Hazing Arizona

The State of Arizona, of which I was once a lawful resident, has passed an immigration enforcement law. Critics are calling it shameful and even Fascist. Here's one such critic, my esteemed Keloland colleague, Cory Heidelberger:

For all you 9-12ers hollering that President Obama is acting like Hitler, let's hear some protest about the real police state tactics just passed by the Republicans running Arizona. Their new state immigration policy authorizes police to approach anyone they consider suspicious and demand proof of citizenship…

Yes, we need a secure border. Yes, immigrants must follow the law. But a law that allows police to yank us off the street just for looking suspicious and not carrying the right documents is the wrong way to enforce our laws. It's the Nazi way.

I'll let Glen Beck and Cory decide who the real Nazis are, if that is how they want to spend their time. Meanwhile, I have reviewed the Arizona Legislature's summary of the bill. Cory's objection seems to be based on this provision:

[SB1070] requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

This provision does not in fact "authorize police to approach anyone they consider suspicious." The keywords here are "any legitimate contact" and "reasonable suspicion." Police officers would have to have a legitimate reason for approaching someone in the first place, before they are required to determine the immigration status of that person.

This looks to me like standard procedure. A policeman cannot legitimately pull a fellow over just because he doesn't like the fellow's bumper sticker. On the other hand, if he stops the bloke because he's weaving or has a tail light out, the officer can shine his flashlight into the back seat. If he sees a metal canister marked "Anthrax," he is surely authorized to make further inquiries. Likewise the police would require a legitimate reason to approach someone before the above provision would be triggered.

The problem is with the "reasonable suspicion" language. What constitutes "reasonable suspicion…that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S."? It is hard not to think that that means anyone who looks even vaguely Latino.

This might, in effect, mean that all persons of Latino decent, including legal immigrants and citizens, and they alone, will be required to carry proof of their status. I say "might" because it all depends on how the police and other government agents interpret the law. That doesn't look like equal protection.

I am guessing that this doesn't survive Court scrutiny, and that practical considerations would render it largely null in any case. Arizona just doesn't have the resources to enforce federal immigration law through these means.

But the Arizona law is a reflection of our dysfunctional immigration policies. Our immigration laws are not being enforced. Arizona is burdened by a half a million illegal aliens. The President is talking about "comprehensive reform," but everyone knows what that means. It means amnesty for those who have made it across the border so far, and lackluster laws that invite millions more to follow in the future. We have seen all this before.

Everyone knows what a sensible immigration policy would be. From The Arizona Republic:

The federal government needs to pass immigration reform that imposes order at the border, creates a legal flow of needed workers and helps bring the nation's undocumented workforce out of the shadows.

Washington seems perfectly incapable of that. No wonder people have lost faith in their government.

Comments

[caheidelberger]

Thank you, Ken, for looking at the actual text of the law. I hope we can find practical and Constitutional means of solving the problem.

I hoppe you will excuse my occasional forays into Beckian hyperbole. Sometimes I slip... but sometimes I try to put myself in the frame of mind of the folks I hear shouting about fascism of various actions of the Obama Administration and wonder why even clearer, more direct government intrusions on personal liberty don't trigger the same rhetoric from the same people.

[KB]

We all get carried away from time to time. Beck makes a living at it.

I hope we can find solutions to this problem, but it is a tough one.

[Guard]

KB, I used to have the very anti-illegal immigrant and closed-borders mentality. However, I actually find myself now supporting the hard-working immigrants who do the hard and dirty jobs most of us will not do. For too many years, we have exploited these people: yes all of us to one degree or another. We have enjoyed having a low price lifestyle because of their hard work for peanuts because they were allowed to work here, but, not become citizens. Our own business have been caught employing illegal immigrants so they can make products very cheap without paying immigrants what they would have to pay a citizen. So, since business does not seem to be changing its ways and we know business runs things, then, I support granting them all citizenship if they are going to do our grunt work.

[Guard]

In addition to this topic, we remember how serious the Republicans were about reforming immigration when they were in power of Congress and the Presidency under Bush. They have no credibility since they allowed the problem of exploitation and open borders persist.

[Lynn]

Both parties want the Hispanic voters and the business voters and do nothing to solve this problem. Pathetic. So now when a state that is hugely impacted by the illegal immigrant problem, DOES do something, everyone is up in arms claiming it is unfair, Nazi-like, racist, etc. I applaud them for doing something. It's not unfair or unconstitutional or racist to simply enforce a law against lawbreakers.

