criminal sanctuary

Gooood morning. Here's the headline with which the Journal welcomes us to today: Albuquerque, according to our newly elected mayor Richard Berry, will no longer be a "'sanctuary' for criminals". His new policy for the city directs that "Federal agents will check the immigration status of everyone arrested in Albuquerque — regardless of national origin". This will be accomplished with the efforts of Federal agents working at the city detention center. He assures, however, that "racial profiling with not be tolerated", and that the status of victims and witnesses will not be checked. Well, good for that at least. But I had to appreciate the responses cited in the article. A spokeswoman for the local El Centro de Igualdad y Derechos says it's "disingenuous" for the Mayor to make such a declaration, since Albuquerque has never officially been a place of "sanctuary" to begin with. And an ACLU speaker appreciates the Mayor's promises about profiling, as they provide motivation for all those concerned about basic human rights and dignity to monitor, even more closely, whether such promises are kept in our city.

And it motivates my own little thought, since I first started hearing about Arizona. Before it comes here (and, Love willing, it won't), and before it tries to become the kind of fearmind and unconsciousness that threatens all people, and not just one race or background or nationality: let's all start carrying our passports with us wherever we go. And if we're stopped, for whatever violation or routine inquiry, let's demand that consistency is enforced. Let's make sure that our tax dollars, and our collective need for national security, and our paid law enforcement's time, is well and rightly spent. Let's make them check every one of our right to be here. Let's offer them the opportunity to prove, on each and every available occasion, that this is not "racial", not about a legal system somehow upheld by actions based on the outward appearances of people. And that our states' and country's laws are upheld on princicples more valid than contingency and suspicion. Let's remind them that, since a nation consists ultimately of its people, not of its statutes, which I understand are written for the people (if of and by are too much to ask), that action in the name of "national security" does, in fact, affect the nation. And that's us. Every one of us.

For a bit of relief to this story, I just checked out another: the cities of Tucson and Flagstaff are suing the state of Arizona over SB 1070. And, interestingly, their reasons are not political, ethical, ideological, but imminently practical: the cost of local enforcement, and the loss of dollars from tourism. You can see the whole story here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/05/arizona-immigration-lawsu_n_563908.html

And as for me, I'm off to plant some more corn in my own little criminal sanctuary.