Think Before Protesting

The controversy surrounding the recently passed immigration bill in Arizona is quickly becoming an exercise in protest for no sake other than to protest. The bill, although imperfect, sets out to accomplish a worthy and necessary goal. And in contrast to many criticisms, it has very little downside.

One of the primary aims of the bill is to allow the state of Arizona to enforce federal immigration laws that are not being adequately handled by federal forces. It now makes the federal crime of being in the country illegally a state crime. The law, which has in practice already been implemented in some parts of Arizona, allows local authorities to manage the large numbers of illegal immigrants that are in the state. While, according to Gallup Polls, 51% of those who have heard of the law, support it, its passage has sparked widespread, albeit misguided, controversy.

The major criticism is that the bill opens the doors for racial profiling. Obviously, it would be intolerable to establish a “police state” where the authorities could stop anyone, at any time, to ask for identification. If such a bill was passed (if it even could be passed) it would be a serious breach of individual liberty and a gross power grab by the state.

However, that is not the case in Arizona. The fears, fanned by media sensationalism, of a Nazi-esque state are ill-founded. If one takes a brief peak at the legislation it is plainly obvious that the language precisely prohibits such heinous behavior. The bill states,

A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements…

This was further affirmed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, “We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent or social status.”

It further emphasizes that law enforcement officials are only to act under “reasonable suspicion.” In other words, the police are only able to check for immigration status when some action, other than race, leads them to believe that a person is an illegal immigrant.

The fact of the matter is that despite critics’ attempts to ignore or dismiss this protective language, their inclusion is evidence of an important safeguard against the main fear backing the opposition to the new law. Furthermore, those who choose to dismiss the language fail to realize that this type of protection already, and successfully, exists in regards to a whole slew of current laws. There is, generally, no wanton abuse of police power – and when there is the courts deal with them in an appropriate fashion. As John Lott points out,

Police today already have to deal with the “reasonable suspicion” standard all the time in other areas of law enforcement, and most understand very well how this standard limits what they can do. Police know that they can't pull over drivers for fear that they are smuggling drugs just because they are black.

Being vigilant to prevent abuse of power and arbitrary racial profiling is essential, but that does not negate the underlying correctness of the law. Ultimately, the presence of illegal individuals within the United States cannot be tolerated. It undermines the sovereignty and security of the nation and introduces a whole host of logistical and economic problems.

However, the Arizona bill only goes halfway. As a state bill, it has no power to reform the immigration system, which is badly needed. Strict enforcement of immigration policy – a zero tolerance for illegal presence in the United States – must go hand-in-hand with increased ease for immigrants, whether permanent or temporary, to legally be in the country.

The federal government should seize the opportunity to establish a working immigration system that gives individuals the incentive to utilize legal avenues to sharing the bounty that is America. It is mutually beneficial to have a vast supply of legal immigrants. The nativism and xenophobia that opposes real reform is unfortunate, misguided, and detrimental (and probably smaller than many on the Left believe). It must not be allowed to be a force to hinder real reform; either by the Left to mis-portray the vast majority of the Right, or for the isolated xenophobes on the Right to hijack the agenda.

Obama's "Stupid" Comment

Obama ate his words yesterday after issuing an apology to Cambridge’s Sergeant Crowley. Previously, Obama had maligned Sergeant Crowley and the Cambridge police for their arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. by stating that they had acted “stupidly”. Unsurprisingly, Obama’s ill informed statements added fuel to the fire. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal stated:

Mr. Obama’s broadside against local cops sends the wrong message to Americans of every race about how to respond to misunderstandings with police. His comments may also do more to aggravate than alleviate tensions between police officers and the minority communities they serve.

Obama’s commentary was out of line. While some, such as Karl DeVries at Reality Checkpoints, attempt to minimize Obama’s statement, it is clear that Obama’s behavior was anything but minimal. His un-presidential behavior raises a couple of pertinent issues.

Firstly, Obama implicitly assumed that racial profiling occurred. Without knowing the facts and admitting a pro-Gates bias (they are friends), Obama slammed the police for an act they did not commit. As argued in the prior post and supported by Officer Crowley’s account of the arrest, there were no racially motivated behaviors on the part of the police. (In fact, Officer Crowley is responsible for teaching fellow police officers about racial profiling.) Gates was the one who brought race into the picture.

This unfair and heinous assumption is quite harmful. While not fair to declare it as a black militant worldview, as some might, it speaks volumes about our President’s perspective. Up until this point, Obama should have been rightfully commended. He handled the race issue with tact and poise. He refused to be sucked into petty racial quarrels or speak the langue of backwards leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Obama’s gaffe shows a first crack in his otherwise perfect veneer. While it is certainly laudable that he apologized (I always respect a man for admitting he is wrong), the slip-up has done damage to the post-racial worldview that Obama could have helped bring to America.

Secondly, this ties in with a much deeper issue; that of a titan struggle between those who accept and reject a post-racial America. Leaders such as Gates, Sharpton, and Jackson willingly or unwittingly need to maintain a worldview where American racism and oppression exist. Sharpton, for one, is adept at creating racial tensions where they didn’t exist before. On the other side stand the likes of Bill Cosby; leaders who recognize a history of racism, but also acknowledge times have changed and there are other factors that contribute to the plight of the black community.

While understanding the history of black oppression is essential and necessary, the past needs to be separated from the present. Gates falls into the common trap of seeing today’s events through a 1950s lens. While racial tensions certainly and unfortunately do still exist in America, they no longer predominate the interactions between whites and blacks. American leaders have a responsibility to ease these tensions and bridge the gap. However, Obama’s “stupid” comment only demonstrates another issue where the supposed uniting, bipartisan President has become a divider. His comment allied himself with the outmoded old guard of black leadership– a political mistake on one hand, but a historic mistake that will handicap his ability to change the racial dialogue in America.