Defending the Innocent: Arizona and Immigration
Apr 28, 2010
Peter Meilaender
Feathers began flying last Friday hours before Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the country’s strictest state law governing illegal immigration, when President Obama called it unfair and promised to have the Justice Department examine it for possible civil rights violations. Criticism of the new law has been fierce.
Much of the criticism is, I think, overblown. It is difficult to regard the law’s requirements as deeply unjust. The law begins with a statement of intent: “The intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.”
Arizona pursues this attrition strategy in a variety of ways. To begin, it requires law enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration law to its fullest extent, in part by handing over illegal aliens into federal custody. If this is objectionable, it is hard to know why Arizona should be subject to special criticism.
Other requirements are equally reasonable. For example, the law attempts to reduce opportunities in the job market. Employers are forbidden to knowingly hire illegal aliens, and they are required to participate in the federal E-Verify system for determining immigrants’ legal work status. Similarly, illegal aliens may not work or solicit work in the state. The law targets the hiring of illegal day laborers in particular by making it a crime for motor vehicles to impede traffic as they slow and stop to pick up laborers in public places.
One might, of course, disagree with federal law or believe that states should create more opportunities for immigrant labor. But neither of those arguments for modifying federal law suggests that Arizona has now committed some special injustice.
I think the same is true, in fact, of the bill’s most controversial provisions. It makes illegal immigration a state crime and requires immigrants to carry documents showing that they are legally present in this country. The latter, however, is already a federal requirement—indeed, the Arizona law’s provision to this effect is simply contained within a reference to the United States code, so that someone attempting to skim through the law quickly might not even notice it.
More troubling is the requirement that law enforcement officials attempt to determine the immigration status of anyone whom they reasonably suspect of being unlawfully present in the United States. On its face, this seems fair enough, but it conjures fears of police stopping people and demanding to see identity papers with little justification. But even here the criticisms have been over the top. This is not Nazi Germany, nor is it Japanese internment. That someone might be required to show a suspicious police officer a document that he or she is required to carry anyway—just as I would need to show my driver’s license if pulled over—does not seem unjustly burdensome.
To understand the real causes of controversy, therefore, we must dig a bit deeper. They are, I think, twofold, and both reflect broader failures of governance in the U.S. today. First, it is clear that Arizona felt pressed to pass a law of this sort—and that other states will as well—precisely because the national government has for so long failed to deal effectively with the problem of illegal immigration. This may be changing—border security has improved in recent years, and increasing use of E-Verify, despite some initial kinks in the system, has gradually strengthened our ability to detect illegal employment. Nevertheless, this crisis has been two or three decades in the making, and it is not surprising that economic recession would intensify concerns about the federal government’s longstanding failure to enforce its own immigration laws.
Second is a more generalized fear—also, no doubt, prompted in part by recession, though it was visible even before the markets crashed—that the government is simply no longer doing its job. The first duty of the state is fundamentally a moral one: to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. In our system, we accomplish these goals through a system of representative government and the rule of law.
Yet recent events—in particular the completely partisan passage of Obamacare over enormous public opposition from citizens already unhappy about the bailouts, stimulus package, and ballooning deficit—have left many Americans fearing that the government no longer represents them, and that the law can therefore no longer be relied upon to protect them. Certainly poll numbers reflect enormous public distrust of government. The combination of unrepresentative government, economic recession, and past failures to deal with illegal immigration makes for a potent brew.
What does this all mean for immigration policy looking forward? As my comments here indicate, I have considerable sympathy for the efforts at enforcement and attrition reflected in the Arizona law. But I have also disagreed elsewhere with many of my fellow conservatives by arguing in favor of amnesty. (Which I am now supposed to call a “path to citizenship,” I believe.) I continue to think that we have a moral obligation to allow long-term illegal aliens—those, say, who have been present for five years or more—to legalize their status.
But there is a correlate moral obligation not to do so unless current citizens can be assured that the border will be secured and the laws enforced, so that repeated amnesties are not necessary. We might try to capture these paired obligations by saying that the duty of the state is to represent and protect “the people,” but that the composition of “the people” is at some level simply an empirical question—they are those who are, in fact, present and subject to the law.
This combination suggests an “enforcement-first” deal along lines that are by now familiar: improved border security, with a conditional amnesty (payment of back taxes, requirement of English language proficiency) triggered by successfully meeting enforcement benchmarks. What is less clear to me is whether such a deal is any longer possible in the current political climate. Truly “comprehensive” immigration reform would tackle issues such as a guest worker program or increased employment visas for skilled workers, but either of those possibilities, involving increased legal immigration during an economic downturn, seems to be political dynamite.
My own preference would be first to address the dilemma of illegal immigration with the straightforward security-for-amnesty swap just described, and only afterwards to consider whether changing the regulations for legal immigration would also be desirable. Enforce the current law before deciding to change it—or, as they say, don’t knock it ’til you’ve tried it. But whether our current politicians are up to that, and whether such an approach could win public approval, I rather doubt.
Of course, if Arizona or imitator states succeed with an attrition strategy, this outcome might conceivably emerge by default rather than intent, especially if declining numbers of illegal aliens coincide with an economic upturn. In such a situation, comprehensive reform might appear more feasible than it does now. If Obamacare has taught us anything, it is to be suspicious of grand attempts to solve all problems at once and to prefer instead more limited (and, when possible, local) laws aiming at specific problems. In that sense, Arizona may have simply taken the necessary first step toward a broader solution.
Peter Meilaender is associate professor of political science at Houghton College.
Comments:
4.28.2010 | 7:55am
Ars Artium says:
Desperate circumstances provide incentives for desperate action. To refuse sanctuary to those who are in need of protection is a betrayal of the idea of America as a refuge for the world's suffering people. On the other hand, naive acceptance of all who claim to be in a desperate situation is to betray our obligations to the existing citizens of the United States. Our recognition of this dilemma has, it would seem, led to inexcusable but understandable inaction. Persons - men, women, children - have in the meantime arrived here and established residence. If they have done so for some length of time and have observed the laws of the land, residing here in peace, it seems an offense against charity rather than a demonstration of naivete to require them to depart. Those who have committed crimes of a serious nature (not of course traffic infractions, etc.) including and particularly drug trafficking should be required to leave immediately under escort. Acknowledgement of our previous indecision and inaction accompanied by clear definition of new policies that go into effect immediately and require documentation for prospective new citizens would, I believe, satisfy the demands of charity and of justice, allowing peaceful and valuable new prospective citizens to remain while excluding those who would (and have already) harmed our nation.
4.28.2010 | 8:30am
Edward Alleyn says:
Sat what you will, an ILLEGAL ALIEN is by definition here illegally, no matter how long his or her stay.
You may wish to ignore the rule of law, but many, probably even most Americans,do not. Once you begin to ignore the rule of law, as our politicians have, you invite tyranny.
We should not ask the government, which has a legal responsibility to protect our borders against ILLEGAL entry into our country, to be "charitable."
If you wish to be charitable, accompany an ILLEGAL ALIEN back to his or her country and help them there. That would be true charity; a real sacrifice on your part.
Political "charity" was one excuse for imposing "O-care" on us.
You may wish to ignore the rule of law, but many, probably even most Americans,do not. Once you begin to ignore the rule of law, as our politicians have, you invite tyranny.
We should not ask the government, which has a legal responsibility to protect our borders against ILLEGAL entry into our country, to be "charitable."
If you wish to be charitable, accompany an ILLEGAL ALIEN back to his or her country and help them there. That would be true charity; a real sacrifice on your part.
Political "charity" was one excuse for imposing "O-care" on us.
4.28.2010 | 9:03am
Artaban says:
I think it bears asking what anyone of us would do were we non-US citizens.
1. There is a country where emergency medical care is provided to all, free of charge (I am of course speaking of a longstanding state of affairs that existed well before the passage of the "Healthcare Reform Act").
2. Said country has good roads, a plethora of free services (free book, CD, and DVD rental through the public library system), and decent public schools.
3. Crime is low, and personal wealth and property more secure than in nearly any other country in the world.
4. Unlike much of the developing world, charities abound, eliminating the risk of starvation or lack of fresh water for you and family.
5. Even those living "below the poverty line" are kings compared to the "middle class" in most other countries.
6. If you get caught, all they do is deport you.
What do you have to lose? Who wouldn't take substantial risks to enter that country?
The real wonder here is that we have so FEW illegal immigrants.
But if America welcomed with open arms any who wished to live here, do you have any doubt our nation would be flooded? How long would the roads and infrastructure last under the increased traffic? How quickly would resources be stretched to the breaking point, in our hospitals, schools, and public services?
As Lincoln once said, "There are too many pigs for the teats."
Charity must have limits, or it leads to economic ruin, and the inability to be charitable, or for technical progress to take place. Amnesty runs the dual risk of depriving countries in need of development of those driven and motivated people necessary to improve the other countries of the world.
As many theologians have pointed out for centuries, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
1. There is a country where emergency medical care is provided to all, free of charge (I am of course speaking of a longstanding state of affairs that existed well before the passage of the "Healthcare Reform Act").
2. Said country has good roads, a plethora of free services (free book, CD, and DVD rental through the public library system), and decent public schools.
