VOLUME VII ISSUE VIII

JHU POLITIKILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

AND ALABAMA’S H.B. 56

Protesters stand outside the Montgomery County Jail after having been released. They were some of the 13 people arrested last Tuesday for protesting the immigration law. (SOURCE: http://foxnews.com)

by SAM HARRIS, ’15Contributing Writer

In 2010, the American political discussion was rocked when Ari-

zona sought to crack down on ille-gal immigration. The state passed legislation mandating that highway patrolmen check alien-status docu-mentation during routine traffic stops if there was reason to believe that an individual was in the country illegally. This was widely interpret-ed as a legalization of racial profil-ing, and sparked a storm of activism from both the right and the left. This past June, with far less controversy and noise, Governor Robert Bent-ley of Alabama signed into law the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpay-er and Citizen Protection Act, also (continued on Page 2)

ISSUE VIIINATIONAL

SUPREME COURT TAKES ON THE HEALTHCARE LAW

by Virgil Doyle ’14- Page 3

KARL ROVE VS. OCCUPY BALTIMORE

by Colette Andrei ’14- Page 4

ECONOMIC CONFERENCE FOCUSES ON FUTURE OF THE PACIFIC

by Eric Feinberg, ’12- Page 6

OPINION

JOHNS HOPKINS’ Only Weekly-Published Political Magazine

THE POLITICS OF BRAZILIAN SLUM OCCUPATION

by Hilary Matfess, ’14- Page 7

known as H.B. 56, which contains similar provisions to the bill passed in Arizona.

H.B. 56 was a product of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who wrote the bill with the help of the Alabama state legislature. Kobach describes the passage of the act as a “great service to America,” adding that “Alabama achieved something very significant by approving it.” Rep. Micky Hammon, a lead sponsor of the bill, stated that “this is a jobs creation bill for Americans.” Addi-tionally, Hammon said he hoped to “prevent illegal aliens coming to Ala-bama and to prevent those who are here from putting down roots.”

The act itself has several provi-

sions aimed at providing stricter en-forcement of current immigration laws and allows for harsher penalties on illegal aliens and their employers. They are as follows:

• Makes it a misdemeanorcrime for illegal aliens to perform work in the state

• Requires law enforcementofficers on “any lawful stop, deten-tion, or arrest,” to verify the person’s immigration status if they reason-ably suspect he or she is an illegal immigrant

IAEA REPORT SUSPECTS A NUCLEAR IRAN

by Sam Markstein, ’15 - Page 5

INTERNATIONAL

November 21, 2011 Volume VII, Issue VIII

1 WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG

THE POLITIKEDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Hannah Holliday

STAFF WRITERS

Julia AllenColette Andrei

Megan AugustineMichael Bodner

Rachel CohenRobert D’Annibale

Virgil DoyleEric Feinberg

Cary GlynnAnna Kochut

Hilary MatfessChloe Reichel

Daniel RoettgerAri Schaffer

LAYOUT EDITOR

Ana Giraldo-Wingler

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Will Denton

MANAGING EDITOR

Alex Clearfield

ASSISTANT EDITORS

Randy BellJeremy OrloffMatt Varvaro

PRODUCTION MANAGER

Neil O’Donnell

FACULTY ADVISOR

Steven R. David

JHU POLITIK is a student-run political publication. Please note that the opinions expressed within JHU POLITIK are those of the author alone.

INTERNATIONAL REPORT

• Makesitamisdemeanorforthe“willfulfailureto complete or carry an alien registration document if person in violation of 8 USC 1304 (e) or 1306 (a)”

• Makes it illegal to claim illegalworkers’wageson business tax deductions

• Makesitafelonyforanillegalalientodobusi-ness with the state (such as obtaining a driver’s license or license plate)

• Makes it illegal to harbor, transport, or shieldaliens, and provides a civil cause of action for those who hire illegal workers

