Get over yourself, Arizona

By Harrison Leonard
May 3rd, 2010
Section: Opinions

Harrison Leonard
contributing columnist

I am a conservative opposed to Arizona’s recently passed immigration law.

SB1070 does not reach five pages in length. It is not specific. It “mandates” that law enforcement avoid any form of racial profiling as a basis for detaining suspected illegal aliens, but provides no alternative methods for determining the immigration status of a suspected illegal (other than saying “reasonable suspicion exists”).

Leaving “reasonable suspicion” to the discretion of individual police officers will result in profiling because a law that bans discrimination but doesn’t define “suspicion” is entirely unenforceable.

If a group of five dark-skinned persons are driving in Sun City, AZ in a 1989 Nissan, obeying all seat belt and traffic laws, would law enforcement be justified in pulling them over on “reasonable suspicion?” I don’t think so.
Inquiring about the status of someone because they stand in violation of some law is one thing. But a police officer has no right to stop and ask someone, who has committed no apparent crimes, for their paperwork.

If someone looks “illegal” but is abiding by every law in a given municipality, there is no reasonable way an officer can come to such a conclusion other than by making judgments based on looks.

This bill essentially requires that all immigrants carry their paperwork with them everywhere they go. Having no ID while driving is an offense. But not carrying your visa while loitering at the mall is not illegal in a free country.

“Fine,” you say, “maybe they don’t need to carry around a green card, but immigrants should be forced to bare something that allows us to know who is legal and who isn’t.” Would you prefer they wear a patch?

No one has immunity from the law, but just laws are enacted in accordance with proper constitutional principles. Citizenship issues are clearly within the purview of Congress to regulate, not the states.

Article 1, Section 8 from the Constitution reads: “The Congress shall have Power…To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” There are Constitutional protections for two classes of people: citizens, and everyone. The Constitution issues a series of “privileges and immunities” that are reserved only for U.S. citizens, but there are protections that are extended to “all persons” in the United States.

The right to privacy against unreasonable searches of persons and their papers (4th amendment) and procedural due process safeguards (14th amendment) are not only for citizens; they are for all people in the United States. But the militant opposition to this bad law has been just as stupid as the support for it.

Boycotting states that do things you dislike is pitiful. During the period under the Articles of Confederation, the colonies used to get into fights about commerce and trade routes, and they tried to economically sanction each other in order to secure economic supremacy in America. The Founders sought to stop that by leaving the regulation of commerce to the federal government. City councils who threaten to economically divest from another state is constitutionally questionable.

Something needs to be done about undocumented immigration. Republicans and Democrats deserve equal blame for not fixing this mess. Successful nations require standards and border laws are foundational to even a free society. People who have broken our fundamental laws, abused our social services and robbed our taxpayers should be punished for their actions. Undocumented immigrants who are convicted felons should be deported.

And we need to secure our borders for national security purposes. Disciplinary measures for law-breakers are vital, but must be rooted in reality and equanimity. The notion that we will knock on doors and deport fifteen million people is not American; it is Nazi.

I fear that my conservative friends are partaking of the same Kool-Aid they accuse liberals of drinking. The concept of immigration reform (or even just enforcing existing law) is great. At the same time, we can’t choose to defend only those parts of the Constitution we agree with and ignore the ones that don’t mesh with our personal politics.

top

Disclaimer: The Daily Sundial is not responsible for comments posted on dailysundial.com. In accordance with the Communications Decency Act of 1996 the Sundial is not liable for the content of comments. By commenting, all persons posting on dailysundial.com have agreed to our comment policy. If a comment does not abide by the comment policy the Sundial reserves the right to delete comments without warning. The Daily Sundial advises persons commenting not to abuse their First Amendment rights, and to avoid comments of hate speech or encouraging violence.

  • Harrison

    David – I do think the federal law is pathetic. I have been advocating for some kind of legal revision of this for years. I am surprised you haven’t heard people on our side of the aisle CLAMORING for deportation, and halting all forms of immigration. They are out there, and in far greater numbers than you give them credit for.

