The powers that be had a split ruling in the case of Arizona’s anti- immigration law. A controversial subject to say the least, this law has been in heavy debate for some time now. It’s clear that the law incites racial profiling among the citizens of Arizona. Dubbed the “Papers, Please” law by many, it is frightening to think of just how many people have been beleaguered and harassed as a result of the instatement of this unjust and biased law. Individuals have been living in fear of this regulation and feeling unsure of their personal liberties, unsure of when or if the police would invade their privacy and personal business.
The “Papers, Please” law is comparable to the infamous Prop 8, which is also on its way to the Supreme Court. Similar exclusions of civil rights and grounds for protest stand with this law. Just as the unfair and privacy invading laws of Arizona have infested the cities and homes with prejudice, Prop 8 aims to do something very like it in California. It seems to question the very basic civil liberties of GLBT couples and individuals as a whole, putting the whole country in a state of utter delirium and uproar over whether or not these citizens should be allowed to marry. Although this seems like it would be a cut and dried case of right or wrong, many religious groups are willing to attest that it is indeed not. Many say that marriage must remain between a man and woman to be kept sacred. While most would argue that this religion is irrelevant and that state and church must be kept separate, there are still the stragglers that feel this law is not outdated and bigoted.
In the same vein, another example of power between state and federal governments, the healthcare reform act was upheld, but Republicans continue to argue that it presents too much government control. Although implemented in 2010, the law will not take full effect till 2014. Signifying that the current requirements that disallow insurers from denying coverage to individuals who have pre-existing conditions and will continue to be honored, as will the policy that is in place to keep children on family insurance plans till the age of twenty-six. The court also limited the law’s extension on Medicaid by a significant amount when justices agreed that Congress had surpassed its constitutional expertise by intimidating the states into partaking in the growth of mandate by planning to withhold federal payments.
What does this all mean to the readers who are not involved in any of it? It means that one must pick their alliance and continue to fight for what they feel is just. Not only for themselves alone but also for the citizens of the United States of America at large. There must be action taken on many levels if injustice is to be abolished and done away with. Where the missing puzzle piece lies, only the people of this great country know.