3. Crime is low, and personal wealth and property more secure than in nearly any other country in the world.
4. Unlike much of the developing world, charities abound, eliminating the risk of starvation or lack of fresh water for you and family.
5. Even those living "below the poverty line" are kings compared to the "middle class" in most other countries.
6. If you get caught, all they do is deport you.
What do you have to lose? Who wouldn't take substantial risks to enter that country?
The real wonder here is that we have so FEW illegal immigrants.
But if America welcomed with open arms any who wished to live here, do you have any doubt our nation would be flooded? How long would the roads and infrastructure last under the increased traffic? How quickly would resources be stretched to the breaking point, in our hospitals, schools, and public services?
As Lincoln once said, "There are too many pigs for the teats."
Charity must have limits, or it leads to economic ruin, and the inability to be charitable, or for technical progress to take place. Amnesty runs the dual risk of depriving countries in need of development of those driven and motivated people necessary to improve the other countries of the world.
As many theologians have pointed out for centuries, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
4.28.2010 | 9:55am
Ars Artium says:
The term "charity" can refer to recognition of our shared humanity rather than as aid, monetary or otherwise, given to a recipient in need. Peter Meilaender supports a general amnesty for those who are in the United States illegally. His position could be amended to support amnesty to those who have lived here in peace, contributing not only to the economy by working but to the culture, and to their children. New regulations could then be enacted and made known using all possible means of publication. Deus Caritas Est.
4.28.2010 | 10:04am
Charlie Collier says:
"Yet recent events—in particular the completely partisan passage of Obamacare over enormous public opposition from citizens already unhappy about the bailouts, stimulus package, and ballooning deficit—have left many Americans fearing that the government no longer represents them, and that the law can therefore no longer be relied upon to protect them."
Thus does the author contribute to the political problem—a climate of increasingly irrational hysteria—that needs to be addressed in this country. To speak of "unrepresentative government" just two paragraphs after saying "we accomplish these goals through a system of representative government and the rule of law" simply shows that the author is as confused as the disgruntled Tea Party-ers.
I understand that people don't like "Obamacare," and that there are legitimate criticisms of the bill. That's what politics is all about. But the legislative battle was won according to the rules of representative government and very much in accordance with the rule of law. Trying to de-deligitimize the Obama administration and its achievements because political battles have been lost is the worst, most anti-political and anti-democratic sort of sour grapes. We're not taking about circumventing the Geneva Conventions here.
We're not talking about extraordinary renditions, or suspect theories of a unitary executive. No, those were the specialization of the last administration. We're talking here about Obama winning legislative battles to enact some of his major campaign initiatives. The nerve! Did he think his opponents would actually be so gracious as to allow him to govern in the event that he won the election? How uppity of him! I guess he's supposed to read Rasmussen polls and respond accordingly.
Where was the outrage when Republican shenanigans of a much, much higher order were pulled in order to pass the Medicare prescription drug benefit? Remember that? Remember when the 15 minute vote was scheduled, the Democrats won, but the Republicans froze the clock for three hours so that they could whip defectors and pass the bill by the sleeziest of methods?
With all due respect, I don't think the outrage has anything to do with not being represented by government. I think it has to do with repeatedly losing—in fair and square political battles—to a man that a subset of Americans have a very difficult time identifying with. That's a painful and much less flattering truth, but it's also one that goes a long way towards explaining some of the worst elements of the anti-immigrant movement.
Thus does the author contribute to the political problem—a climate of increasingly irrational hysteria—that needs to be addressed in this country. To speak of "unrepresentative government" just two paragraphs after saying "we accomplish these goals through a system of representative government and the rule of law" simply shows that the author is as confused as the disgruntled Tea Party-ers.
I understand that people don't like "Obamacare," and that there are legitimate criticisms of the bill. That's what politics is all about. But the legislative battle was won according to the rules of representative government and very much in accordance with the rule of law. Trying to de-deligitimize the Obama administration and its achievements because political battles have been lost is the worst, most anti-political and anti-democratic sort of sour grapes. We're not taking about circumventing the Geneva Conventions here.
We're not talking about extraordinary renditions, or suspect theories of a unitary executive. No, those were the specialization of the last administration. We're talking here about Obama winning legislative battles to enact some of his major campaign initiatives. The nerve! Did he think his opponents would actually be so gracious as to allow him to govern in the event that he won the election? How uppity of him! I guess he's supposed to read Rasmussen polls and respond accordingly.
Where was the outrage when Republican shenanigans of a much, much higher order were pulled in order to pass the Medicare prescription drug benefit? Remember that? Remember when the 15 minute vote was scheduled, the Democrats won, but the Republicans froze the clock for three hours so that they could whip defectors and pass the bill by the sleeziest of methods?
With all due respect, I don't think the outrage has anything to do with not being represented by government. I think it has to do with repeatedly losing—in fair and square political battles—to a man that a subset of Americans have a very difficult time identifying with. That's a painful and much less flattering truth, but it's also one that goes a long way towards explaining some of the worst elements of the anti-immigrant movement.
4.28.2010 | 11:20am
ahem says:
Mr Collier: With all due respect, I believe you would not recognize a marxist if one looted the US Treasury, dismantled a foreign policy of 60 years standing, nationalized half the economy, and redistributed you and your children's income for the next 40-60 years if you saw one.
4.28.2010 | 11:33am
William O'Brien says:
I believe our response needs to be in the spirit of Valjean rather than that of Javert.
4.28.2010 | 12:44pm
MARKUS says:
People are talking passed each other. Although we are all temples of the Holy Spirit there are saints and others that should admit that we know some of the illegal aliens are very dangerous. It is imperative that we create a system where papers can be checked within 5 to 7 miles of the boarder so people living at the boarder have some recourse to being run over. No one can possibly object to that. Well on second thought I am sure somebody will.
4.28.2010 | 12:50pm
Erin Kelly says:
"Fair and square political battles"? Hardly. At any rate, corrupt process on both sides is ugly; a strong argument cannot be made for bad behavior (as in, behavior that is detrimental to the survival of a country AND with which a majority of Americans disagree, i.e. increased spending on seemingly altruistic but truly catastrophic pieces such as Obamacare) by pointing to other bad behavior as a precedent.
This government clearly does not bother itself with the concerns of the people except to say, Shut up, we'll handle it our way. It's not about losing to a man "that a subset of Americans have a very difficult time identifying with." It's about losing freedoms (such as not being forced to purchase a particular product or not being forced to financially and socially support people who break the law and then demand that we reward them for it) to a government that seems unwilling and unable to recognize its place.
This government clearly does not bother itself with the concerns of the people except to say, Shut up, we'll handle it our way. It's not about losing to a man "that a subset of Americans have a very difficult time identifying with." It's about losing freedoms (such as not being forced to purchase a particular product or not being forced to financially and socially support people who break the law and then demand that we reward them for it) to a government that seems unwilling and unable to recognize its place.
4.28.2010 | 1:36pm
Lsanford says:
In the United States there is not requirement to carry "papers" or ID. How many time have you rushed out to the store just taking some money not bothering with a wallet or purse. How many times have you decided to take a stroll with just your IPod or cell phone? How many time have you taken a walk to visit a neighbor without your wallet? So this statement is wrong.
"That someone might be required to show a suspicious police officer a document that he or she is required to carry anyway—just as I would need to show my driver’s license if pulled over—does not seem unjustly burdensome."
No citizen of this country is required to carry ID.
"That someone might be required to show a suspicious police officer a document that he or she is required to carry anyway—just as I would need to show my driver’s license if pulled over—does not seem unjustly burdensome."
No citizen of this country is required to carry ID.
4.28.2010 | 1:40pm
Mary says:
Given that many illegal immigrants have committed other crimes, at the very least we should purge them before any amnesty.
4.28.2010 | 2:14pm
Peter Meilaender says:
Thanks to all for your comments, both pro and con. It's always
interesting to see what one gets criticized for--it's rarely what one
expects. I assumed I would be taking heat here for being willing to
defend Arizona's law. But instead critics have focused on my readiness to
countenance conditional amnesty and my apparently inflammatory rhetoric
about Obama. Go figure.
Charity does have limits, as Artaban notes. Otherwise I would not be
defending AZ. But the flat rejection of amnesty urged so strongly by
Edward Alleyn is very problematic. The fundamental idea of democracy is
that those who are subject to the laws are entitled to a say in making
them--entitled, that is, to citizenship. This is one way of expressing
the core Christian and conservative principle that society is prior to the
state--the latter exists to serve the former. But the composition of
society is at some level a given, not something over which we exercise or
should wish to exercise full control.
To be sure, we influence society's composition at the margins, precisely
through immigration and naturalization policies. But we should recognize
the limits of our control. For example, no one argues that we should make
citizenship conditional for the children of current citizens. Even when
newly born, they have a kind of claim upon us. Something similar holds in
the case of long-term resident aliens, even if they originally came
illegally. At some point--five years seems to me a reasonable
cutoff--they simply are members of our national community, whether we like
it or not (just as the children of current citizens become members
regardless of our wishes in individual cases). As such, they become
entitled to a say in the democratic process by which they are
governed--entitled, that is, to citizenship.
Ars Artium has put this point very nicely, I think, in his (her?) initial
comments above. Thanks for AA's kind words.
