Topic: Trade and Immigration

Violence against Unions or Just Violence in General?

Yesterday in the Washington Post, AFL-CIO’s president John Sweeney rhetorically asked “How many murders are ‘acceptable’?” regarding the union killings that have been used as argument by Congressional Democrats to delay indefinitely a vote on the FTA with Colombia. “I can’t answer… with a number other than zero,” stated Sweeney.

That’s good posturing. Sweeney presents these killings—which have dropped by nearly 90 percent since President Alvaro Uribe took office—as a clear sign of violence against union activity in Colombia. However, the evidence shows otherwise.

In an op-ed last Friday in the Boston Globe, Edward Schumacher-Matos, a visiting professor for Latin American studies at Harvard University, writes that:

The number of convictions now being won in the union’s own cases reveals that perhaps one-fifth, and almost certainly less than half, of the killings had to do with unionism.

Of convictions won in 87 cases since the first one in 2001, almost all for murder, the ruling judges found that union activity was the motive in only 17, according to the attorney general’s office. The judges found 15 of the cases had to do with common crime, 10 with passion, and 13 with being guerrilla members [emphasis added. No motive was established in 16 of the cases.

The unions don’t dispute the judicial findings, and deep in their reports say that they, in fact, have no idea of suspect or motive in 79 percent of their cases going back to 1986. The killings, in other words, are isolated and not part of a campaign against unionizing.

As we can see, far from being a targeted campaign against union activity, the killings of union members in Colombia are mostly part of that country’s sad history of regular violence, which also affects teachers, politicians, journalists, etc.

It’s time to get the facts straight in this debate.

At Least He’s Good on Trade

My colleagues Gene Healy and Justin Logan catalogue some of Sen. John McCain’s less admirable policies below, but at the risk of being the skunk at the dinner party, today I have released a paper arguing that John McCain’s trade policy position is much preferable to that of either of the Democratic candidates.

Over his career in the Senate, McCain has been a consistent free trader, voting against increases in trade barriers 88 percent of the time, and against subsidy increases 80 percent. Senators Clinton and Obama, on the other hand, have only managed 31 (Clinton) and 36 (Obama) on tariffs and 14 (Clinton) and zero (Obama) on subsidies. (For all congresscritters’ trade votes, see here).

To his credit, Senator McCain has also avoided the easy and politically tempting practice of railing against trade deals on the campaign trail, including in Michigan where the political prize probably required it. Both the Democratic candidates, however, turned to an unseemly debate on who hated NAFTA the most in Ohio, and may be tempted to do so again while campaigning in Pennsylvania.

Expect the Democratic candidates’ rhetoric on trade policy to degenerate, by the way, as economic conditions worsen.

Discouraging Moments in American Political Debate

There’s a spirited debate going on at National Review. Mark Krikorian, NRO’s resident immigrant-basher, supposed yesterday morning that maybe one more reason we should keep immigrants out is because the grandchildren of Hispanic-American Catholics might turn out to less supportive of Israel than their Anglo coreligionists (a condition he calls “anti-Semitism”).

Charging to challenge this thesis is John J. Miller, coauthor of a book calling, umm, France, “America’s oldest enemy.” (Strangely enough, the book was published around the beginning of the Iraq war.) Bernard-Henri Levy “characterized the book this way:

the whole book is a mad charge (whose only equivalent I know is the fascist French literature of the 30’s) against a diabolical nation, the incarnation of evil, bearing in the body and soul of its citizens the stigmata of an ill will the only aim of which throughout the centuries has been the humiliation of America the great.

Good Lord, what’s happened to American conservatism? The debate between these two reminds me a bit of Henry Kissinger’s remark on the Iran-Iraq War.

Shameless, Feckless Cowards

Further to yesterday’s post, rather than have a vote on the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement within 90 legislative days (as set out by law), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she will change House rules to avoid having a vote on the agreement before the November elections. It’s not yet clear to me how that can be done, but such action will speak volumes about the rudderless Democratic Party.

Apparently, the leadership hasn’t decided whether supporting the agreement—supporting export opportunities, encouraging and deepening business ties, promoting investment in Colombia, supporting an ally in a hostile region, and preserving the value of U.S. credibility—is worth more votes than union money can buy.

If members of Congress don’t want to be held accountable to the electorate, they shouldn’t seek office in the first place. But as we’ve seen time and again, it’s never about good policy. It’s only about holding onto power. No wonder Americans have such contempt for Congress.

A Defining Moment for Democrats and Trade

Mark Penn thought he could support the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement out of the right side of his mouth, while he opposed it out of the left. That controversy lost Mark Penn his firm’s contract with the Colombian government and his role with the Clinton campaign. Now it just may be metastasizing and moving up to Capitol Hill.

Congressional Democrats are getting hysterical over President Bush’s decision yesterday to send the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement up to the Hill for a vote. They claim that the president’s circumvention of protocol (not getting a final blessing from Congress first) now renders passage of the agreement virtually impossible.

The truth is that Congress was never going to give the administration an official green light and the president exercised the only real choice at his disposal.

But since when do Democrats cry for want of a successful trade agreement? I think there’s a little more to the story, which I address in this NRO oped today.

The long and short of it is that by sending the deal to Congress now, legislative intransigence before the November election is no longer an option. Democrats have 90 legislative days (until the end of September) to decide once and for all, in plain view of the electorate, the unions, the business community, and the international community, how they really feel about trade. The vote and the debate leading up to it could expose some deep fissures in the party, and could raise serious questions about America’s credibility and capacity to lead on matters of trade and economics.

The Costs of E-Verify - and the Immigration Laws

In my paper, “Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification: Franz Kafka’s Solution to Illegal Immigration,” I analyzed a number of different factors that would frustrate a national employment eligibility verification system. Most of them had to do with responses that undermine the functioning of the verification system itself. But I also talked about avoidance. Under a national electronic employment eligibility system, I wrote, “[w]ork ‘under the table’ would increase, and, along with it, other forms of illegality.”

Strong validation of that notion came from an interesting source last week: the Congressional Budget Office. CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that the SAVE Act (the “Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act”), a bill to take E-Verify national, would result in lost federal revenue of $17 billion over 10 years. That is because more undocumented workers would be paid outside the tax system. That’s a lot of work under the table.

Those who have fixated on immigration law enforcement often cite the rule of law, which is certainly an important thing. But the rule of law thrives when the law is at peace with the people, not when it’s a cudgel. As I also wrote:

Proponents of internal enforcement and electronic employment verification surely stand on a sound principle—the rule-of-law ideal that people should enter the country legally. But current immigration law is a greater threat to the rule of law than any of the people crossing the border to come here and work. Our immigration policies have fostered the illegality so common in the employment area.