Without going into detailed analysis about today's blocking by a federal judge of key elements of Arizona's new immigraton enforcement law, I feel compelled to express a few thoughts... most which will ruffle political feathers, some conservative and some liberal:
- Racial Profiling - Racial profiling is reprehensible and wrong. Morally wrong, and constitutionally wrong. Let's call racial profiling by its true name: discrimination based on the color of one's skin.
Further, asking police officers to racially profile as a preemptive legal measure-by-force to deter possible illegal immigration is unthinkably wrong, and every American knows, or should know, that.
- U.S. Hiring of Undocumented Workers - Illegal immigrants are in the U.S. mainly because they desperately need jobs of any sort. Some U.S. employers, eager to maximize profits at any cost, seek to hire undocumented workers so that they can pay under-market wages, provide no benefits, and spend as little as possible on working conditions.
For that reason, I fully support the Obama administration's recent aggressive audits "to scour companies' records for illegal immigrant workers," per the New York Times two weeks ago.
Explains the Times, "Over the past year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has conducted audits of employee files at more than 2,900 companies. The agency has levied a record $3 million in civil fines so far this year on businesses that hired unauthorized immigrants, according to official figures. Thousands of those workers have been fired... "
- National ID Card - In balance, I don't understand the furor over a national ID card. We already have national passports; we already have national ID numbers (i.e. Social Security numbers); we already have state driver's licenses or ID cards, and at least here in California, we're required to carry auto insurance ID if we drive. Legal non-citizen residents carry "green cards."
What's the big deal about all U.S. citizens and legal residents carrying a single, uniform ID card, if it ensures greater security in these dangerous, crime-ridden times?
If this issue is privacy, what could the federal government learn via a national ID that they don't already know or can quite easily find out? Sadly, privacy is a moot point these days, what with widespread warrantless wiretapping and email reading... Those horses have already escaped the barn, and apparently, there's no getting them back in, thanks to George Bush.
- States' Rights - That said about a national ID, I worry about states rights, which are supposed to exist both as a check on federal powers, but also to ensure that states are free to regulate in response to unique conditions faced by their citizens.
While I don't defend Arizona's new immigration law, I understand that Arizonans face unique conditions in their state, and they must feel immeasurably galled to have politicians and ivory-tower elites thousands of miles from Arizona dictating local immigration law enforcement to them... and then not following up.
Likewise, I'm always puzzled by conservative crusades to make English the official language of the U.S., and to insist that voting, public education, and the like only be conducted in English. Here in my Southern California region just south of Los Angeles, dozens of languages are spoken daily. Ballots and pollworker instructions are routinely provided in Korean, Mandarin Chinese, Vietnamese, and Spanish, as well as English.
Converting all government communications to only English might make sense in, say, Kansas or Kentucky, but it's wholly impractical in California, as it would disenfranchise millions of voters. Because of practical differences between state populations, this issue must remain controlled by states, and not the federal government.
As the Obama administration and the state of Arizona move forward in resolving the sticky realities and thorny politics of immigration reform, I will analyze Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's immigration agenda in greater detail, particularly as it pertains to immigration law reform legislation.
In the meantime, these articles provide a complete, up-to-date summary of immigration reform developments:
- Judge Blocks Parts of Arizona Immigration Law (About.com US Gov't Info)
- Obama Immigration Push Lacks Political Specifics, Steely Conviction
- President Obama's 2010 Immigration Plan
- President Obama's Immigration Agenda "Guiding Principles"
- Illegal Immigration Explained - Profits & Poverty, Social Security & Starvation
Also, I invite you to share your thoughts here on the Liberal Politics at About.com website: Should Illegal Immigrants Have a Path to U.S. Citizenship?
Comments
A few thoughts for you on the illegal immigration debate…
1. Rewarding illegal immigration is a slap in the face to those who worked hard to LEGALLY immigrate to the US.
2. As much as illegal immigration fills a demand for cheap, unskilled labor for US companies, it allows foreign governments to continue ruinous socialist policies. Consider how the political landscape of Mexico might differ if there were an extra 11 million unemployed there, not remitting their US incomes.
3. The cost to the US taxpayer for illegal immigration are far, far higher than taxpayers gain in lower cost consumer goods. There’s an excellent economic analysis from a few years ago by a econ professor at SDSU… name escapes me though.
What’s amazing in the Arizona debate is that the law largely mirrors federal law. It’s just that they had the gal to actually enforce it.
“If this issue is privacy, what could the federal government learn via a national ID that they don’t already know or can quite easily find out? Sadly, privacy is a moot point these days, what with widespread warrantless wiretapping and email reading… Those horses have already escaped the barn, and apparently, there’s no getting them back in, thanks to George Bush.”
This is a disturbing point to make. So you believe that sense we already don’t have privacy, we shouldn’t mind going the extra mile? Whats next with you? Chips in the for arm?
But on a serious not, you also say that “in the scary times.” Who are you scared of that you would give over your privacy, when the federal government is the one who has caused the most damage… Programs that don’t work, wars that wont end, and a spy network and taxes that are much larger than bush.
Instead of fighting for “border control” and trying to achieve false Utopian ideal of group safety, you should suggest the pros of personal accountability, family, and how I, not the government, could protect me better.
No national ID, no border control, no wire tap will ever save me when it comes down to that moment, when I – not the group – needs protect.
Thanks for ruffling feathers! Oftentimes on this issue it seems as if both sides can be ignorant, and I appreciate your fresh perspective. It definitely made me think.