Why Lawsuits Against Arizona, When Federal Law is Ignored?

In the July 7, 2010 edition of USA Today, Janet Murguia, the president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, wrote an opposing view to the newspaper’s contention that the U.S. government should not sue Arizona over its yet-to-be-enacted law to check the papers of suspected illegal aliens. The newspaper is actually for “comprehensive immigration reform,” but against the suit, so it was like Ms. Murguia was debating herself. Ms. Murguia used the same, old, tired, arguments opponents to the bill have made since Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) signed it. She wrote that the “Justice Department has a duty to block Arizona’s unconstitutional law.” The constitutionality of the law is yet to be determined by any court. Even though she’s a lawyer, I hardly think Mr. Murguia is qualified to render such an opinion when she is the leader of the nation’s largest Latino civil rights and advocacy group. She mentions that, according to the FBI, “crime along the border and in Arizona is actually down.” If true, you have Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his deputies to thank. Attorney General Eric Holder is investigating him because his policy is to arrest and turn over illegal immigrants to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That’s his reward for good law enforcement. Ms. Murguia contends that “Arizona’s new immigration law…is sure to lead to racial profiling.” What evidence can she cite? Only the federal government has immigration law, not the states. Arizona’s SB 1070 merely requires that when a police officer lawfully encounters a person he reasonably believes is in the country illegally, he must check his documents to verify his lawful presence in the country. The law specifically prohibits racial profiling and requires that the officer has another good reason for the contact before demanding documents. Examples of this include when the person is in a stolen car; selling oranges on a freeway off-ramp without a business license; delivering 50 kilograms of cocaine to an undercover police officer; or is suspected of killing a rancher on his property. This is comparable to seatbelt laws that require a driver commit a moving traffic violation before the police can cite him for not wearing his seatbelt. Despite this, Ms. Murguia writes that “SB 1070 will only make what is already a bad situation far worse.” Far worse for whom? Illegal aliens? Ms. Murguia forgets that Mexican nationals only make up half of the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in this country. The Arizona law will apply equally to non-Latinos. These people have predominately overstayed their visas and refuse to go home. They need rounding up every bit as much as their Latin counterparts. What she also does not mention is that the Arizona law merely replicates federal law requiring foreign visitors and legal permanent residents carry proof of legal entry at all times. If police arrest a legal alien for not having documentation, producing it later will render the matter moot. The way to guarantee not getting arrested is to carry documents to prove you are here legally. There is no constitutional right to obey only laws you agree with. Carry your green card or passport with a valid visa, and there’s no problema. But if you do not have papers and are here illegally, then it’s hasta la vista, baby! Ms. Murguia and La Raza’s solution to “our broken immigration system” is that it “must be comprehensive.” I agree. Comprehensive enforcement of existing immigration law will determine if it is adequate or in need of reform. Without the enforcement equation, we cannot validate the law’s fairness and effectiveness. “Comprehensive reform” to her is amnesty and citizenship for illegal Mexican aliens. That’s not reform, it’s a reward for violating federal law. My comprehensive reform would replicate Mexico’s immigration laws that don’t tolerate illegal aliens in the country or their receiving government benefits. In addition to attacking Sheriff Arpaio, AG Holder is suing Arizona over a law that is not on the books until the end of the month. Yet he won’t prosecute members of the New Black Panther party who clearly intimidated white voters with night sticks at polling places in Philadelphia during the last presidential election. His warped sense of priorities demonstrates his prejudices and inability or unwillingness to do his job. How can we expect our president to provide the Border Patrol with the resources it needs to secure the border when his illegal alien aunt lived in public housing for years before an immigration judge gave her a pass? Surrendering the nation’s sovereignty, as I’m sure Ms. Murguia would like to see, is not my definition of immigration reform.