[...] … Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their back yards at 3 a.m. – A law Arizona can live with, by George Will
The section above is the closing salvo on George Will’s column today, which sums up the right’s reaction to the Arizona law that makes breathing while brown in that state a perilous situation.
Equally bizarre is Will’s assessment that Gov. Jan Brewer acted as only she could, because the federal government has not moved forward on comprehensive immigration reform, a whine that would better be addressed to Republicans, since it’s mostly the right who can’t come to grips with striking at the heart of the immigration issue, which comes down to corporate policing of employees. As for criminals who harass and threaten citizens, at 3:00 a.m. in your back yard or elsewhere, we’ve got laws already on the books to take care of them, whether they’re white, black or brown. It’s now clear, however, that when it comes to immigration reform Republicans have only one answer that boils down to stoppin’ ‘em, pattin’ ‘em down, and shippin’ ‘em off.
Linda Greenhouse takes on the law, beyond Will’s stingy 4th and 14th Amendments argument:
[...] The city of Hazleton, Pa., passed a law that made it a crime for a landlord to rent an apartment to an undocumented immigrant. A federal district judge struck down the law on the ground that immigration is the business of the federal government, not of Hazleton, Pa.
Indeed, federal pre-emption would appear to be the most promising route for attacking the Arizona law. Supreme Court precedents make clear that immigration is a federal matter and that the Constitution does not authorize the states to conduct their own foreign policies.
Would the Obama Justice Dept even throw down on federal pre-emption? Interesting question, especially in a contentious election year.
John Boehner goes pro-states rights, asking everyone to respect Arizona’s right to pass their own immigration law. Someone should email him Greenhouse’s post.
But it’s Byron York who let’s the wingnut out of the bag. While scoffing at old movie scenarios, York goes on to invoke the Golden Era of cinema as a time that began our federal policy on foreigners, which hasn’t changed.
Still, critics worry the law would force some people to carry their papers, just like in an old movie. The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally — green card, work visa, etc. That hasn’t changed.
But getting back to George Will, he also uses a statement of Gov. Brewer thinking it comes remotely close to passing the laugh test when stacked up against reality: “We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent or social status.” Rambling on:
It is passing strange for federal officials, including the president, to accuse Arizona of irresponsibility while the federal government is refusing to fulfill its responsibility to control the nation’s borders. Such control is an essential attribute of national sovereignty. [...] But Arizona’s statute is not presumptively unconstitutional merely because it says that police officers are required to try to make “a reasonable attempt” to determine the status of a person “where reasonable suspicion exists” that the person is here illegally. The fact that the meaning of “reasonable” will not be obvious in many contexts does not make the law obviously too vague to stand. [...]
I’ll leave you to decipher Marco Rubio.
The problems along the Mexico border are real. The drug gangs frighteningly oppressive in border states, which obviously precipitated the Arizona law. Shorter: people are scared, feeling invaded, their lives threatened. Arizona reached a tipping point and reacted. The law is the wrong in so many ways. But no one should be surprised it finally came to this.
It’s what happens when economics turns Mexico into the new Colombia.
What part of the Arizona law do you deem “wrong in so many ways”?
um… Are you serious?
In case you are, and need something beyond what I’ve written, I’ll let Tom Tancredo do more talking (even though I already wrote this above), broadly speaking on SB1070:
“I do not want people here, there in Arizona, pulled over because you look like should be pulled over,” says Tancredo. He suspects police in Arizona will only pull people over for breaking the law. But they could already do this before the new law.
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-arizona-debate-042410,0,7273222.story
Yes I am serious and you didn’t answer the question.
To my satisfaction I did in my post.
Arizona legislation mirrors federal law.
Same language exists in Senate Bill 1070.
My, that’s a good portrait of Gov. Brewer.
Many good points made in the essay.
I sorta seem to have a hazy recollection that long time ago the southern U.S. was originally inhabited by Mexicans, spanish who thought it was their land but then along came American armies and bashed them into submission and took over their country and called it part of U.S., which it now legally is, but the descendants of the original inhabitants are now in various ways moving back into the territory that had once been theirs.
The Mexicans and South Americans are probably not invading in any militaristic way, just force of circumstances and necessity of both the whites and the browns. But very possibly the diminishing percentage of whites are feeling threatened, invaded, so they react with fear, and hate, against demographic pressures.
(a little like Israelis in Israel may feel threatened by the sheer facts of population increase of Palestinians being much greater than Israelis, and so they feel pushed, and worry what the future will bring)
Heya Pilgrim. Paul Szep, who did the caricature, is terrific, agreed.
For everyone, let’s NOT get sidetracked to the Israeli-Palestinian issue on this thread, please. Thanks very much.
Quite right. Not necessary to bring in Israel-Palestine.
The point remains. I think it was Jefferson who had the lust to invade and subjugate the southern territories.
And just this morning on NPR it was interesting to hear Evan Thomas talk about the tendency of Americans, especially, American presidents to find some lovely little wars to fight.
He mentioned Iraq, and confessed that even he himself had got caught up in the “atavistic” lust for war.
He referenced an American war against Spain in 1898 which he said was totally pointless.
He said even Teddy Roosevelt was convinced a war would be just the thing if he could find one. He considered a war to
“liberate” Canada from England.
Canadians would be very pleased to realize that did not happen.
I remember hearing of a woman in a far-off country who said “You have to be nice to the Americans or they might come and liberate you.”
I’m wandering here, but I think there is a historical context to be considered in places like Arizona.
Pilgrim says:
27 April 2010 at 3:47 pm
“ But very possibly the diminishing percentage of whites are feeling threatened, invaded, so they react with fear, and hate, against demographic pressures.”
Well said, Pilgrim. I agree.
Moreover, “Your papers, please!” is the talk of totalitarianism.
Whatever happened to: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
This new law seeks to slam shut that golden door.
I think that door has always been most open to Europeans.I would think that most police other than that crazy sheriff in Maracopa County would hate this law. It makes them damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
“most open to Europeans” Yes. We favour our own stock. We fear the “other”
As Gibbs said today, it sure as hell sent a message to Washington.
Seems to be a theme this year…
I don’t like this law, but the federal government should have dealed with this along time ago. Now the states are going to take matters into their own hands and it is not looking good. There are people that are saying its a racial thing, there is white hispanics and brown hispanics which is going to get pulled over or asked for papers. We have had a history of discrimination. Even the irish was discrimiated against when they came to America. I really hope this country is not split apart by racial lines because if it is, we are in real trouble as a country. I hope both parties, please find a solution that both sides can agree on if not I am afraid that our future as a country will be in trouble.
What strikes me is this: how does George Will know that the fine people waiting on us in restaurants or cutting our grass are not illegal aliens?
Also, of course, his identification of Mexicans as waiters and landscape workers is somewhat insulting, despite the fact that so many of them, legal or not, must work such jobs.
George Will has no problem with this law like the repugnantklaners had no problem with pre-liberation South Africa. They won’t come out and SAY it but repugnantklaners, and FAR to many Dems and “independents” are completely comfortable with the white folks running things and the Blacks, browns and indeterminates just doing the menial jobs we let them and SHUTING THE F UP!
And they are complete hipocrites. Like the repugnantklaner po widdle white girls who get knocked up and get an abortion, cause THEY have special circumstances donchaknow. Or having an illegal maid etc. etc. etc. all the way to one I personaly know who is MARRYING AN ILLEGAL ALIEN!!!!!!!!!
Like religion their life view is based in illogic and unrationality. EMOTION no matter how misguided or based on ignorance or bigotry stears their political views.