Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Why I Can't Support Arizona's Immigration Bill

I came to this debate with an open mind as many individuals with whom I share principles and values support Arizona's immigration bill that was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer last Friday. After having heard their arguments however I cannot help but detect intellectual inconsistency at best and intellectual dishonesty at worst.

Here are the basic controversial tenets of the bill:
  • Would require police to attempt to determine the immigration status of any person they encounter as a part of a "lawful contact"
  • Allows police to arrest undocumented immigrants and charge them with trespass
  • Outlaws the hiring of day laborers
  • Prohibits anyone from transporting undocumented immigrants for any purpose
  • Allows police officers to conduct warrantless arrests (and searches) of anyone who immediately cannot produce documents proving their legal status
  • Provides a private right of action for citizens of Arizona to sue law enforcement officers if the resident believes the officer is not enforcing immigration laws (frivolous lawsuit alert)
Proponents begin by arguing that border violence has gotten so out of control that it presents a clear and present danger requiring immediate action by the State to fill the void left by the federal government's malpractice. To give this defense a face, you will hear about the tragic murder of a rancher by the name of Robert Krenz, killed at the hands of illegal immigrants involved in drug cartels. While this is angering, frustrating, and senseless, the facts on border violence are not as stark. The Cato Institute reported yesterday that violent crime in Arizona is actually at its lowest level in 40 years:
The Crime rate in Arizona in 2008 was the lowest it has been in four decades. In the past decade, as the number of illegal immigrants in the state grew rapidly, the violent crime rate dropped by 23%, the property crime rate by 28%.

If that is true, what is the rush to enact such draconian measures through state law? During the Obamacare debate, conservatives were frustrated by President Obama's constant invocation of "personal stories" to sell his legislation. While sad, conservatives would say, these stories are not necessarily representative of the group as a whole and do not, alone, constitute a defense of the policies. Seems like conservative supporters of Arizona's legislation have that same problem here too.

Other arguments include the proposition that we must do something and opponents of the law just want to stand by and watch as violence engulfs our border states. Well this "something is better than nothing" argument may sound familiar. This is because it is the same argument that Democrats and liberals used against opponents of healthcare reform. Ironically, the argument that was made by opponents of Obamacare (many of which are now in favor of the Arizona law) was that this was a flawed type of logic known as "false dilemma": being against Obamacare did not equal being against health care reform; you must allow for the option of being in favor of different reforms. How can they now use the same argument they fought against during the health care debate as support for this legislation?

A wholly insufficient analogy has been offered, perhaps in jest, by Jim Geraghty of National Review via his Twitter page:
I can't believe that under Arizona's new law, any bartender can ask you for your ID before he serves you alcoholic beverages.

Jim seems to be arguing that American's believe that it is acceptable to require ID in certain other situations, and that the Arizona law is no different. The major distinction however is that you can decide not to drink, but Arizona's law requires you to provide ID just for being alive and in their state. Sound familiar? Perhaps you remember liberals during the healthcare debate arguing that a health insurance mandate was okay because people are required by law to carry automobile insurance. The conservative retort? Well, here's Geraghty again on that issue:

That argument doesn't hold water. As they constantly told us in
drivers' ed class, driving is a privilege not a right. If you don't want
to pay for car insurance, you can take a taxi, public transportation, walk,
etc. You only need an insurance policy to legally drive a vehicle.
You can "opt out" by choosing not to exercise that privilege.

But in...any national individual mandate plan there is no "opt
out.".....basically you need to have health insurance to ensure your right to
breathe.

Once again, the same formal logic, tranferred from one issue to the other. I agree with Geraghty on the insurance mandate reasoning and I agree with the same line of reasoning against this Arizona immigration law. Geraghty can't have it both ways.


Michelle Malkin proposes, as an alternative argument, that we take a look at Mexico's immigration laws:

The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics." Hows that for racial and ethnic profiling......

...Ready to show your papers? Mexico's National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens' identity card. Visitors that do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrests as illegal aliens.


Gosh, Michelle, you are right. Those laws sound pretty ugly. What is your point? She goes on:
Arizona has nothing on Mexico when it comes to cracking down on illegal aliens. While open border activists decry new enforcement measures signed into law in "Nazi-zona" last week, they remain deaf, dumb, or willfully blind to the unapologetically restictionist policies of our neighbors to the south.....

.....Mexico is doing the job Arizona is now doing -- a job the federal government has failed miserably to do: putting its people first. Here's the proper rejoinder to all the hysterical demagogues in Mexico (and their sympathizers here on American soil) now calling for boycotts and invoking Jim Crow laws, apartheid and the Holocaust because Arizona has taken its sovereignty into their own hands: Hipocritas.


