 Ethicalego Speaks
Ethicalego (Kenneth Brooks) discusses current events from a critical thinking perspective rarely expressed elsewhere
Arizona immigration law sparks issues of morality
By Kenneth Brooks
May 11, 2010
A society with a strong moral code needs only a few declarations of understanding and few laws to achieve a socially just society. On the other hand, an immoral society cannot promote social justice with a string of new laws, because the new laws reflect and expand its immorality. Therefore, the hundred thousands of laws, maybe millions, more likely characterize injustice in the United States and not fairness.
America’s founders pointed out a moral code with a simple declaration, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.” In addition, they included a Bill of Rights to the Constitution that guaranteed the right to petition government. It also provides that people are innocent until proved guilty.
The declaration and Bill of Rights showed a nation with a sense of morality and therefore not amoral. Nevertheless, it proved to be an immoral society that denied human rights to enslaved people, aboriginal people and women. Constitutional amendments, government decrees, and civil rights acts did not correct the injustice, because the immorality of the lawmakers and society reflect in all of them. American society began under laws that denied human rights based on race and gender. Those racial categories and stereotypes continue under different label.
The national disagreement over the fairness of Arizona’s new immigration law continues the same immorality and confusion about social justice. Arizona’s law directs enforcement officers to check the residency status of people they reasonable believe are foreign nationals living there illegally. Protesters of the law claim it will encourage police officers to racial profile all Latinos to find those here illegally. They organized attacks against Arizona’s economy, boycotts against its products and services, to compel it to repeal the law. They do not have right on their side although they believe they do.
Federal, state, county and city governments all report crime suspects, crime statistics, imprisonment rates by racial label. This practice implies that physical traits or racial characteristics decide conduct. This is clear evidence that American society racially profiles its population. Even the dullest person should understand the information in crime reports originate from the arrest records and investigative reports of law enforcement officers. Racial stereotyping and racial profiling complement each other in a culture of racism, because neither has a purpose without the other.
Someone might reasonably name people hypocrites who see encouragement for racial profiling only in Arizona’s immigration law, while ignoring blatant practices of it in most government reports. However, a hypocrite is someone who pretends beliefs they do not hold. I fear that most American still have a sense of morality, but with a moral code so corrupted by cultural racism and immorality they are not sure which way is up.
The protesters’ boycotts against Arizona violate a basic premise of a just society that a law is just unless proven unjust and people are innocent until proven guilty. Our government has three independent executive, legislative and judicial branches. They act as checks against one another’s powers. The executive branch or people harmed by this law can appeal it in court. Federal Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., announced he may challenges its constitutionality in federal court. At least two city governments in Arizona announced legal challenges to the law in Arizona court.
Challenging the law in court is the moral and just way to have it repealed or changed. Boycotts by vigilantes harm people’s economic interests without proof of wrongdoing. Those out-of-state boycotts create the potential for retaliation by Arizona and by states that support its position. The boycotts create the potential of economic civil war that is opposite the states’ purpose in joining as the United States of America to create a zone of interstate commerce free of trade barriers.
Copyright © 2008 Ethicalego Reproduction without written permission for profit making is prohibited. Reproduction for personal use and distribution that include the Ethicalego copyright and address is permitted.
|
Brookes don't really understand obeying the law, he's only interested in seeing how far he can stretch and bend it to fit his daily needs of aggravating the public in his writtings. It's clear as day.