The Hobgoblin of Little Ideologies

Conservative/Liberal, Domestic Policy, Ethics, Human Rights, Politics, Social Justice — By on May 5, 2010 at 12:00 pm

Conservatives just ain’t what they used to be.  From the Big Brother program of unwarranted domestic wiretapping to military spending in Iraq that was so great it wasn’t even reported on the annual budget, the Republican party has been wandering far from its small government roots.  Of course, a party betraying its ideological ideals is as old as the Republic herself, and shouldn’t surprise anyone who has been following US politics for more than about five minutes.  But recent legislation from Arizona is about to take that dichotomy to a new level.

Last week, Arizona enacted SB 1070, a law designed to aggressively enforce federal legislation prohibiting undocumented workers.  Section E of the bill states, that a cop “without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.”  Subsequent portions make it clear this is not granting permission, but instituting a mandate.

At first glance, this may appear to be a simple case of a state stepping in where the federal government has failed.  After all, the feds have thousands of miles of border to patrol, but Arizona need only concern itself with its own.  And in the wake of horrific violence boiling over the border from Mexico’s drug war, it seems that Arizona’s new immigration law is a reasonable approach to a dire situation.

There are several problems with that perspective, however.  First and foremost, as the circumstances of the law’s drafting dictate, is the practical effect of the law.  This law does nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigrants pouring over the Arizona border each year.  Requiring that law enforcement check documentation on anyone “the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States” necessitates racial profiling, no matter what other clauses or revisions of the law proclaim.  In Arizona, the threat of illegal immigration comes from Mexico, and the only practical application of the mandate is a specific targeting of those who appear to be of Mexican heritage, whether in language or appearance.

Never mind that more than a century of judicial precedent forbids such a targeted audience for scrutiny.  Never mind that it trespasses upon the civil liberties of citizens and non-citizens alike.  The only practical, feasible application of the mandate is that law enforcement is required to demand documentation from those who appear to be from Mexico.  No amount of boilerplate prohibitions on racial profiling or the follow-up patch enacted on Friday will change that.  According to the bill’s sponsor, Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, the follow-up law’s changes were clarifications “just to take away the silly arguments and the games, the dishonesty that’s been played.”  But they’re not silly arguments, and they should trouble conservatives who value minimalist government intervention in the lives of individual citizens most of all.

Constitutionally, Arizona’s law doesn’t have a judicial leg to stand on.  From Chae Chan Ping v. US (1889) to Lozano v. Hazleton (2007), US courts under conservative and liberal justices alike have consistently ruled that while a state has the right to secure its borders in pursuit of its responsibility to protect the general welfare of its citizens, only the national government can legislate or prosecute instances of immigration.  Though Arizona’s law is redundant by nature (federal law has already defined what constitutes illegal immigration and SB 1070 doesn’t add anything new to that definition), it is clearly inconsistent with the parameters of state power set by the Framers of the Constitution.  A state may not legislate on issues of immigration, no matter what that legislation entails (likewise, a state may not ignore federal immigration legislation, as some ‘sanctuary cities’ pretend they can without consequence).  Though a state’s right to defend itself is consistent with conservative ideology, to do so at the expense of the liberty of citizens and a massive expansion of government power of surveillance certainly is not.

But this law is not about protecting Arizona.  It’s a desperate attempt, groping in the dark against terrors we know we can’t fight alone.  It’s understandable.  When an American citizen is gunned down on his own property by criminals who are in the country illegally, and the federal government is distant and disinterested, it’s hard to blame the state for retaliating on its own terms.  But as robust as this law seems in the face of illegal immigration, it only creates more problems.

Law enforcement’s already daunting job in stemming the tide of violence from Mexico’s drug war as its spills over the border will be made even more difficult by this law.  Faced with this new mandate to investigate immigration status from traffic stops to “local civil ordinances” (anything from complaints about loud noise to an unkempt front lawn), officers will need to choose between focusing on peacekeeping and fulfilling the new law. 

Though proponents argue against its negative effects on fighting crime, the law cripples law enforcement at its most basic level.  Officers will lose their ability to distinguish between perpetrator and victim.  Instead of stopping the human trafficker alone, this law mandates that his victims be given equal treatment.  Considering the US’s weak anti-trafficking laws (you get more jail time for pirating music than forcing a child into prostitution in this country), if the traffickers are clever, which they are, they can exploit that weakness and suffer lighter legal consequences than their victims.

This law will also drastically set back the most effective method of policing in marginalized communities, community policing.  Cops depend on the immigrant community in hot spots to provide evidence to help them catch violent criminals.  With Phoenix’s new status as the kidnapping capital of the country (and approaching the second in the world), community policing has never been more important to Arizonans.  This law makes it impossible for police to maintain the trust they’ve built with non-violent undocumented workers who serve as valuable sources of information.

The law also creates a humanitarian crisis.  Its provisions (which were not amended by Friday’s revisions) are written so broadly that they mandate arrest for anyone found with undocumented workers who are suspected of aiding them.  In practical application, clergy, medical workers, or even good samaritans giving them a ride are subject to criminal investigation, detention, and prosecution. 

This analysis only scratches the surface of the problems with Arizona’s new immigration law.  It would take far more space than is available here to plumb the depths of its inadequacy to prevent violent criminals from fighting the Mexican drug war in the US, or the law’s contribution to the growing racial cleavage in the border states between immigrants from Latin America and those of us whose ancestors immigrated only a couple hundred years earlier. 

In addition to these weaknesses, the law is ineffective in its goal of solving the problem of illegal immigration.  It is but the first step in a legislative attempt spearheaded by the misguided State Senator Pearce to make Arizona so inhospitable to people of Mexican descent that they won’t come to his state.  Next on his agenda is a bill that would require public school teachers to report children of illegal immigrants to the state in order for the state to calculate the cost of their education, then take action to bar them from public education services.  The fact that such attempts in two other states were struck down in recent years doesn’t seem to matter.  He is already in the process of enacting legislation to remove bilingual teachers from ESL classes in schools in Arizona.

What Pearce and his fellow Arizonans who favor such draconian legislation fail to realize is that the only way to ‘solve’ the problem of illegal immigration is to enact policies that help law enforcement crack down on violent criminals in the country illegally, encourage undocumented workers to follow proper channels to achieve legal residency, and put their children on the path to citizenship.  Other states are doing it.  Texas Governor Rick Perry, no friend to namby-pamby liberal amnesty plans, has pursued policies that will allow just those transitions, and Texas has a longer, more porous border than Arizona and has dealt with an incredibly complicated relationship with Mexico since long before Arizona was recognized as a territory.

In short, it takes more than a kneejerk reaction to fix this legitimate problem.  As conservatives often say in response to gun control policy, ‘if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have them.’  Likewise, Arizona’s new law will ensure that the only people in the state illegally are those who do not fear the police, that Arizona’s police will lose even more power to stop them, and that Arizona’s Hispanic population, whether citizens, residents, or undocumented immigrants, will lose another piece of their liberty based on nothing other than their ethnic identity.

Give me your tired, your poor, indeed. ‘



  • Dan

    I read your last line as supporting Emma Lazarus's romanticized view of immigration rather than a sustainable, rational policy on immigration.

  • Morfar

    “The only way to ‘solve’ the problem of illegal immigration is to enact policies that help law enforcement crack down on violent criminals in the country illegally, encourage undocumented workers to follow proper channels to achieve legal residency, and put their children on the path to citizenship.”

    Hmmm. What does this do to KEEP people from ANY country from entering the U.S. illegally? You should change the article tag 'conservative/liberal' to just 'liberal'. As much as what you think that this is an “evangelical” viewpoint, your 'social justice' tag shows something else.

    Social justice is a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. (and yes, that last part is a quote via Wikipedia

  • LindsayStallones

    Dan, I don't at all. However, this 'circle the wagons and don't let the other in' mentality is antithetical to America's identity as an immigrant nation. It's also pretty consistent with American attitudes towards immigrants throughout our history. If you just change the names of the ethnicities, you can publish an editorial on the threat of immigration from any period of American history in a modern paper and it will sound like it was written today.

    Morfar, in this article, I'm talking about the best way to deal with our current challenge of undocumented workers who live here now. Mass deportation isn't a feasible option, and as I pointed out (which you didn't really address, though I'd love to hear counter arguments), this law isn't effective in tackling the problem of violent criminals here illegally, or helping law enforcement in their duties to secure the peace.