So, since Arizona's laws aren't as bad as Mexico's laws, we should accept them? Not only does this not address the reasonable questions regarding the Arizona's laws conformance to the 4th amendment (and other provisions of our Constitution, that pesky Constitution again), the argument is flawed logic: Since X law isn't as bad as Y law, X law is good. Lets test it:

Obamacare isn't as severe as nationalized healthcare systems like Canada and Britain, thus Obamacare is good.

I suspect this wouldn't hold up any longer for Malkin.

Others cite the fact that discrimination based on race is strictly prohibited under the Arizona law. True, Article 8 specifically forbids it. James Joyner demonstrates the holes in this argument:
Its one thing to have reasonable suspicion that someone is, say, stealing a television and quite another to have a reasonable suspicion that a person isn't a citizen or authorized visitor. Unless one restricts it to cases where an officer has a specific tip -- all the employees of Firm X are illegals, say -- it's mighty hard to develop a suspicion that someone is here illegally without resorting to racial and linguistic profiling. And, in a state that's one third Hispanic, that's an enforcement nightmare.

Someone please tell me what "reasonable suspicion" of being illegal looks like? How would one develop reasonable suspicion? While you think about that, imagine the likely fact that not every police officer in Arizona is free from prejudice. Imagine the Mexican Americans (legal citizens)that are asked to provide proof of their legal status (forgetting for the moment that such a "guilty until proven innocent" principle is in complete contradiction to all of our values). It seems to me that one of three scenarios will occur:
  1. The citizen will provide valid ID, the officer will accept, and nothing more than a minor inconvenience will result.
  2. The citizen will provide valid ID, the officer (a) doesn't recognize the ID presented; (b)falsely believes it to be fraudulent; (c) is afraid of being wrong and being sued; (d) is a jerk who dislikes people that have dark skin -- and proceeds to arrest the citizen pending further verification.
  3. The citizen does not have valid ID on their person for whatever reason (it was left at home, the individual lost their wallet, etc) and is arrested for not being able to prove that they are here legally.

This means that there is a 2 in 3 chance that a law-abiding, taxpaying American citizen is wrongly arrested. Why would this be acceptable? Further, it forces good law enforcement officers into an uncomfortable position of guessing individual's legal status based on hardly anything besides appearance and provides bad law enforcement officers cover to discriminate and harass (if you intend to comment that I am somehow not supporting law enforcement with this proposition and it is wrong to think they would ever harass an individual please shut up and stop reading now because your bambiesque naivete makes you too ignorance to be on this blog). Even if a very small percentage fall into this last category, the rest of the good, upstanding law enforcement officers are ill equipped to enforce this law. More Joyner:

The argument isn't that police are incompetent, but that they're not equipped
to correctly guess a person's citizenship with sufficient accuracy to allow
them going around demanding to see identification. And the disparate
impact of these errors will fall on people who look and talk a certain way.
Let me dispense with the notion that I am overly sensitive to the rights of illegal aliens. Though all people are entitled to certain natural rights (in fact, I would very much like to ask Michelle Malkin if she is concerned that illegal Americans in Mexico are having their natural rights violated; I suspect she is, yet she doesn't seem to concern herself with the same rights for illegal Mexican immigrants.) That is a wholly separate discussion and this post is not concerned with the Constitutional, natural, or any other type of rights for people who are in this country illegally. If an illegal immigrant is asked for proof of legal status and, after being unable to provide it, is deported under this law I have no issue. They are not afforded with our rights under the Constitution. But illegals will not be the only ones detained by police to prove their innocence. I am concerned with the rights of hardworking Mexican Americans who will be disproportionately affected by this legislation. Can you imagine a circumstance under which a white person would be asked to prove legal status?

For a position to be valid, it must be able to be supported with valid, logical reasoning and factual evidence. If I can dispose of each of your reasons for supporting this legislation, how can I be expected to offer my support as well?

Conservatives are supposed to be suspicious of any attempts to expand the scope of government influence (which this law indisputably does). Conservatives are supposed to advocate for individual freedom; the maximization of individual freedom. I cannot see how this law conforms to those principles. I understand that illegal immigration is a serious problem that is confronting our nation. I further understand that the federal government has shirked its constitutional responsibility in a criminally negligent way. There are no circumstances dire enough however that we should allow ourselves to ignore the principles we advocate for; the values we live for. Whatever legislation we pass must not only conform to the Constitution but also the tenets of limited government and conservatism. Why should we settle for anything less?

I live in a border state and I have many Mexican-American friends as well as friends that are Mexican citizens who lawfully visit our country quite frequently. I constantly argue with them in favor of the freedoms that Americans enjoy and how our way of government is the very best way of government. It saddens me to think of these friends being forced to relegate such freedoms. Until someone can provide me with a coherent, honest, consistent explanation of why this is a good measure, I will stridently oppose this law.

I would truly love to hear your thoughts. Leave a comment below.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010