Selective Enforcement of Law

Comments

19 responses to “Selective Enforcement of Law”

1. 

   Ronald D. Hunt

   2010-04-26

   “On the other hand my few liberal friends will undoubtedly take umbrage with my position that immigration status should be a secondary offence”

   Makes sense to me =p. We are a Nation of laws we can’t just pick which laws we like follow them and ignore the laws we don’t like.

   Our immigration laws are a mess and need to be worked out, their is still a large group of people that are strong politically that haven’t quiet made up their minds on what they want todo.

   Their are many good arguments for “comprehensive reform”(aka something that includes amnesty), for example declines in the Birth rate will begin to create worker shortages soon. The group of conservatives(club for growth) that would have constant growth no matter the cost depend on a continually growing population.

   Funny enough some of the groups against reform come from the left, Unions are generally against reform because they have better leverage when the supply of workers is low.

   “If we assume that all 40% of people who do not favor this law are among the 58% who fear the rights of citizens will be infringed then there is almost 1 in 5 who is willing to infringe on the basic rights of citizens in order to enforce our essentially arbitrary immigration laws.”

   Arizona is a funny State, Their deeply conservative but very non-libertarian. The mantra of small government is pretty much ignored by the republican party their. They are more interested in a government that espouses their beliefs and ideals then in a government that gets out of the way, a lot like Texas’s rural county’s.

   Reply
   1. 

      David

      2010-04-27

      Perhaps I should have been more clear that what liberals would dislike was that even routine traffic stops should be sufficient to ask about citizenship status of any person. 😉 If we were serious about being a nation of laws we would not be forgiving about lawmakers blowing off the founding law of the land when it is inconvenient to writing new legislation.

      By the way, that 60% in favor was a nationwide poll – in Arizona the approval for that law was fully 70% and I don’t know how many of them had concerns about the law infringing on the rights of citizens.

      Reply
      1. 

         Ronald D. Hunt

         2010-04-27

         “Perhaps I should have been more clear that what liberals would dislike was that even routine traffic stops should be sufficient to ask about citizenship status of any person.”

         A bit on the intrusive side, but I can understand that being necessary currently given the depth of the immigration problem.

         “If we were serious about being a nation of laws we would not be forgiving about lawmakers blowing off the founding law of the land when it is inconvenient to writing new legislation.”

         I can only guess what you are referring to there… *cough*Health Care*cough*. That has yet to be proven unconstitutional by the court, and even when *hopefully* the individual mandate is struck down I really think that the rest of the bill will be fine. Still I wonder what they will do to handle the adverse risk problem without the mandate, sorry tangent.

         Further I would say our “conservative” legislators do this type of nonsense all the time, bills seizing all federal lands via emanate domain, Opting out of Federal gun laws… Utah’s last legislative session was a real dozy.

         Back to the Arizona law, the problem with it is that people can be question just out of the blue without being pulled over or have committed a crime. I am fine with the idea of it being a secondary offence style thing where everyone is simply checked. I still worry about some of the side effects of this however, As Illegal immigrants will be less likely to seek the help of law enforcement when they need the help and this is a big problem.

         I think Charles has the right idea, attack the employers not the immigrant.

         Reply
         1. 

            David

            2010-04-27

            As far as the Arizona immigration bill I hope that I have been clear that I am very much opposed to the provision that they can stop anyone for no reason.

            As for how we treat the Constitution, the attitude that we should just wait to see what the court decides is a symptom of the problem – even worse is the attutde of many congressional leaders who simply ignored the issue when people questioned the constitutionality of the bill while it was being “discussed.” I can accept that different people have different ideas about the meaning of the Constitution and that the Supreme Court has final jurisdiction to decide such issues, but our elected members of congress should take all suh questions seriously and answer them directly rather than ignoring them and saying in effect, we’ll pass what we want and then the courts can strike our laws down afterward if they choose to.

            Reply
2. 

   Charles D

   2010-04-26

   If you are caught committing an offense, you are required to show your drivers license and it is reasonable to expect that your license and registration will be checked to determine whether either is stolen. In that process, if you are not in the country legally, that fact will probably come up and at that point, you are found out. That’s not a big problem for me as long as we treat people equally.

