By: Reach for the Sky
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/06/arizona.boycott.impact/index.html
People are unhappy. Some are unhappy about the threat of racial segregation they believe is posed by the new emigration law in Arizona. Some are unhappy about what they believe is a gross over-reaction to what is essentially just a declaration of enforcement of established law. I'm unhappy that Half-Life 2: Episode 3 is projected to come out shortly after the death of my youngest grandchild. In regards to the boycott, let's just take a moment to examen this whole story.
First of all, the main complaint is quite apparent: The new law will lead to racial profiling. Is there actually any reasoning behind this though? Some kind of evidence that no matter what the provisions added to the bill, racism will prevail? I have yet to see any, which is sort of a problem in the arguments of those opposed. I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of prejudice manifesting itself in the enforcement of the law, but without any evidence to support that idea it seems unreasonable to suddenly jump to a nation-wide boycott of Arizona because of it. Especially after changes have been made to make profiling less likely.
One senator, possibly not wanting Congress to be absolutely embarrassed by the efficiency of Arizona's state government*, has asked Brewer to hold off on the bill while Congress comes up with their own plan to solve the illegal immigration problem. There are a few problems with this request, one being that Congress couldn't throw a ball across a room in the span of one year. And while one year may not seem like a long time in ivory-tower D.C. time, that's another year of crime rates rising and jobs lost due to illegal immigration**. Brewer, thankfully, rejected the request.
One thing that really bothers me is how the boycotts are being likened to the civil-rights boycotts. Even if there was undeniable proof of profiling, that would still not even come close to the magnitude of the transgressions against minorities before the Civil Rights Movement. Using the same tactics as Martin Luther King Jr. does not put one on the same moral ground as him. In fact, this whole debate reeks of guilt by association. On three separate occasions now the Nazi-analogy has been made, due to the fact that legal immigrants will now have to carry proof of citizenship with them. This bill has been compared with Nazism so much, Darwinism feels sorry for it.
I once again encourage those against the bill to treat it fairly by not blowing a blood vessel before its effects can become apparent. Still waiting patiently for evidence that the law will permit profiling. If you find some, post it in the comments or email it to me and I'll try to respond.
*That's their job! ZING!
**Quick clarification: I'm not opposed to jobs being lost to legal immigrants. It's jobs that are given to those who can afford a lower paycheck for lack of taxes that bother me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6AradppFx4
ReplyDeleteIf you want, ignore TYT and just focus on the news segment.
It only stands to reason that if the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic, the enforcement of anti-illegal immigration laws are going to fall disportionately on Hispanics. Of course, this greatly vexes the chattering class, which is still so guilt ridden about the slavery in our past that the mere opportunity for profiling rouses loud chants of "Racism".
ReplyDeleteA charge of racism is the "nuclear option" of the left. It immediately shuts down discussion and, therefore, is trotted out when the left finds itself without a cogent argument for its position on any given topic.
A quick Lexus/Nexus search will point to rantings from several members of the media elite who quickly surmised that opposition to health care reform was rooted in racism. Attempts to navigate the logic of their arguments left me dizzy. The day is coming when the overuse of the "racism" smear will collapse under its own self-created weight. That day can't come soon enough for me.
The video mentioned above, about the man who was supposedly treated unfairly because of his race, is barely valid to this discussion. For one, it is suspect at best, as it only tells one side of the story. It is also an isolated incident, not at all representative of the methods of immigration protocol. It also has nothing to do with the immigration bill, which has yet to go into effect yet. And...is that it? A single story about a man who lost, what, 4 hours of his life? That's not a tragedy, it's a bad day at the DMV. Still think having to carry around a birth certificate is excessive. However, I think I shouldn't have to carry around my bulky temporary license, that doesn't mean I don't have to.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the incident is based on what will happen with the new bill in July. I say "will" because, let's be honest, the only way to have reasonable suspicion of an illegal immigrant is to resort to racial profiling. As soon as the person is stopped, you know how the officer "identified" his reasonable suspicion. On the other hand, probable cause is completely understandable because that would mean the authorities actually have proof of the person's status as an illegal. Yes, racism will prevail because race is the ONLY feasible "clue" without probable cause.
ReplyDeleteBut even given that, I don't think this law is going to be effective. Assume racial profiling is okay and stop every Mexican you see. If this bill was taken seriously to the extent that it would make a substantial difference in numbers, cops would have to let other crimes take a back seat to focus completely on this. If Arizona really wants to solve this problem, they should 1) start an effective in-state naturalization program, 2) do whatever it takes for border security to prevent more illegals from getting in, or 3) both. Maybe there are even more effective solutions, but I can say with utter shrewdness that the aforementioned would be more effective than hopelessly stopping "those darned wetbacks" one by one.
the most interesting point about the immigration law to me, is that it can only be enforced as a secondary offense. similar to being caught texting while driving, Officers can't pull you over for it, they can only check it if you are ALREADY breaking the law.
ReplyDeleteSo, the only people who will even be subject to these paper checks will be people who are already breaking the law in some way.
That is an interesting point. Another thing to consider, though, is whether EVERYONE pulled over in Arizona for breaking the law in some way will have their papers checked.
ReplyDeleteSo not even that revision eliminates the issue. Individual officers are still able to discriminate when it comes to who they ask for identification information. They should really be asking everyone they pull over, but the new law does not include that requirement.
I fail to see what any of this has to do with the bill in question. Racial discrimination is a problem caused by racist cops, not the law. Yes, a cop can decide, between one person he is arresting an another, to go after people of a certain race. He can also be racist about who he gives tickets to and who he chooses to investigate for drugs. The problem of racial profiling, of which you have only produced a single, questionable example, by the way, lies not in the bill but in a hypothetically poor execution of it.
ReplyDeleteThen let's see a counterexample. If cops are basing their arrests on reasonable suspicion -- regardless of whether the suspect was already doing something illegal -- what other choice, under the jurisdiction of this bill, do they have than to decide based on race? If the law provides for racial discrimination under the guise of reasonable suspicion, how is the law not to be held responsible?
ReplyDeleteI'm not merely criticizing "racist cops." When the law requires probable cause for the cop to make an arrest, but the cop does so anyway without sufficient evidence, then the cop is to blame. But when the law provides for a lack of evidence, we have a bigger problem. I'm opposed to the legislation that allows for this to legally take place.
Note: In my last comment, I meant to say that when the law allows police to stop (not arrest) people based on reasonable suspicion because of race, there is a problem. When the law does not and the cop still stops someone for that, the cop is responsible. Reasonable suspicion does not warrant arrests, so my apologies for that.
ReplyDeleteI still stand by what I said, otherwise.
And that's what I said, the law doesn't allow them to stop someone just because they're Hispanic. It allows them to do background checks on anyone (not just hispanics by the way) to find out if they're legal citizens or not after they have already stopped them for breaking the law....
ReplyDeleteThe bill doesn't require racial discrimination at all, and in fact condemns it. Taken directly from the bill:
ReplyDeleteA LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.
(The subsection being referred to is for police officials to make an attempt to determine the immigration status of a person)
I've read that, and noticed that the word "solely" was included, meaning that the race factor is legally acceptable as long as it's used in conjunction with another source of reasonable suspicion (and I'm still trying to figure out what that would be besides, as Blue Rose pointed out, the criminal act that gets the person stopped).
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line, though, and what I wish to emphasize most: I'm perfectly fine with the bill as long as every American, including me, is required to prove that he or she is a citizen of the United States.