Governor Bentley, on passage of the act, stated, “it would not have been necessary to address this problem if the federal government would have done its job and enforced the laws dealing with this problem.” The Fed-eral government and Justice Department have respond-ed to the law by saying that it is unconstitutional, vio-lating the Supremacy Clause which establishes the U.S. constitution and federal statutes as the “supreme Law of the Land.” The federal response asserts, “If allowed to go into effect, H.B. 56’s enforcement scheme will con-flict with and undermine the federal government’s care-ful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives.” On October 14, the 11th Circuit Court of Ap-peals put a hold on key provisions including Section 10 and Section 28, which relate to the need to carry docu-

mentationoflegalityandtherequirementtodetermineif a child or parent of a child enrolled in a public school is unlawfully present in the U.S. Additionally, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the De-partment of Justice Thomas Perez issued a letter which gave the Department of Justice express authority to in-vestigate obstruction of civil rights laws in conjunction with the enactment of H.B. 56.

Over the past several months, there has been a grow-ing consensus among the legislature and citizens of Alabama that the law must be amended. Orlando Rosa, a local radio personality, had this to say: “There’s a lot of hard working people that just come here to work to better their life, better their families and because of this law they’re being separated because of HB56.” Several activist and religious groups have spoken out against the new bill. Mary Bauer of the Southern Poverty Law Cen-ter describes the bill as an “extreme anti-immigration law,” while Cecillia Wang of the American Civil Liber-ties Union added that “[the] bill invites discrimination into every aspect of the lives of people in Alabama.” Jer-ry Spencer, a representative for Grow Alabama, has said that in conversations with agricultural and construction industry representatives there has been the acknowl-edgement of the loss of a significant portion of their

(Continued from page 1)

(continued on Page 3)




work force. Spencer went on state that “185,000 Hispan-ics had left [Alabama].”

Shortly after the enactment of the bill in September, several thousand workers refused to show up for work and many closed their stores. In addition, 13 people were arrested for protesting the bill this past Tuesday in Montgomery. This past Wednesday, a German manager of Mercedes-Benz was stopped by police and detained for a short time after it was discovered he only had his identification card. On Saturday, nearly 500 protestors marched to the capitol in Montgomery.

Occurrences such as these have brought scrutiny to the new law, and some early supporters are beginning to waver. Slade Blackwell, a Republican Senator, said that “the longer the bill has been out, the more unintended consequences we have found.” Senator Paul Sanfordadded that “there are a lot of frustrated citizens that are being inconvenienced by the implementation of the law and who didn’t think it was going to impact them.” Re-publican Senator Gerald Biel has said that “[he] made some mistakes in voting for this bill, and [he] wants to step up and fix them.” The growing discontentment with the law has recently led to a more drastic call for reforms. Democratic Senator Billy Beasley has drawn up a new bill to repeal the law. When asked about the law, Biel stated “What we’ve done is tell the Hispanics we don’t want you in Alabama. Legal Hispanics are leaving as well as illegals.” The events of the next few weeks will prove crucial in determining of the future of the law. As the media’s scrutiny increases, many leaders will find it hard to continue to justify the strict measures taken by the law. Time will tell if these factors bring substantive change, as the legislature is slated to reconvene in Janu-ary. s

The Supreme Court takes on the Healthcare Law

by VIRGIL DOYLE, ’14Staff Writer

On November 14, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to hear a case challenging the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act, agreeing to hear ar-guments in March 2012 and make a decision some time in June. Ever since this healthcare reform bill passed on March 23, 2010, it has been a polarizing law: Demo-

crats hail it as a major legislative accomplishment for the Obama administration, while Republicans deride it as an example of Obama’s wasteful spending and overexten-sion of government beyond its proper bounds. How the Supreme Court rules in this case will have important im-plications for both sides and could serve as validation for the arguments of one party or the other heading into the 2012 presidential election.

While many lower court rulings on the Act have ap-pealed to the Supreme Court, the justices of the high-est court in the land agreed to hear arguments on just one appeal. In this ruling, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta struck down the individual mandate provision of the bill. New York Times’ Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak says that it is now up to the Supreme Court “to decide not only whether the man-date is constitutional, but also, if it is not, how much of the balance of the law… must fall along with it.” Thus, the Supreme Court’s ruling could potentially overturn the entirety of the Affordable Care Act.

