Are Citizenship Tests Easier Than Voting?

George Will has an article out today which provides some interesting history and analysis of the role of the English language in political discourse:

In 1906, the year before a rabbi in a Passover sermon coined the phrase "melting pot" during torrential immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe, Congress passed, and President Theodore Roosevelt signed, legislation requiring people seeking to become naturalized citizens to demonstrate oral English fluency. In 1950 the requirement was strengthened to require people to "demonstrate an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language."

Hence, if someone needs a ballot written in a language other than English, that need proves the person obtained citizenship only because the law was not enforced when he or she sought citizenship. So one reason for ending ballots in languages other than English is that continuing them makes a mockery of the rule of law, including even the prospective McCain-Kennedy law that pro-immigration groups favor.

It contains several requirements that those aspiring to citizenship demonstrate "a knowledge of the English language" or "English fluency" in order "to promote the patriotic integration of prospective citizens into the American way of life" and into "American common values and traditions." How can legislators support language such as that and ballots in multiple languages?

...what public good is advanced by encouraging the participation of people who, by saying they require bilingual assistance, are saying they cannot understand the nation's political conversation? By receiving such assistance they are receiving a disincentive to become proficient in English.

The problem comes from a 1975 amendment to the Voting Rights Act "requiring bilingual ballots in jurisdictions with certain demographic characteristics." As a practical matter, the use of non-English ballots is a bit strange. Besides the fact that American political campaigns and debate are conducted in English, ballots are very simple. They require little more ability than basic name recognition, a simple task for any informed voter. Even with English-only ballots, it should require far less understanding of English to vote than to pass a citizenship test.

Mr. Will also has some interesting comments on Senator Harry Reid's recent race-bating:

It takes political bravery to propose pruning the Voting Rights Act, given the predictable charges of racism that are hurled so promiscuously nowadays. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, for example, has a liberal's reflex for discerning racism everywhere and for shouting "racist" as a substitute for argument. During Senate debate last week on a measure to declare English the national language, he said: "While the intent may not be there, I really believe this amendment is racist."

Questions crowd upon one another. Was his opaque idea -- well, perhaps it is not opaque to liberals -- of unintentional racism merely a bow to Senate rules against personal slurs? What "race" does Reid think is being victimized? Are Spanish speakers members of a single race? Evidently Reid thinks something like that, because his next sentence was: "I think it is directed basically to people who speak Spanish." Indeed, it is, but what has that to do with racism?

Perhaps someone could provide the Senator with a dictionary, and a history lesson.

There is little doubt that much of the Voting Rights Act is outdated, but will Congress admit that? Don't hold your breath.

A "Civilian" Agency?

Critics of President Bush's nomination of Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to be Director of Central Intelligence have raised a suspicious objection - whether a military officer can lead the CIA.

(WaPo) Hayden ran the super-secretive NSA from 1999 until last year, when he became the top deputy to the new national intelligence director, John Negroponte, who oversees the CIA and 15 other intelligence agencies.

It could prove a contentious battle to switch to the CIA, given the reaction from lawmakers on the Sunday talk shows. They said the CIA is a civilian agency and putting Hayden atop it would concentrate too much power in the military for intelligence matters.

(UPI) Rep. Pete Hoekstra has said he respects Gen. Michael Hayden... but that a military person should not lead a civilian agency.

(AP) It will fall to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., to keep order on the panel as it considers Hayden's confirmation. But even Roberts has acknowledged there is concern about someone from the military heading the CIA.

(Eugene Robinson - WaPo - the guy that forgot about internment and World War II) And given Donald Rumsfeld's ongoing power grab, we should really have a civilian, not an Air Force general, in charge of the CIA.

Quick note: Secretary Rumsfeld is a civilian and has been for decades. But beyond that, much more qualified people disagree:

Gen. Michael V. Hayden isn't the first active-duty military officer tapped to lead the CIA -- he is in fact the fifth -- but many intelligence experts and officers have bemoaned the idea of a general leading the agency at a time when the Pentagon is expanding its ability to engage in global spying and man-hunting, traditional realms of the CIA.

Despite such qualms, intelligence specialists say Hayden's appointment may turn out to be a clever move by intelligence czar John D. Negroponte to help him assert authority over Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his burgeoning intelligence bureaucracy. Negroponte, who by law oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, has expressed frustration that he has not made more progress in managing the agencies under the Defense Department's jurisdiction.

In addition, a rear admiral and a general each held the position of Director of Central Intelligence before the Central Intelligence Agency replaced the Central Intelligence Group. Another general preceded them as Director of Strategic Services during World War II. At least seven other directors had military experience.

