MUNICIPALIDAD DE ESPARZA ADMINISTRACIÓN TRIBUTARIA

Although precise numbers are hard to come by, the PEW Hispanic Research Center, working in conjunction with the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics, estimates that at least 50,000 illegal immigrants gain entry into the United States every year; about one million legally enter the country annually.

Immigration Reform |137

Illegal immigration is a particularly contentious issue in modern American politics, particularly given post–9/11 fears about border security and concerns that undocumented aliens are taking American jobs and using government services for which they are not paying taxes. In 2004, President George W. Bush proposed a “guest worker” program that would help register immigrants to the United States who would otherwise be purely illegal under current policy. The plan failed, and the United States is still struggling to adopt a national immigration policy. Absent national action, states have passed numerous laws designed to discourage illegal immigration.

Pros

Cons

Illegal immigrants represent a pressing security concern. The United States needs to strengthen its borders and should aggressively patrol them to prevent terrorists from entering the country. Moreover, many immigrants already in the country represent a potential threat to national security—both how many are here and their identities are unknown.

The fear of immigrants is irrational, and politicians exploit it for votes. Focusing on illegal immigration is a red herring that draws attention away from the real threat: terrorists, like the 9/11 hijackers, who use sophis- ticated methods to infiltrate the United States. Initiatives to curb or expel immigrants who are here for largely eco- nomic reasons are an irresponsible and dangerous waste of attention and funds.

Illegal immigrants drain the American economy. The estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States are not taxpayers, yet derive social benefits paid for by US citizens. These range from police protection and emergency response to public transportation. More- over, because illegal immigrants are willing to work for low wages, they compete unfairly for jobs. Immigrants send much of the money they earn in the United States to relatives in their home countries (remittances), dimin- ishing the American money supply and lessening invest- ment in American goods.

The problem of “free-riders,” people who derive benefits from a system to which they do not contribute, is not as straightforward as the proposition suggests. Illegal immigrants play a fundamental role in keeping the US economy functioning by taking work that Americans are not willing to do. Moreover, industries such as agri- culture and construction depend on illegal workers— without these workers the industries could not function, American workers in these industries would lose their jobs, and Americans in general would not have the ser- vices and products they need. Finally, economists believe that impact of remittances on the US GDP is negligible. In fact, an outflow of dollars actually can stabilize and vastly improve the standard of living in other countries, potentially preventing or slowing further illegal immi- gration.

An influx of illegal immigrants chips away at any notion of American national identity. Illegal immigrants are iso- lated and do not try to assimilate into American society as other groups do; some statisticians correlate illegal immigration with higher levels of crime. Expelling ille- gal immigrants—or at least forcing them to register for a guest worker program—would allow the government to perform background checks and track immigrant behav- ior, thus ensuring overall security and peace of mind for citizens.

America has a history of nativism. Many immigrant groups that were once despised and discriminated against eventually become bedrock members of American soci- ety. Theories attributing crime and other negative social behaviors to illegal immigrants are an easily disproved pseudo-science that cloaks racism and prejudice. Finally, although guest worker programs might serve to cut down on some exploitation of immigrants, establishing social programs—including Spanish-language immi- grant community centers and outreach clinics—would go much further to ensure the safety and peaceful inte- gration of new participants in the American Dream.

sample motions:

This House would deny amnesty for illegal immigrants. This House would expel illegal immigrants.

This House would close the nation’s borders.

Web Links:

The American Immigration Law Foundation. <http://www.ailf.org> Facts on immigration and the impact of immigrants on the •

US.

The Brookings Institution Center for Immigration Studies. <http://www.brookings.edu/gs/projects/immigration.htm> Com- •

mentary and resources on immigration policy.

Center for Immigration Studies. <http://www.cis.org> Links to recent developments and historical background. •

National Public Radio (NPR). <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5310549> NPR stories and Q&As on •

the immigration debate.

Further reading:

Daniel, Roger. Guarding the Golden Door: American Immigration Policy and Immigrants Since 1882. Hill and Wang, 2004. Ngai, Mae M. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. Princeton University Press, 2005. Zolberg, Aristide R. A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America. Harvard University Press, 2006.



InternAtIonAL CrImInAL Court

In 1998, the Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court (ICC) with jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. US President Bill Clinton authorized the signing of the statute in December 2000 but said the treaty was “significantly flawed” and recommended that the US Senate not ratify it. Congress and the Bush Administration have been even more hostile. In November 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law an act prohibiting the use of funds of several federal agencies, including the Departments of State, Commerce, and Justice, for cooperation with the ICC. Congress passed a bill restricting use of Defense Department funds the following month. Despite US opposition, the Tribunal came into force on July 1, 2002.

Pros

Cons

The ICC will lead to political prosecution. It will subject American service members and senior military and politi- cal strategists to criminal charges for military actions that are legitimate and necessary. Any nation can ask the ICC prosecutor to investigate an issue, and the prosecutor has the power to investigate ex proprio motu. The UN Secu- rity Council cannot override or veto his actions or deci- sions. Political prosecution is evident in the preliminary investigation by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) into the NATO bombing of Kosovo and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The prosecutor chose to investigate a campaign that had been undertaken with clinical precision, that had received the support of the Security Council (although after the fact), and that had been directed against a military carrying

The US should have nothing to fear if it behaves lawfully. Moreover, determining if a violation of international law (by the US or any other nation) has taken place should be easy as the ICC prosecutor concerns himself only with the gravest offenses. The US certainly would not approve a strategy of genocide or systematic mass violations of human rights that would come under the jurisdiction of the ICC. The prosecutor’s power is also limited by the requirement that he obtain the approval of three judges before issuing an arrest warrant or initiating proceed- ings. A preliminary investigation could benefit the US because it would end doubts about the justifiability of its actions. The US accepted the jurisdiction of the ICTY prosecutor because it did not expect its forces to commit the crimes they were deployed to prevent.

International Criminal Court |139

out a brutal policy of genocide. This grim precedent sug- gests that a prosecutor will not hesitate to investigate other good faith and successful military actions across the globe.

The US holds a unique position in maintaining inter- national peace and security. It might be appropriate for other countries to consent to the jurisdiction of the ICC because they do not have the same responsibilities and risks. US armed forces have responded to many more “situations” during the 1990s than during the whole of the Cold War. More than ever, the world looks to the US to ensure peace and safety. US military domi- nance increases the likelihood of prosecution. When rogue regimes are incapable of defeating the US militar- ily, they are likely to challenge the US in the ICC. This will damage US interests far more than any conventional military action and will result in US reluctance to inter- vene in the future. The indispensable nation must be permitted to dispense with the ICC.

The very preeminence of the US demands that it adhere to the rule of international law. A nation can commit war crimes while conducting a military campaign to pro- tect human rights and save lives. The ICC can demand that the US, or any other state, pursue its lawful ends by lawful means. Moreover, victims of gross human rights violations do not care who the perpetrator is. Other nations with significant military commitments overseas, such as the UK and France, have ratified the Rome Stat- ute without hesitation. These states accept the principle that nations intervening in another state to uphold or establish human rights must respect those same human rights.

The Rome Statute has created the novel crime of “aggres- sion,” which increases the likelihood of political prosecu- tion. One state could accuse another of aggression for intervening to protect human rights. Governments car- rying out a policy of genocide could request that a nation be prosecuted for preventing genocide. Moreover, by a quirk of the statute, a state that refuses to accept ICC jurisdiction can nevertheless request the prosecution of foreign nationals for crimes allegedly committed in its territory. Thus Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic could have demanded the investigation of NATO forces for activities during Operation Allied Force but could have prevented an investigation of the Bosnian Serb army in the same territory.

This objection to the ICC is purely hypothetical because the ICC has not yet defined “aggression.” In addition, the “crime” of aggression is not novel. Intervening in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state is contrary to norms of conventional and customary law. The UN Charter prohibits both the unauthorized use of force against another state and intervention in its domestic jurisdic- tion. The US should ratify the Rome Statute so that its negotiators can play an active role in the Assembly of State Parties, which is currently working on drafting a definition of this crime.

The ICC will not deter war crimes or genocide. The Third Reich accelerated its campaign to exterminate Jews when it became clear that the Allies would be victorious. Simi- larly, Milosevic and the Bosnian Serb army conducted a campaign of genocide in Kosovo while the ICTY was sit- ting in The Hague. War criminals do not commit gross human rights violations based on reason. The existence of a court, however well intentioned, will have no effect on those states that would commit such crimes.

You cannot claim that the ICC will not deter atroci- ties when such an institution has never before existed. Moreover, the offenders must be apprehended, tried, and punished. Retribution and protection of society are objectives not only for domestic criminal justice systems but also for the new international system.

ICC expenses will be crippling. Cautious estimates sug- gest an operating budget of US$100 million per year. The costs of the ICTY and the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda spiraled out of control, and the latter left a legacy of misadministration and internal corruption.

The ICC’s budget might seem excessive, but no price should be put on justice for thousands of victims of hei- nous crimes.

sample motions:

This House believes that the United States should not support the International Criminal Court. This House believes that the creation of the ICC is a crime.

Web Links:

The Coalition for an ICC. <http://www.iccnow.org> Country-by-country report on the status of the Rome Statute. •

Crimes of War Project. <http://www.crimesofwar.org> Provides up-to-date information on possible violations of human rights •

and war crimes as well as the status of humanitarian law and justice.

ICC Resources at the University of Chicago Library. <http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/icc.html> Bibliography of Web and •

print resources on the ICC.

Further reading:

Broomhall, Bruce. International Justice and the International Criminal Court: Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2004.

Driscoll, William, Joseph P. Zompetti, and Suzette Zompetti, eds. The International Criminal Court: Global Politics and the Quest

for Justice. International Debate Education Association, 2004.

Sands, Phillipe. From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

