Arrest Everybody

Arizona encourages police to emulate "the toughest sheriff in America."

A few years ago, David and Jessica Rodriguez were leaving Arizona's Bartlett Lake with their two children when they accidentally headed down a road that had been closed because of rain damage. They were stopped by deputies from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, who demanded documentation from David Rodriguez, including his Social Security card, and cited him for failing to obey a road sign.

Although several other motorists made the same mistake around the same time, the deputies simply warned them about the washed-out road and let them go. Unlike David and Jessica Rodriguez, who are U.S. citizens of Latino descent, the other drivers were white.

This sort of experience, poisonous to the principle of legal equality, is bound to become more common as a result of Arizona's new law requiring police to investigate the immigration status of people they encounter in the course of their work. Even with the revisions that the state legislature approved last week in response to concerns about racial profiling, the new law encourages police to emulate Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio by seizing upon any excuse to hunt for illegal immigrants.

A 2008 quote from Arpaio, reported by The Arizona Republic, gives you an idea of his approach. The self-described "toughest sheriff in America" complained that concerns about probable cause were preventing arrests of Latinos who might be illegal residents. "I wish that the Phoenix police would arrest everybody," he said, "even if they're not sure."

David and Jessica Rodriguez were detained during one of Arpaio's "crime suppression" sweeps, which involve traffic stops that provide a pretext for checking Latinos' immigration status. The state legislature has invited more use of this technique by amending the immigration law to specify that police should demand proof of legal residence only during "a stop, detention, or arrest" related to enforcement of another law.

If speeding, broken tail lights, cracked windshields, and unfastened seat belts do not provide sufficient opportunities for immigration checks, police can use local ordinances regulating things like noise, yard upkeep, and the number of people living in one residence. Reports about violations of such rules, even if unfounded, trigger the obligation to do an immigration check when there is "reasonable suspicion" that someone is "unlawfully present in the United States."

Another trick favored by Arpaio is to stop people based on "reasonable suspicion" that they are engaged in criminal activity (which in his view includes being in the country without permission). The Supreme Court has approved such investigatory stops, which can include pat-downs aimed at discovering weapons.

According to the Supreme Court, "reasonable suspicion" requires "specific, articulable facts which, when considered with objective and reasonable inferences, form a basis for particularized suspicion." By itself, driving (or walking) while Latino is not enough. But the standard leaves considerable room for police discretion, which may or may not be second-guessed by courts later on.

Recognizing the potential for racial profiling, the Arizona legislature originally said immigration checks should not be based "solely" on "race, color or national origin." The latest version of the law says police "may not consider race, color or national origin…except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."

What extent is that? The answer is uncertain enough that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer surely exaggerated when she claimed that last week's amendments "make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal and will not be tolerated in Arizona."

David and Jessica Rodriguez are plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit arguing that Arpaio's sweeps rely too much on race. The lead plaintiff is Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, a visitor from Mexico who was detained for nearly nine hours even though he presented several forms of ID, including a valid visa.

Arpaio, who also faces a civil rights investigation by the Justice Department, is unrepentant.  "My office has been enforcing federal immigration law for three years," he recently bragged. "The new law just gives us a little extra tool."

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.

© Copyright 2010 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Untermensch||

    It's too bad Arpaio can't be dropped into eastern Iran and then asked to prove he isn't there illegally.

  • .||

    Nice, but illegals aren't just "dropping" into the U.S.

  • Untermensch||

    Didn't say they were, did I? I'm just wanting Arpaio to understand the "justice" he's delivering. You're also making the huge assumption that this only applies to illegals, rather than to a perfectly legal residents who happen to look illegal to Arpaio's infallible eye. If whites had to prove they were in Arizona legally, this law wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

  • JohnD||

    Untermensch you're making some bigtime assumptions yourself, aren't you?

    Typical freaking bleeding heart idiot.

  • Untermensch||

    What false assumptions are those exactly? If you are referring to my assumption that if the law had demanded that *all* folks (not just "suspected" illegal immigrants) have proof of residency on them at all times that it would have never gotten anywhere, I think it would be incredible stupid to argue otherwise. Arizona nullified RealID in part over similar issues. I realize people are fed up with the illegal issue, but you don't have to hang out long on discussion boards to find people talking about how this will eliminate “brown colonies” in the southwest by giving police tools to kick them out (that was from CNN comment boards). Nobody talks about Canadians or Germans who overstay their visas...