To provide the history that critics were too lazy to check up on, here are the Directors of Central Intelligence, with their highest military ranks held before taking office:

Name	Years	Rank	Branch
Souers	1946	Rear Admiral	Navy
Vandenberg	1946-47	Lieutenant General	Army (Air Forces)
Hillenkoetter	1947-50	Rear Admiral	Navy
Smith	1950-53	General	Army
Dulles	1953-61
McCone	1961-65
Raborn	1965-66	Vice Admiral	Navy
Helms	1965-73	Reservist	Navy
Schlesinger	1973
Colby	1973-76	Lieutenant	Army
Bush	1976-77	Aviator	Navy
Turner	1977-81	Admiral	Navy
Casey	1981-87	Reservist	Navy
Webster	1987-91	Lieutenant	Navy
Gates	1991-93
Woolsey	1993-95	Captain	Army
Deutch	1995-96
Tenet	1997-2004
Goss	2004-05	Intelligence officer	Army

And here's one interesting fact:

Although he comes from the world of high-tech signals intelligence, Hayden was an early proponent of scaling back the CIA's responsibilities so it could concentrate on human intelligence. As Negroponte's deputy, he helped reshape the CIA's directorate of operations into the National Clandestine Service, an effort that many CIA officers applauded.

Hopefully the Senate will be able to look at Gen. Hayden's qualifications without descending too far into ignorance, fear-mongering, and partisan obstructionism.

Laziest Protest Ever

As a part of Monday's pro-illegal-immigration pseudo-boycott, one of the laziest possible methods of participation is being promoted:

Participation in the pro-[illegal] immigration events can range from marching in mass rallies to wearing white on the job.

Of course in many industries, that's basically the same as saying people will be protesting by either (1) not going to work or (2) going to work.

They've actually found a way to be dumber than "Red Fridays."

The Washington Post's Half-Baked Fundraising Report

The Washington Post misses some crucial conclusions with their mistitled article, "Senate Democrats Ahead in Cash Race." While fundraising numbers for the RNC, DNC, NRCC, and DCCC are buried in the article, the big picture is ignored.

Here are the totals, dollar amounts are in millions:

	Raised	On hand
RNC	141.9	43
DNC	74.1	10
NRCC	83.3	24.4
DCCC	52.8	23
NRSC	50.4	16.5
DSCC	56.4	32.1
R Total	275.6	83.9
D Total	183.3	65.1
R Lead	92.3	18.8

For direct comparison, the top three GOP groups raised 50% more than Democrats, and have almost 30% more in the bank. In dollars, the DSCC's lead over the NRSC is more than made up for by the other top Republican organizations.

It also makes some sense that the NRSC would have some fundraising problems - it can be hard to explain that as a practical matter, 55 Republican Senators are not enough to control the chamber and prevent obstruction by the minority party.

Unfortunately, most media reporting focuses on comparing two of the organizations that raise the least money, leaving out the context.


Update, June 12: Republicans Continue to Outraise Democrats

Supreme Court Rebukes Law Schools

Just over a week ago, in a decision suprising for its unanimity:

The Supreme Court... unanimously upheld a federal law that forces colleges and universities to permit military recruiting on campus, despite the schools' objections to the Pentagon ban on openly gay people serving in the armed forces.

By a vote of 8 to 0, the court upheld the Solomon Amendment, which permits the denial of federal funding to schools that do not allow military recruiters the same access given to all other job recruiters.

The lawsuit was started by FAIR, a coalition of law schools and professors that claimed they had the right to take federal money without following federal requirements (and simultaneously doing a disservice to their students).

Not only did the greedy, pretentious academics lose in their attempt to bite the hand that feeds their overpriced institutions, they lost more than most expected (and more than the headline news could explain):

So thorough was the court's rejection of FAIR's arguments that it ruled Congress could have achieved equal access not only indirectly, by threatening a funding cutoff, but also directly, through legislation based on its constitutional power to raise military forces. In fact, the court suggested in passing, even colleges and universities that do not receive any federal funding could be compelled by Congress to allow military recruiters.

So while federal funding an acceptable condition for requiring schools to not discriminate against military recruiters, it isn't even necessary.

The schools lost because recruiter access is conduct, not speech. The New York Times' Adam Liptak adds:

And if the result was not embarrassing enough, there was also the tone of the court's unanimous decision, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. In patient cadences, the kind you use in addressing a slightly dull child, the chief justice explained that law students would not assume that their schools supported the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy if they saw military recruiters on campus.

"High school students can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech the school permits because legally required to do so," he wrote. "Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school."

...

Peter H. Schuck, a Yale law professor who thought the law schools' legal position was misguided, said that many professors were so indignant about the military's treatment of gay men and women and so scornful of the military itself that their judgment became clouded.

...

The elite law schools have for decades been overwhelmingly liberal, Professor Schuck said, and that may have blinded professors to problems with their arguments. Only one law school brief, organized by members of the faculty of George Mason University School of Law, supported the military.

