Arizona and Immigration

As is well known by now, the state of Arizona has enacted a very tough and controversial immigration law. Unfortunately for all involved, nobody seems able to set aside the partisan junk ball long enough to really look at what this law means.

Politicians have drawn predictable partisan lines. Obama has already criticized it without offering help to Arizona. In fact he has asked the Justice Department to expend resources to look for illegality in the law. That is stupid. Tell the Justice Department to prosecute and deport the illegal immigrants, not launch a politically charged investigation. Even the Catholic Church in the person of Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles has weighed in with their own inflammatory language, calling it Nazi-like.

Before I start, it is important to acknowledge that Arizona has become the virtual epicenter for illegal immigration and seen its crime rate skyrocket. The people of Arizona have been pleading with the federal government for several years to help. None has been forthcoming. That is not the fault of any single administration, although one US Senator from Arizona's unreasonable anti-earmark stance may have cost the state. That, however, is not the point here.

One note - I will not use the term "undocumented alien." The correct term is illegal immigrant. The politically correct habit of softening the words is pointless.

Let's break the law down into its main components:

1) Illegal immigration is now a crime in Arizona, punishable in state court.

2) All immigrants are now required to carry documentation with them at all times. Failure to do so is now a misdemeanor.

3) Local and state law enforcement officers are now required to detain and verify immigration status where a reasonable suspicion (probable cause) exists that they are illegal immigrants.

4) Citizens are now entitled to sue local, state and federal law enforcement agencies if they feel the police are not adequately enforcing immigration law.

Before we look at each of the above, I have to react to the preemptive charges of profiling being leveled at Arizona state and local law enforcement officers by the political spitballers. These charges and accusations are simply offensive to the Arizona law enforcement community. Until there is evidence of profiling, accusing police of doing so is in fact (and ironically) profiling of a different type. The law enforcement officers in the state of Arizona are professional and dedicated. Accusing them of other behavior before it happens with no evidence is wrong and offensive to the very people sworn to protect all.

Similarly, the racism, Nazism and such charges are not even mildly helpful and only serve to further inflame an already hot topic.

Let's look at this law:

1) Illegal immigration is now a crime in Arizona, punishable in state court.

This is not really a problem at the Constitutional level. Many federal laws are repeated or enhanced by the states. Gun laws are a good example. New York State requires far more than just a federal background check to buy a firearm. The question here is what will Arizona do with those it arrests. They do not have the authority to deport an individual. That is reserved to the federal government by the Constitution. They can only incarcerate them or turn them over to the federal authorities. And, since the federal government has pretty much shown it cannot handle the situation adequately, that will leave Arizona to make some tough decisions. However, under the 10th Amendment, they get to make that decision.

2) All immigrants are now required to carry documentation with them at all times. Failure to do so is now a misdemeanor.

Again, an extension of federal immigration law, which requires all legal aliens to have their ID card on them and produce it on request by appropriate authorities. The issue here is for actual US citizens who cannot be required to carry ID. In this case, we have to trust the professionalism of local law enforcement. If (and I mean if) there are reported and documented abuses, then there is something to talk about. Cardinal Mahoney's unfortunate declaration on this subject is not only wrong, but somewhat ironic coming from an organization that routinely casts out those it does not like with zero due process and no chance of appeal. Perhaps the Cardinal's words could also be applied to the Church's refusal to give Communion to those it has political disagreements with.

3) Local and state law enforcement officers are now required to detain and verify immigration status where a reasonable suspicion (probable cause) exists that they are illegal immigrants.

This one is where the professionalism of law enforcement counts the most. Pretty much every officer knows what probable cause means. What has been bandied about are the unfortunate statements of goofball politicians talking about attire and appearance or the stupid declarations of those like Cardinal Mahoney. Well, those politicians, prelates and pundits are not sworn officers and will not have the burden of enforcement. This requirement is no different than the requirement to stop and examine suspected drunk drivers. Again, until proof exists of profiling or other abuses, one has to assume the professionalism of local law enforcement.

4) Citizens are now entitled to sue local, state and federal law enforcement agencies if they feel the police are not adequately enforcing immigration law.

This one is troubling. Established law clearly does not allow suing law enforcement for crimes not prevented. In fact, law enforcement is indemnified - and with good cause - from such legal actions. Allowing lawsuits for a perceived lack of enforcement not only creates a whole new genre of junk litigation, but will also consume untold millions of dollars from already stretched budgets. Allowing people to sue because they feel the police are not preventing crimes or adequately enforcing laws is a very dangerous and counterproductive precedent. In case nobody has noticed, our law enforcement agencies - especially at the local level - are already tasked with more than they can handle. Adding this threat of litigation harms their ability to act in accordance with all of the laws. In effect, this last bit would tend to cause local law enforcement to put this law first, just to avoid the lawsuits.

When all is said and done, the Constitutionality of this law is sure to land at the Supreme Court. Until then, it might be better to understand that the people of Arizona elected that legislature and governor and demanded action. The people of Arizona are the only ones that can change the legislature and governor. It is to the people of Arizona that the legislature is responsible. Not to me in Florida or Obama in DC or Mahoney in California. Not to the pundits in New York or the gadflies everywhere.

I would also add that I am a regular visitor to the Phoenix area and can only say good things about the state and its people. I cannot recall a single negative incident or encounter with local law enforcement. It is a very nice place filled with largely quality folks.

The fact that this law passed in the heat of a very hotly contested US Senate campaign is one to note, but that does not take away Arizona's rights under the 10th Amendment. To repeat a point from the top, the good people of the state of Arizona have been begging for help from the federal government with no response. So they turned to their state government for help. And they have gotten it. Whether it is what they wanted is up to them.

Before the rest of the nation starts the flaming spitball fight, it would serve us all to take a deep breath and see how the law is actually put into effect. At the very least, it is unfair to the good people of Arizona to make them the latest object to be used in the ever more disgusting partisan game. As the blog title says, it is not a game. It is governance.

And in this case, the governance of Arizona by Arizonans.