To S.B. OR NOT TO S.B.
We find ourselves these days in a presidential election year and with that all the expected mud slinging, fact twisting and general mayhem all part of that process we endure every four years. There is scant attention to fact – a topic to be dealt with on a later post – and widespread amnesia over how we got to the point we are with each side blaming the other.
There numerous issues on the table, among which are the pressing concerns over job creation, the shaky economy and national security. However, there is, among these, one issue which has bearing on all of these elements. That is the issue of illegal immigration.
This topic sparks discussion and often heated debate nationwide but in the border states, it is of particular and compelling interest. In Arizona it has become not only the focus of debate and demonstrations but now is the focus of a U S Department of Justice investigation – the target of which is the Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio. The issue before the Court now is not the law, per se, but as I see it, the implementation of it. The focus of the action of USDOJ is the discriminatory nature of how Sheriff Joe is enforcing the Arizona law, S.B. 1070.What needs to be put out on the table are those other issues which come to the surface because of the “interpretation” and “implementation” of laws and what effect it is having on so many people.
As I noted in my opening statements “ABOUT” this site, I am urging discussion , not increasing the angst level. There are several sides to this complex issue and, while I strongly hold to the premise that we are a nation of law, there must also be a side of us that looks at the effect of law and take necessary steps to either repeal, reform or further clarify how law is used in governing.
I do not purport to have the answers on this one but I sense that, with some rational debate, a solution that will be acceptable to all sides can be reached.
That being said, allow my take on the subject.
Recently, a young lady graduated from Arizona State University. She achieved honors level GPA from the School of Engineering and was the valedictorian of the senior class. The problem – she will be unable to secure a career here as she is a “illegal”, brought here by her parents when she was very young.
More than once in the recent past, a man was arrested for being in the country illegally. He and his wife were about to be deported. Then there was the question of the children. The Constitution holds that if one is born in the United States, one is a citizen of the United States. Legal scholars still debate whether or not this applies to children of aliens or of those here illegally, however, the fact remains that if one is born here, one is a citizen. So, this complicates the deporting of illegals when their children are citizens, does it not ?
As you go out to dinner, or for that matter, have dinner at home and you serve a salad, complete with lettuce or spinach and , say, topped with avocado, there is a darn good chance that your lettuce and spinach came from Yuma County, Arizona and your avocado came from Southern California. And more than likely, it was all picked by workers here on questionable status at best. The harvesting of these vegetables is not only a source of work for those thousands hungry for an income but it forms the economic mainstay for a large portion of Southwestern Arizona and Southern California.
So, where does that leave us ? Families being broken up, local economies being crashed, homes not being built and, sadly, seriously capable engineers unable to work and contribute to turning around the skills pool which is at an all time low, according to some compelling research.
And what is the solution. Well, therein lies the yet to be an unanswered question – at least not answered in a fashion which makes social and economic sense.
This will not be easy. Nor will it be accomplished in the obstructionist atmosphere created by the Tea Party Republicans in Congress as it is congress that will have to formulate policy and guidelines to, if not remedy this problem, at least minimize its negative effects.
Key here is the willingness to view the whole picture and not the narrowly defined strict letter of the law as written.
For the record, Arizona’s S.B. 1070 provides for “…any lawful contact..” and “..reasonable suspicion” needed to demand proof of citizenship. It provides that its implementation “…must be in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration and the protecting of the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of U S citizens…”
There is not much doubt that a large majority of those here in the Southwest illegally are from Mexico and Central America. It is not, though, the sum and totality of illegal immigrants.
The expected opinion of SCOTUS notwithstanding, I submit that wholesale “sweeps” of largely Hispanic neighborhoods does not equate to “lawful contact” nor does it equate to “reasonable suspicion”.
We will take up this topic again to discuss some strategies but for now, I suggest that the Sheriff’s agenda is simply fodder for orchestrated xenophobia.
