"Snitch" Breeds New Light into Drug Sentencing Laws

I’m not much of a film critic, but every now and then I see a movie that inspires me to put my thoughts down into words. Last night, I saw the latest Dwayne Johnson screenplay “Snitch”, which tells the story of a college bound teen who makes a poor decision to earn some fast cash and ends up facing a minimum sentence of 10+ years in federal prison. I’m not going to ruin the plot with this post so I will stick to the issue of mandatory sentencing laws because I think such an important issue deserves at the very least a public discourse on the matter.

Harsh prison sentences for violent offenders are appropriate when the punishment fits the crime. The age-old principle “an eye for an eye” teaches us that a person who injures another should be punished to a similar degree. Occasionally the theoretical framework that characterizes our criminal justice system exposes itself to invariable flaws that deserve correction. FAMM, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, is an organization that advocates for “fair and proportionate sentencing laws that allow judicial discretion while maintaining public safety.” The organization addresses the consequences of the 1986 mandatory minimums for drug violations law and the expansion of those laws in 1988 which applies to drug conspiracies. According to the legislation, sentencing is determined solely by the weight and type of drug, ignoring other important factors including the role of traffickers in the movement of drugs.

Given the inherently diverse nature of illegal activity related to the distribution of illegal drugs, a one size fits all sentencing law fails to weigh the specifics of each case in order to apply appropriate sentences. As Justice Anthony Kennedy puts it, “In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.” They are doing little to solve the nation’s war on drugs and the law has led to a severe overcrowding problem in prisons across the country. While the law’s intention to capture kingpins in drug conspiracies was enacted in good faith, it has resulted in placing non-violent first-time offenders behind bars for decades, while the drug lords responsible for the mass movement of illegal substances remain free to continue their activities. That simply is not justice.

FAMM’s profiles of those adversely affected by the law are available here. Unfortunately, even one of these cases is unacceptable and its time for lawmakers to come to the table and reevaluate the effectiveness of minimum sentencing as it relates to America’s War on Drugs.

The Changing Face of the Republican Party through the Lens of Immigration Reform

            In November 2012, President Barack Obama handily defeated his Republican rival Mitt Romney to win a second term in the White House. In light of the devastating electoral losses among women and rapidly expanding minority groups, Republican Party insiders now recognize that the time has come to fundamentally reform the party platform in order to regain some control of Washington D.C. in the midterm elections and eventually the 2016 race for the presidency. In the meantime, President Obama has chosen to flex his political muscles on a variety of social issues at a time that seems ripe for “change” due in part to the uncertain and divided state of the GOP. In his annual State of the Union address, the president insisted that, “right now, leaders from the business, labor, law enforcement, and faith communities all agree that the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform.”^[i] Unlike his broad, repetitious calls for pathways to citizenship for illegal immigrants in 2010 and 2011, this time the president outlined specific policy provisions like background checks, back taxes and meaningful penalties that he hopes will be a part of the package sent to the oval office to be signed into law. Obama also dedicated substantial portions of his annual address to other controversial social issues like gay marriage, gun control and climate change. For many of the same reasons, the impact that an evolving Republican Party may have on these politically sensitive matters require further exploration. For the purposes of this paper however, the impact that the changing Republican Party will have on public policy will be limited in scope to the issue of immigration reform.

            Before delving into the reasons why the time is ripe right now for immigration reform, one must first understand a brief history of this sensitive issue and recognize that there have been several albeit failed attempts in the past to deal with our nation’s illegal immigrants. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan required employers to verify the immigration status of their employees and made it illegal to knowingly hire undocumented immigrants. In addition to granting amnesty to over 3 million people immediately, the law is believed to have attracted over 12 million workers who crossed the border in its aftermath.^[ii] The bill failed to create a non-immigrant visa program for lesser skilled workers and therefore failed to address the issue of future illegal immigrants crossing the border. Under President George W. Bush, attempts at immigration reform failed as members of the House of Representatives and Senate were unable to reconcile the differences between their proposals, particularly on the issue of guest-worker programs.^[iii] The issue resurfaced to the national spotlight when then Candidate Obama pledged to push through Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) in his first year in office. Instead, the Affordable Care Act of 2010 became Obama’s signature domestic achievement and CIR fell by the wayside.

