The Political Implications of Arizona's Immigration Bill

Note: I wrote the majority of this post last night around 2AM on my iPhone while I was in bed. Then, this afternoon I saw the following tweet from Fox News:

"Rallying Cry: Dems using Arizona immigration law to drum up support for federal action http://fxn.ws/debI2G"

The concern seemed fairly obvious to me - but appeared to be lost on many conservatives, which I found disappointing.

Anyway, without further adieu - the actual post:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My rather libertarian concerns about Arizona's recently passed immigration bill potentially creating police state conditions aside, I have some pretty major, and I fear legitimate, concerns about the bill's national political implications on both the federal amnesty agenda and the conservative 10th amendment movement.

A lot of conservatives are excited about this bill - and on the surface I can understand why; the claim is that finally, the problem of illegal immigration will be curbed in Arizona, because the laws will actually be enforced. (Sidenote: Endless enforcement of bad laws that don't address the actual issue won't help a thing. The root of the problem is the language in the 14th amendment that creates the incentive to have "anchor babies"- but that's an entirely different discussion).

While I agree that illegal immigration is a problem and that laws, insofar as they exist, should be enforced (or changed), I don't think it's worth creating a police state that has the potential to result in more lawsuits than meaningful deportations - or arrests; (in which case don't bother; they should be sent back to their home country, not be allowed to live off US taxpayer's money). I fear that conservatives; desperate for any perceived "crackdown" on illegals, are willing to support any measure that claims to do so without thinking through the logical (or for that matter, political) implications of the policy.

.... But, like I said, the political implications are what I want to discuss, and I believe they are twofold:



#1: The bill will have provide a rallying cry for leftists looking to pursue an agenda of national of amnesty, and will give them a perceived legitimate (though misguided) reason to claim racism.

#2: I worry about the bill's negative impact on the 10th amendment movement at large; especially because it has been gaining legitimate steam in response to the recent passage of the "health care" bill. In this instance, however, the issue of immigration enforcement is the federal government's constitutional duty. I worry that if conservatives arbitrarily support any state action that makes a move they consider favorable on a pet policy issue without considering the wider impact on federalism, that we'll ultimately hurt our own cause.

To further address my first point: It's a widely known fact that some on the far-left choose to wrongfully play the race card in an effort to squash any dissent toward agendas they advocate for. We see it all of the time - a glaring example, of course, being absurd claims that paint the Tea Party movement as racist (as if there's some sort of logical connection between advocating for limited government yet simultaneously supporting government backed suppression of minorities).

I've always been an outspoken advocate against the left's "Boy Who Cried Wolf" policy toward screaming "RACIST!" in response to any disagreement, as it (besides being endlessly frusturating and disturbingly ignorant) takes away from substantive debate and leads to playground politics. When discussion digresses to that level, the conversation may as well end with one participant calling the other a poopie face. But more than the issue of uncivilized, meaningless ad hominem attacks, my concern is the devaluing of a legitimate potential for government abuses leading to racism.

...And frankly, in this instance, I do fear the potential for actual racism. Unfortunately though, this legitimate concern has been undermined by the fact that "racism" has been the reply to everything conservatives have advocated, when a healthy 99% of the time, I'm sure that's not the case. And to be very clear, I don't think that's the intent with this bill either. The policy, however, gives law enforcement the tools to act in a blatantly racist manner should they choose to. Under this bill, cops are able to target anyone they have a "reasonable suspicion" is an illegal immigrant. What, realistically, does that mean? Sure - the cop needs to have a "lawful encounter" first; but there are a trillion excuses in the book for a cop to approach someone; I don't see that as being a real impediment. Doesn't that kind of vague language, in both instances, give the left a more probable excuse to stick conservatives, and worse, state action against the federal government, with racism? Even when that's not the intent? Politically, I think so (even if logically, I think, eh, maybe not).

.... Which leads me to my second point: the potential devaluing of an otherwise legitimate 10th amendment movement. Sadly, as rational people know, there's a major chasm between the reality of politics and logic. However, we exist in reality, and need to make politically pragmatic decisions if we intend on affecting substantive change (a position that gets me in trouble with libertarian purists; an entirely different story for another time).

In my opinion, the whole ordeal sets the state's rights (or, if you prefer, decentralization) movement back, because the claim Arizona is making via the passage of this bill appears to be constitutionally unsound. With the health care debate; specifically the individual mandate, the states have a completely legitimate, constitutionally based reason to fight back. Clearly, in the context of the health care debate, there are problems with the ridiculously broad interpretation of the commerce clause, or worse, general welfare clause, which are the legitimizing forces for the rationale behind the health care mandate. To any advocate of constitutional principles, it's clear that such misguided logic flies in the face of the obvious, enumerated powers the Constitution gives Congress; not to mention, of course, the 10th amendment. In the instance of the immigration bill, however, state's rights advocates happen to not have federalism on their side - and the dangers of being so ideologically inconsistent are clear; the entire movement for decentralization could be put in jeopardy.

Nothing bothers me more than conservatives who lose all sense of ideological consistency when it comes to their pet projects, and start making emotional appeals for the government to "DO SOMETHING", just as liberals are famous for. We, as advocates for limited government and the rule of law, talk about federalism and how the states should be empowered when the federal government gets out of hand ... and those claims are based in a principled understanding of federalism. Conservatives who claim to respect the rule of law can't just ignore how the Constitution works when their favorite project is affected; if we do that, we run the risk of losing ALL of the debates; health care included.

Section 1 of the 14th amendment clearly states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." That right there is root of the problem. The incentive for illegal immigrants to come into the US is the "anchor baby" clause, coupled, of course, with the problems of the welfare state. In my opinion, if the states want to take any kind of action on immigration, they should make sure to strictly tie public assistance to citizenship; not deal with the issue of enforcement; a federal prerogative.

A state bill empowering law enforcement to create a police state culture that has the potential to unfairly target a certain segment of society - simply to report them to a federal authority that ultimately WON'T enforce the law anyway - is a political and moral risk on many levels that I'm not willing to take; nor should other conservatives. Of course I'm not saying that I think Arizona police officers are going to act in a racist manner (unlike the liberal claim that there's a desire to). What I'm saying is that as a person with libertarian sentiments, I'm naturally weary of government power that could lead to such abuses. Essentially, I need a damn good reason to believe that the use of government force outweighs its hazards. In this instance, I'm unconvinced.

Yes - illegal immigration is a problem. But every arbitrary law that claims to "do something" about it shouldn't be supported at face value. I recognize that conservatives are inclined to support this bill because it's a state action that claims to fix something that the federal government consistently won't - but if the move is very likely to be deemed unconstitutional (and the ultimate power of enforcement still rests with the lackadaisical federal government) then what good does it ultimately do?

Mark my words; politically speaking, this bill will do FAR more harm than good to the overall issue of illegal immigration - not to mention the 10th amendment movement (which claims to be based in principles of federalism; but isn't if it backs this Arizona bill).

What are your thoughts? I'm very much open to the notion that I'm wrong here, and would be interested in any constitutionally sound arguments that legitimize the bill (though I fear they're scarce).

- Corie