Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (17381)	4/27/2010 3:25:25 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 42652

A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona The chattering class is aghast at Arizona's new immigration law. "Harkens back to apartheid," says the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker. "Shameful," says the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne. "Terrible…an invitation to abuse," says the New York Times' David Brooks. For his part, President Obama calls the law "misguided" and says it "threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Obama has ordered the Justice Department to "closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation." Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself. The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person's immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…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…" Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics. What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop." As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion. For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status. But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion. Is having to produce a driver's license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver's license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it's a burden, it's a burden on everyone. Still, critics worry the law would force some people to carry their papers, just like in an old movie. The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed. Kobach, a Republican who is now running for Kansas Secretary of State, was the chief adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration issues from 2001 to 2003. He has successfully defended Arizona immigration laws in the past. "The bill was drafted in expectation that the open-borders crowd would almost certainly bring a lawsuit," he says. "It's drafted to withstand judicial scrutiny." The bottom line is, it's a good law, sensibly written and rigorously focused -- no matter what the critics say. Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on www.ExaminerPolitics.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (17381)	4/27/2010 3:27:06 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

OT You can't restrict the demand to produce papers to undocumented immigrants So they restrict it to people who are suspected of being illegal immigrants, where there is a "reasonable suspicion" (which is obviously somewhat subjective, but there is a lot of case law on this issue, reasonably suspicion has to actually have a real reason, and it can't just be race, both according to this law and other laws and cases). I wouldn't push for such a law, but I'm going to wait to see how it works in practice before I actually condemn it. But I'm still troubled by the idea of having to carry papers to prove you're legal in case you happen to end up in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's the principle. OK than you should push for the repeal of the federal law that requires this of all non-citizens in the US. The extant federal law that needs to be enforced is the one that makes it illegal to hire someone without verified documents, seems to me. That has some of its own problems, but it might make more sense. If it wasn't for the the huge level of illegal immigration and the fact that total non-enforcement would presumably make that level noticeably larger, I might just suggest not enforcing the law here, or perhaps instead enforcing the law, but making legally getting in to the US so easy that there isn't much reason for people to violate it. In theory, in pure abstract principle, I'd go for something like that. I'm just not sure how well it works in practice.

To: Lane3 who wrote (17381)	4/27/2010 3:29:04 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 42652

do you have to show your 'papers' to get on a plane ?

To: Lane3 who wrote (17381)	4/27/2010 4:01:55 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

The Market Doesn’t Ration Health Care By Sheldon Richman Published: 7 August 2009 The Market Doesn’t Ration Health Care Healthcare reformers say they have two objectives: to enable the uninsured and under-insured to consume more medical services than they consume now, and to keep the prices of those services from rising, as they have been, faster than the prices of other goods and services. Unfortunately, Economics 101 tells us that to accomplish those two things directly — increased consumption by one group and lower prices — the government would have to take a third step: rationing. The reformers are disingenuous about this last step, and for good reason. People don’t like rationing, especially of medical care. But some defenders of government control acknowledge that rationing is the logical consequence of their ambition. They parry objections by saying in effect: “So we’ll have to ration. Big deal. We already have rationing — by the market.” For example, Uwe Reinhardt, an economics professor and advocate of government-controlled medicine, writes, “In short, free markets are not an alternative to rationing. They are just one particular form of rationing. Ever since the Fall from Grace, human beings have had to ration everything not available in unlimited quantities, and market forces do most of the rationing.” Sadly, interventionist economists are not the only economists who talk this way. Most free-market economists would agree that where there is scarcity there must be rationing and that the most efficient way to ration is by price, that is, through the market. This is factually wrong and strategically ill-advised. As we’ll see, markets do not ration. Thus the healthcare debate is not about which method of rationing — State or market — is superior. Let me be clear about what I am not denying. I am not denying that economic goods are by definition scarce and that at any given time we must settle for less of them than we want. I am also not denying that the marketplace is relevant in determining who gets how much of those scarce goods. I am denying that this is appropriately called “rationing.” Markets Don’t Do Anything To see that the market does not ration one need only see that “the market” doesn’t do anything. To talk as if it does things is to reify the market — worse, it is to anthropomorphize the market, ascribing to it attributes — purposes, plans, and actions — that only human beings possess. We may also see this as another instance of literalizing a metaphor, which, as Thomas Szasz has so often warned, is fraught with peril. I’m not saying that economists don’t realize this diction is a metaphor. Of course they do, and there’s no harm in using this shorthand among those who understand it as such. The problem, as I see it, is that the general public doesn’t fully grasp the metaphorical nature of these statements. For the sake of public understanding, free-market advocates should not welcome a debate in which they begin by saying, “Our method of rationing is better than your method of rationing.” Better to respond to the interventionists this way: The market does not ration or allocate. The market does not do anything. It has no purposes or objectives. It is simply a legal framework in which people do things with their justly acquired property and their time in order to pursue their own purposes. This is squarely in the Austrian conception of the market as set out by Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek. The market order “has no specific purposes but will enhance for all the prospects of achieving their respective purposes,” Hayek wrote in volume two of Law Legislation, and Liberty. The market was never set up by people to achieve a purpose. It is not a device or an invention aimed at satisfying an intention. “Market mechanism” is a metaphor. The market — as a set of continuing relations among people — emerged, unplanned and unintended, from exchanges, initially barter, in which the parties intended only to improve their respective situations. Lecturing at FEE this week, Israel Kirzner recalled that one of the first things Mises said to him as a graduate student was, “The market is a process,” by which he meant “a series of activities.” This is similar to what the French liberal economist Destutt de Tracy (1754–1836) wrote in A Treatise on Political Economy, “Society is purely and solely a continual series of exchanges.” Mises, Hayek, and Tracy help us to sort out the rationing question. I submit it makes no sense to say that an undesigned series of exchanges rations goods. If we were to observe a free market (wouldn’t that be nice?), what would we see? Rationing? Allocation? Of course not. We would see people exchanging things — factors of production, services, and consumer goods — for money. Where would they have gotten those things? From previous exchanges or original appropriation from nature. When a person buys five apples in a grocery store rather than ten because he wishes to use the rest of his money for other purposes, it seems entirely wrong to say the market (or even the grocer) has rationed the apples. The customer makes his choice on the basis of his preferences and the money available (which is the result of previous transactions). It is true that as a result of market exchanges, goods and resources change hands and (except for land) locations. But in no sense is this rationing or allocation. The resulting arrangement of resources is simply a product of many transactions. Of course, people’s choices of what and what not to buy and sell at which prices create an arrangement of goods and resources that tends to be intelligible in terms of consumers’ subjective priorities. But that does not warrant calling the process rationing or allocation. Those words — especially ration, which shares its root with rational – suggest conscious decision-making — as part of a plan — by an agent. In a free market there is no consciousness overseeing this “distribution” — another inappropriate word when it comes to describing the market process. I am not saying anything that a good economist or thoughtful person doesn’t know. I am merely pointing out that we can be more effective in the healthcare debate if we are more precise in our language. We do not face a choice between methods of rationing medical services. We face a choice between rationing according to a bureaucratic plan and being freed to engage in mutually beneficial exchanges. fee.org