            Now the issue of immigration has stolen the spotlight once again and after outlining the proposals that are being floated around Washington D.C., the remainder of this analysis will focus on the issue of “why now!”. At the end of January 2013, a bipartisan group of eight senators (Democrats: Charles Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, and Michael Bennet of Colorado, and Republicans John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Jeff Flake of Arizona and rising GOP star Marco Rubio of Florida) known as the “Gang of Eight”, announced a framework for comprehensive immigration reform that they will attempt to pass through congress.^[iv] The first element of the proposal includes a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants who are already in the US illegally. The bill will also include an increase in the number of green cards issued to immigrants with advanced degrees in science, math, technology or engineering from American universities and visas for low-skilled workers including the creation of an agricultural worker program, one of the elements that Reagan’s 1986 law failed to address. Moreover, the framework establishes laws that allow for increased hiring of immigrants by employers who sufficiently demonstrate their inability to recruit American workers. All of these elements are contingent on the implementation of enhanced border security measures and supplemental oversight of visa holders. Finally, these measures would also require an effective employment verification system to check the status of applicants.^[v] These are the basic ingredients that make up the recipe for comprehensive immigration reform by the “gang of 8”, but other legislative ideas have been circulated as well including from the president himself.

President Obama has been meeting regularly with members of this bipartisan group of senators to thank them for their leadership and to encourage continued progress on immigration reform. The president has even gone as far as declaring that he will offer up his own bill should congress fail to produce legislation in an expeditious manner. In early February 2013, the White House (intentionally or not) leaked President Obama’s own plan for immigration reform which included an eight year path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Members of the GOP and the often speculated 2016 presidential candidate Senator Marco Rubio, who is also a member of the “gang of 8”, chided the president for releasing a plan that does not include Republican input. Moreover, he criticized the apparent lack of harsh penalties for immigrants who came to the United States illegally and labeled the plan “half-baked and seriously flawed.”^[vi] Apparently the president believes that he has enough political capital to wage on this issue in announcing his own plan despite bipartisan efforts in congress to package together a plan of their own.

This brings us, albeit rather quickly, to where we are at today. The historical, legal and moral arguments surrounding immigration reform are complex and sensitive. They bring about some of the very fundamental issues that deal with the fabric that makes up the United States as a nation. After all, every citizen is an immigrant who came from a foreign country at some point over the last two centuries in pursuit of the American Dream. Today, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States and the costs of dealing with them have become exorbitant. It thus begs the question: Why is now the time for comprehensive immigration reform? What is it about today’s political climate that differs so deeply from the climate of prior fruitless attempts? Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus recently underscored that question by announcing, “We must compete in every state and every region, building relationships with communities we haven’t before… We can stand by our timeless principles and articulate them in ways that are modern; relevant to our time and relatable to the majority of voters.”^[vii] I submit that the changing face of the Republican Party has inevitably created an atmosphere that makes the issue of immigration reform ripe. However, it is important to note that the reasoning is multi-faceted and includes other unrelated elements which will be touched upon in this analysis as well.

In the 2012 presidential election, Barack Obama garnered over 70% of the Latino vote.^[viii] Over the last four years, the number of registered Latino voters has increased by 26% to over 12.2 million voters.^[ix] In light of these rapid demographic changes, Republicans must come to terms with the fact that they can no longer ignore the concerns of constituencies that they have in the past, which is not limited to but includes the growing Latino population. Perhaps that might explain the GOP’s selection of Latino Senator Marco Rubio as the poster boy of immigration reform for the party. His status as a rising conservative star, a 2016 GOP Presidential hopeful and a tea-party favorite breed new light on the direction of the Republican Party in regards to immigration reform. As Liz Marlentes indicated in The Christian Science Monitor, Rubio’s changing position “could mark an important step in changing the GOP’s image to one that's more inclusive and minority-friendly.”^[x] Moreover, the argument has been made that Republicans do in fact have the most potential ground to make up with Latino voters, who were in large part brought up in traditionalist societies that taught conservative values. Granted, this is a blanket statement that does not reflect “Latinos” as a whole, but it certainly has some validity if not only that it is justified by the emphasis that the party has placed on winning over this portion of the electorate. In support of this view, attempts are being made on the state and local levels by the nation’s only Hispanic governors in New Mexico and Nevada to win over Latino support for the Republican Party and large amounts of money to recruit young political talent is pouring into the effort.^[xi] New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval are committed to the cause and recognize the potential support they might be able to garner from the Latino populations.

