Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Nazi Arizona?

Nazi Arizona? Well, not quite. The new immigration statute in the state is however, over the top, ill-considered, and ill-conceived. When Governor Brewer signed the measure into law, she opened up Arizona law enforcement agencies to enormous public pressures and liabilities. This is a measure, after all, that is supposed to "fix" illegal immigration in the state. The law, in short, is a travesty.

So what is wrong with this state? To be blunt, nothing that isn't wrong with the rest of our nation at the moment. We have, collectively, taken leave of our senses. As a nation we have become all to comfortable giving up our hard-earned civil liberties; all we need is the Serpent in the Garden to tell us who the problem is and how to catch them. Currently, we also lack an objective media able to show us the fools we are becoming. In the last decade, some members of the media briefly (and quietly) suggested that the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act were serious violations of the 4th Amendment. The suggestion (for the point of historical context) was that elements of these two acts were reminiscent in tone and scope to the laws passed by the German parliament in the 1930's.

Those journalists who made that connection were roundly and repeatedly excoriated for their "divisive and groundless commentary". Today we have Glenn Beck lecturing on his chalkboard about the Nazi/Socialist agenda of President Obama. While Mr. Beck is roundly criticized, he continues to enjoy both platform and credibility within his audience. But while Beck points his chalk at Obama and screams about freedom (in the context of a 2.5% non-criminal tax penalty for not having health insurance for at least 9 months of the year), the 9/11 response laws and the Arizona immigration law are defended. The flamboyant Fox News host was irate at the notion that the new measure was similar to anything in Hitler's Germany, but the comparison is more than fair. If you like war movies folks, think about your favorite creepy Nazi character saying, "Where are your papers?"

Look we aren't talking here about racism....yes, I know that bigots are part of the crowd screaming about illegal immigration. But this space has previously discussed the issues on this topic, and there are more than enough to get to without worrying about ethnic prejudgements. We are discussing a terribly-conceived measure that WILL violate the civil rights of American citizens. Period! Just as in the Patriot Act and Military Commissions, it is the responsibility of Americans to match an obstacle or opportunity with a Constitutional fix. The Tea Party drove 19 states to partake in a lawsuit against the Federal Government in regards to a nearly unenforceable tax penalty that would apply to less than 5% of the population...but it is okie-dokie to mandate that a peace officer pull someone over and take them to jail if they don't have their birth certificate with them?

"Papers please". At least 30% of Arizona's legal citizens are of Hispanic origin; many have roots that go back to a time when Arizona was the property of Mexico. If you are a police officer, how do you decide if someone may be an illegal? What does an illegal look like? Do they work in Mexican restaurants? Are they maids? Are they lawyers? A California state representative suggested earlier that the clothes might be a determining factor. What clothes? Dirty clothes? Shabby clothes? I know there is a double standard, friends, when we laugh at Jeff Foxworthy after he says "...you might be a redneck. But they don't check redneck's papers for proof of citizenship either.

We all profile and prejudge...it is called instinct, and it simply involves our assumptions based on previous experience. It is human nature. The Founding Fathers understood the principle well enough to design a provision specifically to counterbalance human nature; it is called the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This provision has taken a beating lately. The 9/11 laws were explained to me as o.k. because they can't eavesdrop, intercept mail, enter your premise, take your D.N.A., or arrest you without a warrant unless you are a terrorist. How do they know you are a terrorist? How do they know you are illegal? Before Arizona, Patriot, and Commissions, law enforcement had to have something, some solid reason that would justify the intrusion. A judge could issue a warrant pursuant to the 4th Amendment if the officers had shown probable cause, or in the case of obvious and immediate cause, they could arrest on sight and demonstrate after the fact.  No longer...these laws give/require, individual officers to be both law and order.

