Arizona’s new law targeting illegal immigration has certainly sparked a national debate on the issue. And in a mid-term election year, that debate could have some interesting implications, particularly given recent polling data that otherwise suggests a banner year for the GOP (see here and here). So what’s the deal?
First, if you haven’t read it, you should do so for yourself, it’s available here.
Second, it seems fair to say the hyperbolic rhetoric that this law will cause all manner of horrific consequences is pretty much just that — hyperbolic rhetoric. Arizona blogger Greg Patterson, a lawyer and former lawmaker, provided an early and detailed post about fallacies in the national media’s analysis of SB 1070:
The broad anti-immigrant bill passed by the Legislature this week makes it a crime to be in the country illegally
Wrong. It’s already a crime to be in the country illegally. SB 1070 made it a STATE crime by copying the federal language.
* * *
and gives local cops the job of demanding documentation if they have reasonable suspicion someone lacks it.
Wrong. Local cops have the job of asking for documentation only if they believe it’s “practicable” and even that requirement is eliminated if they believe that asking for documentation “may hinder or obstruct an investigation.” The essence of this provision is that it prohibits cities or police departments from adopting a policy that stops the police from checking immigration status.
* * *
The need to carry proper ‘papers’ falls squarely on Arizona’s Latino population — including those born and raised in the Grand Canyon State.
Wrong–and frankly outrageous. Federal law already requires resident aliens to carry registration documents. SB 1070 makes it a state crime to violate the federal law. The law doesn’t apply to “those born and raised in the Grand Canyon State” because they are obviously citizens. The law also lists documents that provide a presumption of citizenship one of which is a Driver’s License. There is no need for citizens to carry their birth certificate or passport.
* * *
The bill invites racial profiling and ignores the fact that Latinos are an intrinsic part of Arizona’s history and its future.
Wrong. Actually, the bill prohibits racial profiling by saying that race can only be considered to the “extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.” And under no circumstances can the officer “solely” consider race, color or national origin. (He can “consider” race as a factor just like he can under federal and Arizona law now.)
Rich Lowry in a National Review column explained his support for the law:
The Arizona law makes it a state crime for aliens not to have immigration documents on their person. This sounds draconian, except it’s been a federal crime for more than half a century — U.S.C. 1304(e). Has the open-borders crowd forgotten that it calls illegal aliens “undocumented” for a reason?
Police officers asking for papers may be redolent of old World War II movies. But consider the offending provision: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
Michelle Malkin has a column noting Mexico’s policies toward the ”undocumented” making the point that Arizona’s actions may not be so draconian as is being suggested:
Mexican President Felipe Calderon has accused Arizona of opening the door “to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement.” But Arizona has nothing on Mexico when it comes to cracking down on illegal aliens.
* * *
– The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” . . .
– If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome. Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. . . .
– Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. . . .
– Law enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.
– Ready to show your papers? Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens’ identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.
Jonah Goldberg explained that he believes that the law is “ugly but necessary” and the Wall Street Journal opined (in agreement with so many others) that the law is clearly the result of a failed national policy.
I must stop here to note one frustration with the WSJ piece, which states:
[The law] allows the police to stop anyone on “reasonable suspicion” that they may be in the country unlawfully and arrest them on the spot if they can’t produce identity papers. The police aren’t required to have a search warrant or even to suspect some illegal action has occurred before questioning a person.
Actually, the first sentence demonstrates the second is flat wrong: if there is a reasonable suspicion that an individual is in the country “unlawfully” that necessarily means there is a suspicion that “some illegal action has occurred” … doesn’t it? But I digress.
On the other hand, while the opposition to the law may be filled with all manner of crazy predictions, there are certainly legitimate concerns and objections out there.
Stewart Baker at the Volokh Conspiracy points out why the Catholic Church has such a big problem with the law:
[I]magine that you’re the head of the Catholic church in Arizona. Sooner or later, a lot of your parishioners are going to tell their local priest that they’re here illegally. The church has been pretty clear about what it will do about that. Nothing. . . . The problem with this stance is that it comes awfully close to declaring in advance that the church intends to “harbor or shield from detection” illegal immigrants. . . . Complying with Arizona’s tough new legal obligations will be hard to square with the bold moral stance taken by the church in a more forgiving era.
Our good friends at Reason have some contrasting and powerful posts pointing out problems with the law. Matt Welch discussed the specific asset forfeiture provision included that should cause great concern given the ongoing national problems with the police abuses caused by civil asset forfeiture laws. Steve Chapman explains “How Immigration Crackdowns Backfire“:
It’s no surprise that Arizonans resent the recent influx of unauthorized foreigners, some of them criminals. But there is less here than meets the eye.
The state has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants. But contrary to myth, they have not brought an epidemic of murder and mayhem with them. Surprise of surprises, the state has gotten safer.
Over the last decade, the violent crime rate has dropped by 19 percent, while property crime is down by 20 percent. Crime has also declined in the rest of the country, but not as fast as in Arizona.
* * *
El Paso, Texas, is next door to the exceptionally violent Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, and easily accessible to illegal entry. Yet it is one of the safest cities in the United States.
In 2007, scholars Ruben Rumbaut and Walter Ewing investigated the issue for the Immigration Policy Center and concluded that “if immigrants suddenly disappeared and the country became immigrant-free (and illegal-immigrant free), crime rates would likely increase.”
That’s not to say Arizonans don’t have a right to be upset when Mexicans trespass across private land on a regular basis. But you could solve that problem by making it easier for them to immigrate legally.
And the Right Side News opines that this is the “Wrong Law, Wrong Time“:
[T]here is another way to look at immigration which is market-based. If one begins with the idea that property ought to be privatized, then much of the confusion over the issue falls away. In fact, employers should be the ones making immigration decisions, not politicians. If employers want to provide work to immigrants, then those to whom the offer of work is extended ought to have the ability to take advantage of that employment.
The corollary to this is that the state ought not to extend benefits to immigrants. If no further work is available, then immigrants would have to move on or face the prospect of living on the most meager or resources. This would have additional benefits as well, as immigrants would tend to congregate in areas where employment was available – rather than in regions where the most generous state benefits were to be had. Market-based immigration would drain the issue of a great deal of emotion as well. No one could complain about immigrants “stealing” jobs if the employment opportunities were freely made and accepted.
Conclusion: Along with private money and a competition-based economy (versus a regulatory, rent-seeking one) privately controlled immigration is an important building block. That these issues are seldom discussed let alone seriously considered is an indication of how far America still has to go to return to its free-market roots.
The Arizona Republic editorial explains that the “Law is a Plea for U.S. Action” — the paper does not support the law, but provides some important local context:
Arizona has been squeezed by federal policies that have hardened the borders in Texas and California while failing to deal with the demand for migrant labor that drives illegal immigration.
As border enforcement has increased, human smuggling has grown so lucrative it attracts the drug cartels. Now the largest part of drug and human smuggling is funneled through our state.
Despite our pleas for help, the federal government left Arizona to boil in this frightening stew.The feds did nothing while Arizona saw a running gun battle on one of its main interstate highways. The feds did nothing while drophouses festered by the hundreds in our neighborhoods. The feds did nothing while Phoenix became the kidnapping capital of the country. The feds did nothing as rancher Robert Krentz was murdered on his border-area ranch.
Feeling cornered and anxious, Arizona lashed out with a nasty immigration bill that makes it a crime to be in the country illegally and assigns local police the job of enforcing immigration laws. It invites racial profiling, sows fear of the police in migrant communities and results in characterizations of Arizona as a land of apartheid.