    I don't think it's a huge assumption at all that if the bill had said that everyone must always carry proof of legal residency with them at all times (which would have been an even-handed way to deal with this issue), rather than framing it that the burden of proof is on people suspected of being illegal immigrants to prove that they are not illegal, that this law would have gotten nowhere.

    Whether or not it is racist in intent, can you honestly claim that this law will be used to demand proof of residency from white folks with American accents? The only people who will be snared by this are Hispanics. Whatever one thinks of illegal immigration, it means that if you happen to be brown and have an accent of some sort, you will be required to prove you are a legal resident of the U.S. in all sorts of situations where whites would not be required to. For goodness sake, read the article and the bit about the guy being detained despite having all his paperwork in order and presenting it upon request to Arapaio’s department.

    If you want to accuse me of making assumptions, they are the same ones that motivated the article to be written in the first place.

  • ||

    Nobody talks about Canadians or Germans who overstay their visas ...

    And nobody is saying that they shouldn't be rounded up and deported as well.

    ... can you honestly claim that this law will be used to demand proof of residency from white folks with American accents?

    Aren't you the same asshole that wanted 70 and 80 year-old white grandmothers searched at the airport after 9-11, just to be certain that no potential jihadist Yeah, let's spend a few million dollars assuaging your neurotic racial guilt. felt singled-out and uncomfortable? The reality is that the vast majority of illegals in Arizona come form Latin America. To paraphrase Ann Coulter, "That's not racial profiling, it's a description of the suspect."

  • Untermensch||

    Aren't you the same asshole that wanted 70 and 80 year-old white grandmothers searched at the airport after 9-11, just to be certain that no potential jihadist [sic]

    No, never said anything about searching grandmothers or any such thing. If you honestly think I have ever said that (which is stupid), then you have me confused with someone else. There is a big difference between security (where profiling is necessary and appropriate) and crime fighting.

    Aside from the fact that this law will result in racial profiling (and I thought that libertarians were against groupthink, but I guess it's OK if its against minorities, now?), it diverts the resources of cops from fighting crimes that cause real harm and erodes trust within the legal Latino community (by discouraging any contact with the cops) that will actively work against the primary function of the police.

    Joe Arpaio's group has shown that it doesn't give a damn about rights for any group, white, red, black or brown, but it has shown that it especially has it in for Hispanics, so this isn't some sort of nebulous fear. If you see a real crime now and aren't lily white, what incentive do you have to deal with Maricopa County LEOs knowing you could get harassed for your trouble. Let's say you're illegal and see a double homicide. You have the information to put real criminals behind bars but you won't come forward because it will also mean unwanted scrutiny. These sorts of laws harm law enforcement on more important issues.

    If it's just bleeding heard white guilt, why have many law enforcement groups in Arizona stated that they opposed the law on the grounds that it would harm their ability to do their primary job? The only LEOs that seem to support it are the ones working with grandstanders like Arpaio.

  • ||

    You said "Nobody talks about Canadians or Germans who overstay their visas", yes true because we do not have MILLIONS of Germans and Canadians entering the united states illegally. If we had the same number of Chinese, Germans, or Canadians etc. entering our country illegally same as the Mexicans I would be just as concerned.

  • Untermensch||

    Well, that's at least in part because we make it (relatively) easy for them to come in legally. We definitely have a double standard at work here. If we applied the same standards to Canadians and Germans, we would have millions of illegal whites in the country. But they are OK, I guess, because they look like us?

  • Hispañola||

    JohnD = typical freaking paleocon idiot, certainly not libertarian

  • LibertyBill||

    How is JohnD a Paleocon? The only Paleo in the whole forum LoneWacko hasnt been seen in months.

  • .||

    Fail, in so many ways.

  • Untermensch||

    Fail in so many ways you can't be bothered to name one? But if calling it a fail makes you feel good about yourself, go for it...

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    I wonder how many of you would change your tune on this law if you had armed drug smugglers jumping the fence around your house?

    If it was your kid which was threatened by these criminals?

    I'm not against immigration. I do support those immigrants coming here to work and improve their lives, but I realize that we have an ethical duty, as a society, to help protect those members of our soceity whose lives are in legitimate danger from the drug cartels who are taking full advantage of our open border.