Steps need to be taken to slow the rate of immigration into the nation to a level that the economy can absorb. Steps need to be taken to slow down or eliminate the cultural loss among current citizens and new arrivals. Steps need to be taken to improve communication between cultures and end the constant bickering. As a native born, English speaking American, I feel good about mandating that English be learned and taxes be paid. Others may want more, some will settle for less.



The Rational Middle is listening...

10 comments:

  1. Lost a whole lengthy :-( :-( comment and don't have time to re-create. Did it by any chance come through? If so, could you email to me. And obviously, kill this comment. I didn't see a place to send you an email. Hank

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry Hank...it is lost in Bloggerland. Perhaps when I execute the changeover a few weeks hence I will have a better comment format. Your profile is private so I can't reach you either. If you are on Facebook, try "The Rational Middle" page...you should be able to comment and message there as well... if you get some time this weekend, I would look forward to your comment. You typically have a sound conservative counterpoint to my posts...thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Okay. (Installed Lazarus Text Recovery for Firefox so I'm ready now.) Quickly.

    I see this as the first salvo in a huge States Rights battle. Without commenting on the propriety of this law, I see the Federal Government has abdicated it's responsibility to the states, in this particular instance, Arizona, to secure the borders and safeguard the citizenry. The State of Arizona has, in good faith, tried to fill the void by enacting a law they feel will help address the dangers.

    This can manifest into a very interesting 10th Amendment challenge the way I see it. The Federal Government has either failed to or been unable to secure the borders and insure the safety of the citizens of Arizona. For all you Constitutional Purists, I feel this is one of the specific powers enumerated to the Federal Government and they have failed in the execution miserably.

    So, along comes the state and takes action to at least attempt to address the illegal immigration problem. (Kinda like the Obama Administration "tried" to address Health Care Reform) Where I feel the Fed is overstepping and overreaching is IF, as they have seemingly announced their intentions, they try to halt the State of Arizona in a valid attempt to protect it's citizenry. What they seem to assert is they are unable to secure the border and protect Arizonans. But they are not going to allow the State of Arizona to take action to attempt to protect its citizens either.

    That makes no sense. I cannot protect you but I forbid you to attempt to protect yourself. I don't see that playing out very well.

    The "possibility" of the police abusing the authority or power is no reason to dismiss this law. Police routinely abuse their authority in traffic stops also. But is that a reason to ignore speeding, drunk driving, etc.?

    I think this is a challenge (if they go through with it) the Statists lose miserably.

    That's a start.

    Also, you made a comment on Crist over on Piperni's Dump I would like to address. Piperni has banned me which is okay. I'm not sure why any American should be too concerned with what a Radical Liberal Canadian thinks about US Politics anyway but the net effect is I can't comment there.

    Are you gonna have something to say about Crist over here? Or should I just exercise the opportunity to fire away on another comment? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hank I try to have conversations with everyone...that is just how I am wired. Mario's site seemed like a better location for that post (which speculated on a specific tactical effect), and he was gracious enough to extend an invitation to guest post. My intent for the RM is to have open conversation on relevant politics while avoiding Ad Hominem attacks (as much as possible). You are welcome to fire away on Crist or any other relevant topic in politics or sports!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Now, on your very interesting comments above Hank...I believe that your reasoning, while provocative, is basically sound. I would challenge you to take that line of thinking to its natural conclusion; who is the arbiter of whether the Federal Government has failed to execute its responsibilities under the Constitution? That this arbiter would be able to give powers to the states over the Federal Government borders on a Constitutional rewrite...but I accept your point. A Constitutional challenge is emphatically not about the Federal Government forbidding anything...it is always about the Courts executing their responsibility to ensure that the rights of the People are not infringed. The Arizona law clearly suspends due process and represents an egregious violation of the protections against unwarranted search and seizure.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I find it hard to fault AZ for attempting to do SOMETHING about immigration (sorry ILLEGAL immigration). It seems that we always seem to forget that this is not a "human rights" issue as much as it is an "illegal" issue. Legal immigration needs reform to work effectively...yes...but that is no reason to allow those that are breaking the law to continue to stay here. It is my understanding that the current law (as written) states that they (law enforcement) must have a reason for the contact in the first place before checking immigration status. That being said, it is currently up to the state to protect it's own borders since our current (and previous) administrations have failed to do so. Much like the idiotic argument that was made to pass the trillion dollar healthcare control/takeover bill "you can't just continue to do nothing and hope it will get better". It seems that both sides are stupid! Mike, the worst part about all of this (and, by the way, the reason that I can relate a bit with Mr. Beck) is that we can no longer discuss anything without being "racist haters". Everything is an "emergency" that can't wait for the bill to be read or understood. We, the public, need our government to save us from ourselves! We need to seriously step back and look at the overwhelming size and amount of control our government has and take some (reasonable) action to fix it. I do also support the 19 states that have filed suit. What business person believes that you can add more cost and restriction to a companies financial statement (healthcare companies) and not have them raise their rates? Then we work on another bill that gives us the right to refuse to allow them to raise rates...hmmmm...how long before they are out of business? Then who steps in to take that on and "fix it" for us? Sorry, just a conspiracy theory ;-}

