I went to class last night♠ thinking that Arizona was in the right about passing an immigration law and that the suit by the Federal Department of Justice was wrong, was political and was going to fail.
In the early part of the class session I began to question my conclusions. The idea that Immigration was a natural area for the Federal Government and that the States were bared from playing in the area began to grow in my mind.
Then we started building a table of who does what—Federal, State and Local (and later PVO and Commercial actors)—and it soon became obvious that the "marbled cake" view of how the different actors play was more applicable than the "layer cake" view.
If we say that state and local governments have no role in immigration, are we not then going to move toward other areas where Federal supremacy inherently excludes state and local government? I am afraid that would be the case.
That is the legal and policy side of the issue, but there is also the political and voter side of the issue. If the article in today's Lowell Sun is any indication, there is a lot of ignorance out there.♥ The Arizona law is not about racial profiling and it is not about stopping people and asking for their papers. Arizona is not New York, where the police can stop you and frisk you to see if you are carrying a gun, in violation of the Sullivan Act.
However, in the article in The Sun some of the people interviewed seem to think that the police could stop anyone and check their status. Such is not the case. Attorney General Eric Holder threatening a suit based on the grounds of racial profiling is just that—a threat whose trigger has not been pulled. This is unlike the New York law, where today, this very hour, the police can come up to you and pat you down for a weapon. Where are our Bill of Rights protections in those cases? What do you bet that if you are a Caucasian guy, over 25, wearing a suit, carrying a briefcase and with a decent haircut you will be passed over. I bet that even a Black person meeting that criteria is pretty safe.
In any event, this will all be very interesting to see unfold. And, the political repercussions may be as great as the legal.
Please note, in supporting the Arizona Law, which I do, it is not because I expect we will send 12 million foreign nationals home, but because I don't wish to see them jumping ahead of my Granddaughter's husband in the queue (or any other legal immigrants, following the rules). He has a Green Card and has done it by the book. I would not like to see his reward be to have a bunch of people who didn't follow the rules get their US Citizenship ahead of him. Those who follow this blog know my three steps to immigration reform.
Regards — Cliff
♠ UMass Lowell, Continuing Education, "State and Local Government".
♥ Remember, articles in The Sun go away after a while, to a different place. I will not be updating their links unless I am bedridden and have read every book in the house.
1 comment:
A bad NY law does not excuse a weak AZ one. I am all for offering police legitimate grounds to enforce law in pursuit of the peace, but I am not satisfied that proving ones citizenship (whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?) is a burden that should fall on people confronted by a police officer on the street. The "cause" that would initiate the whole domino process is always subjective, and oft-abused as it is. Now we've handed a blunt instrument to someone (the law enforcement officer) who must perform constitutional surgery in determination of what should happen next. I am not satisfied that legitimate citizens will remain free from unconstitutional treatment.
Here in Massachusetts, a nursing mother was separated from her infant in enforcement of Federal immigration law. There are clearly opportunities for cruel and unusual abuse. Were the AZ law to be written that criminals arrested for other crimes could be prosecuted for their immigration status, then I should hope 100% of the country could get behind it. But this is not the case.
The AZ law is written that police can detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country illegally. What is reasonable to you and what is reasonable to a citizen detained under this law are going to be two different things. I do not believe going beyond statutory enforcement (convicting illegals who are also criminals of an additional immigration statute) to the realm of pro-active police detainment, is the right thing.
Post a Comment