The Truth @ The Spin Factor

Arizona ACLU misleading on immigration law

The ACLU of Arizona considers Arizona SB1070 unconstitutional. The ACLU of Arizona claims that the new Arizona immigration law is unnecessary, but that does not make it unconstitutional.

In this article, we attempt to rebut some of the claims made by the Arizona ACLU. Before doing so, I would like to add that we consider ourselves libertarian (socially liberal and fiscally conservative), and although we are strong proponents of civil liberties, we feel it is important to point out a few problems with the document issued by the ACLU of Arizona, and a few problems with protests of the law in general. We also will argue briefly for the other side.

The ACLU of Arizona

To start, we would like to quote from the document issued by the ACLU of Arizona.

Summary of major provisions: This bill unconstitutionally allows the state of Arizona to regulate immigration by making any non-citizen who has entered the United States without permission guilty of the additional state crime of trespassing. It gives local police officers authority to investigate, detain and arrest people for perceived immigration violations without the benefit of proper training, exacerbating the problem of racial profiling and raising concerns about the prolonged detention of citizens and legal residents.

According to CNN, the governor intends to issue an executive order which will require special training:

On Monday, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said an executive order accompanying the law will require additional training for officers on how to implement the law without engaging in racial profiling.

The section by section analysis from the Arizona ACLU includes the following claims about SB1070:

(C) Provides for the transfer of any noncitizen who is unlawfully present to federal custody upon discharge from prison or assessment of a fine after conviction of a state offense.

This law is unnecessary as to any person who is booked into a jail or serves time in prison because federal law already provides for a process by which individuals are checked against law enforcement databases and immigration “holds” or detainers can be placed on persons who are identified as non-U.S. citizens. A detainer ensures that the person will be transferred to federal custody instead of being released.

(D)

Provides authority for state and local law enforcement to transport noncitizens in their custody suspected of being unlawfully present to federal authorities, even outside the jurisdiction of the local agency.

This law is unnecessary as to any person who the federal government has reason to believe is in the country illegally because federal law already provides for a process by which those persons can be transported to federal custody. Local agencies can also contract with federal authorities to be reimbursed the cost of detaining and transporting such persons. The only reason why this provision seems to have been included is to permit local law enforcement to transport undocumented immigrants to some point of transfer other than the local Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office—i.e., ICE is, for whatever reason, not interested in taking custody of the person.

This is terrible and misleading writing. Of course it is the case that the law is unnecessary to any person whom the federal government has reason to believe is in the country illegally. But what about the cases where the federal government is not aware of such a person? There could be many situations where local police are aware of an undocumented individual and the federal government isn’t; for example, in places that the federal government has overlooked; or people who entered the border undetected by the federal government. Or as claimed by the political right, people who were ignored by the federal government because the federal government is not strongly enforcing current immigration laws.

In short, the ACLU of Arizona claims that the new Arizona immigration law is unnecessary (a questionable claim), but that does not make it unconstitutional.

The political right

According to FOX News’ contributor Michelle Malkin, Mexico’s immigration laws are “far more draconian” than those in the United States, adding that Mexican authorities can “exercise any discretion” regarding deportations:

So it’s particularly ironic to see them complaining about America when we allow open borders activists and illegal aliens to march on the streets demanding that we give them more than they certainly do in Mexico.

Those claims are generally correct, though mildly exaggerated. Mexico does have tougher immigration laws, although they have been relaxed. For example, Mexico has amended The General Law on Population recently to reflect more progressive thinking and to avoid hypocrisy; The Mexican government has amended or eliminated articles 119, 120 and 127 as of April 2007.

Pat Buchanan’s article Stand Up for Arizona is fairly agreeable, except for the inaccuracy that imprisonment has been replaced with fines in 2008.

The political left

While most liberals outside of Arizona seem to oppose the law, Matt Hardin, a window-and-door salesman who lives in Tucson, said, “We need to create a situation where it is simply not worth the risk to come here illegally. In addition, we need to institute policies that make taking the legal route toward citizenship a more attractive option than the illegal option.”

The creator of Family Guy, Seth McFarlane, has jokingly equated the new law with Nazi Germany and expressed shock. While we are fans of the talented Seth McFarlane, one must point out that the intent of the Arizona law is to enforce a pre-existing federal laws. In other words, if federal law were routinely and consistently enforced, Arizona and many states would already seem like police states. In other words, McFarlane, Shakira and the left in general should oppose the already existing federal laws on immigration, and not just the “new” Arizona immigration law.

Libertarians

Libertarians appear to be quiet on the issue. Ron Paul, a constitutionalist right-leaning libertarian who changed his stance on immigration sometime after the 1988 elections, has stayed under the radar. Lew Rockwell’s blog features an article by Scott Lazarowitz, in which Lazarowitz proposes terrorizing would-be illegal immigrants through trigger-happy vigilantism,

In the context of immigration, property, and border security, private property owners would exercise their right to defend and protect their lives and property, if not interfered with by the State. Would-be violent criminals from across the border could be warned (with signs, in Spanish) that their trespassing and other intrusions will be met with whatever weapons property owners have available. The would-be intruder from south-of-the-border would have a choice: “Hmmm, do I want to cross the border onto Gringo’s land and get my head blown off? Or should I choose to avoid getting my head blown off and not cross the border?”

Of course, libertarians are often split on the issue of immigration, and Lazarowitz falls into the camp that believes very strongly on property rights to inflexible extremes. The Cato Institute is typically much more reasonable, for example, in their article entitled Misguided Fears of Crime Fuel Arizona Immigration Law.

Arizona’s harsh new law against illegal immigration is being justified in part as a measure to combat crime. The murder of an Arizona rancher in March, allegedly by somebody in the country without documentation, galvanized support for the bill.

The death of the rancher was a tragedy, and drug-related violence along the border is a real problem, but it is a smear to blame low-skilled immigrant workers from Latin America for creating a crime problem in Arizona.

The crime rate in Arizona in 2008 was the lowest it has been in four decades. In the past decade, as the number of illegal immigrants in the state grew rapidly, the violent crime rate dropped by 23 percent, the property crime rate by 28 percent. (You can check out the DoJ figures here.)

Census data show that immigrants are actually less likely to commit crimes than their native-born counterparts, as I unpacked a few months ago in an article for Commentary magazine titled, “Higher Immigration, Lower Crime.”

The Spin Factor

Illegal immigration itself is less of a problem than proposed by the political right. Per The Cato Institute, violence has dropped with increased illegal immigration. States like California may actually suffer economically due to illegal immigration, but the root of the problem is actually the liberal way in which welfare is distributed to non-citizens, not illegal immigration itself. In fact, we contend that immigration laws are largely unnecessary if we can avoid conferring social security and other benefits to non-citizens.

We do not believe that non-citizens should receive any tax-funded benefits.

But until the federal law is repealed or revised, it ought to be enforced. Individuals may be detained unjustly from time to time if there is reasonable suspicion, but if we don’t enforce our laws, they become meaningless. Mexico itself has tough deportation laws and as much as we love Mexico, President Calderón is not in a position to condemn the United States without seeming hypocritical. Shakira and many others seem to be ignorant of Mexican immigration laws and U.S. federal laws, which do not differ substantially from the new Arizona law.

In the cases where a citizen is detained on unreasonable grounds or for too long, law enforcement should be required to compensate the detained individuals for any damages.

May 2nd, 2010 Posted by eaglescout | Politics | 8 comments