A challenge to my opposition to AZ Immigration law ... and my reply

Friends,

Since beginning to air my outrage at the new Arizona Immigration law, I've gotten a lot of supportive feedback. But there are two sides to every discussion (in this case perhaps many more than two.) Here's one challenge I got via Facebook, and my response. I feel both are worthy of reposting here for a larger audience:

--------------------------------------

Ben,

This is absolutely not true and I cannot believe that you are falling for this, or maybe you are willfully falling for it because it's fashionable to hate Republicans when you're gay. This is not a Hispanic issue at all. Those who do not agree are just as guilty of the racial profiling that will ALLEGEDLY take place. Such statements that brown people are being targeted is inflammatory and completely misguided. You by your statement are just as guilty as perpetuating and fanning the flames of racism as you accuse others of doing so. Sorry, Ben. You know I love ya, but when we disagree, we disagree.

This is a failure of our government to secure its borders from ALL who cross there illegally. And let's get something straight here -- both parties are at fault because it is the intention of the Democratic party to create a social underclass of people who are dependent on entitlements to survive and thus keep them in power in perpetuity through the entitlements that you and I have to pay for! I'm really tired of these politicians and their failed entitlement experiments who keep on asking us to open our wallets wider and wider. Aren't you?

The Republicans are just as bad for not engaging in workplace enforcement. However, if this was a Democratic bill that had passed the Arizona legislature, I am really skeptical that there would be such an uproar from those who feel so victimized now. It's just another cause celebre to give people reasons to hate what you choose not to understand due to your political viewpoint.

Additionally, If you actually read the bill instead of be a willing byproduct of the rhetoric, you'll see that no one is being capriciously stopped and asked for papers. They are only being stopped for suspicion of a crime, such as stealing or robbing a bank, or killing someone. Special Order 40 in Los Angeles does not allow Police Officers to inquire as to immigration status when someone is suspected of committing a crime.

If illegal immigration is so great, then why are private schools having long waiting lists from parents who want to get their children the hell out of LAUSD?

I challenge anyone to watch the movie The Border, produced by Chris Burgard, which is not a propaganda piece and I am willing to debate anyone at any time regarding this matter. I do not hate people of any skin color or of any nationality, but if you're going to be in our country, then you need to obey our laws instead of cutting in line.

And by the way, I am an registered Independent. Both sides need work and neither one wants to budge, so we're all screwed.

James Henson

-------------------------------------------------
And my response:
-------------------------------------------------

Hey Jim,

Thanks for weighing in. A couple of things:

First, there are two distinct issues on the table -- (1) the very real immigration problems facing America and (2) one state's misguided attempt to address these problems.

Number (1) is something we can discuss in the months ahead. I agree -- we are long overdue. But I'm not here having that discussion today. I'm here to not just talk but CRY OUT about issue number (2).

Then we come to your suggestion that I'm misrepresenting or misunderstanding things. Fortunately, in 2010, facts are easy to verify on the Internet via official sources. And in this instance, it is actually you who is factually incorrect. I've read the law thoroughly. I've read a variety of analyses from political minds from across the spectrum. And I've read Wikipedia. Here's the Wiki summary of SB 1070:

The law makes it a state misdemeanor crime for anyone to be unable to prove lawful residence in the United States upon being asked to provide such proof, [8] and requires police to make a reasonable attempt, when practical, to determine immigration status if there is cause to suspect they are illegal immigrants. [9]

This is how I've represented it, while your claim that "nobody is being capriciously stopped" is in direct contrast with the language of the law itself.

You further assert that according to the new law, people "are only being stopped for suspicion of a crime, such as stealing or robbing a bank, or killing someone." I'm not sure where you came up with this, but that represents neither the actual wording nor the practical application of the law.

Let's go straight to source. Here's an excerpt of the law itself. Far from targeting people "killing or robbing a bank," SB 1070 will allow an identity check for something as minor as a burned-out tail light:

From SB 1070 - "NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND THIS SECTION."

Furthermore, anyone stopped for such a suspected violation (again, we're talking a fix-it ticket, not a felony) and unable to produce satisfactory papers, be they American citizens or foreign nationals, will be detained. The overwhelming majority will be Latino heritage. You can call me a racist for pointing out the obvious and seeing parallels to 1920s/30s Germany and South African Apartheid, but I stand by these assertions.

Finally, to lead your post with a suggestion that a tenured human rights activist like me is opposed to this law because "it's fashionable to hate Republicans when you're gay" is a cheap shot and frankly beneath you. It tarnishes the rest of whatever you might have to say.

Thanks for your input in any case! The plurality of perspective is invaluable as we continue this discussion as a nation.

Ben Patrick Johnson

Los Angeles, CA