   Ultimately we need to take a few other actions. First we can reduce or eliminate most of the cross-border violence by decriminalizing drug possession and thus lowering prices. Second, we can shift the criminalization of immigration violations to employers and if an employer is guilty of hiring undocumented workers, we eliminate that employer either through prison time or by revoking the corporate charter and selling off the assets. Third, we eliminate the economic advantage of undocumented workers by extending labor law to cover them and insist on strict enforcement of wage and hour laws, occupational safety and health regulations, and minimum wage.

   We seem to be focused entirely on the supply side of this economic problem and ignoring the demand side. People come here principally because they can find work that pays better than anything they can find in their home countries. They are responding to a demand and if that demand was eliminated, illegal immigration would slow down or stop.

   Reply
   1. 

      David

      2010-04-27

      A license need not be stolen just because someone is here illegally. In fact some places, like New York openly give drivers licenses to non-citizens and I would be surprised if they tied the license expiration to visa expiration or even flagged which licenses belonged to non-citizens.

      I am no strong proponent of the war on drugs but I am not convinced that decriminalizing drug possession will have much effect of lowering cross-border violence. It might lower violence between law enforcement and drug suppliers but not between competing suppliers. I also don’t believe it would have as much effect on price – anything someone would willingly steal or kill to obtain is going to retain a high price. Legalizing possession might have the primary effect of increasing demand.

      As for attacking the demand side of the immigration equation I agree that a one-sided approach will always prove insufficient. Unfortunately we won’t get serious about holding employers accountable because of the number of individuals who choose to employ illegals at low wages and we won’t lower demand by dropping our minimum wage. I know that illegals will often work for less than our set minimum but if we were not holding an artificial minimum wage some of our citizens would be willing to work for lower wages which would depress the wages that illegals could demand.

      Reply
3. 

   Charles D

   2010-04-27

   There are some studies on drug decriminalization and they tend to demonstrate that usage goes down. If some part of the money saved on enforcement goes into treatment, it can make a big difference in demand. Also a lot of the violent competition between suppliers is driven by the huge profits that can be made in illegal drugs. Cut the prices and remove a lot of the risks involved and the competition will probably cool down.

   We don’t get serious about holding employers accountable because they have political influence ($$) and the workers don’t. It’s a lot easier to go after the workers. I really don’t want to do anything to encourage lower wages for American workers. That is not the answer. We don’t need to lower our standards to that of the 3rd world to solve our immigration problems. We can simply demand that employers obey the law.

   Reply
   1. 

      David

      2010-04-27

      When our standards are artificially high then I think we do need to lower our standards. I don’t think they have to drop anywhere near the standards of the third world, but our current expectations as a nation do not align with economic reality which is why the demand for illegal emplayees is as high as it is.

      Reply
      1. 

         Charles D

         2010-04-27

         The problem is that “economic reality” has been shifted intentionally. I can remember when an income equivalent to about $40,000 today was sufficient to keep a family of four with only one parent working in a home they owned outright and with a new car in the driveway. That was the case when I was a boy. Even in my early 20’s, a nice new house in the suburbs was less than twice my annual salary at the time as an E-5 in the military.

         Due to our economic policies which have favored the wealthy, given corporations free rein to ship jobs overseas, broken the influence of labor unions, and caused a stagnation in wages, we are now at the point where it is unrealistic to expect our children to have better economic prospects than we have. It’s not our expectations that need to be changed, it is the expectations of those who want ever cheaper labor that need changing.

         Reply
         1. 

            David

            2010-04-27

            I agree that our economic reality has been intentionally skewed by our irresponsible economic policies. I also agree that we have had ridiculous inflation in basic necessities such as housing. Where houses were once twice the price of a decent salary they are now five times what an average salary is or higher.

