States of Confusion

When it came to media coverage of the US Presidential election, back in the country of my birth, it actually received as much attention as one of our own national elections. Though we had no control over the outcome, we knew it would affect all our lives. Indeed in all but name we were witnessing the election of a World President, because as the sole remaining Superpower, what America says ultimately goes. Whilst it is true individual countries, or groups of countries, can stand up against America briefly, if the United States decides that something is opposed to its national interest, and utilizes its full economic and military weight, then successful resistance is simply not feasible.

Little surprise that the US President is frequently referred to as "the most powerful man on earth". However there is a problem with this perception. When it comes to international diplomacy, such as treaty negotiations, the US President is probably the weakest person around the table. Whilst most other leaders of countries come with a clear mandate from their electorate and the authority to negotiate, this is not true of the US President. He has no authority to agree to anything. Everything he says must be confirmed by Congress and therefore he cannot make any binding commitments. Whilst some other countries, eg Eire, have similar requirements that their parliament must ratify treaties, their electoral process is less likely to produce a parliament actively opposed to their leader than the US one. Perhaps because the President does not require approval for opposition to a treaty, or to refuse to sign one, American leaders are sometimes perceived as being more confrontational, than conciliatory, when it comes to negotiations.

Though the rest of the world believes that there is a single cohesive coherent country here, the reality is startlingly different. It was founded as a coalition of independent states, and whilst, in some ways, the power of the federal government has grown over the years, the states retain considerable power. Most foreigners are surprised over many aspects of life which remain under the control of states.

For example there has been considerable controversy lately about Arizona's immigration legislation and Texas's rewriting of its educational curriculum. To take the second of these, as the first I have discussed previously, whilst there is a US Education Department their role is limited to research and enforcing specific federal policies, as their website says:

Please note that in the U.S., the federal role in education is limited. Because of the Tenth Amendment, most education policy is decided at the state and local levels. So, if you have a question about a policy or issue, you may want to check with the relevant organization in your state or school district.

It certainly surprised me that there was no central curriculum but that individual states devised their own applying their own focus and biases. It was also unexpected to find that some states, such as Texas, also required classes in their state history. I am not sure why this unnerved me. I was an active local historian back in my original country and I do certainly believe people should learn about historical events in their area of residence. However it just appeared too inward-looking at a time when most Americans are woefully under-informed about world history and geography.

The reality is that while most of the world expects coherence from the United States, this is limited to international policy and that in reality it is highly disparate and there are substantial differences in laws between states. For example, if we look at a single issue, age of consent (for sexual intercourse), there is no consistency. Depending on individual circumstances, any age between 12 and 18 (inclusive) is potentially legal for sex in the USA somewhere. Members of the US military may normally have sex from 16 onwards but there are some situations where they could be liable for prosecution. Now, and I am not a lawyer, so this is an interpretation, not absolute fact - Two 16 year olds could legally have sex on a military base even in a state which had a higher age of consent, because on military property military rather than state laws apply. However if one of the 16 year olds, engaging in intercourse, is a civilian resident of that state and the sex takes place in a hotel, where the military does not have jurisdiction then there is the potential for the soldier to face a statutory rape charge where the state age of consent is greater than 16. Some states, for instance Florida, allow a modified age of consent where the two participants are of similar age (normally within 4 years) and under these circumstances it would be legal. However two 16 year old civilians could legally engage in sex, even in a state with a higher age of consent, such as Idaho, if they had been legally married in a state which permitted marriage at 16, such as Georgia. Under these circumstances the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution would kick in, requiring that states recognize and honor legally-binding contracts made in other states. It looks to me like a confusing mess and even while most consensual sexual acts are unlikely to attract the attention of the authorities the potential danger remains. Indeed it seems that most US teen road movies should probably include a scene where birth certificates and local legislation is checked before they passionately fall into each other's arms.

To an outsider, this complexity seems unnecessary and counter-productive. Whilst its difficult to imagine states ever being willing to give up their rights to determine most matters, the consequence is a superfluous level of complexity, which benefits only lawyers, when it comes to most matters of regulation in the US. What real sense does it make for Hawaii and Arizona to be the only US states which do not practice Daylight Saving Time (DST)? Whilst I accept the benefit for them is limited, couldn't they make the sacrifice for the sake of uniformity? In some situations where public safety is involved diversity can be dangerous.

For example in the area of seat belt legislation. Whilst there are rare situations where a seat-belt can cause increased difficulty or injury, in the vast majority of cases, it saves lives and so would seem to be desirable. Yet again we find a difference in practice in the states. In 30 states the wearing of a seat-belt is mandatory for the driver and not doing so can lead to prosecution, in 19 further states it is an offense but will only be prosecuted if some other traffic offense is also committed and one state has no law about seat belts at all. Though even the 30 states do not all have the same rules when it comes to back seat passengers also wearing a seat belt.

States rights are important and having access to different options is a benefit for inhabitants in America. It is desirable that people be able to choose a taxation level and a legislative touch, whether lighter or more prescriptive, which suits their personal tastes. Freedom always has an attached price tag though and when the cost is measured in lives it is too high. Seat belt legislation is a good illustration of this. Whether to wear a seat belt or not might be seen as a matter of personal choice, particularly if one is in the back seat. However when that choice impacts, quite literally, others it should not be for a single person to decide. An unrestrained back-seat passenger during a collision will often strike the seat in front of them with such momentum that they dramatically increase the damage to the person in that seat, in many cases severely reducing their survival chances and in some situations causing their death. Whilst many Americans have a fear about federal intrusion, I have seen no evidence that states are any less bureaucratic or inefficient than the federal government. Sometimes we need to be willing to recognize that we are part of a wider society and give up individual rights for the greater good. States need to be willing to do this as much as citizens.

Arizona

This isn't a blog about immigration, it is the blog of someone who is an immigrant. However with immigration currently a major issue thanks to the recent passing of legislation in Arizona I would be remiss if I ignored the topic.

In truth I don't know fully how I feel about the Arizona decision. I recognize they have a problem and they feel this is a solution. I want to believe that caring thoughtful people have gathered all the data that is unavailable to me and have made a careful and reasoned determination that this is the best of all possible solutions. What however I fear is this is simply politicians responding to a popular bandwagon for electoral gain.

Leadership is a heavy responsibility and sometimes it is necessary to rise above the frenzied howls of the mob. Yes politicians in a democracy have a duty to listen to concerns but they also must also apply their judgement.

When politicians make rapid responses to serious problems as a result of the outrage of the masses the outcome is the worst of legislation. The UK Dangerous Dogs Act is an excellent example of this. It was created after public horror at a number of high-profile cases of children being attacked by dogs in their homes. Whilst this was horrific it was a small problem and whilst legislation was undoubtedly appropriate what happened was that it was rushed through ignoring all the highly valid concerns which were raised. Hence numerous entirely innocent and placid family pets were slaughtered as a result for no other reason than they happened to belong to a breed targeted by the act. Moreover large amounts of court time and resources were wasted with judges having to determine whether crossbreeds contained significant percentages of the banned breeds.

My fear is that the Arizona legislation falls into the same category. I am here legally and after spending many thousands of dollars and dealing with a mass of paperwork to get to the USA. I have no natural sympathy for the illegal immigrant.

Existing US legislation requires us to keep our green cards on us at all times though I did run into a slight problem with my wife refusing to let me carry the card during sex. I am not sure how Homeland Security/USCIS feels about this but the fact it is even an issue reflects how powerless we immigrants can feel. I am reasonably intelligent and erudite yet when it comes to facing up to Homeland Security I turn into a quivering lump of jello. I clearly remember watching the Tom Hanks comedy movie, Terminal, and registering fear every time the black uniforms of Homeland Security staff came on the screen. It isn't that I have been treated badly by them. In my experience they are caring and thorough professionals who do a difficult job very well but the relative difference in the power levels between them and me is terrifying. When you know someone can stop you entering the country or have you deported, it is very difficult not to feel fear. When thinking of the difference between the two power levels in the relationship I am reminded of flies and boys in the Thomas Hardy quotation.

As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport

It is not that Homeland Security toy with us in this way, but simply the terror that they could.

There is therefore already legislation in place which requires immigrants to keep and produce documentation of their status. The only thing that I can see that the Arizona legislation adds to it is the ability to challenge people based solely on suspicion of their status. It is one thing to require those who have been stopped by law enforcement on reasonable grounds of some other crime in progress to show whether or not they are in the country legally, it is another entirely to stop people because you believe they might not be.

I am an immigrant. I am white and have a degree. I am here legally but passing me on the street you wouldn't know that. I probably wouldn't raise any suspicions at all under most circumstances and that is my concern with this legislation. All "suspicion" based laws are flawed because they open up the opportunity for personal prejudices and even where this is not the case in practice, there is always the fear that it is - something which is almost impossible to disprove. Hence it leads to a feeling of distrust between some parts of society and the police. Hence such legislation is divisive. A good example of this are the Sus Laws of the UK in the 1970s which were widely blamed for causing popular unrest.

My fear is that the Arizona legislation will do the same. It is only a few months since an incident with a Harvard professor and a police officer, in which the President got involved, which arose from a perception of racial profiling. If a middle-class, highly educated and well paid black man can be so distrustful of law professionals and concerned about racial profiling, how much more intense can the fear be amongst the more vulnerable and low-paid members of society?