Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Will Defends Arizona Law

Naturally George F. Will thinks that all the outrage over the Arizona immigration bill is from a bunch of liberals who refuse to do anything about illegal immigration and are just doing it to demonize Republicans who stand up for the rule of law.

“Misguided and irresponsible” is how Arizona’s new law pertaining to illegal immigration is characterized by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She represents San Francisco, which calls itself a “sanctuary city,” an exercise in exhibitionism that means it will be essentially uncooperative regarding enforcement of immigration laws. Yet as many states go to court to challenge the constitutionality of the federal mandate to buy health insurance, scandalized liberals invoke 19th-century specters of “nullification” and “interposition,” anarchy and disunion. Strange.

It is passing strange for federal officials, including the president, to accuse Arizona of irresponsibility while the federal government is refusing to fulfill its responsibility to control the nation’s borders. Such control is an essential attribute of national sovereignty. America is the only developed nation that has a 2,000-mile border with a developing nation, and the government’s refusal to control that border is why there are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and why the nation, sensibly insisting on first things first, resists “comprehensive” immigration reform.

Yes, it is strange, especially since it is the Republicans in the Senate who are blocking any consideration of immigration reform and who didn’t do jack about it during the Bush administration. Now all of a sudden it’s President Obama’s fault to the point that Arizona had to haul in white supremacists to write their bill? Strange indeed.

No column by Mr. Will would be complete without him doing his share of “liberals do it too”:

Some critics say Arizona’s law is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” prevents the government from taking action on the basis of race. Liberals, however, cannot comfortably make this argument because they support racial set-asides in government contracting, racial preferences in college admissions, racial gerrymandering of legislative districts and other aspects of a racial spoils system. Although liberals are appalled by racial profiling, some seem to think vocational profiling (police officers are insensitive incompetents) is merely intellectual efficiency, as is state profiling (Arizonans are xenophobic).

Yes, of course; requiring proof of citizenship is just like affirmative action. One can land you in jail, the other can provide an opportunity for people otherwise shut out of the system with a college education. Same thing, right?

In his final paragraph Mr. Will indulges in a bit of racial profiling himself:

Non-Hispanic Arizonans of all sorts live congenially with all sorts of persons of Hispanic descent. These include some whose ancestors got to Arizona before statehood — some even before it was a territory. They were in America before most Americans’ ancestors arrived. Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their back yards at 3 a.m.

Oh, I see; he’s saying that the only contact liberals who are defending the poor downtrodden Hispanics have is with gardeners and busboys. How very nice of Mr. Will to come to the defense of Hispanics; why, some of his best friends….

Perhaps Mr. Will ought to consider the fact that when conservatives like Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush (whose wife is Hispanic), and Karl Rove come out against the law, he might be on the wrong side.