The Arizona Immigration Law is fair and reasonable

Thanks to Con for an excellent debate on a timely topic. I hope at least a few people will read it! I challenged Con to specify exactly what is in the Arizona law that is unfair or unreasonable. Obama's claim that it allows arbitrary harassment is clearly false, and Con didn't attempt any such argument. Con's first claim was that in situations where someone committed a minor crime, the police might act prejudicially against an Hispanic. I pointed out that it is impossible to write a law that was immune to the potential of unfair enforcement. Whether the law is homicide or littering, it is possible for the police to act unfairly. I challenged Con to provide evidence that Arizona police were characteristically unfair. He provided no evidence. The police force is 30% Hispanic, like the state. I challenged Con to explain how that was possible if the state was characteristically racist. Con did not reply. I argued that if in fact there was some unfairness in carrying out laws in Arizona, no matter if it is homicide, littering, or immigration law, the remedy is to improve police training and weed out the bad actors, not repeal all the laws. Con did not respond. Con presented an Australian computer simulation that claims that illegal workers are a net benefit to the economy. I pointed out several major flaws in the study.One is that the computer simulation was not checked against real world data. Multiple studies, which I cited, show that illegal immigration is economically damaging. Con never made any reference to real world data, only computer simulations. I also pointed out that the study assumed complete border security and immigration control, so that immigrants were always employed. The study assumed that present immigrants were in an environment of full employment, which may have been reasonable when the study was done, but is not true now. The study also assumed that no one came to the US illegally to obtain better medical care or other benefits, and that none came to deal drugs or engage in other illegal activities. Con ignored my criticisms. Con continues to maintain that once an illegal makes it across the border they are always a net benefit to American society and should be allowed to stay here immune from detection and repatriation. So, for example, in the past year 500,000 illegals were intercepted in the Tucson sector alone. It's usually figured that one in four is caught at the border. According to Con's theory, once they cross the border they are an economic asset, despite Arizona's terrible economic condition and high unemployment. Con's argument is not tenable. They might be an asset if all were employed, as Con's study assumed, but that is not the case. Con mistakes the concept of "attrition," claiming it is means the same as "panic." Attrition means a slow exodus under pressure. According to the dictinary "attrition" is "A gradual diminution in number or strength because of constant stress. ... A gradual, natural reduction in membership or personnel, as through retirement, resignation, or death." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... The goal is to increase the pressure on illegal immigration so it gradually subsides. Even if Con's argument is true, that immigrants become an asset upon crossing the border, would it be unreasonable for Arizona to believe that it is not true? There are many reputable studies that say that in the real world it is not true, so it is reasonable to believe real world data over computer simulation. The Arizona law is therefore reasonable. The Arizona law does not give any new powers to police to inquire about immigration status. Police anywhere in the country can check a suspect person's immigration status. In sanctuary cities, they chose not to; in San Francisco they were not even checking felons. The Arizona law requires that status be checked, but only in the very limited circumstances of enforcing other laws. Con keeps repeating that mirroring Federal Law is not necessarily fair. I agree that in theory Federal Law might not be fair, but I pressed Con to reveal exactly what it was about Federal law that is unfair. I pointed out that the Federal law has withstood Court scrutiny under the Constitution and all of the subsequent civil rights legislation. When pressed, Con finally claimed that the unfairness had nothing to do with civil rights, but that Federal law had not been previously enforced, so it was unfair to start enforcing it. Con's argument is wrong, because Federal law has been enforced continually. What is sought is more vigorous enforcement. In other words, there has never been a reliable presumption that the law wouldn't be enforced, so therefore it is fair to increase the level of enforcement. There is a parallel with enforcement of laws against human trafficking. The laws against it were always in place, but enforcement was lax. In recent years, public awareness increased as to the scope of the problem and its very bad consequences, so enforcement has been increased. Those selling sex slaves ought not claim immunity on the grounds that it is unfair to decrease the odds of them getting away with the crime. The resources devoted to enforcing a particular law depend upon awareness of the harm done to society. When the nation has very low unemployment and fairly good revenues to support welfare programs, there is less pressure to step up enforcement of immigration laws. Now we are in a financial crisis, there are no spare jobs, and we are facing much more severe problems of drug smuggling and terrorist threat. It's reasonable to increase enforcement. I pointed out several times that the illegal immigrant population includes criminals and terrorists. To be sure it is not a large percentage, but they now have a sea of illegals in which to hide. I challenged Con to explain why Arizona should not attempt to locate and expel professional bad guys. Con never responded. I contended that the main purpose of Arizona's law is to draw attention to the problem of illegal immigration so that the Federal government will act to solve the problem. The previous governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, sent invoices to the Feds for some of the expenses incurred by Arizona as a consequence of the Federal failure to enforce the laws. She was outraged at getting no response. Now Napolitano is receiving those invoices in her new role as Secretary of Homeland Security, and she is ignoring them. Arizona is reasonably trying to raise the issue through legislation that gives the police no new powers and contains far greater safeguards than Federal law. So far, Obama has at least responded with a token force of 1200 National Guardsmen to help by pushing paperwork. It's not much, but it shows the law is starting to have its desired effect. Con ignored my argument and did not respond. All illegal immigrants are foreigners. Hence laws against illegal immigration target foreigners. What is foreign depends upon where you are. Every country in the world, from The Vatican to China is able to cope with this type of "unfairness" and has laws to limit immigration. Mexico has especially harsh laws governing illegal immigration, which comes from Central America to Mexico. Only a minority in the United States cannot seem to understand the critical need to have immigration laws and to enforce them both at the border and within the nation. The Arizona law is primarily symbolic. It is fair and reasonable for the State to protect its economic viability and to draw attention to the need for Federal action. There is nothing in the law that violates civil rights and the Courts have upheld the much more stringent Federal law against civil rights challenges. Con has made only hypothetical claims unsupported by either real world economic data or actual experience with civil rights in Arizona. I made many challenges to his arguments which were ignored. The resolution is affirmed.