Approaching Immigration With A "Spirit of Compassion"

Perhaps you heard that Arizona passed an immigration law that is controversial.  Most of the controversy centered around the following language from the bill (read it here in pdf), Article 8 paragraph B:

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement 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.

As for the legal side of the thing, first, "lawful contact" may be the most broad language ever written in the history of American legislation.  It encompasses almost anything apart from an explicitly illegal traffic stop (which almost doesn't exist anymore: one mph over the speed limit, faulty tail light, "you looked like you were swerving within you lane", you vaguely fit the description of an alleged malfeasor, etc.) or the police barging into your home without a warrant.  Basically, lawful contact is not a limitation at all, let alone a reasonable one.

Second, the Constitution’s equal protection clause forbids the government from differentiating between anyone, including illegal immigrants, on the basis of race. Under the Arizona law no one has suggested any other potential grounds for the police to reasonably suspect someone is an illegal immigrant besides the fact that they have Latin American-colored skin.  What else could possibly fall under "reasonable suspicion"?  I can't think of anything.  Governmental racism is, bluntly, unconstitutional.

The Enumerated Powers

I wish I could be a libertarian.  I really do.  In fact, I think we all do.  Nobody loves paying taxes, nobody loves a big bloated government, nobody loves politicians who are almost universally slimy and packaged and plastic.  I think we all have our own certain ideal for a government-light society.  But there is where the problem comes in: everyone's ideal is different.  Not only that, but those with the most money tend to force their ideals upon the rest of us until we can't take it anymore and turn to government to try to inject some sort of counter-balance.  The rich and powerful then try to game the new system, and away we go.

That is a basic back and forth we have in America today.  We are presented with a choice of who we hate more: corporations or government.  Both are big and ugly and powerful and inhuman and seemingly untouchable and, to our horror, actually really so intertwined as to be almost the same thing.  The financial reform legislation process highlights this fact nicely.  On the one hand you have Democrats trying to reform the system and put some regulations on how Wall Street functions in order to avoid another Great Recession, on the other hand you have Wall Street there every step of the way trying, and succeeding, to make the new reform as painless to themselves as possible, and with as many loopholes as possible.  The majority of Americans could not possibly be more confused about who to hate more.

Those that hate the government more have tended recently to question the constitutionality of federal government action, particularly as big reforms are being enacted to rein in the the insurance and financial industries' excesses.

What Would the Founding Fathers Have Thought About Ebay?

So let's pretend that you discovered a new continent with seemingly limitless natural resources, fertile soil, and a varied climate.  It began to be populated by people from every nation, religion, and walk of life and was thus tolerant and dynamic.  Essentially, the potential for growth and progress was boundless.  And let's pretend that those people turned to you and your colleagues to establish a government that would endure and upon which they could rely for generations to come.  What would you do?

Remember that this Constitution could endure for hundreds of years and see changes in the world that you cannot possibly imagine. Would you write a short document that gave a basic framework and allowed for a variety of interpretations to fit the needs of future generations?  Would you write a document that that had some broad language but a strict interpretation to be followed by all future generations?  Would you create essentially a large volume of specific statutes to be followed for all time?  Would you be confident that your wisdom should be followed explicitly by the progeny of your generation hundreds of years down the line?  Or would you want them to be able to adapt to a changing world while holding on to a few key principles of freedom that you hold dear?

These are, in essence, the issues that America's Founding Fathers faced while creating our new nation and producing a Constitution.  For a little context, here's a real rough sketch of America in 1790, just a couple of years after the Constitutional Convention.  America had about four million inhabitants, including about 700,000 slaves.  New York City was the largest city with about 33,000 people, Philadelphia was next with about 28,000, which means that the nation was overwhelmingly rural.  Most people were self-sufficient to the extreme, meaning they produced their own food and made their own clothes and built their own houses and bred their own horses.

Earth Day

And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.  Moses 6:63

The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.  Alma 30:44

If all creation testifies of God, then perhaps we can utilize Earth Day as a sort of testimony meeting.  A chance to look around and remember that not only was the Earth created for the temporal benefit of man and woman but also for man and woman to gain a testimony of the Supreme Creator.  I think that this balance has been skewed far to the former at the expense of the latter, and Earth Day is a chance to try to reset our way of valuing creation.

As an example of this conflict, consider the sage grouse.  This little fella makes his home in, if you can believe it, sagebrush habitat.  It just so happens that much of the United States' sagebrush habitat is also oilman habitat, and the more oil wells we sink the less habitat the sage grouse can call home, and the more threatened it becomes.  The Interior Department was petitioned to protect the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act and recently made its dissonant decision: the sage grouse deserves protection, but we aren't giving it.  Jason Chaffetz showed his lack of imagination in reaction to this decision--"The only good place for a sage grouse to be listed is on the menu of a French bistro"--a variation on a common theme among the anti-environmentalism crowd.  (Why would the French eat a bird native to the American West?  How about: "I get enough grouse at home from my wife and kids, I don't need it in my oil production facilities," or something?)

So anyway, is the sage grouse just an annoyance to brush aside in our thirst for more fossil fuels, or is it possible that this quirky bird that attracts potential mates by making a rubber-ball-bouncing sound with its chest is something to be valued as bearing record of a Creator?  Is it fundamentally ridiculous to put so much emphasis on any single species, such as quirky bird which, seriously, attracts potential mates by making a rubber-ball-bouncing sound with its chest, which is, let's be honest, bizarre and a little gross?

Opposing Nuclear Weapons

In 1981 the First Presidency, in a statement opposing the storage of nuclear weapons in Utah and Nevada, made the following statement:

First, by way of general observation we repeat our warnings against the terrifying arms race in which the nations of the earth are presently engaged. We deplore in particular the building of vast arsenals of nuclear weaponry. We are advised that there is already enough such weaponry to destroy in large measure our civilization, with consequent suffering and misery of incalculable extent.

It is my feeling that nuclear weapons are evil, and that part of the responsibility of bearing the Gospel of Peace is speaking out against them.  I would love for members of the church to take the lead in opposing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and encouraging the nations of the world to disarm.  This goal can only be achieved through full international cooperation, and since the church is an international entity preaching peace we should have a strong and loud voice.

And there is a lot going on in the world of nuclear weapons these days.  President Obama recently signed a new START Treaty and Protocol with the Russians which will significantly reduce the number of weaponized nuclear warheads in both countries and increase monitoring of the progress of that reduction.

Urban Sprawl and the Utah Lake Bridge

A group of groups, led by the Sierra Club, recently offered their idea regarding a potential bridge that would span Utah Lake: Don't build it.  The Daily Herald, in typical fashion, offered a poorly thought-out rebuttal to the rebuttal, on which I would like to comment.

They were first offended that Marc Heileson of the Sierra Club called it a bridge to nowhere, saying:

Bridge to nowhere? That's quite a slam. Utah Valley is nowhere?  One end of the bridge would land near 800 North in Orem. That's not only at the heart of the valley, it's likely to be even more bustling in the future. Close by is the planned transportation hub for the Frontrunner train line and the Bus Rapid Transit project.

He didn't say a bridge from nowhere, he said a bridge to nowhere.  Clearly Orem is somewhere.  A lot of people live there.  The other side of the proposed bridge, however, is nowhere, and that is a good thing, and it should stay that way.  Unfortunately, there are developers eying the west side of the Utah Lake like Utah Republican lawmakers eye fifteen year old girls in hot tubs (too soon? low blow? I couldn't resist.  I take it back).

Re: Worth the read "I'm 63 and I'm Tired"

Following the lead of Jacob S., I decided to also post an e-mail that I received. The original e-mail has been circulating recently, but the responses come from a friend of mine who gave me permission to post it here:

I normally don't respond to these and I usually dislike getting political emails. But in light of all the lies and hatred going around these days, I took my lunch break to read and respond this time. For me, there was just a line or 2 that I DO agree with. Here are my rebuttals to the rest. My comments are in blue.

I'm 63. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.

I'm 43. Except for a period of time when I needed to leave a company and hadn't found a new job yet, I've worked, hard, since I was 13. I don't put in 50-hour weeks because my family is more important than spending time at an organization that doesn't value families. I don't make a good salary, but I make enough to provide for my family while still having time to spend with them. I'm hoping someday I can manage an early retirement, but that's not in the works yet.

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.

I'm tired of greedy wealthy corporations controlling everything in this country. I'm tired of being forced to pay money to industries to enrich their shareholders, just so I can buy basic goods or provide basic services for my family. Corporations make hundreds of billions of dollars yet still pay their employees poor wages. These wealthy multinational corporations cringe whenever they're asked to stop polluting or have to pay to clean up messes they made that destroy our environment and kill our children.

The Unhealthy Mingling of Politics in Mormonism

I received the below email today from a person I don't know.  It seems to be making the rounds:

Dear friends,

In light of the recent Gallop Poll which calculates that 60% of active Mormons self-identify as Conservative or Republican and that over 60% of inactive Mormons who still consider themselves Mormonism [sic] are self-identified "Liberals or Moderates" suggesting that the more liberal you are the more likely you are to go inactive; in light of Glenn Beck's recent public comments where the prominent Mormon declared that social justice was a code word for Communism and Nazism; and in light of the recent invitation by a Nevada Stake to Democratic Senator Harry Reid to speak at a fireside which was met by threats of violence and cancelled [sic]. 

As moderate, liberal or radical Mormons, it is time to make our voices heard WITHIN Mormonism. I for one am weary of hearing Republican talking points pass for Gospel truths. The Gospel is for everyone, not just Republicans; guided by the spirit, liberal and radical interpretations of the Gospel and scriptures are just as valid as those made by Conservatives.

The Idea:

• On May 1st 2010, International Workers’ Day, or May Day, we will participate in local May Day festivities and organize 'Social Justice and the Gospel' Teach-ins/Firesides all across the country. 

• On Sunday May 2nd, during Fast and Testimony Meeting, we will hold a special fast for those who are working all over the world to advance the causes of the Gospel, social justice, environmental sustainability and fighting the root causes of poverty. Then, we will attend our local Wards and, guided by the spirit, bare strong, sincere and non-confrontational testimonies on these themes.

  

Please pass the word along and start organizing events. Respond with ideas and comments.

Will you help me make the Mormon Church hospitable for all of God's Children? Even Liberals and Radicals?

In Solidarity,

Jason M. Brown
 
Master of Forestry (M.F.), Master of Art and Religion (M.A.R.), 2011
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies & Yale Divinity School
  
(714) 261-5616
Jason.brown@yale.edu

If anyone out there wants to participate, feel free, but I think this is a problem and a mistake.  One of the main goals we were trying to achieve with this blog was to show that Mormonism and liberalism are compatible, just like Mormonism and conservatism are compatible.  The implication is that there is no inherent political bias in our religion.  The doctrines, principles, and ordinances are pure, they are Truth.  They are not created by man.  Politics and government, on the other hand, are man-made institutions and deeply flawed.  The two should not be conflated.

Conservatives Flip-Flop On Individual Mandate Out Of Political Expediency

So let me see if I have this straight.  The principle most offensive to the TPM ultra-conservative types is the individual mandate.  It is the idea that the government would require an American citizen to buy something she might not want to buy.  I suspect most find the regulation of insurance company atrocities, such as dropping coverage when a person becomes sick, denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and charging higher premiums for women, somewhat acceptable.  It is the mandate that they hate.  HATE.

But what we are learning now is that conservatives almost universally supported the individual mandate as a sensible free-market alternative to the Clinton health care reform.  In fact, conservatives thought up the idea in the 70s and supported it for decades.  Mormon conservative hero and potential frontrunner in the 2012 Republican primary Mitt Romney passed an individual mandate as governor in Massachusetts and had this to say about it:  "We can't have as a nation 40 million people — or, in my state, half a million — saying, 'I don't have insurance, and if I get sick, I want someone else to pay.'"

