The Arizona Immigration law will apparently grant policemen broad powers to detain those “suspected” of being in the country illegally as well as prosecuting and potentially deporting those who subsequently fail to prove either their immigration or citizenship status.
Asserting his view that the government would never seek to deport the 12 million undocumented immigrants, Bloomberg alternatively recommended the Federal government act quickly to grant “Permanent Status” to these individuals until such time as they meet overall standards for citizenship.
As a citizen, I am now compelled, as should Congress, to seriously consider the issue of illegal immigration and the potential ramifications brought about by the passage of Arizona’s new law as well as other suggestions, such as those from Mayor Bloomberg.
As I begin the process of coming to my own conclusion, one consideration appears rudimentary:
When anyone travels abroad, ALL countries demand to review, at minimum, one state-sanctioned proof of citizenship for every traveler before leaving the airport – not to mention the hotels which require the surrender of a passport at check-in. As of January 2007, the US Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative established the requirement that all travelers entering or re-entering the United States by air present a valid passport; this includes travel to and from Mexico, and the Central and South America’s.
At home, most would agree it seems nearly impossible to get through a normal day without being asked for one form of government issued identification or another.
Asking the interested reader to put aside such issues as the Tenth Amendment (States vs Federal rights); the Commerce Clause; the harrassment and discrimination of legally situated residents of hispanic origin; arguments for skilled work forces; outsourcing of jobs; notions of fascism, etc., I would appreciate some help with answers to a fundamental question at play:
“When one considers the day to day demands placed on legal citizens of the United States for documentation at home and abroad, is Arizona technically misguided in asserting its prerogative for the “on demand” surrender of documents in order to verify immigration or citizenship status of individuals?”
2 comments:
Rob, no, they are not, technically. However, would fair-haired Rob and almost as fair-haired Lynda traveling thru AZ ever get stopped and asked to prove our legal status? Most likely not, unless we committed some egregious act. Likewise had we lived in the 30's in the deep south, would we ever have been asked to prove if we could read and write before we entered a voting booth? The rational of a law can be defended by anyone with a skillful tongue, forked or un-forked. And I'm not ignorant nor unsympathetic of the issues that people in border states are facing. But this is fundamentally suspect. Ask friends of South American ancestry (legal, second and further down the line generation preferably) how they feel. That would give you the greater insight. Lynda
Thanks Lynda:
As I have learned, Arizona's SB 1070, represents an almost certain violation of the 4th Amendment, and was drafted, in part, by FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform)which apparently embraces many xenophobic and nationalistic views.
The law seems to do nothing to secure the US border with Mexico but does add to the horrendous burden of law enforcement officers in a state hamstrung by high crime (Arizona).
It may also effectively deputize state workers(social workers, teachers, physicians, nurses, even insurance brokers) -- anyone who holds a state issued license -- to rat out those suspected of being in the country illegally.
My original posit, given the stipulations, was intentionally constrained and has logically evolved:
While all Americans are required to carry state-issued documents at home and abroad, does it necessarily follow, through the passage of such legislation, that Americans want to be party to the re-creation of a WWII era Eastern European style city state -- which required all Jewish individuals to carry and produce documents on demand, risking arrest should they not comply?
Post a Comment