This week we will be revisiting the Arizona immigration law. Our original article received great reader interest, and sparked a lot of passion from both sides of the argument. Link at: http://blog.thomaspaineproject.org/2010/05/02/law--order-arizona.aspx   The view taken by TPP was routinely praised and heatedly condemned. We stand by our original assessment in favor of the law, but as we do from time to time we would like to go back to address specific concerns addressed by our readership to the original article.

Once again we will lead off by quoting the "offending text" of the law:

The main points of contention among our readership that stand against this law are that it is racist, intolerant, against federal law and practice, and gives police a free pass to discriminate against Latinos or others. These points were each made by President Felipe Calderon of Mexico in a speech before the US Congress, and was met with unrestrained applause by the Democrat members attending. The Republicans did not attend in a manner befitting a spat between two five year-old children (and no offense is meant to five year-old children, most of whom show more maturity than any of our elected officials). A more fitting protest would have been for the Republicans to attend and withhold applause and standing ovations. That would have been more reflective of their view, and would have provided a visual contrast to what was portrayed in the mainstream media as unanimous support for Calderon's view.

Charges of racism and intolerance are buzzwords of reverse intolerance used by those who have not taken the time to look at the law. It is ten pages of fairly simple wording. The offending passage is listed above. It is the only part being argued against. No one has expressed any public misgivings about anything other than this passage. One would have to conclude that barring this one passage, the rest of the law (call it 98%?) is acceptable to everyone.

The offending passage specifically states that police may only inquire about immigration status if someone is stopped for some other suspected crime or infraction. During the course of the interview if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person being interviewed is likely in the country illegally, he is authorized to check immigration status.

This has prompted some to say, in a worst case scenario, that for a routine traffic violation people will be deported. Let us look at the 3 possible scenarios:

A United States citizen is stopped for a speeding violation. If he is able to produce a driver license, registration and (in most states) proof of insurance coverage, the driver is issued a citation for speeding. If he cannot produce the proper documentation ("your papers, please..."), he is in the least given additional citations and is sent off to his day in court. Depending on the driver's behavior the officer may investigate further, including a search of the vehicle and a call out for outstanding warrants. If there are additional outstanding warrants or a baggie of marijuana in the car the driver will be arrested and prosecuted for those violations as well.

A legal resident of the United States is stopped for the same infraction, and the same course of action occurs.

Under the Arizona law, should an illegal immigrant be stopped for the same infraction, the same course of action occurs as well. The only difference is that the driver would be handed over to federal authorities for prosecution and sentencing. By not being in the country legally he is subject to the penalty of deportation. This is no different than a legal resident being found with a baggie of pot being sentence to the state's penalty for that offense.

The law specifically addresses that the person questioned about his immigration status must have made contact with the police while being questioned about another crime or violation. Officers acting contrary to this provision are subject to disciplinary action.

That brings up the possibility of abuse of this law by police. Being a police officer is a job. Granted it is a job that places the person holding it in danger on occasion, but it is a job, just like any other. Most police approach their job in the same way that you approach yours. There are good days and bad days, and days when professionalism might not be your first priority. There are days that you just screw up. But in the long run, you do your job to the best of your ability to keep the paychecks coming in. Consistently not doing your job leads to disciplinary action or termination.

There are cops with attitude. We have all met them, mostly in a traffic stop. A lot of those times we are in a rush and now looking at further delay and a ticket for a few hundred dollars. It's an instant bad day. The odds are just as likely that the cop is having a bad day as well. The odds are also likely, that attitude or not, the police officer has not violated the law or police policy in the encounter. If he does, you get to bring him up on charges.

There presence of outright "bad" cops is far less. The reason that the Rodney King incident made headlines was our inability to accept such behavior as the norm in our police. As you recall, the officers in the Rodney King case were prosecuted, terminated and jailed. Mark Furman also comes to mind as the racist bad cop in the OJ Simpson case. He too was summarily out of a job and the OJ trial ended with a not guilty verdict. Bad cops do not help the cause of justice. There is an incentive for supervisors to weed them out as bad policing corrupts prosecution and invites million dollar lawsuits. "Dirty Harry" was a movie franchise, not reality - and he was the good guy in those movies.

With racism and police abuse already argued, we must look at Arizona's infringement of federal turf and policy. The Arizona law was crafted by a team of highly respected lawyers and legislators (yes, there are some left). They took the existing federal statute and federal policy regulations on implementing the law, and constructed the Arizona law within the framework of and mirroring the federal law. In essence, the Arizona panel took existing federal law, and added some protections to address civil rights concerns that they anticipated becoming an issue. Should the Obama administration wish to challenge the law, they are really challenging the federal statute. Arizona is confident that the state law will pass muster in Federal Court.

According to the Constitution (amendments 9 & 10) federal law only trumps local law when the federal law has a higher standing with regard to constitutional protections than the state law. In this case, the Arizona law was deliberatly crafted to a higher constitutional standard than the federal law.

The only real recourse that the Obama administration has is to repeal the federal law, which would then require it's replacement. The administration and congress have provided lip service to immigration reform, but neither has shown any courage of conviction in attempting to address the issue.

Common Sense Dictates

Illegal immigration is a hot button issue for many stakeholders. The political and economic games are trumping any common sense solution. The Democrats see the illegal population, generally living in poverty, as future potential voters dependent on social programs promoted by them. The Republicans ignore the issue as a source of cheap labor for the benefit of special interest groups ranging from agri-business to construction and the service sector. Unions see future dues paying members in a waning movement. The Catholic Church has invoked sanctuary as a way to draw the primarily catholic Mexican illegal population back into a dwindling membership disillusioned by scandal. In all of these cases the illegal immigrant is merely a useful pawn to the group "protecting" him.

Arizona is caught in the middle. The problem of illegal immigration is spreading in costs of tax dollars, increases in violent crime, and an inability of the federal government to act responsibly to alleviate the situation. This law does not round up Mexican-looking people and ship them back over the border. It takes those who were determined to not have legal status in the country, after drawing police attention for another illegal activity, and turns the responsibility for prosecution and sentencing over to the federal government. This shifts the cost of the prosecutions and punishment over to the federal government, which is claiming ultimate authority in this matter. Arizona by this law not only accepts that premise, but is pro-active in requiring the federal government to act on it's own law.

Ultimately, Arizona is enforcing federal law as a state matter. This is within their authority under the Constitution of the United States as well as the Arizona Constitution., and is indeed their responsibility to enforce. The controversy does not call into question an Arizona statute. It calls into question the problem of illegal immigration and the ineffectiveness of the federal government to provide a reasonable remedy acceptable to the population of the United States. TPP stands in it's support of Arizona as a matter of Common Sense.

RLB