    To address the problem of preventing people from coming to America illegally would require a much different (and much longer!) argument than this article. I'd be happy to publish thoughts on that subject at a later date if you're interested.

    (By the way, the 'conservative/liberal' tag exists to mark an article that addresses an issue of interest from those perspectives. If it's helpful for you to label me, go right ahead, but that's not the point of the tags for articles here.)

  • Pingback: Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e117v4()

  • Pingback: Arizona Immigration Law – EO Symposium — Evangelical Outpost()

  • Morfar

    Lindsay, Thank you for your response. I was not expecting one so it was a pleasant surprise this morning. I am not as polished as a writer as you are. (Can one even use “as” three times in the same sentence?) And, am prone to wander.

    You are right. You only dealt with the issue of what to do with the existing illegals.

    In your words, I read that you have adopted the views of the illegal (that's an equivalent of unlawful) aliens who have mounted such demonstrations against it. The Arizona law tracks, almost totally, the federal law which Mr. Obama has refused to enforce because he needs the Latino vote.

    Mass deportation? That has sounds like a massive round up of anyone who has a hint of a Spanish accent and count them guilty unless they can prove they are innocent. Sort of like the Japanesse internment camps of WWII. (Which is a debate for another time.) That I don't support.

    You have donned the hat of liberal woe by raising the banner of “racial profiling.” When I hear that term I think, “What's next, no gender profiling?” Isn't it discriminatory to identify a perp as a male? After 9/11, I was pulled out of normal airport security more than 40 times for additional security check. Hmmm. Blue eyes, blond hair, 50 year old white male, no facial hair, light complexion as well, traveling every week on round trip tickets, and wearing a business suit. Good use of security resources!

    If we need to raise the number of people allowed to legally immigrate from Mexico, then let's do that. Give us your tired, your poor.

    Undocumented immigrants”????? Wow! That says a lot for your interpretation of the law. Have you read Title 8 Section 1325 of the US Code? http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII

    FIrst, without bringing in shades of Men in Black, an alien is any person not a citizen or national of the United States. So, the primary classification is 'alien.' Second, 'undocumented' is such a ….. sweet word. Let's not hurt their feelings by calling them illegal. Thirdly, though even I misuse the word, 'immigrant' assumes legal. They have come legally to the US for the pupose of staying permanently.

    Let's ask the questions, Do you have an EAD card? Do you have a Greed Card? Do you have an I-94? Do you have a US visa? If no, why not? There are many ways that people can come into the US to work, travel and immigrate. My grandparents did so. If you don't have (I am not saying, 'can't immediately provide' though by law these documents are to be carried by all aliens at all times) any official documentation, then let's enforce the existing federal law. IT'S THE LAW. And we are a country of laws.

    As far as the boycotts and marches against Arizona, we have freedom of speech. But let's remember that these boycotts and marches are in support of the illegal entry of Mexicans into the US.

    Time for breakfast.

  • drsteeve

    “At first glance, this may appear to be a simple case of a state stepping in where the federal government has failed. After all, the feds have thousands of miles of border to patrol, but Arizona need only concern itself with its own.”

    To be clear, it is not as though the federal government is too busy to concern itself with the border situation and, therefore, Arizona needs to step-up and care for itself. Rather, the problem is that those in charge of the federal government have chosen to concern themselves with priorities outside the scope of the government (such as nationalizing the healthcare and student loan industries). Arizona is taking action where the federal government failed to act on its first and most important priority – national defense.

    “Officers will lose their ability to distinguish between perpetrator and victim. Instead of stopping the human trafficker alone, this law mandates that his victims be given equal treatment.”

    This is a very strong indictment not only of the law, but also those enforcing it. I'd like to see you support this charge with evidence; a quote from the law or an essay/paper by a legal scholar would be nice.

    There seems to be two kinds of trafficking: the first is where people are smuggled across willingly, the second where they are smuggled across unwillingly. I do not read in this law any clause that prohibits mercy for those smuggled across unwillingly (for example: victims of sexual slavery).

    “The law also creates a humanitarian crisis. Its provisions (which were not amended by Friday’s revisions) are written so broadly that they mandate arrest for anyone found with undocumented workers who are suspected of aiding them.”