It certainly says something about American law schools when the Supreme Court unanimously spurns the arguments presented by every school except for one. The signers of the George Mason faculty brief should be applauded.

For more information, check out:
Rumsfeld v. FAIR, No. 04-1152, Mar. 6, 2006
"U.S. Military: 8 Elite Law Schools: 0 How did so many professors misunderstand the law?" (Weekly Standard)

Don't Let Arabs Sign Our Paychecks!

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Tuesday that a deal allowing an Arab company to take over [the operation of] six major U.S. seaports [from a British company] should go forward and that he would veto any congressional effort to stop it.

Opposition appears to be based more in fear and pandering than genuine policy concerns. As the President explained:

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly.'"

...

"This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through," the president said after emerging from his helicopter on the South Lawn.

The basic criticism is essentially guilt by association:

Critics have noted that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

Similar observations could be made about many countries, including the U.S., without refusing to do business with them. The UAE, however, is also an important ally and business center:

U.S. warships regularly dock at Dubai's Jebel Ali Port, which is also managed by DP World, and the emirate became the first Middle Eastern port city in 2004 to sign a U.S. pact aimed at deterring the use of shipping containers for terrorism.

The UAE provides logistical support for some U.S. military operations in the region, including Afghanistan. The Gulf Arab state, an OPEC oil producer, is negotiating a free trade agreement with the United States.

There is a more reasonable reaction than blocking the takeover. The port authorities should have some say over who they do business with:

[Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich] and New York's George Pataki, also a Republican, have indicated they may try to cancel lease arrangements at ports in their states because of the DP World takeover.

The Washington Times explains what "operating" a port really means and interviewed actual Baltimore port workers (rather than posturing politicians):

Work at the port will continue to be performed by unionized longshoremen under the deal in which state-owned Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates purchased London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. for $6.8 billion.

P&O provides stevedoring and terminal operating services at Baltimore's Seagirt and Dundalk Marine terminals, the largest of the Maryland Port Administration's seven terminals, and at five other U.S. seaports.

The company also hires the terminal work force and ensures cargo is delivered or shipped at the port. It employs about 65 workers at the Port of Baltimore who handle mostly containerized cargo.

The U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection provide security... Port operators "just make sure every ship and every truck is unloaded," said Mike Bowden, president of International Longshoremen's Association Local 1459.

...

"I don't think it will affect me," said a 61-year-old longshoreman in an orange jumpsuit, who stopped by the same Citgo station to buy a stack of lottery tickets yesterday evening. "Everybody coming through on the ships are foreigners already.

"They have to go through customs and all that. ... It's the same ship, just somebody different who owns it."

As workers rolled out of the port at the end of their shift, one longshoreman, who also didn't provide his name, summed up the situation: "Nothing is going to change for us, man."

Rich Galen draws a useful analogy to explain port operations:

...the cable news programming geniuses have been talking about the US outsourcing "port security" to Dubai.

This is like saying the company which operates your local airport - which is to say it decides how much you pay for parking and where in the terminal the Starbucks will be located - is responsible for airline security.

It isn't.

Nor will DP World be responsible for port security. That remains with Customs and the Coast Guard...

Want to know what's really behind all this?

It's an even numbered year and we are 253 days from election day.

It's not about port security; It's about incumbent security.

Misunderstanding how ports work has spawned many false-premised reactions and editorials, like the Washington Post's "Wanna Buy a Port?" which begins "We're selling our harbors to an Arab government." Then there's an overly-emotional and less than factual letter reported by the AP:

"In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO - but HELL NO," conservative Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., wrote Bush in a terse letter on Wednesday that she also posted on her Web site.

No matter that no American port is actually being sold, Bush faces a spreading rebellion among Republicans, Democrats and port-state governors.

(The Washington Post quoted Myrick's letter without pointing out the false statement.)

Allegations of "anti-Arab bias" do not seem misplaced:

Meanwhile, Arab-Americans have said that the focus on the Dubai company is based on anti-Arab feelings rather than security concerns. "I find some of the rhetoric being used against this deal shameful and irresponsible," said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, "There is bigotry coming out here." He accused politicians of exploiting fears left over from the 9/11 attacks to gain advantage in an election year. "Bush is vulnerable so the Democrats jump on it. The Republicans feel vulnerable so they jump on it. The slogan is, if it's Arab, it's bad. Hammer away" he said.

Meanwhile, more important issues are being ignored:

But whatever happens, experts in port operations said they feared broader issues about security in the country's docks were being lost in the controversy...

Stephen E. Flynn, a specialist in maritime security at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted that although the company is state-owned, several members of its top management are Americans -- including its general counsel, a senior vice president and its outgoing chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, who is a former U.S. Navy officer. And since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the United States has increasingly depended on such foreign port operators to cooperate in inspecting cargo before it heads for U.S. shores.