            The problem I see is two-fold. First, consumers have lost touch of reality and expect more for less. A person making $100K now expects to be able to afford a million dollar home. Everyone expects and believes that two incomes are essential to survive but something is unreal about that. You recall a time when an income of $40,000 could provide for a family of four. I remember a time like that as well, I was making less than $50,000 and supporting a family of six a mere 2 years ago. Of course I don’t live in New York but I don’t live in rural Missouri either. I had to give up a few essentials like cable television and cell-phones to make it work but it was doable for someone who bought their house on the high side of the housing bubble (I often envied those of my neighbors who bought their houses two years before me, then I could have had the cell phones). The second problem is that government interferes in the market, insisting that lenders make it possible for people who could not afford a mortgage to sign one anyway. The idea sounded nice and charitable but the result was that large numbers of people, in addition to those who had been just outside the reach of home ownership, began expecting to afford larger and more expensive houses with this easy money. Suddenly we have a financial crisis where mortgages are considered a toxic asset.

            We do need to lower our expectations a bit. Perhaps we should think of cable TV as something other than a basic necessity. Perhaps we should stop thinking of the homes where our grandparents raised families of 5, 6, or even 7 as being too small for our families of 3 or 4.

            I’m not advocating a return to the days of shanty-towns or log cabins but I am advocating that we reject the idea of a McMansion in every yard and a new prius in every garage.

            Reply
            1. 

               Charles D

               2010-04-27

               I won’t argue that the easy availability of credit, the concerted effort to convince Americans that they should use credit (particularly home equity loans), and the concerted effort to convince us that we should consume more have led to a lifestyle that is unsupportable, unsustainable, and unnecessary. Yes, Americans fell for the non-stop marketing of easy credit and the lure of a financial bonanza in real estate created by a uncontrolled price bubble and they shouldn’t have. However, I put most of the blame on those who sold it to them and knew better.

               As for the “ownership economy”, the effect of that government program was far less than many commentators describe it. The driving factor behind the extension of mortgages to unqualified buyers was the Wall Street speculation in complex derivative instruments and the elimination of the regulations that would have kept those mortgages in the hands of the banks that issued them. It was a lack of regulation, a lack of interference that exacerbated the problem.

               You’re right that our love affair with McMansions and personal Humvees has to end, and those who bought more house than they could possibly afford will have to tighten their belts and probably find smaller quarters, but we do have to insure that this nation retains a large and thriving middle class. We need to have working class jobs that pay well enough to allow single-parent families to own a modest home. We need to make sure that the suffering from our present downturn falls principally on those who caused it, not on its innocent victims.

            2. 

               David

               2010-04-27

               Certainly those selling the easy credit bear a large share of blame but most people went into their excessive debt willingly blind. Ask no questions and you won’t get any uncomfortable answers. I don’t ever mean to suggest that our business culture is anything less than culpable but I fight against the illusion that government involvement was not part of the problem as well. The idea that most of the victims were innocent is disingenuous. Easily the majority of all the people I have known and observed were actively part of the problem.

4. 

   Ronald D. Hunt

   2010-04-27

   “The second problem is that government interferes in the market, insisting that lenders make it possible for people who could not afford a mortgage to sign one anyway. The idea sounded nice and charitable but the result was that large numbers of people, in addition to those who had been just outside the reach of home ownership, began expecting to afford larger and more expensive houses with this easy money. Suddenly we have a financial crisis where mortgages are considered a toxic asset.”

   I have heard this talking point before, and its nonsense. No bank was required to take on Subprime mortgages. Subprimes did exist before the republicans+clinton abdicated control of the currency to the banks in 1999, However they where a small number compared to what happened after 1999. After 1999 banks had pretty much unlimited lending power with the removal of deposit requirements, and removal of regulations preventing investment banking and consumer banking to merge, While maintaining FDIC protections. Basically before 1999 banks made money based on the quality of the loans they could issue because their where limits to how much they could lend and after 1999 banks made money based on the volume of loans they could issue because they could create money.

   Mortgages are not the only toxic asset that was created, they are plenty of auto loans, business loans, and other financial services that went toxic as well. Also be on the watchout for what happens with interest rate derivatives after financial regulation pass’s through congress.

   The funniest part of all of this is what is happening to the currency, ask yourself is the dollar deflating or inflating… the answer oddly enough is both.

