US vs Arizona

The US Justice Department, led by Atty. General Eric Holder, filed suit in a Phoenix federal court to stop the Arizona law on immigration enforcement from taking effect July 28. The Government, which only targets drug dealers and violent criminals for deportation, claims that the new state law would capture " a flood of illegal immigrants who pose no danger." (1)

The Attorney General said that "Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration law is a federal responsibility.....A patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves." The Government brief contends that "A state may not establish its own immigration policy.....immigration remains the exclusive province of the federal government."

Recall that the new Arizona law only applies when police have probable cause to believe that a person is engaging in a crime, such as drunken driving or drug smuggling. If the officer has "a reasonable suspicion" that the suspect is an illegal alien, the officer must then ascertain if the suspect really is one. Those who cannot prove they are in Arizona legally would then be charged under state law. If convicted, they could be sentenced to fines and even jail. After that, they would be turned over to federal immigration officials. But Arizona has no power to require the Government to deport any of these people; the immigration officials could simply release them all.

There are many areas of criminal law in which state and federal law overlap such as drug dealing and identity theft. Thus we already have " a patchwork of state laws" that cover the same activities as federal laws. In some of these areas the US Justice Department chooses to prosecute only large interstate activities, leaving smaller cases to the state and local authorities. By the same token, the fact that the federal government has no interest in deporting most illegal aliens should not be a bar to arresting and prosecuting them on the state level.

At the heart of this dispute is the desire of President Obama to allow illegal aliens to remain in this country while they apply for citizenship. Republican Senators John McCain (AZ) and Lindsey Graham (SC) have also endorsed bills that would permit this, but they have "flip-flopped" on the issue since it became ballot-box poison. When nearly ten percent of the American workforce is unemployed, most Americans see no benefit in allowing large numbers of illegal aliens to remain here and compete for whatever jobs become available. Thus the President's support for "amnesty" for illegals is both courageous and politically clueless.

I believe that the US District Court in Phoenix will find the case is "not ripe for decision at this time" because so far no harm has been done to anyone, and it is not certain that any harm will ever be done. The Court could either dismiss this suit without prejudice (2) or delay decision until after the law has become effective. Until the Government can present facts based upon the actual implementation of the law, the Court will have no cause to invalidate it.

If only President Obama and Atty. General Holder would read the Glazerbeam, the Government and lawyers for Arizona could be spared this pointless litigation.

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

(1) McClatchy News Service, July 7, 2010.

(2) A case dismissed without prejudice can be refiled later. In this case, the Government could refile a few months after the law becomes effective if the abuses and problems predicted by opponents of the law actually occur.

An Open Letter on the Arizona Boycott

Hon. Tom Barrett, Mayor of Milwaukee
Hon. Scott Walker, Executive of Milwaukee County

Gentlemen:

Resolutions are now pending in both the Milwaukee Common Council and the County Board calling for boycotting Arizona because of the new law which requires police to check on the immigration status of people suspected of criminal activity. I am writing to urge you both to VETO these measures.

1. Validity of the Arizona Law
The Obama Administration is determined to test the new law in the federal courts, and the case will probably be argued all the way to the US Supreme Court. If so, I predict that the Court will uphold the law, which would undermine the case for a boycott. If, on the other hand, the Court overturns the law, no boycott will be needed.

2. Consistency
The human rights situation in China, Zimbabwe, Sudan and a lot of other countries is much worse than it is in Arizona, even if the new law is applied in a discriminatory way. Yet we do not boycott any of these countries. (I do not plan to visit any of them anytime soon, but that is a personal choice.)
But should we not hold American states to a higher standard than foreign countries?
Even if we do, consider these cases:
When many southern states systematically barred black people from voting, we did not boycott them.
When Nevada legalized gambling and prostitution (1), we did not boycott Nevada.
When Oregon legalized assisted suicide, we did not boycott Oregon.
So, we do not routinely pass judgement on the morality of the laws or acts of other states. Yet the proponents of the Arizona boycott would have us impose this drastic penalty on a state that merely requires people to produce a card (such as a driver's license or state ID) to prove that they are in the state legally.

3. Risk of Retaliation
If the proposed boycott takes effect and seriously affects the economy of Arizona, do not be surprised if Arizona responds by boycotting Milwaukee and its industries. Ask local manufacturers if their businesses would be adversely affected if they lost all customers in Arizona. Ask hotel owners if they would not mind losing all visitors from that state. Consider these possible consequences before approving a "trade war" with one of our sister states.