Having said that, I note here, as I did in my original essay and have done
everywhere I have addressed this topic, that I regard amnesty
(conditional, not "blanket") as acceptable ONLY if combined with genuine
border enforcement. Otherwise we inappropriately sacrifice the interests
of current citizens, whom the government is most strongly obligated to
represent.
As for Charlie Collier's comments (the closing paragraph of which, I
presume, is not directed at me personally), I certainly concede that Obama
has accomplished what he has, in particular the passage of Obamacare, "in
fair and square political battles." Everything was legal, everything
above-board. My tolerance for political hardball is, in fact, high. To
say that something was done fairly in the sense of having been done
legally, however, is not to say that it ought to have been done. I see
nothing hysterical in the sentence Mr. Collier quotes, which I think is an
accurate description of the state of public opinion. It is not
unreasonable for citizens--like the "confused and disgruntled
Tea-Partyers" (who are indeed disgruntled, but not, I think, entirely
confused)--to feel unrepresented when a piece of legislation on the scale
of Obamacare is passed in the face of clear public opposition, with zero
bipartisan support, something historically unprecedented. The appropriate
reaction is, of course, to walk the walk and not just talk the talk, and
we will see just how upset people are at the next elections. But Obama
campaigned as a moderate and has governed (with the exception of
Afghanistan) as a liberal, and the reaction should not be surprising.
interesting to see what one gets criticized for--it's rarely what one
expects. I assumed I would be taking heat here for being willing to
defend Arizona's law. But instead critics have focused on my readiness to
countenance conditional amnesty and my apparently inflammatory rhetoric
about Obama. Go figure.
Charity does have limits, as Artaban notes. Otherwise I would not be
defending AZ. But the flat rejection of amnesty urged so strongly by
Edward Alleyn is very problematic. The fundamental idea of democracy is
that those who are subject to the laws are entitled to a say in making
them--entitled, that is, to citizenship. This is one way of expressing
the core Christian and conservative principle that society is prior to the
state--the latter exists to serve the former. But the composition of
society is at some level a given, not something over which we exercise or
should wish to exercise full control.
To be sure, we influence society's composition at the margins, precisely
through immigration and naturalization policies. But we should recognize
the limits of our control. For example, no one argues that we should make
citizenship conditional for the children of current citizens. Even when
newly born, they have a kind of claim upon us. Something similar holds in
the case of long-term resident aliens, even if they originally came
illegally. At some point--five years seems to me a reasonable
cutoff--they simply are members of our national community, whether we like
it or not (just as the children of current citizens become members
regardless of our wishes in individual cases). As such, they become
entitled to a say in the democratic process by which they are
governed--entitled, that is, to citizenship.
Ars Artium has put this point very nicely, I think, in his (her?) initial
comments above. Thanks for AA's kind words.
Having said that, I note here, as I did in my original essay and have done
everywhere I have addressed this topic, that I regard amnesty
(conditional, not "blanket") as acceptable ONLY if combined with genuine
border enforcement. Otherwise we inappropriately sacrifice the interests
of current citizens, whom the government is most strongly obligated to
represent.
As for Charlie Collier's comments (the closing paragraph of which, I
presume, is not directed at me personally), I certainly concede that Obama
has accomplished what he has, in particular the passage of Obamacare, "in
fair and square political battles." Everything was legal, everything
above-board. My tolerance for political hardball is, in fact, high. To
say that something was done fairly in the sense of having been done
legally, however, is not to say that it ought to have been done. I see
nothing hysterical in the sentence Mr. Collier quotes, which I think is an
accurate description of the state of public opinion. It is not
unreasonable for citizens--like the "confused and disgruntled
Tea-Partyers" (who are indeed disgruntled, but not, I think, entirely
confused)--to feel unrepresented when a piece of legislation on the scale
of Obamacare is passed in the face of clear public opposition, with zero
bipartisan support, something historically unprecedented. The appropriate
reaction is, of course, to walk the walk and not just talk the talk, and
we will see just how upset people are at the next elections. But Obama
campaigned as a moderate and has governed (with the exception of
Afghanistan) as a liberal, and the reaction should not be surprising.
4.28.2010 | 2:36pm
Kirstin says:
"To be sure, we influence society's composition at the margins, precisely
through immigration and naturalization policies. But we should recognize
the limits of our control. For example, no one argues that we should make
citizenship conditional for the children of current citizens. Even when
newly born, they have a kind of claim upon us. Something similar holds in
the case of long-term resident aliens, even if they originally came
illegally. At some point--five years seems to me a reasonable
cutoff--they simply are members of our national community, whether we like
it or not (just as the children of current citizens become members
regardless of our wishes in individual cases). As such, they become
entitled to a say in the democratic process by which they are
governed--entitled, that is, to citizenship."
The main consideration in this discussion must be whether someone within borders is there legally or illegally. Those who have entered through appropriate channels have the means already in place for becoming citizens should they so choose. My mother did that. When they are citizens, they are entitled to vote and through their vote participate appropriately in the democratic process. Those who have disregarded our laws in the first place have no standing to demand anything. Let them do things the right way, and then they too will have the same rights and responsibilities as every citizen or legal resident.
Other countries are very strict about their immigration policies and get little criticism for that rightful position. Why in the world should the U.S. be any different? We Americans have a right to expect our federal government to control our borders and enforce our immigration laws.
through immigration and naturalization policies. But we should recognize
the limits of our control. For example, no one argues that we should make
citizenship conditional for the children of current citizens. Even when
newly born, they have a kind of claim upon us. Something similar holds in
the case of long-term resident aliens, even if they originally came
illegally. At some point--five years seems to me a reasonable
cutoff--they simply are members of our national community, whether we like
it or not (just as the children of current citizens become members
regardless of our wishes in individual cases). As such, they become
entitled to a say in the democratic process by which they are
governed--entitled, that is, to citizenship."
The main consideration in this discussion must be whether someone within borders is there legally or illegally. Those who have entered through appropriate channels have the means already in place for becoming citizens should they so choose. My mother did that. When they are citizens, they are entitled to vote and through their vote participate appropriately in the democratic process. Those who have disregarded our laws in the first place have no standing to demand anything. Let them do things the right way, and then they too will have the same rights and responsibilities as every citizen or legal resident.
Other countries are very strict about their immigration policies and get little criticism for that rightful position. Why in the world should the U.S. be any different? We Americans have a right to expect our federal government to control our borders and enforce our immigration laws.
4.28.2010 | 2:56pm
PaulR says:
When exactly did the subject of supporting illegal immigration take the moral high ground for many Catholics? How it did so is beyond me.
Those supporting the present state of affairs should understand that The United States' unwillingness to enforce the law and public will regarding illegal immigration is not "moral" or "charitable," in fact, it is profoundly "immoral."
When laws are not respected or enforced, then it is the criminals who prosper and good people who suffer. Illegal drugs, human trafficking, sexual exploitation, exploited labor and violence are the order of the day in the United States' present immigration policy on its Southern border. Malign neglect is the best way to describe this policy.
Those supporting the present state of affairs should understand that The United States' unwillingness to enforce the law and public will regarding illegal immigration is not "moral" or "charitable," in fact, it is profoundly "immoral."
When laws are not respected or enforced, then it is the criminals who prosper and good people who suffer. Illegal drugs, human trafficking, sexual exploitation, exploited labor and violence are the order of the day in the United States' present immigration policy on its Southern border. Malign neglect is the best way to describe this policy.
4.28.2010 | 3:11pm
Ardis E. Parshall says:
The real problem with this bill is not that it attempts to curb illegal immigration, and not that non-citizens be required to carry and produce ID at the whim of an officer (and you know as well as I do, and as well as any black man driving through a white neighborhood knows, that officers can find a "reasonable" excuse for demanding papers where none really exists). The real problem is that any American citizen can also be detained -- repeatedly, for however long it takes for an officer to satisfy his curiosity or his bigotry. It subjects American citizens to further harrassment and even arrest if they don't respond with the subservience it takes to prevent an officer from seeking an excuse to make an arrest.
But why should I care? I'm white. It's just those *other* American citizens, the ones with brown skins, who are subject to non-stop harrassment by this law.
But why should I care? I'm white. It's just those *other* American citizens, the ones with brown skins, who are subject to non-stop harrassment by this law.
4.28.2010 | 3:58pm
Charlie Collier says:
Mr. Meilaender,
Thank you for your follow-up comments. You are correct—the closing paragraph was not directed at you personally, and I'm sorry that wasn't clearer. If you want to know the sort of person it was directed at, please spend some time reading The Gateway Pundit's blog and his legion of commenters. Or consider the following statement, attributed to Pat Betroche, a Republican congressional candidate from Iowa: "I think we should catch ’em, we should document ’em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going. I actually support micro-chipping them. I can micro-chip my dog so I can find it. Why can’t I micro-chip an illegal?" I wonder if he feels "represented" by Obama?
More to my original point, I think we need to be careful when we use the language of "representation." Our government is a representative form of government, but you confuse the issue of political representation when you tacitly question the legitimacy of the Obama administration on account of it not reflecting the popular will on one major piece of legislation. That's not what representative government is about, and if you think it is or ought to be, then I'd suggest your bigger beef is with the Founding Fathers. Moreover, as I'm sure you know, most of the individual items supported in the healthcare legislation were and are in fact popular with a majority of Americans, while the overall bill was/is not. Go figure. It's too early to tell just how popular such a major piece of legislation will ultimately be.
