This is a pretty shocking report from Al-Jazeera. I wasn't aware that so much of Istanbul's more "embedded" cultural sites were so quickly being eaten up by development efforts. Of course, for a rapidly modernizing and growing country such as Turkey, it would be difficult to justify or fund protection for these areas, which suggests that UNESCO and other organizations should form a fund to help support protection efforts.
I will note, however, that a suspension bridge in the area is probably a necessary addition to contribute to urban development and easing some congestion, and that building it is less contentious for me than the destruction of the cultural neighborhoods. In any case, the universal agreement should be that Istanbul deserves particular attention as a candidate for special protections against demolition, provided the local and national authorities can be given the resources to pursue other non-demolition options for their urban projects.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Arizona SB 1070: Arizonan Tragedy?
The ruckus (yep, ruckus, I feel like I haven't used that word often enough in life) over SB 1070, the "immigration law" from this wonderfully misguided state, seems to be primarily over injustices and other offenses that the law doesn't actually mean to commit, but does anyway as a byproduct of poor writing and too much faith in law enforcement authority. This makes it the latest in a long line of documents that had good intentions and were on the right track, but were composed and supported by idiots, namely Governor Jan "I'm not tan enough yet" Brewer and Senator Russell "I'm not a crook, except that one time I was fired for being one" Pearce. The law is designed to improve Arizona's right to enforce laws that it considers left unenforced as of now, which is precisely what the states have the right to do. The problem, of course, is in the area of unintended (or, as some opponents would argue, cleverly intended but concealed) consequences. There is often a line between the law's writing and how it is implemented, and the gap gets wider in proportion to the stupidity of the law's text (for instance, in Australia, while the sale of cigarettes and alcohol to children is illegal, it is technically legal for children to use them). The conflict over the law does bring to light stark extremes in the opinions on immigration, but it also shows the very real ways both sides are right---and how they both suffer from this law. I explain below...
The things the PROPONENTS of 1070 have RIGHT:
1. Illegal immigration is a serious problem in the United States, not out of racism (though of course xenophobia helps for some people), but out of economic and governance concerns. How can our government form reasonable policy if a sizable chunk of the people (12-15 million by some estimates, or 3-5% of the POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES) cannot vote, cannot legally drive, cannot be educated beyond minimum levels (or less), cannot and do not pay taxes, and cannot reach higher-paying and higher-productivity jobs for fear of discovery? For the good of both our legal citizens and the people seeking to take part in our nation, it is important the immigration laws be written and enforced logically, humanely, and with an eye to the benefit of the maximum number possible.
2. If the Federal Government does not enforce a law, even those over which it has jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon the states, in the interest of serving their constituents, to enforce that law, provided the enforcement does not supersede the Constitution (which is still supreme). Thus, the states have the right to pass laws which pursue the same goals as federal laws (like arresting illegal migrants) so their officers have the power to fulfill, without replacing, the federal government's responsibility. In the same way, state troopers can arrest you for speeding on an interstate highway, but they are fulfilling the federal responsibility to "regulate interstate commerce [and transportation, as stated by the Supreme Court]. To set a precedent that a state cannot pursue the same goals as the federal government, would kill the federal-republican nature of the entire Constitution, a vital aspect of our country. This immigration spat is not worth that, sorry. (A few years back I supported California in a similar dispute with the Environmental Protection Agency, which tried to say that California could not have tougher emissions standards than the feds because that was unconstitutional. If I shot down SB 1070 along this argument, I'd be a massive hypocrite.)
3. So-called "sanctuary cities" and their purpose (to provide havens for illegal migrants in blatant disregard of federal law) are in fact dangerous and disrespectful, and downright illegal, examples of local authority subverting national will. For those who don't know, sanctuary cities are cities that provide legal ways for illegal immigrants to live and function well in their borders, and in fact, sometimes even ATTRACT these migrants on purpose. If cities could usurp federal or state authority in this way on every other issue, our country would be nothing more than a network of little city kingdoms like Europe in the Middle Ages, just with cars and the Internet. We would live in a confusing, chaotic, and ultimately counter-productive nation. The right of Arizona, and any other state, to prevent and punish such egregious usurpation, is entirely pursuant to the aims and interests of the states, federal government, and all citizens of the country, and thus appropriate under the constitution.