"It's a global network at the end of the day that we're trying to secure here," Flynn said. "And that doesn't happen by the United States owning every bit of it. What we should be focusing on instead is the question, are the security standards adequate?"

...

"What I hope for out of this whole debate is that, as Americans suddenly realize most of our marine terminals are managed by foreign-owned companies, they ask, given that that's a reality, how do we secure it?" Flynn said. "I also hope this current situation doesn't lead to a feeding frenzy [against foreign operators], because if we want things to be secure over here, we're going to have to work with foreign counterparts."

With a deeper understanding of how ports operate, it's much harder to defend opposing this deal, which, as Rich Galen described it, was "known to the financial community since November, [and] approved by one of those alphabet commissions which happens to involve SIX Cabinet Departments including Treasury, State, Homeland Security, Commerce, and Justice..." I will be very surprised if opponents decide to use fact-based reasons to stop the transfer. While ports should still be able to reject having a new partner forced on them, I have yet to see a good reason to oppose the takeover entirely.

For more information, check out:
Der Spiegel's overview of the UAE's development and economy
"Background Note: United Arab Emirates" (State Department)
"Ports of Politics: How to sound like a hawk without being one" (Wall Street Journal)
"Security and the Sale of Port Facilities: Facts and Recommendations" (Heritage Foundation)

Lock Up the Court?

Brian Ross at ABC News seems to have a problem Supreme Court justices venturing outside the Beltway:

At the historic swearing-in of John Roberts as the 17th chief justice of the United States last September, every member of the Supreme Court, except Antonin Scalia, was in attendance. ABC News has learned that Scalia instead was on the tennis court at one of the country's top resorts, the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Bachelor Gulch, Colo., during a trip to a legal seminar sponsored by the Federalist Society.

Despite the fact that such seminars are planned well in advance and that Scalia explained this ("I was out of town with a commitment that I could not break"), Ross goes on to pretend to speak for Chief Justice Roberts:

Not only did Scalia's absence appear to be a snub of the new chief justice, but according to some legal ethics experts, it also raised questions about the propriety of what critics call judicial junkets.

The now-deified Justice O'Connor was teaching a class in Arizona on the day her successor, Justice Alito, was sworn in. ABC News has not yet labeled this a "snub."

Then of course there's the fallacious guilt by association:

One night at the resort, Scalia attended a cocktail reception, sponsored in part by the same lobbying and law firm where convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff once worked.

"You know a lot of people would be embarrassed at that. I don't think Antonin Scalia will be embarrassed," Gillers continued.

Should Scalia also be embarrassed to attend White House events because its previous occupant was impeached?

Ross leaves out some interesting details::

• Scalia was at the resort to teach a Continuing Legal Education seminar sponsored by the Federalist Society, as part of a larger meeting of the organization.
• Regular attendance at such seminars is required of lawyers in 46 of the 51 U.S. jurisdictions as a condition of practicing law. They are often held at resorts, because attorneys hate having to amass the necessary credits and combining them with recreation ensures better attendance.
• The seminars are usually taught by prominent members of the bar, and occasionally judges.

And these are not minor seminars:

• Scalia arrived at the resort after 11PM on the first day. On the second day he taught his seminar, attended a reception and dinner, and played tennis. He left at 6:30 AM of the morning after the seminar. This... a late night arrival, a day of participation, and an early morning departure for the airport, is what Nightline referred to as spending "three days" at the resort.
• Justice Scalia's materials for his course were 481 pages long. He taught for 10 hours, all in the one day he actually stayed at the resort.
• How he found the time, not to mention the energy, to play tennis is a mystery.

The basic issue is this:

While there are ethics rules in place for lower federal court judges, there is no explicit code of ethics for the nine Supreme Court justices. Some practices have in turn come under scrutiny, such as accepting trips from groups with political and judicial agenda and gifts from private parties who may at some point have business before the court.

Ron Rotunda, a law professor at the George Mason School of Law, author of a textbook on legal ethics and who is himself a member of the Federalist Society, finds no problem with the Supreme Court justices attending events sponsored by the organization. "I'm a member of the Federalist Society, the NAACP, and the justices get invited to both, and I think that's a good idea," he said. "The organization doesn't have litigation before the judge and is unlikely to have litigation before the judge."

Gifts, including travel, provided to Supreme Court justices are already scrutinized. Other than covering his basic transportation and lodging expenses, Justice Scalia was paid nothing for his efforts. The problem here is the attitude that justices should not be associating with or educating fellow lawyers. Attending lawyers' seminars is simply an extension of the widespread practice of teaching at summer study abroad programs. Or is it less important to have educated practicing lawyers than to provide an excuse for students to study abroad?

It is also hard to see how anyone benefits from a Supreme Court locked away deep inside the Beltway.

A detailed analysis of the issue by a CLE instructor is available at The Ethics Scoreboard.