Also, Obama has pursued his campaign agenda as president, so I don't know what you mean when you say he campaigned as a moderate but is now governing as a liberal. He's been very slow on LGBT issues. He's refused to allow serious investigations of Bush-era abuses at the DoJ and Pentagon in the run up to the war in Iraq, and he's taken longer than he said he would on the campaign trail to close Gitmo and get out of Iraq. That's what real liberals think, at any rate, and they have not hesitated to criticize him (read Glenn Greenwald and Scott Horton if you doubt me). Moreover, the healthcare bill in particular was much like Romneycare in Massachusetts, and Obama has repeatedly pointed out how many Republican ideas were borrowed in the crafting of the legislation. Just because all Republican politicians made a calculated political gamble to oppose the bill does not mean the bill is "liberal." The Republicans effectively tried to move in tandem to catch Obama offsides, but he outplayed them and scored anyway. It was reported today that Bill Frist of all people actually finds quite a bit of merit in the healthcare bill:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Reform/19772
As for irrational hysteria, I would simply point you to ahem's comment following my own.
Thank you for your follow-up comments. You are correct—the closing paragraph was not directed at you personally, and I'm sorry that wasn't clearer. If you want to know the sort of person it was directed at, please spend some time reading The Gateway Pundit's blog and his legion of commenters. Or consider the following statement, attributed to Pat Betroche, a Republican congressional candidate from Iowa: "I think we should catch ’em, we should document ’em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going. I actually support micro-chipping them. I can micro-chip my dog so I can find it. Why can’t I micro-chip an illegal?" I wonder if he feels "represented" by Obama?
More to my original point, I think we need to be careful when we use the language of "representation." Our government is a representative form of government, but you confuse the issue of political representation when you tacitly question the legitimacy of the Obama administration on account of it not reflecting the popular will on one major piece of legislation. That's not what representative government is about, and if you think it is or ought to be, then I'd suggest your bigger beef is with the Founding Fathers. Moreover, as I'm sure you know, most of the individual items supported in the healthcare legislation were and are in fact popular with a majority of Americans, while the overall bill was/is not. Go figure. It's too early to tell just how popular such a major piece of legislation will ultimately be.
Also, Obama has pursued his campaign agenda as president, so I don't know what you mean when you say he campaigned as a moderate but is now governing as a liberal. He's been very slow on LGBT issues. He's refused to allow serious investigations of Bush-era abuses at the DoJ and Pentagon in the run up to the war in Iraq, and he's taken longer than he said he would on the campaign trail to close Gitmo and get out of Iraq. That's what real liberals think, at any rate, and they have not hesitated to criticize him (read Glenn Greenwald and Scott Horton if you doubt me). Moreover, the healthcare bill in particular was much like Romneycare in Massachusetts, and Obama has repeatedly pointed out how many Republican ideas were borrowed in the crafting of the legislation. Just because all Republican politicians made a calculated political gamble to oppose the bill does not mean the bill is "liberal." The Republicans effectively tried to move in tandem to catch Obama offsides, but he outplayed them and scored anyway. It was reported today that Bill Frist of all people actually finds quite a bit of merit in the healthcare bill:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Reform/19772
As for irrational hysteria, I would simply point you to ahem's comment following my own.
4.28.2010 | 4:17pm
TeacherOnA_Reservation says:
first things first: i'm a "liberal" in many senses of the word. because i follow Christ, i strive towards values such as putting down my sword; not searching for or placing my security in wealth and consumerism; being ready to give my shirt to whoever might happen to steal my coat; and welcoming strangers with an open door. And for those reasons I would have voted for Obama if I had voted, as I truly believe the Republican's brand of capitalism does not trickle down any money to the poor. it keeps rich people richer, much like the Romans and Pharisees. And Bush's billion-dollar Iraqi decisions will be crippling our (all of ours - the poor's children too) children's children more than any healthcare bill will. HOWEVER, i do agree with this Arizona immigration bill. i think countries have a responsibility to protect their own citizens and legal residents. Protect them economically and physically. Mexicans should be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to make their own country a better place. Or apply for residency legally. We Americans should also try to humbly look at our own consumer habits and policies and see how we are adding to the poverty and desperation of Mexico (the drying up of the Rio Grande due to irrigation in places where big business crops shouldn't be growing is one example I can think of. we are taking away drinking water necessary for survival from Mexicans trying to eek out a living).
What I would really like to see happen, though, is for Arizonans and all Americans to remember that many of our recent ancestors were illegal immigrants too. We came out of economic hardship and persecution, and we came with a pride that became all-too quickly blood-thirsty. We came, we plundered, we murdered violently, and we so completely decimated the American Indian population with our cool new toys and weapon technologies that there are hardly enough of them left to voice their present-day struggles. We came as criminals. If we truly want to protect the interests of the people who are legally here, we as Christians should be looking at the plight of the poorest of the poor legal residents/citizens in our midst and recognize that we have slowly and progressively made their situation worst. Arizona and other states are still, daily, trampling on the rights of the American Indians in our midst. We are still stealing land that they need for survival and dignity. We are illegally stealing their DNA, their sources of incomes and disrupting their economic way of life. we are still acting like illegal aliens. How many of you know a bit about the American Indian situation, or are we all more concerned about our own standard of living? We should be able to protect our interests from illegal aliens, but we should be trying to protect ALL OF OUR interests. we were once illegal aliens ourselves....
What I would really like to see happen, though, is for Arizonans and all Americans to remember that many of our recent ancestors were illegal immigrants too. We came out of economic hardship and persecution, and we came with a pride that became all-too quickly blood-thirsty. We came, we plundered, we murdered violently, and we so completely decimated the American Indian population with our cool new toys and weapon technologies that there are hardly enough of them left to voice their present-day struggles. We came as criminals. If we truly want to protect the interests of the people who are legally here, we as Christians should be looking at the plight of the poorest of the poor legal residents/citizens in our midst and recognize that we have slowly and progressively made their situation worst. Arizona and other states are still, daily, trampling on the rights of the American Indians in our midst. We are still stealing land that they need for survival and dignity. We are illegally stealing their DNA, their sources of incomes and disrupting their economic way of life. we are still acting like illegal aliens. How many of you know a bit about the American Indian situation, or are we all more concerned about our own standard of living? We should be able to protect our interests from illegal aliens, but we should be trying to protect ALL OF OUR interests. we were once illegal aliens ourselves....
4.28.2010 | 5:15pm
Edward Alleyn says:
Please forgive me Mr. Meilaender; I do not wish to be rude, but this is pure bunkum splink: "The fundamental idea of democracy is
that those who are subject to the laws are entitled to a say in making
them--entitled, that is, to citizenship."
All citizens are entitled to the benefits of a democracy, true, but you speak as if the democracy is independent of our government which is largely our laws. We live in a democratic republic with certain laws, some of which apply to the ILLEGAL entry of our country. Obviously, an ILLEGAL ALIEN is not a citizen, and so not entitled to the benefits of citizenship.
If you wish to enter democratic Mexico illegally, you may do so with the full expectation that the Mexican authorities will allow you to do so. Try that and let us know how what happens.
If an immigrant enters our country LEGALLY and becomes a citizen, then he or she is entitled to all of the freedoms and responsibilities of our democratic form of government.
To belittle and/or ignore the rule of law (those not familiar with the term should google it) is to risk losing our form of government. Once the rule of law is lost, government becomes merely arbitrary.
Once lost the rule of law will not be easily regained, if it can be regained at all.
that those who are subject to the laws are entitled to a say in making
them--entitled, that is, to citizenship."
All citizens are entitled to the benefits of a democracy, true, but you speak as if the democracy is independent of our government which is largely our laws. We live in a democratic republic with certain laws, some of which apply to the ILLEGAL entry of our country. Obviously, an ILLEGAL ALIEN is not a citizen, and so not entitled to the benefits of citizenship.
If you wish to enter democratic Mexico illegally, you may do so with the full expectation that the Mexican authorities will allow you to do so. Try that and let us know how what happens.
If an immigrant enters our country LEGALLY and becomes a citizen, then he or she is entitled to all of the freedoms and responsibilities of our democratic form of government.
To belittle and/or ignore the rule of law (those not familiar with the term should google it) is to risk losing our form of government. Once the rule of law is lost, government becomes merely arbitrary.
Once lost the rule of law will not be easily regained, if it can be regained at all.
4.28.2010 | 6:15pm
Mary says:
In the United States there is not requirement to carry "papers" or ID.
Not true. Federal law already requires legal aliens to carry papers to identify themselves as such.
Not true. Federal law already requires legal aliens to carry papers to identify themselves as such.
4.28.2010 | 6:52pm
Ray says:
How can justice and charity exist in the context of anarchy?
Arizona's people clearly support this law -- an attempt to remedy the politically expedient federal policy of neglecting to protect peaceful citizens from the anarchy and violence coming from south of the border.
Vox populi, vox Dei. That should settle it, but . . .