On David Foster Wallace and Leadership

I'm requiring that all readers of this blog love the late writer David Foster Wallace.  If you can read through his essays in Harper's and the commencement speech he gave Kenyon College, and not want to go on and read his books, Infinite Jest in particular, you probably need to humble yourself and open your heart.  I'm not going to blaspheme and give you Moroni's promise here, but let me just say that I think the pure in heart will love his writing.  I know it's trendy to love DFW's writing right now, so sue me.  I love it.

So I was surprised that I had missed his article in Rolling Stone back in 2000 when he followed the McCain campaign around for a week.  He spends the last section of the article about leadership, which he defines as:

A real leader is somebody who, because of his own particular power and charisma and example, is able to inspire people, with "inspire" being used here in a serious and non-cliché way. A real leader can somehow get us to do certain things that deep down we think are good and want to be able to do but usually can't get ourselves to do on our own.

He then makes the point that we are less susceptible to real leadership today, as compared to JFK's presidency:

True, JFK's audience was more "innocent" than we are: Vietnam hadn't happened yet, or Watergate, or the Savings and Loan scandal, etc. But there's also something else. The science of sales and marketing was still in its drooling infancy in 1961 when Kennedy was saying "Ask not..." The young people he inspired had not been skillfully marketed to all their lives. They knew nothing of Spin. They were not totally, terribly familiar with salesmen.

          . . .

But if you're subjected to enough great salesmen and salespitches and marketing concepts for long enough — like from your earliest Saturday-morning cartoons, let's say — it is only a matter of time before you start believing deep down that everything is sales and marketing, and that whenever somebody seems like they care about you or about some noble idea or cause, that person is a salesman and really ultimately doesn't give a [I'll edit this, it is a Mormon blog, so use your imagination] about you or some cause but really just wants something for himself.

A Faltering Africa

I read an article about the state of war in Africa and have been rolling it around in my head for the last few days.  Sometimes you read something about the world which just slaps you in the face, and this was one of those times for me.

I tend to be an optimist on both a micro and macro level.  Many would call this naivete or willful delusion, but I consider it asset.  I believe that things will work out okay for me personally during difficult times (my wife might say this causes me to be less proactive than I should be, and maybe she's right), and I believe that the world is actually doing okay.  Sure there are problems, big ugly problems, but there are also a lot of good people doing their best to solve those problems.

We live in a world that has less slavery than ever before, less racism and sexism, more tolerance and understanding.  Mass communication has allowed us to perceive and react to inhumanities worldwide where before they would go unnoticed.  For every war or earthquake there are aid groups like the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders who rush in to help improve the situation.  And, of course, our church and many others donate hundreds of millions of dollars worth of supplies and volunteer time every year to help the disadvantaged.  For every instance of cruelty in the world I look for and see equal instances of charity.

But, man, Africa.

Another one Bites the Dust

Okay, another one is misleading. What I should say is "The first one bites the dust."

Arizona has become the first State to eliminate it's children's health insurance program (CHIP or SCHIP). The state legislature cited budget shortfalls and a "fiscal crisis" led to the decision to eliminate the program that served "38,000 children living in families with incomes between 100% and 200% of the federal poverty level ($22,000 to $44,000 for a family of four)."

As with other states using a similar program (i.e. Utah), states only pay about 35% of the cost needed for coverage, while the other 65% comes from the federal government. To me, one of the most interesting comments came from the Governor:

"As an Arizonan, as a mother, and as a person who feels great compassion for the vulnerable and less fortunate," she said, "it is only with great reluctance that I advocate a number of deep reductions in funding. . . . As governor, I have a duty to preserve State government's fiscal integrity and to ensure Arizona's long-term health."

I see contradictions throughout this statement. How does compassion for the vulnerable and less fortunate lead to cutting programs that help the vulnerable and less fortunate? Does Arizona's long-term health only include fiscal health and not physical health?

I hope for a land were people talk-the-talk, and then walk-the-walk. Maybe it's my "socialist" heart coming out, but I hope that other States don't follow the "responsible" move just made by Arizona.