By the same token, Democrats are just as eager to hold onto their lopsided support from Latino constituents. While the changing face of the Republican Party ambitiously indulges Mexican Americans with their newfound tone on immigration reform, Democrats are not going to give up their electoral stronghold on these citizens without a fight. Nonetheless, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency under the Obama Administration has set new records for the deportation of undocumented citizens. In fiscal year 2012, the ICE deported 409,849 illegal immigrants, a number which has only increased every year of the president’s first term in office.^[xii] Conceivably, the GOP will use this record to diminish Obama’s reputation as a champion of sustainable solutions to immigration reform. Over the course of his reelection campaign, President Obama spent substantial time answering tough questions from Latino voters about why CIR did not occur. Even though Obama’s executive orders to defer the deportation of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children had an impact on the issue, the fact of the matter is that the president fell short of passing comprehensive immigration reform through congress. Thus, one could argue that he has a greater desire to make CIR a signature achievement of his second administration.

Amongst a slew of other social issues, immigration reform would not be as ripe for action by congressional Republicans if public opinion did not so strongly favor new legislation. In a recent poll conducted by the Washington Post which asked whether undocumented immigrants who are already in the United States ought to be given a pathway to citizenship should they meet certain requirements, over 70% of respondents indicated that they would be supportive of such legislation.^[xiii] The overwhelming public support for meaningful reforms to our immigration system is indicative of the changing political climate we find ourselves in. It also has made it easier for party leaders to publically support the cause. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) recently endorsed a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers, immigrants brought to the United States as children.^[xiv] The majority leader articulated that a good place to start on the issue is with the kids. He decidedly rejected the notion that children be punished for the mistakes of their parents. The bipartisan nature in which congressional leaders have tackled the matter thus far is indicative of at least the chance that achieving comprehensive immigration reform may finally be possible in the near future.

Another important point to consider is the degree to which these position changes are strategic. It is no secret that Republicans need to make inroads with new constituencies if they hope to regain control in future elections. Thus, the political motivation behind pandering to the Latino sector of the electorate is obvious.^[xv] Popular conservative talk show and radio hosts like Sean Hannity have publically come out in favor of tackling immigration reform despite their previous opposition. Grover Norquist even went as far to declare that granting legal status to the millions of undocumented immigrants is an essential step towards fixing our economy.^[xvi]

Perhaps the change of heart comes from a place much deeper than politics. If in fact the party has truly changed its course on immigration reform, then it begs the question: what is the motivation? If one were to step away from the idea that granting amnesty to immigrants who have broken our laws is fundamentally wrong and instead reflect on the key values of the Republican Party, then in fact one might find that the GOP is at its core the party of Latino immigrants. After all, the preamble of the 2012 Republican Party Platform reads:

The pursuit of opportunity has defined America from our very beginning. This is a land of opportunity. The American Dream is a dream of equal opportunity for all. And the Republican Party is the party of opportunity…a positive, optimistic view of an opportunity society, where any American who works hard, dreams big and follows the rules can achieve anything he or she wants.^[xvii]

The ideals of individual freedom and liberty form the foundation of the Republican Party. Immigrants come to the United States in droves willing, able and desiring to be contributing members of society in order to make a better life for themselves in this great land of opportunity. Undeniably, they broke the law and for that, they deserve to be punished in some form or another. However, if one were to look at the core values that make up conservatism, they align succinctly with the dreams and aspirations of immigrants hoping to make a better life for themselves and for their children; Not for those who commit violent crimes and bankrupt our social services which are funded by hardworking, tax paying citizens, but for those willing to put everything on the line to achieve the American Dream, the Republican Party has concluded that they deserve a chance as long as they meet very specific parameters to ensure that comprehensive immigration reform is finally realized.

