Taking Note

A Voter from Day One

*This post appeared originally on Talking Points Memo TPM Cafe

It was fitting that President Obama chose the eve of the 4th of July weekend to make his latest plea for comprehensive immigration reform. It was an implicit recognition that as we celebrate our great democracy, our journey is not finished. As long as we continue to have millions of people living as our neighbors in our communities without any true prospect for inclusion in our democracy through a path to citizenship, our democracy is still incomplete.

As the debate over immigration reform continues to be mired in political and often ugly debate, there is one issue that all of us can agree on. Once an immigrant has managed to go through all the hurdles of becoming a naturalized citizen, she should be fully welcomed into our political system. Unfortunately, we are falling short there too. As the prime example, voter registration and consequently voting rates of naturalized Americans are persistently far below that of Americans born here. This is one problem all Americans should be troubled by--and, as is reported in the recent report, A Citizen from Day One, is something government can actually do something about.

At the moment, despite all the political speechifying about the importance and meaning of citizenship and political participation in this country, and the centrality of the immigrant story to our unique standing as a nation, the federal government does nothing on a uniform, systematic basis to facilitate the participation of new Americans in the political system. This can and should change.

Given the obstacle voter registration has been shown to be in making the rate of voting lower for newer American citizens, the government should take the simple step of providing voter registration forms and assistance with their completion at the moment new citizens recite the oath of loyalty to this country and complete their citizenship at their naturalization ceremony. It is a process that all those who wish to become citizens must take part in, meaning that given current naturalization rates, hundreds of thousands of Americans could be registered to vote in a given year through this method.

All Americans, immigrants in particular, are rightfully reminded repeatedly about the importance and centrality of democracy and democratic values to our national identity. We prize it as what sets us apart from other nations of the world and, as we should, take tremendous pride in it. What then could be more American than getting our newest fellow Americans registered to vote at the first moment they are eligible to do so?

As the report points out, this is very obviously within the mission of the federal agency that oversees the citizenship process, the United States Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services, and would not be difficult or costly to do. Under existing federal law, some state based governmental agencies as well as the Department of Defense provide such services and when implemented properly the results are astounding. Literally hundreds of thousands of Americans have been added to the registration rolls and are participating because of agency-based voter registration. Nongovernmental organizations that have undertaken Herculean efforts to conduct voter registration at naturalization ceremonies when and where they could over the last several years and have been hugely successful at it should be utilized to bolster the process. The agency could start the process for making this its modus operandi immediately through an executive order from the President or a strong agency directive.

As we reflect on the fireworks and gatherings we had to celebrate the birth of our democracy, we should also consider ways in which the democratic dream is still a work in progress--and how we can make it even better. Working to ensure the full and equal participation of our very welcome newest citizens, who have come from far and wide, often going through incredible hardship and hurdles to come here and commit themselves to being Americans, should be part of that effort.

Civility

Sixty-seven world leaders gathered in Washington for a civilized set of discussions about one of the world’s great dangers -- proliferation and the possible use of nuclear weapons. Barack Obama hosted the session, and by all accounts had numerous productive meetings with individual leaders. There was, as well, good chemistry for the meetings in general.

Perhaps what is most striking about this event is that constructive, substantive, meaningful, “sloganless” conversations are possible on an international scale of this type; the very thing that seems impossible in our domestic politics.

Imagine if Obama had gathered with sixty-seven high-level Republicans in Washington to try to work on any conceivable problem. How much substance would there be in the discussions? How much of it would consist of talking points? And how much of it would be a ready for FOX-news, prepackaged set of political slogans?

It is a sad commentary to reflect that we’ve come to the point where talking to foreigners is more enlightening and constructive than sharing our common desires to solve the nation’s domestic problems.  In fact, one of  the great concerns about things like the new nuclear arms control treaty and other potential restrictions on nuclear weapons is the difficulty anticipated in getting them through the United States Senate, where a two thirds majority is required to approve treaties.

The international conference in Washington, of course, created no goodwill for the President in the Capitol. Routine appointments, necessary to make the government function and to advance the policies of Mr. Obama are still being held up and in some cases abandoned because of the adamant resistance ofa  small number of senators. 

It’s fashionable to lament the lack of trust in the political process and to find all kinds of ways to blame  economic frustrations, scandals, or other explanations for these difficulties. But it’s increasingly clear that there is an even more basic problem at work here: for all of Obama’s commitment to bipartisanship and civility in conversation, it can’t be a one-way street. He’s found sixty-six foreign leaders willing to engage in policy making along those lines, when will he find sixty-six Senators? 

Immigration, Jobs, and the American Economy, Re-visited

Although the contentious last steps toward passage of President Obama’s health care reform package dominated last week’s headlines, it was not the only important debate taking place. On Sunday, March 21st, thousands of protesters attended an immigration reform rally in Washington, D.C., calling on legislators to overhaul the nation’s immigration system. The rally came days after President Obama publicly pledged to support the Bipartisan Immigration Reform Framework, advanced by Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). The framework consists of four main proposals: biometric Social Security cards, to eliminate document fraud by illegal immigrants; strengthened border enforcement; a temporary work program; and a legalization path for those undocumented workers already in the United States.

Poindexter Gets the Last Laugh

Way back in 2003, when the public still retained some capacity for shock and outrage over state incursions on personal privacy, there was a brief outcry when it was revealed that the Pentagon was concocting a pervasive surveillance system with the laughably Orwellian name Total Information Awareness. The program was the brainchild of Admiral John Poindexter, the former National Security Advisor and disgraced Iran/Contra conspirator, who had been an early adopter of technology in the federal government -- it was he who first introduced email to the White House -- and who believed that comprehensive surveillance presented the best hope for preventing another 9/11. 

Breaking! NSA Over-reaches, Life Goes On

What can we gather from today’s revelations, from James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times, that the National Security Agency engaged in the improbable crime of “overcollection”— “significant and systemic” domestic eavesdropping that exceeded even the extravagant authority provided to the agency by the FISA Amendment Act of 2008?  For starters, it’s time to finally acknowledge that overstretch and excess by intelligence agencies like the NSA are not the exception but the rule; as a general matter, the professional imperatives for an intelligence collector all align in favor of overcollection.  And as a technical matter, the mammoth, high-tech communications vacuums operated by the NSA mean that access to a given telecom network will always take precedence over “safeguards,” “minimization procedures,” and other ex post facto measures to protect the phone calls, emails, and personal data of innocent individuals. 

The lily-gilding rhetoric of Congressional democrats who supported the 2008 law notwithstanding, privacy protections are almost always an afterthought, a post-script to the non-negotiable fact of technical collection. The peculiar tragedy of the Protect America Act, the FISA Amendment Act, and the whole sordid narrative of the “warrantless wiretapping controversy” is that the very institution which might be expected to serve as a check on the almost innate zeal of the intelligence establishment—the Congress—was so willing to write any relevant safeguards out of the picture.

In that light, it’s not at all surprising to learn that the NSA has been pushing the envelope. It’s just surprising to think, after such a dramatic augmentation of surveillance authority coupled with so thorough an evisceration of meaningful safeguards, that there was any envelope left to push. It might be tempting to conclude that the sole semi-specific detail in Risen and Lichtblau’s scoop—that several years ago the NSA contemplated warrantless surveillance of a congressman—will resonate with the narcissism, paranoia, and sense of indignation on Capitol Hill and actually generate a meaningful investigation.

But really, does anyone believe that? In October a former NSA linguist revealed to ABC News that the agency had eavesdropped on hundreds of American citizens living overseas. In November another former eavesdropper told ABC that the NSA monitored the “private life” of Tony Blair. In January a third former NSA employee told MSNBC that the agency has been wiretapping journalists. None of these stories prompted any congressional investigation or inquiry into the effectiveness of the few legal and technical safeguards that are left, and it seems decidedly unlikely that congress will take any meaningful action now.

In fact, the greatest irony of the Times piece is that the overcollection was discovered not by Congress, the judiciary, or the press—but by the Justice Department. How faithfully Barack Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, will adhere to the rule of law remains very much an open question.  But after eight long years of the “unitary executive” and a surveillance law that was just a few provisions shy of an out-and-out carte blanche, intelligence excesses appear to be so bad that with no one else willing to police it, the executive branch is forced to police itself.

Don't Turn the Page on Wiretapping without Knowing What it Says

Remember the wiretapping scandal? With the election of Barack Obama and a widespread confidence that the new president will not abuse the prerogatives of his office in the Bush fashion, it might seem that Washington can simply turn the page on the past eight years, starting afresh with a renewed commitment to the rule of law. But as I argued in an Op-Ed for yesterday's New York Times, critical questions about the warrantless wiretapping program remain unanswered, and it may be impossible to restore the balance between aggressive intelligence work and robust protection of civil liberties without first comprehending the nature and extent of the abuses of the past eight years. The full piece is below.

And as if in answer to my questions, Newsweek has come through with an extraordinary cover-story package, revealing the identity of the Justice Department lawyer who first alerted the New York Times to the illegal program, and in another story, providing a (partial) explanation of what prompted numerous senior Justice officials to nearly resign over the program in the spring of 2004. Hopefully congress and other press outfits will seize on these new revelations and continue to untangle the various strands of this complicated -- and still significant -- story.

Big Brother Hasn’t Won
By PATRICK RADDEN KEEFE

IF you thought the wiretapping controversy ended last summer, when Congress blessed the Bush administration’s warrantless-wiretapping program by passing a new surveillance law that greatly enhanced the powers of the National Security Agency, think again. The legacy of the illegal operation represents a serious problem for the Obama administration.

Moscow and the Merchant of Death

As tensions intensified between the United States and Russia over the crisis in South Ossetia, one person who has no doubt been watching the story very closely is the notorious gun runner Viktor Bout, who is currently sitting in a jail cell in Bangkok. Known as the “Merchant of Death,” Bout is widely believed to have been the most prolific smuggler of black market weapons during the 1990s, who flouted UN embargoes to fuel the bloody conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and other African countries. Bout played a clever game of jurisdictional arbitrage through much of his career, hopscotching from one country to another, always a step ahead of national laws and law enforcement. Eventually he settled in Moscow, where despite an Interpol red notice and the fact that he was wanted in numerous countries, he lived openly, and with impunity, going so far as to grant an interview for a cover story in the New York Times Magazine.

Five Myths About the New Wiretapping Law

Sometime today, the Senate is likely to approve the most comprehensive overhaul of American surveillance law since the Watergate era. Unless you're a government lawyer, a legal scholar, a masochist, or an insomniac, chances are you haven't read the 114-page bill. Don't beat yourself up: Neither have most of the 293 House members who voted for it last week. Ditto the mainstream press, who seem to have relied chiefly on summaries provided by the same lawmakers who hadn't read it.

To be fair, wiretapping is so classified, and the language of the bill so opaque, that no one without a "top secret" clearance can say with any authority just how much surveillance the proposal will authorize the government to do. (The best assessment yet comes from former Justice Department official David Kris, who deems the legislation "so intricate" that it risks confusing even "the government officials who must apply it.") Out of the echo chamber of ignorance and self-serving political cant, a number of myths have begun to emerge. We may never know for sure everything that this new legislation entails. But here are a few things that it most certainly doesn't.

The New Yorker: Secrecy and the Scales of Justice

Many commentators from both parties have raised objections, in recent years, to the Justice Department's frequent use of the "state secrets" privilege to counter, and often kill, legal challenges to controversial administration programs.  Consider the case of Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen who alleges he was kidnapped, detained, and tortured by the CIA for five months before the agency acknowledged that they had picked up the wrong guy, and let him go. Last year an appeals court held that el-Masri cannot sue the United States government or seek any redress in America's courts, because the subject matter of his case--the extraordinary rendition program--is classified.  The Times ran a blistering critique of the states secrets privilege on Friday. The American Bar Association has published a report calling for the curtailment of its use. Senators Ted Kennedy and Arlen Specter have introduced a bill that would reform the privilege, which the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on this week.

I wrote about the way in which the state secrets privilege has affected another case--this one about the administration's warrantless wiretapping program--for The New Yorker this week.  The piece explores a series of lawsuits involving the American arm of an Islamic charity that stands accused of sponsoring terrorism, and the occasionally Kafkaesque extremes to which the prerogatives of official secrecy have been taken. 

The article, "State Secrets: A Government Misstep in a Wiretapping Case," is here.

Tancredoed? Think Again: What McCain’s Success Says about the Politics of Illegal Immigration

When Tom Tancredo quit his quest for  the presidency in December, he boasted that he had actually won. That’s because he had been able to pull  other candidates closer toward his hardliner approach on illegal immigration: “secure the borders, deport those who don’t belong, [and] make sure they never come back.” But this was before John McCain—who was repeatedly attacked by conservatives as being too liberal on immigration—won decisive victories among conservatives in the very states where illegal immigration is highest.

McCain’s success lays bare the claims that stoking the flames of illegal immigration galvanizes conservative voters in the same way as abortion and same-sex marriage does, or that it has now become a litmus test that successful candidates must pass. In the end, the only conservative candidate remaining is actually an immigration moderate. And most Americans say they agree with his overall approach. Does this mean that illegal immigration will finally cease to be used as a political wedge issue? Probably not. But it should serve as a wake up call that, on immigration, most Americans have fairly moderate views that are out of sync with conservatism’s harsher approach.