There are other voices of course; how about the prudent, measured response from our bishops?
Arizona's people clearly support this law -- an attempt to remedy the politically expedient federal policy of neglecting to protect peaceful citizens from the anarchy and violence coming from south of the border.
Vox populi, vox Dei. That should settle it, but . . .
There are other voices of course; how about the prudent, measured response from our bishops?
4.28.2010 | 7:16pm
Artaban says:
Though commented on by others, I do want to suggest to Mr. Meilander that more precision is required when it comes to the actions which make one a citizen. The particular phrase I take umbrage with:
"The fundamental idea of democracy is that those who are subject to the laws are entitled to a say in making them--entitled, that is, to citizenship."
This is NOT an adequate definition of citizenship, for it would imply that any time I visit a foreign country, and therefore "become subject to the laws", I'd be entitled to citizenship.
Not true. Citizenship is, like all civilization, a SOCIAL CONTRACT, entailing many rights that are only acquired through abiding by responsibilities (laws, taxes, being subject to the draft, etc.). We already begin depriving citizens of the rights of citizenship when they break laws. Felons can't purchase certain things, and I believe they lose their right to vote.
Most (not all) Illegal immigrants circumvent many of the core responsibilities that make one a citizen. Identification papers are the least of them. Enrollment in selective service is (in my mind) vital, and the most egregious proof most of them have no commitment or investment in our society. There are good and just reasons we give citizenship to anyone who serves in our military.
Taxes (social security, medicare) are also significant, and while roughly $7 million dollars/ year comes into SS and Medicare coffers from erroneously registered SS numbers (thought to be illegals), that still only amounts to 50 cents per illegal immigrant.
That is not just a violation of a social contract, it is an injustice and an outright assault upon the society itself. Granting amnesty to such individuals is like giving a key to the house to someone who's been casing your neighborhood--while your kids and wife are at home.
Of course, a very easy way to eliminate the tax problem would be to go straight to a flat sales tax, and abolish payroll deductions and income tax. But that would make too much sense, and remove too much power from both political parties. It is part of the reform needed for immigration. If you pay your taxes, and follow the laws, I'd love to have you here, as would (I think) most Americans.
"The fundamental idea of democracy is that those who are subject to the laws are entitled to a say in making them--entitled, that is, to citizenship."
This is NOT an adequate definition of citizenship, for it would imply that any time I visit a foreign country, and therefore "become subject to the laws", I'd be entitled to citizenship.
Not true. Citizenship is, like all civilization, a SOCIAL CONTRACT, entailing many rights that are only acquired through abiding by responsibilities (laws, taxes, being subject to the draft, etc.). We already begin depriving citizens of the rights of citizenship when they break laws. Felons can't purchase certain things, and I believe they lose their right to vote.
Most (not all) Illegal immigrants circumvent many of the core responsibilities that make one a citizen. Identification papers are the least of them. Enrollment in selective service is (in my mind) vital, and the most egregious proof most of them have no commitment or investment in our society. There are good and just reasons we give citizenship to anyone who serves in our military.
Taxes (social security, medicare) are also significant, and while roughly $7 million dollars/ year comes into SS and Medicare coffers from erroneously registered SS numbers (thought to be illegals), that still only amounts to 50 cents per illegal immigrant.
That is not just a violation of a social contract, it is an injustice and an outright assault upon the society itself. Granting amnesty to such individuals is like giving a key to the house to someone who's been casing your neighborhood--while your kids and wife are at home.
Of course, a very easy way to eliminate the tax problem would be to go straight to a flat sales tax, and abolish payroll deductions and income tax. But that would make too much sense, and remove too much power from both political parties. It is part of the reform needed for immigration. If you pay your taxes, and follow the laws, I'd love to have you here, as would (I think) most Americans.
4.28.2010 | 7:39pm
Roman A Clef says:
I must say that I enjoyed your article, Dr. Meilaender, and I too was surprised at the direction that comments took. As always, things are always more difficult to dissect than what the "sound bites" from pundits communicate.
I'm surprised by the harsh reaction by some and how their argument seems to stem from going back to some sort of appeal to an original breaking of "the law." It sounds very much like an argument my sister would use when I apologized: "if you were really sorry, you wouldn't have done it."
My question is, where does the concept of grace enter in to the equation? On the macro-scale, it seems difficult to base an immigration policy on grace but, at the personal level, it is an essential component for treating the disadvantaged.
On a side-note, our family has a story about one of our ancestors who, upon learning that he was not going to be allowed into the US via Ellis Island, jumped ship and swam to shore. If true, I'm grateful for his illegal activity.
I'm surprised by the harsh reaction by some and how their argument seems to stem from going back to some sort of appeal to an original breaking of "the law." It sounds very much like an argument my sister would use when I apologized: "if you were really sorry, you wouldn't have done it."
My question is, where does the concept of grace enter in to the equation? On the macro-scale, it seems difficult to base an immigration policy on grace but, at the personal level, it is an essential component for treating the disadvantaged.
On a side-note, our family has a story about one of our ancestors who, upon learning that he was not going to be allowed into the US via Ellis Island, jumped ship and swam to shore. If true, I'm grateful for his illegal activity.
4.28.2010 | 10:00pm
Bindare says:
The problem is we have lost our faith in our own Government and both Democrats and Republicans have been guilty of promoting illegal immigration by default. They have lied over and over.
Before any talk of "Paths to citizenship" the border must be sealed and protected. They say it's impossible but that is only because they lack the will. Everything is impossible when you don't want to do it.
I want to see the border protected and our current laws enforced for at least a year before we even talk about amnesty. The Government needs to earn back our trust.
Before any talk of "Paths to citizenship" the border must be sealed and protected. They say it's impossible but that is only because they lack the will. Everything is impossible when you don't want to do it.
I want to see the border protected and our current laws enforced for at least a year before we even talk about amnesty. The Government needs to earn back our trust.
4.28.2010 | 11:15pm
Maxim says:
I would go the other direction with that; increase legal immigration, and put those people on the fast track to citizenship. Why should coming illegally become the fast track to citizenship? Those caught in the country illegally should never be eligible for citizenship; why extend citizenship to one who has already demonstrated that he takes the laws of this land lightly? Those who are apprehended should be deported on the first offence, and imprisoned on the second offence; they have, after all, committed a crime!
4.29.2010 | 3:59am
sanpietrini says:
Focus people, focus. The issue put forth in this article was the new Arizona law. A new STATE law that clearly repeats what already exists in a FEDERAL law. Don't tar and feather Arizona for taking legislative action to support and existing national law. Rather, criticize Wash DC for not enforcing its own legislation. Put another way, why hasn't Obama looked in the mirror and done what he was elected to do?
Again, the issue is people who are in this country illegally - that is, their mere presence is in violation of the existing law. If you don't like that - for whatever reason, then change the law.
The vast majority of illegal aliens are no different from law-abiding citizens with respect to just wanting to live their lives in consideration of their fellow residents. Most people I know, whatever their immigration status in this country, are hard workers; I just wish more people stepped up to the plate and paid their taxes. I've never had a free ride; I'm getting sick and tired of others having one.
Again, the issue is people who are in this country illegally - that is, their mere presence is in violation of the existing law. If you don't like that - for whatever reason, then change the law.
The vast majority of illegal aliens are no different from law-abiding citizens with respect to just wanting to live their lives in consideration of their fellow residents. Most people I know, whatever their immigration status in this country, are hard workers; I just wish more people stepped up to the plate and paid their taxes. I've never had a free ride; I'm getting sick and tired of others having one.
4.29.2010 | 5:07am
George Pugh says:
First, it is clear that the author is a non-consequentialist like Sperber: he cares not for cost of justice of the programs he wishes to impose.
Second, he makes something of sanctuary, but from what and for whom he does not say. Many of these people are refuges from corrupt cultures, which they have helped create. Others are fugitives from just persecution, criminals for instance. I have found the clergy to be willing to believe any story they hear. I think they want a Rigoberta Menchu to call their own.
Thirdly, the author is too dishonest to deal with the political implications. The people backing these efforts are doing so for political advantage, seeking more voters in their column. Marcus Livius Drusus tried to give citizenship to the Italian allies for political gain: they were sworn to be his clients. He died for his dishonest pains.
Fourth, his views show an unbelievable arrogance: only we can solve problems for others, and that they want the life we have. Israel has done its best to treat all fairly and has ended up losing people, and earning international disdain.
For me the Church Militant is dead. It decided to hunt with the hares and run with the hounds, failing to keep out of Caesar's business. It is just the same, using physical coercion to impose its ends. The church is doomed.
Second, he makes something of sanctuary, but from what and for whom he does not say. Many of these people are refuges from corrupt cultures, which they have helped create. Others are fugitives from just persecution, criminals for instance. I have found the clergy to be willing to believe any story they hear. I think they want a Rigoberta Menchu to call their own.
Thirdly, the author is too dishonest to deal with the political implications. The people backing these efforts are doing so for political advantage, seeking more voters in their column. Marcus Livius Drusus tried to give citizenship to the Italian allies for political gain: they were sworn to be his clients. He died for his dishonest pains.
Fourth, his views show an unbelievable arrogance: only we can solve problems for others, and that they want the life we have. Israel has done its best to treat all fairly and has ended up losing people, and earning international disdain.