    As a Libertarian, I believe in the rule of law and not the rule of man. The existing Federal law says that immigrants must carry their green cards. The existing Federal law says that immigrants must be registered. I do not want someone coming to the US who doesn't believe in the rule of law, or is unwilling to obey the law.

    We've already got enough of those yahoos in DC. If these guys would pay less attention to the 4th amendment and more attention to Article 4, Sec. 4 of the Us Constitution, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess?

    If they'd end the War on Drugs, which fuels the criminal element crossing our border, maybe we wouldn't have these problems.

    But until the Federal government, and the bona fide idiots in Washington DC, wake up, smell the coffee, and begin working to save the lives and property of the already legal, tax-paying, American citizens on the border, I fully support the State of Arizona in its quest to protect them.

    Why do these people pay taxes if the government isn't going to enforce the rule of law, or uphold the existing laws, where they live? Why, if they have to live in a state of anarchy because politicians in New York want to pander for votes, should they have to support the Federal government?

  • Pablo||

    Or, more briefly, America is a sovereign nation with borders and laws, not an anarchy.

  • ||

    The Soviet Union and apartheid South Africa were sovereign nations with borders and laws, not anarchies.

    What relevance does this have to whether a particular law is good or bad?

  • Untermensch||

    +1

  • ||

    Because your end game provides anarchies. Closed borders is not comparable to tyrants.

  • ||

    The US was an anarchy before 1921?

  • ||

    As a Libertarian, I believe in the rule of law and not the rule of man.

    As a libertarian, I believe in the rights of man and that any law that violates them is an illegitimate law.

    The existing Federal law says that immigrants must carry their green cards. The existing Federal law says that immigrants must be registered.

    And the Federal law once said that escaped slaves who make it to a free state must be returned to their owners.

  • ||

    The only natural law of man is natural selection. Everything else is deteremined by man. Rights are given by the ruling class and it is law that protect your given rights. For better or worse, you are born with no rights.

  • ||

    That's really helpful. Without any extragovernmental normative metric, how does one determine what laws should exist?

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    Rights? What are you, some commie or something?

    There are no such things as "rights". Read some more Heinlein, buddy.

    There is an existing Federal Law which states that all immigrants MUST carry a green card on them, and show said green card to the authorities upon request. It's 70 years old. But now that someone wants to enforce it, all of the illegal aliens want to band together, throw a hissy fit, and march around demanding that we give them "rights", even though they're in violation of our laws and not citizens?

    Psha.

    They're lucky this is America. In any other country in the world, ICE would've been at each and every one of those protests. If the criminals are going to be dumb enough to gather in large groups like that, respond like sharks going through a fish ball.

    These are ciminals who flaunt the law. Who disrespect Americans. Not the honest, hardworking immigrant looking to climb in the world. These are the people who sprinted across the border just in time to squat-and-pop another welfare-bound mouth for our taxes to feed.

    I have no problems with the immigrants who are here to make better lives for themselves, but they go through the normal process we require of them.

    Heck, even Pakistani terrorists can get through the citizenship requirements. It ain't that hard.

  • MWG||

    "These are ciminals who flaunt the law. Who disrespect Americans. Not the honest, hardworking immigrant looking to climb in the world. These are the people who sprinted across the border just in time to squat-and-pop another welfare-bound mouth for our taxes to feed.

    I have no problems with the immigrants who are here to make better lives for themselves, but they go through the normal process we require of them."

    So basically you're saying you don't know shit about the legal immigration process...

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    So what you're saying is that you don't know jack, nor shit, about "anchor babies".

  • MWG||

    I don't know gave you that impression. I'm actually for greater hurdles to citizenship while at the same time being for wider gates for immigration.

    Apparently you don't know shit about the difference.

  • ||

    There are no such things as "rights". Read some more Heinlein, buddy.

    Would Heinlein's fiction have changed Jefferson's mind?

    We're talking about a country that its founders predicated entirely on the notion of rights. What the hell do you think you're defending from immigrants if it isn't that?

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    This country is not founded on the premise of "rights", it's founded on priviledges.

    You can say whatever you want, whenever you want, but in some countries, that will get you killed. Here in the US, you're allowed the privildege of free speech.

    We don't owe them anything. If they want to gain the priviledges associated with being an American, they can go through the nationalization process.

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    der... Don't know why I hit that "d"...

    *privileges

  • Almanian||

    "The right of the people...", "...the right of the people...", ",,,the right of the people...", "...of certain rights...", "..right of trial by jury..."

    That was one page of my pocket Constitution, just some random references. Some people thought they were founding a country based on rights.

  • ||

    Its funny that this keeps getting brought up when;

    1. Drug crime will not be solved by immigration fixes. At best it will just change the color of the criminals.

    2. Violent crime has been on a downward trend in AZ since a peak in the mid-90's. http://www.west.asu.edu/chs/partdev/violence.htm

  • cynical||

    "I wonder how many of you would change your tune on this law if you had armed drug smugglers jumping the fence around your house?"

    It's a good thing they finally found a legal basis for dealing with some of these armed drug smugglers. Now they just need to pass a law that will let them apprehend and prosecute the armed drug smugglers that are legal immigrants or citizens and they'll have the problem all wrapped up.

  • Speedy Gonzales||

    Holy frijoles! That thing runs faster than me!

  • Nitori Kawashiro||

    This is what happens when a man with a "little extra tool" becomes a sheriff.

  • JohnD||

    Nitori you havew a hell of a nerve critisizing anyone. ou are obviously a moron.

  • Nitori Kawashiro||

    "Nitori you havew [sic] a hell of a nerve critisizing [sic] anyone. ou [sic] are obviously a moron."

    Yep, obviously I am.

  • ||

    you have first hand knowledge of his wiener?

  • JohnD||

    Sullum is a damn fool. You idiots wanting open borders are disgusting. Be careful you don't get what you want. You may be sorry.

  • Untermensch||

    I see now why you objected to what I wrote above: I don't agree with you that we should keep the furriners outa our country. Nowhere did I advocate open borders, but you seem to read that into anything where someone objects to the Arizona law...

  • ||

    ffs, just carry some form of id. please, no more cry babies. arrest more whities if it will help make jacob feel better.

  • Untermensch||

    Ihre Papiere, bitte!

    For how long have Americans considered the fact that we don't have to produce internal passports to authorities upon demand as proof of our status as free humans? If you're fine with carrying ID and having to justify your existence to authorities at any time and for almost any reason (even a busted tail light), you carry it, but some folks don't happen to believe that that government has the right to demand that of us. Until only a few years ago, that would have been the majority of Americans, but sadly we believe that we must submit to be safe.

  • ||

    who doesn't carry an id? i carry at least 3 at all times. 99.9% of us carry one form of id. if you are in that rarefied 0.1%, get an id. it is easy. enough of the hyperbole, this is not nazi germany, just help out, please. no more cry babies.

  • Untermensch||

    Of course I have an ID. I just happen to object to the notion that I should have to prove my right to exist to agents of the state or risk being tossed in jail. If I'm out walking in the neighborhood with my kids, I may not have one on me. If I forget my wallet, I might not have one on me. Should those be offenses that authorize police to cart me off to jail until I can somehow have someone retrieve them for me? There is something rather chilling about that prospect (which is what this law happens to do if you are brown and have an accent), but if you trust our wise overlords to only exercise their powers in the proper fashion, good for you. I just don't know what planet you live on.

    I'm sorry if you think that people trying to stand up for their rights (whether you think they should have them or not) are cry babies. But I guess calling people names is easier than trying to understand why they might disagree with you and maybe, just maybe, learning something.

  • ||

    i apologize for calling you names.
    you will not be carted off to jail walking around with you kids. if you are breaking a law, you may be asked for an id. deal with it.

  • Untermensch||

    Perhaps not, because I'm white. But it my name was Gonzales and I happened to do something a cop didn't like (like jaywalk), I could be hauled off. Cops can find an excuse to bust your butt any time they want to. And all it takes is a sheriff who thinks he has the mandate of God to clean the illegal scum off the streets and, well, you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet and all that.

  • ||

    Then fight jaywalking laws or the thousands of other laws that that dont make sence, instead of the laws that state you need to prove who you are when you break a law.

  • Untermensch||

    Yeah. That's the ticket. Stamp on the grass around the house while the big fire is going on in the house...

  • #?||

    Does no one actually read the article? These people commited the horrible crime of making a wrong turn and even though they had id were still detained for hours because of their race. If you mistakenly walked down a closed street with your kids and spent hours in jail even though you had proper ID, I doubt very much that you'd think "deal with it" to be sufficient.

  • Untermensch||

    Thank you. I've been wondering if Arapaio's defenders here have read the article, because they all seem to trust that the police will only act properly and from the best motives.

  • ||

    Actually I was hoping for some profiling.

  • .||

    Ihre Papiere, bitte!

    Just can't avoid the Godwin, can you?

  • Untermensch||

    Nope. No mention of Nazis or Hitler, but rather to European police states in general.

    (If you think the Stasi didn't ask for that using those words, you've got another thing coming).

    Would you prefer Vos papiers, s'il vous plaît?

  • .||

    I'd prefer that you calm down. Perhaps a Time Out is in order.

  • Untermensch||

    ???

  • Untermensch||

    I don't see anyone animated here or over the top, but I guess if I disagree with you, I should just shut my trap...

  • ||

    You know this is just another step towards arresting anybody who's not an off-duty cop and then jailing them until you can figure out what they did wrong.

  • ||

    What part of "illegal" do my fellow citizens not understand? Have we lost all respect for our nation and our laws? Our federal officials have shrugged off their responsibility to protect our borders. Home invasions, kidnappings, shootings and murders have risen as the drug cartel wars escalate while the feds twiddle their thumbs. And we're concerned about profiling? We've lost our minds while citizens are murdered and sheriff deputies are shot. Arizona has right to protect its CITIZENS. Stop the p.c. nonsense and grow up.

  • Libertarians||

    We can't help ourselves. It's one of our blind spots. Sometimes compassion and pity gets in the way of common sense.

  • Speedy Gonzales||

    Who has time for compassion and pity?
    I carry around with me a pocket dictionary for the times when people ask me for sympathy, so I can hand it to them and tell them to look between shit and syphilis.

  • Libertarians||

    compassion and pity

    I should have added "knee-jerk reactionism."
    I regret the omission.

  • mr simple||

    Except all the facts say otherwise. Crime has not risen in the US as a function of illegal immigration. Most people are moving here to find a job to support their family. Most pay taxes and do not commit crimes. It is next to impossible to immigrate to the US legally. What exactly are we supposed to be protecting our borders against, the free flow of labor necessary for a strong capitalist society? Your strong hyperbole aside, your arguments are arguments against the drug wars and for a more open immigration policy.

  • MRK||

    I'm sure your opinion on the matter will change very quickly the first time the police take you down to the station because you're not carrying proof of citizenship. And knowing Arpaio, he will take a few cues from the Birthers and claim any proof you have on your person is forged, and arrest you anyway.

  • ||

    What part of "illegal" do my fellow citizens not understand?

    Apparently the part about the insanity of making mutually voluntary association illegal.

  • ||

    Have we lost all respect for our nation and our laws?

    Yes.

    Take this bullshit. According to the Supreme Court, "reasonable suspicion" requires "specific, articulable facts which, when considered with objective and reasonable inferences, form a basis for particularized suspicion."

    This is what passes for "reasoning" by the brightest and best (read: ivy league cocksuckers who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag). There is a reason that the legal system distinguishes its "legal reasoning" from reasoning. Because real reasoning is based on strict rules of inference and binary math. "Legal reasoning" is based on whatever the fuck the dude in the black robe says it is.

    So, yet get what we have here today, ...some jackoff rascist thug sherrif doing whatever the hell he wants under the "color" of law.

    Well fuck SCOTUS, fuck Arpaio, and fuck the law. Everybody from the top to the bottom, the exectuive, legislative, and judiciary all mock the law. They don't have any respect for the law, why should I?

  • ||

    I want some popcorn when you have this hissy fit and make this sassy argument to...say...a busy Chicago cop who needs to clear a street corner. He'll kick your ass up over your shoulders, bedamned your rights...real or imagined.

  • Almanian||

    You just made his point

  • ||

    Yes, actually some of have lost respect for our nation's laws. I started losing it when I was old enough to understand what the WOD was. I lost more when I found out about civil asset forfeiture. I was pissed when I found out that I am still subject to American law even when I leave the country. I lost some more when I found out that citizens of other countries can get arrested for breaking American laws even if they've never set foot on our soil. I said fuck it all when i found out that I can't leave the country without permission.

  • Sheriff Joe Arpaio||

    What kind of name is "Sullum"?

    Sound Hespanic to me.

    Stay out of my county.

  • ||

    Blahbitty blahbitty blah...


    Stay on the sidewalk!

  • LibertyBill||

    Ill say it again, if the Federal Government actually did its job, the whole clusterfuck in Arizona wouldnt have to take place.

  • The Federal Government||

    Oh no he di'n't!

  • ||

    The Feds are too busy doing important stuff like shaking down Amish farmers for selling raw milk.

  • Chris||

    Racial profiling is quickly becoming a hotbed of activity and discussion where this law is concernced but I have to say I am happy about it. Those people that are in this country illegally and sucking resources from our government and our taxpayers needs to be weeded out. America was founded based on people looking for a better life. I get that, but if you are going to come over here to live and work, do it the right way.

  • Untermensch||

    I get that, but if you are going to come over here to live and work, do it the right way.

    What right way is that, pray tell? Given present laws, you're statement may as well be a "Mexicans Not Welcome" sign at the border.

  • Untermensch||

    uggh, you're = your...

  • ||

    And that sign would be wrong....why?

  • Untermensch||

    Because the folks in favor of this law claim, most of them, that they have no problem with Mexicans, just illegal ones. But it's pretty clear that they want to keep them out of the country period. If they want to Keep Arizona Pure™, they should at least have the stones to admit it.

  • ||

    I'm for that. I'm not for unlimited immigration of any one group, it fucks up the melting pot. Let's say a ten year moratorium on beaners. Let the Indians, Paki's, Haitians, and assorted mid east terorists catch up.

  • ||

    Are you going to do a follow up on the high rate of violent crimes by illegals?

    No? Well thanks for the shortsighted views.

  • MWG||

    Actually they have. It just so happens that illegals commit fewer crimes than US citizens. You can search for the article yourself.

  • Untermensch||

    Come on, even American Conservative has covered that in a cover story. Why should Reason do a follow up on something that isn't supported by any concrete evidence?

  • Untermensch||

    Correction: …even American Conservative has covered that in a cover story that thoroughly debunked the notion of a wave of illegal-immigrant fed crime

  • Dr. K||

    You break into my house. I look the other way. You eat my food. I look the other way. You use my hard earned resources. I look the other way. I subsidize your food, clothing, shelter and kids education. I look the other way. You take to the streets and demand better treatment. Time to show you the door. There is a lawful way to come to this country. I know I did it.

    Would like to know why there is not one thing on the front page of Reason regarding the wannabe bombing in NYC.

  • Untermensch||

    Dr. K., if you did it the right way, you aren't a hispanic who wants to work on a farm...

    Reason now has your article on the bombing. Are you happy now?

  • J_L_B||

    There are legal avenues for people to live and work in the US. Obviously most people have chosen to ignore them given the costs of time and money. Nevertheless, "it costs too much time and effort to comply with it," is not a valid defense to breaking any law.

  • MWG||

    The fact that you don't know shit about legal immigration, makes your argument all the more dumb...

    http://reason.com/assets/db/07.....2ef5ad.jpg

  • Untermensch||

    There are legal avenues for some, but not most people to live and work in the US. Obviously most people have chosen to ignore them given the costs of time and money and the fact that they stand as much chance of finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow as of making it into the U.S. legally. Nevertheless, "it costs too much time and effort to comply with it," there is no way to comply with the law is not a valid defense to breaking any law.

    There, fixed it for you. You can thank me later.

  • ||

    Untermensch, congrats on smothering this comment thread with your inflated ego.

  • ||

    Slocum doesn't think that being in this country "without permission" should be considered criminal activity?

  • ||

    Er...Sullum. Sorry, no reading glasses.

  • ||

    If speeding, broken tail lights, cracked windshields, and unfastened seat belts do not provide sufficient opportunities for immigration checks, police can use local ordinances regulating things like noise, yard upkeep, and the number of people living in one residence.

    The police don't need to hunt for opportunities. With keen foresight, the Arizona law explicitly invents a number of state crimes that will induce reasonable suspicion:

    1. Being in the state if you are an illegal alien.
    2. Soliciting work in public if you are an illegal alien.
    3. Attempting to be hired on the street if it impedes traffic.
    4. Attempting to hire someone on the street if it impedes traffic.

  • ||

    "The police don't need to hunt for opportunities"

    And such has always been the case, and ever will be.
    While you are busy picking the flyshit out of the philosophical pepper, some cop has to police the law. In big cities cops used to stop cruising johns in hooker areas, whack his tail light with the stick as he approached the car, then cite the pud for a white light in the back. When he delivered the ticket he's say, your down here looking for a fucking and here it is...now scram. In essence what he had done was put the john in the area of hooker crime, so when later johnnie appreared with a stab wound, the cop could cite evidence he'd been looking to engage in a crime all along and got what he deserved. Fair? Hardly. Legal? Of course not. But it kept the desk sergeant off the cops ass.

  • ||

    While you are busy picking the flyshit out of the philosophical pepper, some cop has to police the law.

    That's poetry man.

  • ||

    In my ignorant opinion, what is prompting laws like this one in Arizona is the increasing exportation from Mexico of the war - not metaphorical tense; literal - between its supposed law enforcement agencies and military on one hand and the drug cartels on the other. The last time armed Mexican bandits crossed the border, the federal government sent Gen. J.J. Pershing out to command a punitive expedition. That was, as my memory serves, about or nearly 100 years ago. Between then and now, all or nearly all of the various "incursions" have been private. That is to say, smugglers of drugs or people, rather than armed groups intent upon ... what? Don't understand their reasoning, if any; but they do come across and violence along the border has increased.

    On the profiling issue, the matter is really very simple: cops along the border are highly unlikely to arrest Canadians or Germans who have over-stayed their visas for two reasons: (1) not many of them do; (2) none of them have brought organized crime and violence with them - at least since WW1 and WW2 in the case of Germans. What are the odds that an English-speaking, Anglo-looking man driving a car with license plates from a U.S. state, acting as if he doesn't have a care in the world is an illegal alien? Compare those odds with a non-English speaking man, Mexican-looking, driving a car with license plates from a state of Mexico - without the "frontierra" sticker I might add - who driving and when stopped mannerisms suggest that he's as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. Oh, and not in New Hampshire, or any of the states bordering on Canada, but in California, Arizona, New Mexico or Texas. Gee why would a cop be such a racist??

    Yes, some cops are racists. That's unavoidable, since some of every occupation is racist; it's a common failing of humans. Train them as best you can, supervise them as best you can, punish the ones who violate the rules whenever you can find them and prove their guilt. Don't stop arresting folks who are suspected of committing crimes because the officer(s) might be indulging their racial or ethnic prejudices. Don't stop requiring immigrants to follow federal law. If the boys, girls and "whatevers" in Washington don't want people who look like illegal aliens from Mexico or Central America to be asked for their "papers" if they get stopped for another reason, then repeal the 70-year old law which requires the aliens to carry their "papers" on them. And don't get all "ad hominem" on me; my sister-in-law is in the U.S. on a resident visa and carries it with her all the time. And my wife is from Thailand and a naturalized citizen. Does that mean I love - fill in the name of your most-beloved minority - group? Probably not, but then I'm not really very fond of groups anyway, since all I ever see are individuals, who get categorized by me based on how they behave and talk with me. Never met a group.

  • Sam||

    Seems to me the problem here isn't the law--the problem is incorrect implementation and enforcement of the law. But cops can abuse their privileges in a myriad of unlawful ways--that doesn't make the laws wrong, it just makes the officers wrong.

    Could someone please cite where exactly in the law racial profiling is allowed as a law enforcement tool? Because I don't see it.

  • ||

    Similarly, there was no problem with the Fugitive Slave Act. The problem with it was only that it allowed racial profiling as a law enforcement tool.

  • ||

    The Arizona law is exactly what is needed all across the country. If we did not have a welfare state then I would not care about immigration legal or illegal, however we do! So...Libertarianism is great and all, but how is it going to be when the country imports millions of uneducated leftist who care nothing about our constitution or values? How is it going to work out for Libertarians when these people are legalized and vote? Then the mob comes calling! They want what you got! Forget about shrinking government! We are importing millions of government dependents who will vote for their own dependency! Paid for by you of course. Free immigration? Sounds nice...in the real world we would have to repeal thousands of pages of law regarding the redistribution of wealth to make unchecked immigration practical for this country, as well as a constitutional amendment to prevent the welfare state we have now from ever coming back. Because as sure as the sun comes up, these are mostly mexican nationals...how is Mexico these days? Do we want America to become like Mexico? That is what happens when the country is filled with Mexicans, unless we stop the illegals from transforming this country into a ghetto barrio. That is the only way to avoid economic consequences to letting millions of Mexicans stroll across the border and invade our sovereign nation.

  • ||

    i'm just waiting to hear someone declare "Illegal immigrants are needed to commit the crimes Americans won't commit".
    sorry, i was born in the phillipines, parents worked for the justice department for 30 years, my mom spent the last 15 years at the INS.
    The problem is way worse than any of you know, costs way more than anyone has reported,and we do need to develop a solution.
    Sealing the border is in no way a violation of anones rights so it makes sense to start there and build trust.
    next, a resident status can be made available to "undocumented" workers while not providing any welfare oriented benefits. if the mexican community can't live with that, i fear they will hurt their cause and we will see much worse than enforcement of the existing laws and a reach toward more restrictive requirements placed on immigrants.

  • ||

    Just WHEN did someone suck the brains out of the heads of the people at "Reason" and turn them into mindless drones?

  • ||

    Amend the law to require EVERYONE in Arizona to carry, at all times in public, documentation of their right to be in the United States (U.S. passport, Green card, visa, or whatever). Require all Arizona law enforcement to check for such documentation, whether it be for an arrest or a routine traffic stop (even those drunk driving checks they do around the holidays). Subject everyone to the same draconian measures, if they want them so much.

  • ||

    And as for the 'war' between the Mexican federales and drug cartels spilling over across the border is concerned, we can't be blind to fact that we're not helping, since America supplies much of the guns (to the cartels) and the demand for drugs that fuel the war.

  • xyz||

    I wonder if, come voter time, this law will be used to intimidate non-whites from voting and therefore hold a republican majority

  • ||

    WTF is your definition of racial profiling. If we had Canadian's coming across our borders in masses (millions) and the police stopped white people who committed a crime in the U.S. and asked for documention of citizenship, ie. a driver's lisence (not unreasonable if your freakin' driving) because 99% of Canadians were white, would you still have an issue with it? Sorry to say, but 99%, I'd say 100%, but leaving room for a margin of error, of immigrants coming over our borders from Mexico without legal permission, ie, illegal immigrants, are Latino in appearance. So..., what do you expect AZ police to do? Of course, you have no idea, you're a liberal complainer with no constructive suggestions. My mother always said, don't complain unless you have a better solution. So what is yours, enlight of the Feds doing nothing to enforce their own law, which the AZ law is identical, almost to the word.
    From an AZ resident whose scared to death to let their kids out of the house, whom maybe kidnapped for ransom money from Mexican druggers or slavers.

  • ||

    "Another trick favored by Arpaio is to stop people based on "reasonable suspicion" that they are engaged in criminal activity (which in his view includes being in the country without permission)".

    Yeah, funny how illegally crossing a border might be considered a crime. I mean why are all those armed guys sitting around the Detroit/Windsor border if enter another country illegally wasn't a crime?

  • dave||

    The harder the government tries to compell people to behave "appropriately", even if they say they are acting for our own good, the more people are going to rebel and fight back. As time goes on more people are becoming criminals because more laws are passed that make normal, tax paying, honest citizens criminals and most of the time they dont even know it.

  • surpa shoes||

    Customer Service - What is it worth to you? You can email us 24x7! Our represnetative. will reply you in 24 hours. You can check our tracking page, and see hundreds of orders which we have delivered.Now you can Google most of these other places and see they have histories of not providing products or having terrible customer service.

  • ปลวก||

    Fail in so many ways you can't be bothered to name one? But if calling it a fail makes you feel good about yourself

  • RAN||

    I mean why are all those armed guys sitting around the Detroit/Windsor border | RAN ran ran แรน แรน แรน |

  • หนังใหม่ dvd||

    Thank you for your comments and good information. Useful to me.

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

  • Athletic Shoes||

    very good.

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

  • ||

    I would like to comment to show my appreciation for your post as it is very challenging to do, and many bloggers do not get appreciation they deserve. I am sure I'll drop by again and will send some of my friends.www.itunes.com/download

  • sbobet||

    You comment?

  • ห้องน้ำ||

    You can check our tracking page, and see hundreds of orders which we have delivered. That's a good thing to do.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement