 "Photo: N/A")
Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman has drawn the line. Sort of. He has taken a stand against the Arizona immigration bill. Kind of. He has acted foolishly and hypocritically. That, I'm sure of.
Coleman last week banned all city-worker travel to Arizona because of its new controversial immigration law. In doing so, Coleman, like many others, has proved that he values political correctness more than reality. He is falling directly in line with other opponents to the bill who have spread negative rhetoric.
Honestly, the Arizona bill is probably long overdue. Between 2000 and 2009, the number of illegal immigrants in the state increased 42 percent. Illegal immigration costs Arizona taxpayers $1.3 billion every year, according to the Federation of Immigration Reform.
Some critics say it forces immigrants to carry extra "papers," which is untrue. They do not have to carry any documents other than those already mandated by the federal government. Just the thought of carrying papers is enough to turn some against the bill, but all American citizens need to prove their identity when purchasing alcohol, driving a vehicle or going to an R-rated movie.
Under the bill, someone's status can only be questioned after a law enforcement official makes lawful contact. If officers have reasonable suspicion, they must call immigration officials to determine whether the person is in the country illegally.
Constitutional? Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City thinks so. "It only reinforces existing federal law and does not introduce new laws," he said.
A recent Rasmussen poll shows that Americans support such a bill 55 percent to 33. They support the specific Arizona bill 69 percent to 23.
Yet Mayor Coleman finds the bill discriminatory, which prompted him to ban all state- funded travel to the Valley of the Sun. On the first day, he rejected a request from the city's technology director to attend a seminar in Phoenix.
But this is where it gets interesting. Coleman, despite seeing the bill as unconscionable, continues to do business with companies in Arizona. In fact, the city just extended its contract with a business that operates red-light cameras in Columbus. His reasoning was that eliminating it would not be in the best interest of taxpayers (voters).
But if a state has just passed a law so awful that you won't even allow someone to go there, why would you continue doing business with them? Why would the mayor want to be associated with a state that is so racist, oppressive and overreaching?
It seems like Coleman opposes Arizona's immigration law except when it benefits Coleman. Banning travel to Arizona does not send the message: "We will not tolerate this!" It sends the message that Columbus is so easily influenced that it will allow another state to dictate what it does. It sends the message that we do not understand the illegal immigration problem in Arizona. Or, maybe it just sends the message that there are illegal aliens working for the city of Columbus.
Maybe we should invite all the illegal aliens too afraid to live in Arizona to Columbus. Coleman would be more than happy to have them, and all of our grounded city workers will stay right here to help.
is a member of the 
5 comments
A stop, detention or arrest can't be justified by merely suspecting someone's immigration status. It is only after a valid arrest, stop or detention has been established — only at that point — that a police officer can even consider investigating immigration status, under the Arizona law. And at that point, the officer still can't investigate, unless there are “reasonable” grounds to suspect illegal entry. And even then, he can only make a “reasonable effort ... to determine the person's immigration status.”
More importantly, the officer can't begin to make an arrest, unless the inquiry produces a solid basis, or in other words, probable cause for arrest. And the Arizona law says that ethnicity — a person's appearance — cannot be considered as the basis of the reasonable grounds. It doesn't have to say this, because it's already the law, but it's a good thing for Arizona to restate it explicitly.
~ David Crump, John B. Neibel Professor of Law & Director of CLE