12 May U.N. Special Rapporteurs Weigh in On Arizona Immigration Law; I’m Still Unimpressed
I’m sorry, but I still find the argument that the Arizona Immigration Law violates the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination deeply unpersuasive. The fact that five U.N. special rapporteurs on human rights have weighed in here with the same analysis as Human Rights Watch doesn’t convince me of much, other than that I am even less impressed with U.N. special rapporteurs than I was before. I understand that there are policy concerns here, and as someone who would probably look like an immigrant to most local police officers, I don’t relish being carded all the time. And yes, I get it that there are some serious national preemption arguments here. So this law may be a bad idea.
But there are good international law arguments, and then there are just sad and pathetic pleas for relevance. The attempt by international human rights law experts to get in on the backlash against the Arizona law is much closer to the latter.
Even the clear attempt by the Arizona legislature to whitewash the whole of Arizona’s education system?
By stating “pre-emption”, and leaving it at that, crucial factual details are left out.
In other words, the AZ law, like none before in its realm, criminalizes individuals for simple unlawful presence.
The law “may” be a bad idea? There is so much evidence out there, I’d say a clear preponderance of evidence, if not more, that the law is indeed a bad idea. So why skirt the line. Is it, or is it not?