A Fair Question? Hardly.

The Daily News Record: Editorial Opinion

This is a response to the editorial on May 20, One Fair Question - Critics Haven’t Read Arizona’s Law. The "Fair Question" was simply, "Did ______ read the Bill?" It was presented as a rhetorical question and the answer was deemed "No." The conclusion was that all criticism is unfounded, that Arizona was right in passing a radical, unconstitutional "Papers Please" law. (Yes, this writer has read the bill.) The rhetorical question being asked is factually correct but the logic being applied is false. "If you didn't read the Law, then the conclusions you reach about it are wrong."

Who reads entirety of immigration law? Who reads the entirety of the law concerning the religious freedom in America? Who reads the all of the law concerning civil rights and fiduciary responsibility of States, Counties, and the Federal Government?

Mr. Editor, you and I depend on our lawyers, the sources we trust, and our own reading of bills (amateurs though we are) to assess the worth of legislation. Members of Congress, Attorney Generals, pundits, and yes, Presidents, depend on legal counsel to sort out the legal issues involved with legislation. The logic presented in the editorial assumes that those who "don't read the law" may not in good faith make commentary, advocate a position, make a speech, blog or editorialize about those laws. By your own logic, perhaps you should not be allowed to comment or write further concerning this topic or the others mentioned above until you show or document that you have "read the law."

If you are simply expressing an opinion based on your knowledge of the issue at hand, as readers would expect on the editorial page of a newspaper, then you must be willing to accept that the President, Senators, Members of Congress, Attorney Generals, pundits and citizens are allowed the same freedom of opinion. If you rightly assert that readers assume that you have indeed “read the law,” then you must acknowledge the assumption that critics must have also “read the law.”

The law in question does indeed mirror federal legislation that is already on the books. It does reflect a general frustration in the lack of action by the Congress to address the issue of immigration reform. This excerpt is from Arizona Law SB 1070:

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). [source] (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf)

The underlined parts of the bill are the primary cause for concern and controversy. The language is vague, and open to possible abuse or misinterpretation. "Such intellectual laziness and ignorance born of arrogance...." should not be the basis for editorial commentary. A consultation with legal staff and thorough research would lead to possible interpretations or outcomes of the above language and would spare readers the nakedly partisan demagoguery that has been presented as editorial opinion.