Arizona Bashers; Don't Let Facts Get in The Way.

When one argues a point because they say it is the right thing to do, they are arguing ideology. The recent debate about the Arizona anti-illegal immigrant law is a study in ideology. Like many arguments from the Left, they tend to argue against representative issues, not the issue itself. The ideologues of the Left always starts an Arizona law argument with, 'the Federal Government has sole authority to enforce immigration law', perhaps not realizing this issue is the origin of the law, not a condition of it's demise. Once past the jurisdictional argument, the Left settles on the probability of racial profiling. Admittedly, while the law may prohibit profiling, law enforcement can not always be expected to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to make a detention lawful. I would, however make the case, that even this argument is not sincere. The reason is those that argue against the Arizona law, are actually arguing for a gauntlet policy for immigration. They begrudgingly admit the US needs some form of border control, but they contend, once the illegal immigrants have forded the border, illegal immigrants should be given amnesty.

My argument for this "gauntlet policy" is based on the fact that the Arizona law is a mirror of the federal law. If there is a profiling argument, it needs to also be applied to the federal law, as the federal law allows a detention based solely on the suspicion a subject is an illegal immigrant (the Arizona law requires a lawful detention first). The ideologues know they won't get any mileage on any such argument, so they make straw-man arguments against the Arizona law, assuming the federal government will continue it's half-hearted enforcement.

I mentioned in a previous post, Glenn Beck's book "Arguing with Idiots" and it's flawed premise that facts and history matters. If the argument is a state law will result in racial profiling, the question needs to be asked, "What if the federal government decided to send 10,000 ICE agents to Arizona to enforce the Immigration laws; would that be acceptable?" The answer I'm sure would be in the negative, complaining the federal law enforcement would also result in racial profiling. Those that argue against the Arizona law, including the Obama Administration, desire that the federal government maintain sole authority of enforcing, or in this case not enforcing immigration law. So any argument against the Arizona law, is obviously ideological and not fact based. To put this in prospective, it is much akin to gun control. The evidence is overwhelming that the more law abiding citizens that own and carry guns, the more violent crime rates go down, but that really doesn't matter to the anti-gun lobby; they just don't like guns and that's all that matters to them.