Even as the left’s victimization industry creates another rationale for its existence with its latest cause célèbre, what was Arizona’s S.B. 1070 that specifies how the state’s law enforcement officials may inquire as to the status of a person’s citizenship status, Louisiana has had a very similar law that has generated zero controversy and may add another.
In 2002, the state enacted today’s R.S. 14:100.13. Like the Arizona law, it applies only to non-citizens. Like the Arizona law, production of a legal driver’s license means the law does not apply to the person involved. Unlike the Arizona law, production of a “green card” alone will not prevent the law from being evoked, because it involves the driver only whereas the Arizona law can apply to all passengers. Unlike the Arizona law, “profiling” is not expressly prohibited. Unlike the Arizona law, it is not a secondary offense, in that the law does not expressly tie its enforcement to a legal traffic stop by authorities.
In fact, except for that it applies only to the operation of a motor vehicle and thereby excludes passengers, Louisiana’s law can be considered more far-reaching than Arizona’s. It carries more similarities with the federal law (8USC1304(e)) which adopts no standard for such enforcement, not even the standard of reasonable suspicion, and requires no lawful stop precedent to such inquiry.
Louisiana also, not being on the southern border, does not experience nearly the problem of illegal immigration as do the frontline states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. While the numbers of illegal aliens seem to be growing in the state, it never had been a big issue, not even after the hurricane disasters of 2005 where it appeared that a number of illegal aliens came to the state as labor for rebuilding.
In fact, only one bill this session directly addresses the issue. HB 1205 by state Rep. Joe Harrison would mandate each Louisiana agency and each of its political subdivisions to verify the lawful presence in the United States of any natural person fourteen years of age or older who has applied for state or local public benefits. The remainder of the bill, and one other, addresses those who employ, transport etc. knowingly illegal aliens. It would not increase costs, but was heard in committee May 13 and languishes.
One might have hoped the Arizona matter would have brought increased awareness of the desirability of this bill, but there has been a small amount of false demagoguery about it as well. It adds no significant burden to government or the private sector, does not infringe on constitutional rights, and assists in enforcing the law. Passing it into statute makes all the sense in the world.
1 comment:
What a buffoon. the "left's victimization industry" may be the most deeply cocooned comment you've made yet.
The plain meaning of the AZ law and its vocal support is to harass. But don't expect Jeff Sadow to take a complex analysis of the moral rights and wrongs, economic benefits and consequences, or legal ramifications. He's already in advocacy mode, so there will be no hard look taken today. Even the police chiefs think that this law is bad. And what sort of terrible horrors have illegal immigrants wrought in your state of Louisiana, Jeff? They've barely registered, since there aren't many (your corrupt state's crappy economy governed by awful mostly-conservative politicians is the reason why). But when immigration enforcement was relaxed after Katrina and they poured into Nola by the tens of thousands to repair our homes under difficult circumstances, were you out there thanking them? Nope, but you were there to demonize these under-paid, under-thanked helpers as some sort of obstacle to your pure Americana fantasies.
And to say that the victimization industry is the left's! You must be crazy. The endlessly self-pitying Sarah Palin can't walk by a microphone without telling everyone how terribly she suffers from "attacks." And it sure doesn't end with Sarah Palin. Your right-wing radio clowns are endless pretending that they are under attack. Just by listening to them you'd think that a few faceless atheists have all of christianity under their commie boot. The annual "war on christmas" pity party? That's you people. And when you had all three branches of government under W. and managed to trigger the world's largest protests in history, all you could do was whine that some of the posters carried by protesters said some mean things. Thin skins you have. Just listen to your Glenn Beck blubber about how brave he is to stand up and declare himself a capitalist. It's you throwing the pity-party.
Here is the lesson our pathetic professor wants us to learn: when a state enacts a law designed to harass poor minorities, those minorities are not "victims." But when someone making millions of dollars a year goes from paying 37% to 37.5% in income tax, they are "victims" of "class warfare."
Post a Comment