For me the Church Militant is dead. It decided to hunt with the hares and run with the hounds, failing to keep out of Caesar's business. It is just the same, using physical coercion to impose its ends. The church is doomed.
4.29.2010 | 6:20am
john f. says:
It seems clear to me that this will ultimately result in all people in Arizona needing to carry documents with them at all times proving their legal citizenship. This is because although the immediate impact will be that all people of hispanic or latino ethnic descent will need to have their residency status documentation with them at all times, Arizona police officers will need to make it seem like they are applying this in a way that does not discriminate based on ethnicity or national origin given our society’s commitment to avoid discrimination on that basis. Therefore, they will need to act as if they care as much about illegal immigrants from Europe, Scandinavia, Africa, the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent, the Far East and Canada as they do about illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central America and South America. This will mean that you can be as blond and blue-eyed as a the Scandinavian immigrants/pioneers/settlers who settled in the scorched and cracked territories that are now Arizona and you will still be fair game for producing your “papers” while walking from your car to your office or leaving the supermarket with your five blond, blue-eyed kids in tow.
4.29.2010 | 6:25am
Roberto says:
Many of the anti-amnesty comments here seem to conflate all illegal acts as if they caried the same (negative) moral weight. Is that really tenable? Should we really think the same of car thieves and people who did not register their cars with the local authorities?
Many illegal aliens are as law-abiding as they can under their immigration status. I do not mean to say that what they do is essentially the same as not registering a car, but it does seem to be much closer to that than theft (say). Granting amnesty involves a difficult prudential judgement on the balance between justice, charity and convenince. However, treating all illegal activities as one and the same is just a way to mak a genuinely difficult question look easy.
(For the record, I am a Brazilian citizen who lived for 6 years in the US, first as a PhD student, then as a scientist in a research lab. I was a legal resident, but I did meet and become friends with some Latin American immigrants who were illegal for several years.)
Many illegal aliens are as law-abiding as they can under their immigration status. I do not mean to say that what they do is essentially the same as not registering a car, but it does seem to be much closer to that than theft (say). Granting amnesty involves a difficult prudential judgement on the balance between justice, charity and convenince. However, treating all illegal activities as one and the same is just a way to mak a genuinely difficult question look easy.
(For the record, I am a Brazilian citizen who lived for 6 years in the US, first as a PhD student, then as a scientist in a research lab. I was a legal resident, but I did meet and become friends with some Latin American immigrants who were illegal for several years.)
4.29.2010 | 6:59am
Tammy says:
I agree about not giving amnisty to illegals it has been done. Twice that I know of and here we go again. We should not allow anchor babies, if your parents are not citizens you should not be either and if they come and have their babies here they should pay prior to leaving. Thats what happens in mexico. I was shocked to learn that about mexico, but I had a family member who was on vacation and became sick. Medicare will not pay out of the country and they were calling family to come up with the money to pay their bill so they could leave. That is how we are treated in other countries so I think it fair to make mexicans pay for their care here if they are not citizens. If you come here illegally you cannot come back period. I think the leagal immigrants want this too. They followed the rules and came the right way and others circumvent the system and they get preffered treatment. Gop stop worrying about offending illigal immigrants, they are breaking the law. Why are they so unwilling to do anything?
4.29.2010 | 7:34am
Ars Artium says:
Concerning the people who are already in the United States, working and living in peace: Existing law was compromised by lack of enforcement by federal and state authorities. This situation ebbed and flowed for decades. This created an ambiguous situation that could not fail to encourage immigration by desperate people hoping to better their lives. We, to put it another way, said one thing and did another. Now that a law is in place, this situation may be remedied. But, to subject those who came before and who have been, to repeat a main consideration, working and living in peace, to a new level of enforcement while legal is, I believe, cruel and inhumane.
4.29.2010 | 10:23am
Pandora says:
It is US law that when you are born in this country, you are a U.S. Citizen. So if you come to this country illegally, and give birth to a child, that child is a citizen of the United States, automatically. As a citizen, and a newborn, you are entitled to certain rights, not the least of which should be the right to have your parents present to support and raise you. So to those supporting the idea that we should "send all these illegals back to where they came from," you would be tearing up families. That is why people advocate for amnesty. You would essentially be forcing an American citizen to "return" to a country in which he or she is not a citizen. Get angry all you want, but these children did not choose where they are born, and they should not be punished for the actions of their parents, whether you agree with them or not.
With regard to the Arizona law, there are two main issues. First is the Federalism issue. The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law preempts state law with regard to immigration issues. Arizona leaders know this, and they passed this law anyway. That is why they drafted the law to piggy back onto federal law already in place. The fatal mistake Arizona has made is to legislate the practice of police stops on reasonable suspicion.
This is the second issue. Criminal procedure is a complex area of law that is almost entirely created by the Supreme Court due to the severe constitutional implications derived from it. Namely, the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unwarranted searches and seizures. This right is guaranteed to the 'people' a group that is thought to be different from, and possibly broader, than U.S. citizens or even legal immigrants. On reasonable suspicion, police are allowed to make a "Terry stop," which amounts to a brief stop and frisking of the outer clothes where police are reasonably suspicious of an illegal activity. Explain to me how you can be reasonably suspicious of the illegal activity of being an illegal immigrant? Its a status - not an act. Unless you catch someone literally crossing the border, you cannot be reasonably suspicious of this. You can be unreasonably suspicious, yes, and this amounts to racial profiling. End of story. It's a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and likely a violation of the Equal Protection clause, although that analysis gets a little hairier.
Bottom line: immigration reform is avoided for a reason, and its similar to why health care reform was avoided for so long. People become enraged and passionate about it -- and yet so few have any real grasp of the law, the issues, or even the Constitution that they so vehemently defend.
With regard to the Arizona law, there are two main issues. First is the Federalism issue. The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law preempts state law with regard to immigration issues. Arizona leaders know this, and they passed this law anyway. That is why they drafted the law to piggy back onto federal law already in place. The fatal mistake Arizona has made is to legislate the practice of police stops on reasonable suspicion.
This is the second issue. Criminal procedure is a complex area of law that is almost entirely created by the Supreme Court due to the severe constitutional implications derived from it. Namely, the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unwarranted searches and seizures. This right is guaranteed to the 'people' a group that is thought to be different from, and possibly broader, than U.S. citizens or even legal immigrants. On reasonable suspicion, police are allowed to make a "Terry stop," which amounts to a brief stop and frisking of the outer clothes where police are reasonably suspicious of an illegal activity. Explain to me how you can be reasonably suspicious of the illegal activity of being an illegal immigrant? Its a status - not an act. Unless you catch someone literally crossing the border, you cannot be reasonably suspicious of this. You can be unreasonably suspicious, yes, and this amounts to racial profiling. End of story. It's a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and likely a violation of the Equal Protection clause, although that analysis gets a little hairier.
Bottom line: immigration reform is avoided for a reason, and its similar to why health care reform was avoided for so long. People become enraged and passionate about it -- and yet so few have any real grasp of the law, the issues, or even the Constitution that they so vehemently defend.
4.29.2010 | 10:33am
Peter Meilaender says:
Well, this has kicked up quite a to-do. I've been teaching all morning and am off to administer oral exams all afternoon, so I won't even attempt to respond to everything here. I will say that it is a strange experience indeed for a conservative academic whose main scholarly accomplishment has been to defend the sovereign state's right to control its borders suddenly to find himself denounced as a lefty squish on immigration.
The one point I'll make is that those who refuse to countenance any amnesty at all, after any time period, on the sole grounds that the immigrants in questions originally entered illegally, are making an argument that I doubt they want to follow consistently. As with statutes of limitations in other contexts, facts on the ground must affect our judgements about appropriate courses of action. Circumstances matter. As Hobbes knew, all states rest at some level on questionable foundations, and a demand for perfect justice would in fact destabilize all political entities. If we are to insist that a past offense is the only relevant factor is determining future policy, the Native Americans may have some uncomfortable claims they wish to press.
I don't know exactly where to draw the line in practice, though I have suggested five years above. But I do think that defenders of civil society and limited government should not desire a state that is never unwilling, after any stretch of time, to deport people from the communities that have become their de facto homes.
The one point I'll make is that those who refuse to countenance any amnesty at all, after any time period, on the sole grounds that the immigrants in questions originally entered illegally, are making an argument that I doubt they want to follow consistently. As with statutes of limitations in other contexts, facts on the ground must affect our judgements about appropriate courses of action. Circumstances matter. As Hobbes knew, all states rest at some level on questionable foundations, and a demand for perfect justice would in fact destabilize all political entities. If we are to insist that a past offense is the only relevant factor is determining future policy, the Native Americans may have some uncomfortable claims they wish to press.
I don't know exactly where to draw the line in practice, though I have suggested five years above. But I do think that defenders of civil society and limited government should not desire a state that is never unwilling, after any stretch of time, to deport people from the communities that have become their de facto homes.
