominated by science and technology, the disconnects between scientists' and public perceptions on science policy issues (eg. global warming, nuclear energy) are troubling. How do we close the gap between the two?

My own anecdotal experiences find engineers (closely related to scientists, but with profound differences) to be aligned with more fiscally conservative politics than most similarly educated and compensated members of the public. The survey identified scientists as being more liberal than the public. This brings up a relevant question - What do scientists & engineers do?

• The classic definition for scientist is a person who works to expand the body of knowledge. There are obviously some constraints (scientists like to eat and live in buildings, meaning that someone has to pay for or sponsor their work), but it is generally understood that there is not a DIRECT link between scientific research and financial gain.
• According to former National Academy of Engineering president Wm. A. Wulf, "My favorite quick definition of what engineers do is 'design under constraint.'" This is a pretty good definition, at least for what I've experienced. There is a generally an expectation that engineering solutions have to make financial sense - that the solution has to solve a problem less expensively than existing products.

I'd be curious to see what scientists' and engineers' similarities and differences would be in a similar survey. Would it matter if people who are used to scientific principles (one group tests and probes, the other applies and uses) perceive politics differently?

One other issue that jumped out to me was the difference between public & scientists' perception of issues where religion and science intersect (eg. global warming, stem cell research). Scientists tend to believe in scientific theories or laws (evolution of species, gravity) that have been created based on empirical observation. The public often uses religious arguments to resist changes that originate with these scientific observations. My own belief is that God has not allowed us to fully understand our world, and this lack of understanding allows for uncertainty that science can aim to reduce, but never truly eliminate. However, science can not change how I'm supposed to deal with God, or how to follow his His teachings. What do you think - is the disconnect between scientists' and public perceptions on issues that touch on religion a big concern?

Sunday Reading

There were a few interesting articles from Sunday's NY Times. Registration is required, but it's free.

Town Halls by Invitation

Lining Up for Help

Are We Too Late?

Why We Need Health Care Reform

The Swiss Menace

Health Care Moral Hazards

So, everybody's talking about healthcare reform, but who's THINKING about healthcare reform? I've got some thoughts. But first let's define a term that is relevant to the discussion - moral hazard.

• Moral hazard is the result of eliminating the penalty for not doing the right thing. The risk of this penalty ensures parties in transactions will play by the rules of the free market. Markets require that parties in transactions bear some risk of penalty for failure to uphold their end of the transaction, or else markets eventually stop functioning.

The U.S. health delivery system has gone out of control - it doesn't respond to market forces, and its pricing is driving people out of the system. Several moral hazards have been introduced into the system, creating this condition.

• There is no individual health care cost for poor health maintenance - no penalty for smoking, for being overweight, for not exercising, for participating in injury-prone activities, for skipping routine checkups. This lack of cost to the individual is largely because we pay for routine health care with insurance. People would feel this cost more if they paid (or felt like they paid) for their care out of their own pockets.
  
  
• We haven't decided how to pay to care for many of those who opt out (I know many people can't afford to pay, but bear with this line of reasoning for a moment.) of health care, but we demand they get the most expensive care we offer - emergency care. Our national ethos demands that we do our best to save the dying. Our medical technology has evolved to perform remarkably at this task, but it's expensive to have those skilled professionals, sophisticated equipment, and modern facilities on hand throughout the nation. Preventing people from entering the emergency system should be the goal of our health care strategy, but people go to the emergency room and are treated for routine problems that have been allowed to fester. Just like people who buy a house with no money down and then walk away because housing values drop, people who ignore health care until deathly ill and then go to the emergency room are acting in their own best interest, because of the introduction of a moral hazard - not letting people die for lack of money - that I think speaks positively of our nation's values.
  
  
• The medical industry is an industry. There are best practices, not so good practices, and bad practices. Consumers aren't well informed about medical best practices. We don't know which are the best practices - most of us only deal with the industry a few times a year, and only once or twice in our lives for a big problem - so we can't look for the best practices. This results in another moral hazard - consumers can't punish bad medical industry actors by avoiding them, since consumers can't identify them.

In order to fix our health care system, we must eliminate the moral hazards. I've got more thoughts, but I want to hear from you. Are there any other moral hazards out there?