The individual mandate, a provision in the bill that requires all Americans to have health care, lies at theheart of the constitutional debate over the Act. Though President Obama did not support this measure while he was campaigning in 2008, he decided to reverse course and push for its inclusion in the final bill in 2010. The mandate has become the chief talking point in the bill and is the specific provision of the Act on which the Su-preme Court will have to rule.

The justification for the mandate is based on the business model of health insurance companies. The Affordable Care Act seeks to prevent these companies from declining to provide coverage for sick people while they can simply collect premiums from less expensive, healthier individuals. For instance, a provision in the bill prevents health insurers from denying coverage to an individual based on a previous condition. Thus, the Act allows more people with a variety of illnesses, who may have had trouble finding health insurance before, to find coverage.

However, the presence of more sick people in pools will raise costs for insurance companies, as it costs them more money to cover, for instance, an elderly individual with a chronic illness than a young, relatively healthy person. This is where the individual mandate comes in. Byrequiringmostoftheapproximately30millionunin-sured Americans to buy insurance, the increased costs of newly insured sick people are covered by the payments





Karl Rove vs. Occupy Baltimore

by COLETTE ANDREI, ’14Staff Writer

On Tuesday, November 15, Karl Rove, former deputy chief of staff and senior advisor to President George

W. Bush, spoke to an audience assembled in Shriver Hall at Johns Hopkins University.

Rove has been called the architect of Bush’s suc-cessful 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns, and he is considered one of the most powerful and controversial political operatives of his generation. Admirers praise Rove’s winning track record and longtime effort to cre-ate a lasting national Republican majority. Critics deride him for his ruthless, win-at-all-costs campaign style.

Speaking to Rove’s controversial reputation, prior to his speech, a group of protesters affiliated with the Oc-cupy Baltimore movement gathered outside of Shriver Hall to demonstrate against him. The protesters chanted several derisive phrases towards Rove, ranging from his involvementinthewarinIraqtocriticismofhisrecentmemoir and his pro-conservative commentary on the Fox News network.

Rove began his speech with his opinion of Presi-dent Obama at the beginning of his presidency, saying he was a young, strong senator for whom Rove said he had the best wishes and highest expectations. Howev-er, after three years of an Obama administration, Rove stated that he feels the country has taken a downturn, and he reminded the audience that no president has ever been reelected with such a low approval rating as those currently being reported for Obama. He believes that the young voters who elected Obama have now moved away from him. He went on to say it was expected that Obama would govern from a centrist position, but so far he has not been bipartisan, and has governed in a way thathascausedpeopletoquestionhispoliciesandac-tions. Rove also commented that the unemployment rate in the country is 9%, 16% if it is expanded to include discouraged workers, and that it “wasn’t supposed to be this way”.

Rove then launched into criticism of Obama’s 2009 Stimulus Bill. He pointed to testimony by Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors in the Obama administration and former Chief Economist and Economic Policy Advisor

of healthier, often younger individuals who do not cur-rently have insurance. Thus, the premium payments of the healthy will offset the costs of provided medical care to the sick.

Without the mandate, the insurance industry could enter into what health economists term a “death spiral,” in which there are not enough healthy people to cover the costs of the sick. In this spiral, premiums skyrock-et as companies attempt to cover costs, and eventually the insurance company is forced to go out of business. Defenders of the individual mandate cite preventing a death spiral in the insurance industry as a primary de-fense of the measure.

Opponents of the Act call it an infringement on per-sonal liberty and an example of the Federal government overstepping its proper bounds, reasoning that the At-lanta Circuit Court used to overturn the law. In its case statement, they conclude both that “Congress exceeded its commerce power in enacting its individual mandate” and also that “Congress’s tax power does not provide an alternative constitutional basis for upholding this un-precedented individual mandate.” Many conservative commentators have made their arguments against the Act upon similar lines

How the Supreme Court rules on the Affordable Care Act will have long-reaching implications for each branch of government. For the judiciary, it will be a key legal precedent that will serve as a major component of the historical view of the Court under Chief Justice John Roberts. For the legislative, the ruling will serve as a con-stitutional rebuke or acceptance of broad congressional action. And finally, for the executive, whether or not the health care act is overturned will play a key role not only in the legacy of Obama’s first four years as president, but also in whether or not he serves four more years as com-mander-in-chief. s




(Continued on page 6)

NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL REPORTSto Vice President Joe Biden, respectively, who together coauthored the Obama administration’s plan for recov-ery from the 2008 recession. They predicted on January 9, 2009 that for every $1 the government would spend with the stimulus plan, there would be $1.55 in economic growth for the nation. Rove mocked this logic, claiming that he checked freshmen macroeconomics textbooks and discovered that only 81 cents can be generated for every dollar spent. Rove said the president’s adminis-tration thought they could magically create growth, but they have failed to meet economic targets, which has caused backlash from the American people. He also said that Obama criticized Bush for a deficit that was 1% of GDP; however, there has been three consecutive years with a deficit that is 10% of GDP.

At this point in the event, protestors, dispersed throughout the audience, began to chant, “Karl Rove is thearchitectofoccupyIraq, is thearchitectofoccupyAfghanistan.” Rove responded by saying “If you believe in free speech then shut up and wait your turn.” As the disruption continued and the protesters began the call-and-response technique of the occupy protests, Rovecountered, “Who gave you the right to occupy America? How arrogant and presumptuous can you be?” When the protesters came into unison with the cry “We are the 99 percent”, Rove rebutted, “No you’re not.

Once some of the protesters left or were escorted out of the auditorium, Rove continued with the topic of what he believes is the country’s biggest spending prob-lem: an entitlement program that will sink the United States. Rove disputed Obama’s claim that we do not have a spending problem and that people are not being

taxed their fair share, stating that the top 25% pay 86% of tax income, while the bottom 50% pay 3%. Rove then brought up the Affordable Care Act, the only piece of legislation, he said, to become less popular after it was passed. Rove responded to the Obama administration’s projection that the program would reduce the deficit by $243 billion “only if you believe in the tooth fairy.” There are 46 million people in the country without healthcare and Rove believes it is the taxpayer’s responsibility to foot the bill for coverage for people who can afford it, but not for the 9.7 million without coverage who are il-legal immigrants.

Rove said that he believes that for all the issues con-fronting the nation, there are alternatives better than what we now have in place. He said that the country has gone in a direction we did not expect, and while we can never truly be united, there needs to be a respectful, honest dialogue about issues. He believes that the chal-lenges now are so big and daunting that as a country we

must find a way to resolve them. s

I N T E R N A T I O N A L

IAEA Report Suspects a Nuclear Iran

by SAM MARKSTEIN, ’15Contributing Writer

Last week, the United Nations nuclear-watchdog or-ganization, the International Atomic Energy Agency

(IAEA), released a scathing report detailing Iran’s emer-gent nuclear program. The findings, which indicate that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the develop-ment of a nuclear device,” have reopened the interna-tional debate surrounding Iran’s nuclear intentions: whether they are peaceful or militaristic.

The report states that from 2008 through 2009, Iran crafted computer models displaying nuclear explosions, as well as investigated the use of nuclear triggers. In ad-dition, the report claims that back in 2000, Iran built a large containment vessel at its Parchin military base, lo-cated 30 kilometers southeast of the capitol Tehran, to conduct nuclear testing. The IAEA deemed Iran’s activi-Word of Occupy Baltimore’s disturbance of Karl Rove’s speech at the final

MSE Symposium event of the semester made headlines. (SOURCE: http://washingtonpost.com)






ties at this base “strong indicators of possible weapons development.” The inspectors responsible for the report cited multiple documents suggesting that Iran “was working on a project to secure a source of uranium suit-able for use in an undisclosed enrichment program” as a means to make bomb fuel. Furthermore, the report states that records of “at least 14 progressive design iterations” for a missile warhead to possibly deliver an atomic bomb to a distant target were found as well. However, while this IAEA report is the most damaging to Iran’s nuclear program to date, it does not assert that Iran has mastered all the technologies necessary, nor does the report esti-mate how long it would take for Iran to be able to pro-duce a functional nuclear weapon. IAEA inspectors also do not point to a single weapons lab, or provide clear evi-dence of a fully constructed nuclear weapon.

Yukiya Amano, the Director General of the IAEA for the past two years, recently stated that the IAEA’s re-port consisted of “over a thousand pages” of documents pertaining to Iran’s nuclear program and that they illus-trated “research, development and testing activities” on technology consistent with building a nuclear weapon. A senior Obama administration official concurred with Mr. Amano’s statement, citing the IAEA’s evidence re-garding Iran’s work on detonation systems. “It’s a very telltale sign of nuclear weapons work,” he stated. Natu-rally, Iranian officials have rejected the IAEA’s findings calling them “meaningless and baseless.” Iranian Presi-dent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggested that Western powers, chiefly the United Stated, were responsible for constructing the report. Mr. Ahmadinejad asserted that, “the IAEA is just publishing reports provided by Ameri-can officials…the head of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano…is a puppet of America.” Ali Larijani, Iran’s parliamentary speaker, went so far as to say that the United States had conspired with Israel, and that the two countries had actually dictated the IAEA report word for word. The IAEA report cited “a wide variety of independent sourc-es,” including the agency’s own investigations, in an ef-forttoanticipatethecritiquethattheagencywassimplyrecycling information from the CIA or the Israeli intel-ligence organization, Mossad. Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni countered by retorting, “the facts are clear, Iran is trying to achieve a nuclear weapon. It’s not an Is-raeli problem, it’s the problem of the entire world and the free world must unite in order to stop nuclear Iran.”

The hostilities between Iran and Israel have been exacerbated not only by the IAEA’s report, but also by the wave of uprisings against iron-fisted dictators in the

region known as the “Arab Spring.” The popular revolu-tions taking place in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and Syria have forced Iran and Israel to verbally and physi-cally brandish their respective military powers in order to exude strength and stability in a region of mass civil unrest and volatility. This “sword clanging” by both na-tions is very disconcerting and alarming for the entire world. All parties involved will no doubt monitor the sit-uation carefully and closely as it continues to develop. s

Economic Conference Focuses on the Fu-ture of the Pacific

by ERIC FEINBERG, ’12Staff Writer

The city of Honolulu hosted this year’s annual meet-ing of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

(APEC), held November 8-13. The conference, hosted by President Obama and the United States, included the heads of government from 21 nations bordering the Pa-cific, including China, Russia, and Japan. The multilater-al discussions covered a wide range of issues, but the el-ephant in the room was clearly the worldwide economic slowdown.

President Obama’s economic priority was gathering support for the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Part-nership, a framework of free trade agreements in devel-opment since 2005. Only a handful of the 21 are already signatories, but more are in the process of negotiating for admission and still more have announced that they are considering it. The Pacific nations produce more than half of the world’s gross domestic product each year and comprise a similarly massive proportion of internation-al trade, so the US increasingly sees these commercial agreements as critical to the economy of the future.

Security was also a major theme of the summit, with a notable emphasis on the growing apprehension over the rise of China. Ever since the conclusion of World War II, the United States has been the dominant power in the world—including in the Pacific. However, Chinese growth has outpaced that of the US for decades, and China has become the single largest holder of US sover-eign debt in the world. The US postwar ascendancy has thus been steadily corroding in the region, and there are





INTERNATIONAL REPORT/OPINION

mounting reservations that China may seek to capital-ize on its newfound ability to exert its economic influ-ence against its neighbors. “Now they have grown up,” Obama said of the changing situation. “They are going to have to help manage this process in a responsible way.” There are already high-level discussions taking place in Australia about increasing the US military presence in Southeast Asia, so the way that this narrative will unfold remains to be seen. It looks increasingly as though there could be heightened Sino-American tensions, at least in the short term.

China was also the target of criticism over its eco-nomic policy. Businesses have long complained that Chi-na has seriously undervalued its currency, the Renminbi, by as much as 25% in order to artificially cheapen its ex-ports. But in the shadow of the economic downturn and

questionconcernedtheUnitedStates’spositionontheIranian nuclear program, which is especially pressing in light of a recent United Nations report indicating that Iran is inching ever closer to achieving nuclear capabil-ity. The president made it clear that no options were off the table.

