[Psudo]

The unholy mess that is the immigration issue has reared it's head once again. Arizona has passed a new law called SB 1070, (full text [16 pages, pdf], summary [4 pages, HTML]) allowing police officers to check the immigration status of people whom they arrest, question, pull over, or have other official contact, including (quite provocatively) checking their immigration papers.

The intertubes are clogged with opposition to the bill, using phrases like "racial profiling" [1], "discriminatory" [2], and invoking similarities to "Nazi Germany and the Jim Crow South" [3]. Even conservatives seem to think it's borderline police statism; the phrase "asking for your papers" draws an obvious parallel between this law and Nazi Germany.

But some sources say the common portrayal is a radical distortion of the bill's actual content. This editorial, for example, points out that racial profiling is explicitly banned in the bill's text, that the Arizona requirement for immigrants to keep their ID on their person is already mandated by federal law, and that the law does not allow fishing expositions for illegal immigrants - the police have to have legally detained the individual already before they can even consider whether to ask for proof of legality (such as a Driver's License or State ID card for non-drivers). Based on these limitations, the City Journal article concludes "The Arizona law is not about race; it’s not an attack on Latinos or legal immigrants. It’s about one thing and one thing only: making immigration enforcement a reality."

I ask you, CKA readers, to read the bill (or the summary), some of the criticisms, and the City Journal defense and tell me who you think is right. I have an opinion, but I'm saving it a day or two so it won't bias readers' initial reactions.

[Pseudonym]

Other threads with reactions to the Arizona immigration law:
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/current-events-f59/ariz-immigration-bill-challenged-in-lawsuits-t88979.html
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/current-events-f59/texas-gov-arizona-immigration-law-not-right-for-texas-t89006.html

[BartSimpson]

What I think is that some people are perfectly fine having one set of rules for illegal immigrants from Mexico entering the USA (and Canada?) and a whole different set of rules for everyone else.

[JJ]

Whenever a particularly controversial piece of legislation is passed, it seems a common defense from its supporters is the claim that the new bill doesn't actually change anything in any meaningful way, and the clauses everyone is most hung-up merely reiterate policies that are already on the books in some form. That certainly seems to be the case with the Arizona bill.

But it then begs the question why was the bill passed in the first place, if the changes are so minimal. And it seems to me that in the case of the Arizona bill, the Republican party wanted to make a firm anti-illegal statement in some form. And pro-illegal sentiment is big in the Latino community, and anti-Latino sentiment is not an irrelevant component of the Republican voting base. So I don't think any of the reactions to the new law are necessarily "wrong" in any serious way, they just reflect sensible reactions to the present political reality.

[Psudo]

In this particular case, it seemed to me that the defense of the bill was not a universal mitigation argument but rather a description of all but a single aspect of the law as status quo. "This is the same, that is the same, but now state police can enforce immigration law where before they could not."

That being the case, I don't see how there remains a blatantly unanswered question as to why the bill was passed in the first place. I agree that Arizona legislature (which is split exactly 60/40 Republicans/Democrats in both assemblies) wanted to make a political statement about illegal immigration, but I think they also wanted that particular, substantial change to the law as well.

There is obviously spin and predictable positioning on both sides (as there always is), but there is a substantial legal change as well. I think your comment, JJ, disregards the substance of the issue in order to study the nature of people's political reactions. In my view, you're preferring an airy and nebulous topic of dubious practical relevance over the deep, somber relevance of the law and it's effects on people. That choice makes no sense to me. Can you explain that to me?

[BartSimpson]

JJ wrote:

Whenever a particularly controversial piece of legislation is passed, it seems a common defense from its supporters is the claim that the new bill doesn't actually change anything in any meaningful way, and the clauses everyone is most hung-up merely reiterate policies that are already on the books in some form. That certainly seems to be the case with the Arizona bill.

But it then begs the question why was the bill passed in the first place, if the changes are so minimal. And it seems to me that in the case of the Arizona bill, the Republican party wanted to make a firm anti-illegal statement in some form. And pro-illegal sentiment is big in the Latino community, and anti-Latino sentiment is not an irrelevant component of the Republican voting base. So I don't think any of the reactions to the new law are necessarily "wrong" in any serious way, they just reflect sensible reactions to the present political reality.

