The filing is expected to include declarations from other U.S. agencies saying that the Arizona law would place a undue burden on their ability to enforce immigration laws nationwide, because Arizona police are expected to refer so many illegal immigrants to federal authorities.
Let's think about that. What the government is really saying here is this: we have laws but we are either unable or unwilling to enforce them, so Arizona needs to back off and stop insisting we live up to the laws we've passed, because the laws we've passed create an undue burden. The rule of law is one thing, but bureaucratic comfort levels are quite another, especially when the party in power relies on bureaucrats as one of its most loyal constituencies.
I'm a conservative, but I tend to take a libertarian view on many issues. In my view, one of the largest problems of a leviathan government is this: it tends to pass laws it cannot, or will not, enforce. When the government does these things, respect for the edifice of law erodes over time. Apparently the immigration laws we have on the books are part of that problem. It's long since past time that our betters in Washington come clean -- either they want to protect the border, or they don't. It would appear that this administration doesn't want to protect the border. The Feds want to stop Arizona from doing anything about enforcing the border, either.
Really, what we need to decide is this: either we enforce immigration law as currently written and allocate the resources necessary to do it, or we should change our public stance and say, hey, we're happy to have you in El Norte -- come on in, amigos! If that's our view, we ought to stop pretending the laws on the books matter and set out to repeal them.
Arizona's law is all about clarifying roles and responsibilities. At least for this administration, the answer is now clear -- they don't really want to enforce the laws. Good to know. Now the voters can decide whether or not that stance is acceptable.
UPDATE: a member of Arizona congressional delegation, also a member of the President's party, weighs in.
UPDATE TWO: That nasty racist Arizona law approach is spreading. Well, that would be true except for the little matter that Rhode Island has been reporting people to ICE for years. I'm beginning to wonder why Eric Holder isn't coming down hard on those racists in Providence....
13 comments:
Not that we are surprised. Notice also that they're arguing that illegals do pose a significant crime problem; if the # of criminal illegal immigrants would pose an undue burden on ICE, it follows that there are a bunch of illegals out there committing crimes.
So much for "just nice law abiding people come here for opportunity," eh?
Moreover, if the executive refuses to enforce the laws....now hey, isn't that impeachable?
Not that we are surprised. Notice also that they're arguing that illegals do pose a significant crime problem; if the # of criminal illegal immigrants would pose an undue burden on ICE, it follows that there are a bunch of illegals out there committing crimes.
So much for "just nice law abiding people come here for opportunity," eh?
Yep. That was always risible but now they're admitting it.
Moreover, if the executive refuses to enforce the laws....now hey, isn't that impeachable?
In 2010, no. In 2011, maybe. Still, not sure that a President Biden would be an improvement.
I don't believe the previous administration was that interested in enforcing the laws either, and Congress was largely complicit - passing laws with a nod and wink while de-funding the enforcement or leaving it to find its way through bureaucratic inertia.
As to impeachment, it could very well be that Pres. Obama has found another safe position. His campaign benefited from "he's got to be better than Bush" sentiment (I know, Bush wasn't running); ironically the sentiment could now be "he's got to be smarter than Biden."
I don't believe the previous administration was that interested in enforcing the laws either, and Congress was largely complicit - passing laws with a nod and wink while de-funding the enforcement or leaving it to find its way through bureaucratic inertia.
True, NW. We haven't been interested in enforcing these laws for a long time. Which begs the question -- why do we have laws we choose not to enforce?
Which begs the question -- why do we have laws we choose not to enforce?
To put it in a slightly different form:
If politicians only put laws on the books to trick their constituents into thinking that pols share their concern over illegal immigration, why do we have immigration laws at all?
If Congress and the White House have tacit agreements not to enforce the laws they pass, it doesn't just beg the question of why pass the law, but also begs the question of "why do we bother having a Congress and White House?"
I'm not inclined to be an anarcho-capitalist, but Comrade Obama and his minions Reid and Pelosi are certainly making a case for it!
The law is not about clarifying roles and responsibilities. It's about racial profiling of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. The slate of other laws and actions proposed/enacted in AZ since this particular law was passed prove that sentiment, reflecting the response of racists who have been given the go-ahead by their state legislature to act against Mexicans in a variety of ways: the law about firing "heavily" accented teachers from public schools, the one about banning "ethnic studies" classes, the city that banned celebration of Cinco de Mayo, the elementary school whose principal supported painting over Mexican-American children depicted on a school mural in order to make them white children so people in the town would stop driving by and yelling racist epithets at the children - these are not isolated, coincidental incidents. This is all part of one big picture.
I apologize for not commenting about the topic: the Fed passing laws it won't enforce. But I think this move on the part of the Justice Dept isn't just because the state is infringing on federal authority (and it is), but also due to the civil rights issue, which, because of the purposely vague language in the AZ law that says it's not racist, it wouldn't be as easy to fight as the federal vs. state authority issue.
Amanda,
Two things. Well, really three.
1) You continue to assert racism. Provide some links to your assertions. It would help us all evaluate the legitimacy of your assertions.
2) There's a very good chance the feds will lose on the argument they've chosen to make. And if they do, wouldn't you be upset they didn't make the forthright argument?
3) One last thing -- if the law is racist, how does racism benefit the citizenry of Arizona?
Amanda,
I've also added a few updates to the post. Thought they might, ahem, add to the discussion.