4.29.2010 | 10:33am
Middleroader says:
Consider this Arizona citizen: Of Mexican descent but his ancestors came here before 1900. Raising a family, works hard in sales (so he's continually on the road), active in church and charitable organizations. Feels very American. But he has brown skin, so any policeman anywhere in Arizona can pull him over and demand papers to prove that he's not illegal. This can happen several times a day. Some of the police may take him in for more questioning. This, of course, hurts his job performance... And so on. It can and it will happen under this law. Yes, something needs to be done; this, however, is not it.
4.29.2010 | 10:49am
Edward Alleyn says:
"As a citizen, and a newborn, you are entitled to certain rights, not the least of which should be the right to have your parents present to support and raise you."
"entitled" "Should be" So it's not a Constitutional right, right?
The ILLEGAL ALIEN is still responsible for his or her children — certainly the should be.
"entitled" "Should be" So it's not a Constitutional right, right?
The ILLEGAL ALIEN is still responsible for his or her children — certainly the should be.
4.29.2010 | 1:11pm
David Kornegay says:
Many in the American Christian community support more stringent immigration law enforcement with the simple argument, "They broke the law, didn't they?" Although Romans 13:1 says, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established," it is also true that men sometimes make unjust laws. The Fugitive Slave Act, for example, was the law of the land. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, our first immigration law, was the law of the land. Closer to the point, the unearthing in a New Jersey warehouse a couple of years ago of the Otto Frank immigration file proved that American immigration law played a role in the death of Anne Frank, her sister, and her mother.
Obviously richer countries need immigration rules and the rules need enforcing. However, the breezy justification, "They broke the law, didn't they?" omits all sorts of considerations such as: (1) Current immigration law is an arbitrary administrative law of quotas, unrelated to anything you'll find in the Ten Commandments, (2) Currrent immigration law is an example of unrealistic central economic planning [for example, chefs can apply for work visas but busboys can't; restaurants need more busboys than chefs, so the busboys come sans work permits], (3) Current immigration law will handcuff and deport an eighteen-year-old math whiz and valedictorian for the crime of allowing his parents to carry him across the border as a toddler, (4) The punishment should be in accordance with the crime. So for violating an administrative law, the penalty of losing your job, force-selling your house, and exiling your grown children to a country that they have no connection with seems a bit much, (5) The requirement that local police enforce immigration law leaves a large number of people with no protection against robbery, extortion, sexual abuse, spousal violence, or anything else.
I don't know what the solution is, but the "They broke the law didn't they" argument probably shouldn't be used to support more stringent enforcement of the immigration laws we have right now.
Obviously richer countries need immigration rules and the rules need enforcing. However, the breezy justification, "They broke the law, didn't they?" omits all sorts of considerations such as: (1) Current immigration law is an arbitrary administrative law of quotas, unrelated to anything you'll find in the Ten Commandments, (2) Currrent immigration law is an example of unrealistic central economic planning [for example, chefs can apply for work visas but busboys can't; restaurants need more busboys than chefs, so the busboys come sans work permits], (3) Current immigration law will handcuff and deport an eighteen-year-old math whiz and valedictorian for the crime of allowing his parents to carry him across the border as a toddler, (4) The punishment should be in accordance with the crime. So for violating an administrative law, the penalty of losing your job, force-selling your house, and exiling your grown children to a country that they have no connection with seems a bit much, (5) The requirement that local police enforce immigration law leaves a large number of people with no protection against robbery, extortion, sexual abuse, spousal violence, or anything else.
I don't know what the solution is, but the "They broke the law didn't they" argument probably shouldn't be used to support more stringent enforcement of the immigration laws we have right now.
4.30.2010 | 6:26am
Daniel says:
I live half the year in Mexico. I carry a Mexican green card, I am a legal there.
I cannot work, by law on my own house. When you cross into Mexico you must immediatly purchase a tourist visa, $70 us. Read Mexicos immigration laws. When Calderon wants to criticize us U.S, perhaps his laws would work better for the U.S. Thats fair!
I cannot work, by law on my own house. When you cross into Mexico you must immediatly purchase a tourist visa, $70 us. Read Mexicos immigration laws. When Calderon wants to criticize us U.S, perhaps his laws would work better for the U.S. Thats fair!
4.30.2010 | 7:04am
Ars Artium says:
Various fears regarding the consequences of the Arizona immigration law are set forth here. One is that people of Mexican ancestry will be required to carry identification (or that all citizens of Arizona will be so required) and that this requirement will impose an unfair and humiliating burden. One way to view this legitimate concern is provided by airport security procedures put in place after 9/11. All citizens are required to provide identification; all citizens are subject to detainment and search - a very painful change, needless to say, in our former, more relaxed and informal, procedure. Still, in the cause of the common good, virtually all Americans have accepted the necessity for these restrictions. Placed in the context of this present discussion on immigration, the post 9/11 situation offers a way forward. 1. Criminals who are in the country illegally must leave; innocent people of good will should not be ejected. 2. The border must be protected from further unregulated immigration. 3. All American citizens in pursuit of the common good are willing to endure substantial inconvenience in pursuit of safety and security for all people. Criminals, in particular purveyors of drugs, present a real and present danger. We cannot ignore this nor should we, to the best of our ability, allow innocent people to suffer its consequences. Carrying identification so that one's status can be determined seems a small price to pay for solidarity with people of good will who have come here (encouraged certainly by our long-term inaction, federal and state). I understand that this goal goes far beyond the letter of the law but I do believe it is in conformity with the idea of America as sanctuary for oppressed people of good will.
4.30.2010 | 12:32pm
Edward Alleyn says:
Transnational street gang members were the target of a series of arrests this week in the CHICAGO [not Arizona — where Phoenix is the kidnapping capitol of the U. S. A.) area, federal officials announced today.
Of the 28 gang members arrested, 27 were in the U.S. without documentation and face deportation, either directly or after facing charges in the United States, according to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office.
Of those arrested, 25 were from Mexico, one from Honduras and one from El Salvador, with one U.S. citizen arrested on an outstanding warrant.
Of the 28 gang members arrested, 27 were in the U.S. without documentation and face deportation, either directly or after facing charges in the United States, according to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office.
Of those arrested, 25 were from Mexico, one from Honduras and one from El Salvador, with one U.S. citizen arrested on an outstanding warrant.
4.30.2010 | 2:40pm
Jeff Botelho says:
I am a Catholic lawyer and have written a blog article on this issue, which I have posted here: http://botelhoimmigrationblog.blogspot.com/. This is quite a controversial issue and I think it is important to understand and know what the key provisions of the Arizona proposal entail. I hope you find the article informative. - Jeff Botelho
4.30.2010 | 7:07pm
Rev. Federico Higuera says:
Illegal Residents:
Is it a Criminal Issue or a Human Rights Issue?
For many the issue is straight forward, “illegal immigration is illegal, the law of the land must be upheld, those who break the law are criminals, and criminals must be prosecuted.” The following is usually added, “I am not against immigrants, I am against illegal immigration.”Therefore, illegal immigrants are denied work, driving licenses, food stamps, medical care, leases etc.
The above statement makes absolute sense, the law must be respected, and it should be supported. However, when it comes to illegal residents is taken out of context:
For decades, our authorities and legislators politically unwilling to provide the country with the legal labor it needed ignored the enforcement of the law. As a result, millions upon millions of extremely needy immigrants entered the country illegally looking for work because the doors were wide open. How is it possible for millions on top of millions of immigrants to establish a whole social class of “Illegal Residents” with out the underhanded consent of the authorities responsible for enforcing the law?
Is it not obvious that the country shares responsibility in the creation of the of our newest social class: “Illegal Residents” Is it not perplexing and dehumanizing to retroactively enforce the law, cripple and uproot the millions of “ILLEGAL RESIDENTS” which for forty years we underhandedly welcomed?.
This is why many see the issue of “Illegal Residents” not as a criminal issue but as a human rights issue. Stop illegal immigration, but do justice to our “illegal residents” with a Comprehensive Immigration Law.
Fr. Federico Higuera.
Anna IL
Is it a Criminal Issue or a Human Rights Issue?
For many the issue is straight forward, “illegal immigration is illegal, the law of the land must be upheld, those who break the law are criminals, and criminals must be prosecuted.” The following is usually added, “I am not against immigrants, I am against illegal immigration.”Therefore, illegal immigrants are denied work, driving licenses, food stamps, medical care, leases etc.
The above statement makes absolute sense, the law must be respected, and it should be supported. However, when it comes to illegal residents is taken out of context:
For decades, our authorities and legislators politically unwilling to provide the country with the legal labor it needed ignored the enforcement of the law. As a result, millions upon millions of extremely needy immigrants entered the country illegally looking for work because the doors were wide open. How is it possible for millions on top of millions of immigrants to establish a whole social class of “Illegal Residents” with out the underhanded consent of the authorities responsible for enforcing the law?
Is it not obvious that the country shares responsibility in the creation of the of our newest social class: “Illegal Residents” Is it not perplexing and dehumanizing to retroactively enforce the law, cripple and uproot the millions of “ILLEGAL RESIDENTS” which for forty years we underhandedly welcomed?.
This is why many see the issue of “Illegal Residents” not as a criminal issue but as a human rights issue. Stop illegal immigration, but do justice to our “illegal residents” with a Comprehensive Immigration Law.
Fr. Federico Higuera.
