/ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
con·serv·a·tive
/kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ Show Spelled[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
In a recent discussion of the Arizona law pertaining to illegal immigration I discovered the weakness of current labels to accurately define a persons perspective on difficult issues. The discussion was with one of my friends who I would describe as "Liberal". I suspect that most people would describe me as "conservative".
His argument was as follows:
- The constitution protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure.
- Enabling law enforcement officers to request documentation constitutes unreasonable search and seizure.
- Therefore the AZ law is unconstitutional.
My response was:
- If a person is in the country illegally they are not a citizen of this country.
- If they are not a citizen of this country, they are not protected under the constitution.
My response: If they are not citizens they are entitled to no such protection.
His response: But how will the enforcement officials know whether they are citizens.
My response: We have a constitutional conundrum.
His response: I agree.
So now I am confused. My "Liberal" friend is being conservative by definition in adhering to the spirit of the constitution. I am being liberal in that I want to protect the liberties of citizens of this country but not necessarily extend them to criminal elements that may be here illegally. Oy vey!
In virtually every country on the planet, documentation of citizenship is something that is required. I am not sure if papers are carried and available for inspection on demand in all countries. I do know that most countries take extraordinary precautions to protect their borders from intruders. The United States does not.
Last week a sheriff's deputy was shot with an automatic rifle by drug smugglers and left bleeding just south of Phoenix. Texas, Arizona, and California have thousands of miles of borders that are essentially unsecured. Estimates are that 11 million illegals are in this country now. And we have a conundrum. If we grant amnesty to all that are here now, there is no mechanism in place to prevent more illegals from coming and no plan in place to secure the border.
In the meantime these illegals work here, many for cash with no taxes. They are eligible for social services for which citizens pay. What's not to like about that set up? Granted, most are hard working people of good character. But some are drug smugglers, murderers and thieves. Immigration and our Southern border may well be one of the defining issues of the 21st Century with far reaching ramifications on all aspects of the political, social and economic fabric of our country. It will force a resolution to the constitutional conundrum that will likely require a restriction on the liberty we now enjoy in order to preserve a future liberty that may well be at risk. As our politicians fiddle, the issue burns and burns out of control. Would that we would have an intelligent discussion of this on a national basis and bring it to resolution.
What would liberals and conservatives say to passing a law that required every citizen to carry a document proving citizenship, and give law enforcement the right to ask anyone to show it, at any time?
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it the law already exists both in the federal statutes on immigration requiring any non citizen to produce documentation upon request. The AZ law mirrors that language but gives a local jurisdiction within which to enforce it. The difficulty lies in the difference of agreement on the protection clause in the constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe liberal would say that without reasonable cause the law enforcement official cannot request such documentation. That makes them conservative on constitutional interpretation and liberal on the protection on protecting civil liberties.
The conservative would say that the officer has the right to request documentation making them liberal on constitutional interpretation and conservative on the protection of civil liberties.
The fact that illegal immigrants are lawbreakers is shielded by the protection in the constitution against unreasonable search and seizure which is the basis for court rulings making it unlawful to "profile" based on various characteristics.
As you may agree, the labels are not much use any more if you want to have words mean things that we can agree upon.