Now Let Me Make One Thing Clear...

What is the least attractive trait an individual can possess? Ignorance.

Today I was asked to embarrass someone who made a mildly racist comment about Hispanic Americans (asked whether someone wanted to see "America" become "Americano"), stated support for Arizona's new immigration law, and objected to socialism. All in one sentence. The feat was impressive to say the least.

And so I responded. The following is what I said.

Since I know my good friend was talking about the Arizona law, let's have a chat on the topic. Earmuffs, children.

I'm just going to go ahead and quote the Constitution (which I am pretty sure was written in English... Correct me if I am wrong. No-O Objection-O? OK-O. Here I Go-O. Alright. I'm done-O.).

"No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Then, in the landmark case of "Bolling v. Sharpe" (347 U.S. 497 if you are interested doing some legal research), the Supreme Court of the United States read into the "Due Process" requirement the equal protection of law for all persons from abuse by the Federal Government. Stopping someone with no probable cause? Sounds like a deprivation of liberty to me, but what do I know? Not like I have a degree in this and am two-thirds done with law school and have a year of work experience in criminal law. No. Not at all.

We being intelligent and educated individuals, we know that the 14th Amendment (that beautiful addendum to our founding document) is what applies here, not the 5th Amendment and its Federal Restrictions. After all, the 14th Amendment clearly reads: "[No] State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Note, and I cannot emphasize this enough, it says any "person." Not citizen. We know this is of importance since those who have come before us so emphatically stated "citizen" earlier in the amendment. "Person," not "citizen." Follow the bouncing ball a little further, won't we?

What if, say, a law were not facially discriminatory? After all, Arizona's law isn't, right? Well, then there could be no challenge. Unless, of course, the law were applied unequally based upon one of the restricted classes the United States Supreme Court has enumerated. Well, we might then have an issue. "Yick Wo v. Hopkins," (118 U.S. 356) a seminal case in this area of law, teaches us many lessons. First, is that any person, even non-citizens are due the equal protection of the laws. I suppose they are "persons," aren't they? Well, if a law were applied to non-citizens unequally, based simply upon their citizenship, then the law has an almost per se status as unconstitutional. (Note, a few other minority statuses would cause the same result. Perhaps, race? Nationality? Ethnic heritage? Any of those float our boat? Why, yes, look at them as they float nicely.) And, though some might say "such a liberal opinion must have come from the Warren Court. Liberals. They hate America. I hate Ginsburg." Eh hem... No. Yick Wo was written under the watchful eye of Chief Justice Morrison Waite. He was a Republican. In 1886. (Damn.)

So, let's break that down.

You cannot treat people differently based upon the way they look, where they are from, their heritage, race, country of origin, etc. Such treatment violates our Constitution and national ethos. It has for over a century. It will for the remainder of the republic.

Oh, and (just so I am not accused of avoiding the question posed) yes, I am okay with my money being spent on illegal immigrants. Like when they are injured. Or starving. Or have no healthcare. Perhaps if they were in absolute need of the help of a society with the wealth, ability and intelligence to make the world around them a better place. Yes. I am okay with empathy and consideration and a willingness to deprive myself of the most lavish lifestyle in the world, at least a bit, so that other men, women and children can have food and a doctor to see.

I think I will sleep well tonight. I mean... tonight-O. (I guess I wasn't done.)

I am not saying the legal analysis was completely correct and that there could be no other interpretation of the Constitution. I am not saying you cannot support Arizona's law. I am not saying that Republicans are terrible people.

I'm saying if you make a racially motivated comment, a baseless claim, or utter a political catchphrase without the full knowledge of what it is you are asserting, I will not stand by.

Also, if you ask me to embarrass someone who deserves it, I will gladly do so.