Been there, done that. The Story: Part One ; Part Two ; Part Three.

Bolivian law was changed in December 2007 to require new, complicated, applied-and-paid-for visas of United States citizens entering Bolivia. Whereas before Americans could enter Bolivia and receive a stamp granting them 90 days of tourist entry, now Americans must pay over $100, provide extensive documentation, and submit an application in order to have 90 days of tourist entry. The argument made in favor of this policy change: reciprocity. America has immigration restrictions, therefore Bolivia will have immigration restrictions. Reciprocity.

In the spirit of reciprocity, then: Why are so many of the people who support Bolivia’s ability to investigate citizenship actively opposing the United States’ ability to investigate legality?

Bolivia’s policing of immigration matters is openly racist; Arizona’s policing of immigration matters is just.

In 2009, my friend and I were the only people approached in the entire bus terminal that day. We were the only people detained. We walked into the terminal and were immediately stopped. Why? Only because our skins are pale. We were stopped only because of the color of our skin. We were victims of racism. I was particularly struck (emotionally) by the poster hanging on the wall in the hall of the immigration detention office… the poster was a PSA about needing to struggle against racism. Funny: none of the victims of racism depicted were white. I felt very much neglected as I was threatened with third-world jail as a result of my pale skin.

The Arizona law is fundamentally different from the Bolivian system. The Arizona law empowers police to investigate immigration legality when a person has already been stopped for another legal reason. They cannot randomly pull people over because of their skin color.

I, as a “white” person in Bolivia, South America, was stopped and investigated because of the color of my skin.

Someone else, as a person of any color in Arizona, United States of America, can be investigated under reasonable suspicion only if they have been stopped for another legal reason.

Bolivian Law: Racist.

Arizona Law: Just.

Interested in more information regarding what the Arizona law actually means? Read Heather Mac Donald’s article.

Let’s get this out of the way: Wrong. Very wrong. Really, really wrong.

How Is Shakira Wrong ? (Simplified):

The Constitution is a document that frames and limits the United States Federal Government. Over time many portions of the Constitution have been applied to the States.

The Constitution specifies existence of U.S. citizenship. The existence of this stipulation creates a division between citizens and non-citizens. A difference exists.

Amendment 14 Section 1

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Citizenship involves a degree of ownership of the government, including the protection and reservation of specific rights. Notice: “No State shall make or enforce any law with shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens“. The Constitution is specifically protecting the privileges or immunities of citizens.

What of non-citizens? Notice: “nor shall any State deprive [...] without due process of law; nor deny to any person [...] the equal protection of the laws.” All consideration of all people is within the context of the law. What does Federal law say? Enter the country legally. An illegal immigrant is, by definition, not abiding by U.S. law. An illegal immigrant is, by definition, violating U.S. law. Does the Constitution protect their rights? Certainly. How? By the application of the law.

The law exists in unity. Protections and limitations work in unity. Therefore, both the protections and the limitations of the law apply to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil (and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Constitution). They are alive on U.S. soil, so their rights are protected by the law. Jointly, they violate the limitations of the law, so they are punished by the law.

Why Is Shakira Wrong? (Simplified):

Shakira’s concept of constitutional theory is very alien for many of us. There’s a reason for that: she’s, legally, an alien. Shakira is Colombian. Latin American constitutional theory is very different from United States constitutional theory! In the U.S., the Constitution is a document that frames and limits our government and our federal government’s laws. The Constitution is the foundation for the law. The Latin American standard is different: in Latin American nations, the constitutions (remember, simplifying!) are the law! The U.S. Constitution is a stable document that is difficult to textually change but undergoes detailed interpretive shifts. Latin American constitutions are unstable documents that are much simpler to textually change. Regime changes are often paired with changes, and often full-scale replacements, of constitutional documents. A Latin American unversed in U.S. constitutional theory cannot be expected to have a solid understanding of the degree of difference. Frankly, however, all that does is provide a bit of context for Shakira’s blatant ignorance.

Reality: Shakira’s country, Colombia, allows U.S. citizens to enter Colombia and stay for 60 days as a tourist. If  a U.S. citizen stays for longer than 60 days without permission then that U.S. citizen is fined and prohibited from leaving Colombia until the fine is paid. Why is Shakira demanding that United States law not apply to immigrants without also demanding that her own country lift restrictions on immigrants?

