Op-Ed: Is Arizona legislature taking tips from the Nazis, or are they just trying to get the feds' attention?

Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles says it's the former, comparing the recently passed Senate Bill 1070 in Arizona to the requirements by the Third Reich for Jews to carry around identification documents and wear the Star of David on all of their clothes.

Understating it, SB1070 is a controversial bill, as it is the strictest and most open-ended immigration law to be passed on US soil in many years.  Formed as a means to identify and deport illegal immigrants, the law was signed into passing by Republican Governor Janet Brewer on April 23rd in spite of strong criticism from President Obama and many other groups whose cries of 'foul' seem to be clamoring louder everyday, involving everyone from Cardinal Mahoney to Major League Baseball players.

Needless to say, immigration reform is way overdue and needs to be given high priority by the federal government.  Issues have arisen far too often but nothing concrete has yet been done to address the problem and fix yet another broken system.  The fact that such a controversial law as SB1070 has been passed is evidence that the federal government's failure to act on the issue is making it necessary for state governments to act on their own.  Maybe SB1070 was exactly what was needed for Arizona to get the federal government to pay attention.

Aside from the necessity of comprehensive reform, just as important is the way in which such reform takes place, which is the real problem with SB1070.  Although it's great that Arizona is trying to do something about immigration, this is an inappropriate and inadequate solution to the problem, only addressing symptoms, not root causes.

Among the largest criticism of SB1070 is that it "makes racial profiling legal."  This accusation itself is enough to get people riled up and speak out against the bill - how could the Arizona legislature be so hateful?  It's almost surprising how many people have joined together to speak out against SB1070; if Americans feel this strongly about the issue, then obviously something needs to be done about it.  Yet for all of the support immigrants are receiving from some groups, there are not nearly as many cases of actual interaction between regular Americans and immigrants - they're still isolated and misunderstood.

More than any solidarity with immigrants, perhaps it's just that Americans are put on high alert by an issue that skirts as close to racism as racial profiling does.  Such a strong reaction to the possibility of legalized racism sends people into a frenzy that has caused them to quickly isolate the state of Arizona, calling it a "police state" or a "Nazi Outpost."  Yet it's quite disappointing how quickly people are willing to ostracize and label Arizona with so many hateful names, boycotting its businesses and withdrawing students from its universities, without making it clear that it is not the people of Arizona who are to blame, but the state legislature and the governor who passed the law.  How often do states in the Union effectively boycott other states because of their local laws?  Is boycotting really going to get the Arizona government to pay attention or is it only going to exacerbate the problem in Arizona even further?

This situation draws parallels with the debate in International Relations studies about the efficacy of imposing sanctions on a foreign country to get it to comply with demands - is it the people in power who are actually affected or is it the people under them who suffer?

So, does SB1070 actually legalize racial profiling?  SB1070 requires Arizona law enforcement officers to investigate under "reasonable suspicion" those people they suspect of being undocumented immigrants, to prosecute them and deport them if they are proven to be illegal.  Critics complain that racial profiling is inevitable since how are you supposed to tell if someone is illegal or not just by looking at them?  Are officers going to go around and detain everyone who appears to be of Hispanic origin, or who can't speak English?  Even people who are found accompanying illegal immigrants can potentially be arrested under SB1070.

Critics are right that such a wide-sweeping law should not rely upon something as arbitrary as "reasonable suspicion" - there are too many possibilities of abuse of this law.  And yet on the other hand, if people are worried that officers will abuse this law, doesn't that reveal a need to crack down on an irresponsible law enforcement system too?  If people believe that police officers will racially profile, given the chance under law, that reveals a lack of trust in the moral character of law enforcement.  SB1070 contains manifold problems and has holes in it at multiple levels.  Even long time citizens will now have to carry their identification papers with them at all times for fear of being investigated at a time when they are without one.  This creates a fear of law enforcement which should not exist, as well as creates more work for law enforcement officers that will distract them from the more dangerous drug lords and criminals who do get through the border.

Although SB1070 does not blatantly legalize racial profiling, it does open up more possibilities in which it can take place.  Police officers are still subject to federal law that makes racial profiling illegal - state law does not supersede federal law, and any violations of the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search without probable cause will still be prosecuted according to federal law.  Criticism of the law should not be primarily based on conjecture as has been the case here.  Proper criticism must include a thorough analysis of the actual text of the law as well as acknowledgement of the defense given by those who helped write the law.  If someone is so willing to speak out against SB1070, they ought to at least make sure they know what it says, so that there are no false assumptions made.  Then, rather than stopping at being upset about Arizona's laws, there needs to be better alternatives put forth, as was recently done by a group of Democrats in Washington.  For an issue which potentially affects the entire country, immigration must be dealt with by the federal government, not the states themselves.  Let's hope that despite the elections coming at the end of the year, immigration will be given its deserved attention by Washington.