Show Me Your Papers!

Obamacare Requires You To "Show Your Papers"

William A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY  blogging at Legal Insurrection

Remember when Democrats fell all over themselves trying to prove that Obamacare would NOT cover illegal aliens? When Joe Wilson shouted "you lie" about coverage for illegal aliens, Obama and Democratic leaders assured the nation that illegal aliens would be excluded.

Under the final Senate health care bill signed into law (unlike the earlier House version), illegal aliens are screened out. Only persons who can prove they are "a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States" get to participate.

In other words, when you try to buy a policy through an exchange, or seek a subsidy, or receive any of the other supposed benefits, you will be told "show me your papers."

Just like in Arizona now. If you are contacted lawfully by the police. And if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that you are here illegally. And if you cannot produce any of the specified common forms of identification. And in that case, the officer has to try to confirm your status with the federal immigration authorities.

The burden of producing identification under the Arizona law is no more intrusive than the documentation you need to fly; or ride an Amtrak train; or check into a hotel; or rent a car; or cash a check.

It certainly is less intrusive than the health care mandate, which forces people to spend money or be penalized, and requires that employers and taxpayers report to the government about insurance status. I find it quite interesting that the same people who insist that the federal government can control virtually all aspects of our health care find it so horrid when a state government seeks to protect its citizens by verifying immigration status.

In a perfect world, perhaps we could go through our lives without ever being told "show me your papers." And there would be no problems with foreign drug gangs and terrorist groups. And immigration would be controlled at the border.

But this is not a perfect world, as the people of Arizona can attest.

But it also is not the equivalent of being in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or apartheid South Africa, as is being claimed by opponents of the Arizona law. Anymore so than a molehill is a mountain.


If being told "show me your papers" under the Arizona law constitutes the equivalent of any of those evil forms of government, what does that make Obamacare? And the Democrats who voted for it? And the President who signed it? And the bureaucrats who will implement it? And the doctors who will provide services under it? And the patients who will participate in it?


Are they all now Nazis, and Communists, and Apartheidists? Just like the people of Arizona.


Byron York has an even longer list of things for which we already have to show our papers:


No, we are not confronted by actors with heavy German accents demanding our papers.


We are instead confronted routinely by people of all stripes asking to see our driver's license. When we board an airplane, we are asked to produce a government-issued photo ID, usually a driver's license. When we make some credit- or debit-card purchases in department stores, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we enter many office buildings, both private and government, security guards often ask us to produce a driver's license. When we go to doctors' offices and hospitals, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we check into hotels, we are asked to produce a driver's license.

When we purchase some over-the-counter drugs, we are asked to produce a driver's license. If we go to a bar or nightclub, anyone who William A. Jacobson looks at all young is asked to produce a driver's license. And needless to say, if we have any encounter with police or other authorities, we are asked to produce a driver's license.


Some situations involve an even higher level of scrutiny. When we get a new job, we are asked to provide not a driver's license but a passport or birth certificate to prove citizenship. In other situations, too: When I renewed my District of Columbia driver's license last year, I had to produce a passport to prove citizenship, even though it was a valid, unexpired license I was renewing. And in many places, buying a gun -- a constitutionally-protected right -- involves enormous scrutiny.

The Great U.S. Retreat: Unnerving Our Friends, Encouraging Our Enemies

The Great U.S. Retreat: Unnerving Our Friends, Encouraging Our Enemies by Peter Huessy The Hudson Institute

The United States seems to be under the impression that being the ‘strong horse’ in international affairs harms our standing in the world. We are retreating from the international stage, seemingly happy in the idea of turning both national and international security policy over to a combination of global UN agencies and regional authorities we hope will cooperate with us, and motivated more by good will than hard interests.

As members of Congress review the administration’s proposals on counterterrorism, nuclear deterrence, missile defense, and proliferation, this retreat seem to be the ‘elephant in the room’ about which few appear willing to talk. For now.

Beneath the surface, however, Congress is becoming increasingly worried, even alarmed. Representative Howard Berman, the chair of the House International Relations Committee, has said publicly that it is long past the time when the US should have acted on Iran, with or without the cooperation of China and Russia. He sounded even more frustrated in comments he made privately at the recent AIPAC conference. And Senator Jon Kyl, from the opposite side of the political spectrum, addressing a Congressional seminar on April 20, explained he was worried that this administration was not committed to a sufficiently strong and secure nuclear deterrent.

Some important Bush-era counterterrorism policies are being retained, for example much of the Patriot Act. Also, apparently, our nuclear Triad of submarines, bombers and land-based missiles will also remain, although diminished, at least for now. And theater missile defenses will improve, which are useful, but further protection of the US mainland remains elusive. But the broader reality reflects a gradual retreat:

Senior members of the defense committees in Congress see no long-term plan for the sustaining or modernizing the US strategic nuclear deterrent -- even though the law requires such a plan.

