COMMENTARY | Confirming immigration status by physical appearance and discrimination are two different things, at least according to states like Arizona, Georgia, Utah and Indiana.
Alabama will be the latest state to attempt the measure to give law enforcement officers the authority to question the citizenship status of residents who look like illegal aliens and to force everyone to carry proof of said citizenship at all times.
While I see the value in mandating that all Alabama residents carry an identification card, I don't think that using physical appearance exclusively is a productive method of cracking down on those who are in the United States illegally. Some of those detainees may actually be in the country legally; it's tough to warrant pulling someone aside solely based upon his or her skin color and facial features.
I think that for this and the similar measures in the states previously mentioned to be most effective, there needs to be additional justification for calling out a foreign-looking person. That would eliminate some of the unnecessary stereotyping. Not all illegal aliens are going to lack English fluency and not everyone who deviates from the traditional American norm is in the country illegally.
The Obama administration and civil rights groups were right to question the legality of these actions, as they jointly filed an appeal on Sept. 29.
I liken the mentality of those who think that this sort of detainment practice is "the right way," to those who supported segregation of whites and blacks in the Civil Rights Era. In the 1950s and 1960s, the overt segregation of races normalized the act of judging a black person as entirely different, and oftentimes lesser, than a white person. And any black who questioned the double standard with retaliation would fit the inaccurate stereotype.
Similarly, the Alabama legislation justifies law enforcement to target people who come across as illegal, which, again, is based upon physical appearance. The very act of lumping these people under that very term of "illegal," without giving equal consideration to others, is faulty reasoning. Any other detainment requires a legitimate warrant; why should this be any different?
Again, I believe that people in the U.S. illegally should be taken into custody, but there should be alternative ways to identify that besides the physical traits of those people. E-Verify is a good example of that double-check for employers, and requiring citizenship I.D.s could be a quick way to notify the legal authorities if that detainment is warranted.
The ultimate goal of identifying those who reside in the U.S. illegally is necessary, but states need to take justification a step further to ensure that they aren't openly practicing racial discrimination. That distinction is essential in Alabama and the other states with an immigration law on the books.
22 comments