Arizona Revisited

The initial media coverage of the controversial Arizona immigration law does not state a critical component of the law, which is that it only allows people to be questioned about immigration status if another crime is involved.

As example, here is the initial New York Times article dated April 23 on the law, and no where is this critical fact mentioned. The Wall Street Journal on April 24 is similarly guilty of missing this important part of the story. But in this July 6 story, the New York Times clearly that:

"The law, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23, makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant in the state and requires the officers to determine the immigration status of people they stop for another offense based on a 'reasonable suspicion' that they might be illegal immigrants."

This is a profound difference, since illegal activity other than violating immigration law is a predicate to being questioned about immigration status. People are asked for identification all the time in this country, such as going through an airport or being stopped for a traffic violation. The notion, as popularized in the initial commentary on the Arizona law, of Nazi-like police officers demanding to see anyone's "papers" simply isn't relevant: only those people stopped for a crime and who the police reasonably suspect of being here illegally can be questioned about their immigration status.

Compare this to New York City's "stop and frisk" policy, where over 570,000 times in 2009, the NYPD stopped people under a "reasonable suspicion" standard. About 6% of the people stopped are arrested, so only a small percentage of people detained under "stop and frisk" are arrested.

It is clear that Arizona's law requires holds the police to a higher standard to question someone's immigration status than New York City's law does to allow the police to stop and frisk someone.

So where are the boycott calls of New York City? Should the NFL rescind granting the city the 2014 Super Bowl? Should New York's baseball stadiums be unable to host future all-star games until the stop and frisk policy is rescinded? Given the reaction to Arizona's law, these would seem reasonable steps to take against New York too for its even more egregious law enforcement policies.

But we don't hear boycott calls against New York, just like we didn't get accurate reporting on the Arizona law when it was first reported, when first impressions are made in the public's mind. The Obama administration decided to use the Arizona law to rally Hispanic voters to the side of Democrats, and their friends in the media didn't report on key aspects of the law to make it appear more egregious than it is.

Moreover, the Obama administration's lawsuit against the Arizona law has nothing to do with alleged civil rights violations. Instead, the lawsuit claims enforcing immigration laws is a federal, not state, government responsibility. That is an important issue, as all constitutional issues are, but not a civil rights crisis.

Moreover, the Obama administration has not sued other states or cities that actively oppose federal immigration law - highlighting the political gamesmanship Barack Obama is playing with this issue.

Such is the thoughtful discourse Barack Obama has brought to American politics.