Arizona’s new legislation empowering state and local police to enforce federal immigration law is causing spasms of hysteria on the religious left. So over-the-top is so much of the criticism, in fact, that it’s doubtful that most of the critics have even read the bill they are decrying. Some samples:
Michael Kinnimon of the National Council of Churches:
In addition to the basic unjustness of the law, the fact that police now have vaguely defined but broad powers to stop anyone on suspicion of being an undocumented immigrants creates an unacceptable potential for wide-spread police harassment and creates a danger for citizens as well as non-citizens
Church World Service Executive Director John. L. McCullough:
We are deeply concerned about the enactment of SB 1070 as it goes beyond anti-immigrant sentiments and supports racial profiling. This legislation feels reactionary and hateful. It is a clear representation of the politics of division and exclusion. Gov. Brewer has ignored the advice of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police and the Mesa Fraternal of Police to veto the bill. By this action, she has actively institutionalized racial profiling and will make Arizona less safe.
United Methodist missionary James Perdue Burke:
It is the belief of most groups working in opposition to SB1070 that this bill will increase fear throughout Arizona, moving seriously in the direction of becoming a police state.
Sojourners editor Jim Wallis:
Senate Bill 1070 would require law enforcement officials in the state of Arizona to investigate someone’s immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person might be undocumented. I wonder who that would be, and if anybody who doesn’t have brown skin will be investigated. Those without identification papers, even if they are legal, are subject to arrest; so don’t forget your wallet on your way to work if you are Hispanic in Arizona.
Christian Ramirez, national coordinator of the American Friends Service Committee’s immigrants’ rights programs:
I am discouraged that Gov. Brewer has ignored the voices of community, religious, business and law enforcement leaders and signed this bill that will further paralyze communities with fear. Now in Arizona, to be ‘brown’ is to be suspected of committing a crime.”
Episcopal bishop Kirk Smith of Arizona:
[T]oday is a sad day in the struggle to see all God’s people treated in a humane and compassionate manner (…) With the Governor’s signing of SB 1070, it seems that for now the advocates of fear and hatred have won over those of charity and love. Arizona claims to be a Golden Rule State. We have not lived up to that claim.
“Reactionary.” “Police state.” “Hatred.” I’m guessing the people quoted above think this law is bad. There’s just one problem. The law they are objecting to exists only in their own minds.
The law that was actually passed does not authorize police to engage in mass arrests of Hispanics, nor does it permit them to stop anyone just because of the color of their skin. Instead, as Byron York of the Washington Examiner indicates, a document check can only take place in the context of a legitimate investigation of another possible legal violation:
Critics have focused on the term “reasonable suspicion” to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.
What fewer people have noticed is the phrase “lawful contact,” which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. “That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he’s violated some other law,” says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. “The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop.”
As for the notion that there’s something odious in police asking a person to produce proof of citizenship, York notes that if you’ve got a valid driver’s license, you’re good: “The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver’s license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There’s no reasonable suspicion.”
Last Friday evening, while I was attending presbytery, I was stopped by a New York state trooper. The first thing the officer did, upon seeing my non-Hispanic coloration, was ask for my driver’s license. He also asked what my business in Middletown, New York was and where I was going. Turns out I had a burned out brake light, which he asked me to get fixed immediately. He didn’t even give me a ticket. But you can bet that he ran my license to see if I had any outstanding warrants while I waited, which is perfectly proper police procedure. If he had found that there were any, he would certainly have arrested me. In Arizona, if a person is found in the course of a similar stop to be in the country illegally, they will be liable to arrest, just as I would have been. That’s the kind of situation that has the religious left raising the specter of totalitarianism.
The fact is that anyone who lives, works, shops, and drives in America is asked for identification (those dreaded “papers”) every day. When you check into a hotel, apply for a job, make a purchase with a credit card, rent a car–a thousand different circumstances require us to produce ID, and in many instances prove we are a citizen (and the requirement that legal resident aliens have ID on them whenever they go out in public, and produce whenever asked to by law enforcement, has been federal law for half a century). What this law does is not impose some kind of fascist regime on Arizona. Rather, it gives state and local police the authority to do what the federal government should be doing, but refuses to do–enforce American immigration law.
Will this law mostly effect Hispanics? Of course–they don’t get too many illegal Hungarian border crossers in the Sonoma Desert. Is some of the support for this bill motivated by racist attitudes toward Hispanics? I’m sure some of it is (though it also has significant support from Latino citizens and legal immigrants in the state). Does that mean that Arizona is the latest iteration of Nazi Germany? Only in the fervid imaginations of the religious left and its political allies.
April 29, 2010 at 8:35 am
The religious and secular leftists are seeing their power diminishing and thus are really mad as efforts create 10 million or so new leftist voters are being quashed.
