Arizona, Immigrants, and More

As most people in the US and many outside of it know, the US state of Arizona recently passed a law under which local law enforcement officials would have to check the immigration status of people if they had reason to believe they were in the US illegally, or something to that effect. This law has stirred up yet another debate on the topic of immigration and how to deal with the large number of illegal immigrants to the US. It has also conveniently brought up another issue on which the right wing element in the US can attempt to bash Obama and other Democratic leaders.

I have not read the text of the law itself, though the key provisions have been quoted or at least described in a number of news reports. The other day Arizona passed a further revision to the law, in part aimed at countering some of the criticisms. For instance, the law now states that police cannot use race in determining whether to check someone's immigration status, supposedly eliminating the possibility of racial profiling (but does anyone seriously believe this provision will mean that Hispanics won't be checked far more often than anyone else?). Also, supposedly police are only supposed to check someone's immigration status if that person has been stopped for another possible violation of the law. This is certainly better than allowing spot checks of anyone they feel like hassling, but as traffic violations and even violations of local ordinances qualify, people can still be checked if they are stopped for speeding or littering or other minor things.

So what's wrong with having the police checking immigration status? Lots of things. As many critics have pointed out, the police have plenty to do already, and they really don't need to be dealing with immigration matters when they could be out dealing with serious crimes (it's odd how conservatives generally believe in being tough on crime and yet support things that make it harder for the police to their jobs). Also, illegal immigrants will be much more reluctant to deal with the police in any way, so they won't report crimes or be willing to act as witnesses. Theoretically, they should be safe to do so under the modified law if they themselves are not being investigated, but they could hardly be blamed for not counting on that.

Oddly enough (or perhaps not so oddly), among the political figures who have criticized the Arizona law are Jeb Bush (W.'s brother and the former governor of Florida) and Karl Rove, people who I rarely agree with on anything. Another normally idiotic politician, Texas Governor Rick Perry, didn't directly criticize it, simply saying it wasn't right for Texas. But perhaps it is not entirely strange that this group doesn't endorse the Arizona approach, as they are all part of what might be called the Bush circle, and immigration was one of the very few areas where W. was actually pretty sensible. Most of the rest of the right-wing crowd, however, is all gung-ho for any draconian measures against illegal immigrants. On the plus side, a lot of religious groups, including some evangelical Christians, are opposing the law and calling for more progressive immigration reform (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100505/us_time/08599198632000).

There is a particularly irony to the hostility toward illegal immigrants from Mexico in a state like Arizona, because Arizona, along with California, Texas, and New Mexico, once belonged to Mexico, so in a sense Mexicans, if not other Hispanic immigrants, could say they have a right to live in these places based on history. Of course most Americans would see it otherwise; after all, we stole these places from Mexico fair and square, and it was a long time ago. But it is ironic nevertheless.

More seriously, a lot of the anti-immigrant rhetoric is absurd and overblown. The wild claims by people like Lou Dobbs that illegal immigrants commit a disproportionate amount of crimes, or the idea that illegal immigrants are just hanging around taking advantage of public services and not contributing anything to the society are completely divorced from reality. Most illegal immigrants have to work hard for very little pay, and anyone who would exclude illegal immigrants from vital medical services or education is seriously lacking in conscience. Even granted that their parents have done something illegal (though nothing like assaulting or robbing someone, and only out of a desire to find a better life for themselves and their children), how can anyone seriously advocate keeping the children of illegal immigrants out of school, or depriving their mothers of maternity services (I can't say for certain that there have been serious political moves to go that far, but I know I have seen comments to this effect from some of the more rabidly xenophobic people on the Internet -- particularly ironic, as a lot of the same people are anti-abortion)?

Of course, hostility to immigrants is hardly a new thing in the US, despite the fact that the country is largely an immigrant nation. Early Americans railed against German settlers, in the 19th century there was profound hostility towards Chinese immigrants and to a lesser degree Irish immigrants, in the early 20th century it was immigrants from eastern and southern Europe (and still the Chinese) who were the targets of anti-immigrant rhetoric. But all these people have since become vital parts of the American population, and have contributed a great deal to the country, as have many Hispanic immigrants as well (not to mention those Hispanic people whose ancestors were living in Texas et al even before the white settlers came).

Some (for instance: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/opinion/02rich.html) have also pointed out that there is a subtle racist undercurrent to a lot of the hostility among the right-wing toward not only illegal immigrants but also Obama. While I think this is sometimes exaggerated -- that is to say, I don't think most tea partiers are overtly racist, and not all are even subconsciously racist (I am aware that the group does include some blacks and Hispanics); there is certainly an "us-versus-them" element to all of their rhetoric. "Take America Back"? From whom? Liberals, minorities, gays, young people, "socialists", non-English speakers, immigrants, and environmentalists? Whoever it is, they have as much right to America as the tea set (I should probably just refuse to use the "tea" name to refer to these people -- it's putting me off tea, which I like to drink). Unfortunately, xenophobia and other forms of "us-versus-themism" have a long history, not only in America but among humanity as a whole (even today, most countries are still probably worse than the US in this regard). To a large degree, it's part of human nature. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to overcome it, and things like this Arizona law are a step in the wrong direction.

Update: On a somewhat related topic, the news of the attempted bombing in Times Square in New York has also given rise to absurd rhetoric. On argument is about whether the suspected bomber, as a US citizen, should be allowed his constitutional rights. Aside from the fact that in this particular case the suspect has continued to cooperate even after he was read his Miranda rights (at a somewhat delayed point in time), why shouldn't he get the same treatment that murderers, rapists and serial killers get? What's the use of having constitutional rights at all if they can be suspended freely? Aren't a lot of these people saying the bombing suspect shouldn't be granted his rights under the Constitution the same people who are so paranoid about government power. To give him credit, even the normally ridiculous Glenn Beck stated that as the suspect is an American citizen, he should be treated as such. But unfortunately many of his fellow right wingers don't seem to agree that the Constitution they claim to love so much should be respected. [Update: Unfortunately, even Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder is now talking about pushing for an exception to Miranda rights for suspects involved in foreign terrorism. This is unnecessary, as there is already an exception in cases involving immediate threats to public safety, and further erosion of constitutional rights for the sake of fighting terrorism will be ultimately self-defeating -- as was the case with the so-called Patriot Act.]

In addition, there has been talk in Congress of a law to strip citizenship from anyone who is actively involved with terrorist organizations. As many law experts point out, such a law probably wouldn't be upheld by the Supreme Court (though with this court I don't know how they can be sure). But that it would even be seriously proposed is bad enough. For one thing, it is so broadly worded that anyone in any way shape or form represents an organization officially considered a terrorist organization, such as Hamas (say as a lawyer, lobbyist, or negotiator) or gives money to them (possibly even indirectly, such as through a charity run by such a group) could lose their citizenship. Some extremists might say they deserve to, but imagine how many Irish-Americans, for instance, could have lost citizenship in the latter 20th century under such a law for support to the IRA? And what about American terrorist groups? If people who write a check to a Hamas-run charity should lose their citizenship, then why shouldn't people like Terry Nichols (convicted of assisting with the Oklahoma City bombing) lose their citizenship? For that matter, should people like that be deprived of their constitutional rights when arrested? Or is it only in cases of foreign terrorism that the Constitution should be tossed in the garbage? But while this proposed law to involuntarily strip citizenship from people is unlikely to survive a challenge even if it passed, it's worth taking note of which congresspeople publicly support it (including supposed moderates like Joe Lieberman and Scott Brown).