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nice to hear from you Jeff...the premise of this space is that we can have the conversations without labeling...please see the RM from July at http://rationalmiddle.blogspot.com/2009/07/race-card.html I have also commented on the tone at this location http://rationalmiddle.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html The original intent for the structure of the Affordable Care Act (which is still in the law in principle), is to force (yes, force) the insurance industry into a low margin business model. Operating as a cartel in a premium segment only does not a market make...it is the reason for a cost acceleration that will bankrupt this nation (and has already bankrupted or rendered impotent thousands of businesses around our nation). We have discussed the politics of that issue at length here...but I believe that continuing discussion, centered on factual debate, is the principle strength of our nation. in other words...game on! I object to the lawsuit on the basis that it is first and foremost shoddy legal work. The case, rather than offering specific points of contention with Constitutional principles, is written as a talking point. I commented on the end-game of Health Reform here http://rationalmiddle.blogspot.com/2010/03/liberals-have-guns-too.html#more Anyway...welcome to the party sir!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Michael says, "The Arizona law clearly suspends due process and represents an egregious violation of the protections against unwarranted search and seizure."

    Okay. Would you care to expound on that a bit? Try not to go TOO far over my head!! :-)

    (If we get over 9 comments, can we go back to discussing sports??) ;-) ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sports is always a good thing Hank. The Arizona law mandates that person's be searched for their resident status without "oath or affirmation"...the 4th Amendment reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The law directs peace officers to search persons and papers if they "suspect that the individual is an illegal alien". If you can explain what the specific probable causes are that describe "an illegal alien" without describing legal residents, then I would like to hear it. The probable cause to stop and request licensure and insurance when someone is speeding is evident...the same goes for someone witnessed vandalizing a property. Non-witnessed crime requires police bring some concrete evidence (citizen witness, fingerprints, etc.) to get a warrant. Setting aside the rationale or reasons for writing the law, the law itself is a dangerous violation of the Constitution in that it is the literal creation of a police state in Arizona...unless you happen to be someone who is clearly not illegal. Who would that be?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Okay. Let's step away from the ideological hysteria for a moment.

    Police make routine traffic stops every day. In the process of that stop, there often arises a need to investigate further. Perhaps a suspended license, no license, unpaid fines, etc. I don't know what the statistics are and couldn't readily find it, but I KNOW many more serious crimes are solved, serious offenders are arrested as a result of what started off as a routine stop for a minor traffic violation.

    Doesn't this law work kinda the same way? And what could be the legitimate complaint?

    I'm sorry but the only way I see one should be terribly upset by this "attempt" to address a serious problem is if they are an illegal immigrant. The State of Arizona, in my opinion, has not only the right but the OBLIGATION to at least attempt to protect its law abiding citizens.

    ReplyDelete