from a to b and back to a. not without a fight.

Here’s the short version. Read beyond the line if you want to read more rabble about Douthet’s NYTimes bit.

The original text of the Arizona law said this:

B. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

The text changes, and law change, made by the Arizona house a week later say this:

B. For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

A few things, of course. The first attempt, where a very loosely defined ‘contact’ is outlined and that ‘contact’ is based on ‘reasonable suspicion’ that a person is here illegally, is comical. Really? Let me ask you this one, simple question: how might you suspect a person is here illegally when they are walking down the street? I think you know have the answer to why the law met the racial profiling gate.

The new text actually falls in line with Federal code and simply states that if you are involved in a law enforcement issue during a “lawful stop, detention, or arrest” then you must show your identification.

This law, when first passed, was not a law that simply required immigrants to carry their papers, as always. It had nothing to do with that because having your papers, or not, wasn’t the issue,;it was the suspicion that someone doing nothing but being here was strong enough to allow that query. There really was no argument in support of the original bill.

It’s been rewritten to follow the Federal law and I’m fine with that. Wonder why it was rewritten? I’ll just let you think about it.

_____________________________________________

Douthat has an op-ed this morning that addresses – from his right perch – the Arizona immigration law and the issue as a whole. The opening to his third paragraph is enlightening:

“Just because this is the wrong way to enforce America’s immigration laws, however, doesn’t mean they don’t need to be enforced.”

Well, that about covers it, Ross, doesn’t it? That is the rub of this law as it was originally written – it was racial profiling and not just enforcing a law. As he rightly points out, federal law requires the carrying of documentation for immigrants but it doesn’t imply, by any stretch, that they must be produced on demand if they’re walking down the street: and that’s what the law said. The original text of the passed bill stated that any ‘lawful contact’ was all that was needed for a paper query. The rewrite that the house put in place last week changed that to “…any lawful stop, detention, or arrest” and included “in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.” Right. Fair enough on the change, but all that does is actually replicate the federal statute (8 USC 1304) and so nothing is new…now Anyone that read the initial law would come to a reasonable conclusion that “contact” not in the “enforcement of any crime or law” in order to check papers is a bit militaristic. How would law enforcement determine which people they were suspicious of being here illegally? How? I wonder. There is no argument that can support the passing of the initial law. (You can see the full texts above.)

When Douthat jumps the shark is in two areas. First with this, “But there’s no compelling reason that we should decide which immigrants to welcome based on their proximity to our border, and their ability to slip across.” Secondly with this, “Curbing the demand for illegal workers requires stiff workplace enforcement, stringent penalties for hiring undocumented workers, and shared sacrifice from Americans accustomed to benefiting from cheap labor.”

The proximity argument is presented as to ensure that someone from Central Africa has the same opportunity to immigrate to America as someone from North or South America. That idea is well-and-good but it isn’t really feasible, is it? Would we suggest that someone from Hong Kong would have the same opportunity to immigrate to France as someone from Algeria? Of course not; proximity during any type of immigration is going to an overriding factor and to intimate anything else is disingenuous.

The call for ‘curbing the demand’ sounds just like the idea behind the War on Drugs and how well did that go? We are well aware that curbing the demand (through employers, stringent penalties, etc.) won’t work any better – are we willing to lock up business owners after immigration raids? They don’t do that now because all they do is haul off the workers. The stopping of demand won’t work because demand it too high by Americans. The phrase that cuts both ways to me, is this, “they are doing jobs that Americans won’t do.” That, of course, is complete and utter bullshit. If I’m for more immigration (legal) then I’ll tell you that if a garlic farmer in Gilroy advertises for 150 harvesters at minimum wage he won’t have a line of white Americans who are unemployed lining up for work. At the same time, the jobs that unemployed Americans want – high pay, good hours, health insurance – aren’t the jobs that immigrants, legal or illegal, are taking. We need to get over that patriotic American, job-hunting bullshit and move along.. Does Douthat know why American business owners hire illegal immigrants? They work for cheap and that helps the great free enterprise and capitalism numbers that the Republicans support against all comers. Ironic, isn’t it? Even when President Bush tried twice of overhaul the immigration system the Republicans blocked any movement on it – wouldn’t even bring it to the floor for discussion. If Douthat is so serious about enforcement of laws, and he really, really thinks that cutting the demand is the best solution, then how about getting up and a tub and thumping away at hauling off every business owner and homeowner who employs a single illegal immigrant, just one time. Haul them off, Ross, mister man of laws. But he won’t.

As far as the courts are concerned we have some precedent on suspicion and profiling. They tried setting up police roadblocks in the D.C. neighborhood of Trinidad in the summer of 2008 during a summer of unbelievable violence and the roadblocks were intended to curb that violence. The police, under Cathy Lanier, didn’t want to actually police the city they just wanted to stop people – how random? – going in and out of the neighborhood whenever they felt the need. Funny, it didn’t stop the violence; it was merely a form of profiling of a neighborhood and the courts struck it down. The original Arizona law was equally as bad. The changes simply realign the Arizona law with Federal code – it was changed because of the outcry.

The immigration system is a big problem and needs overhaul. When there’s work and people who want to do it yet we are unable to process them in any reasonable method then we’ll have problems. Better life, better work, better opportunity but no way to let people come here and do the work and live that life. I’m pretty sure that if allowed to immigrate to the U.S. with documents then people would; no one wants to live their life in a shadow. There are options that include temporary worker statues (which we use now), allowing more in for season work, etc. As Douthet points out, 54% of immigrants here from Mexico are here legally. If more than half of come here legally then clearly the preponderance of evidence shows they follow a procedure if it’s available. And 40% of those here illegally came here legally but have out-stayed there welcome – illegally. I get it so spare me the ‘enforce the law’ crap and actually try to do something to fix the problem instead of hailing Sheriff Joe Arpaio as anything other than the complete moronic, racist, jackass that he is.

Thanks