Arizona Madness - The Totalitarians Continue

Unless a US District Judge issues an injunction prohibiting it from going into effect, Arizona law permitting law enforcement in Arizona to make inquiry about a person's citizenship status when they are otherwise stopped by law enforcement goes into effect on July 29, 2010. This bill is facially unconstitutional in that it oversteps and infringes on Federal supremacy in regulation of immigration. A person who regularly comments on this blog and I were discussing this law recently, and he brought to my attention a US Supreme Court case which he believed to be controlling. The case is De Canas v. Bica 424 US 351 (1976). However, the case, while discussing immigration, is not on point. There are several ways to distinguish De Canas from the case before us here.

In De Canas, supra, the Court held that a California law which made it a crime to hire an undocumented worker was not a regulation of immigration, and was not therefore preempted by the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). However, the Arizona law, in its most insidious parts, has nothing to do with the hiring of undocumented workers. It purports to empower Arizona law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. The enforcement of such laws are specifically enforced by the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security (ICE). Although Section 287(g) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 does allow for ICE to partner with state and local authorities, it also requires that ICE supervise and train those officers who are going to be enforcing immigration law, and it requires a Memorandum of Understanding with the local or state law enforcement department which must state with specificity, among other things, the scope of authority and the limitations on what procedures or functions that the properly trained individuals in that department are able to perform. Arizona's law seeks to grant blanket authority for immigration investigations and determinations to all law enforcement officers in the State of Arizona, without any such training requirement or certification. This is clearly a case of where federal supremacy over a state's laws would apply, and federal law dictates that ICE agents are the primary enforcers of US immigration law. While it is true that ICE can and does delegate some of its responsibility to local law enforcement on occasion, under its partnership with local law enforcement, this delegation is also subject to federal oversight.

The proponents of the Arizona legislation say that because the US Government has failed to curb illegal immigration, they must take this action. However, the proponents of this legislation are all Republicans. It is also republicans who have thwarted any real movement on immigration reform by their mean-spirited and laughable attempts to repatriate all those who are in the United States illegally. At an estimated 11 to 12 million people, where do they think they are going to get all the buses necessary?

The proponents of the legislation also forget that US Law already makes it illegal for an employer to hire someone without the proper documentation of the right to work in the US, but that the business community has for years, (largely with the help of Republicans) fought any attempt to seriously stop the practice. Hugely punitive measures that would cause real pain to companies who routinely hire undocumented workers are unpopular with the business community, because these workers can be underpaid and have little recourse to demand better working conditions and higher pay. This results in higher profits which is pleasing to the stockholders and to their board of directors.

Hopefully, the Hon. Susan Bolton, the US District Court judge hearing this case, will issue a preliminary injunction blocking the law from going into effect, followed by a permanent injunction shoving this law into the dust pan of history. The Republicans who voted for this law should also be held to account by the registered Hispanic voters and other fair-minded citizens of Arizona who should recognize the heavy-handed police state tactics as being counter to the traditions of American fair play and democracy.

Tolerance, Palin Style

Former Alaska Governor and Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin has continued to delight her followers by recent remarks over the proposed building of an Islamic community center near Ground Zero in New York City. Her remarks, sent as a tweet to her followers were "Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts, Pls reject it in interest of healing." The developers of the site say that the site will contain only a prayer room were an Imam may conduct services from time to time. A mosque is generally defined as a place where Muslims worship.

People are free to conduct their religion in any place that they so choose. Our general tolerance of a variety of faiths is part of what makes this country as strong as it is today. While the Supreme Court of the United States has made it perfectly clear that any state (or government) sponsorship of religion is impermissible under the Constitution. Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 US 602 (1971) The Court in Lemon established a three prong test, namely: 1) The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; 2) The government's action must neither advance nor inhibit the free exercise of religion and 3) The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. By even considering religious use as a reason not to grant the use of this property to an Islamic group, New York City imperils itself in violation of the 1st Amendment.

In the case in question, an application is before the New York City Landmark Preservation Commission on permission to demolish a 154 year old building or to place the building on the historical register. Even if the commission gives landmark status to the bu ilding, it will probably not halt construction of the Islamic center.

People opposed to this building have made a variety of statements about this, including an unnamed woman who commented on CNN.com "It would be a terrible mistake to destroy a 154-year-old building in order to build a monument to terrorism". It is truly sad that such bigotry still exists in the United States, but it unfortunately isn't shocking.

Ms. Palin, through her comments on this and other subjects, has fanned the fires of this. This, of course, is the same Ms. Palin who during her campaign for vice-president of the US, was unable to point out Afghanistan on a map, and in general was completely unfamiliar with world geography, the basics of US Civics, (including the role of the Vice President under the US Constitution).

Let us hope that as time goes on, that calmer heads will prevail in New York. It was not Islam that attacked the US on September 11, 2001. Islam is a faith of peace, like the other two great Abrahamic religions of mankind. (Judaism and Christianity) The attackers on September 11, 2001 were fanatics, deluded by a madman, who in his delusions and evil, decided the US was responsible for his plight. Of the thousands who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, at least 40 were Muslims, not counting the 19 hijackers. Islan doesn't promise those who slaughter innocents a place in paradise, not by any stretch of their holy writings.

As we contemplate this matter, let us remember that we should respect all faiths, even those with which we disagree. We should allow them to practice their faith without interference, and we should, both as Americans and Christians, provide an example of tolerance and charity. I don't see that example of tolerance or charity in Ms. Palin or her supporters.