ID For All?

In his Newsweek May 13th editorial entitled "Why All Americans Should Carry ID Papers," Christopher Dickey proposes a different solution to the controversial Arizona law allowing policemen to search Hispanics that they suspect of being illegal immigrants. He suggests that it would be wisest making it a law requiring to have government-issued identification cards with all people at all times, and that if someone cannot produce their identification, they are to be detained by the police until they are proven to be American citizens or not instead of being instantaneously deported. He says that this would relieve the discriminatory pressures on the Hispanic community that come with the hot-button Arizona law. Also, the fact that these would be cards would mean that it would be far easier to keep track of, instead of having to tote around a birth certificate or a passport. Also, Dickey denounces a section of the Arizona law that states that people may complain to the police department about police officers not being zealous enough in searching for and deporting illegal immigrants.

Personally, I think that this whole situation is rather preposterous. All of this need for constant identification for no other purpose than showing that you are an American citizen is vaguely reminiscent of Stalin-era Communism, where neighbors could turn anyone in for not being enthused enough about the government's policies. In my opinion, these laws, both the one in effect in Arizona and the one proposed by Dickey, are blatant violations of the implied right to privacy as established by Griswold v. Connecticut. Citizens should not be subject to these random interruptions just because a police officer has a sneaking suspicion about them not being legal.

Mary Morris (extra credit)

Arizona Bill

According to the New York Times, On Friday April 23rd, Jan Brewer signed into law a bill which would help to prevent illegal immigration and is now considered one of the most severe bills in the nation to date. Even Obama criticized the bill, as well as many protestors. Obama claimed at the press conference that the bill would “…undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.” The bill stated that any immigrant would be required to carry their papers at all times or be subject to detainment. The opponents of the bill argue that this will increase discrimination against Hispanics and be cause for further harassment. This would also increase the amount of power that the police force holds. The bill has cause Mexico’s Foreign Ministry to fear for the lives of their people and those in relation to these immigrants.

Brewer ensured the public that the police force would not enact racial profiling, but this somewhat contradicts the foundation of the bill itself, which is based on judging whether or not a person is an immigrant and demanding identification.

This relates to what we’ve learned in Government because the fact that Obama criticized the bill, but Brewer still had the right to disregard his opinions. This shows the separation of powers between the state and national government.

The immigrants could apply the 9th amendment (the unenumerated rights) to their side of the story. They could argue that they have the right to privacy under this amendment. The government officials could say that they have probable cause to search or detain under the 4th amendment.

We disagree with the extremity of the bill. It may cause even more discrimination than is already occurring. On the other hand, it would increase the security of our nation, and carrying around papers is not any more of a burden than to have a driver’s license on hand. The principle of racial profiling is where the controversy lies.

By: Lauren Baggett & Katy Miller