    Again, we should be very clear here: there already exists a humanitarian crisis in the form of people living outside the oversight of the law and suffering the consequences thereof in the form of abusive working conditions and damage being done to our local, community services. Does this law make it harder for people to perpetuate this crisis? Yes, absolutely. It makes it hard for this crisis to grow and continue and it makes it hard for all parties involved to live comfortably amidst the crisis (as many presently do).

    “This analysis only scratches the surface of the problems with Arizona’s new immigration law. It would take far more space than is available here to plumb the depths of its inadequacy to prevent violent criminals from fighting the Mexican drug war in the US”

    On this we agree. However, the best way to fight the violent crimes is to keep them from ever coming across the border; the new Arizona law couldn't have enacted what was needed: a fence. As Israel has effectively demonstrated, a fence works quite well to keep the madness away.

    “law’s contribution to the growing racial cleavage in the border states between immigrants from Latin America and those of us whose ancestors immigrated only a couple hundred years earlier.”

    Yet again, clarity is needed. The “growing racial cleavage” isn't racial at all, it's ethical and legal. America isn't anti-immigration, it's anti-illegal immigration. You and your cohorts on the Left understand this and yet you continue to pepper in a racial component which has nothing to do with the central concerns of those engaged in this conversation.

    This law brings to the fore a tension between those who abide by and value the laws of this land and those who feel it is their right to possess something to which they have no legal claim. Thousands of people wait many, many years to immigrate here legally; we welcome these people with open arms. But all of us immigrants (whether or not first generation) stand in solidarity against those who violate the system to which we all contribute to keep this nation a balanced, thriving, caring place for people to live.

    “Texas has a longer, more porous border than Arizona and has dealt with an incredibly complicated relationship with Mexico since long before Arizona was recognized as a territory.”

    Yeah, they made war against Mexico and most in Texas still carry the firearms to deal with problematic situations. I'm amused that you brought Texas' history up as a support to your position that there are better ways to handle immigration.

    “Give me your tired, your poor, indeed.”

    Isn't this a reference to the Statue of Liberty, seen from Ellis Island a place known round the world as the gateway to legal immigration into the United States? Hmm, indeed.

  • Morfar

    Well said drsteeve! You are far more articulate than I.

  • LindsayStallones

    Morfar,

    Thanks for the thoughtful response! I'll try to address as many points as possible – as you can see, Dustin will keep me quite busy responding, too!

    “The Arizona law tracks, almost totally, the federal law which Mr. Obama has refused to enforce because he needs the Latino vote.”

    Is this an Obama problem, or did Bush address enforcement of federal law against illegal immigration differently? I'm not clear on how this is a recent problem of enforcement.

    “Mass deportation? That has sounds like a massive round up of anyone who has a hint of a Spanish accent and count them guilty unless they can prove they are innocent. Sort of like the Japanesse internment camps of WWII. (Which is a debate for another time.) That I don't support.”

    Hooray! We agree!

    “You have donned the hat of liberal woe by raising the banner of “racial profiling.””

    I have yet to have someone explain how this law will not result in racial profiling. I agree that just screening everyone in sight is a waste of resources, but there's also compelling research that racial profiling (in terror cases, anyway) often blinds law enforcement to potential criminals. But that's a completely different conversation than the one about the Arizona law. My concern is that it infringes the rights of people, citizens and undocumented aliens alike (though citizens are the top constitutional priority in this instance). Can you explain to me how it doesn't?

    “If we need to raise the number of people allowed to legally immigrate from Mexico, then let's do that. Give us your tired, your poor.”

    Ultimately, I think the legal immigration process needs revision, and this is a good first step. But like I said earlier, I need a whole new article to address that. :) For now, again, we agree!

    “Undocumented immigrants”????? Wow! That says a lot for your interpretation of the law. Have you read Title 8 Section 1325 of the US Code? http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII

    'Undocumented' is the legal term, which is why I used it (illegal's a bit broad and slightly less helpful for clarity's sake). I agree I should have said 'aliens' instead
    immigrants, though. Slip of the typing fingers?

    “As far as the boycotts and marches against Arizona, we have freedom of speech. But let's remember that these boycotts and marches are in support of the illegal entry of Mexicans into the US.”

