The newly-installed President of the Philippines, Noynoy Aquino, during his State of the Nation Address, promised to resume peace talks with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in November, but without provisions on ancestral domain: “We will learn from the mistakes of the past administration, which sprung upon the people an agreement reached without consultation with all concerned . . . We are not blind to the fact that it (the memorandum on ancestral domain) was done with political motivation, and that the interest behind it was not that of the people.”
This is welcome news! For the longest time, I have been arguing against the wrongheaded principles that informed the Mindanao policy. Claiming land ownership on the basis of historic right would only lead to the legitimization and institutionalization of ethnic division in Mindanao.
For the next peace talks to succeed, the only thing left for the insurgents to do is to disarm themselves, with the Philippine government guaranteeing amnesty to those who will surrender. These conditions breed trust and confidence between negotiating parties. Without them, the promised peace talks will not achieve anything.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Informal v. Illegal Immigration
This insightful piece, "Immigrants and Crime: Time for a Sensible Debate," by Francis Fukuyama, professor of international political economy at Stanford University, makes distinctions between crimes committed by illegal immigrants who, just like any groups of immigrants, come to this country to pursue their dreams even if it would mean breaking the law (Fukuyama labels these acts informal) and crimes committed by illegal immigrants who engage in gang and drug violence. He said, “The gardeners and maids who cross the border illegally are very different from the tattooed Salvatrucha gang member who lives by extortion and drug-dealing.” His call for a sensible debate on this matter is indeed sensible.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
“Birth Tourism” and Birthright Citizenship
Any immigrant wanting to live in the United States will tell you that the road to citizenship is not easy. Aside from the long wait and other legal requirements, citizenship has to be earned and demonstrated by paying homage and exclusive allegiance to the U.S.
However, Chinese consultants promoting “birth tourism” in China think that a U.S. citizenship can be bought. According to this WP piece, a Chinese consultancy in Shanghai can place a pregnant woman in one of the three Chinese-owned “baby care centers” in California for $1,475 for a three-month stay – that is , until the baby is born. The purpose is to take advantage of this country’s birthright citizenship – “the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the United States are entitled to American citizenship.” These consultants are quick to add that everything they do is legal: “We don’t encourage moms to break the law – just to take advantage of it.”
And U.S. officials agree. They say it is not a crime to travel to the U.S. to give birth so that the child can acquire U.S. citizenship. Says a U.S. Embassy spokesman in Beijing: “You don’t deny someone because you know they’re going to the U.S. to have children.”
But this is a superfluous interpretation of the 14th Amendment , which says that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Prof. Ed Erler of the California State University, San Bernardino, points out that American citizenship has two components: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. He said that the present-day belief that anyone born in the US is automatically subject to its jurisdiction renders the jurisdiction clause superficial and without force:
Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the new language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the U.S. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits; but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rose to support his colleague, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
Certainly, Chinese parents who come to the US to take advantage of the package that comes with “birth tourism” will not know what lessons in American civics to impart to their U.S.-born children. For citizenship entails much more than what is expedient and profitable.
However, Chinese consultants promoting “birth tourism” in China think that a U.S. citizenship can be bought. According to this WP piece, a Chinese consultancy in Shanghai can place a pregnant woman in one of the three Chinese-owned “baby care centers” in California for $1,475 for a three-month stay – that is , until the baby is born. The purpose is to take advantage of this country’s birthright citizenship – “the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the United States are entitled to American citizenship.” These consultants are quick to add that everything they do is legal: “We don’t encourage moms to break the law – just to take advantage of it.”
And U.S. officials agree. They say it is not a crime to travel to the U.S. to give birth so that the child can acquire U.S. citizenship. Says a U.S. Embassy spokesman in Beijing: “You don’t deny someone because you know they’re going to the U.S. to have children.”
But this is a superfluous interpretation of the 14th Amendment , which says that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Prof. Ed Erler of the California State University, San Bernardino, points out that American citizenship has two components: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. He said that the present-day belief that anyone born in the US is automatically subject to its jurisdiction renders the jurisdiction clause superficial and without force:
Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the new language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the U.S. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits; but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rose to support his colleague, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
Certainly, Chinese parents who come to the US to take advantage of the package that comes with “birth tourism” will not know what lessons in American civics to impart to their U.S.-born children. For citizenship entails much more than what is expedient and profitable.
Political Freedom v. Economic Freedom
I’ve always wondered why people are debating over whether political freedom should precede economic freedom or vice-versa . . . as if one could exist without the other, as if one could make do at the exclusion of the other. To Aristotle, the nature of the whole is the completion of its parts.
However, there are indeed countries out there that seem to exhibit one form of freedom at the expense of the other. China, for instance, well on its way to an unprecedented level of economic prosperity in its history, has an authoritarian capitalist system. Its authoritarian culture has enabled its government to engage in capitalist ventures and economic activities without receiving as much opposition or resistance from its people. The problem with this economic arrangement is wealth has not trickled down, with the Communist Party officials remaining as the main beneficiary of China's booming economy. Dissent in the form of labor unrest especially in rural areas does take place, until the CCP so decides it’s time for a political crackdown.
I guess the success of a market solution to the world's problems will always hinge on political reforms. If we have enlightened statesmen at the helm, a fair court system that is in place, rules that have teeth, etc., then the market will always work. Agitated Chinese laborers protesting for fair wages and fair labor practices will need a channel with which to redress their grievances. Conversely, greedy private-entrepreneurs-turned-mafias who are now willing to use every power they have to maintain their wealth need to be reined in.
But political reforms only work if politics is viewed in its rightful sense, i.e, that it is there to dispense justice for the sake of achieving the common good; that it is supposed to secure and protect individual rights; and that it is not merely for administrative or regulatory functions. If we develop contempt for it because of its corrupt politicians, administrative overreach, and wasteful mismanagement, then the very power that can transform society towards the good will continue to remain in the hands of these thugs.
However, there are indeed countries out there that seem to exhibit one form of freedom at the expense of the other. China, for instance, well on its way to an unprecedented level of economic prosperity in its history, has an authoritarian capitalist system. Its authoritarian culture has enabled its government to engage in capitalist ventures and economic activities without receiving as much opposition or resistance from its people. The problem with this economic arrangement is wealth has not trickled down, with the Communist Party officials remaining as the main beneficiary of China's booming economy. Dissent in the form of labor unrest especially in rural areas does take place, until the CCP so decides it’s time for a political crackdown.
I guess the success of a market solution to the world's problems will always hinge on political reforms. If we have enlightened statesmen at the helm, a fair court system that is in place, rules that have teeth, etc., then the market will always work. Agitated Chinese laborers protesting for fair wages and fair labor practices will need a channel with which to redress their grievances. Conversely, greedy private-entrepreneurs-turned-mafias who are now willing to use every power they have to maintain their wealth need to be reined in.
But political reforms only work if politics is viewed in its rightful sense, i.e, that it is there to dispense justice for the sake of achieving the common good; that it is supposed to secure and protect individual rights; and that it is not merely for administrative or regulatory functions. If we develop contempt for it because of its corrupt politicians, administrative overreach, and wasteful mismanagement, then the very power that can transform society towards the good will continue to remain in the hands of these thugs.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Calling the Shots in Afghanistan
The death of Staff Sgt. Christopher Cabacoy last Monday, July 5th, 2010 in Afghanistan hits close to home. He is a nephew of a friend’s friend, who proudly said that his nephew died defending the freedom of his country. A recipient of numerous awards and decorations, this young man’s life was cut short by an IED attack in Kandahar. He left behind a wife and a son.
There has been a spate of attacks on American servicemen this early part of the summer. At least 23 have died so far during the month of July. Yet in today’s Washington Post headline story, Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai is resisting General Petraeus over his plans to expand, empower, and arm village defense forces that will guard villages susceptible to Taliban control. Karzai fears that the effort will lead to the formation of more militias, hence, to the strengthening of warlordism that he thinks is at the core of Afghanistan’s perennial state of insecurity.
His deeper fear, I think, has to do with potential threats to the central government that may come about through decentralizing power from the center to the periphery. By empowering local institutions such as those village defense forces, Karzai’s political hold at the center will diminish. His top-down approach is not working, however. And there seems to be no institutional check with which to curb the power at the center. The Afghans’ best and only defense against a corrupt, inept central government can be found at the local level, in and among themselves.
President Karzai needs to understand that as long as the United States government is underwriting Afghanistan’s security, with resources that include the precious lives of U.S. service men, General Petraeus has the right to call the shots in the way that he sees fit . . . for the success of his mission and for the welfare of Afghanistan.
There has been a spate of attacks on American servicemen this early part of the summer. At least 23 have died so far during the month of July. Yet in today’s Washington Post headline story, Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai is resisting General Petraeus over his plans to expand, empower, and arm village defense forces that will guard villages susceptible to Taliban control. Karzai fears that the effort will lead to the formation of more militias, hence, to the strengthening of warlordism that he thinks is at the core of Afghanistan’s perennial state of insecurity.
His deeper fear, I think, has to do with potential threats to the central government that may come about through decentralizing power from the center to the periphery. By empowering local institutions such as those village defense forces, Karzai’s political hold at the center will diminish. His top-down approach is not working, however. And there seems to be no institutional check with which to curb the power at the center. The Afghans’ best and only defense against a corrupt, inept central government can be found at the local level, in and among themselves.
President Karzai needs to understand that as long as the United States government is underwriting Afghanistan’s security, with resources that include the precious lives of U.S. service men, General Petraeus has the right to call the shots in the way that he sees fit . . . for the success of his mission and for the welfare of Afghanistan.
Monday, July 5, 2010
China’s New Morality Campaign
Chinese youths are getting too hip, so say the crusaders of China’s new morality campaign, those government censors who are in charge of policing morality among the young for their changing lifestyle and perceived immorality. Case in point is a Chinese reality television show, “If You Are the One,” a popular matchmaking show that reveals basic human desires too “modern” for the government nannies to handle (e.g. a female contestant wanting a wealthy man with a flashy car). The goal of the morality campaign, according to this article, “For China, Modernity Can Go Too Far,” is to “eradicate all social evils” and advocate a healthy, civilized and high-minded lifestyle,” and to bring China back to its traditional morality.
Of course the Chinese are resisting. Some of them argue that with the opening up and reforms, society’s attitudes have changed: “For ages, the government has condoned a materialistic value system, and now they are reaping the fruits of it. To put the blame on the public is just lame.” Others have become cynical, given the many reports of indiscretion committed by the Communist Party officials themselves.
It seems, in this age of openness and information explosion, that Chinese civil society is outpacing the totalitarian march of the Communist Party, although towards a different direction. It should be so. And it would behoove the Chinese Communist Party to be cognizant of the fact that the flourishing of its human capital and the sustainability of its economic prosperity rest on the people’s exercise of their rights. It breeds creativity, inventiveness, assertiveness, and accomplishments, for it hinges on the premise that every individual has the capacity to make the right decisions for himself. The problem with nanny states (and for that matter, theocratic states) is they see the exercise of these rights as a threat to their power.
As to that 24-year old fashion model who, during the TV show, refused a bicycle ride offer from a poor and unemployed bachelor, saying she would “rather cry in a BMW than ride a bicycle while laughing,” provoked, of course, the wrath of government nannies who accused her of possessing a materialistic, “gold-digging” attitude and barred her from the show. In her defense, another contestant argued, “Even if the show is censored, these kinds of thoughts exist in real life.” . . . and added, “She just asked for a BMW; she didn’t ask for a Benz or a Ferrari.” Now that’s another subject for another blog posting.
Of course the Chinese are resisting. Some of them argue that with the opening up and reforms, society’s attitudes have changed: “For ages, the government has condoned a materialistic value system, and now they are reaping the fruits of it. To put the blame on the public is just lame.” Others have become cynical, given the many reports of indiscretion committed by the Communist Party officials themselves.
It seems, in this age of openness and information explosion, that Chinese civil society is outpacing the totalitarian march of the Communist Party, although towards a different direction. It should be so. And it would behoove the Chinese Communist Party to be cognizant of the fact that the flourishing of its human capital and the sustainability of its economic prosperity rest on the people’s exercise of their rights. It breeds creativity, inventiveness, assertiveness, and accomplishments, for it hinges on the premise that every individual has the capacity to make the right decisions for himself. The problem with nanny states (and for that matter, theocratic states) is they see the exercise of these rights as a threat to their power.
As to that 24-year old fashion model who, during the TV show, refused a bicycle ride offer from a poor and unemployed bachelor, saying she would “rather cry in a BMW than ride a bicycle while laughing,” provoked, of course, the wrath of government nannies who accused her of possessing a materialistic, “gold-digging” attitude and barred her from the show. In her defense, another contestant argued, “Even if the show is censored, these kinds of thoughts exist in real life.” . . . and added, “She just asked for a BMW; she didn’t ask for a Benz or a Ferrari.” Now that’s another subject for another blog posting.
Who is the Imperialist Now?
This Washington Post article debunks the long-held prejudices of communists and leftist liberals the world over against America: that America is not an imperialist (a typical communist line of attack) and that the war in Iraq (contrary to the anti-war, America-is-an-occupier charge by the liberal left) has in fact paved the way for economic globalization. The article, entitled, “Risk-tolerant China Investing Heavily in Iraq as U.S. Companies Hold Back,” begins by saying that even though China and other countries did not participate in establishing peace and security in Iraq, they have started to take advantage of a potentially profitable business climate there:
China didn't take part in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq or the bloody military battles that followed. It hasn't invested in reconstruction projects or efforts by the West to fortify the struggling democracy in the heart of the Middle East.
But as the U.S. military draws down and Iraq opens up to foreign investment, China and a handful of other countries that weren't part of the "coalition of the willing" are poised to cash in. These countries are expanding their foothold beyond Iraq's oil reserves -- the world's third largest -- to areas such as construction, government services and even tourism, while American companies show little interest in investing here.
Granted that American businessmen are wary of Iraq’s security situation and have not cashed in (another lesson for the communists: in the world of free markets, investments are private decisions made not by governments but by private investors), nevertheless, this whole matter should not be treated only as a question of risk tolerance. It is a question of national character (or lack thereof), not to mention comity and friendship that nations belonging to the so-called community of nations must observe. There is no such thing as free lunch. If these countries want to do business in Iraq, they must at least help underwrite its security. It is, as they should know by now, a (pre)requisite for profitable investments and economic development.
But if they would rather talk principles, they should begin with this question: who is the imperialist now?
China didn't take part in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq or the bloody military battles that followed. It hasn't invested in reconstruction projects or efforts by the West to fortify the struggling democracy in the heart of the Middle East.
But as the U.S. military draws down and Iraq opens up to foreign investment, China and a handful of other countries that weren't part of the "coalition of the willing" are poised to cash in. These countries are expanding their foothold beyond Iraq's oil reserves -- the world's third largest -- to areas such as construction, government services and even tourism, while American companies show little interest in investing here.
Granted that American businessmen are wary of Iraq’s security situation and have not cashed in (another lesson for the communists: in the world of free markets, investments are private decisions made not by governments but by private investors), nevertheless, this whole matter should not be treated only as a question of risk tolerance. It is a question of national character (or lack thereof), not to mention comity and friendship that nations belonging to the so-called community of nations must observe. There is no such thing as free lunch. If these countries want to do business in Iraq, they must at least help underwrite its security. It is, as they should know by now, a (pre)requisite for profitable investments and economic development.
But if they would rather talk principles, they should begin with this question: who is the imperialist now?
Sunday, July 4, 2010
“America, One Door at a Time”
This witty, funny survey of the America’s racial backgrounds, taken by Peter Carlson, a retired newspaperman who took on a temporary job at the Bureau of Census so that he “could meet the American people in all their wacky glory,” bespeaks of a good-natured, happy disposition of old and new Americans hailing from every corner of the world that could only come from finding a home, of being at home in America. It also bespeaks, perhaps in an unconscious way, of a deep love for this country and a sense of gratitude for its many blessings.
So on this 4th of July, happy birthday, America!
So on this 4th of July, happy birthday, America!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)