What the OPPONENTS of SB 1070 have RIGHT:
-SB 1070 encourages racial profiling by way of practicality and vagueness:
1. For one, the law does not establish any means beyond "reasonable suspicion" to determine who will be stopped and asked for proof of legal status. The Supreme Court and other legal bodies have already provided that "reasonable suspicion" is vague enough to mean virtually anything, and that only in retrospect does "reason" come into it; ultimately, the officer empowered to enforce a given law with "reasonable suspicion" has almost total and unimpeded authority to act in a situation as he/she sees fit.
2. Second, the phrase "reasonable suspicion" is not only legally vague, but also in this context very practically vague. As in, how does an officer determine "suspicion" in a way that does not entail very real racial profiling and therefore state-warranted discrimination? What qualifies as "suspicious of being/transporting an illegal"? Consider this: a 15-passenger, somewhat dirty van comes driving back from what the officer knows is open farmland, and the van is full of dirty, sweaty young men. Does the officer stop this van and ask what they are doing and if they have proof of residence? Let me give you one last descriptor: the van is full of mostly white, blonde kids. See, the van is coming back from a service project done by a church group. I was in that van, couple years back we went and tiled a house on farmland. Guess what? I bet we can agree that if an officer saw that van, with the smiling white folk, he wouldn't think twice about wasting his or those nice people's time and asking them for proof of legal residence. Now fill that same van with tan Hispanic people, like myself. Now, as part of the powers provided by SB 1070, he has full legal authority to stop this van on the "reasonable suspicion" that a group of Hispanics that large is likely (in popular consensus) to contain an illegal migrant. Here's the kicker: when I went to do that, do you think I brought my ID, Social Security Card, or anything else I wouldn't need on a high-manual labor project? You sure as hell bet not, so chances would be that if I was in that second van for the EXACT SAME REASON as the other one, I could easily be arrested on suspicion of illegal residence, and held for that crime. Doesn't matter that it's a mistake, it's a pretty hefty toll on my civil liberties, and makes me think twice about leaving my house, even for a short jog, without full legal proof of who I am---even though I was born in a hospital in California, to two natural American citizens. Now some people might very logically argue, "Eric, you assume all cops are abusive racist maniacs who wake up in the morning thinking 'I'm gonna catch me some brown folks'; can't you cut them some slack and think they'll only use this power where it belongs?" And I'd say "you know, I could, except for one little problem," which brings me to my next point...
3. Do you ever avoid doing things that you'd rather not do? Sure, everyone has stuff they skimp: sometimes we don't really give a damn that our desks are messy, or that the car needed an oil change 1,000 miles ago (or 100,000 miles ago for some people :) ). What if the penalty for not doing it suddenly became losing everything else you had? Bet you'd check your oil daily if you'd lose your house for not keeping up with it. Well, now think about it: the law SB 1070 provides that if a citizen thinks that an agency (or representative of that agency) has failed to enforce the law, then he/she can sue that agency. Hm, suddenly puts a bit of a fire underneath everyone to REALLY CHECK those papers, huh? Because otherwise, even if the State Agency wins the suit, it'll cost a fortune in legal fees and paperwork, and man hours lost to defend itself. So now, the agencies are all but ENCOURAGED to check every person who "kinda sorta looks like they might" be illegally here (read: are brown), because otherwise, if a very active citizen like Pearce saw the officer NOT ask, he could sue and cost the state thousands to millions.
4. Now, add everything up: vague writing, near-limitless enforcement power, pretty good assurance that race will play into the determination of enforcement, and lawsuits encouraging tougher, if not prioritized, enforcement of the law. What do we have? We have encouraged racial profiling, a lot more false arrests, many Hispanics in fear of our own state government, and the debate doesn't end: it just gets worse with everything else. Is this the Arizona, the America we want? A state united in either fear, or anger, or both? A state where race is suddenly a chief issue in people's minds, where our police are arbiters and victims alike in a battleground between citizens unable to meet in the middle? A state that sets the low bar for cooperation, openness, and effective government all at once? I think not.
THE TRAGEDY
In school, they teach us about tragedy, possibly the most emotive class of literature. Aristotle wrote that the best of tragedies contains a hero with hamartia, a "flaw" or "mistake" that often includes too much pride or hubris, and eventually leads to his peripeteia, the reversal of his fortune, until finally all that he has left is the moment of catharsis where he truly realizes his mistakes and where his flaws doomed him, but this realization is all to late. Tragedies are powerful precisely because they warn us of taking the same paths in our own lives. I fear that Arizona, and the United States in general, will through SB 1070 suffer its own tragedy:
We are dividing ourselves as if this law is the culmination of the "debate", as though the only options are to have it, or not have it. In doing so, we the heroes of this live play make ourselves more extreme and all the less likely to truly attack the problem of illegal immigration in a way that truly meets the needs of the country, as well as the human beings this conflict is actually about. Our hamartia is our lack of mutual understanding, our unwillingness to see the other side, exacerbated by our hubris and that of our leaders, who on both sides seem to believe they have all the answers and the right to talk down to us. I fear that this will leave us only worsening the problem by alienating a huge, up to now loyal, productive and loving portion of our population, taking our places on opposing sides, not actually solving the border problems and continuing to see drugs, crime lords, and related issues encroach our state, all critically hampered by the feeling of distrust and lack of cooperation. And worst of all, just as Aristotle, Shakespeare, and many other authors would warn, we will only experience a catharsis too late.
Of course, there is still time right now. We can reach out to one another and start a movement to reach a middle road and really find a satisfactory way to meet the challenge of immigration reform, or we can continue down the road and wait for the "plague on both our houses." You decide, Arizona.
The things the PROPONENTS of 1070 have RIGHT:
1. Illegal immigration is a serious problem in the United States, not out of racism (though of course xenophobia helps for some people), but out of economic and governance concerns. How can our government form reasonable policy if a sizable chunk of the people (12-15 million by some estimates, or 3-5% of the POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES) cannot vote, cannot legally drive, cannot be educated beyond minimum levels (or less), cannot and do not pay taxes, and cannot reach higher-paying and higher-productivity jobs for fear of discovery? For the good of both our legal citizens and the people seeking to take part in our nation, it is important the immigration laws be written and enforced logically, humanely, and with an eye to the benefit of the maximum number possible.
2. If the Federal Government does not enforce a law, even those over which it has jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon the states, in the interest of serving their constituents, to enforce that law, provided the enforcement does not supersede the Constitution (which is still supreme). Thus, the states have the right to pass laws which pursue the same goals as federal laws (like arresting illegal migrants) so their officers have the power to fulfill, without replacing, the federal government's responsibility. In the same way, state troopers can arrest you for speeding on an interstate highway, but they are fulfilling the federal responsibility to "regulate interstate commerce [and transportation, as stated by the Supreme Court]. To set a precedent that a state cannot pursue the same goals as the federal government, would kill the federal-republican nature of the entire Constitution, a vital aspect of our country. This immigration spat is not worth that, sorry. (A few years back I supported California in a similar dispute with the Environmental Protection Agency, which tried to say that California could not have tougher emissions standards than the feds because that was unconstitutional. If I shot down SB 1070 along this argument, I'd be a massive hypocrite.)
3. So-called "sanctuary cities" and their purpose (to provide havens for illegal migrants in blatant disregard of federal law) are in fact dangerous and disrespectful, and downright illegal, examples of local authority subverting national will. For those who don't know, sanctuary cities are cities that provide legal ways for illegal immigrants to live and function well in their borders, and in fact, sometimes even ATTRACT these migrants on purpose. If cities could usurp federal or state authority in this way on every other issue, our country would be nothing more than a network of little city kingdoms like Europe in the Middle Ages, just with cars and the Internet. We would live in a confusing, chaotic, and ultimately counter-productive nation. The right of Arizona, and any other state, to prevent and punish such egregious usurpation, is entirely pursuant to the aims and interests of the states, federal government, and all citizens of the country, and thus appropriate under the constitution.
What the OPPONENTS of SB 1070 have RIGHT:
-SB 1070 encourages racial profiling by way of practicality and vagueness:
1. For one, the law does not establish any means beyond "reasonable suspicion" to determine who will be stopped and asked for proof of legal status. The Supreme Court and other legal bodies have already provided that "reasonable suspicion" is vague enough to mean virtually anything, and that only in retrospect does "reason" come into it; ultimately, the officer empowered to enforce a given law with "reasonable suspicion" has almost total and unimpeded authority to act in a situation as he/she sees fit.
