The Problem with the Party out of Power: Immigration Edition!

I had a conversation with someone yesterday about SB1070, the Arizona immigration law slated to take effect on the 29th of this month. (Incidentally, have you noticed how innocuous-sounding the law's title is? The "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act?" Can they throw in a side of ponies, daisies, and rainbows while they're at it?)

I'll spare you the noisy details of my full conversation. At some point in the argument, though, we came to the legislation's legal imperative for racial profiling; the fact that someone--literally anyone--can be called upon to produce documentation of their legal status in Arizona, and can be detained for failing to produce it (regardless of whether or not that person is an immigrant--legal or otherwise).

Me: This law will lead to racial profiling and discrimination!

Her: Unfortunately, you have to think of the greater good that will be accomplished by rooting out the actual illegal immigrants.

Me: Even at the expense of the unwarranted arrest American citizens of Hispanic descent?!

Her: Mark, think of the history of our country. Think of the Italians, think of the Irish. At some point, all ethnic groups have been discriminated against. This time it's the Hispanics' turn.

Me: ARE YOU SAYING THAT DISCRIMINATION IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE OTHERS HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH IT?! YOU ARE ARGUING FOR THE CODIFICATION OF DISCRIMINATION INTO LAW!

I was STUNNED by this justification. The discrimination enshrined in Arizona's immigration law was hunky-dory because other groups have had to deal with discrimination in the past too? How can we move forward as a country if we resign ourselves to repeating the egregious mistakes of our past?

It might seem like my argumentative companion is out of her mind and part of a small minority. Au contraire! According to a Pew Research Center poll, 59% of Americans approve of the law, while only 32% disapprove. This appalls me.

I'm no expert on immigration. In fact, I'd say I'm even less informed about this issue than others. It's a complicated issue, and its solution does not fit into the neat black-and-white arguments over which Republicans and Democrats normally argue. You can't deport 12 million people. It's not fair to them, and it would economically destroy our country. On the other hand, you can't wave a magic wand and grant 12 million people amnesty. Reagan learned that lesson the hard way.

The current situation, however, is untenable. It is unfair first and foremost to the immigrants who live and work in this country illegally, earning lower wages and working harder jobs than the rest of Americans. They fear deportation, they have no legal advocate, and they are the object of many Americans' scorn. It is also unfair to the employers playing by the rules, not hiring illegal immigrants, and becoming a less competitive business as a result. And finally, it's not fair to the millions of unemployed American citizens who would gladly take an illegal immigrant's job.

So what can be done?

Don't ask Sarah Palin. After my conversation about SB1070 yesterday, another friend emailed me this video in which Sarah Palin explains to Bill O'Reilly what she would do about the immigration issue if she were president. My friend described this video (quite fittingly, I think) as "painful, funny, sad, disheartening, exciting, amazing, horrible and a plethora of other emotions all at once."




Bill O'Reilly asks Palin some questions, spoon-feeds her the answers to those questions, but then (to his credit) gets frustrated that she's not saying anything substantial and tries to call her out on it. But she just stays on Republican-Talking-Points-Auto-Pilot. She refuses to offer any ideas of her own. It's just catch-phrases like "taking back our country," the "Obama-Ried-Pelosi" axis of evil, and "American Jobs should be for American Citizens."

I know, I know. It shouldn't come as a surprise to me that Sarah Palin has no clue what she's talking about. But what concerns me is the larger issue. The party out of power doesn't have to have substantial, well though-out positions to win people over to their cause. They simply have to express discontent with the way things are, say "no" to everything the incumbent party proposes, and somehow they come out looking like they'd know what to do if only they were in power.

You can't govern a country with talking points. You can't fix immigration with sound bites. Unfortunately, though, superficial rhetoric can win elections.

That's what concerns me about my conversation about SB1070 and Sarah Palin's inanities. If you're able to work your way through the bloated exoskeleton of these arguments, you discover nothing but hot air inside. I do not want to return to living in a country helmed by hollow leaders.