    I completely disagree! While some march in support of undocumented aliens' rights to be here, most I've read protest the infringement upon the rights of people of Mexican heritage (or appearance!) who will be guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the law, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. That's my chief objection.

  • LindsayStallones

    Phew! That's a lot to address! I'll give it a shot:

    “To be clear, it is not as though the federal government is too busy to concern itself with the border situation and, therefore, Arizona needs to step-up and care for itself. Rather, the problem is that those in charge of the federal government have chosen to concern themselves with priorities outside the scope of the government (such as nationalizing the healthcare and student loan industries). Arizona is taking action where the federal government failed to act on its first and most important priority – national defense.”

    But if we want to stick to the Constitution's clearly defined boundaries between the powers of the states and the national government (as enumerated in the text and interpreted consistently throughout over 200 years of history), we have to acknowledge the fact that Arizona doesn't get to take action without federal consent on national defense. If you're willing to throw out the Constitution and a few centuries of consistent precedent, then you can reinterpret, but the burden of proof is on you to make that case… and I suspect, as a strict constructionist (am I right to assume that? Your writing has seemed to indicate that), it would also take some ideological backbends.

    “This is a very strong indictment not only of the law, but also those enforcing it. I'd like to see you support this charge with evidence; a quote from the law or an essay/paper by a legal scholar would be nice.”

    Read the law. It's not that long. It even provides for someone who knowingly gives an undocumented worker a ride to face prosecution (meant to discourage hiring at places like Home Depot). Nowhere in the vast 17 pages of the law is there an distinction made between perpetrators of a crime in the country illegally and their victims (in the case of human trafficking, for instance). And I'm not claiming that every cop will suddenly target trafficking victims out of malice – I'm claiming that the law, as written does not allow the cop to make a distinction between the trafficker and the trafficked undocumented worker. That's a gross oversight that complicates the officer's duty to maintain peace and arrest criminals.

    “There seems to be two kinds of trafficking: the first is where people are smuggled across willingly, the second where they are smuggled across unwillingly. I do not read in this law any clause that prohibits mercy for those smuggled across unwillingly (for example: victims of sexual slavery).”

    The problem is that the law is written too broadly – it mandates that any undocumented alien is subject to incarceration and transfer to federal custody without exception. A lot will depend on how courts (and law enforcement administration) interpret the law, but my point is that as written, it does not offer protection for victims in such a case, or freedom for the officer to make exception for the victims.

    “Again, we should be very clear here: there already exists a humanitarian crisis in the form of people living outside the oversight of the law and suffering the consequences thereof in the form of abusive working conditions and damage being done to our local, community services. Does this law make it harder for people to perpetuate this crisis? Yes, absolutely. It makes it hard for this crisis to grow and continue and it makes it hard for all parties involved to live comfortably amidst the crisis (as many presently do).”

    This is an interesting point. I never denied that illegal immigration causes a humanitarian crisis the border states. I'm from Texas, and I've lived in California for ten years – I'm quite aware of the problem of illegal immigration, both on the legal population and on the illegal community. This is just pure distraction from the point I'm making. The law does not substantially change the situation, and in many cases, makes it worse. We can talk about how the law could address the problem of illegal immigration if you like, but you can hardly criticize me for not making a point I never claimed to make. :)

    “On this we agree.”

    Huzzah!

    “Yet again, clarity is needed. The “growing racial cleavage” isn't racial at all, it's ethical and legal. America isn't anti-immigration, it's anti-illegal immigration. You and your cohorts on the Left understand this and yet you continue to pepper in a racial component which has nothing to do with the central concerns of those engaged in this conversation.”

    I'm afraid we deeply disagree. There is, of course, an ethical and legal component to this cleavage, and that's an important part of the division that should be addressed. But to claim that it is solely ethical or legal is shortsighted. I don't believe that you believe that. Denying that racial prejudice has nothing to do with it means you aren't paying close enough attention, or you've intentionally rejected it for one reason or another.

    “But all of us immigrants (whether or not first generation) stand in solidarity against those who violate the system to which we all contribute to keep this nation a balanced, thriving, caring place for people to live.”

    Yes, indeed! But there are effective ways to do this, and there are ineffective ways to do so that violate our constitutional principles and civil liberties of our citizens and documented immigrants. My point is that SB 1070 is the latter.

