Trouble in the AZ

There are two major problems with the freshly-blocked immigration law in Arizona: 1) Its bigoted and unconstitutional nature, and 2) Its biggest proponent, Governor Jan Brewer.

First Brewer. In my eyes, she is a southwestern version of George Wallace. Perhaps she hasn't gone so far as to openly advocate a segregationist platform, but she has shown that she has a prejudice against human beings of Hispanic ethnicity, conveniently masked as a legitimate response to a major problem in illegal immigration. Ok, maybe that's taking it too far. But seriously, she has gone to great lengths just to defend this bill. And how convenient for her...right about the time she needs to get re-elected, she decides to put her Lucretia Mott on an enormously significant piece of legislation that will sate the public demand for something to be done about illegal immigrants. She has some major political motivation behind this bill (which actually went into effect last week), and may ride the coattails of the whole affair straight back to the governor's mansion. But doesn't that define a good governor? Sticking up for what your constituents want? For what is best for the state? Sometimes. When it means protecting your state from harmful pork spending, or excessive taxes. And illegal immigration could certainly be considered a threat to the state, in some areas! But a governor who takes such a strong stance on such a demeaning bill is acting as a mouthpiece for the perceived "public will" on a sensitive social issue...which is never a good idea. Let's look at history for a few examples. Does anyone suppose that if a referendum went out in 1890 suggesting Native Americans shouldn't be stripped of their ancestral grounds and forced into reservations that it would have passed? Probably not! What about 1954 in the case of Brown et al v. Topeka Board of Education? Do we think that the post-war society would have voted for integration? Absolutely not! We still see these issues today - Same-sex marriages (which, constitutionally, are just as legitimate as heterosexual marriages), or intervention in humanitarian crises abroad (Rwanda, Balkans, currently Darfur). As Voltaire once said, "The masses are asses," and the "public will" may not always be the best source look for ideas for major legislation.

The real problem though lies with the bill itself. Let's walk through it - A man of Hispanic heritage gets pulled over on a freeway in Arizona. An Arizona police officer, presumably a normal, un-prejudiced American, pulls him over for speeding. So far, so good. BUT - if the bill would have passed, that officer would have been obligated to inquire into the legal immigration status of the speeder. If the driver could not produce documents proving his legal immigration status on the spot and the officer had "reasonable suspicion" that the driver was in the United States illegally, the officer would be obligated to take the speeder into custody and hold him in detention indefinitely, until his immigration status was determined to be legal. If it was concluded that the man was there illegally, the proposed law gave the Arizona police the power to turn him over to Immigration for deportation.

I'm not against justice as a principle. I'm not against making those that have broken the law pay for their offense. However, I am against punitive legislation that promotes a diverse display of unconstitutional maladies. To begin with, the law expressly prohibits racial profiling, but almost forces officers to do just that! Let's be honest - what kind of "reasonable suspicion" might an officer have other than the guy has dark skin, is listening to a certain genre of music, or speaks a certain language/with a certain accent? By my definition one or any combination of those certainly constitutes racial profiling. But that part aside, the law would have given Arizona police forces the power to hold suspected illegal immigrants - that is, those that are presumably innocent because they haven't been found guilty, persons not officially arrested, much less charged with anything - indefinitely until their legal status is determined. This effectively strips that person of any remnant of due process of law that is given to them by the Constitution, or if you argue that illegal immigrants aren't entitled to constitutional rights, the due process of law that is a basic human right according to the Declaration of Human Rights as ratified by the United Nations.

There are a TON of arguments that would point to the fact that this law is such a contradiction to the Constitution that it never should have been passed. Most of the arguments I've heard in favor of the bill are that the Feds aren't doing their job and the states are sick of it. Still, the Feds don't do a lot of things well (remember the budget, energy, Afghanistan, etc crises?) and the states aren't taking action on those issues. This, to me, points to an underlying current of xenophobia that borders on racism in our country today. It's not a new problem, by any means, but just the most recent face. And that's something that we need to get over if we're going to be able to function as a State.