sanctions

Hypocritical California Government Boycotts Against Arizona Over Immigration Law

by Hans Bader on April 29, 2010 · 6 comments

in Economy, International, Labor, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Sanctimony, Trade, Zeitgeist

“Representatives at three levels of California government were quick to call for economic measures against neighboring Arizona this week in the wake of its passage of a tough new immigration law. . .On Tuesday, seven members of the Los Angles City Council signed a proposal for a boycott that urged the city to ‘refrain from conducting business’ or participating in conventions in Arizona. Also on Tuesday, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom imposed an immediate moratorium on city employees traveling to Arizona.  And California Senate leader Darrell Steinberg said the state should consider a boycott of Arizona. He sent a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, asking which Arizona businesses and government agencies California does business with.”

California officials are being hypocritical to attack Arizona, given that Arizona’s new immigration measure is actually far less sweeping than one California adopted in 1994, which was invalidated by the federal courts.  (That California law, Proposition 187, would have barred illegal-immigrant children from the schools — something Arizona has not done.)  Even liberal law professors like Jack Balkin who vehemently dislike the Arizona law admit that it may be constitutional, and that it “was deliberately written” to comply with the standards laid down by the Supreme Court’s 1976 De Canas v. Bica decision, which upheld a state’s ban on hiring illegal aliens.  Arizona’s law was drafted by a noted legal scholar and former Bush administration official, and while it contains some unwise provisions and furthers a misguided political agenda, that does not make it illegal.

These boycott calls by California officials are unprincipled and have nothing to do with any belief in freedom of movement.  Mexico has far more onerous immigration restrictions than Arizona does, including harsh prison sentences for illegal immigrants (most of them fleeing the much poorer countries to the south of Mexico, which make Mexico look rich by comparison), and bans on political activity by legal and illegal aliens alike.  But California officials don’t care about those immigration restrictions, and have no problem conducting business with Mexico or visiting it. They reserve their vitriol and boycotts for fellow Americans.

Moreover, for California to impose sanctions against residents of a sister state like Arizona may well violate the Constitution.  As Justice Cardozo observed in Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. (1935), “the Constitution . . . was framed upon the theory that the peoples of the several states must sink or swim together, and that in the long run prosperity and salvation are in union and not division.”

A variety of constitutional provisions restrict discrimination against residents of other states in various contexts.   In cases like United Building and Construction Trades Council v. Mayor of Camden (1984), the Supreme Court has said that the Privileges and Immunities clause of Article IV of the Constitution generally forbids states from discriminating against the residents of other states in things like employment on public works.  (Aliens, by contrast, are not entitled to the protections of this provision.)

The Equal Protection Clause also sometimes forbids states to discriminate against residents of other states.  (See Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Ward (1985)).

The dormant-commerce clause limits state discrimination against businesses and commerce from other states (see, e.g., Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. (1935)),  and although there is a limited exception to that rule for government contracts, that exception does not allow state or local governments to use its power of the purse to pursue essentially regulatory measures aimed at other states (like attempts to meddle inside another state), as opposed to merely promoting a state’s own economic development (see South Central Timber Development, Inc. v.  Wunnicke (1984)).

Defending free trade: the pending FTAs

by Fran Smith on October 15, 2009

in Economy, Employment, International, Trade

The pending U.S. Free Trade Agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia are languishing in limbo, despite the fact that all three agreements will improve the flow of goods and services, foster economic growth and create jobs, and enhance the close relationships between the U.S. and those countries.   That was the theme of the panel of speakers at The Heritage Foundation’s seminar today, “Getting America’s trade agenda back on track.”

The panel featured H.E. Han Duk-soo, Ambassador of the Republic of Korea; Francisco Álvarez de Soto, Vice Minister for International Trade Negotiations, Republic of Panama; and Ricardo Triana, Director, Colombian Government Trade Bureau.  The speakers pointed principally to the FTAs’ benefits to the U.S., not only in economic terms but in its national interests.  Ambassador Terry Miller, the moderator, noted that the three countries are entering into trade agreements with other major trading partners, while the U.S. holds up action on their trade pacts. That disadvantages the U.S., which can’t yet take advantage of significantly lower tariffs on exports of numerous goods and services that the FTAs include.

Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) rounded out the presentations by emphasizing the benefits of free trade, especially in the current downturn, when increased trade can lead to more vibrant economic growth and job creation.  In his closing remarks, Goodlatte hit the cap-and-trade bills currently being considered for the job losses they will create.  He also noted that the proposed sanctions on imports from countries that don’t enact a CO2 repression regime would be a huge mistake and a blow to the world trading system.

Obama’s Sanctions Cause Suffering, Malnutrition, and Unemployment in Honduras

by Hans Bader on September 2, 2009 · 4 comments

in International, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

Earlier, I wrote about how the Obama Administration has imposed sanctions on the people of Honduras, such as blocking travel to the U.S. from the country, because Honduras removed its ex-president and would-be dictator, Mel Zelaya, and because its Supreme Court subsequently refused to approve Zelaya’s demand that he be returned to office to replace his successor, Micheletti, a Congressman who was named to replace him by an almost-unanimous vote of Honduras’s Congress.  (Because soldiers enforced a court order for the ex-president’s arrest, after he lost his right to hold office by violating his country’s constitution, the Obama Administration and the Organization of American States (OAS) incorrectly claim that what happened was a “military coup.”  Apparently, they believe that when the ex-president began to make himself a dictator, the army was supposed to say “yes, sir”  to his illegal demands, rather than safeguarding the Constitution)

Ever since, I’ve received a stream of emails and comments from Americans in Honduras, chronicling the disastrous effects of the Obama Administration’s position on the people of Honduras, one of the poorest countries in Latin America, where malnutrition and poverty are rapidly increasing and unemployment is now widespread.  Here’s one sample (to protect the author from retaliation, some information is redacted):

I live on the island of ____ in the country of Honduras. . .

I am an American living in Honduras, I own a small resort on the island. I along with other Americans all over the country are sickened by the stance of the US administration. The US stance has caused many hardships, business all over the country is dead. At our resort we have had to go to a 4 day work week with our employees, this causes real hardships for my employees most of which are poor. . .

We americans feel that we must do something dramatic to catch the attention of the media, public, and elected representatives in DC. We know we will not change Obamas mind. Mr Llorens our ambassador has been a close personal friend of Zelaya for years, and the OAS is well the OAS. . .

We are not rich folks, most of us run modest businesses while trying to improve economic conditions, environmental conditions, and living standards wherever we live. We are so proud of the Honduran people, they knew and know full well that standing by their constitution will very likely cause many to starve, this is after all the poorest country in latin america. Zelaya tormented this country and violated it laws as you have so documented in your so well written piece. The constitution as written in 1982 is still fresh in the minds of the many that shed blood, sweat and tears to see its final draft come into law. The rule of law is not often followed in latin america, so this time, when this poor little country stared in the face of the dictator and said NO, it has shocked the world. This is the bravest country on the planet at the moment, but the present administration just like we americans are seeing the signs that these brave people are hurting. bananas for main meals, trees stripped of fruit, i fear that the new president will cave to save his people, noble, but the people want freedom first.

So there you have it, I am a 50 something man that would lay down his life for his country in a minute, now i can think of no other group of people that i would rather help. We are getting organized and would appreciate your input and ideas.

Right now, all the left-wing groups that complained about U.S. interference in Latin America in the 1980s are hypocritically demanding that the U.S. interfere in Honduras to force it to accept the return of its would-be dictator. (Latin American dictators like Cuba’s Castro, who usually complain about any American presence in Latin American countries like Colombia, are now demanding that America force the return of Zelaya to power).

All their past rhetoric about imperialism was disingenuous.  There could be no more obvious example of imperialism than the Obama Administration trying to force Honduras’s legislature, courts, and people to accept the return of its bullying ex-president, and Obama’s claim that his removal was “illegal,” when it has been upheld his country’s highest court, and was expressly mandated by Article 239 of the Honduras Constitution (which Article 272 gave the military the authority to enforce).

I am sorry to say that I took their arguments seriously in the 1980s.   (I have always been skeptical of U.S. meddling overseas, and I am not a “neoconservative.”  I opposed both of the Iraq Wars — the first of them in the now defunct University Journal — and, rightly or wrongly, criticized U.S. intervention in Nicaragua in the 1980s, in the Howard County Times and Columbia Flier).

What Obama is doing in Honduras is much worse than what Bush did in Iraq.  At least Bush’s intervention got rid of an evil dictator (even if it also resulted in chaos and huge costs for the taxpayers).  By contrast, Obama’s intervention is aimed at putting a would-be dictator back in power.

By blocking international recognition of Honduras’s current government, imposing sanctions, and continually pressuring Honduras to let ex-president Zelaya return to power, the Obama Administration has helped destabilize the country, with terrible consequences for the country’s poor.  My co-worker Julie notes, “My daughter was going to go to help set up an orphanage in Honduras next month and now can’t.”

Honduras was already a very poor country.  “One out of  four Honduran children under 5 years old falls  to chronic malnutrition. In some rural communities to the west of the country, chronic malnutrition can reach 48.5 percent.”