![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
One of the comments to a recent entry brought up the new Arizona immigration law - the way to approach it, the political polarization around it, and the dangers of just falling into the shouting on one side or the other. I realized as I framed my response that it was going to be long and involved. So I decided to write it up as a new entry rather than as a direct comment reply.
Before I get to that, though, here's a story about the Stop (Glenn) Beck effort.
In case you're not familiar with it, Arizona recently passed a law (SB1070) concerning illegal immigrants. The law states that the police have not only the right but the duty to stop anyone whom they believe is "reasonably suspicious" and ask to see some form of ID/documentation that proves they're there legally. If the person does not have such documentation with them, the police are to take him or her to a holding cell until legal status can be verified. Even if legal status is proven, the person will be subject to a fine (to pay for the expense and trouble of carting them off to jail, etc.). The law specifically states that race is not to be a determining factor (originally, it said not the "sole" factor, but the language was changed in response to protests). The illegal immigrants in the area are, of course, coming from Mexico, so the objective fact is that they're almost entirely Latino/Hispanic.
The argument for the law, as I understand it, is as follows:
Illegal immigration is a crime. It hurts the country. Illegals take jobs, don't pay income taxes, avail themselves of public services, subvert the controlled influx, etc. Federal law states that legal immigrants must carry their papers. This law just reinforces that. A high proportion of illegals come through Arizona, and federal enforcement hasn't been doing enough to control the problem. Empowering local law enforcement to help significantly tightens the net.
Many opposed to the law have taken to simply shouting that it's racist, that it codifies racial profiling. They liken it to the cliche of Nazi officers always demanding to see people's papers. This has caused proponents of the law to... dig in their heels, point to the language which says that it's not to be based on race, and dismiss protesters as ill-informed extremists falling prey to groupthink and pundit rhetoric. It's not adding to the dialog, but rather increasing polarization over the issue.
Better arguments come from some of the local sheriffs who would be in charge of enforcing the law. Many of them are against it. They say that their resources are already strained and this additional enforcement burden will simply cost too much. It also puts officers in a tight position - enforcing the law could lead to a lot of expensive lawsuits from people who claim discrimination and harassment, but the law also has a provision which says that the citizenry can sue the police if they feel that the law is not being enforced with due diligence. Those lawsuits will be very difficult, too, since the law does not state what criteria the police should use to determine suspicion, no one has been able to come up with a satisfactory answer of what does constitute suspicion, and the police aren't trained to make that sort of determination. Furthermore, enforcement will, profiling or not, increase tensions between the police and minority communities, making it much more difficult for the police to carry out their jobs in other respects.
Furthermore, there's a difference between the (very seldomly invoked) federal provision requiring people to carry their visas, green cards, etc. and this law requiring local police to stop people and ask to see their documentation. It's the difference between it being illegal to drive without your license handy and having police pull people over just to make sure. There's also the difference between a police officer stopping someone observed to be committing a federal crime and tasking local police with actively enforcing federal law (which is not their job).
Another problem is the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from illegal search and seizure. The police can't enter your home without a warrant or probable cause (i.e. hearing gunshots from inside - strong evidence of an immediate call to action). The same sort of protections apply to your physical person - they can't just walk up and demand to see what's in your pockets. (To get around this provision, police often claim that the suspect "dropped" the items found on his/her person.) If you're a citizen, a police officer coming up to ask to see your identification is a very dicey prospect. To help walk that very fine line, SB1070 says that a citizen approached under this law can simply claim citizenship and decline to show ID. Which makes a very big, easily exploited loophole.
It's a bad law. But it's trying to address a real problem. A wide variety of federal officials (including the president and congressional leaders) agree that federal enforcement has been ineffective and is in need of comprehensive reform, but the political difficulty of doing so has consistently put off attempts to do so. The way to argue against it is not to whip up a torch-bearing mob shouting that it's racist and Nazi-like. The boycotts may be better (though, again, they seem to be making the people who put the law into place dig their heels in even further... but it's serious economic and popular pressure, which may just force them to back down). But, individually, I think the best thing to do is to understand the other side first, try to see their side of things, and then debate them with reason and respect.
Before I get to that, though, here's a story about the Stop (Glenn) Beck effort.