I understand the political pressure that you face from the Latino community to boycott Arizona. Yet I believe that the majority of your constituents do not support the boycott, although the intensity of sentiment on the Latino side is clearly greater . Again, I urge you both to say NO to the boycott.

Gerald S Glazer
2944 N 50th Street
Milwaukee, WI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Nevada state law does not prohibit either activity, but permits individual counties to ban them.

Papers, Please!

"As American Jews,.....we must be alarmed at the notion of Arizona police officers stopping Latinos and asking , 'Papers, please.'....Not long ago in Europe, Jews were forced to carry identification papers and lived in fear of being stopped and questioned. The singling out of Jews in Europe led to a horrific end. What will become of immigrants in this country?"
Editor's Desk Column by Elana Kahn-Oren in Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, May, 2010, page 4.

Since all decent people, especially Jews, hate the Nazis, one way to turn people against a particular policy is to link it somehow to Nazism. Recall Rush Limbaugh's "feminazis" and the hideous Hitler-style moustache on photos of Barack Obama flaunted by protesters just a year ago.

In the same spirit, Mrs. Kahn-Oren would have us abhor the new Arizona law that requires police to enforce immigration law, since officers would ask to see "papers" just like the Nazis did in occupied Europe. (Actually, even the term "papers" reeks of World War II; Arizona officers would be satisfied with a driver's license, state ID or immigration "green card", none of which are really "papers." The same laminated ID cards that we all use to board a plane, rent a car or cash a check will verify American citizenship, should it be questioned.)

A Jew without the right paper (such as a certificate of Swedish citizenship) in Nazi-occupied Europe would be deported to Auschwitz, whereas an illegal (aka "undocumented") alien caught in the US would be deported back to his home country. Is that a distinction worth mentioning? The quoted column does not.

Instead, Mrs. Kahn-Oren goes on to write, "We Jews have an obligation to stand up for others....register our protest to this new law and work to prevent other such attempts to harm undocumented immigrants." By her own estimate, there about 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, nearly the population of Milwaukee. Since they cannot get jobs with legitimate businesses (per federal law since 2006), most of them subsist in the "underground economy" of day labor for cash, which means they pay no income tax. But they do place a strain on the public services provided by the taxpayers of Arizona (and the nation): education, medical, water, and the criminal justice system. The presence of a large unskilled workforce also tends to depress wages for labor, which hurts the native working class of the state.

At the end of the column, Mrs Kahn-Oren calls for "comprehensive and compassionate reform" of our immigration code, without specifying the details of the reform she wants. In other words, we Jews should be "on the side of the angels" in our compassion for the illegal immigrants, and oppose a law intended to alleviate the burden that they have placed on the citizens of our sister state. I have more compassion for the people of Arizona.

DWI: Driving While Illegal

" A coalition of groups (Wisconsin Coalition for Safe Roads) has stepped up its effort to convince Gov. Jim Doyle to allow illegal immigrants to....drive.... (They are ) working people who need to drive to New Berlin and Mequon...."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Feb. 14, 2009

The coalition is seeking to have the State of Wisconsin issue certificates in lieu of driver's licenses to people who have no Social Security card since they are in this country illegally. If someone has no social security card, how can he or she get a job anyway? Legitimate employers nowadays demand to examine them, if only to comply with requirements that payroll taxes be withheld. I suspect that many of the illegals who are working are paid in cash, and that nothing is withheld for income or Social Security tax. If so, these people and their employers are violating our tax laws and well as our immigration laws.

We have been told that illegal immigrants are doing jobs that no American would do, at least not for the same meager pay. This claim was never very creditable, but in view of current unemployment statistics, it is even more ludicrous now. I contend that for every job held by an illegal immigrant, there are several equally qualified American citizens who would gladly accept it for the same pay. Employers could not so easily evade their responsibilities to pay at least minimum wages and their share of the Social Security tax if they were employing Americans, but they should be made to comply with these laws.

Whether more immigration at this time is, on balance, beneficial for America is arguable. But even if some immigration is beneficial, the nation must be able to choose those immigrants with the skills and resources that would best serve American interests. We must be able to exclude criminals, subversives, and those infected with communicable diseases, especially AIDS. Illegal immigration makes a mockery of all these efforts. Yet prominent American politicians of both parties have advocated a "reform bill" that would allow illegals to stay here why they applied for citizenship. Since the recent economic downturn, support for this plan appears to have declined.

So, how should we respond to the demand those who have sneaked across our borders and taken jobs for which they pay no taxes be authorized to drive on our streets and roads?

"No way, Jose!"