            To conclude the discussion of the changing face of the Republican Party through the lens of immigration reform would be incomplete without acknowledging the extent to which this political evolution could and should be explored through the lens of other sensitive social issues. On balance, many of the same arguments related to the progression of the GOP in today’s political climate could be made for gun control and gay marriage to name a few as public opinion reflects shifts that favor liberalization on these issues. The multi-faceted nature of these potential reforms ought to be deciphered exhaustively in order to fully understand the evolution of the Republican Party in today’s political climate, but those arguments deserve a book of their own.  

---

[i] Elise Foley, State of the Union 2013: On Immigration, ‘Let’s Get This Done’, Huffington Post, Feb. 12, 2013.

[ii] Laura Foote Reiff, The Winds of Immigration Reform Blow Again, The National Law Review, Jan. 29, 2013.

[iii] Darryl Fears, Immigration Reform Revisited, The Washington Post, Mar. 23, 2007.

[iv] Daniel Strauss, Obama ‘Commends’ GOP Senators on Immigration Reform, The Hill, Feb. 19, 2013.

[v] Jennifer G. Roeper, Senators Reach a Bipartisan Agreement for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, The National Law Review, Jan. 31, 2013.

[vi] Benjamin Hart, Marco Rubio Rejects Obama Immigration Reform Plan: ‘Dead on Arrival’, Huffington Post, Feb. 16, 2013.

[vii] Rebekah Metzler, Bobby Jindal, GOP Leaders Aim to Rebrand the Republican Party, U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 25, 2013.

[viii] Elise Foley, Latino Voters in Election 2012 Help Sweep Obama to Reelection, Huffington Post, Nov. 7, 2012.

[ix] Mariano Castillo, Five Reasons Why Time May Be Right for Immigration Reform, CNN, Jan. 28, 2013.

[x] Niraj Chokshi, Why Now is the Right Time for Immigration Reform, National Journal, Jan. 29, 2013.

[xi] Russell Contreras, NM, Nevada Govs Head GOP Minority Recruiting, The Seattle Times, Feb. 5, 2013.

[xii] Elise Foley, Deportation Hits Another Record Under Obama Administration, Huffington Post, Dec. 21, 2012.

[xiii] Washington Post Poll, Obama Endorsement a Drag on Path to Citizenship, Washington Post, Feb. 12, 2013.

[xiv] Emily Deruy, Eric Cantor Endorses Citizenship for DREAMers, ABC Univision, Feb. 5, 2013.

[xv] The Associated Press, Obama Says Time Right for Immigration Reform, Reading Eagle, Jan. 30, 2013.

[xvi] Editorial: Time is Right for Immigration Reform, Chicago Sun Times, Nov. 25, 2012.

[xvii] Governor Bob McDonnell, GOP Platform - Preamble, Accessed Feb. 24, 2013.

How Obamacare is Affecting Big Business

I suspect that the nature of this blog will inevitably encourage a discussion of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. As you might imagine based on my other posts, I am staunchly opposed to the President's overhaul of our nation's healthcare system. In the meantime, I came across an article which really underscores one of the many damning side effects of implementing nationalized health care and penalizing businesses that do not provide it to their employees. Go ahead and give it a read here.

State of the Union: What to Expect on Tuesday Evening

How will President Obama address the American people in the second major public speech of his second term? What policies will he emphasize and how will he frame the debate? While the political pundits might be at work trying to answer these questions, no magic wand will tell us what the president will say until Tuesday evening. What we can count on is that there will certainly be a discussion of some of the major agenda items he outlined in his inaugural address: gun control, climate change and of course, immigration reform.

Unfortunately I’m going to anticipate that we will hear much of the same rhetoric in terms of infrastructure, education reform and clean energy proposals without any reasonable account of how he intends to pay for the historic government spending he will propose. Again – I will emphasize that this is just a hypothesis of what the president’s speech will entail, but if the last four years are any indication of the approach he will take, then I feel quite comfortable putting a large wager on my predication. After all, one cannot reasonably expect that the Republican controlled house is going to bend to another request for an increase in tax revenue although that will certainly be a large portion of Obama’s prescription. Fortunately for the president’s supporters, his oratory skills will undoubtedly persuade the average American that his proposals are fair and logical. Outbursts from South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson, who shouted “You Lie!” at the president during a previous State of the Union address, only bolsters the White House agenda as the party of reason, as Rep. Wilson’s tantrum reflected poorly on the Republican party as a whole. Rather, Republicans have chosen an up-and-comer to present their rebuttal message, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, whom most party insiders suspect will be one of the front runners in 2016 for the presidential nomination.

The part that Senator Rubio has to most carefully answer is his reply to Obama’s message on immigration reform. Rubio was one of 11 senators who released an immigration proposal of their own which advocated for increased border security and a pathway to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants. That initiative has been bolstered with the support of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor who this week publically supported a pathway to citizenship for the children who were brought here illegally by no fault of their own. The degree to which Senator Rubio succeeds in crafting his message to the American people in a way that resonates with the broader electorate will in my view largely dictate his future as the leader of the Republican Party. That all begins with his response to the president’s State of the Union on Tuesday evening.

The gun control debate (which I outlined in a previous post on this blog) is certain to make an appearance on the president’s speech as well. With an outbreak of shootings in recent weeks, which was initiated by the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, the president is in a powerful position to advocate for wider gun registration and limits on certain magazine sales including an extensive list of assault weapons.

Regardless of the way one feels about each of these proposals, Tuesday night will be an important opportunity for President Obama to set the tone of his second term in the oval office. It is in his annual address to congress and to the American people where he has the opportunity to advocate for the policies that matter to him most. With momentum on his side after an embarrassing Republican loss in November’s election, Obama will certainly grab onto the chance Tuesday night to outline an agenda that will signify the legacy he intends to leave on the White House during his second presidential term.

Entering the Gun Control Debate

On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza marched into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut after killing his mother Nancy. Twenty students and six adults were shot dead that morning with three assault weapons that Adam had stolen from his mother’s home.  The death of so many innocent children on that fateful morning has brought the gun control debate to the forefront of Washington politics.

On Monday, February 4, 2013, President Obama traveled to Minneapolis and outlined his campaign to pass gun-control legislation. First and foremost, the president is after achieving universal background checks. His more ambitious goals include his insistence to place a ban on a long list of assault weapons including the one that was used in the shootings. In his address, Obama sought to respond directly to the demands of the all-powerful National Rifle Association, which seeks to protect the second amendment rights of all Americans. He even went so far as to criticize the gun lobby as unrepresentative of gun owners. As he has done with other controversial legislation in his first term, the president is using the power of social media and his influence on the American people to pressure their members of congress to act immediately in favor of his agenda.

As a country, we mourn the loss of the victims of such senseless deaths at the hands of deranged and deeply disturbed individuals. Any rational person would agree that there is a need to address the increase of gun violence in the United States. The point of contention now is to figure out how we address the causes and potential solutions to such violence. Thus far, the ideas that have been floating around (increased gun control legislation, armed guards in schools, etc.) fail to address the root of the problem: a culture of violence. After all, there is no research to suggest that an increase in gun control laws will lead to a decrease in gun violence. To the contrary, there are statistics suggesting that stricter gun control laws leave law abiding citizens without firearms and enable criminals to be more reckless with their illegally obtained weaponry.

I contend that the root of the problem is cultural. Societal norms no longer restrain extreme levels of violence in the same manner that it once did. Song lyrics, video games, television shows and movies are just some examples of how societal norms have shifted drastically in a direction that indirectly accepts violence as a social standard. Certainly, I enjoyed my fair share of Grand Theft Auto (a video game where players can steal cars and violently rape and kill prostitutes) or Call of Duty at a very young age, whereas my parent’s generation played Tetris and PacMan as their form of video game fun. Perhaps it’s the failure of the nuclear family that has led to instability in childhood and caused an increasing number of teens to turn to gangs for acceptance. Maybe it’s the rapid decline in faith more broadly that has removed traditional values and principles from American youth. I reckon that it is a combination of these social changes and many others that have led to a more violent society and only through a combination of social changes promoting the opposite ideals will lead to a substantial decrease in violence. The point I’m trying to make here is that I do not believe this is an issue we can legislate our way out of through Washington politics. The solution needs to start at home, continue in school (reforming education) and after school extracurricular programs and confirmed through other activities and institutions. We need to return to a society that condemns violence, not one that tolerates it and it is my belief that the solution begins well beyond the confines of Washington D.C.