   We have price inflation because business has to make up for the lose of credit availability, their are other reasons as well. And we have currency value deflation because the amount of credit on the market has gone down heavily, look at any currency exchange to confirm this, we have made big gains against the British pound for example. I like to call this effect “Stretchflation”.

   “Everyone expects and believes that two incomes are essential to survive but something is unreal about that. You recall a time when an income of $40,000 could provide for a family of four.”

   Wages have been stagnant sense Reagan was President, and they nose dived when Bush Jr. was president, All the while inflation is working its magic and worse health care inflation is destroying the middle class. By 2020 the average health plan will cost more then $20,000 per year by 2035 the average Health plan will cost more then the median wage in the country. We have passed the cost growth point where a single parent can make a descent living, we will soon pass the point where we will need 3 working parents or as to say we will have to give up something vital, say the roof, retirement or maybe health insurance.

   “We do need to lower our expectations a bit.”

   In Canada in the 1960’s the conservatives made that same statement, They got slaughtered in the polls by the socialists(CCF). Of course they(CCF) had a great speaker, Tommy Douglas.

   We don’t need to lower our expectations, Mega business needs to lower theirs.

   Reply
   1. 

      David

      2010-04-27

      What makes the loans toxic? It’s people not paying the loans back. Part of that relates to people who simply overestimated their ability to repay, part of it is people taking loans based on the unrealistic expectation of perpetual growth in property values, part of it is people being simply irresponsible in their abuse of bankruptcy and a small part is people experiencing misfortune such as medical bills or loss of income.

      Banks made loans too easily and made their profit on volume but that was only possible because individuals acted irresponsibly in taking out loans they could not repay. We have always had the unfortunate cases to deal with but we are having a rise in the irresposivility cases and that is both a cause and effect of unrealistic expectations. Financial institutions went irresponsible in offering many of those loans and people irresponsibly took those loans. Both groups need to reset expectations. With less lofty expectations I was providing for a family of six in 2007 on a salary in the mid 40’s. What about that situation was not affected by the strechflation and stagnant wages you are citing?

      Before you blame the banks entirely for the problems you need to account for the fact that someone has to take a loan before a bank can lose money on it.

      Reply
      1. 

         Chuck

         2010-05-10

         People were irresponsible but those same individuals were guaranteed by those giving them the loans – the “experts” – that they were doing a wise financial thing. They were sold a bill of goods, they were LIED to!

         How can you blame a person for being ignorant and trusting those supposedly in a position of expertise? If the advice they received was a lie how were they to balance that advice w/ blind ignorance?

         If you’re told one thing by an expert with a base knowledge on the subject of next to nothing wouldn’t you believe the expert? Would you honestly question your oncologist about Cancer? What if you sought another opinion and that mortgage house, in the nature of competition, told you the same lie in the hopes of earning your business? If you had no expert telling you the truth what is your alternative as a consumer?

         Get real, the USA isn’t a nation of irresponsible people it’s a nation of people that were lied to in the Ponzi Scheme of easy credit! Those big companies knew they were selling risky derivatives but sold them anyway AND sold the insurance for them as well. What the financial industry did – while unregulated mind you – wasn’t criminal per say but certainly should have been.

         Reply
         1. 

            David

            2010-05-10

            If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. It doesn’t take any expertise to remember that.

            It does not matter how ignorant a person is, it is foolish to undertake such a massive financial undertaking as even a small mortgage is without having some expertise or consulting with someone you know and trust who has more experience than you.

            If you work with a broker you don’t know and get a second opinion from another broker you don’t know, what assurance do you have that they are not working together?

            Even if I have no expertise in mortgages or other financial matters I should be able to find someone I know and trust or at the very least someone with some expertise who has nothing to gain by supporting the claims of supposed experts and have them take a look and confirm that everything looks good.

            Would I honestly question my oncologist about cancer? You’d better believe it if I do not already know and trust my oncologist. I’ll ask for a second opinion even if I do trust the oncologist but if I don’t know and trust them I would be talking to my general practitioner to see if everything seems to be in order or to find another oncologist who can independently review the diagnosis and recommended treatment. I would also go talking to someone else who had been treated for cancer (preferably the same kind I had been diagnosed with) to learn about their experience and see if what I am being told seems at least plausibly similar.