1. Links, you say? :) Shall I Google the phrases that I included?
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1TSNA_ENUS384&q=law+about+firing+%22heavily%22+accented+teachers+from+public+schools
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1TSNA_ENUS384&q=banning+%22ethnic+studies%22+classes&aq=f&aqi=g1g-m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1TSNA_ENUS384&q=city+that+banned+celebration+of+Cinco+de+Mayo&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1TSNA_ENUS384&q=elementary+school+whose+principal+supported+painting+over+Mexican-American+children+depicted+on+a+school+mural+in+order+to+make+them+white+children+so+people+in+the+town+would+stop+driving+by+and+yelling+racist+epithets+at+the+children&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
I think this is great, because a Google search isn't just a left-leaning article that I'm linking.
(And yes, I knew that in the mural story, the principal changed their mind, but the point is the fact that this was even proposed in the first place.)
2. No, I would just be disappointed that it wouldn't have worked. (And anyway, my feeling on that is just speculation.) I believe that either way, now or in the future, the law will be overturned.
3. Racism is fear - and attachment to privilege. So going from the notion that the law is racist, I would say that the "benefit" is to make Mexicans less welcome in AZ, either legally or illegally, which would encourage them to leave, or not come in the first place. Plenty of older white conservatives dread the idea of this country becoming "browner," and AZ has tons of them. (Also, I am not making any personal accusations here.) My own parents, who I adore, and who genuinely like the Mexican Americans that they personally know, seem to have a problem with the fact that Mexican (along with those of Central and South American ancestry) immigrants will outnumber white immigrants in the next couple of decades. And they are Good People! But a non-White US is something they fear. I think a lot of white Americans feel like that. Racism doesn't have to be lynching and back-of-the-bus-sitting to be racism. By and large, most racism in the US is subtle.
Also, I think AZ was literally originally just searching for a way to stem the tide of illegal immigration. But there's a reason why this specific law was supported, and like with what I'm trying to explain, its subtely is part of the reason people are so quick to deny its destructiveness. "We're not racists! Racists are Bad People. *We're* not Bad People." So these seeming rational people looking for a way to fix the illegal problem, support something that is subtley racist because they believe the ends justify the means, which implicitely gives permission to people in smaller, local governments to give way to their own not-so-subtle racist ideas. That is what I am trying to say with the links to the other stories.
(This would be so much easier, if people only used "racist" as an adjective for ideas, and not people.)
Re: RI police. I would never say that AZ is the source of all racism, although it doesn't sound like the same situation as that law. Honestly, I would really have to read more about it to completely understand. First off, I didn't think it was "wrong" to report illegal immigrants to the INS, just that to have a law requiring people to share their papers under the guise of "police interaction" (which could be anything) encourages profiling.
Amanda,
I'll check out your Google searches. Thank you for providing them. A few other comments, based on things you wrote.
My own parents, who I adore, and who genuinely like the Mexican Americans that they personally know, seem to have a problem with the fact that Mexican (along with those of Central and South American ancestry) immigrants will outnumber white immigrants in the next couple of decades. And they are Good People! But a non-White US is something they fear.
If you were to study the matter a little more closely, you'd find that most people don't care so much about the color of someone's skin, but rather the content of their character. And the reason there's so much animosity in Arizona right now is that many of the people coming over the border are criminals -- narcotraficantes, kidnappers and generally very bad people. No other country in the world would tolerate what we tolerate right now. And that includes Mexico, of course.
This would be so much easier, if people only used "racist" as an adjective for ideas, and not people.
It would also be so much easier if eating cheeseburgers didn't tend to make a person gain weight.
Honestly, I would really have to read more about it to completely understand. First off, I didn't think it was "wrong" to report illegal immigrants to the INS, just that to have a law requiring people to share their papers under the guise of "police interaction" (which could be anything) encourages profiling.
That's the point, Amanda. The law in Arizona does not empower police to just stop people on the street for no reason at all. That's simply not true. And if you don't object to what Rhode Island is doing, I'm hard pressed to see why the Arizona law exercises you so much.
Amanda had previously been quite lately, it's good to know that she is alive and well.
Immigration has and probably always will be a tough issue. After all the vast majority of us are descendants of immigrants.
Prejudice is also a tough issue. If we all look deeply and truthfully in our souls, we'll all find that we harbor prejudice at some level against some group of people. It's not alway racism, it could be prejudice against Catholics, prejudice against people who support Unions, or prejudice against people who were born with money. There is almost no one who can pass the test of being truly non-bigoted at some level.
Arizona and other border states are having tremendous problems with crimes committed by illegal immigrants, and other issues as well. We have laws on the books that supposedly were designed to prevent ILLEGAL immigration. Amanda, I appreciate your argument, but what should a state like Arizona do to address their problem, and how you feel if someone you love was murdered, or otherwise severely hurt by someone who shouldn't have been in the country in the first place.
I don't pretend to have the answers, but immigration has historically been a positive thing for our country, and in most cases it is a positive thing today. Without immigration, the demographic cliff that we are facing would be even larger that it is. It would therefore seem that enhancing LEGAL immigration while striking against ILLEGAL immigration would be the most prudent approach. We can't live with the current "Don't ask, don't tell" regime.
Amanda, please read the Arizona law, and tell me what approach should be taken if enforcing our current laws isn't the answer.
Um, if a teacher has an inpenetrable accent, doesn't that kinda make it difficult for them to, you know, teach? I guarantee you that someone with a thick Alabama backwoods accent is going to have trouble getting hired in New York, and vice versa. This is also a GOOD thing. Teachers should be able to communicate well in standard English to their students.
Also, in an age when too many school systems get "graduates" to read at a 6th grade level (think Arne Duncan in Chicago, for example), we DO need to ban ethnic studies classes. They are simply a colossal waste of time, and what is taught is all too often completely false.
Post a Comment