Although plans for a new strategic submarine are on the table, in part to coincide with Britain"s need to replace its own version of the Trident, no associated missile program is in the works.

On the land-based missile leg of the US nuclear deterrent, after a two-decade long effort to extend the life of the Minuteman, there is yet to emerge any long-term plan to sustain the missile to 2030 or beyond, as required by Congress -- and which would be essential if the US were to maintain a balanced and stable strategic environment.

Many Senators from both parties have written the administration asking for a commitment to modernize the nuclear force, but have yet to receive an answer.

There is also a delay in plans for a new strategic bomber. Internal discussions within the Department of Defense on a long-term solution continue, with many options under consideration, including an unmanned nuclear-capable bomber.

At a recent private disarmament conference in Geneva, a representative from New Zealand complained to the US participants that our ICBMs could be launched accidentally (they cannot) if there were a computer malfunction in our launch-control facilities. As a result, pressures remain to stand-down our deterrent, which, if implemented would unnerve our allies and encourage our adversaries.

Although the current US administration is increasing funding for the nuclear weapons infrastructure by over $600 million, and although increased funding for counter-proliferation efforts within both the Departments of Energy and Defense have been proposed, members of Congress, while pleased with such efforts, are puzzled about why a nuclear summit, dedicated to the proposition that nuclear terrorism is our most serious security problem, did not focus on the most serious threat of all — Iran.

A senior member of the House Committee on Foreign Relations complained last week that the Iran Sanctions Bill - approved by both the House and Senate -- which prohibits companies who do business in the refined-petroleum and energy sector with Iran from doing business with the US, may be eviscerated even before it becomes law.

To move the bill, the administration has insisted that China be exempt from the legislation—making the bill a dead letter. Here the dots remain unconnected. Even as Chinese firms are aiding Iran’s nuclear weapons program, we give them a free ride on doing energy business with Tehran.

Congress therefore wonders how serious the administration really is about sanctioning Iran.

Meanwhile, the Director of the FBI says that right-wing militias are now the most serious terrorism threat facing the country, even greater than the threat from Al Qaeda, which had been identified only a week earlier as an even greater terrorist threat than a nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea. Is this now going to be the basis for US counter-terrorism policy?

The same holds true for missile defense. Defense Department debates have centered around a point largely ignored up to now: We are placing almost our entire future for missile defense on one technology, the Navy standard missile, to be deployed in ever-increasing capabilities in 2011, 2015, 2018 and 2020 --and eventually protecting not only all of Europe, but also the United States, from Iranian missiles.
The back-up system on which we were to have relied in case this did not work was the two-stage rocket we planned to deploy in Poland, with its associated radar in the Czech Republic, but both were cancelled.

The irony is that the Russians are even more opposed to the new plan than they were to the previous plans. The now-cancelled Polish deployment was supposed to consist of 10 interceptors, insignificant in strategic terms in relation to more than a thousand deployed strategic Russian nuclear warheads; and the new Navy-based standard missile could have been placed on the Aegis Navy ships and thus can be made mobile. With interceptor-speeds of 5-6 kilometers per second, should we obtain such a future capability, the Russians might be faced with hundreds of such missile defenses, capable of easily shooting down Russia strategic rockets.

But these future US plans are not funded -- yet.

They depend upon future assessments of Iranian missile capabilities, which might not reach a consensus for many years, although just last week a report was sent to Congress warning that Iran could build an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States by 2015. However, supplemental missile defenses against such a rocket threat will not be built until 2020, at the earliest.
So here we get promises of future deployments that may never even materialize.

We have agreed to too few nuclear platforms under the new START Treaty, where we have to cut our stockpile by 188 missiles or bombers, while Russia"s force of just under 500 has room to expand. If the Russians insist on limiting future US missile-defense deployments, why are we assuming that our future missile defense plans will get a free ride? They might not.

The unsettled nature of Congressional opinion may not yet be reflected in the considerations of the defense budget now before the House and Senate. But Congressional unsettledness may be part of why consideration of the START arms control treaty might be delayed until next January at the earliest.

Congress seems to be in a ‘waiting’ mode — to see what other shoe will drop. This might be the reason for much of the calm one sees. Beneath the surface, though, is real concern that the administration is putting off many tough but critical decisions about the security threats we face.

Unfortunately, the US nuclear deterrent does not move forward automatically.. It atrophies if not sustained and modernized, just like any other element of our national security.

At present, we have no commitment to a new air-launched cruise missile for our bombers, or new land- or sea-based missiles. Drafters of the Iran sanctions bill said they had to exempt China to secure Administration support, so not only have we let China off the hook, but, as noted, some planned missile-defense protections rely on future promises that may never materialize.