[Guard]

Well, this problem persisted long before this year and was just as bad under President Bush and now Arizona government officials all sudden want to do something about it? Lynn it's all about politics on both sides and nobody is a saint in any of this. This problem has politics written all over it and it's too late to actually do anything about it because our "cheap lifestyle" comes down to the exploitation of these people. It has for decades, so, I doubt business is going to support anything that comes from Arizona to effect their profits and the politicians need business money.

[Guard]

States have gradually been losing their "sovereignty" for decades through federal funding measures that are used to entice the States with money they are dependent on for public services and taken from them if they do not comply with federal laws and regulations. States really don't do much on their own anymore without the "OK" from D.C. D.C. has run the show for decades and soon it will run the entire show because we need their money bad and they give it out since they print it and they approve our budgets in the Halls of Congress.

[Lynn]

Guard, I refuse to accept your fatalistic philosophy that the states have no rights left. The time we give all control over to DC is the end of our way of gov't and the beginning of tyranny, which is very close to what we now have and what the present administration is seeking. No one seems to realize that the golden money pot is empty at the city, county, state, fed, and world level. What happens when we all become Greece and there is no one to bail us out? STOP the SPENDING!!! Develop personal responsibility. Become active in gov't and work to fix it. That is the only way we are going to save this great and wonderful nation, as Thomas Jefferson warned.

[Guard]

Lynn, just please, hear me out. Do you know where 95% of South Dakota's highway funding comes from? Yup, the Feds. Transportation plays a central role in our way of life. Remember "Dole v. South Dakota" or was it "South Dakota v. Dole" (1987)? South Dakota lost that one in regards to setting the legal drinking age below 21. If South Dakota does not adhere to the national drinking age law...we lose our highway funding. Simple as that and how's that for our state's sovereignty? We got zilch. You take on the Feds you lose your bacon and we all know what happens to past SD politicians who fail to bring it home.

[William]

Guard,

That's certainly been true with what's been "politics as usual" for far too long.

The point Lynn makes, and I agree with, is that we no longer live in "usual times.

Herbert Stein's Law, which he expressed as "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop," by which he meant that if a trend (balance of payments deficits in his example) cannot go on forever, there is no need for action or a program to make it stop, much less to make it stop immediately; it will stop of its own accord.

I believe it's likely we're nearing the point where we either take action or Stein's Law will take effect.

[Guard]

You are jumping on a movement that will eventually be co-opted by the usual money powers. Mark my words, nothing real will happen. The Tea Party Movement is already being co-opted. That's how the game is played. I've little a longer and I've seen this game sucker me too. I've been spun-dried more than a load of work clothes through these political games. Ha, ha, ha.

[William]

Guard,

I don't claim to be jumping on any movement, simply pointing out that we "live in interesting times" and IMHO the current game will change one way or the other because the conditions are changing in ways that are beyond rhetoric.

I choose to act, rather than merely observe.

[Guard]

William you can choose to act all you want. But, I have yet to see what you've actually done to change events. ahhhh hah! Besides, when the global economy tanks, all of this will be the least of our worries.

[William]

Guard,

Perhaps nothing I can do will change events, certainly I have no illusions of being a "world changer" in the bigger picture, however I will not go softly into the night and accept that I have no choice in my destiny.

I simply try to be aware of what is going on around me and face the challenges that come my way and then the next day, try to do that again. Some days are better than others and your mileage may vary =|;)

[Guard]

William,

you hit the nail on the head: "face the challenges that come my way," because that is all we can do and that's what I've been trying to say in all these posts. Sure, I provide my opinion as well, but, I realize that in the bigger scheme of things, even my opinion is not worth a hill of beans.

[KB]

Immigration law splits the two parties. Democrats who favor multiculturalism want open immigration. Labor Unions, not so much. Republicans who favor business like cheap labor. Republicans more fond of nationalist sentiment, not so much. The result of past reform has been to legalize without the promised border tightening. Meanwhile, the laws are not enforced.

I favor relatively free immigration, but also controlled immigration. Right now Congress is altogether incapable of passing sensible immigration reform.

[William]

"High fences and wide doors" to control immigration is the only solution I can see that can be supported by both sides of the issue.

High Fences - to control our border
Wide Doors - to allow the orderly immigration we need.