            If you honestly think that the USA is not a nation awash with irresponsible people then you are the one who needs to get real. Of course there are plenty of people taking advantage of the naïveté of others, but there is no way any person or group of people can pull off a ponzi scheme of this order of magnitude without a huge number of irresponsible people willingly looking the other way.

            Reply
5. 

   Ronald D. Hunt

   2010-04-27

   “What makes the loans toxic? It’s people not paying the loans back.”

   If it was that alone we would have already recovered. Most of these loans where turned into derivatives that collateralized these loans into something that could fail with a mean 3% increase in bankruptcy’s. Banks where creating all kinds of play game derivatives using the mortgage market in a way that was very risky.

   “part of it is people taking loans based on the unrealistic expectation of perpetual growth in property values”

   This behaviour was not just enabled it was encouraged well past the point of fraud by big lenders. Their are a number of banks that are being prosecuted for security’s fraud because they sold these loans and CDO packages, and then turned around and bought derivatives betting against the derivative they just created. This goes well beyond simply bet hedging, I would call what some of big banks did on the verge of treason.

   “part of it is people being simply irresponsible in their abuse of bankruptcy”

   I can buy that.

   “and a small part is people experiencing misfortune such as medical bills or loss of income.”

   Small?!?!?! well over half of bankruptcy’s are medically related. Given it maybe different now, but that was the statistic in 2007-8.

   “Before you blame the banks entirely for the problems you need to account for the fact that someone has to take a loan before a bank can lose money on it.”

   Don’t get me wrong, I don’t blame banks. I don’t even call it greed. I call it short term thinking coupled with “fiduciary responsibility”. Any banking company/exec who didn’t play the game was liable to the share holders and could be sued for not maximizing their profit no matter how short term that may be. Any exec unwilling to play the game would be replaced and blacklisted from the industry.

   I blame the idiots who dumped the rules that made the system work.

   “With less lofty expectations I was providing for a family of six in 2007 on a salary in the mid 40’s. What about that situation was not affected by the stretchflation and stagnant wages you are citing?”

   Even you must have noticed the buying power of that salary deteriorating over time? My father bought his house in the 1984, it was very easy for him to afford on his $25-30k per year earnings. He made high 30’s to lower 40’s all through the 1990’s. Their are those that can still pull it off, but the lowest income to practically pull it off is most certainly growing faster then wages. I wonder what year this minimum will pass the median wage? Sometime within the next 10years would be my ruff guess.

   Reply
   1. 

      David

      2010-04-27

      I hope that I have not left the impression that financial institutions and their very effective marketing arms are lacking in guilt in this whole situation. That being said I doubt the statistic that half of bankruptcies are medically related is very meaningful. If I am going into bankruptcy I am most likely to blame the straw that broke the camels back, especially when that straw (medical expense) is more socially forgivable than the load of excessive debt that made the straw too heavy. I’m confident that a full and honest analysis would show that very few of those bankruptcies were people who had healthy lifestyles and a habit of fiscal responsibility prior to the medical problem they blamed their bankruptcy on.

      Was it easy to live on that income? Not particularly. Was it getting easier? No. The thing is, that’s my responsibility and I don’t believe there is any reason that it should be easy. It is not the business of government to make it any easier.

      Reply
6. 

   Ronald D. Hunt

   2010-04-27

   “If I am going into bakruptcy I am most likely blame the straw that broke the camels back”

   In the case of medical expenses its more like the lead brick that broke the camels back.

   “Was it easy to live on that income? Not particularly. Was it getting easier? No. The thing is, that’s my responsibility and I don’t believe there is any reason that it should be easy. It is not the business of government to make it any easier.”

   Nor am I saying that government should go out and makes every ones lives into what they want them to be. Government should however look after the general welfare of the nation by making sure that reasonable laws and regulations are in place to prevent the exploitation of its citizens, To maintain a stable economic system that allows its citizens to prosper. Government should support policy’s that make the lives of its citizens better not worse.

   When hard working people can no longer prosper the system has to change… Nay, those people will make it change even to the anger of money’ed interests they will change the system.

   Reply