I do not think the people of Arizona are racists or xenophobic - even if the Cuban government claims this is the case.I do, however, think the uproar surrounding Arizona's new immigration law is merited.
From this blog's point of view, the most interesting back and forth has been about two words. I really enjoy a debate that can be broken down to the level of word choice. Popular examples of such debates are rare, but they make for great teaching tools.
Back when Arizona passed its immigration law, the initial uproar was over the words "reasonable suspicion." I have to admit, I never thought those words were problematic. Those words have a pretty clear legal definition.
My concern was whether or not Arizona cops could question a person without probable cause. They can do that here in Hungary, and it drives me crazy.
The words that left my 'probable cause' questions unanswered are Lawful Contact. Try as I may, I cannot find a clear legal definition of the concept, and the concept is critical to understanding Arizona's law (see line 20 of the law). And now the words have become the focus of many debating the law's merits.
Those who support the law claim that 'lawful contact' is what happens when an officer stops someone because they have broken a law, e.g. a traffic stop.
Critics suggest that 'lawful contact' could also include an officer speaking to someone who has not broken the law, e.g. a witness of a minor traffic accident. That is an example of an officer questioning an idividual without probable cause.
So we have a poorly defined key concept bound up in those two little words.
It will eventually take a judge to decide which interpretation of 'lawful contact' is correct. That troubles me. The courts only comes into play after the law has been enforced - after a police officer has exercised her interpretation of the law. It is sloppy lawmaking for legislators to leave something like this for the courts to decide.
When I help students draft research papers, I ask them to be more careful than the Arizona legislature has been. I suggest they develop their understanding of their subject's concepts, context, and issues. The term "concept" often trips up beginning researchers. Students define a concept as 'a key term required to discuss a subject', and that's more than half right. The problem, however, is that students don't define their concepts clearly enough. They'll use a term like CSR, but they never develop it into a clear concept. So when they write "corporations must behave in a socially responsible manner", a reader is left to decide what exactly 'socially responsible' means. Some read that term differently than others.
The Arizona legislature has made that same mistake here, and it could result in police harassment.
So there you have it, a real life example of a composition classroom issue.
2 comments:
Why is there such a need for lower then minimal wage labor in Arizona? Is this law designed to curb illegal immigration? Will word get back to the sources of these illegal immigrants that going to Arizona is too risky because of this new law that thus slow illegal immigration to Arizona?
I wonder if there is a law that allows police to question an employer if the police suspect an employer of using illegal immigrants as workers. What penalties are in place to discourage employer use of illegal immigrants?
And how about the consumer? What about Arizona's economy requires the use of cheap labor? Who will do the jobs that Arizona citizens don't want to do? It would be a huge wake up call if all the illegal immigrants in Arizona didn't work for one week, perhaps that would help the Arizona populous see what their new law may cost them.
Hogan,
I like that you've brought up a central issue in the American government, namely the separation of powers. Remember that legislators don't "officially" have any obligation to do the morally correct thing as they must respond only to the voters. Thus their decisions are based more on what is "politically" correct rather than morally correct. Meanwhile the courts, who don't respond to any electorate, are obliged to respond in a morally correct way whether it be in answering to a higher power or to their own personal conscience. I, at times, think that the checks and balances on the judicial branch of the government are far too weak. However, I am proud that in the majority of cases, better judgment has prevailed.
For a good example of how American government has worked correctly in the past (in addressing the exact issue of one of the branches of government acting morally incorrectly), check out the documentary The most dangerous man in America.
Post a Comment