Does the right of privacy turn on the alleged wrongdoing? I thought privacy was privacy. What is private about immigration status anyway? Why cannot the police question anyone about immigration whom they otherwise are entitled to question? Cannot the government randomly question any taxpayer about his tax status? Do not these tax inquiries routinely expose the most intimate affairs of our citizens? Cannot the police question any driver about his drivers license status? The insurance on his vehicle? The registration of his vehicle?
If a policeman has a right to stop a citizen even for a petty offense, why can he not also questione him about his immigration status? If one distinguishes questions about drivers licenses because that is a "privilege" and not a right, what about ownership of a vehicle is that not a right and not a privilege? what difference do these distinctions make? What value is being preserved?
Why is there a culture which suggests that it is somehow improper for the police to enforce immigration laws while they are enforcing other laws? Why should a criminal who commits only petty crimes be immune from questioning about his immigration status when he would not be immune if he allegedly committed a more serious crime? How did these artificial procedural regulations become more important than the enforcement of the law itself? This is hardly a Miranda situation to prevent police beating confessions out of innocent subjects. This is merely a referral of someone who is or is not an illegal immigrant with an adjudication to follow de novo by a different federal agency.
We routinely allow police to question individuals on any number of grounds. Why is immigration status so sacred?
Why as our society come to the place where an Attorney General of a State utters a written directive to her law enforcement subordinates which effectively enshrines political correctness?
