TIME has the story.

I have always wanted to visit Cuba. I’ve thought for a long time now that our embargo and travel ban were counter-productive.

But our Cuba policy has always been held hostage by the anti-Castro refugees in Florida’s community of Cuban exiles. Understandably, since in Florida they are a powerful voting block that every presidential contender tries to court – Florida being worth so many electoral votes. They’ve made the argument that any loosening of our restrictions would just aid a dictator who jails his detractors. But hasn’t that angle been tried for decades now?

An ailing Castro is handing over power to his brother Raul, who is apparently a strong proponent of the status quo. Time for a new approach. I think the Cuban-American community is coming around to that view. Let’s kill ‘em (the communist regime) with kindness and capitalism.

Cuba is just 70 miles from Florida. It could be – should be – the jewel of the Caribbean, flush with American tourism and economic ties. Democracy, and a Major League Baseball team in Havana can’t be far behind. It will happen in time. First steps are what is needed now, and the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act is a first step. I hope it passes.

B

The opinion is short, and nuanced in the sense that Burris’s request for a writ of mandamus (whereby the court orders a public official to do something she is required by law to do) is denied. The court says the Sec. of State’s signature isn’t needed on the document, so no mandamus is necessary. The upshot is that by losing the mandamus argument, Burris wins. The Sec. of State does NOT have a veto power over the legal act of the Governor.

Gov. Blagojevich’s impeachment has now officially been recommended by an overwhelming majority (114-1) of the Illinois House. The state Senate will now hold a trial and vote whether or not to convict. This vote could occur as soon as February.

I presume at this point that Burris will be awarded his Senate seat, considering the Democratic leadership’s radical change of tune. A possible if far-fetched alternative would be for the Democrats to foot-drag and wait for Blagojevich’s conviction, whereupon the Lt. Governor would take over and appoint someone other than Burris (whereupon we’d have a legal/constitutional dumpster fire on our hands). But given the Democrats’ warming to Burris, this outcome seems exceedingly unlikely.

UPDATE: Burris got in, but now his future is uncertain due to his inability to make consistent statements as to whether he raised money for (now impeached) former Gov. Blago in return for being considered for the Senate seat. It now appears that Burris admits to doing so. 

B

If the Democratic leadership is afraid the mere taint of Blagojevich’s appointing Burris will lose the seat to Republicans in the next election, it occurs to me that a challenge to Burris in the Democratic primary could solve the problem. I haven’t heard this mentioned anywhere, and I wonder why not. If Illinois Democrats want someone other than Burris for their candidate in the next general election (2010), let them express that in the primary. If by that time they want Burris, then more power to Burris. Seems to me this is a better solution than the increasingly silly circus the near-baseless blocking of Burris has become.

B

I’m pretty sure the Democrats’ latest ploy — to deny Burris entry because his certificate wasn’t signed by the Ill. Sec. of State (who refused to sign it, contrary to his statutory duty) – will fall flat. The Sec. of State can’t possibly have a “veto power” over a legal act of the governor. But the Democrats have stronger legs to stand on (none of them necessarily winning). This should be a good show.

B

The change to Section 382 of the tax code — a provision that limited a kind of tax shelter arising in corporate mergers — came after a two-decade effort by conservative economists and Republican administration officials to eliminate or overhaul the law, which is so little-known that even influential tax experts sometimes draw a blank at its mention. Until the financial meltdown, its opponents thought it would be nearly impossible to revamp the section because this would look like a corporate giveaway, according to lobbyists.

Section 382 of the tax code was created by Congress in 1986 to end what it considered an abuse of the tax system: companies sheltering their profits from taxation by acquiring shell companies whose only real value was the losses on their books. The firms would then use the acquired company’s losses to offset their gains and avoid paying taxes.

The sweeping change to two decades of tax policy escaped the notice of lawmakers for several days, as they remained consumed with the controversial bailout bill. When they found out, some legislators were furious. Some congressional staff members have privately concluded that the notice was illegal. But they have worried that saying so publicly could unravel several recent bank mergers made possible by the change and send the economy into an even deeper tailspin.

“Did the Treasury Department have the authority to do this? I think almost every tax expert would agree that the answer is no,” said George K. Yin, the former chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan congressional authority on taxes. “They basically repealed a 22-year-old law…”

“It was a shock to most of the tax law community. It was one of those things where it pops up on your screen and your jaw drops,” said Candace A. Ridgway, a partner at Jones Day, a law firm that represents banks that could benefit from the notice. “I’ve been in tax law for 20 years, and I’ve never seen anything like this.”

More than a dozen tax lawyers interviewed for this story — including several representing banks that stand to reap billions from the change — said the Treasury had no authority to issue the notice.

Several other tax lawyers, all of whom represent banks, said the change was legal. Like DeSouza, they said the legal authority came from Section 382 itself, which says the secretary can write regulations to “carry out the purposes of this section.”

Wait a minute. The purpose of 382 was to minimize abuse of shell companies reducing the taxes of the acquiring firm in a merger? And now Paulson is “carrying out the purposes of the section” by eliminating the limitations on using shell companies to reduce the taxes of the acquiring firm in a merger? What!?

[C]orporate tax lawyers quickly realized the enormous implications … Administration officials had just given American banks a windfall of as much as $140 billion.

That’s $140 billion above and beyond anything discussed pertaining to “The Bailout.” So from what I’ve gathered, billions of taxpayer dollars have been pumped into the banks, with the idea of unfreezing the “credit crisis” (brought on by investment bank failures born of the sub-prime mortgage crisis) by encouraging lending. However, no strings (or the wrong strings) were attached, so big the banks aren’t lending the money — instead they’re just acquiring smaller banks. And with the repeal-by-fiat of a 22-year-old law (!!!), the big banks are receiving a substantial tax windfall on these acquisitions.

Somewhere there is a line between propping up the financial system (for everyone’s benefit) and unjustly enriching major financial entities. Meet that line. Oh wait, it’s back there…

President-Elect Obama has his work cut out for him. This cliche brought to you by my desire to mention President-Elect Obama in this blog. Congratulations!

B

A child born on United States soil is automatically a United States citizen per our Constitution’s 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And don’t just note the bolded portion. The clauses on the privileges and immunities of citizens, the right to life, liberty and property (echoing the Declaration’s “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”), to due process and equal protection of the laws, are among the most relevant and oft-cited provisions in modern constitutional jurisprudence.  

According to the CNN piece, about 3 million children who are United States citizens have at least one parent who is an “illegal immigrant.” As our immigration laws are currently enforced, the parent or parents of child citizens can be deported (sent back to their country of origin – often Mexico) — leaving the child in the nightmare scenario of being ripped from their beloved protectors and providers or following them to a country where they don’t even speak the language of their new schoolmates.

Seems to me, the wrongness of this outcome cannot be overstated — and reversing this torturous, dark corner of our immigration policy is something that the vast majority of Americans could agree on regardless of one’s position on illegal immigration generally. Regardless of any other considerations, the child’s U.S. citizenship should prevail if the parent has not committed a felony, and the child should not face de facto deportation — a fate in no way compatible with the fact of citizenship.

I am not suggesting that children should be completely immunized from the acts of their parents in general. I recognize that every day innocent citizen children suffer when their felon parents (also U.S. citizens) are incarcerated. But seeking a better life in the United States is not the moral equivalent of a criminal offense, is it? While it may or may not make sense to deport individuals who are detained after having immigrated illegally (that is the overarching debate), once the privileges and immunities of a U.S. citizen become involved by virtue of a child’s presence, I feel morally and constitutionally justified in saying that “the statute of limitations” has expired on our government’s (legal and moral) justification to deport the child’s parents.

If the above result increased the motivation of illegal immigrants to have children on U.S. soil, or even to cross the border when pregnant, then so be it. It is a small price to pay for the assurance that citizen children will be protected and not treated as second class citizens. As a policy matter, immigrants with children will be even more likely to be productive workers and stay clear of trouble, right? Motivated to provide for their child, surely the answer is yes. Without looking, it seems obvious that court cases have already gone against citizen children trying to shield their parents from deportation, and I may delve into this in a future post. But regardless, how can it be compatible with our national principles and ideals for our Constitution, through some technicality, to permit this? We can and must do better.

Who can possibly be against the protection of citizen children in this situation? As I think of every possible political persuasion from left to right on the spectrum, I cannot think of one group who could oppose the protection of citizen children without rendering themselves hypocrites vis-à-vis their other positions. Thinking of my own children, I can only imagine how unbearable facing such a situation would be. Stopping the infliction of trauma on the defenseless should be something we can all agree on, the heart of a much needed bi-partisan compromise on illegal immigration.

Until we right this wrong, fantastic organizations like Organization to Help Citizen Children (OtHCC) are making heroic efforts to lessen the harm done to displaced citizen children. OtHCC’s chief focus is to:

Solicit churches along both sides of the border to “adopt” deported families and provide assistance to them.

This strategy identifies families on either side of the border that would provide support for the “adopted children.” On the U. S. side, a family would be asked to take in a U. S. -born child into their home and provide care for them during the school week. This would enable the children to pursue their education through the public schools of a particular state.

On the Mexican side, a family would be asked to provide temporary shelter and assist the undocumented members of the “adopted” family in obtaining employment and locating a permanent place to live.

Truly a noble pursuit that puts the faith and human spirit of those involved to work righting a terrible wrong. Simultaneously, OtHCC strives to raise public awareness of the plight of citizen children, press for priority status for these families in future federal legislation and call for a moratorium on the deportation of parents of U.S.-born children, and pursue legal remedies on behalf of these children. OtHCC accepts donations here. If you feel like I do, tell your friends.

B