For the past couple of weeks I have been stewing about how to respond to Rick’s post in which he tried to analogize the outcry against Arizona’s new immigration law to the Tea Party’s blowout bash against the new federal health care legislation. He called the left out for hypocrisy in its condemnation of the accusations of “socialized medicine” and “death panels,” asserting that the left is “is just as over the top as the most silly Tea Party [when it terms the Arizona law] ‘racist,’ ‘hysterical nativism,’ and evocative of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. It is cause, we hear, to read Arizona out of the civilized community.”
His rhetorical approach was really effective, I think, so I am going to copy it: starting with a concession to gain your trust, before pointing out the flaw I see in Rick’s argument.
First concession: I agree in principle that “[m]ass opposition to disfavored legislation and politicians is fine as long as it is accurate and temperate.” I also agree wholeheartedly that political arguments these days are just about as likely to devolve into irrational hysteria, closed-mindedness, and outright bias on the left as on the right.
One example that comes to mind is the debate about the merits of nuclear power. Though I tend to agree that maybe nuclear power isn’t so bad after all (or that at least, scientists should figure that out rather than unthinkingly conflating nuclear energy with nuclear weapons), the anti-nuclear power arguments are so fervent that I was hesitant to even admit to that opinion in this public forum.
And I agree with Rick’s argument about the protests about the Arizona law to the extent that anyone has said that they make Arizona “evocative of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.”
But calling the Arizona law “racist” or “hysterical nativism”? I don’t think analogizing these labels to “socialized medicine” or “death panels” is accurate. As the foreign-born Governor of California recently (jokingly) pointed out, the Arizona law does put anyone with a foreign accent at risk of being detained and deported on suspicion of being a non-citizen. So, while Rick is right that it’s true that non-resident aliens are required to “carry documentation at all times,” that’s beside the point. The trouble is that in practice, on what basis will the Arizona law enforcement officials form the reasonable suspicion that someone is an alien, instead of a citizen? What else will they have to rely upon, besides skin color, other physical characteristics, and accented speech? Those oval white country code bumper stickers?
Thus, the situation in Arizona, for those citizens who bear the characteristics that might lead Arizona law enforcement officers to suspect they are not citizens, does seem undeniably “nativistic.” Indeed, while I wouldn’t make a broad analogy to the atrocities of Communist Russia, the travel situation for those folks in Arizona does seem, to this former Russian and Soviet Studies student, quite similar to the travel situation in the former Soviet Union; you’d better have your papers with you. If the Arizona law were to be enforced as its plain language permits, some United States citizens, those who match whatever criteria the Arizona officers think creates a reasonable suspicion of “being an alien,” will need, basically, internal passports.
Indeed, even without the sort of stamp of approval that Arizona’s legislature has passed, those folks would probably already be wise to carry around their proof of citizenship. Many citizens of the United States are already being wrongfully arrested, detained, and even deported, based upon immigration officials’ erroneous conclusion that they are non-citizens. In fact, right here in Wisconsin, a McHenry county man has recently filed suit against law enforcement officers there, claiming that they falsely imprisoned him on suspicion that he was an illegal immigrant, refusing to release him even when his brother came to the jail with his naturalization certificate. It cannot be a surprise to anybody that the citizens suffering these harms are, disproportionately, non-white.
In summary, I welcome conversation about the tone of political conversations these days. I am a fan of really listening to the other side. But once in a while, a law actually is racist and nativist, and I think the Arizona law is undeniably one of those.
I think that all parties in this discussion want to read this excellent article from the last issue of The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16060133
I have very mixed emotions about this whole issue. I am an immigrant, I have black hair, and an accent (many say it is a pretty accent, but one never knows …). So, all this is very personal for me. Will I be profiled in Arizona? Maybe, but I also can see the perspective of the police (who I am sure are also not happy, in many cases, by this whole thing!) Now, I am Italian, have a green card, have a Ph.D., know the law and my rights pretty well, and am always nicely treated by immigration officers during my travels. Generally, I think that this is issue is far more complex than many think, and that all parties have good points here. What I do not like is how politicians can use this issue to appeal to the public’s fears and worst natures. Taken individually, most people are good people, no matter where they live, where they are born, their nationality, religion, etc. Then politics and an unfamiliarity with what is different creates the perfect situation to just spoil things rather than actually create a better world.
