It was a cool spring night when a young couple was stopped just off the highway. They had eaten dinner with some friends earlier and were on their way home, while paying close attention to the speed limit in a known speed trap. The road was clear and the only cars nearby were the 1972 Chevy and the black and white with its lights flickering. The officer, an Asian who couldn’t have been more than 30 years old, walked casually up to the window.

He claimed that the left tail light was out but, in the process of preparing a citation, decided he didn’t want to ruin the couple’s night. When he told the young driver he was content to leave them with a warning, the driver thanked the officer for his understanding while at the same time alerting him to his seemingly unusual heavy accent. The policeman asked, “Are you from around here?” The couple replied that they lived just outside the city, but this seemed not to satisfy the curious policeman.

Having already seen the man’s driver’s license, he asked, “Can I please see both of your green cards?” The surprised couple, nervous but compliant, both provided the requested documents and the seemingly disappointed young officer walked back to his car. An Illinois traffic stop, more than twenty five years ago, provides an example of what can happen under U.S. federal immigration laws.

My parents, who recounted this story a few days ago, came to this country legally during the height of the Cold War. Emigrants from the eastern bloc, both barely escaped the heavy government crackdown on Polish protesters that became martial law. Then, as now, America was a shining beacon of hope for the oppressed and a salvation for those who were willing to obey its laws and put in hard work.

Looking around Northwestern’s campus, it is impossible to miss the two-page flyers calling attention to Arizona’s new immigration law by juxtaposing the new regulation with images of dark skinned individuals. The posters ask: “Do I look undocumented?” in a not-so-veiled attempt to inject race into the heart of the immigration issue. The arrogance of the posters only underscores the dialogue happening nationwide about a law that hasn’t even taken effect.

When President Barack Obama invited Mexican President and supposed U.S. ally Felipe Calderon to speak before Congress, few were surprised by his comments. In the halls of the American legislature no less, Calderon declared that Arizona has opened the door “to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse.” What surprised me, but perhaps should not have, was that neither he nor U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder nor Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano took the time to read the 16-page bill. In not doing so, both had to admit their perfunctoriness before Congress when they were completely unable answer questions that compared it to federal laws that have been on the books for decades.

Had Holder taken the time do his homework before coming to class, he would have found that Arizona took great care to mirror federal law almost verbatim in order to minimize the exact controversy the law inevitably spawned. To further ease tension, Arizona passed an amendment to the bill further emphasizing their commitment to avoiding racial profiling. In the case of the Mexican president, the allegations were even more egregious: Before this otherwise brave man went on a diatribe against the racist yanqui Arizonans, he should have considered his own country’s unapologetically draconian immigration policies.

When my father came to the United States he was accepted because he was an educated professional with an engineering background that could (as Mexico’s immigration laws put it) “benefit the country’s national interest.” The Mexican federal immigration laws bar, in absence of such skills, any potential immigrant from making the trip. In addition the laws have provisions baring those who have a criminal history, “show contempt against national sovereignty or security,” are “not physically or mentally healthy,” or cannot provide for their own economic well being. The laws even prevent an influx of foreigners who could “upset the balance of national demographics.”

The catch and release policies that ICE currently uses when apprehending illegals are nothing compared to the two-year federal sentence Mexican illegal immigrants were dealt only a year ago; repeat offenders had their punishments increased fivefold to ten years, and violators could forget about due process – as aliens, they are not entitled to it in the first place. Updated language passed in Mexico last year now makes illegal immigration a civil violation similar to existing U.S. federal laws and the Arizona law. This change, however, has had little effect on the mechanism of enforcement.

Unlike the CIA and FBI before September 11, there is complete cooperation between all levels of Mexican law enforcement in apprehending illegals. On top of that, Mexican nationals are authorized to make citizen’s arrests of anyone found to be in the country without papers and detain them until the proper authorities arrive. Speaking of papers, all Mexican citizens are issued a national ID card that they must carry at all times. The failure of a tourist to show this or other documentation from a foreign ally results in the start of the deportation process.

Have a problem with Mexican immigration laws? Feel like taking a stand and protesting? Don’t bother. Under the Mexican constitution, political speech by foreign nationals is banned, as is participation in the country’s other national affairs. If you, or your family, have ever been offered to participate in a timeshare or purchase a condo in Mexico, don’t – it is forbidden for foreigners to own land in Mexico. This is convenient for seizing the “property” of illegals and makes lengthy court battles a nonissue.

Compare the Arizona law to the laws described in brief above. By design, the only purpose which the sixteen pages serve is to strengthen restrictions on sanctuary cities and mirror federal laws already on the books, like making it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to carry documentation. Don’t believe me? Read the whole bill – it is only sixteen pages. You’ll have more luck with that than the 2000 plus-page heath care law.

Freedom of expression and the right to protest are great freedoms in America. Had this debate taken place in Mexico, and had any of those posters around campus snidely asking if a dark skinned individual looks undocumented actually been created by or bore the likeness of a real foreigner, they could have been deported.

The Arizona law emerged from lawlessness at the border and inaction from Washington on the immigration issue, an issue which can only be solved through a comprehensive federal overhaul including a new approach to border security and a path to citizenship.

With Washington bogged down with the weight of the president’s domestic agenda and with congressional incumbents shaking in their boots over the 2010 midterms, an overhaul is unlikely coming anytime soon. Until then, enforcement of existing federal laws through state law not only makes sense but is overwhelmingly popular – not just in border communities, but across the country.

 Print This Post