Who Should Verify Immigrants' Status?

I will never be president. Or hold any high public office, for that matter.

That may come as a huge blow to the small, but budding, Draft Rich Stowell for Senate movement.

Among the many things that have already disqualified me is the fact that the man who painted my windows is, quite likely, an illegal alien.

Or is he? I don't really know. I know he speaks Spanish much more comfortable than English, but I guess my assumptions only amounts to racial profiling, and I wouldn't want to engage in so heinous a practice.

But opponents of border security want me to. They can't stand the thought of police acting like police, but their idea of immigration policy includes forcing me to do their dirty work.

Those who oppose Arizona SB 1070 seem to be perfectly fine with a porous border. Many who have publicly criticized the new law in the Grand Canyon State, including the U.S. Attorney General, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and most democrats holding national office, appear to be entirely unconcerned with the flow of immigrants entering the U.S. illegally.

Their indifference about the enormous population of undocumented migrants from Mexico stands in sharp contrast to their outrage over the new Arizona law. But they understand that the vast majority of voters are concerned, so the way many of them, like Rep. Luis Gutierrez, try to earn legitimacy is to blame business.

Rep. Gutierrez' (D - Ill) plan calls for a crackdown on employers who hire illegal immigrants. To be more specific, it means that he would use police powers to harass businesses who provide work opportunities to people who can't show proof that they are here legally.

It's not a tenet unique to democrat plans. Meg Whitman, the would-be governor of California, has in her official literature mentions of "an economic fence," of penalizing employers of illegals.

Presumably, judging from the indignation that usually ensues when someone is discovered to have hired an undocumented immigrant, this would include individuals and families who hire day workers, cleaners, or nannies and pay them in cash.

So it comes down to this. The federal government, on many levels, refuses to enforce immigration law in a systematic way. Further, democrats would prohibit (the Obama administration challenging SB 1070 in federal court or a Napolitano veto as governor) states from verifying the legality of its residents. Yet, they expect me, Citizen Rich, to demand papers when Armando asks if he can paint my fence.

It is hard to imagine that such an expectation doesn't have the potential to be "applied in a discriminatory fashion."

Perhaps there are many businesses, particularly in construction and agriculture, that knowingly hire people with no legal authorization to work in the United States. But something tells me that the vast majority of border crossers are not hopeful of their chances to get work at Wal-Mart or McDonalds.

Instead, most illegals will perform day labor. Municipalities recognize this fact. My fair city of Oakland has a site where day laborers can meet up with employers. It has the full blessing of the city. Other cities and towns have similar pick up sites.

Gutierrez and Whitman, I suppose, would expect people to hire day laborers only after asking for proper identification. Fair enough. I wonder if the hirers would ask Hispanics more, and if that would be considered profiling, racism, or a Gestapo-like tactic.

I'd like to be able to expect that my government could police its border, and that if I need a baby-sitter or someone to mow my lawn, that I could expect that they had the legal standing to ask for the job.

At least if that Draft Rich Stowell movement can survive today's bombshell announcement, and I do announce my candidacy, I already have my defense crafted.