In my International Business Transactions class I teach about the “free movement” of services (i.e. people). I require my students to investigate their own origins, i.e., who came to the US, and when, and how, in their families. This usually opens minds and begins the discussion on a more moderate basis. The only thing I can say is that I grew up in an integrated and unified Europe, could travel anywhere, reside and work where I wanted among many countries, and in fact I did just that. I have visited many countries in the world with no problem, and I truly wish that all people in the world could have these same freedoms and possibilities. Do we, Europeans and Americans, “deserve” a better life just because of the accident of where we were born? I personally think not, and we should be open to others who are far less fortunate then we are.
Again, this issue is very difficult, all parties have good points, and in order to really solve it we will need godowill and compromise by all parties. Surely this will require sacrifices by all, and of course that is not a very popular position for policians to take, on all sides! For my part, if I am profiled because I speak a different language, etc., I plan to just smile, keep calm, and say a nice “grazie signore”! Goodwill and kindness at any level will build a better world, and this is what I always will try to do …
Look, I don’t have a problem with the SPIRIT of the law; much as I subscribe to that old familiar phrase drilled into Lady Liberty, I recognize that the flow of illegal immigrants into our country does inherently pose some very real problems for society (e.g., lack of insurance or valid licensing on the roads, a potential strain on medical facilities, etc.) that we need to address. I respect that this is an attempt to answer that problem.
However, I’d echo Professor Slavin’s sentiment: how do you enforce it? Because, come on, let’s call this as it is and acknowledge that this law isn’t really designed to stem the flow of illegal Europeans into Tempe as much as it is to stem the flow of our neighbors from south of the US border. And, as we’re all probably aware, there are a great number of Hispanics living in the Southwest, and while I can’t quote you official statistics, I’m going to go out on a limb and say there’s a significant number of legal, proper-to-be-here Hispanics in Arizona. I’m not trying to compare this to Communist Russia or Nazi Germany, but surely those of you who support this law can’t deny that the only way the police can really enforce this kind of law is through ethnic profiling. Is there another way I’m missing? Because I honestly can’t think of an alternative that would actually be remotely effective in stemming the tide.
Vince, I respect your point regarding a comparison of U.S. immigration laws to those in Asia and Europe, but as my grandmother (well, someone’s grandma, at least) would say, “If all of your friends jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do it too?” I don’t know that we can judge the validity or invalidity of a given law based on the laws in other countries, can we? After all, the structure of our legal system may be largely similar in many ways, but there are fundamental differences that I think would affect our analysis of the situation, not the least of which is a moral ideology regarding the application of basic rights to all, even non-citizens. Surely we can rise above other laws we might disagree with?
Vince, as you know, I agree with many of your points and repeat that this issue is very complex and any generalization is just not accurate, from any side. A clear cut solution does not exist, and it seems that all parties now are just fighting instead of trying to improve the situation. And this is making the situation even worst, and the debate even more aggressive, with unnecessary offenses to the other party, when the best solution is a more moderate, but constructive and effective approach. And yes, America has more generous laws, I would even say smarter laws, and that is precisely what makes the US one the “smartest” country in the world, its ability to get the best brains of the world, and very hard working people, and keep them here! And I agree, the Italian “new” law is a really good example of how politics, sadly, looks for short terms gains, and pushes on people fears, which in the long terms does nothing good to the cause of all sides, and yes it calls from strong rethoric, which again does nothing good as well. Yet, I would not mix here the issue of “identity.” This is also very complex, but is not the same issue (btw france has banned all religious symbols from public schools, not just muslim symbols). And in that, the US have always been “ahead,” because of their very history, their tolerance, and again a much “smarter” approach to the synergies that diversity within their poeple can bring for everyone! And immigrants can integrate and endorse the principles of our society and still keep the best of their culture (look at my children, they are 2 and 4 and they speak perfect English and Italian, this is a great thing! and be sure they will learn other languages and cultures as well!) Finally, although comparision among various existing options in the different EU, asian, and other contries may be useful, the US should keep being “ahead” of the courve, and keep welcoming the bright, the hard working people, the people that will continue to make this country one the “smartest” place! Sure, the law should be followed, but the laws should at least attempt to facilitate better outcomes for everones, or most people, and again, here we are at a point were the parties are polarized, and very negative outcomes and resentements, for everyone involved and our society in general, can result from this polarization. Still, there is hope (I hope!), especially because people like you (one of the very best students in the International Business Transactions class in 2008!)and I, who may come from different points of view and perspectives, try actually to look at this very complex issue together, and constructively! Thanks for your comments, as I said, I think all your points are very good points, and only by looking at this issue in its intrisic complexity some positive outcome could (hopefully) happen in the future.
Vince, I also totally agree with you that is precisely a matter of degree and not kind.
Andrew, on the other side, always listen to grandmas, they are often right!
I am glad to hear all of these thoughtful comments. I am not sure what to add, except to say that while (in my view) there are many wonderful and interesting things about the cultures of Europe, a European approach to immigration isn’t something I hope will take hold in the U.S.
Of course it’s true that the federal approach to enforcing our immigration laws has been awful. Not only ineffective but also arbitrary. In fact, the negative consequences of our barely functional immigration bureaucracy are terrible for everybody, but probably worst of all for immigrants, and also for the sense that we live in a country governed by laws.
I guess my point is that (in addition to, as Irene points out, making us more like Europe, and not in a good way) the Arizona law seems likely to make all of that worse, rather than better. Do we really want an America where your freedom of movement depends on your appearance and your manner of speaking? I can’t see how that is a positive development for anybody, in any way.
Vincent, about the show-your-papers thing, what can be said except that very many Americans are always troubled and whiny about that prospect. Whether the loudest whines come from the right or the left seems to vary depending on who is going to have to show the papers under whatever enactment is being complained about, but I don’t think the average American is so blase about the “national identity card” idea. Myself, I actually don’t much care about having to carry the papers, if everybody had to do it. I don’t like laws that discriminate based on whether someone looks and sounds like “they belong here.” That’s why I don’t like the Arizona law.
As for our immigration system, I am glad that your experience with it was good. But there are very few, no, I think I’d say almost no, people who genuinely claim that the current American immigration system (and not just enforcement; application too) functions reasonably well. One example today was this NYT article about some couple: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/nyregion/15visa.html?sq=immigration&st=cse&scp=4&pagewanted=all. It illustrates (1) that even two PhDs couldn’t fill out the paperwork correctly and that (2) results in immigration cases often depend on arbitrary factors rather than equally enforced rules.
Wouldn’t the Arizona law be fairer and easier to apply if it went a step further? That is, what if it required anyone arrested for any crime to show proof of citizenship? Would any of my friends on the Left object to this?
I agree the law would be much fairer and easier to apply in that case.
Vince, have you asked your attorney if he or she agrees with you that the system basically functions pretty well? If so, I would love to hear his or her perspective. I haven’t met an immigration attorney yet who would agree with you.
Vince, after some more thought, I guess I don’t really know whether the application side functions well. I am familiar with the adjudication and enforcement systems, which, in my view, do not.
I’d like to respond to this point:
“Andrew, I forgot to mention that looking to Europe and Asia for comparisons is not done to determine “validity,” as you mention. It is done, as I mentioned, to offer perspective. My point was that comparisons to other laws are far superior to comparisons of the AZ law to totalitarian regimes.
e.g. Law X is like law Y. Not, Law X makes us Nazis.”
Well, for starters, you keep making the argument about comparing it to Nazism and Stalinist Russia, but I don’t see anyone in here comparing it to that. I understand that many others have, but perhaps we can simply acknowledge that other people less willing to intelligently approach the issue are dismissing it as such and that no such people are involved in this case and move past that?
As for your argument that your comparison of other country’s laws is used for “perspective”, I’d disagree. Why bring up another country’s laws and procedures if you’re not looking to draw some relationship between the Arizona law and those other ones? I don’t know much about immigration laws in other countries, so I’ll absolutely defer to you when you say that it’s far more stringent. But if you’re not trying to make a point in relation to the Arizona law . . . well, then, so what? Why do those laws matter in this situation? Your argument seems more aimed at saying “Well, in other countries, the rule is X, Y, and Z, so this law can’t be that bad”, which to me seems to be an attempt to argue the validity of this law.
