The debate continues over the anti-illegal immigrant law passed in Arizona that makes it legal (and, by some interpretation, actually makes it a requirement) for law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of any person for which there is "reasonable suspicion ... that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States", stipulating that "a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."  The law deems that anyone without property immigration documentation is "present on any public or private land in this state".  The law makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to "knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state."  Anyone "transporting" an illegal immigrant and guilty of a traffic crime would be subject to having his or her car confiscated.

Advocates for the bill point to various crimes — often violent, heinous ones, such as the recent murder of a rancher near the Mexican border, and various drug trafficking and human smuggling incidents — and a lack of federal enforcement of immigration laws as the impetus for Arizona taking matters into its own hands.  There are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants currently in Arizona , and estimates range from 10-20 million in the whole of the United States.

It is unfortunate that the federal government has not undertaken immigration reform, and by nearly all accounts has been lax in enforcing immigration laws.  But this law — a huge expansion of government intrusiveness at the expense (of course) of individual liberty, and a diversion for local law enforcement officials from protecting public safety and private property towards looking for people who may or may not be a threat but are here illegally — is the wrong approach, and it couldn't happen at a worse time for Republicans.

The problems with the law are many — so many, in fact, that it is hard to know where to start, so let's start with what is perhaps the most egregious aspect:  the fact that the police will be able to demand immigration papers from anyone with whom "lawful contact" occurs and for which a "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person could be illegal.  This opens the door for a myriad of abuses, summed up neatly by Shikha Dalmia of Forbes thusly:

...since "reasonable suspicion" won't involve presenting actual evidence before a judge to obtain a court order, the police will inevitably have to make snap judgments based on external features. This means that,unless Arizona deploys officers who are blind and deaf, they won't stop blue-eyed blonds who "speak American." Indeed, anyone who claims the law won't lead to racial profiling is in denial or just plain lying.

Advocates of the bill say that this is a misrepresentation of the bill, that "lawful contact" means that the person would have to be, say, pulled over for speeding, or detained fleeing the scene of the crime; however, the terms "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" are not defined anywhere in the bill, and even Governor Jan Brewer (who signed the bill) couldn't define the terms.  In response, she issued an executive order to provide training to police on the as-yet-undefined terms and to supposedly prevent racial or ethnic profiling.  However, nearly 30% of Arizona's population is Hispanic — over 1.8 million people — and approximately 25% of Arizonans speak Spanish at home.  Under what objective criteria can police and other officials charge "reasonable suspicion" if not by profiling?  As conservative commentator Linda Chavez puts it :  "How many of you normally carry your birth certificate or passport with you when you go shopping?  If you look Mexican and are in Arizona, you should be prepared to do so from now on."  The policy is wrought with peril.

Another aspect of the new law is that the police are tasked with charging an illegal immigrant with trespassing when discovered — even if that person is on private property and is guilty of no other crime than simply being in the US without proper documentation (or being able to prove that he or she is legal).  This violates private property rights as well as freedom of association.

The law is a waste of resources.  It puts new responsibilities on local law enforcement officials without additional funding, with punitive measures if an official ignores an immigration violation.  Personally, I'd rather have the police focused on thieves (particularly the one that stole my bike last year), rapists, and murderers.  And while Mexican drug cartels and gangs are escalating their violence across the Rio Grande, the horror stories about crime waves inspired by illegal immigrants are being exaggerated for effect.  As Daniel Griswold, Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute says in National Review :

It is demagoguery to blame illegal-immigrant workers for a crime wave or high unemployment.  Arizona’s crime rate in 2008 was the lowest is has been in 40 years.  Violent crime fell 23 percent in the past decade, a time when the number of illegal immigrants was rising rapidly. The unemployment rate was below 4 percent in 2007, when there were about 100,000 more illegal immigrants in the state than there are today.

The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposed the bill based on the fact that "[t]he provisions of the bill remain problematic and will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner."  The new law could potentially sacrifice protection against those who truly threaten our life, liberty, and property in favor of hunting for those who came here simply to provide a better living for themselves and their families.

The argument at this point typically involves the fact that if someone is an illegal immigrant, they are by their very existence in the US breaking the law and should be prosecuted; otherwise, so the argument goes, we are ignoring our laws.  But technically speaking, every person driving 1 mile per hour above the speed limit is also breaking the law.  Do we really want the police out arresting everyone going 56 or 57 in a 55, or would we prefer enforcement of our traffic laws that recognizes actual threats to public safety — the ostensible purpose for the laws — and worry more about the driver whose speed is endangering others?

There's another reason the law is a mistake:  the concept of federalism.  While the federal government tends to run roughshod over the states, typically in the name of some sort of "progressive" expansion of government intrusiveness, there are specific, enumerated powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.  In ratifying the Constitution and joining the Union, a state cedes those enumerated powers.  For all the federal government attempts to takeover that is outside of its supposedly limited scope, immigration is not one of those:  Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations" and "establish a uniform rule of naturalization".  The 14th Amendment forbids any state from "deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  [italics added]  Immigration — unlike, in my opinion, health care, education, etc. — is an enumerated power of the federal, not state, government.  While the federal government has dropped the ball, that still does not give the State of Arizona extra-Constitutional authority.

Finally, not only is the law wrong, but the timing is even worse.  In the wake of "ObamaCare", the budget-busting "stimulus", high unemployment, record deficits, cap-and-trade, tax increases, and foreign policy gaffes, Republicans were set for huge electoral gains in the November elections.  As activist Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform put it, "Republicans in Arizona have passed a law that can be portrayed as sufficiently anti-Hispanic to drive Hispanic voters and women (as happened in 2008) towards the Democrats ... giving Democrats a possible opening to avoid a repeat of 1994" — when Republicans swept to victory in the House and the Senate.  Libertarian-leaning (and FoxNews contributor) Judge Andrew Napolitano says that the bill — which he finds un-Constitutional — will "bankrupt the Republican Party and the state of Arizona" as Hispanic voters "will flee in droves."  Republicans have shot themselves in the foot at a time when they were rolling towards a potential repeat of the historic landslide victory in 1994.

So the bill expands the intrusiveness of the government at the expense of individual liberty, overburdens local law enforcement without providing additional funds, is vague in its definitions, violates the concept of federalism, is at least arguably un-Constitutional, and will potentially kill any momentum Republicans have had moving towards election day among Hispanic voters who are frustrated with the dramatic expansion of government under the Obama Administration.  It is bad policy and bad politics.  As long as there is a market for laborers in the United States, workers will be coming here to work and make a better life for themselves and their families — supply will rise to meet demand.  If US immigration policy continues not to reflect the demand of the market and refuses to allow enough people legal entrance, then people will come here illegally.  Certainly our laws should be followed and enforced.  But we need laws in place that make sense and reflect reality, so we can keep out the people who mean to do us harm and welcome those who wish to work and prosper.