It's coming, folks. It's looming on the horizon ... if "the horizon" is defined as "this week". On July 29th, Arizona's now famous SB 1070 law will go into effect. That, of course, assumes a lot. It assumes that the world doesn't come to an end before that day. (Okay, long shot, but who knows?) It assumes that a judge (or two) doesn't intervene and put it off or shoot it down. (Not too much of a long shot.) And even if it goes into effect, its effect is still up in the air. Homeland Security already has said they don't feel any need to enforce the law. At least one sheriff says he doesn't expect to require his officers to enforce the law. Of course, the native Indian tribes have no intention of enforcing the law. I guess Sheriff Joe will certainly be in there, but who knows how many others? And, of course, Judge Susan Bolton who heard the the case last Thursday said that she retains the right to strike down all, none, or even parts of SB 1070, so who knows what we'll get? With loud protesters "scoring points" by stopping traffic and objectors in law enforcement who won't even obey the law if it passes and the courts who are perfectly willing to strike down laws if they feel like it, it's really hard to predict what the future of this law and its effects looks like.
Still, let's get a couple of things straight. First, despite every single media reference to the contrary, SB 1070 is not designed to be an "immigration law". I can hardly find a single source that says otherwise, but the law is not about immigration. Within the text of the law it says, "This act may be cited as the 'Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act'." That, you see, is because it's not an immigration law; it's an enforcement law. The technical title is "ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS". That is, "Immigration laws already exist; this article is how we plan to enforce those existing laws." Since I have no pull with any media outlet anywhere, I don't anticipate that any will say, "Gee whiz, thanks, Stan! We missed that entirely! We'll cease and desist right away calling it an 'immigration law'." Still, when you think about it, regardless of what you think of it, please be reasonable and refer to it as it is intended -- law enforcement, not immigration policy.
But here's the thing that I really want to address. I'll pull it out of this story about a Phoenix police officer who posted a video rant about the law on YouTube and Facebook. In a later interview he said, "The law clearly reflected hatred, out and out hatred for a group of people that don't deserve hatred." That's it. That's the opposition side. That's the single argument offered. This is why the law is evil. It is evil to try to enforce immigration laws (at least, apparently, here in Arizona) because to do so is racism.
Rachel Maddow of MSNBC exposed the "racist roots of Arizona's immigration law" back in April ... by linking it to State Senator Russell Pearce (who hugged a Nazi of all things!) who was linked to Kris Kobach (a "a birther who's running for secretary of state in Kansas" and who wrote the racist line, "To govern is to populate.") who was linked to John Tanton, an obvious racist who "told the Detroit Free Press that America will soon be overrun by illegal immigrants." There you have it, folks. In the words of one of Rachel's fans, "It's well established that SB1070 is racist."
Now, I'm baffled. I've read the law. I don't find anything in it that says, "It's a crime to be brown skinned" (as has been suggested by at least one protester). I don't see anything that says, "Arrest anyone who looks Latino." Not in there. I don't find anything that suggests "racial profiling" ... except, of course, for the existing laws that already allows racial profiling if its relevant. So why is it "racist"? Well, it all seems to revolve around this whole "reasonable suspicion" thing. Reasonable suspicion on many crimes is evident. You're carrying a coat hanger in one hand and three car stereos under your arm, and your looking in the window of a parked car in the wee hours of the morning. Maybe it could be called "reasonable suspicion" that you're stealing car stereos. Got it. What constitutes "reasonable suspicion" for illegal immigration? Well, apparently the only possible thing would be brown skin. Diana Nguyen and Jen Wang of the Huffington Post write, "... there's no way to really establish reasonable suspicion except by race or ethnicity ..." Now, Sheriff Joe was quoted as saying (in answer to the question about what constitutes reasonable suspicion of illegal status), "Ten guys in a trunk. I would think that's reasonable suspicion." I guess the opponents of the law disagree. What about the van filled with 32 people that takes evasive maneuvers when being pulled over? I've personally met people of Latino descent that do not strike me in the least as illegal and others who do. In fact, I've encountered people of a variety of races who both did and didn't make me wonder about their immigration status. It's not their skin color that makes the difference.
Do you know what strikes me in all of this? It seems to me that the racism is on the other side of the protest. Now, I don't mean to suggest that no racists favor SB 1070. Of course they do. But isn't it just as racist to claim that a law-enforcement law passed by white people is, without question, racist without having a single component of the law that requires it? Isn't it an assumption that "white people are racist" that makes the assumption that this law is racist? Maybe not ... but it's certainly some kind of prejudicial conclusion that presumes facts not in evidence. Let's go further. The law makes no reference to skin color or the like. The protesters believe it to be racist against Latinos. I ask you. Isn't it racist to assume that all illegal immigrants are Latino? The law doesn't. Why do the protesters? Something strikes me as twisted here.
Well, we'll see what comes of it all. I'm amused that Denver voted to boycott Arizona, but advertises heavily for Arizona tourists to visit Denver. I'm disappointed that police officials have already refused before the fact to enforce the law. I'm concerned about the unsupported accusation that "It's well established that SB1070 is racist." (Wouldn't that mandate that the 70% of Arizonans, many of which are Latino, and the 60% of Americans are all racists, too?) I'm tired of the shouting. (Hint to protesters: It won't make people support your cause if you create a traffic tie-up in your protest.) I'm sick and tired of being told that states should not enforce federal law or that anyone who believes that the country should not control its borders is a racist. Unfortunately, every time this "racist" card is played, the actual issues at hand will be swept off the table and the argument will switch to "It is too racist" "It is not" "Yes it is" ...
UPDATE: In case you don't already know, the judge blocked "parts" of the law. Those parts would "reasonable suspicion" (requiring, I suppose, that the only time an officer can determine someone's immigration status is if they already have proof of their immigration status ... wait ... that's not right) and the requirement for carrying federal immigration documents ... you know ... the part that is already law. "But, look. You Arizonans go ahead with the rest. You're certainly free to enforce the federal law ... as long as you don't inquire about immigration status ... or actually require any proof of status. We're good with that."
13 comments:
As I assume you know, a judge did intervene, blocking most of the law.
How is it a democracy/republic, when the VOTERS pass a law, that 1 or a few people can overturn that law? Isn't the point of our governmental system to be ruled by the people? This immigration enforcement isn't the first to be overturned after the fact. Wouldn't it be smarter and more efficient to have judges decide if a law is constitutional, or moral or whatever, before the law even gets voted on? How many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been wasted on both sides of the debate, when it could have all been settled before it ever came up? And the older generations wonder why the younger generations don't care about voting...what does it matter what I want for a law if its just going to get reinstated by a judge if it fails, or shot down by a judge if it passes? The Democratic system seems broken to me if the will of the people doesn't really matter.
David,
I hear what you're saying. Last year's case where the California Supreme Court shot down your vote to protect marriage is a prime example. One little thing, though. In this particular case, we didn't vote on this law. This one was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor.
Stan, would you please point out that we aren't "free" to pass whatever laws we want, as states. We can't simply decide, for instance, that it's legal to shoot black folk or Mexicans or Jews or Christians.
If AZ passes an UN-constitutional law, the court has an obligation to overturn it. That's how it works.
Nothing unusual or wrong, there.
Dan, I think you just did. ;)
But it wasn't the Constitution that was violated here, according to the ruling. "Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose." That is, "constitutionally", only the federal government has the authority to impose a distinct, unusual, and extraordinary burden on people. Nice.
Dan, like most leftists, doesn't much care for "WE THE PEOPLE" when "WE THE PEOPLE" desire something Dan doesn't like. In those cases, he's just fine with "WE THE PEOPLE" being trumped by a few black robed activists that feel as he does.
There's a simple logic here that should be self-evident. Illegals are trespassers, sneaking in and tromping on someone's property uninvited, taking what they want, whether that property is truly privately owned or the entire state of AZ. AZ has the right to regulate who crosses their southern border because they are also part of the USA. Imagine having to allow people to tromp about YOUR personal property, Dan, because the state or feds decide that YOUR authority over your own land isn't sufficient to disallow it.
Marshall,
While you know I'm not a big fan of Dan Trabue, he is accurate in that the courts are supposed to function as a check to prevent legislatures (or "the people") from passing laws that violate our Constitution. If, as an example, more than 50% of a state wanted to pass a law banning women from voting, we would hope that the courts would put a stop to that law because it violates the Constitution. That check (the Judicial Branch) is in place for a reason.
Now, of course, the whole "Constitutional violation" aspect of this case is way too vague for me, so its applicability here is a stretch, but the concept of a Judicial Branch that ensures that laws don't violate the Constitution is a basic part of our governmental structure.
The problem is how inconsistently he applies the concept.
There is also the problem of judicial actvism which will loom large in this as AZ appeals to the 9th. This WILL end up in the Supreme Court before it's through, I'm sure, and if Kagan has been appointed by then, the odds of AZ winning will drop below 50/50.
The question then becomes, what of AZ should every court rule against them? Since the feds aren't enforcing the law now, such a decision would let them know they don't have to enforce the laws at all and it's a safe bet that if AZ is bad off now, it'll be far worse then.
I recommend retraining 911 operators so that if a call comes in about a violation of a federal law (you know, like bank robbery, kidnapping, that sort of thing) they would give the caller the phone number for the FBI and hang up. Oh, and, of course, we'd have to retrain police officers to ignore certain laws (all federal laws) while enforcing others. Hey, that will work in California, right? I mean, they're already ignoring federal law about marijuana usage ...
Several issues:
First of all, no, the constitution does not give to the Supreme Court the power to determine whether what the rest of the various parts of government do is unconstitutional.They arrogated that right to themselves in Marbury v Madison. If anything the constitution implies, under the rules of interpostion, that each branch of government should enforce them against each other.
In this case the States should be interposing themselves against the federal government which, in refusing to enforce laws passed by congress, is behaving 'unconstitionally'... it being the constitutional role of the president to enforce (not choose not to enforce) the laws.
If one was to give that power to a sole branch, it should be congress, with its power of impeachment.
Von, I guess I don't understand the function of the Supreme Court. I thought the Judicial Branch was indeed to be a check against the Executive and Legislative Branches. Not so?
Certainly it is intended to be a check against the other two branches. The question is whether they are intdended to have the final say over all the other branches and levels of government.
The constitution, contrariwise, presupposes a system of government where each level and branch of government plays the role of checks and balances against the others. In particular, before the Civil War, the States were considered to stand as a check against untrammeled federal power. The Civil War largely ended that check.
Post a Comment