Justice Scalia Cites Pro-Slavery Laws Excluding ‘Freed Blacks’ To Justify His Anti-Immigrant Opinion
Samantha
2012/06/26 15:36:45
...Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion claiming that Arizona’s entire harsh immigration law should be upheld sacrifices both factual and mathematical accuracy...
Perhaps the oddest part of Scalia’s dissent, however, is the fact that he actually relied on pro-slavery laws excluding free persons of African descent from much of the south to justify allowing Arizona to target undocumented immigrants:
Notwithstanding “[t]he myth of an era of unrestricted immigration” in the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted criminals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks. State laws not only provided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration
Nevertheless, looking to slaveholding states for guidance is beyond the pale, even for Scalia.
Perhaps the oddest part of Scalia’s dissent, however, is the fact that he actually relied on pro-slavery laws excluding free persons of African descent from much of the south to justify allowing Arizona to target undocumented immigrants:
Notwithstanding “[t]he myth of an era of unrestricted immigration” in the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted criminals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks. State laws not only provided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration
Nevertheless, looking to slaveholding states for guidance is beyond the pale, even for Scalia.
Read More: http://thinkprogress.org/
He references Southern States and immigration restrictions on freed blacks to be thorough, but it wasn't nearly the crux of his argument.
This is one of those cases where someone is trying to throw the baby out with the bath water. Because there is one reference to "southern states" and "freed blacks" and that brings to mind slavery and racism the argument is his entire concept must be wrong?
This is hardly an issue, its grasping at straws.
"State laws not only provided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration."
In that reference where does he mention southern states at all? I'm looking for the connection and maybe you just left out a line.
And even if he's only using the South as a model, which you haven't convinced me, that doesn't mean its immoral. Again, because people did bad things doesn't mean everything they did was bad. Thats a false argument. To play Godwin for just a second, suppose Hitler liked puppies. Does that mean liking puppies is bad?
"“[t]he myth of an era of unrestricted immigration” in the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted criminals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks. State laws not only provided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration"
Clearly he makes ONE reference to Southern states on the issue of freed blacks. The other points - convicted criminals, indigents, contagious diseases - come without the qualifier of "and (in Southern States). As I was trying to point out, the reference to Southern states on one issue wasn't the crux of his argument as you imply. He was simply being historically thorough.
Slavery was a really bad thing, but that OTHER states may have had immigration policies that sought to keep criminals or contagious people out has little relation to slavery. And this was the thrust of his argument.
I wasn't attempting to excuse Hitler because he liked animals. Clearly you didn't understand my point. My argument is that you can't take everything ever done by...
"“[t]he myth of an era of unrestricted immigration” in the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted criminals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks. State laws not only provided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration"
Clearly he makes ONE reference to Southern states on the issue of freed blacks. The other points - convicted criminals, indigents, contagious diseases - come without the qualifier of "and (in Southern States). As I was trying to point out, the reference to Southern states on one issue wasn't the crux of his argument as you imply. He was simply being historically thorough.
Slavery was a really bad thing, but that OTHER states may have had immigration policies that sought to keep criminals or contagious people out has little relation to slavery. And this was the thrust of his argument.
I wasn't attempting to excuse Hitler because he liked animals. Clearly you didn't understand my point. My argument is that you can't take everything ever done by bad people and automatically make it bad.
The statement that Scalia is amodern-day slavery apologist is hyperbole. Its certainly not buffered by his inclusion of five words for historical accuracy. I mean your argument is based around "(in Southern States) freed blacks". Thats why you're defining him as a racist. Thats an accusation that will only be supported by ideologues.