Prior to the Ambush in the Pando, Evo expelled almost all of the press. That is a significantly contributing factor as to why we have so little visible evidence and sound accounts of what really happened.

Earlier today on a radio station in Cochabamba it was announced that evidence had been found and confirmed that all individuals who fired weapons at the violent clash were Venezuelan troops. This is believable, because it is well known that the Bolivian military is fiercely uncomfortable with attacking other Bolivians. (This matches an article I saw yesterday. I’ll add a link to that here soon. Need to track it down again.)

Legal Consequences of the Pando Conflict:

After the attack in the Pando, the Pando government was disbanded and Martial Law was instigated in that department. Martial Law is limited by the current Constitution of Bolivia to last no more than 90 days. Under Martial Law, no arrests or charges can be made.

Also under the current Bolivian Constitution, no official can be arrested under any circumstances. Let’s backtrack and define this. Until relatively recently, the Constitution defined Prefects of Departments as being members of the President’s cabinet, government officials, whom the President personally selected. Under President Mesa, however, the Constitution was legally amended so that the Prefects are elected by the people of the departments. The definition of a Prefect remained the same: Prefects are government officials and members of the President’s cabinet.

Current context:

The Prefect of Pando has been detained by the national authorities under Evo’s leadership. He has not been arrested or charged. He is informally accused, but legally he is only under armed/guarded confinement. He is not at liberty to leave. When a Bolivian citizen is under confinement, the normal response is a writ of habeas corpus. He has not been arrested or charged, however, so habeas corpus does not apply. But! In situations in which a confinement has been initiated but no arrests/charges have been made, the Bolivian Constitution offers a protection: an automatic visa to leave the country.

The legal Constitution of Bolivia promises the Prefect of Pando an automatic visa to leave Bolivia. That’s Latin American legal systems at work if I’ve ever seen it. His family have today filed the case to have that visa processed.

Evo’s team is arguing that because the Prefect was in rebellion, he cannot be considered an “official of the government”. However, this doesn’t hold up legally:

• The Constitution has no provisions for situations of rebellion. That status does not legally exist.
• The Prefect was elected by the people of the Pando. Therefore, he is an official of the government of Bolivia as designated by the people of his department.
• The Prefect is legally a member of the President’s cabinet, but is not subject to the President’s selection or preference (reserved by the department, as shown in point 2). The Prefect is as much of an official of the Bolivian government as every other member of the President’s cabinet.

Unfortunately for Evo, by placing the Prefect of Pando under confinement he has given him a free exit from the country and from possible prosecution. This is what happens when people do not respect their own laws enough to know their own laws. If you make a law and/or if you claim the authority of a law, then you need to know that law and follow that law. Evo’s team does not, and that’s a significant weakness for his leadership and his factions.

Evo can continue this fight against the Prefect. Attempting to keep the Prefect in the country by denying his constitutional claim to an exit visa forces a case into constitutional courts. In Bolivia, cases can take months and sometimes years. Consitutional cases will get heard much faster than civil cases, but they can take just as long… and that’s a long time. IF this case goes before the constitutional courts, then due to its high profile the new Constitution proposed by Evo, which has not yet been approved and put into place by the people of Bolivia, cannot be approved. Evo can fight to keep the Prefect, but his Constitution will be delayed inevitably, and with it his political ideals.

Ouch.

International Support and the Limits thereof:

We keep hearing about the overwhelming solidarity of the continent, represented now by UNASUR and the OAS, for Evo Morales. That may well be an exagerration, and the inclusion of international authorities may prove to be Evo’s political downfall.

Evo set the schedule for negotiating with the opposition leaders in Bolivia. He picked the dates. At the last minute, Evo attempted to change the negotiations for one day earlier than planned. This would have caused the opposition leaders to be unprepared. UNASUR and OAS said, emphatically, “No.” The schedule had been set, it was not appropriate to change it.

August Referendum – Bogus?

In addition, the international agencies are going through the election results from August with a fine-tooth comb. They are being extremely strict. Under these strict counting procedures, Evo’s “mandate” is adding up to be approximately 32% – that is 35% lower than the 67% claimed by the Bolivian government. A more moderate counting which allows for a reasonable amount of casual error suggests that Evo would have earned the necessary 52% to stay in office, but only just, and certainly not a 2/3 mandate.