This is where the cry of "racism" comes in, but the racism is on the part of the Latinos who support illegal immigration from Mexico...but not from anywhere else.

They support "La Raza" - which means, "The Race". And part of that support means they support "La Reconquista" and when you get into the language they use it is pretty foul.

www.aztlan.net/

[JJ]

Psudo wrote:

There is obviously spin and predictable positioning on both sides (as there always is), but there is a substantial legal change as well. I think your comment, JJ, disregards the substance of the issue in order to study the nature of people's political reactions. In my view, you're preferring an airy and nebulous topic of dubious practical relevance over the deep, somber relevance of the law and it's effects on people. That choice makes no sense to me. Can you explain that to me?

I might be a bit more cynical about the political process, but I do tend to analyze a lot of legislation primarily through its apparent partisan/political motivations, rather than the practical ends it supposedly hopes to achieve.

I do believe this Arizona bill is a "culture war" sort of thing first and foremost, rather than a legitimate law-and-order initiative. The practical consequences of the law on the citizenry are obviously very important, but:
a) if the practical changes to the status quo presented by the new law are minimal, as many supporters allege,
or b) if the new law is unenforceable and unconstitutional, as opponents allege,
then either way it's ultimately a bill that can only be analyzed in a fairly shallow, political way.

[BartSimpson]

JJ wrote:

then either way it's ultimately a bill that can only be analyzed in a fairly shallow, political way.

I'm so sorry, but what in hell is wrong with Americans wanting to control immigration into our country just the same as, oh, say for instance CANADA does?

[JJ]

There's nothing wrong at all! I never made that argument.

[Psudo]

JJ wrote:

I do tend to analyze a lot of legislation primarily through its apparent partisan/political motivations, rather than the practical ends it supposedly hopes to achieve.

If everyone shared that approach, what could politicians/politics ever hope to accomplish? Treating political efforts as important by definition and shallowly respondent to the nature of political reality ensures that the only true force in politics is a kind of cultural entropy inevitably dragging culture into uniformity and malaise.

I can't concede to that. I have to believe that the driving socio-political force, behind all the partisanship and spin, is the capable human drive to achieve.

JJ wrote:

a) if the practical changes to the status quo presented by the new law are minimal, as many supporters allege,
or b) if the new law is unenforceable and unconstitutional, as opponents allege,
then either way it's ultimately a bill that can only be analyzed in a fairly shallow, political way.

Do you personally believe either of those conditions are true?

[JJ]

Probably more the former. I do think that by now, especially with the passage of a subsequent "watering down" bill, this new law probably doesn't change the illegal immigration status quo in any substantial way. I mean, we give immigrants legal citizenship documents for a reason, not just as personal keepsakes. It's a bit silly to act all aghast when law enforcement asks to see them once in a while.

[Pseudonym]

I imagine that the slightest sign of change in any hot button issue like immigration would draw intense reactions from both sides, most particularly if that small change could be seen as a portent of things to come.

However, I don't believe the bill's supporters should defend it as "only a small change" or as no real change at all. Requiring state officers to do something, even if the federal officers are already required to do the same thing, can amount to a potentially enormous change in responsibility. The bill's defense should focus more on how the bill helps to fix Arizona's immigration woes than how nicely it copies the federal statutes.

[Psudo]

Amen, Pseudonym.

I have very faint misgivings about how effective a law that says "Do not decide to investigate based on race, accent, or national origin." can actually be. You can't legislate morality, as they say. But otherwise, I completely agree with Pseudonym's praise of the bill. It's quite popular in Arizona, seemingly because it is well-designed to confront their state's actual problems.

I don't share JJ's doubts about it's substance or relevance, though I admit it might push illegal immigration to other states in much the same way that California's border wall did. That's inherent to the nature of state immigration laws; they can't address the national border as a whole.

I would like to see a larger-scale, federal-level fix, something that makes legal immigration far easier while cracking down on drug trafficking, but this seems to be a substantial step forward for Arizona at least.

[ShepherdsDog]

They aren't violating the Constitution or thany laws, federal or state.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

So wait, from what I understand, the only REAL change to this is State police have the authority, and a mandate, to check citizenship. A police force that comes in FAR more contact with the average Jose than say, the feebs.
So making the process potentially more efficient is a bad thing?
Or is the fear that every Latino is going to be constantly stopped by police and checked for ID?