April 29, 2010 at 9:09 am
Don’t underestimate the degree to which these folks have drunk from the well of Derrida when it comes to the intersection of hospitality and immigration. Derrida had a lot to say about this, and his views, to varying degrees, have been gobbled up by folks on the left. For Derrida, true hospitality entails no boundaries, because in his view, boundaries and restrictions contribute to inequality, exclusion, and uneven power between individuals and nations. So while the religious left may be outwardly focusing on issues of profiling, it’s part of a larger worldview milieu that envisions a world in which there are no papers because there are no borders, fences, doors, or locks to keep people in or out. The religious left has latched onto aspects of this because of the ‘hospitality’ moniker they can attach to it. And because hospitality is a very strong biblical theme, they can wrap it up in religion. But as with many things, they are redefining it to mean what they want it to mean, rather than affirming the biblical vision of what it means.
April 29, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Having read the fact sheet put out by the Arizona government, I would disagree with Byron York. If he states that a drivers license is enough to “prove” legal status, then the law will do nothing. (I think the police in a traffic stop are already allowed to ask for a license.) A driver’s license does not prove either legal status, nor does it prove citizenship. I was crossing the bridge at Niagara Falls with a friend, and my friend had a license and was not let accross the border because they did not believe he was American, even though he named the hospital in Washington, DC, where he was born. (This was before the requirement for passports into and out of Canada and the USA.) The only reasonable reason he wasn’t allowed to cross the border was his skin color. So, is skin color, or accent, probable cause? I think Jim Wallis’s question is legitimate, given the context of the law. I would agree that mass arrests of Hispanics is not authorized by this law. (The fact sheet actually uses reasonable suspicion and not probable cause to check for immigration status, while I’m not a lawyer, it does suggest a lower standard.)
The other troubling issue in the law is the targeting of day laborers. It seems that waiting in line at a corner for a job where people come looking for workers is now either a crime or probable cause.
Having walked through immigration court with friends, I am aware what a disaster the immigration system is in this country. Reform is clearly needed. The system is so complicated that someone like David with a Master’s degree would probably have trouble understanding it, let alone someone whose first language is not English.
I have not read Derrida, so I can’t comment on that. I would say that as Reformed Christians, we are looking forward to a day without borders, where people of every nation, tongue and tribe unite to sing the praise of God Almighty. As a Reformed Christian, I don’t expect to see that now, or before Jesus comes again. Total Depravity means that there will be borders, jealousy, greed, wars, etc. It does mean that we probably can’t have totally open borders. Israel had its enemies (Babylon, Assyria, etc.) and America has its enemies. However, loving our neighbors as ourselves invites us, as Chrsitian, to welcome aliens into our churches and homes, as Israel was called to remember and welcome the strangers as they were strangers and sojourners at one time.
I would agree that the Christian Left doesn’t have all the answers here, but the Right isn’t correct here either. As part of the Great Commission, we are called to preach the gospel to all nations, not turn them in. If they are coming here, let’s not just leave these immigrants to hear the gospel only from Catholics.
This is a complicated issue where many will disagree with me. I could be wrong. But, if I err, I want to err on the side of compassion and grace.
April 29, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Preaching the Gospel includes telling people to respect the ALL the Laws of Sovereign Nations.
Jesus was big on us respecting the authority of Caesar and his Legions.
April 29, 2010 at 3:21 pm
If anyone’s interested, I developed a curriculum on Christian hospitality that I taught at my church a couple years ago. One of the lessons focused specifically on the issue of hospitality and the immigrant community. In this lesson, I attempted to BEGIN a conversation in evangelical circles about how to bring various biblical teachings to bear on the issue of immigration and what the evangelical response should be. The whole course is available at the Faith EPC website (a link to which is available on David’s blog). The specific course lesson is the Week 9 lesson near the end of the overall course script.
April 29, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Amen, Doug.
April 29, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Thanks for that, Jason. Here’s the specific link for Jason’s curriculum.
April 29, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Benjamin,
I’m sure that the gospel doesn’t compel us to obey every law of every nation. There are laws of man that we should not obey. Peter and John made that point when they were arrested in the Book of Acts. The question then you would ask, do immigration laws fall in that category. I would say probably not. However, our call as Christians is not necessarily to report any illegal aliens that we see, but if there are some in our churches (which there can be), then we should do what we can to help them become legal. There are plenty of good immigration lawyers (and a few bad ones, I can tell you stories there). We’ve used a good Christian immigration lawyer here in the Maryland area of DC. Parts of the Arizona law is still troubling to me, but it isn’t the end of the world as we know it. I’ll take a look at Jason’s teaching later, so I can’t comment on that at this time.