    “Yeah, they made war against Mexico and most in Texas still carry the firearms to deal with problematic situations. I'm amused that you brought Texas' history up as a support to your position that there are better ways to handle immigration.”

    The Texas Revolution is your best counter example? An event that involved Mexican citizens overthrowing their own dictatorial government in 1836?

    You really don't want to pick a fight with me on Texas history. The paintings in the Texas state capital are full of my ancestors, and my family goes back to before anyone made a distinction between Texas and Mexico. I know my Texas history, and I know my current Texas immigration policy. I chose Texas as an example very much on purpose. I'm happy to throw down on that any time – but we should probably start a new thread, because there's not space for it here. :)

    “Isn't this (“Give me your tired, your poor indeed”) a reference to the Statue of Liberty, seen from Ellis Island a place known round the world as the gateway to legal immigration into the United States? Hmm, indeed.”

    Yes, it is. And my article criticizes the new law for (1) being ineffective in securing Arizona's border and (2) infringing on the rights of citizens and 'legal immigrants' in the process. How is that inconsistent?

  • drsteeve

    “But if we want to stick to the Constitution's clearly defined boundaries between the powers of the states and the national government (as enumerated in the text and interpreted consistently throughout over 200 years of history), we have to acknowledge the fact that Arizona doesn't get to take action without federal consent on national defense.”

    Neither one of us are Con Law scholars, but the Con Law scholars whom I've read or listened to on this subject believe that the law has constitutional viability. I think on the point of constitutionality, we'll have to agree to disagree, but I think you're being intellectually dishonest if you argue that NOBODY believes this thing constitutionally viable – that is simply not true.

    “The problem is that the law is written too broadly – it mandates that any undocumented alien is subject to incarceration and transfer to federal custody without exception.”

    The law reflects federal law and was written to stay on the constitutional side of federal legislation. Perhaps federal immigration laws need to have a built-in mercy clause of some sort for people brought unwillingly into the US – I'm certainly open to that. Those people brought unwillingly would be “jailed” in a Holiday Inn instead of prison until deported.

    “There is, of course, an ethical and legal component to this cleavage, and that's an important part of the division that should be addressed. But to claim that it is solely ethical or legal is shortsighted.”

    No serious conservative scholar or pundit is arguing that we need to reform immigration legislation for racial reasons. Not one. Is there a racial component in the mainstream public square – certainly – and it's on both sides. Take for example the 200 Mexican-American students who walked out of Live Oak High School in “protest” of the kids who wore American flag tee-shirts on May 5th. Sounds like some people of the Mexican race deeply dislike some kids who are proud of their American race. But these matters have NOTHING TO DO with whether or not we should build a fence and reform our immigration laws. There are serious questions on the table and serious arguments for reform.

    “But there are effective ways to do this, and there are ineffective ways to do so that violate our constitutional principles and civil liberties of our citizens and documented immigrants. My point is that SB 1070 is the latter.”

    I'm sorry, but you've failed to demonstrate how this law “violates our constitutional principles” – what principles exactly and how are they violated by this law? Perhaps the law is unconstitutional (that is a different claim), and again, we'll have to let the scholars have that debate. Also, the claim that it “violates our civil liberties of our citizens and document immigrants” is demonstrably false. You should be a responsible person and stop making that argument. The LAW does no such thing. Perhaps somebody acting contrary to the law might harass documented immigrants, but then that person can be charged with acting contrary to the law!

    AT BEST you can claim that the law will flood our police force with work with which they cannot keep up. That is the best argument I've heard against this law. But that argument has nothing to do with the deadly serious charge of violating our constitutional principles and civil rights.

    “You really don't want to pick a fight with me on Texas history.”

    Nice – it sounds like I do, but only for reasons of geeking out historically with a fellow EO member.

    “Yes, it is. And my article criticizes the new law for (1) being ineffective in securing Arizona's border and (2) infringing on the rights of citizens and 'legal immigrants' in the process. How is that inconsistent?”

    Perhaps I misread your use of the last line of your article, but it sounded like you were taking a cynical shot at Arizona for not opening their arms to the “poor and tired” illegal immigrants. If that was indeed your aim, then the inconsistency is self-evident.