2. Second, the phrase "reasonable suspicion" is not only legally vague, but also in this context very practically vague. As in, how does an officer determine "suspicion" in a way that does not entail very real racial profiling and therefore state-warranted discrimination? What qualifies as "suspicious of being/transporting an illegal"? Consider this: a 15-passenger, somewhat dirty van comes driving back from what the officer knows is open farmland, and the van is full of dirty, sweaty young men. Does the officer stop this van and ask what they are doing and if they have proof of residence? Let me give you one last descriptor: the van is full of mostly white, blonde kids. See, the van is coming back from a service project done by a church group. I was in that van, couple years back we went and tiled a house on farmland. Guess what? I bet we can agree that if an officer saw that van, with the smiling white folk, he wouldn't think twice about wasting his or those nice people's time and asking them for proof of legal residence. Now fill that same van with tan Hispanic people, like myself. Now, as part of the powers provided by SB 1070, he has full legal authority to stop this van on the "reasonable suspicion" that a group of Hispanics that large is likely (in popular consensus) to contain an illegal migrant. Here's the kicker: when I went to do that, do you think I brought my ID, Social Security Card, or anything else I wouldn't need on a high-manual labor project? You sure as hell bet not, so chances would be that if I was in that second van for the EXACT SAME REASON as the other one, I could easily be arrested on suspicion of illegal residence, and held for that crime. Doesn't matter that it's a mistake, it's a pretty hefty toll on my civil liberties, and makes me think twice about leaving my house, even for a short jog, without full legal proof of who I am---even though I was born in a hospital in California, to two natural American citizens. Now some people might very logically argue, "Eric, you assume all cops are abusive racist maniacs who wake up in the morning thinking 'I'm gonna catch me some brown folks'; can't you cut them some slack and think they'll only use this power where it belongs?" And I'd say "you know, I could, except for one little problem," which brings me to my next point...
3. Do you ever avoid doing things that you'd rather not do? Sure, everyone has stuff they skimp: sometimes we don't really give a damn that our desks are messy, or that the car needed an oil change 1,000 miles ago (or 100,000 miles ago for some people :) ). What if the penalty for not doing it suddenly became losing everything else you had? Bet you'd check your oil daily if you'd lose your house for not keeping up with it. Well, now think about it: the law SB 1070 provides that if a citizen thinks that an agency (or representative of that agency) has failed to enforce the law, then he/she can sue that agency. Hm, suddenly puts a bit of a fire underneath everyone to REALLY CHECK those papers, huh? Because otherwise, even if the State Agency wins the suit, it'll cost a fortune in legal fees and paperwork, and man hours lost to defend itself. So now, the agencies are all but ENCOURAGED to check every person who "kinda sorta looks like they might" be illegally here (read: are brown), because otherwise, if a very active citizen like Pearce saw the officer NOT ask, he could sue and cost the state thousands to millions.
4. Now, add everything up: vague writing, near-limitless enforcement power, pretty good assurance that race will play into the determination of enforcement, and lawsuits encouraging tougher, if not prioritized, enforcement of the law. What do we have? We have encouraged racial profiling, a lot more false arrests, many Hispanics in fear of our own state government, and the debate doesn't end: it just gets worse with everything else. Is this the Arizona, the America we want? A state united in either fear, or anger, or both? A state where race is suddenly a chief issue in people's minds, where our police are arbiters and victims alike in a battleground between citizens unable to meet in the middle? A state that sets the low bar for cooperation, openness, and effective government all at once? I think not.
THE TRAGEDY
In school, they teach us about tragedy, possibly the most emotive class of literature. Aristotle wrote that the best of tragedies contains a hero with hamartia, a "flaw" or "mistake" that often includes too much pride or hubris, and eventually leads to his peripeteia, the reversal of his fortune, until finally all that he has left is the moment of catharsis where he truly realizes his mistakes and where his flaws doomed him, but this realization is all to late. Tragedies are powerful precisely because they warn us of taking the same paths in our own lives. I fear that Arizona, and the United States in general, will through SB 1070 suffer its own tragedy:
We are dividing ourselves as if this law is the culmination of the "debate", as though the only options are to have it, or not have it. In doing so, we the heroes of this live play make ourselves more extreme and all the less likely to truly attack the problem of illegal immigration in a way that truly meets the needs of the country, as well as the human beings this conflict is actually about. Our hamartia is our lack of mutual understanding, our unwillingness to see the other side, exacerbated by our hubris and that of our leaders, who on both sides seem to believe they have all the answers and the right to talk down to us. I fear that this will leave us only worsening the problem by alienating a huge, up to now loyal, productive and loving portion of our population, taking our places on opposing sides, not actually solving the border problems and continuing to see drugs, crime lords, and related issues encroach our state, all critically hampered by the feeling of distrust and lack of cooperation. And worst of all, just as Aristotle, Shakespeare, and many other authors would warn, we will only experience a catharsis too late.
Of course, there is still time right now. We can reach out to one another and start a movement to reach a middle road and really find a satisfactory way to meet the challenge of immigration reform, or we can continue down the road and wait for the "plague on both our houses." You decide, Arizona.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)