George Will Weighs in on AZ Law
Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but I think George Will of the Washington Post does an excellent job of defending the state of Arizona's new immigration law.
Some critics say Arizona's law is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" prevents the government from taking action on the basis of race. Liberals, however, cannot comfortably make this argument because they support racial set-asides in government contracting, racial preferences in college admissions, racial gerrymandering of legislative districts and other aspects of a racial spoils system. Although liberals are appalled by racial profiling, some seem to think vocational profiling (police officers are insensitive incompetents) is merely intellectual efficiency, as is state profiling (Arizonans are xenophobic).
Probably 30 percent of Arizona's residents are Hispanic. Arizona police officers, like officers everywhere, have enough to do without being required to seek arrests by violating settled law with random stops of people who speak Spanish. In the practice of the complex and demanding craft of policing, good officers -- the vast majority -- routinely make nuanced judgments about when there is probable cause for acting on reasonable suspicions of illegality.
Arizona's law might give the nation information about whether judicious enforcement discourages illegality. If so, it is a worthwhile experiment in federalism.
George Will is known for his candor and level-head. He is not Michael Savage or Glenn Beck. Read the full column he wrote today here, and please continue to join in the on-going discussion we will be having in the next week or so about this controversial piece of legislation.
RJ's Social Network
Read RJ’s Columns/Blogs
What is “Mere Conservatism”?
Video of RJ
Rudy the Dog barks at "change"
Books You Need to Read
Wall Street Journal
Blogroll
- Acton Power Blog
- Big Government
- Big Hollywood
- Black and Red
- Conservative Daily Blog
- Dad's blog
- Dennis Prager (The Master)
- Desiring God (John Piper)
- Doug Giles (Clash Radio)
- Education News
- Hugh Hewitt
- Jihad Watch
- Mere Orthodoxy
- Michael Medved
- Milton Friedman
- Mom's blog
- My LOST blog
- Only Good Movies
- Patriots Corner
- Remnant Culture
- Shot In The Dark
- Stiletto Blog
- Subscribe via RSS
- The Straight Hype
- Twitter Me
Columnists You Need to Read
- Ann Coulter
- Charles Krauthammer
- Christopher Hitchens
- George Will
- Jonah Goldberg
- Karl Rove
- Mark Steyn
- Marvin Olasky
- Thomas Sowell
- Tony Blankley
- Walter E. Williams
Music/Entertainment
News/Politics
- Drudge Report
- Fact Check
- Fox News
- Hot Air
- Jerusalem Post
- National Review
- Real Clear Politics
- Townhall
- Washington Times
- Weekly Standard
April 28th, 2010 - 23:19
I’m working on an in-depth analysis of this law so that I can present it on the blog on Sunday.
That being said, I read Will’s piece and I disagree with it profoundly. After reading it, you get no sense of the true controversy of the law. The only point in which he addresses the law is when referring to the clause that allows police to pursue a perp to check his immigration status. He both acknowledges that the law uses vague language like “reasonable” and “probable cause,” and yet claims based on blind faith that police will not abuse the unclear language–and in so doing abuse citizens. Will simply contends that a cop will not harass someone because cops are too busy. That argument is so absolutely absurd and is frankly beneath George Will.
He also claims that disagreement with the law puts one at odds with the majority of Arizonans. That may be so, but even if true, that says nothing about the fairness of the law. He acknowledges this point in the following paragraph, which leads me to wonder why he even raised it in the first place. If he is making a point about federalism–a concept I am very much in favor of–then even he must know that federalism does not trump justice. Otherwise, he is simply thinking aloud and wasting his readers’ time.
In this article, Will makes another horrible argument that the left has no right to decry racial profiling because they support racial preferences in hiring which is, itself, racial profiling. This argument is so silly that it almost makes me cry knowing that I have to associate it with such a brilliant man! Whether or not the left is inconsistent on the issue of racial profiling has NOTHING to do with whether or not this law promotes racial profiling. If Will is arguing that racial profiling is wrong, then he must address that aspect of this law regardless of the track record of those who share his position. If he is arguing that racial profiling is okay in this case, then HE loses credibility by arguing that the left has no right to choose a case in which racial profiling should be acceptable. It’s either wrong all of the time, or it’s wrong some of the time.
April 29th, 2010 - 07:18
Thanks for posting your thoughts JTH.
For some further perspective, check out Byron York’s piece in the Wash Examiner yesterday: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html
April 29th, 2010 - 10:47
Along the lines of what JTH said, I don’t buy the argument “They are hypocrites, so we don’t have to obey the Constitution either!” That has nothing to do with the Constitutional status of this law, and the vilifying of the left is a pretty tired game when the issue is skipped over so recklessly…
May 3rd, 2010 - 20:40
Thanks for pawning me off onto another conservative columnist RJM.
For some further perspective, read the bill: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf