Tuesday, June 22, 2010

All Quiet on the Arizonan Front

When Arizona passed a law in April allowing law enforcement agents to stop anyone they thought suspicious and ask them for legal documentation, much of the US went crazy. It seemed like the Midwest and the coasts (where illegal immigration is not nearly as much of an issue) went the craziest, in an ironic, if somewhat hypocritical, turn of events. 

Arizona has since modified the law, making law enforcement only ask for papers upon reasonable suspicion the person was actually involved in a crime. Criticism has largely subsided (though it's far from nonexistent).

I have to admit I was more than a little taken aback by Arizona's proceedings myself; for one thing, it's not exactly constitutional to ask for papers on demand. (Sounds kind of communistic if you think about it.) For another, there's obviously no federal law or constitution clause requiring residents to actually carry any kind of identification. And it doesn't take much thought to figure out that police would most likely target people who appear Hispanic, given the root cause for this whole debacle. Would innocents be checked? Count on it. Would law enforcement be expanded, adding to what some already call a police state? Likely, if modifications aren't made and limits put in place.

But on the flip side, how can we expect to keep our country secure without some kind of security measure? Obviously securing our southern border is the best approach; however, not only would it take months or years of work, but also a willing administration and a large amount of government spending.

Fiscally, the hole is worth plugging, and would likely pay for itself over a short amount of time. Billions of dollars are lost each year because of illegal aliens; they do not pay income tax, but still find their way into school systems. It's not unheard of for them to be on social welfare programs. And, perhaps worst of all, they can get free medical care without health insurance by visiting the nearest emergency room; the recently passed healthcare bill didn't do a single thing to fix this major issue. (The hospital usually winds up footing the bill, in a phenomenon unique to the American health care system. Think about it - in what other business does the client receive a tangible service and then receive a free pass?)

The solution to the immigration problem is going to have to be much more than a single piece of controversial legislation. Arizona did what the people wanted -- an overwhelming majority of Arizona residents support the law, as do a smaller majority of the national population -- The options should include making it easier to come legally by increasing the number of legal points of entry, thus eliminating (or at least downsizing) queues that stretch for miles on roads south of the border. Fiscally, instituting the FairTax (in which a high national sales tax would affect every purchaser) would level the field, making sure everyone - residents, tourists, immigrants, and illegal residents alike - pay their fair share. (Forget the confusing income tax code.) Cracking down on illegal employment is a no-brainer, as is fixing the catch-and-release system of at-the-border detaining of illegal immigrants. Another thing the government could do would be to ask randomly selected successful legal immigrants what they think could be improved about the process, and what they thought was the most inefficient.

***

In other news today, Jack Abramoff, a fraudulent lobbyist, begun work at a pizzaria upon loosening of his house arrest. His job is to include face-to-face marketing to scare up more business. Also, a federal judge blocked President Obama's indefinite ban on oil drilling in the Gulf Coast. LA Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) called Obama's ban "arbitrary and capricious".


If you enjoyed this post, be sure to subscribe to our RSS Feed! Then you can receive our posts in your feed reader or email.

4 comments:

Bzandon said...

I hate to ask, but have you actually read the law.? Because it doesn't say they can ask for papers on demand: rather, they have to already have lawfully detained someone and have reasonable suspicion that they're illegal. And then, only a "reasonable attempt shall be made, when practical, to determine the immigration status of the person". Police aren't allowed to even consider race or national origin. In reality, this isn't much different than the police asking for your driver's license if they pull you over for breaking a traffic law.

Landon Brands said...

Yes, I have read and am familiar with the bill. To clarify, yes, the suspect needs to have already been detained, but Page 2, Lines 20-26 of the AZ Senate bill (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf) say:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). \

"A reasonable attempt should be made when practicable." What I get from that is this: If the person appears to be of Hispanic (or other foreign, but mostly Hispanic, given Arizona's original problem), origin, they will check on things.

You are correct that police aren't *allowed* to consider race or national origin. But that doesn't mean they never do or will - history shows us that it happens.

Thanks for the comment; hopefully this clarifies my definition of "on demand."

Benito said...

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.

I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, housing, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!

Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.

Landon Brands said...

Well said!