One audacious reporter took note of the environ-ment—a beautiful Hawaiian sunset, a tropical beach lined by luxury hotels, and, of course, hula dancers—and asked whether Obama was at all uncomfortable to be seen cavorting in such a paradise while the Ameri-can people were suffering through a painful recession. “With respect to this trip, look, this is a pretty nice piece of scenery,” the president joked. “But we’re here for business. We’re here to create jobs. We’re here to pro-mote exports. And we’ve got a set of tangible, concrete steps that have been taken that are going to make our economy stronger, and that’s part of what our leadership has been about.” s

O P I N I O N

The Politics of Brazilian Slum Occupation

by HILARY MATFESS, ’14Staff Writer

Early in the morning on November 13, 3,000 heavily armed Brazilian police and soldiers entered the na-

tion’s largest slum to begin the process of “pacification.” Over the past three years, twenty of these flavelas have been raided, though Rocinha is the largest and its raid has been the most significant and symbolic.

Although the soldiers came with armed tanks and heavy artillery, by the afternoon, the troops declared Rocinha to be under state control without a single shot fired. In fact, the police were met with no resistance in the course of their occupation. This peaceful pacifica-tion may have been enabled by the police’s announce-ment of their coming occupation, or because, as the Christian Science Monitor points out, Rocinha is largely a non-violent area, despite being plagued by drug gangs. The occupation of Rocinha follows Brazil’s capture of

President Obama poses with some of the other 21 leaders at the 2011 meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.. (SOURCE: http://whitehouse.gov)

mounting political pressure on the president, the issue took on a new sense of urgency at the APEC summit this year. In addition to currency issues, Obama also criti-cized the Chinese for their lax enforcement of American intellectual property rights, which he said drains billions of dollars from our economy and discourages exactly the kind of innovation the world desperately needs right now.

At a press conference near the conclusion of the summit, flanked by gently waving palm trees and a mag-nificent vista overlooking Mamala Bay, President Obama answeredquestions fromreportersonanumberof is-sues discussed in the backroom negotiations. He high-lighted a series of accomplishments, including progress toward Russia’s admission to the World Trade Organiza-tion, which has been a longstanding objective. Another




OPINION

the nation’s most wanted drug lord, Antônio Bonfim Lopes.

All of this may seem puzzling until one considers that Brazil will be hosting the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics. In addition to the heavy finan-cial burden imposed by hosting such games (China spent an estimated $40 billion when it hosted the 2008 Olym-pic Games, shattering all records), there is a consider-able toll on the government’s crowd-control abilities. The invasion of Rocinha is a means of sending a message to the international community that Brazil is capable of maintaining the internal order necessary to host the games.

Brazilian authorities stated that the occupation of the slum was an attempt to integrate the nation’s slum-dwellers into the national society and economy; they hold that the raid is not just in preparation for the World Cup and Olympics. A man interviewed by EuroNews welcomed the troops, suggesting that slum-dwellers would finally be given the same rights and protections granted to residents of wealthier areas. Though flavela residents have largely welcomed the soldiers, there have been some complaints about police behavior, usually concerning abuse of power and the police’s use of exces-sive force.

If Brazil’s occupation of Rocinha is really motivated byadesiretoextendequalrightsandprotectionstoallofitscitizens,thenthequestionarisesofhowlongtheoccupation will last and what projects will be undertak-en to address the general depravation of the slum-dwell-ing population. Given that many of the raids are focused on slums near valuable real estate, it seems unlikely that poverty alleviation is truly the motivation behind these occupations. s

Thank you for reading JHU Politik this semester. Our next issue is due for release after Thanksgiv-ing, and will be one of our special issues featuring several interviews. We’ll be back in February with our regular weekly issues. Enjoy the holidays!

Best,The Editors

g



VOLUME VII ISSUE VIII

Documents

Transcript of VOLUME VII ISSUE VIII