A more obvious limitation to the security of the election, especially valuable for those of us who are distrustful of even third-party agencies counting votes (it’s scary, when you think about how easily shaded our counting systems are, regardless of nation!), is that in a normal election every polling location is monitored by a representative of every single party in the election. In those situations, if any of those representatives point out a possible problem, then the whole polling table in question is shut down! In August, however, the referendum did not involve specific parties and a selection between candidates – it was a simple Yes / No vote. Representatives from multiple parties were not present at the polling places, thus eliminating one of the more significant protections of the electoral system in Bolivia.

The international agencies are going through the records and finding thousands upon thousands of voters listed as “Mama AAA”, “Papa BBB”, and so on – clearly fraudulent names. Reports are also being submitted of citizens who appeared at their polling location to vote but were informed that someone had already voted that day in their name! Awkward. Now, be rational, guys. In the United States of America wwe have elections upon which the entire world looks because our elections affect the entire world… and yet, we still have dead guys voting in Chicago. Election fraud in Bolivia? Believable.

The Compromise:

UNASUR and the OAS, however, are not demanding that the August election be thrown out. They’re going much deeper than that. Now that they’ve been invited in, they’re staying. Evo’s “mandate” will stand, but on their conditions. UNASUR and the OAS are demanding that all voters re-register. From now all, every voter must present their carnet (ID) and give their thumbprint in order to vote. That data will correspond with the data in the brand new voter registration database.

The rest of the continent really doesn’t want to deal with a country firing its legally and constitutionally elected President – and Evo’s presidential election was legal and valid. But forcing a just and accountable system of voter registration? That could solve a ton of future headaches.

The Bolivian Economy:

Bolivia’s national bank has been deliberately suppressing the U.S. Dollar. We’ve all seen this. When the dollar was going down, so did the exchange rate – obviously! When the dollar went back up, however, the exchange rate did not rise in turn… it even went down further. The Bolivian economy is still too tied to the dollar to play these games, and games they are. The economy is in a mess!

Worse still is that Evo was depending on high oil prices, circa $140/barrel, to pay for several of his major projects. He banked on being able to sell Bolivian oil for those prices. Unfortunately for him, oil has dropped back down to circa $100/barrel.

People aren’t exactly thrilled about all of this.

Evo’s Path to Success:

Please note: the following is not my idea! This, too, is coming from the brilliant legal advisor. He’s thought of two very simple and, shockingly, obvious answers to almost all of Evo’s problems.

First, regardless of which option he selects, he needs to give the opposition what they want. All of it. Halt the new Constitution. Give them “autonomy”. Stop interfering with revenues. All of it.

Then, he has two strategic options:

• One month prior to the next election, Evo could resign as president of Bolivia. His vice president would become president. Evo would be legally free to run for re-election.
• Alternatively, he could have made all of his concessions to the opposition conditional on an amendment to the current Constitution which would allow him to run for re-election. That’s it.

Why would these work? Because people are dead tired of the conflict. The opposition will not ever be thrilled with Evo, MAS, or any other socialist regime. They will be content, however, if they are given what they want – and that’s a return to normal without the demands of the new Constitution, the stolen revenues, etc. The moderates within Bolivia (who likely outnumber either faction) and the international community will praise Evo for his compassion, his wisdom, and his commitment to peace. His popularity will skyrocket. Due to the new voter registration systems, there would be no reasonable question of the validity of his election and democratic mandate. He would be elected by a huge majority, and he would have the political backing in his second term to force through the new Constitution (or at the very least a slightly milder version) without significant problem.

The strategy is brilliant. Appease the opposition. Get legally re-elected under the current legal system. Earn the love and respect of millions. THEN drive in the nails of reforms. The problem with all of this, though, is that it interferes with pride. Evo is far too proud to make the temporary, and frankly superficial, concessions. He’ll never do it.

So what will happen instead? Evo cannot take Sant Cruz and cause it to fall as it did Pando. The new Constitution will probably fail. Evo will stay in office, but he won’t be re-elected. He’ll be done, nothing foundational will be solved, and both sides – the indigenous people who experience discrimination and cultural abuse, and the property-owners who have to battle to keep their rights – will continue to suffer. A very boring, but very predictable, stalemate.

