Personally, I don’t know what an "American" looks or sounds like. We come in all shapes, forms, sizes and elasticities. We have more flavors than Baskin Robbins, and most of the people the law would affect are here legally. Many were born here. Many have never ever been to Mexico. But their skin color or accent leaves them open to harassment if they don’t have proper paperwork on them at all times.
As written, the law is ambiguous and could easily foster capricious enforcement. The only way to enforce it is to require everyone to carry documentation of immigration status at all times. That means that, in Arizona, if I decided to go for a walk and leave my wallet at home, I could be arrested because I could not prove my legal immigration status.
Sounds a lot like the Third Reich.
Not to mention that it violates the “unreasonable search and seizure” clause of the Constitution. An accent or skin color cannot be reasonably construed as probable cause a crime has been or is being committed, thus justifying the search and seizure. As a matter of precedent, the Supremes have ruled repeatedly that situations like that, by their nature, require a warrant. The Arizona requirements are equivalent to allowing a law enforcement officer to knock on my door, say “You look like a murderer” and then search my house.
When the only evidence of a crime is skin color, accent or language proficiency, no evidence of a crime exists. Any demand to produce documentation does not meet the burden of proof required for such demands.
The only way to enforce this law is to require everyone to always have documentation at all times. It means making sure Grandma has her papers in order. If she goes to Phoenix for a vacation and can’t prove here citizenship or immigration status, she could end up in jail.
The law is too broadly written and cannot withstand a review and judgment from the Supremes.
I might be wrong, but I’ll have to wait for a challenge to it, and then endless appeals to either strike it or uphold it.
The courts work slowly, and unless someone gets an injunction staying the law, pending a court ruling, the state of Arizona will violate constitutional rights of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, and leave itself open to extended, costly litigation.
People sometimes forget that the word “Nazi” derives from the same root as “nationalism”. Hitler rose to power in a time of economic turmoil, in part by convincing people that their financial troubles came from non-Aryans. That the Semitic minority was the source of all ills. And no one questioned him much when he segregated them in ghettos or even when he had them marched into gas chambers by the millions.
I’m not suggesting that anything like that will happen in Arizona, but the Arizona law is the first step down a precariously slippery slope. The precedent poses a danger in and of itself. It demonizes an entire ethnic group that makes up about a third of the population.
It's petty, arbitrary, venomous, mean-spirited, unenforceable, ill-conceived and, ultimately, unconstitutional .
Above and beyond that, it deprives every citizen in the state of a basic civil right: freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, a freedom that, among others, sparked the Revolutionary War. The Bill of Rights codified one of the reasons our founders went to war for independence. After living through despotism where the king’s agents did what they wanted with impunity, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the government or its agents could not arbitrarily decide who looked like a criminal.
The Fourth Amendment says that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The words seem pretty clear to me. The Arizona immigration law runs totally counter to that succinct and powerfully elegant statement. The law deprives citizens and legal immigrants of the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”. It deprives them of the right that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause”.
The law is constitutionally flawed and profoundly unjust. It places the burden of proof for legal status on the individual, not on the state to show otherwise, as is the case in other criminal prosecutions. If one is accused of murder or theft, the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor. A defendant does not have to prove innocence. The state has to prove guilt.
You can agree with me or not. I don't really care. But I defy you to convince me that anything I've said isn't true. Racism and nationalism walk hand in hand just below the surface.
I’m guessing the law is largely a political maneuver by politicians facing re-election who need a hot-button issue to rally around. I’m also guessing that they know that it will be overturned because of the constitutional holes one could drive a bus through. But little is liable to happen before the November elections. And if a judge grants an injunction delaying implementation of the law, they’ll get the added bonus of being able to use the phrase “judicial activism” in a pejorative way ad infinitum.
Meanwhile, the implicit racism simmers. I will have to give it to them, though: they’ve found a new way to play the race card.
Hitler would be proud.
No comments:
Post a Comment