[Update: Rachel Maddow interviewed a leader of a movement involved in the writing of this law on Thursday Night. It was not friendly -- she asked about various dubious associates of the group, while the leader suggested she was a tool of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Friday Night (update 2) she pointed out the guest misled or flat out misspoke/lied.
The basic substance of the law was not really discussed; the comments that the criticism was one-sided could have been addressed by Rachel reminding him some of it came from the Republican side. I'd also add that coverage on the content of the measure that goes beyond the one infamous aspect of the law would help too.]
Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003.
I noted that appeals to the federal government to help Arizona deal with immigration problems is something of a fools' errand, since the demand for illegal labor will always mean a ready inflow of undocumented people. We can add to this a ready supply, worsened by NAFTA and other problems, which adds to the drug and violence in Mexico as well. But, we still have this guy speaking of the 'real' problem -- "President Obama and the Beltway crowd." Interestingly, he also notes Phoenix ("the hub of human smuggling") is a prime problem area. Why, one wonders, is the mayor there in support of suing to stop the law?
The law has received some strong opposition, as noted, Linda Greenhouse and others see it as a police state tactic. The symbolism is horrid. You need not think we are entering Communist Russia (after all, France etc. has permit laws of this sort, at least in some degree) to have problems with it. This without being concerned with certain aspects of strong illegal immigration laws that some groups in particular find very troubling if taken seriously. But, I will now focus on the points made in the positive op-ed here.
[1] The feds also require you to have immigration papers. The problem with this is that in practice this is probably only an issue when checks are made at places of employment and a few even more avoidable situations. It is quite different for a more intrusive in everyday practice state government, including local police, to set up such a regime.
[2] "Reasonable suspicion" is a reasonable rule. A patently suspect example is provided. But, in everyday practice, again, life is a tad more complicated. Inner city residents can tell you that this sort of open-ended inherently vague rule (especially with the provision where people can sue if the state doesn't enforce things) will involve much more iffy situations than that. "Reasonable" by definition means that many perfectly innocent people will be affected.
[3] Racial profiling is prohibited by the law. Uh huh. Oh come on. And, what does "as soon as is practicable" mean? The whole point of the law, underlined by this op-ed, is that the feds aren't doing their job enforcing things. A rule as applied to arrests also doesn't address racial profile stops, does it?
[4] The driver's license rule is helpful since it is deemed evidence of legal residence. I really haven't heard about this yet, but it seems a way to invite more counterfeit driver's licenses.
[5] The feds have not pre-empted this. The very case it provides, however, makes the discussion untrustworthy, since the op-ed said something has to be "expressly forbidden" while the opinion says it also can be implicitly so. I knew this myself. But, was never a chief adviser to Ashcroft, so who am I to say? The bottom line is probably a debatable question, but the op-ed is wrong on a key point.
Some aspects of the law, arguably, might be reasonable though the former governor -- no flaming liberal -- probably would have vetoed it given past practice. But, the most controversial section is symbolically and likely practically not reasonable at all. This op-ed, though appreciated, did not do much to convince me otherwise. The potshots at Obama didn't really help. Can these people not help themselves?
The controversial measure is already causing a lot of trouble and very well might not survive judicial review. It is ultimately more political than sound public policy. Given the subject matter, this is as unsurprising as it is unfortunate.