In case you're not familiar with it, Arizona recently passed a law (SB1070) concerning illegal immigrants. The law states that the police have not only the right but the duty to stop anyone whom they believe is "reasonably suspicious" and ask to see some form of ID/documentation that proves they're there legally. If the person does not have such documentation with them, the police are to take him or her to a holding cell until legal status can be verified. Even if legal status is proven, the person will be subject to a fine (to pay for the expense and trouble of carting them off to jail, etc.). The law specifically states that race is not to be a determining factor (originally, it said not the "sole" factor, but the language was changed in response to protests). The illegal immigrants in the area are, of course, coming from Mexico, so the objective fact is that they're almost entirely Latino/Hispanic.
The argument for the law, as I understand it, is as follows:
Illegal immigration is a crime. It hurts the country. Illegals take jobs, don't pay income taxes, avail themselves of public services, subvert the controlled influx, etc. Federal law states that legal immigrants must carry their papers. This law just reinforces that. A high proportion of illegals come through Arizona, and federal enforcement hasn't been doing enough to control the problem. Empowering local law enforcement to help significantly tightens the net.
Many opposed to the law have taken to simply shouting that it's racist, that it codifies racial profiling. They liken it to the cliche of Nazi officers always demanding to see people's papers. This has caused proponents of the law to... dig in their heels, point to the language which says that it's not to be based on race, and dismiss protesters as ill-informed extremists falling prey to groupthink and pundit rhetoric. It's not adding to the dialog, but rather increasing polarization over the issue.
Better arguments come from some of the local sheriffs who would be in charge of enforcing the law. Many of them are against it. They say that their resources are already strained and this additional enforcement burden will simply cost too much. It also puts officers in a tight position - enforcing the law could lead to a lot of expensive lawsuits from people who claim discrimination and harassment, but the law also has a provision which says that the citizenry can sue the police if they feel that the law is not being enforced with due diligence. Those lawsuits will be very difficult, too, since the law does not state what criteria the police should use to determine suspicion, no one has been able to come up with a satisfactory answer of what does constitute suspicion, and the police aren't trained to make that sort of determination. Furthermore, enforcement will, profiling or not, increase tensions between the police and minority communities, making it much more difficult for the police to carry out their jobs in other respects.
Furthermore, there's a difference between the (very seldomly invoked) federal provision requiring people to carry their visas, green cards, etc. and this law requiring local police to stop people and ask to see their documentation. It's the difference between it being illegal to drive without your license handy and having police pull people over just to make sure. There's also the difference between a police officer stopping someone observed to be committing a federal crime and tasking local police with actively enforcing federal law (which is not their job).
Another problem is the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from illegal search and seizure. The police can't enter your home without a warrant or probable cause (i.e. hearing gunshots from inside - strong evidence of an immediate call to action). The same sort of protections apply to your physical person - they can't just walk up and demand to see what's in your pockets. (To get around this provision, police often claim that the suspect "dropped" the items found on his/her person.) If you're a citizen, a police officer coming up to ask to see your identification is a very dicey prospect. To help walk that very fine line, SB1070 says that a citizen approached under this law can simply claim citizenship and decline to show ID. Which makes a very big, easily exploited loophole.
It's a bad law. But it's trying to address a real problem. A wide variety of federal officials (including the president and congressional leaders) agree that federal enforcement has been ineffective and is in need of comprehensive reform, but the political difficulty of doing so has consistently put off attempts to do so. The way to argue against it is not to whip up a torch-bearing mob shouting that it's racist and Nazi-like. The boycotts may be better (though, again, they seem to be making the people who put the law into place dig their heels in even further... but it's serious economic and popular pressure, which may just force them to back down). But, individually, I think the best thing to do is to understand the other side first, try to see their side of things, and then debate them with reason and respect.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
I'm silently both cheering and disappointed in the Arizona boycotts. I agree with them. And I dearly hope they work in making Brewer back down or, at least, thoroughly amend the law. I'm scared, though, what the boycotts will do to our already struggling state budget.
I hope something comes of Brewer's meeting with Obama today.
From:
no subject
One side says that's racist. The other side says it's realism. That you shouldn't handcuff the police* just because the people breaking a certain law are all from a certain race.
It's still wrong, but you have to tell them that in terms they'll understand.
*Er, so to speak.
From:
no subject
Anyway, I hope it all works out for the best.
From:
no subject