Anxiety in Arizona May 4, 2010

Posted by Ron Warnick in Businesses, People.
21 comments

Like others, I’ve been watching with morbid fascination the reaction to Arizona’s new illegal immigration law. It makes failing to carry immigration documents a crime, and gives police broad power to detain those suspected of being in the country illegally.

Because the issue seemed to be peripheral to Route 66, I initially decided to observe from the sidelines. But a couple of things in recent days reeled me in.

First, here’s a provocative editorial cartoon by Monte Wolverton that re-uses a line from Bobby Troup’s “Route 66.”

Second, here’s a report a few days ago from Gallup, N.M. The Route 66 town, angered by the law, has decided to cut all ties with the state of Arizona, the border of which is just a few miles away.

Gallup is a diverse town — the last Census showed roughly equal proportions of whites, Hispanics and American Indians. A huge percentage of those Hispanics and Indians come from families that have lived in the Southwest for centuries, before white settlers arrived. So a new law that targets minorities — especially given the original white settlers’ often-ugly history with those groups — obviously would be galling.

And it seems buyer’s remorse has set in. The Arizona legislature modified the law days after it was enacted so racial profiling wouldn’t be used “solely” during police stops — a telling sign that lawmakers doubted it would withstand a legal challenge.

A number of prominent conservatives who ordinarily would take a hardline approach to illegal immigration have expressed significant reservations about the law. The list of Republicans criticizing Arizona’s law include former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado and, most recently, Texas Gov. Rick Perry. The GOP, realizing that Hispanics are the fastest-growing minority in America, knows that offending that bloc is a political minefield.

Some are calling for a boycott of Arizona as a way to oppose the law. But Spud Hilton, who’s written about Route 66 for the San Francisco Chronicle, wrote that the new law is “boneheaded.” But he added that a blanket boycott of an entire state is “moronic.”

So if you’re an avid traveler and love Arizona’s stunning scenery and natural attractions, but you have your heart set on boycotting the state, here are a few questions you might consider:

On old Route 66, can you visit Gallup, N.M., and Barstow, but nothing in between?

Is it OK to visit the Nevada side of the Hoover Dam? (Or should we just boycott the whole thing because Hoover was such an idiot?)

I agree with Hilton that a boycott is a terrible idea, namely because it would hurt small businesses along Route 66, many of which are minority-owned.

But it also seems certain the Arizona law won’t survive a constitutional challenge. Because passing an unconstitutional law would become a waste of time and taxpayer money, I would oppose it on those principles alone.

The Arizona Republic newspaper, in a rare front-page editorial, said the law “intimidates Latinos while doing nothing to curb illegal immigration.” I concur.

An obvious solution to illegal immigration would be to levy steep fines against non-agricultural companies that hire such workers (you still want seasonal migrant workers, or else you have $10-a-quart strawberries). Such regulations would nearly stop the flow of illegal immigrants from south of the border. But politicians are reluctant to take that action because too many fat cats benefit from a cheap pool of labor.

In addition, a smart immigration law would increase the yearly allowance of legal immigrants for skilled workers. Many corporations are clamoring for college-educated, specialized workers. Increasing the number of such foreigners to our shores would benefit the economy and the country in general.

But, until those things happen, laws such as Arizona’s should be regarded as unproductive and not serious about dealing with the illegal-immigration problem.