Arizona

This morning I drove to St. Mary's Monastery in Rock Island for our monthly Oblates' meeting. On the way I had a Santana CD playing in my Mitsubishi. I love Santana, and I had the music a little loud. OK, it was the 57-year-old's version of blasting. All of Santana's music has a heavy Latin flavor (you expected?), and not all of the songs are in English.

Under Arizona's new law that could have gotten me pulled over. I'd have had to provide proof of my citizenship.

My opinion: this law is incredibly and needlessly inflammatory. It's racist in its aim (does anyone think this is aimed at a Czech student who overstayed her visa? seriously?). It's on very shaky constitutional grounds, and I'm guessing it will face a serious challenge. And, for its stated purpose it's unnecessary.

Some of those objections relate to one another. The law obliges law enforcement officers to require papers from anyone about whom there is "reasonable suspicion" of their legality. More about that term "reasonable suspicion" later, but what, exactly, would the grounds be for this reasonable suspicion? If a policeman saw someone walking down the street, what would trigger the thought, "I have a reasonable suspicion that this person is an illegal immigrant?" I know that there will be a lot of rationalizations that dance around the true answer. One California congressman said that he could tell by the way they dressed. Hmmm. . .Nonsense. There's only one thing that, in Arizona, would initiate such a thought.

Their brown skin. That's it, and that's all.

You think such racism is gone? The following incidents involved law enforcement officials, not in Arizona but right here in the Quad Cities.

A few years ago a woman on the west side of Davenport had her apartment invaded. The perps beat her and stole some items from her apartment. When the police arrived they investigated and took a report - AFTER making the victim provide proof that she was here legally. She's Mexican, you see. So, you've got someone who is scared, who needs medical attention, but the first thought in your mind was "Let's make sure she's here legally. We'll try to nail the perps later." Really?

A few weeks ago my parish pastor was called to the Bettendorf Police Dept. He was needed to bail out a parishioner. This person had been arrested for a seat belt violation. That was the only charge when Father got there. NOBODY gets arrested on a seat belt violation. NOBODY - unless you happen to have brown skin and you speak English with a funny accent.

If such things happen in the QCA - and I'd bet that most, even from here, didn't know they had - then what kind of thing would go on in a place where it's really a hot-button issue, like Arizona?

Part of the shakiness on constitutional grounds comes from that term, reasonable suspicion. Within law enforcement, reasonable suspicion has a meaning relating to the evidence indicating that an individual has committed an offense. Reasonable suspicion is the stage at which serious investigation begins. Normally, arrest and trial don't occur until the next level of certainty is reached - probable cause. If this law requires detaining people on only the basis of race without probable cause - the same level that it would take to get you arrested - then it is, very likely, unconstitutional. We'll have to see how that plays out.

The other issue of constitutionality has to do with a state infringing on a federal responsibility. The tenth amendment grants to states any powers not reserved to the federal government. Securing of borders is a task reserved in the constitution to the federal government. The state's not liking the way the federal government does that task is not reason for the state to usurp it. Again, we'll have to see how this plays in the courts.

The law is unneeded. Being in the country illegally is a crime now. Law enforcement may detain for that now - IF they have probable cause. This law only takes the (unconstitutional, in my opinion) step of taking the requirement for law enforcement down from probable cause to reasonable suspicion.

I expect that none of these considerations will mean much to the dyed-in-the-wool "Murca's our country and keep then furners out" folks. I'm thinking that this type of thought won't mean much in a state where John McCain has ditched any pretense to integrity because he's got a hard-right challenge from ol' J.D. And, this part of the country was Mexican territory for hundreds of years before it became part of the USA. It was Spanish-speaking long before any English-speaking person saw it.

Sleep well tonight and please don't be troubled by what the hard right is turning your country into.