I almost regret that. I’m not advocating violence; I am advocating resolution. Sometimes resolution requires a set of confrontations which causes the various involved parties to kick into gear and get things done. Very little of that really happens in Bolivia, and too often when it does the other side cowers in fear and caves under manipulation. The problems are simply left to fester until a later date, which means that some dig deeper into cultural and political bitterness and others just become accepted whether they’re healthy or not.

Another fun tidbit for me is that the Missouri Viewpoints program is affiliated with the Hard Bean Cafe in the Kansas City metropolis – the Bean is a fabulously fun and stylish cafe in southern KC… and if you stop by any time soon, my friend Katherine might serve your iced caramel mocha!

Cavuto is asking the right questions in the following clip… and the cautious “are you insane?!” tone of his voice rather echoes my thoughts. I think I need to move to Ireland.

Link: sevenload.com

Various articles both today and leading up to the referendum have included warnings that a “no” vote would “[trigger] a political crisis” which would lead to “much infighting and bickering across Europe”. Lobbyists for the Lisbon Treaty attempted to invoke poetic guilt by claiming that a denial of the treaty would transform Ireland “from grateful recipient to begrudger”. The question remains: what justification exists for Ireland to be a mere “grateful recipient”?

The Lisbon Treaty is said to “streamline” the EU and its Constitution. Ireland is the only nation of the twenty-seven which has held a referendum. All 27 nations must approve the treaty for it to be approved, unless exemption is provided by the EU for a specific nation. The Lisbon Treaty is in the best interest for the EU as a centralized body. The burden of persuasion, therefore, is placed on the EU. Ireland has neither compulsion nor duty to approve the treaty.

Two significant elements exist which serve as giant, blinking mauve-alert signals that the Lisbon Treaty is not ready for Irish approval: the content of the treaty and the rhetoric used by its supporters.

Some basic points of the Lisbon Treaty which are not in the best interest of Ireland:

• Ireland would have significantly less representation in the EU.
• The EU would be able to tax without an Irish referendum.
• Ireland would lose the ability to decide its internal civil rights and liberties.

The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre has a good, short list of the risks to Irish sovereignty contained in the Lisbon Treaty.

An opinion piece from the Belfast Telegraph is an excellent example of the rhetoric used to pressure Ireland into passing the treaty. Curiously, the rhetoric of the Lisbon Treaty supporters parallels that used by teenagers committing date rape.

Lisbon Treaty Advocate:
“The treaty was born from nearly a decade of wrangling, compromise, negotiation and diplomacy across an entire continent.”
Date Rapist:
“Think about all the trouble I went through for this! Gas for the car, movie tickets… I even bought you popcorn!”

Lisbon Treaty Advocate:
“Renegotiation is not a sensible option, and it is hard to see what strategy would remain post a referendum-defeat. ”
Date Rapist:
“You’re not gonna make me go through all of that again, are you? What else could I do for you?”

Lisbon Treaty Advocate:
“Something would surely arise from the ashes, but the implications would be profound. ”
Date Rapist:
“It’s biology, baby. Think about my health!”

Lisbon Treaty Advocate:
“Rejection would place the Irish in a unique position — a nation transformed from grateful recipient to begrudger in the blink of an eye.”
Date Rapist:
“You ungrateful kid. You were happy to go to the movie, but you don’t wanna give me something back?”

C’mon. I’m being mild about this. The columnist in the Belfast Telegraph even went so far as to say the following: “Certainly, there are many EU concepts that are fuzzy and imperfect — democracy, national sovereignty and accountability chief among them. However, Ireland’s voters should resist the temptation to poke big Europe in the eye today. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the way forward.” How, precisely, would Ireland have been able to move forward and demand superior terms if they signed away their sovereignty and representation? By asking pretty-please? No. If Europe wants to bully the Irish, they’d best expect a poke in the eye. In business negotiations, one would not expect the smaller party sacrifice its only bargaining chip in order to maintain unity. Europe can argue that this isn’t about business, it’s about friendship and relationships… but friendly relationships don’t generally involve one party telling to other to sit down, shut up, and prepare to foot however much of the restaurant bill as everyone else at the table decides.

