Arizona’s Immigration Law: Consequences and Reactions

The immigration debate has taken an ugly turn with the national media and liberal politicians demagoguing the issue.  We have seen tempers flare after the misguided efforts of a California high school to ban the American flag on Cinco de Mayo.   We have seen outspoken and sometimes violent displays by pro illegal-immigration supporters and their open border allies.  In turbulent times, a country looks to their leaders for a calming influence.  This is where our leaders have let us down.

Rather than address a problem that exists in the nation, rather than engage Arizona in a dialogue and look for a solution, the Administration has chosen instead to fan the flames of discontent among various racial groups. The bill in Arizona that is principally about the rule of law has been misrepresented as a racial attack against one of the pillars in America’s multi-cultural society.  Mexican-Americans have contributed vastly to the wealth and history of our nation, and for the Administration to intentionally drive a racial wedge into society is reprehensible.  It is a disservice to the Hispanic culture.

There is a concerted effort underway by the Administration to rewrite the Arizona law through the media.  If the Arizona law truly was written and intentioned in the manner that it is portrayed in the media and the Oval Office, I too would be up in arms.  The angst felt by a segment of the population , is understandable, being that they are constantly being fed misinformation by the government and media.  Rather than engaging in any constructive manner to provide either a solution or, at the least, a calming influence to mounting tensions, the Administration has instead chosen to pit Americans against Americans.

And to what end do our leaders pit one group against another if not to drive a racial wedge through our society?  It was a sincere hope of many on both sides of the aisle that one result of Obama’s historic election would be the healing of racial wounds.  Instead we have seen allegation upon allegation of racism.

On a recent visit to Southern Arizona, I passed through a border patrol checkpoint (for about the hundredth time) and noticed a car pulled over.  Presumably this car was detained because either the appearance or the actions of the occupants raised a suspicion that they were in the country illegally.  The law used to support this action is virtually the same as the law adopted by Arizona.  The difference is that the border patrol officers under Obama’s justice department do not have to intercede the undocumented in the commission of another crime, they can simply profile each car.  Since the Administration and the media have not been up in arms about the Border Patrol, it must not be the actual law that is inherently racist.  No, it must be the entire law enforcement community of Arizona.  Not unlike the misguided allegations that the President levied at Cambridge police, he has once again sought to disparage law enforcement professionals.  This may take a beer summit the likes of which would make an Arizona State University graduate proud.

The strategy seized upon by the Administration is to convince the nation that the Arizona law is something that it is not; to change the law in the eyes of the people.  What has taken place over the past two weeks is  something akin to a national game of “telephone” — you remember the game you played as a child, where a message was started around a group of kids and by the time it reached the sender it had completely changed.  It may have started as a media report stating, “Arizona intends to pass a law which allows the police to question the immigration status of persons they suspect to be in the country illegally.”  However,  by the time it reached a head you had people like Al Sharpton in Phoenix last week making a statement like, “You’re looking for people that you feel might reasonably may look like someone Mexican or Latino, that is racial profiling.”

The Arizona law specifically prohibits racial profiling, so what would lead a rational person to distort the law in this manner?  From the national game of “telephone,” in which our leaders are engaged, here are a few more quotes.  The stirring of a racial divide comes directly from the top of our government.

“The answer isn’t to undermine fundamental principles that define us as a nation.  We can’t start singling out people because of who they look like or how they talk or how they dress.”  -Barack Obama

“Now, suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream you’re going to be harassed.  That’s something that could potentially happen.  That’s not the right way to go.” -Barack Obama

“Arizona is not only misguided, it is unconstitutional.  It requires all law enforcement officers to stop anyone suspected of being in our country illegally.” -Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor of Los Angeles

Hillary Clinton, when asked about the Arizona bill, stated, “[The law] is written so broadly that if you were visiting in Arizona and you had an accent and you were a citizen from you know my state of New York you could be subjected to the kind of inquiry that this law permits.”  Asked if she thinks the law is includes racial profiling Ms. Clinton commented “I do not think there is any doubt about that.”

I am hard pressed to find another incident of public officials who were so vocal about not enforcing rules that they are sworn to uphold.  The entire argument against the Arizona bill seems to be directed toward the assumption that law enforcement will abuse their power and wantonly harass anybody who looks Hispanic.  This argument fails when applied across the board.  If our leaders are against immigration laws because of the potential for abuse, why do we not remove prostitution laws from the books?  After all, the potential exists under prostitution laws that any young lady can be harassed by law enforcement while she is walking home from school.  Why do we not remove loitering laws from our books, or trespassing laws, for that matter?  Are not these laws subject to abuse; can’t a teenager at the mall be subject to harassment by the police for hanging out too long?

Consider another big story from last week, that of Steve Consalvi, a 17-year-old Philadelphia Phillies baseball fan, who was tazered at a game after running out on the field.  What crime had this child committed that resulted in his harsh treatment?  He trespassed; the same misdemeanor with which an illegal immigrant in Arizona would be charged.  Young Consalvi had, after all, violated a border.  His treatment was a little rough, but I did not hear anyone say that he should not have been removed from the field.  To a 17-year-old boy trapped on the other side of the playing field border, life in the big leagues must be very appealing: fame, fortune, etc.  Yet I have heard no one say that this kid was just trying to get a little fame for himself and should have been allowed to maybe enjoy his hot dog and Coke while sitting in the infield.   Nobody suggested that he should have been escorted into the dugout to sit with the players.  No, he was removed from the field for the simple offense of striving to have a better life.

This example sounds ridiculous, but where would we be in any facet of society without borders, without fences, without rules; and where would we be without people to enforce those rules?  Yes, the potential for abuse lurks everywhere, including at Phillies games, and it is the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies to provide training and discipline to their officers.  I would expect that cops who abuse SB1070 would be treated in the same manner as any other officer who abuses the trust of the public.  If they are not, it is the responsibility of the media and politicians to bring those abuses to light.  But to choose to ignore a crime wave because of the potential for abuse is contrary to the principles of a society based on the rule of law.  And to use the presumption and accusation of racism to divide the electorate will never serve the interests of our country.

A Tale of Two Cities

Unfortunately, the racial dividers have effectively hijacked any constructive debate on the issue of immigration.  And there is a piece of the immigration puzzle that would add to the debate, especially at the national level;  that is a discussion that separates immigrants from the immigrant trade.  That is, it separates destination cities such as San Francisco from transportation cities such as Phoenix.  The realities of the effects of immigration are drastically different in each location.  Phoenix has not only hard working immigrants that are contributing to society and have become neighbors and friends; Phoenix is also a hub for the transport of human labor to other cities such as San Francisco.  The criminal portion of illegal immigration is left out of the debate in the media.

There are unintended consequences of the supply of labor to a city like San Francisco, and those consequences are exactly what we deal with in Arizona.  We don’t just have some people walking across the border.  Criminal organizations have found a way to profit off the trade of bringing humans across our border.  In doing so they often rape their charges, they frequently kidnap and ransom them to their families in Mexico, and they occasionally murder one or two as an example to others.

Though I do not agree with San Francisco‘s threatened boycott, I can see why they took such offense.  The knee-jerk emotional response, if you are solely  in contact with illegal immigrants who are working for a living and contributing to society, is to pull for the underdog.  Being removed from the human suffering side of the equation affords the folks in San Francisco the luxury of turning a blind eye to the murders and abuses suffered by illegal immigrants on their journey north.  The good citizens of San Francisco are end users, the recipients of cheap and exploitable labor.

The  roles of San Francisco and Phoenix go hand in hand.  By taking the actions they do, San Francisco can not but contribute to the problems in Phoenix.  When I look to my gut I am confronted with the same knee-jerk reaction of San Francisco, that we must help the illegal immigrants.  But more troubling is the pit-of-stomach moral issue of allowing the brutality of the immigrant smugglers to go unchallenged.  This is an easy moral call when the initial emotional reaction has passed and the realities of the trade in illegal immigration come to light.  Trafficking in humans is wrong, and the manner in which it has manifested into big business in Arizona is reprehensible.

More reading on the subject of the Media and Arizona’s immigration law.  From The Media Research Center: Elitist Networks Pile On Against Arizona Immigration Law

http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/realitycheck/2010/20100506042624.aspx