Anna IL
4.30.2010 | 9:28pm
Aaron says:
Mr. Meilander,
I live in Arizona on the border. I have studied the Church's teachings and know them quite well.
There is no way that amnesty should be an option. Almost without exception and in spite of denials by people who "just want to work and take jobs Americans won't do" and so on amnesty is foolish and dangerous.
It is foolish because if there are 12 to 20 million mostly Mexicans here and we allow one or two family members to come here in a family reunification program, we now will have somewhere between 24 to 36 or 40 to 60 million more people from Mexico here. That number out of a population of only a hundred million total population in Mexico destroys Mexico and us.
It is dangerous because, again almost without exception the average Mexican illegal and even legal immigrant is tied to the drug and people smuggling gangs by blood or marriage or transaction and they are fearful of their life and their familie's lives and will give them cover.
Do not be so sanguine about this issue. People who comment and opine without being in the mess are ill equipped to know or understand the dangers.
As I write, a gang shot an officer in the middle of the state here and then shot at the police helicopters trying to located him.
This is war. And we are in danger and you will be too.
I live in Arizona on the border. I have studied the Church's teachings and know them quite well.
There is no way that amnesty should be an option. Almost without exception and in spite of denials by people who "just want to work and take jobs Americans won't do" and so on amnesty is foolish and dangerous.
It is foolish because if there are 12 to 20 million mostly Mexicans here and we allow one or two family members to come here in a family reunification program, we now will have somewhere between 24 to 36 or 40 to 60 million more people from Mexico here. That number out of a population of only a hundred million total population in Mexico destroys Mexico and us.
It is dangerous because, again almost without exception the average Mexican illegal and even legal immigrant is tied to the drug and people smuggling gangs by blood or marriage or transaction and they are fearful of their life and their familie's lives and will give them cover.
Do not be so sanguine about this issue. People who comment and opine without being in the mess are ill equipped to know or understand the dangers.
As I write, a gang shot an officer in the middle of the state here and then shot at the police helicopters trying to located him.
This is war. And we are in danger and you will be too.
4.30.2010 | 9:46pm
aaron says:
Jeff Bothelo, you said:I am a Catholic lawyer and have written a blog article on this issue, which I have posted here: http://botelhoimmigrationblog.blogspot.com/. This is quite a controversial issue and I think it is important to understand and know what the key provisions of the Arizona proposal entail.
I am a Catholic lawyer also living in Arizona and, like you, am not a Constitutional expert. But I have defended literally hundreds of illegal aliens over the years and know the issue pretty well.
I must disagree with at almost every point in your blog piece. As you know, the intent of the law is found in its legislative history. That intent is not as you, from afar, interpret it. You write more as an advocate for illegal aliens than as a court or a lawyer who does not make their living trying to legitimize immigrants.
The Arizona law has been mischaracterized enough by the media and the left leaning open border crowd as well as the American bishops.
In addition, the law has been tweeked to answer every remote possible objection.
We need it. We are literally under siege in this state.
I am a Catholic lawyer also living in Arizona and, like you, am not a Constitutional expert. But I have defended literally hundreds of illegal aliens over the years and know the issue pretty well.
I must disagree with at almost every point in your blog piece. As you know, the intent of the law is found in its legislative history. That intent is not as you, from afar, interpret it. You write more as an advocate for illegal aliens than as a court or a lawyer who does not make their living trying to legitimize immigrants.
The Arizona law has been mischaracterized enough by the media and the left leaning open border crowd as well as the American bishops.
In addition, the law has been tweeked to answer every remote possible objection.
We need it. We are literally under siege in this state.
5.1.2010 | 12:17am
Don Guillermo says:
Rather than a security-for-amnesty swap, why not a security-for-tolerance swap? By "tolerance," I mean that the status quo would be regularized instead of legalized. In other words, long-time illegal immigrants would get a red "tolerance" card. They could go on living here without interference, but could never become citizens. Disqualification from citizenship would be the penalty for illegal immigration and would satisfy justice, while the tolerance card would satisfy mercy. Of course, children under eighteen years of age at the time of illegal entry, would be granted permanent resident status. (Let's keep the kids out of this.) Security-for-tolerance would allow illegal immigrants to live openly and without fear. It would allow them to travel freely back and forth cross the border. Such changes would significantly improve their present condition. Yet, by denying legalization and citizenship, security-for-tolerance would also make important concessions to amnesty opponents. Neither side would get everything that it wanted, but each side would get at least some of what it wanted, and more than it had before. Thus, security-for-tolerance would have better prospects for actual passage than security-for-amnesty.
5.3.2010 | 10:11pm
Lavaux says:
Utter nonsense, Mr. Meilaender. You wrote:
"We might try to capture these paired obligations by saying that the duty of the state is to represent and protect “the people,” but that the composition of “the people” is at some level simply an empirical question—they are those who are, in fact, present and subject to the law."
What does "represent the people" mean? If it means "do the majority's will", then your empirical standard for measuring the composition of "the people" is specious because most Americans don't favor amnesty. What's more, only Arizona is doing the people's will by enforcing applicable federal immigration laws because the federal government refuses to do so, preferring instead to borrow trillions to keep public employees happy and finance the nationalization of health care. Therefore, your bargain - amnesty in return for representation - is one only fools would accept. No thanks.
Tell me, where in the Bible is found the verse engraved in the Statue of Liberty, and who gave the same to America: God or the French? While you're at it, do you recall what the Apostle Paul had to say about abiding by the lawful authorities' edicts, and why doing so is right? I wonder, when waylaid by the Roman authorities in Jerusalem, did Paul present his patents of Roman citizenship to the centurion and magistrate when he asserted his Roman citizenship (Acts 22)?
I don't get the Catholic Church's approach to the immigration issue, and I reject Cardinal Mahoney's opinion re the same because it defies scripture and reason. That this kind of thing happens far too often explains why I'm an evangelical even though my sympathies are with the Catholic Church.
"We might try to capture these paired obligations by saying that the duty of the state is to represent and protect “the people,” but that the composition of “the people” is at some level simply an empirical question—they are those who are, in fact, present and subject to the law."
What does "represent the people" mean? If it means "do the majority's will", then your empirical standard for measuring the composition of "the people" is specious because most Americans don't favor amnesty. What's more, only Arizona is doing the people's will by enforcing applicable federal immigration laws because the federal government refuses to do so, preferring instead to borrow trillions to keep public employees happy and finance the nationalization of health care. Therefore, your bargain - amnesty in return for representation - is one only fools would accept. No thanks.
Tell me, where in the Bible is found the verse engraved in the Statue of Liberty, and who gave the same to America: God or the French? While you're at it, do you recall what the Apostle Paul had to say about abiding by the lawful authorities' edicts, and why doing so is right? I wonder, when waylaid by the Roman authorities in Jerusalem, did Paul present his patents of Roman citizenship to the centurion and magistrate when he asserted his Roman citizenship (Acts 22)?
I don't get the Catholic Church's approach to the immigration issue, and I reject Cardinal Mahoney's opinion re the same because it defies scripture and reason. That this kind of thing happens far too often explains why I'm an evangelical even though my sympathies are with the Catholic Church.
5.6.2010 | 3:28pm
Montana says:
I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.
I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!
Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.
I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!
Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.
5.6.2010 | 6:27pm
Benito says:
I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.
I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!
Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.
I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!
Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.
5.17.2010 | 8:39pm
Benito says:
“All Men are created equal”! The founders had it right, when attempting to form a perfect union and they also knew that they were not there yet but knew we one day would get there. Lincoln moved us forward as did JFK and LBJ. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.
It is my contention that this AZ law is not constitutional and will fail when challenged (unless, of course, they keep adding more amendments), pretty funny for this so called perfect law.
It is my contention that this AZ law is not constitutional and will fail when challenged (unless, of course, they keep adding more amendments), pretty funny for this so called perfect law.
7.21.2010 | 7:59am
Jeff Botelho says:
Dear Aaron (Catholic Immigration Lawyer in Arizona),
I am interested in hearing more of your perspective, especially since you are an immigrant advocate and so you obviously care a great deal about undocumented people. If you check back up on this page and see this, please email me at jeffbotelho@att.net. It is true that I wrote my blog piece as an immigrant advocate and not as a constitutional expert, because that's what I am, but I'm sure you would agree that being able to express that opinion, and to exchange views with those who think differently, like you, is what makes this country great. God bless and I hope to hear from you soon, Jeff Botelho
I am interested in hearing more of your perspective, especially since you are an immigrant advocate and so you obviously care a great deal about undocumented people. If you check back up on this page and see this, please email me at jeffbotelho@att.net. It is true that I wrote my blog piece as an immigrant advocate and not as a constitutional expert, because that's what I am, but I'm sure you would agree that being able to express that opinion, and to exchange views with those who think differently, like you, is what makes this country great. God bless and I hope to hear from you soon, Jeff Botelho
Forgive me, but this is a naive article, full of naive arguments.
We should not reward people who willfully break our laws regarding immigration. A better tact is security and no amnesty.
Let the ILLEGAL ALIENS return home, get in line and apply in a lawful manner to enter our country.
I suggest that everyone who is genuinely concerned about the plight of the poor in Mexico and other Central American countries should help them in their own countries.
Try getting through Mexico without proper papers. You will soon find yourself in jail.