The Arizona Immigration Law

I've heard some different claims about the new Arizona Immigration law, specifically turning on whether police can inquire into a person's citizenship status during a casual encounter not related to the investigation of another illegal act. That question (how it will be enforced) is the only conceivably controversial thing about the Arizona law, since it otherwise conforms exactly to current federal law (which is not enforced at all).

Linda Chavez, a conservative that I respect very much, claims that the law gives police the ability to approach any person who "looks Mexican," ask about their citizenship status, and detain them if they can't provide documentation. That seemed troubling to me, because while a person in a country illegally certainly has no right to expect to be left alone by law enforcement, a citizen of that country should be free from intrusive law enforcement actions.

After doing some research, I have come to the conclusion that Ms. Chavez, while I understand her concern, is wrong about the meaning of the law itself. The clearest and most succinct articulation I've found to correct her misconception is this post by Andy McCarthy at NRO, which also cites an excellent article by Byron York. The law itself does not countenance racial profiling. In fact, it rejects that approach both implicitly (through carefully crafted legal language) and explicitly (by clearly excluding the use of racial profiling). The only legitimate claim against this law is that individual police officers may enforce it incorrectly, and in doing so violate the civil liberties of American citizens. That concerns me, but it's an argument that can be made against any law.

McCarthy's final conclusion is this: "The people who are complaining about this law almost certainly either have not read it or are demagogues who would make the same absurd claims no matter what they law said." I think there's a third possibility that applies to Ms. Chavez. Some people who misinterpret the bill probably do so because, despite their intelligence, they are not lawyers or law enforcement officials trained to interpret and implement legal language.

Everyone can understand "racial profiling," but not everyone understands the actual legal concept of "reasonable suspicion." Those who don't should take care when commenting, especially if they intend to cast aspersions on the moral qualities of the bill's proponents and supporters.

*****
UPDATE:
Linda Chavez has responded to Andy McCarthy. Her argument is basically that the wording of the bill itself is confusing and leaves open the possibility that it will be misapplied in violation of citizens' liberties.

I think this proves my point above. The text is only confusing or uncertain for people who aren't career criminal lawyers or law enforcement agents - i.e. the people who will actually be enforcing the law. And yes, the law can be misapplied. Every law can be abused or misapplied by law enforcement professionals. That's the weakness of any legal code, but it's a weakness that we accept in exchange for the benefits that come with writing laws down. The people of Arizona clearly thought a written state law that might be misunderstood or slightly abused was still better than the status quo - federal law that isn't enforced at all.

Also, her point that immigration has been going down in recent years is a little strange. Immigration has been going down because our economy has been tanking. That would be a justification for inaction on the immigration front only if we fully expect the economy to never recover. If, on the other had, we do expect the economy to recover, wouldn't now be a good time to make some big changes to our immigration policies?

Is it a better idea to fix a faucet when it's dripping or when it's gushing?