I understand the heart of the Bishop’s message and sympathize with it in a way. I believe, however, they have failed to account for the extent lawlessness creates an environment where no one can thrive. The entire issue is, to me, a study in the manner in which rational thought is discarded in favor of political advantage.
For example, the Arizona law mirrors existing federal statute.Some seem to be advocating that federal felons not be able to be apprehended by local authorities, which is a strange reversal of the typical. Imagine, for example, a felon wanted by the FBI for bank fraud who could only be apprehended by the FBI. Generally, and common sense dictates, the situation is the reverse - the more local the agency, the broader the statutory (as opposed to geographic) jurisdiction. The FBI, for example, is limited to the enforcement of some several hundred federal statutes, the broadest grant of federal enforcement agencies, but have no special authority to break up a fight in the street. By the same principle, local ordinances cannot be more lax than state or federal statutes, but can be more restrictive. And again, this makes sense, where broader ground rules are set closer to the top of the hierarchy. In the matter of immigration, we want to reverse all that and say that local law enforcement cannot enforce federal statute, and that local statute cannot restrict what federal statute restricts. Makes no sense.
Just as curious to me is the notion that reasonable suspicion is something invented by Arizona state officials, when it is and has been the standard level of proof needed for a police stop anywhere I have ever experienced. Anyone with a misspent youth will be familiar with being stopped by police and asked for an i.d. when one finds himself in compromising circumstances (i.e. walking in a strange neighborhood in the early morning hours). Maybe you were out with college buddies drinking and they left you behind to walk. Maybe your girlfriend drove, you argued, and there you are walking. If you cannot produce i.d., or spell your name or provide a dob consistent with your age, or supply an SSN, is there any doubt in your mind the police would have investigated further? Asked your address and how you arrived there? Possibly detained you within the parameters of the state law? And wouldn’t they be correct in doing so - even negligent if they did not? Of course they would.
So what are the good Bishops and others advocating? That the police not follow up on reasonable suspicion if the person stopped cannot speak English? That the police, having developed probable cause that you are in violation of federal statute release you if that statute involves your nationality? Or perhaps that the Feds set up neighborhood patrols that look the other way on all offenses other than immigration violations?
For their own reasons, and in the case of politicians of both parties, what they are really advocating is doing nothing, passing laws that sound serious and effective, but not enforcing them. The victim is the rule of law, on which we all depend for our tranquility and way of life.
But don’t worry, i’m sure the tone of your skin or the accent in your voice won’t make any difference to the officer
