Suspenseful Omission

“You have the right to remain silent and anything you say can and will be used against you.” This well-known phrase exists thanks to Ernesto Miranda, detained by the Arizona police in the 1970s. He was brought to a room for interrogation. After two hours he signed a confession declaring himself guilty of the violation. He sued the police. The case went to the Supreme Court. Miranda was released. Since then, in all police detentions, the Miranda Warning is recited.

The formula is used in practically all the police movies from Hollywood. Javier Marías, perhaps the best writer at the moment, begins his impressive novel, Tu rostro mañana (Your Face Tomorrow), with a reflection about the Miranda litany. It would appear that this man was a hero.

Not at all. A delinquent of the worst kind, Miranda was freed in spite of the evidence of his guilt. Miranda left prison, went to the streets, and was processed and jailed all over again. Upon completing his sentence, he went to a pool hall where he got into a fight and was killed. The paradox is that the murder suspect heard, before his detention, the same speech of his rights originated by Miranda, his victim.

One of the judges, the conservative William Rehnquist who later became the Presiding Judge of the Supreme Court, always had the intention of reversing the precedent. He was sure that the legal technicality brought about a return of delinquents to the streets to do their misdeeds. Years later, an ideal case was presented to renounce the precedent — but Rehnquist didn’t dare — he had to admit that the Miranda Rights were already a part of the legal culture of the United States.

It´s likely that something similar might occur with the law in Arizona. It violates the most fundamental rights in such a manner that will take it to the Supreme Court. It is highly probable that not only will the Court resolve the constitutionality of Arizona’s SB 1070, but also the conditions under which the phenomenon of migration shall be regulated by U.S. authorities. This is the power of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court established the constitutionality of racial segregation in the famous case of Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896), but the same court rectified that and brought about total school integration in Brown vs. the Board of Education (1954).

The matter affects Mexico and harms the relationship between the two countries. This is why the alert given by Mexico’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs [Patricia Espinosa Cantellano] to Mexican nationals about taking extreme caution and not traveling to Arizona is a laudable decision. The decision has made an impression on the United States, who, accustomed to using such an alert to their citizens about the dangers of traveling to Mexico, now sees the significance of a foreign alert about the dangers of being in Arizona.

On Meet the Press, the influential U.S. news program, Hillary Clinton was interviewed about the situation. She recognized that Mexico’s warning is reasonable, and clarified that the matter is absurd considering the commitment Mexico has assumed in the struggle against crime. The U.S. secretary of state pointed out that [Felipe] Calderón is a very important partner for the United States. The U.S. is not about to further complicate the life of the President of Mexico. She stated that Mexico has enough problems, and the United States doesn’t need to create one more.

A major immigration reform is not seen on the horizon, but a grave problem is seen that will need to be made right; the best way to solve these conflicts is through good faith and dialogue, which do not currently exist. Someone has to make this decision and the Supreme Court of the United States shall have the last word, just as they have always had it on the crucial points of that country.

However, a doubt arises: The United Nations, always attentive to the human rights violations in impoverished countries, shall it say nothing about what is occurring in Arizona?