The Irish have been sufficiently wise and bold to vote no and say that this treaty is unacceptable. The rest of the world needs to stand up and applaud the Republic of Ireland for choosing to protect their liberties and their sovereignty. Ireland does not need the EU; they certainly did not need the Lisbon Treaty.

The Nov. 5 article “Students Show Strong Support for Democrats” provides biased perspective of the recent election results. Local statistics are provided and are valuable, but do not show that students led the precincts in support of Kerry.

SMSU is within one of Springfield’s urban centers. Urban communities show a tendency to favor the Democratic Party. The CNN exit polls list the results amongst voters ages 18-29 as 45%/54% in Kerry’s favor. These same polls list the results amongst urban communities as 45%/54% in Kerry’s favor. This is a single example that shows the frailty of statistics provided without comparative context. Dr. Patrick Scott’s quotations attempted to provide some additional context, but these were imbalanced by the hint of political bias.

School is a catalyst for the liberalization of belief. However, literal liberalization can take economic, social or philosophic forms. Simplified, belief in economic freedom leads to a preference for the Republican Party, while social freedom leads to a preference for the Democratic Party.

My own liberalization is of a philosophic form that demands freedom in both areas, and I thus prefer the Libertarian Party. Scott’s statements suggest that the removal of ignorance “goes hand in hand” with the Democratic Party. This is a biased statement that suggests another possibility. The modern academic community is notorious for a preference towards the Democratic Party. Perhaps classroom indoctrination, and not liberalization, has influenced student voting behavior. Comparative context is necessary for the responsible presentation of statistics, and our students deserve responsible journalism.

lorien_johnson: Kristin!
lorien_johnson: this is a complete change of topic. but.
lorien_johnson: It was horrifying at the bus station today.
lorien_johnson: This couple was sitting on the bench behind me, arguing about their sex life.
Kristin: eew
lorien_johnson: Very “low class” individuals, I don’t think either of them had teeth, she in her early twenties and he in his late thirties.
Kristin: doesn’t that make you wonder
lorien_johnson: They kept having these “Is too” “Is Not” arguments…
lorien_johnson: and arguing over whose responsibility it was to try new things. and then they started getting specific. it was gross.
lorien_johnson: yes. yes, it does.
Kristin: And about stuff you just don’t want to wonder about
lorien_johnson: Yes.
lorien_johnson: and their toddler was in the stroller in front of them!
Kristin: there should be laws protecting people from having to hear that kind of stuff
lorien_johnson: Well, see, I’m anti-laws. So instead I turned around and asked them to wait until they weren’t in public to discuss it.
Kristin: You’re brave
lorien_johnson: and she apologized, and he got huffy. but at least they switched to a snot-stew argument over movies.
lorien_johnson: well. I’m trying to put my philosophy into action. It’s not easy.
lorien_johnson: I keep advocating the removal of laws that legislate etiquette and social morality… but that can only work in a society in which people very politely make requests and demand etiquette from those around them. So… I’m trying.
Kristin: I see. How progressive of you.
lorien_johnson: I was pretty challenged by it the other day. In the bus this woman was sitting across from me arranging a time with this guy for her to sell sex to him.
lorien_johnson: and I had to decide whether I was going to report them to the driver and security.
lorien_johnson: which was a mixup for me… morally I’m against it. legally, I’m for decriminalization. I had to work on my feelings of judgment towards them, for one, and then decide what I needed to do legally. I settled for asking them to speak much more quietly or wait until they weren’t in a public place to discuss the arrangement.
lorien_johnson: and I was shocked. They were pretty polite about it. no apologies, of course, but they wrote on paper instead.
Kristin: I’ll never think of passing notes the same way again
lorien_johnson: lol

—-

When you set out to do something, you don’t do it halfway, do you?

Posted by Kristin @ 09/26/2004 02:46 PM CST

This makes sense, though. If I update it each week, I just have to fill in the blanks… today took two hours, compared to last week’s four. Also! I don’t have to compete for concrete. Although! People wrote over my Abigail Adams quote with “WHERE ARE THE WMDs?!”

As if Abigail Adams cared what Saddam was packing. Hmph.

Posted by Lor @ 09/26/2004 03:33 PM CST