The editorial, “Leave immigrant law in the desert”, is about the issue of what to do with illegal immigrants in Colorado. There has been another bill introduced by Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, that the author of the editorial feels is unnecessary and redundant (The Denver Post). They feel this bill also may be too permitting of misconduct towards illegal immigrants, or people that “look” like illegal immigrants: “Lambert told The Post his bill goes a step further than earlier Colorado laws by allowing police to arrest people if there is probable cause to believe they are in the country illegally or if they have committed serious crimes or are facing deportation. The phrase ‘probable cause’ is most worrisome.” (The Denver Post) The editorial, by and large, is well written and strong.
The editor includes in the article a strong claim. He states that there is no point to putting a law in effect if there already are similar laws that aren’t being enforced. In other words, push more towards the laws that have already passed legislature. They’ve been passed, so use them. Shouldn’t we enforce the laws that have already been passed? I may not be an expert in law, but what is the point of the law if no one is going to enforce it? Also, is another similar bill really going to be any more effective than the last? If you put a bowl of water in front of a cat and it doesn’t drink, will putting down a mug with water compel the feline to sip? If yet another illegal immigrant bill is thrown on the table, will it help in discerning who is an illegal immigrant and who isn’t?
Another persuasive argument that the editor uses in the article is that giving police the ability to judge based on probable cause is a tricky proposition. The editor argues that “it could give law enforcement the green light to harass immigrants — illegal or otherwise.” (The Denver Post) This is a valid point. This may not be true for all, but with this bill in effect, police have a ticket-to-ride to judge who looks “illegal”. Imagine walking down a street and seeing a fellow of the Mexican persuasion strolling down the path. He is walking to his job as a construction worker to support his wife and two kids. This mild-mannered man is doing nothing wrong, right? Then, out of nowhere, a police officer in his patrol car stops the gentleman. After a bit of conversation, the officer puts the gentleman in cuffs, and takes him into the patrol car. They drive away to the police station. The once hard-working father is now a criminal for “looking” like an illegal immigrant, whether he is a legal citizen or not. What will his family do without his emotional and monetary support? The editor doesn’t want humans subject to cruelty or violence, and this is made more possible when police have the right to interrogate whomever they please if they feel it is “necessary”.
The editor was very timely about posting this editorial. It is very appropriate to the political current events. The Colorado bill was introduced by Sen. Kent Lambert in late January of 2011. As well, the author was very effective when integrating the Arizona bill regarding the same issue. The Arizona bill wasn’t introduced yesterday, but it is recent enough for people to still be sore about it. Comparing the two bills helps to get at a tender spot for some. This anger that the editor draws from his audience only strengthens the argument. The people that are angered by Arizona’s decision will not their state to do like Arizona.
So what is the point of being redundant? People get to hear what you want to say more than once.
No comments:
Post a Comment