“Wouldn’t the Arizona law be fairer and easier to apply if it went a step further? That is, what if it required anyone arrested for any crime to show proof of citizenship? Would any of my friends on the Left object to this?”
For starters, I don’t believe this to be a Left/Right thing, as I have more than few “Right” friends who object to this law as well. Second, I’d actually object to that, for several reasons:
(a) Not everyone carries around documents identifying one’s citizenship at all times (and, really, to do so would probably be a very bad idea!), and it’s not like people are clairvoyant enough to predict when they’ll be arrested.
(b) Compelling people to incriminate themselves is a Fifth Amendment violation, and while one might argue that the Constitution doesn’t protect non-citizens, I’d counter by noting that the police don’t know whether you are or aren’t a citizen until they ask you, and it seems a little ridiculous to play the “Well, it’s only illegal if we get information we later can’t use” position.
(c) It still doesn’t actually solve the underlying problem of stemming the tide of illegal immigrants, unless you believe illegal immigrants are predisposed to commit crimes. The ones who don’t actually break laws (who may not be the ones we’re trying to get rid of anyway, but let’s assume they are) will continue to fly under the radar.
Look, I’m not a Democrat, and I’m not a liberal. I just believe that it’s ridiculous to punish someone for looking a certain way. Quite honestly, Vince, the scenario you gave about having to be IDed in South Korea nonstop gives you every right to whine, in my opinion. And, really, I think you probably would if it were happening to you several times per day, and for no other reason beyond “You don’t look like you belong here.” The idea that if it happens to catch an illegal immigrant it makes it OK doesn’t address the problem of the constant harassment of legal US citizens who, realistically, committed no other crime but having been born to a certain ethnicity.
All, to be fair to the system: the US application system is not bad at all, actually I would say is quite good. Personally, I had no one single problem in filing the papers, and INS callings service was very helpful in helping with questions, etc. This was applicable for the visas, the green card, removing the conditions, etc. Not just for me. I have helped many friends and always got help and good care form the INS agents. Also, the process now is fast, and one can get appointments over the web, so need to even wait in the office. Still, there are fees, forms to fill, etc., but it is very manageable. And yes, bad stories sell and they are overrated, I feel sorry for the very many good agents who do work hard, and try to make the best (because they do) for many people in a system which is full of disfunctions, and now totally polarized. But I think this is not the main point. For many is the perception, a perception of presumed not welcoming attitude, which again, I do not think is real, but can be derived by these developments …so much to bring these excessive stories on the news. On the papers side, I agree with Jessica that everybody should have to carry their papers, and I truly thought that this was already applicable to all (btw, this has always been the law in Italy and most of Europe, you have to carry an ID with you or yes you can get a fine, citizen or not, even if they usually waive it if you present your papers within 24 hours to a police station, it did happen to me once, while driving my vespa without wallet). Now, not sure why would people resist that all of us have to carry some papers with us (even just to get identified in case of an accident or similar), it makes common sense to me, but again, this is not the real issue … the fact, bad for all, it has gotten political and personal to many, and yes, we are profiling, and yes if you have dark hairs and speak with a spanish accent people may look down at you and you will have to do far more explaining than many others … but probably to avoid accusation of discrimination the police will stop also blonds or red hairs (so Vince and all “blondies” and German looking like my husband get ready to carry your papers too!), very much like totally harmless looking grandmas are searched at the security line at the airport or children like my 2 year old have to take off their shoes … but the question is: will these unpleasant development make the issue better? And again, what is “better”? And for whom? The problem is that the answer to this question changes a lot depending on who answers, and this debate had gone on and on for long time, but no good solution, for anyone, seem to be anywhere close …
but again, in praise of the INS(homeland security) officers, the system, I think, is made as easy as possible, of course, with many disfunctions, but far better than many others I think is really fair to say.
Even in the adjudication and enforcement arms of our immigration services, I think most of the arbitrariness and lack of due process stems from the agency and its agents being charged with far too much to do with too few resources. Ashley Roth and Annie Walsh in my seminar this semester both wrote really interesting papers discussing the situation at the Executive Office of Immigration Review (and other matters).