This global retreat also involves issues such as immigration, supposedly the next ‘big ticket’ item on the Congressional agenda. Enforcement of immigration laws has been scaled back: border arrests have fallen sharply. Columbia and Honduras, key US allies in the fight against drugs, have been ignored as the US either disregards -- or facilitates by inaction -- the increasing dangers of the alliance between our neighbor, Venezuela, and Iran -- including their ties with terrorist groups and drug cartels and their meddling in elections throughout the continent. If granting amnesty in the US is not combined with serious efforts to control our borders, we may very well make these dangers worse. Drug cartels and terrorist groups may find in no more difficult to cross our borders after immigration-reform than before it.

Some argue that the administration’s rhetoric about a nuclear-free world can be understood simply as a necessary bow in the direction of the disarmament goals of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Venezuela and Iran are working together on both missiles and nuclear matters. China sustains the regime in Caracas with $20 billion in new loans. The dots of immigration, nuclear proliferation and rogue states should be connected.

Tehran, Peking and Caracas are cooperating to enhance their power, not only in the Persian Gulf but in our hemisphere as well. This can not only limit US freedom, it can intimidate our allies. Iranian missiles tipped with nuclear warheads and deployed in Venezuela can easily reach Miami. The message to Washington is clear: Back off!

There may be a method to all this. The administration’s rhetorical promises of a nuclear free world get good photo ops and nice editorials, and it is argued that any administration would tout an arms control agreement. But none before has ever so firmly embraced a world without nuclear weapons. And while we get pledges to secure nuclear material from Canada and Chile, bomb-making material and bombs themselves may soon be available in Tehran for terrorists to pick up.

Tough but necessary decisions are still being avoided. The easy decisions get done.

When faced with delivering tough sanctions on Iran and allow China an exemption, will we now go to the UN and get China’s support for equally weak measures -- then call it a success because we ‘had the support of the international community’?

It is true that the charade with Iran has been going on for some time, through various administrations. But eventually the ‘tough talk’ image, combined with no corresponding action, has consequences.

One senior Senator, a leading voice in security affairs, mentioned recently that since we are perceived to be getting out of the nuclear business -- reducing our commitment to protecting America from ballistic missiles, and leaving ourselves vulnerable to terrorism -- others around the world will make their own accommodations. He said that here at home, ‘these are the dots few are connecting.’ But, he warned, ‘others, especially our friends overseas, are connecting the dots. They too will change their calculations. And they will look elsewhere for the strong horse. And that strong horse? It will not be our friend.’


Copyright © 2010 Hudson New York. All rights reserved

My Truth, Your Truth & Objective Truth

Is there any such thing as objective truth?

Or is my truth as valid as your truth?

I stumbled upon a blog written by an old high school friend and his wife admonishing a news commentator's suggestion that Tiger Woods convert to Christianity. She blathered on about how dare he this and how dare he that and on and on.


Now, in her defense as a psychologist a large part of her "job" is to "validate" others feelings. In the parlance of the common man this means whatever you are and whatever you do is ok . Over the last 15 years in family practice I have seen a variety of psychiatric ills and "validating" someone has its place within the context of counseling.


My problem comes when telescopic logic is used to apply this utopian dream to everything which has at its heart the lie of equality in all things.

In my experience "my truth" is equally valid as your truth ONLY until MY TRUTH conflicts with YOUR TRUTH.


Then YOUR truth suddenly and most amazingly assumes a position of "greater truth" and validity than "my truth."
For example ; how can you be so "judgmental" as to say that my truth which may include my preference for sexual relationships with small underage children - toddlers in fact - is any better or worse than your "truth" which includes a preference for monogamous relationship with adults and your ostensibly equal truth/reality including a desire to protect your children from people like me ?

Left wing lunatics like this are fine with other peoples reality until it intersects with their reality. I mean how could you be so "intolerant" and "cruel" as to impose your morality about the kind of a relationship I should have?

Of course one tried and true method is to change the language and try to control the argument altogether via linguistics. They seem to indict Christianity in general as being responsible for "judgementalness". I am sure this would be a lively discussion but not at all sure there is any factual or supportable credible evidence of any kind to support the opinion. It is in situations like this that I am always puzzled by two things:

1)The hesitance to assert the superiority of Western values which the very ability to publicly ponder points to the obvious answer in the affirmative.

2)The "critical gaze" extended to Christianity or traditional American culture is not being applied equally to other religions and cultures.