    • David

      Pathetic why? Because we don’t do a particularly good job of enforcing them? If that’s the case, we are in agreement.

      What “kind of legal revision” did you have in mind? You say, “Something needs to be done about undocumented immigration,” but you give us not an inkling about what you have in mind.

      One thing is certain: If the Feds continue to be ineffective and Obama continues to threaten to find ways to make states’ laws like Arizona’s unenforceable, the people will indeed “clamor” for deportation. That too, will fall upon Obama’s rather prominent but deaf ears to anything conservative.

      I give Obama credit where it is due. One of the two things I agreed with him is that early on, his admistration conducted a few high-profile efforts against companies who had employees whose names did not match their Social Security numbers. The employees were given time to “correct any discrepancy,” but of course they were just illegals using others’ Social Security numbers and were subsequently fired. They were replaced with persons legally authorized to work.

      That’s what *I* have in mind.

      Oh, and for the record, since I’m sure that everyone is wondering: The one other thing that Obama and I agree on are his increased number of drone attacks against suspected terrorists. That, I’m afraid, is about it.

      • Harrison

        I like what Graham and Schumer are proposing in the Senate: h ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031703115.html

        The federal law is pathetic because it doesn’t provide law enforcement with up-to-date tools to go finding people without profiling. In some ways, it is restrictive in its leniency. It’s easy when illegals are arrested breaking a law or have SS cards that don’t match their persons, but many do not have SS cards, and it is simply unreasonable to go cherry picking for illegals by trying to catch suspected ones doing illegal things.

        I think it’s reasonable to place a a moratorium on visas from terrorist countries.

        I like the drone attack increases too. I also like the tie he wore at his inauguration. That’s about all.

  • David

    Wish I could’ve responded earlier but here goes:

    C’mon Harrison, do your homework. If you have an issue with the Arizona law then certainly you must take issue with existing federal law. It gives ICE officers the power to “interrogate any person believed to be an alien…” and says that aliens MUST carry their alien registration cards. Certainly, the U.S. law is even more oppressive than the AZ law.

    Also, see this link for piece on how Arizona has the authority to enforce their law: http://web.mac.com/waltermoore/WalterMooreSays.com/Blog/Entries/2010/4/30_Arizona_Police_Can_Enforce_Federal_Immigration_Law.html

    And what’s with the Nazi reference? Who has “the notion that we will knock on doors and deport fifteen million people”? The Arizona law doesn’t even come close.

    I did your homework for you:

    INA: ACT 287 – POWERS OF IMMIGRATION OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

    Sec. 287. [8 U.S.C. 1357]

    (a) Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant-

    (1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;

    (2) to arrest any alien who in his presence or view is entering or attempting to enter the United States in violation of any law or regulation made in pursuance of law regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, or to arrest any alien in the United States, if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the alien arrested sh all be taken without unnecessary delay for examination before an officer of the Service having authority to examine aliens as to their right to enter or remain in the United States;

    INA: ACT 264 – FORMS AND PROCEDURE

    Sec. 264. [8 U.S.C. 1304]

    (a) The Attorney General and the Secretary of State jointly are authorized and directed to prepare forms for the registration of aliens under section 261 of this title, and the Attorney General is authorized and directed to prepare forms for the registration and fingerprinting of aliens under section 262 of this title. Such forms shall contain inquiries with respect to (1) the date and place of entry of the alien into the United States; (2) activities in which he has been and intends to be engaged; (3) the length of time he expects to remain in the United States; (4) the police and criminal record, if any, of such alien; and (5) such additional matters as may be prescribed.

    (b) All registration and fingerprint records made under the provisions of this title shall be confidential, and shall be made available only (1) pursuant to section 287(f)(2), and (2) to such persons or agencies as may be designated by the Attorney General.

    (c) Every person required to apply for the registration of himself or another under this title shall submit under oath the information required for such registration. Any person authorized under regulations issued by the Attorney General to register aliens under this title shall be authorized to administer oaths for such purpose.

    (d) Every alien in the United States who has been registered and fingerprinted under the provisions of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, or under the provisions of this Act shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General.

    (e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.