Profiling Paradox of AZ Law
The supporters of Arizona’s new immigration law, SB 1070, do have a way of talking in circles. Most of the time, they don’t even seem conscious of their contradictions.
One minute, they’re badmouthing the federal government for being ineffective in securing the border and stopping illegal immigration. The next, they’re defending the state law by insisting that it’s a mirror image of federal law, the same approach that we were just told is ineffective — but apparently still worth emulating.
One minute, they’re insisting that they care about the rule of law and that’s why they oppose illegal immigration. The next, they’re declaring their support for a state law that is blatantly unconstitutional — or, in other words, contrary to the rule of law.
But perhaps the biggest contradiction of all has to do with racial profiling, which is, after all, the whole purpose of SB 1070. One minute, supporters are asserting that there is no way Latinos will be profiled by local and state police under this law. In fact, they say, the law – in several places – specifically prohibits racial profiling. Thus, they assume, what is prohibited cannot happen.
How quaint. It’s worth noting here that racial profiling is already prohibited by federal statute, and yet it still happens. It happened, for several years, on the New Jersey Turnpike where, as state officials formally acknowledged a decade ago, state troopers searched African-American and Latino motorists with much greater frequency than they did white drivers. Moral: Just because something is against the law doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
That’s not even the biggest problem, however. While this idea is still out there – that police won’t racially profile Latinos who they suspect of being in the country illegally – supporters come back with a second punch. But, they say, in the unlikely event that Latinos were profiled, such a thing would be totally justified given that most illegal immigrants come from Mexico and the rest of Latin America. After all, they say, in a state like Arizona, which borders Mexico, who should police be looking for if not Latinos?
One reader wrote me to say: You suggest that we not use “racial profiling” (a politically bad word) to determine if someone caught near the Mexican border is here unlawfully. Would you suspect a blue-eyed blond to have crossed the border into our country from Mexico? Of course we must suspect Spanish speaking “Latinos” as possible illegal immigrants!
Another wrote: What bothers me is that you are vehemently opposed to the Arizona law recently enacted. You call it racial profiling, presumably against Latinos. Well, sir, who is coming across our borders illegally? It certainly are (sic) not Swedes, Inuit, Estonians, Bosnians, etc. It is Mexicans. So, really, the law has to target them because that is the group coming over.”
Absolutely unbelievable. What rhetorical dexterity. Obviously, supporters can’t have it both ways. They can’t insist that a practice won’t occur. Honest it won’t. Then turn around and insist that it is perfectly logical and thus likely to occur if police do their jobs correctly. One of these things can be true but not both.
Of course, the first claim is meaningless public relations. It is just garnish on the plate. It allows supporters to pretend to oppose racial profiling in the hopes of building their own credibility and the credibility of the shady law they support.
It’s the second claim that matters. That one they believe. They obviously think that racial profiling isn’t just justifiable but also effective and essential to good law enforcement. And they want it used in this case to ferret out illegal immigrants by focusing on the group of people that most resembles them: Latinos.
In battle, the biggest break you get is when an adversary steps from the shadows, shows himself and makes clear his intentions. Don’t look now. But supporters of SB 1070 are standing in full view.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board, a nationally syndicated columnist and a regular contributor to CNN.COM.
