Dear Editor,

In response to Richard Markels’s article “Decapitation: Coming to a city near you” (Sept. 1), I’d like to say that I appreciate his passion, and Arizona’s current immigration plight is an issue that inspires similar emotion within most of us due to its ample media coverage and place at the very heart of the debate concerning the future of our nation. The current situation in the northern Mexican states is extremely worrisome, and any conscientious citizen surely shares Richard’s concern for the safety of U.S. citizens; however, he’s ignoring certain contextual issues that are absolutely essential to understanding the decisions made concerning SB1070 by the Obama administration.

The current violence epidemic orchestrated by northern Mexican drug cartels should be monitored with due vigilance by border authorities, as well as the governments of U.S. border states, but as of yet these violent incidents have not occurred en masse on American soil. The obvious implication of this is that these incidents remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of Mexican authorities. And while it is beyond frustrating that the Gobierno Federal Mexicano can’t seem to get it together, it creates a very fine line for our own government to walk in terms of foreign policy.

Although to Rich it seems that the two boxers in the ring are national security and Obama’s negligence, the fight bulletin actually reads: SOVEREIGNTY vs. UNILATERALISM. Consider the dichotomy: Any direct action by either the state government of Arizona or the Feds would be a direct and unacceptable challenge to Mexican sovereignty. Although this direct action has fortunately not yet happened, the law that Arizona pieced together constituted the opening salvos of just the sort of rash unilateralism that has mired this country in a seemingly inescapable international bog for some ten years now.

That being said, it seems that there are two clear courses of action concerning the growing drug violence threat, and an ideal scenario would involve a coupling of both. Increased cooperation between pertinent players in the U.S. and Mexican Federal governments as well as amongst state authorities would achieve the dual goal of bolstering a sense of amistad between the two nations, undeniably essential in this pivotal epoch of U.S.-Latino relations, as well as streamlining the flow of information and funding from the U.S. to Mexico to be used in combating the cartels. The Arizona immigration laws are obvious impediments to both goals. Secondly, as Mr. Markel deftly stated, the chief reason for the prominence of the drug cartels is a bottomless American appetite for nose candy. Would Arizona not be better served passing laws and directing funding toward eradicating this internal drug craving than significantly worsening U.S.-Mexico relations?

I think we need to question Richard’s guiding assumption that drug trafficking and concern for the safety of citizens served as the impetus for Arizona’s legislative action. While it is a fact that a certain number of undocumented aliens engage in the nefarious business of narcotics, narcotraficantes, as a general rule, try to “get in and get out” as quickly as possible, and they absolutely make it a concern to leave non-involved U.S. citizens unharmed: Killing U.S. citizens means angry Uncle Sam, and that would be bad business. Arizonans are primarily concerned with the presence of illegal aliens in general within their state, be they fruit pickers, gardeners or cocaine runners. Conservative Arizonans don’t make specifications as to desirability; they don’t want any of them, for reasons that we’ve all heard many times. What I’m saying, then, is that the threat posed to U.S. citizens by drug cartels is only half the matter, and it’s definitely not the half that’s getting Arizona in so much trouble.

Finally, his well-defined question, “Can a state break the law of the nation when the consequences of ‘just following orders’ could be so dire?” deserves some attention. To begin, the answer is an unequivocal and resounding NO. Call me an old fashion Unionist, but honestly, that horse has ridden. The last time a large number of states’ rights advocates answered YES to Richard’s question, it resulted in the loss of some 600,000 American lives between the years 1861 and 1865. I’m not implying that the Arizona issue is polemic enough to ignite another civil war, but the case, simply put, is that the likes of John Breckinridge, Jeff Davis et.al. resorted to comments eerily similar to Richard’s to legitimize “brazen”, to recycle his own word, and rebellious actions by certain states.

Arizona’s unilateralism is a severe violation of Federal power. And no, for reasons from foreign relations to taking cohesive national measures with regards to illegal immigration, it must not be permitted. So as I hope Mr. Markel can now see that the Federal government “getting the hell out of the way” won’t benefit anyone and is not an option.

-Phil Brotherton

Ph.D. Candidate, Musicology