While my old high school friend rages about Christianity and its "harm" to society His opinion of perhaps a female's life under sharia law in an unnamed generic Islamic Republic is conspicuously absent.
I don't believe that people like my old friend have bad intentions. Quite the contrary -I believe they are good hearted people just severely misguided. They, like so many of us are the victims of good hearted well intentioned parents particularly of the baby boom generation that wanted to give us everything and not have to "suffer" the things that they did growing up. Yet unwittingly in many cases have to doomed us to a path that in modern political parlance is unsustainable for "civil society" free of tyranny.

We have sevral generations that honestly believe that they are entitled to all the trappings of success previous generations worked a lifetime for. They scream at their children's teachers for honestly grading their child and so we are left with teachers who hand out meaningless A's to all and everyone is a star.

Is it any wonder that mental illness in College students has increased dramatically? Can you imagine finding out that you are NOT the smartest most beautiful person in the world !?!?! They largely believe that objective truth is unknowable if it exists at all and frequently I see them use this as a rationalization for apathy in trying to make any choices. Their morality is purely relative and has been shaped by modern textbooks that undergo sensitivity and review - again resulting in a sanitized meaningless distortion of history that is fantasy. They have been taught more about the internment of Japanese in WWII as opposed to the nature of Hitler's evil.


Sadly, critical thinking and the traditional triumvirate of education is no longer taught in most schools and our test scores and recent history is evidence of the impact this has had. But then that's just "my truth"

The bad-nukes myth - NYPOST.com

The bad-nukes myth - NYPOST.com

The bad-nukes myth

By RALPH PETERS

Last Updated: 5:01 AM, April 7, 2010

Posted: 1:39 AM, April 7, 2010

Nuclear weapons are not evil. Terrifying, yes. But their horrific capabilities prevented a Third World War. It all depends on whose finger is on the button.

Until yesterday's formal announcement of the administration's new Nuclear Posture Review, nukes also kept us safe from a range of threats short of a doomsday scenario: Our enemies risked going only so far. Nukes didn't prevent all wars -- but wars remained local.

Yesterday, we threw away a significant part of history's most successful deterrent.

This looks like an act of reckless vanity on the part of the administration, but let's allow that this weakening of our national defense is the result of misguided idealism. The important thing isn't the politics, but the practical consequences.

Summarizing the changes in a Pentagon briefing yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates looked weary and chastened. The new posture emerged only after months of bitter argument between realists and activists. Without Gates, it would have been even worse.

Still, it must be painful to Gates -- a great American -- to accept that this policy went into effect on his watch.

Of all its malignant provisions, from accomodating Russian demands to preventing overdue updates for our arsenal, the most worrisome is the public declaration that, if the US suffers a biological, chemical or massive cyber attack, we will not respond with nukes.

This is a very real -- and unilateral -- weakening of our national security. In the past, our ambiguity made our enemies hesitate. The new policy guarantees that they'll intensify their pursuit of bugs, gas and weaponized computers.

Intending to halt a nuclear arms race, we've fired the starter pistol for a rush to develop alternative weapons of mass destruction.

Will this policy be the inspiration for an engineered plague that someday scythes through humankind? Chemical attacks are horrible, but local; cyber attacks are potentially devastating. But an innovative virus unleashed on the world could do what Cold War nuclear arsenals never did: Kill hundreds of millions.

This change leaves us far less safe. If a thug has a knife, but knows you're packing a gun, he's considerably less likely to attack you. Why promise him that you won't use the gun -- and might not use your knife?

Idealism has devolved into madness.

The left has never been willing to accept that deterrence works. In the left's world-view, hostile foreign actors aren't the problem.We are. If we disarm, surely they will . . .

This no-nukes obsession dates back to the early Cold War, when the Soviets used every available means, from dollars to earnest dupes, to persuade Western leftists that America's nuclear weapons were about to wipe out humanity. The USSR couldn't expand its European empire in the face of US nukes -- so the Soviets brilliantly portrayed us as the aggressors. (And the left praised Stalin as a man of peace.)

Massive ban-the-bomb demonstrations filled Western streets for decades (but not the streets behind the Iron Curtain). The left rejected deterrence as a security model.

The seeds sown by the deceased USSR put down durable roots. Pursuing a nuke-free world became a litmus test for the left.

Now we have a president who's taken on that goal as his personal grail. He's absolutely right that nukes have horrifying power -- but the paradox of deterrence is that, the more monstrous the weapons you possess, the less likely you are to ever need to employ them.

The new policy won't stop Iran and other rogue states from pursuing nukes (even though Iran and North Korea were singled out as policy exceptions). But it will accelerate the proliferation of other weapons of mass destruction. And it certainly won't reduce the probability of war.

It will also ensure that our aging arsenal will have to be content with a few Band-Aids; that we won't develop new, safer nuclear weapons -- and that we'll increasingly have to rely on the kindness of strangers.

Idealists just invited the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to ride a little closer.

Ralph Peters' new book is "Endless War."

NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc.