The Obama administration is challenging Arizona's tough new immigration law, and that's too bad. It's not that the Arizona law is good policy, because it isn't. And it's not that President Obama doesn't have a better idea on immigration reform, because he does. Democrats should know that they play with fire by going after a law that reflects the public's utter frustration with illegal immigration.
You can see the calculations flashing in the party advisers' heads: The Arizona law lets local police demand the immigration papers of people stopped for some alleged infraction. Hispanics see this as opening the door to racial profiling, and rightfully so. One can easily imagine overzealous law officers demanding the documents from any brown-skinned pedestrian caught jaywalking — or whom they say was jaywalking.
The Latino giant has long been poised to make a grand entrance into American elections, especially in the Southwest. What better way to get out this vote than by accusing Republicans of animosity toward Latinos?
The Arizona law has already done some energizing. Polls on the Texas governor's race, for example, show Republican Gov. Rick Perry's former 8-point lead over Democrat Bill White shrinking to a tie. Shifting sentiment among Hispanics seems to be the cause. Give this trend a bigger kick by suing Arizona, the advisers may say.
But this began before the suit against Arizona, making the strategy unnecessary as well as potentially dangerous. Democrats seem to think that Latino voters will thank them for going to the mat against Arizona and that other voters won't notice. But pitting one group of voters against others along racial lines is unattractive — and could spark a white backlash.
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat running for governor, does not find this action politically helpful. "I've urged the administration and the Justice Department to focus on immigration reform and not on suing," he said.
A fine suggestion.
Obama supports the excellent bipartisan plan put together by New York Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer and South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham. It combines a path to citizenship with a secure form of biometric identification, which would make it impossible for illegal aliens (and employers who want their cheap labor) to play games with counterfeit documents.
Add to that an administration willing to prosecute employers who break the law, and the illegal immigration problem is basically solved. After eight years of passivity under George W. Bush, America has a president actively going after employers of illegal workers. Obama's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is even fining restaurants. But Democrats won't get credit for this progress if they turn the spotlight on their opposition to Arizona's law.
Serious federal enforcement is also a key step toward the comprehensive reform that Democrats and many Republicans say they want. It builds public confidence that the reform won't amount to another amnesty for illegal immigrants and then business as usual.
The politics of reforming immigration are not really complicated. National polls consistently show a large majority against illegal immigration. But they also have most Americans backing one last amnesty. That's the Schumer-Graham plan.
And what about polls indicating considerable support for the Arizona law, which does enforcement only?
These polls are not really contradictory because they don't offer a choice between the Arizona and the Schumer-Graham approaches. Many respondents may not care much for the details in the Arizona law, but after decades of seemingly open borders, they may feel it's the only law they have.
It's up to the Obama administration to change that impression. The president can do that by leaving Arizona alone and promoting an effective and humane immigration policy going forward.
To find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

|
 |
Comments
|
9 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
I'm a legal American citizen and I must show my ID when:
1. Pulled over by the police.
2. Making purchases on my department store credit card.
3. When I show up for a doctor's appointment.
4. When filling out a credit card or loan application.
5. When applying for or renewing a driver's license or passport.
6. When applying for any kind of insurance.
7. When filling out college applications.
8. When donating blood.
9. When obtaining certain prescription drugs.
10. When making some debit purchases, especially If I'm out of state.
11. When collecting a boarding pass for airline or train travel.
I'm sure there are more instances, but the point is that we citizens of the USA are required to prove who we are nearly every day!
Why should people in this country illegally, be exempt!!!!!
The Arizona law does not mean that a police officer can stop a person that looks Hispanic and ask for papers. They must stop the person for something illegal, such as speeding, shoplifting, dealing drugs, etc., first. If the person can't produce a U.S. identification card or driver's license, they must be able to produce a passport or papers that say that they are in the U.S. legally.
Why shouldn't we guard our borders as closely as every other country in the world does? Go ARIZONA !!!
Comment: #1
Posted by: David Henricks
Wed Jul 7, 2010 10:29 PM
|
|
|
|
Or....here's an idea. Maybe Obama could, you know...start enforcing the law? Instead of passing "comprehensive immigration reform" that includes waving the wand and "legalizing" millions of illegals (and therefore reward lawbreaking yet again), Obama could work on using military, political, and law enforcement means to STOP the unchecked flow aross the border. (Step two is deporting expired visa holders as they're found.) Once that's done - once we've put a halt to people sneaking in, or at least reduced it to a trickle - then we can talk about this "pathways to citizenship" stuff...and even that is entirely contingent on these would-be citizens waiting OUTSIDE the United States before being allowed in. The Arizona law is fine the way it is, and the only reason Obama's DOJ is talking about lawsuits, is because it is embarrassed that a state has stepped up to the plate and is doing a job the American government won't do! But then, recognizing all of that would require common sense - something neither Froma Harrop nor the Obama Administration seems to have much of.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Matt
Wed Jul 7, 2010 11:05 PM
|
|
|
|
The easy answer is to just pass the same exact law that Mexico has for their southern border. How could they possibly complain about that. First offense, 2 years in jail. Modeling our law after Mexico's law will satisfiy everybody to include illegal aliens because it will be the same law they are used to.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Bob
Thu Jul 8, 2010 8:29 AM
|
|
|
|
I'm a legal American citizen and I must show my ID when:
1. Pulled over by the police.-true statement
2. Making purchases on my department store credit card.-since when?
3. When I show up for a doctor's appointment.-never happend to me?
4. When filling out a credit card or loan application.-1/2 truth, only for home and auto loans
5. When applying for or renewing a driver's license or passport.-true
6. When applying for any kind of insurance.-never shown mine
7. When filling out college applications.-didn't show one then
8. When donating blood.-never shown mine for this
9. When obtaining certain prescription drugs.-only for controlled substances
10. When making some debit purchases, especially If I'm out of state.-your PIN is your ID knucklehead.
11. When collecting a boarding pass for airline or train travel. -everyone shows theres.
More small minded simplistic jingoism to distract from the real issue. Corporate America's wanting cheap illegal labor to keep wages supressed and profits high.
Obama has already done more on the enforcement side than GWB ever did. Enforcement is the key to ending immigration. Canada has even more leanient borders than ours. Yet, they don't have an illegal problem, why? Because they enforce the policy, which is exactly what Obama is doing.
Comment: #4
Posted by: craig
Thu Jul 8, 2010 10:28 AM
|
|
|
|
It's disingenuous to suggest that Obama is willing to go after employers. It is token enforcement, as has always been the case. How many employers in Arizona has this administration gone after? Go after employers, problem solved. No new laws required.
Comment: #5
Posted by: jimveejr
Thu Jul 8, 2010 11:29 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: craig
No administration has EVER enforced immigration laws adequately. It's painful politically and therefore avoided. We wouldn't even be having these discussions if the laws were being enforced.
Comment: #6
Posted by: jimveejr
Thu Jul 8, 2010 11:34 AM
|
|
|
|
Funny story. Arizona already has a law that targets employers and has not been enforced yet because it was enjoined by the Obama administration. The law allows the state to suspend anyones business license if they hire illegal immigrants. The law will be heard by the Supreme Court soon, but if this is the left's solution why is Obama trying to stop it?
Comment: #7
Posted by: zach
Thu Jul 8, 2010 2:32 PM
|
|
|
|
This column appeared today in the Jamestown Post-Journal. I have been so amused by the Arizona fuss because for years police in Chautauqua County, NY have been doing exactly what the 'new" Arizona law allows; that is checking ID of persons stopped for other reasons and, if there are suspicions of illegal resident status, the person is turned over to ICE. These events are reported repeatedly in the paper in the "police reports" section. No one, to my knowledge, has ever accused anyone of profiling or harassment. The rationale for these stops, as I understand it, is to detain someone on suspicion of committing a federal offense and then turning them over to the feds for adjudication. I suspect this occurs throughout New York State.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Charles
Mon Jul 12, 2010 1:45 PM
|
|
|
|
I would add one more point to the excellent comments already posted; Ms Harrop's assumption of racial profiling is not only unwarranted but irrelevant and completely nonsensical. You're saying that we should desist from controlling our own border because it is Mexicans who are flooding across illegaly? Who did you expect, Lithuanians? Its the Mexican border! Is there some reason they should get a pass just because they're the descendants of Spanish instead of English colonizers? As pointed out above, everyone stopped for legitimate causes is already required to show ID. I think you can rest assured that if there is an undiscovered influx of Russian or Nigerian illegal immigrants inundating the state, they will be apprehended along with the Mexicans by Arizona's elegantly fair and simple policy.
Comment: #9
Posted by: johnny
Mon Jul 12, 2010 3:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|