Skip to main content

Arizona Made Simple

Over 70% of the American population supported Arizona's proposition 1070, and the Republicans are going to town over Obama's suit that temporarily shut the majority of the bill down. Clearly the Obama administration is against the States and the will of the people.

Well wait a minute. Five points that render Fox News' spin on it kinda suspect.

First, the proposition didn't actually give police officers any more power than they had under the current federal immigration law. The law required new behavior from existing officers - all of which involved charging the immigrants with a new crime that would have placed those prisoners in local jails before INS got them instead of turning them directly over to INS. Realize Joe Arpaio, the 30 year sheriff of the county where this law originates is AGAINST this law. He's not a liberal, he's convinced that this law gives him nothing but additional red tape and costs.

Second, this law effectively amends and extends the Federal law. This is explicitly prohibited in the US Constitution. Article VI clause 2 gives any federal law supremacy over state law and binds both state and federal judges to defer to existing federal legislation in any area of conflict. This law was unconstitutional the moment it left the legislature for purely legal reasons.

Third, even if you don't care about constitutionality, lets talk about what would have happened if the law passed. Every State would pass a their own version of the law. Do we want 50 different immigration policies all shaped around the mood and political leanings of each state legislature? Is that really where we're headed? Do you want immigrants forum shopping for which STATE to immigrate into? Imagine the impact this would have on state economies as legal immigrants avoided some states for others.

Fourth, consider what this law asked from LEGAL immigrants. Try to separate the politics from it a minute and just use common sense. All legal immigrants would have to carry their papers at all times and be able to produce them at the demand of any officer. How would officers choose who to ask? Even if the officer means well, how would they suspect someone is an immigrant? Would they know my father immigrated from Germany? Would Canadians be asked? Racial profiling would be an inevitable result regardless of the intent of those involved. Do we really want Latinos having to carry proof of their American status because they are Latino? There is a racial component to the immigration conflict that cannot be dismissed. The frustration of legal Americans has bled over to the common racial identity of the most common border offender. This can't be legislated away by saying "You can't do it just because they're Mexican."

Fifth, consider what this law asked from police officers. They would be required to stop and ask suspected illegals not just on their way in, but established illegals within the US. Now remember, police officers are not the Border Patrol. They often don't move in groups or act as organized dragnets. Imagine the tension that comes when an patrol car pulls over potential illegals where the consequence is now jail, fines, and of course deportation, and separation from their families after having developed a life in America for some time. Right or wrong of the, what do you suppose this does to the odds of a hostile or violent exchange? What would you if the police suddenly acquired the ability to send you away from everything you loved?

This law was a mess from the outset. It was the product of the building frustration over the federal governments lack of comprehensive immigration law, investigation and enforcement. For this purpose, the law gets my nod for drawing up the national outcry against our poorly managed border situation. But we need sanctions against businesses who hire illegals - something Conservatives avoid. We need more resources to patrol and manage border crossings - something everyone avoids. We also need a policy that provides a method to integrate and manage the existing illegal population since everyone knows ripping it out would be like going after cancer in a loved one with a chainsaw.

Republican or Democrat, you can't deny that the law Arizona created was never about successful legislation. It is a political gesture and a tool for the local governor to hopefully seek re-election, but for reasons ranging from law to real effect to morality, it is a travesty, and politically active citizens everywhere should be talking less about prop 1070 and more about how we can build - together - a immigration policy that works for all Americans.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What a Pain: Married to a Public School Teacher

I wanted to write briefly about how hard it is to be married to a public school teacher. Particularly in recent months, with all the protests and bitter battles over benefits and state salaries, I thought I'd chime in and really let you see how much of a pain in the ass it is to have a teacher as a wife. It's hard to do my taxes at the end of the year and realize just how much of our income was spent on school supplies and specific tools for student needs that the district couldn't or wouldn't provide. It's equally hard to keep my mouth shut about it because I know she will defend those expenses to her last breath. It's hard to watch her leave every morning at 6:30am and know that if I'm lucky I'll see her at 7pm that night. Once in a while she's out by 4pm, but usually I don't see her until after dark, and there are times – frequently – that I get that call from school saying 'go ahead and eat, I won't be back until after 10.'

Why do YOU vote Republican?

With the incoming Republican controlled house in the new year, I thought I would take a shot at the party that put them there and see what my readers think. Yea, I know, surprise surprise, I'm taking a stab at the Republican party again. The way I'll structure this is a simple question posed to my hypothetical Republican reader. Why do you vote Republican? I vote Republican because I believe in small government and fiscal responsibility. Once upon a time Republicans believed these things, but those days seem long gone. No matter what you think the role of government should be, Republican administration has done nothing but increase the size and cost of government since Ronald Reagan. Conservatives tend to get lost in this truth by trying to make distinctions between military and domestic policy, the allocation of tax dollars to 'necessary' and 'unnecessary' projects and over-reach, but at the end of the day, government has ended up bigger and more expensive on R

Mosque Anyone?

So let's be clear about the New York Islamic Cultural Center including a mosque being proposed for central New York. 1.The proposed site about 2 blocks away from ground zero. 2.There is at least one Jewish synagogue and one Christian church within that distance. 3.Over 650,000 Muslims live in New York State. 4.Muslims were killed in the 911 attacks. So a foreign radical fringe group of a religion widely practiced in the United States effectively attacks and kills thousands of Americans on US soil in 2001. The emotional impact of this attack cannot be overstated, nor should the grief of those who lost loved ones be underestimated. Now New York Muslims were no more a part of the 911 attacks then New York Christians were a part of the Northern Ireland terrorist bombings of the 80's and 90's. There simply is nothing to suggest that the religion of Islam is to blame for the violence that some of its radical members inflicted on our nation. However there is an argument to be made