Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Essentially, the 4th Amendment gives people the right to REFUSE to provide any documentation or information to police unless a warrant is presented. That means, if there is a fugitive who left footprints in the mud, and a police officer asks to see the bottom of your shoes, you have the right to say "no." It also means that unless you are presented with a warrant, you do not have to provide documentation of anything.
Now, people have argued back and forth about the 14th Amendment, but there is a key provision that people should see.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The beginning of the Amendments states that citizens have to right to be under the jurisdiction of the state in which they reside. The end of the amendment makes it clear that any person is entitled to equal protection under the laws.
The most disturbing aspect of what this presents is not a constitutional issue. Immigrants don't bring crime to this state. We do a pretty good job of that anyway. Crime is brought by the organizations who smuggle people into this country. They don't just smuggle people, they smuggle drugs as well. And the harder we make it for people to come here, the more they will rely on underground organizations.
Further, this bill serves as a deterrent for people to come forward to give testimony or report abuse and sexual assault. No one is going to want to go to the police if they feel the police can't be trusted.
The economic repercussions of this bill are already being felt. It was promised to improve the economic outlook for Arizona, but I don't know how that could possibly be. Aside from boycotts, which were unexpected (and I frankly find that a little reactionary. I mean, they affect everyone, not just bill signers), most immigrants, illegal or otherwise, pay taxes. They buy goods, they have tax taken from paychecks, they work hard to support families, both here and elsewhere. Notwithstanding, we are now asking local law enforcement to take over the job of a federal agency, without pay raises or hire increases.
Its obvious I am upset. I understand why people want something done about immigration. But I don't think that some all out ban on immigration, or gestapo enforcement is really the way to go either. This country was founded on the premise that it could be a beacon of freedom and hope for those who were oppressed and hopeless. No one in my family has been in this country more than 150 years. And that is only my maternal grandfather's family. Every other part of my family arrived in the country in the 1920s. What if someone had sent them back? Would my mother be here? Would my father? Would they have met? Me??
Who decides who we send back? Who decides what this country "needs?" If it weren't for the Hispanic influence, Arizona would not be the place it is today. It is the combination of Hispanic, pioneer, native American, and cowboy history that makes this state so awesome. We don't get to pick and choose which history we want to preserve and which we want to destroy.
So, in my humble opinion, after many hours of reading the bill, the federal statute, and the constitution, this bill is far too ambiguous to be considered constitutional. It will definitely be heard by the Supreme Court.
A Rassmussen poll recently posted that 71% of Arizonans support this bill. AP reported it was 42%. It is possible to skew poll results pretty much any way you want them, through question wording and mathematical trickery. Basically, a canvasser asks 500 people what they think, then breaks down the percentages by the makeup of the state. So if they ask 500 Democrats what they think in a primarily Republican state, they have to tinker with the results in order to get a clear demographic, representing the entire state.
What I find more disturbing is the idea that it is not longer considered right to be nice to people. All of a sudden, people use the word "spic" again, and refer to all Mexicans as "them." The same thing happens to those of Arab descent. Apparently, common fucking courtesy and respect for your fellow man has gone out of style.
The Irish are the second largest group of illegal immigrants into this country. Does that mean that people will start eying me suspiciously?
The Murro building in Oklahoma City was blown up by a white male, and just last year a middle aged white man flew a plane into the IRS building. One was a separatist, the other didn't want to pay taxes anymore. Does that mean that white males should be viewed suspiciously?
Culture is mutable. It does not have to be static. We do not have to be threatened by new, different, or other.
It is easy to get caught up in media frenzy surrounding "usual suspect," but the truth is that there is no common enemy. There are people. Humans. And we are not that different.
No comments:
Post a Comment