This article’s purpose is to try to rationally hash out the details of what should be a very open and shut case.

1.  Documentation

The new law does not give the Arizona law enforcement community free reign to pull over anyone just on the basis that they appear to be illegal.  The new Arizonan law requires law enforcement officials to inquire on the legal status of suspected illegals only during the course of regular law enforcement intervention, like a traffic stop.

The first step for the investigation is going to be for the law enforcement official to ask for some sort of document to prove the legal status of the individual.  What is the first thing a law enforcement official asks for at traffic stops or civil disobedience complaint?  Your identification, usually in the form of a driver’s license, is requested.  The reason that it is checked is to make sure you are licensed to operate the vehicle (if driving) and to check for any outstanding warrants.  Therefore the argument of, “It is unlawful to just say ’show us your paper’”, is totally invalid.  It already happens every time the police interact with someone.

If an individual cannot provide the documentation in the form of a state issued driver’s license or identification card, then further investigation will be warranted if there is a reasonable doubt regarding the status of the individual.  However to stress, the first thing required is the absence of state issued identification that citizens already carry.

If the individual does not have that form of identification because they are not in the country of their citizenship, the next reasonable thing to expect to see is a passport, visa, green card, or a guest worker pass.  If I were to travel in Europe, I would not have documentation as a German citizen, but I would most certainly have my passport on me.  If I were in the midst of an extended stay, I would certainly have a visa.  If I had emigrated from the US to a different country, I would assume that I would be in possession of some sort of transitional documents that gave my status.  The State of Arizona’s expectation that someone should have these documents is not illegal, it is the standard practice of the majority of the civilized world.

Thusly, it stands to reason that documentation is the first key variable of this equation.

2.  Reasonable Doubt

It seems that the automatic reaction by people who think of the assurance of the civil liberties of this country’s citizens are the paramount responsibility of the Federal Government (which they are) and our benevolent social arbiters, let’s call them the American Left, decry that the new law concerning immigration in Arizona is racist.  In a post modern world, we should be working towards not seeing colors at all.  I would argue that the new Arizona law is not racist, but linguistist.  Meaning, that the more discriminating factor in the new search for illegals will more than likely be their ability to communicate with the law enforcement authorities.

The new law just happens to be in a state with a large presence of illegal resident Mexican nationals, so the American Left automatically jumps to the finding of reasonable doubt based solely upon the race of the individual.  However, in a State with as large of a population of Mexican-Americans (be they legal, naturalized, or just plain Made in the USA), this is not practical to base the assessment solely on race.  Therefore an individual bereft of the documentation mentioned above presents the first variable in the reasonable doubt equation.

The second key variable in the equation is ease of communication, not race.  America is the “Melting Pot of the World”, and history has proved that many ethnicities have converged here.  When people immigrate to the US, within a generation or two, English becomes the primary language of the family unit.  Why?  This country deals in English.  Difficulty of an individual to converse with an officer is the second red flag, not race.  Color does not matter.  Ethnic Europeans, Africans, Asians, and Hispanics generally assimilate into the culture of the US and become Americans.  Those people have come for different reasons, but to do business in the country, English is usually the preferred medium, except in ethnocentric communities.

Therefore the ethnicity is not the next major determinant.  Communication is the determinant.  The law can be enforced upon those illegal resident ethnic Europeans, Africans, Asians, and Hispanics (including the ethnic Nahua people that we are being so sensitive about).

Again, let me stress, communication is the determinant for reasonable doubt.

3.  Unconstitutional

The unconstitutional portion of this new Arizona law is not the low hanging branch of perceived racism.  The new law is unconstitutional by violating Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the US Constitution, “[The Congress shall have the Power] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.  It is the jurisdiction of the US Federal Government (and its agencies that enforce the laws enacted by its Congress) to regulate the Rule of Naturalization.  In other words, immigration is the province of the US Federal Government and not its Several States that constitute the members of its Union.

The law is unconstitutional because of a individual State’s usurpation of codified Federal jurisdiction.  Most of my readers know that I am a supporter of strict adherence to Constitutionalism and Federalism.  Therefore, it has to work both ways.  If a State expects the Federal Government to stay within its prescribed limits, then the State must also stay within its own prescribed limit as well.  The unconstitutional portion is not that the State of Arizona can detain a suspected illegal, but that they have given themselves the right to deport individuals.  Deportation is a function of the Immigration and Naturalization Service as directed by existing immigration legislation.  For example, recently passed Texas legislation states that Texas law enforcement officials can detain suspected illegals in the same way that Arizona has just sanctioned.  However, the State of Texas is not the institution that does the deporting.

4.  The Real Reason of American Left Outrage

The actual reason that the Left is mad is that they are losing another issue for indiscriminate (R)s to run on.  Indiscriminate (R)s can come out in support of the law and win elections.  Seeing as how 80% of the American public reacted in a negative manner rose up in arms against the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.  Indiscriminate (D)s know that this is an election topic that they cannot come out in opposition of, due to the growing Mexican-American constituency, whose communities will be most impacted in the State of Arizona by this law.  Indiscriminate (D)s and indiscriminate (D) supporters are more angry because they just caught with their pants down around their ankles on an issue where they are in the very extreme minority of public opinion.

My opinion is that indiscriminate (R)s and (D)s  can truly only kick the can to have this be a talking point.

5.  A Possible Solution

Reform immigration in this way, if you are intending to be a citizen of the US, come expecting to work.  If you are already here, working, and want to be a legal citizen, pay a fine for violating sovereign territory.  If you want to come here then come, become a legal citizen, and stay employed.  Check with the individuals 5 years after the date of their citizenship and see if they are still employed or if they are being productive in the community (barring accidental injury or unforeseen difficulties that cause an inability to work).  Immigration is solved, and the US Government has a brand new tax base to fleece.

Let’s not race-bait.  Just think things through logically.