All posts by Thomas L. Knapp

Immigration: “Deferred Action” is not “Executive Overreach”

RGBStock.com PassportsLast November, president Barack Obama announced an executive order allowing nearly five million undocumented immigrants to “request temporarily relief from deportation” provided they meet certain requirements: Register with the government, pass a criminal background check, pay a fee and submit to taxation.

Immigration opponents seized the moment, but in an odd way. Instead of trotting out their usual unsound arguments against immigration freedom as such, they advanced the claim that Obama’s order constitutes “executive overreach” and “unconstitutional amnesty.”

On February 16, a federal judge in Texas — one of 26 states suing over the order — issued an injunction temporarily blocking implementation of the plan, the first stages of which were scheduled to roll out on February 18.

There’s a lot to consider here, from the years-long standoff over “immigration reform” in Congress leading up to Obama’s order, to the question of whether or not the US Constitution allows Congress to regulate immigration at all (it doesn’t; that power was dreamed up by an activist Supreme Court in 1875).

But sticking to the terms of the suit itself, its “unconstitutional” and “overreach” arguments are unsound on their face.

Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution is clear and unequivocal: “The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

Per the 1913 edition of Webster’s, to reprieve is “[t]o delay the punishment of; to suspend the execution of sentence on …”

Obama would be well within his constitutional powers to outright pardon every “illegal alien” residing in the United States. But he stopped well short of that, merely allowing a subset of immigrants to request postponement — reprieve — of deportation under specific conditions. The states’ suit is without merit and deserves immediate dismissal.

But the larger issue remains: What to do about immigration?

The interests of the US would be best served by returning to the older, wiser, more American policies of its first century, during which Congress understood that it had no power whatsoever to regulate immigration. Failing that, we might at least retrench to the relatively relaxed policies of the early 20th century. The US didn’t even issue or require passports until after World War II. Somehow we survived. In fact we thrived.

We know that freedom works. Time to demand that our politicians let it work on immigration. It’s the American way.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Cybersecurity: Beware Untrustworthy Partners

RGBStock.com LockBefore the ink had time to dry on his February 12 executive order “promoting private sector cybersecurity information sharing,” US president Barack Obama launched a campaign to re-write history and make the case for trusting government to bolster network security and data privacy.

“The Snowden disclosures,” Obama told Re / code’s Kara Swisher in an interview the next day, “were really harmful in terms of the trust between the government and many of these companies.”

Well, no. It was the government — Obama’s administration and its predecessors — which betrayed the trust of American enterprise, the American people and the world. Edward Snowden is mere heroic messenger, telling us what we should have already known: That any such trust was misplaced.

The executive order itself raises two key questions: Does Obama not understand network security and data privacy issues? Or is he insincere in his claims to want improved network security and data privacy?

The obvious answer, based on decades of experience, is yes to both questions. Obama’s assurances, “with almost complete confidence, that there haven’t been abuses on US soil,” don’t pass the laugh test.

The US intelligence community has a long history of doing its best to hobble communications security, going back at least as far as 1977’s “Federal Information Processing Standard,” adopted only after the National Security Agency talked IBM into hobbling its Data Encryption Algorithm to make it more vulnerable to the kinds of brute force attacks that NSA could bring to bear.

As the 20th century drew to a close, NSA fought losing rear-guard actions to prevent widespread access to and adoption of strong cryptography. Among the Snowden revelations was that coming out of that period, NSA took its efforts to a stealthier level, spending billions to subvert the crypto they couldn’t stop.  For example, we learned that a leading encryption company (RSA) worked at NSA’s behest to “[i]nsert vulnerabilities into commercial encryption systems, IT systems, networks, and endpoint communications devices used by targets.”

Anyone who believes that these efforts stopped at any point,  don’t continue to this very day, or won’t continue into the foreseeable future  is living in a fantasy world. The US government always has been, and remains, the single worst global  and domestic threat to network security and data privacy. Those two laudable goals are inherently incompatible with trust in Barack Obama or the organization he represents.

If American politicians want real privacy/cybersecurity reforms, here are some suggestions:

First, dismantle the Department of Homeland Security, drastically cut the budgets of US intelligence agencies, and levy draconian penalties for rogue operations targeting Americans for any reason or foreign “cyber warfare” operations absent a congressional declaration of war.

Secondly, repeal the US PATRIOT Act, “Know Your Customer” rules, and other laws putting personal  and business information at risk by requiring its transmission to government.

Finally, forbid government interference or “consultation” in development of private sector encryption standards or algorithms.

That would be a start. Anything less is mere theater.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Hate Crime” Means ThoughtCrime — #everylifematters

RGBStock.comBloodIt’s a scene played out all too frequently: Gunfire shatters  a neighborhood’s quiet routine. Screams echo through its streets or the halls of one of its apartment complexes. Sirens wail. An ambulance hauls away the bodies, a police cruiser hauls away a handcuffed suspect or suspects. Later: A trial, a verdict, a sentence. Some lives are lost, others forever changed.

On Tuesday, February 10, that story line came to Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Three young people — Shaddy Barakat, Yusor Abu-Salha, and Razan Abu-Salha — lie dead. Their suspected killer, Craig Stephen Hicks, stands charged with three counts of first-degree murder.

It’s an ugly thing. Unfortunately, instead of mourning the victims and seeking justice versus their killer, many seem caught up in disputes over motive. Were these three killed over a parking space? Or were they killed because they were Muslims?

If the latter, some assert (and, unfortunately, have the legal power to back the assertion with charges) that the victims enjoy special status because their murders constitute a “hate crime.”

That assertion and the laws associated with it go 180 degrees against the US Constitution, and against the goal of a just social order, in several ways.

Under “hate crimes” laws, if a victim belongs to any of various “protected classes,”  and if the criminal’s motive is demonstrably connected to the victim’s status as a member of such a class, additional charges may be laid and additional penalties or punishments levied.

Those conditions are repugnant to the 14th Amendment’s requirement that all Americans enjoy equal protection of the law. They designate some victims as more valuable than others, and some criminals as more culpable than others,  with respect to the same crimes.

“Hate crimes” laws also do damage to the 1st Amendment’s enshrinement of our rights to think, speak and worship as we please. Only the violent act may be prohibited. The underlying idea, no matter how ugly or hateful, is sacrosanct. While ugly and hateful ideas are rightly subject to criticism and social pressure and preferencing (who but another Ku Klux Klansman wants to make friends with a Klansman?), “ThoughtCrime” must never be forbidden, let alone punished, by law.

The blood of Shaddy Barakat, Yusor Abu-Salha, and Razan Abu-Salha cries out from the ground. It cries for justice versus their killer, not for vengeance versus their killer’s beliefs or motives. We the living should heed that cry. #everylifematters.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY