The Spanish Prisoner

The unequal burdens of Arizona's immigration law

In 1941 the Supreme Court overturned a Pennsylvania law that required noncitizens to register with the state, carry an "alien identification card," and present it to police officers upon demand.  The Court said the law conflicted with a federal policy, based on treaty obligations and the constitutional principle of equal protection, that sought to "protect the personal liberties of law-abiding aliens" and keep them "free from the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance," including "indiscriminate and repeated interception and interrogation by public officials."

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton cited that decision last week when she issued a preliminary injunction that prevents Arizona from enforcing major provisions of its new immigration law. Although Arizona did not create its own alien registry, its avowed aim of preventing "the unlawful entry and presence of aliens" can be accomplished only by imposing the sort of "distinct, unusual and extraordinary burdens" that troubled the Supreme Court in 1941.

Under one of the provisions that Bolton blocked, police officers who encounter someone they think might be in the country illegally are required to make "a reasonable attempt" to determine his immigration status. This obligation is triggered by "any lawful stop, detention, or arrest," including those associated with trivial offenses such as jaywalking, failing to leash your dog, and biking on a sidewalk.

If the suspect is from one of the 36 nations whose citizens are allowed to visit the U.S. for up to 90 days without a visa—Spain, say—the police can look at his passport to verify his citizenship and see when he entered the country. But those two facts do not necessarily show he is lawfully present in the United States, since the Visa Waiver Program imposes various other requirements: Participants are not allowed to study, work, or represent a foreign news organization in the U.S., and they may not fall into any of several banned categories, including drug addicts, people with communicable diseases, and people with "physical or mental disorders" that pose a danger to themselves or others.

Still, maybe looking at a passport counts as a "reasonable attempt." If an arrest occurs, however, the law says "the person's immigration status" must be "determined before the person is released." That requires checking with Immigration and Customs Enforcement—although even ICE's records are not conclusive, since they may be based on misinformation about an individual's background or plans.

Bolton's injunction, which she issued in response to a lawsuit by the Obama administration, focuses on the concern that such inquiries would "divert resources from the federal government's other responsibilities and priorities," including "national security objectives." But as other challenges to Arizona's law emphasize, investigating the immigration status of anyone suspected of being "unlawfully present in the United States" also imposes a burden on people who seem foreign, especially Latinos who are here legally but are superficially indistinguishable from those who are here illegally.

Because of the mandate to identify unauthorized residents, minor offenses that police otherwise might overlook—crossing in the middle of the street, driving with a broken tail light or slightly above the speed limit—become excuses for stops. Brief stops become long stops. Warnings become citations. Citations become arrests. People who would have been cited and released for a misdemeanor such as marijuana possession, underage drinking, or disorderly conduct are instead locked up until their immigration status can be verified.

In addition to foreign tourists, Bolton noted, these escalating deprivations of liberty would affect asylum applicants, "people with temporary protected status, U and T non-immigrant visa applicants, [and] people who have self-petitioned for relief under the Violence Against Women Act." Even legal permanent residents and U.S. citizens—who are under no obligation to  carry Arizona-approved identification but could be detained if they don't—would be subject to "distinct, unusual and extraordinary burdens" because of the way they look and sound. How would that look and sound to people who thought Americans believed in equality before the law?

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.

  • Suki||

    Good morning reason!

    Arizona does not have an :immigration law". Don't you have editors?

  • Suki||

    There is an error in my comment. It's the law.

  • rctl||

    Slobber, slobber, slobber, etc

  • El Segundo||

    Always 'immigration' never 'illegal-immigration' when you're talking about us brown people.

    Such a dishonest attempt at creating sympathy with us brown people. Stop trying to herd us with bullshit lingo Jacob. You need ID to drive a car, it only makes sense if you're breaking the law by driving to fast or with a broken tailpipe that the police check you out, it's default that police check who you are. Where's the big fucking problem? It seems people like the author are constantly trying to frame this idiotic debate in skin tones to create a controversy.

    So please, pull my brown ass over when I'm breaking the law, and check my ID and by natural extension 'immigration status' if I don't have a valid drivers licence. Anybody who has a problem with that is first an idiot and second forfeits their intellectual credit in the debate. So... Sorry Jacob Sullum... It's off to the sports page with you. There you can magnify racial stereotypes with gusto.

  • Ron M||

    You seem to be missing the word "illegal". Or maybe that's your way to spin it. Immigration is fine. It's illegal immigration that is at issue.

  • Suki||

    +1

  • ||

    Being a slave is fine. It's being a fugitive slave that is at issue.

    Being black is fine. It's sitting at the white lunch counter that is at issue.

    Being a woman is fine. It's being accused of witchcraft that is at issue.

    History is replete with laws that prohibited things that should not be illegal. Why do you think that the positive statement that something is illegal is in any way a justification for the law?

  • JohnD||

    your a moron

  • JohnD||

    er... make that "You're a moron"

  • BeltwayLurker||

    How about moran?

  • ▲ ▲||

    your a moron

    HYPOCRITE LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Viper||

    ^ LOL Go blow Felipe Calderon, dipshit.

  • Untermensch||

    Actually, you seem to be missing the point he's trying to make that all immigrants (at least the brown kind) suffer potential negative externalities from any law aimed at enforcing laws again illegal immigrants. Or do you think that police will have a magic illegal immigrant detector that will allow them to only find the illegals and leave the legal residents who happen to look and sound the same alone?

    Perhaps it is disingenuous of opponents to these laws to argue that they are independent of the issue of illegal immigration, but it is just as ingenuous to pretend that they won't have a negative impact on visible minorities who are here legally or that anti-immigrant sentiments don't also play a role in them.

    I don't know that either side has a lock on virtue here, but your response completely ignores that even existing laws have a disproportionate impact on legal Latinos (or Arabs, for that matter) that the white, Anglo population will never experience just by virtue of the fact that they look and sound 'Merican.

    Do we need to do something about illegal immigration? That is one thing. Is a law that forces certain classes to prove that they are legal in a way that others do not need to the solution? That is a separate question. One could even be opposed to legal immigration and think the Arizona law is a bad idea.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    So, because it is difficult to distinguish between those who followed the law to enter the country and those who didn't, any attempt to do so is impermissible before it inconveniences the former?

    ...Anglo population will never experience just by virtue of the fact that they look and sound 'Merican.

    And if, say, Minnesota were having an issue with Canadians illegally crossing the border and passed a law similar to Arizona's, what happens to this "argument?"

  • Suki||

    +1

  • Suki||

    Canadians don't let us enter their country for a long list of reasons. Mexico's list is even longer and their punishments for being there illegally are much harsher than ours.

    Sounds like others are having a big "pick on the nicest people around" party.

  • tarran||

    So, John,

    Because other countries' governments are less free, we shouldn't aim to be freer then we are?

    My son stopped arguing like that when he was 7 years old.

  • Take Care of THIS!||

    Give me your tired, your poor,

    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!home of the brave

    At least we're not Mexico

  • ||

    Exactly! See, you get it--beside the golden door. There's a door, amigos, please stop climbing in the goddamned windows.

  • MWG||

    So why do you think they come through the 'window' and not the 'door'?

  • Metazoan||

    The door is locked.

  • El Segundo||

    The door isn't locked, the wait might be long, and this particular party is very popular and can't let everyone in, but that doesn't excuse cutting the line and sneaking in the back.

    Shouldn't be any surprise when your caught without a wrist band that you get bounced. Whining about it will only get you bounced even harder and faster.

    These illegals are lucky to have such effete, swill spewing, dishonest putos to defend their crimes. If it were any bar or nightclub without an ID, they'd be eating curb faster than Speedy Gonzales.

  • MWG||

    As someone who has actually been through the legal immigration process, I can tell you it's locked to the vast majority.

  • ||

    I whole-heartedly agree.
    After fighting INS for ten years, and spending $75K in lawyer fees, my husband returned to Russia a year ago. If the USA will do this to a blue eyed white person with a superior education and an American spouse....I cannot imagine the hassles heaped on others.
    Immigration is just as inept, inefficient, corrupt, and broken as the rest of the Fed.

  • ||

    I whole-heartedly agree.
    After fighting INS for ten years, and spending $75K in lawyer fees, my husband returned to Russia a year ago. If the USA will do this to a blue eyed white person with a superior education and an American spouse....I cannot imagine the hassles heaped on others.

    Oh stop it, you're obviously lying. everyone here says that this whole thing is to keep brown people out--that the law wouldn't be applied to blue-eyed blonds.

  • AndyH||

    "The door isn't locked..."

    Actually, El Segundo, you are dead wrong about this with respect to a lot of would be immigrants.

    There is a widespread misconception that illegal immigrants are simply trying to 'jump the queue'and that if they just waited their turn they would be admitted legally. In fact, for unskilled workers (with less than a college degree), there is NO legal immigration program whatsoever unless they have relatives who are US citizens.

    In general I actually agree with a lot of your comments. I believe in reasonable enforcement of immigration laws, and I can understand why Arizona enacted SB1070, but we don't help ourselves when those immigration laws are so arcane and don't offer a reasonable, legal alternative for many of those wishing to enter the country.

  • ||

    Tarran, yes we need to be less free

    People who make your argument usually also think that other nations are superior to us, especially third world nations, especially nations that are hostile to the US and the west. So it tickles conservatives sometimes to say, okay if they are so great let’s be like them. So you admit that other nations are not as free. That is something to appreciate for a conservative.

    In truth, why do nations control their borders? And why do they think that the nation should be for the nationals or natives, all or most of it? These feelings are very strong, as strong as the feelings that a chimp or wildebeest has about being among its own. I’m just pointing out the organic nature of such sentiments, which are crucial to group and hence to individual survival. If you don’t value your own and keep something to yourself, you and your group will disappear. Those who say they believe in democracy are not supposed to feel like that and in the west, we have to a very large extent overcome such feelings. But not entirely. And even the overcoming we have done depends upon conditions which are unraveling. Our experience with immigration has been with europeans who came from judeo christian cultures, who had much in common with the people already here, most of them, and who wanted to join in America. Now it is all different. Everyone has their own group and wants to keep their own culture. The culture of the majority, the western culture, is supposed to give way to all the other cultures. Because somehow the western culture is assumed not to be a culture worth preserving. Yes, the western culture is tolerant and open compared to all others. But everything has its limits.

    Then there is the question why join in America? Well, otherwise how can we be a nation? And to be a nation we need to be a lot alike. If we are not going to be a nation, then we will end up like Somalia. At this point, it seems like the US is going to be a poor third world nation. I don't have any answers to any of this.

  • DesigNate||

    I hate liberals with every fiber of my being, I think America is the best country on the planet and we shouldn't be trying to emulate anyone. This includes their Draconian immigration laws.

    And I still think this law is rife with foreseeable consequences.

  • Viper||

    Quit making up a bullshits.

    Please go suck Felipe Calderon's ass.

  • duck||

    how do you feel about conservatives?

  • ||

    Because other countries' governments are less free, we shouldn't aim to be freer then we are?

    That isn't what she said. I hope that wasn't what she meant, but I'm not a mind-reader. The way I took it was that she was pointing out the contrasts between the U.S. and our neighbors. Even so, I'm not sure it's very relevant.

  • Whatever||

    Suki's the only one with half a brain on this whole stupid website. Maybe you all should start listening to her wisdom. She obviously knows what it means to love her country.

  • Take Care of THIS!||

    John T., we know it's you. No matter how many sock puppets you create to agree with you, we're not buying it.

  • Whatever||

    Well, if it isn't The Tacofucker-In-Chief. How's your butthole, boy? All those Mexican whores lick it clean for you? Spicy!

  • WTF||

    Apparently you've never actually fucked a taco. Maybe you should try it sometime.

  • WTF||

    Daddy didn't love you, did he, Whatever.

  • Zeb||

    Take your fucking racist bullshit and fuck off. If you are seriously linking to that website, you are scum.

  • Whatever||

    When you're ready for a little TRUTH, Zeb, maybe you ought to try reading about that website with AN OPEN MIND. America for Americans! What's so hard to understand about that?

    Racist. It’s a word coined by Communist mass-murderer, Leon Trotsky, whose constant aim was to cow political opponents and stifle political debate.

  • WTF||

    Wayk up waht peupull!!

  • Untermensch||

    And if, say, Minnesota were having an issue with Canadians illegally crossing the border and passed a law similar to Arizona's, what happens to this "argument?"

    Maybe the fact that Minnesota doesn’t have a “problem” with Canadians (who do, in fact, cross the border illegally from time to time) actually is relevant here, but not in a way that helps your argument.

    Canucks are not a visible class that comes here for low-buck jobs, and invisible problems tend to get ignored. So the fact that Minnesota isn’t looking at laws like this actually supports the argument that we have a problem only with wetbacks, not illegals in general...

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Or it supports the argument that Canadians don't come across in the same volume, with the same crime problems, and with the same impact to social services, so the same response isn't seen as necessary.

    Or are you positing that the impact of illegal immigrants from Canadian on Minnesota is indistinguishable from that of illegal immigrants through Mexico on Arizona but that Minnesotans buck up and take it because the illegals aren't brown?

  • Untermensch||

    Crime problems? Have you missed the fact that illegals (including Mexicans) have lower crime rates (leaving aside the issue of immigration itself) than their native-born counterparts (even white ones)? I’d think that if even American Conservative magazine got that point, it wouldn’t be too hard to get, but it keeps getting brought up even though the “crime problems” don’t exist. (Or why do El Paso and Nogales have some of the lowest crime rates in the country for cities of their size? If you can’t point to statistics to back up the crime problem, I assert that it does not exist.)

    I will concede the social services issue, but that is more an argument for changing social services than saying that LEOs should be obligated to verify immigration status in routine encounters.

    As you correctly deduced (from the fact that I said so), I think we don’t care about Canadians because they look like us. I have no doubt that you asked your question so you could turn around and tar me by saying I’m a liberal whiner who complains about racism... But just because liberal whiners complain about racism doesn’t mean that it isn’t a factor, just like being paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you...

    I’d be a lot more sympathetic to the social services argument if the people who make it would use it to argue about whole-sale reform. (You may be one who does, for all I know, but far too often it is an argument brought up to bolster a predetermined point.)

    Let me put it this way: would you be OK with an illegal who took no social services money, committed no real (versus administrative) crimes, and just came here and simply worked and kept to himself? If you would not, then your arguments are window dressing to a more central issue.

  • ||

    Arizona prizons have a popultaion as high as 80% illegals and you still claim there is no crime problem assoiated with illegals (including mexicans). Over 75% of them were incarcerated due to drugs, alcohal or violent crimes. Maby you could go back and research what "crime problems" mean.

  • DesigNate||

    Maybe you should make sure that those statistics aren't bolstered by assholes like Joe Arpaio.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    Arpaio does not run a prison.

  • MWG||

    You got a citation for that load of bullshit?

  • ||

    "Mexicans have a lower crime rate." Lower than what? You really are s stupid fuck!

  • Untermensch||

    Why should I give any credence to a semiliterate moron who can't be bothered to read to the end of the sentence that he quotes?

    Seriously, if you want to add in a period (that wasn't there in what I wrote) and present it as a quote from my post and pretend that I didn't answer your question when the original is there for anyone to read, who’s stupid? Maybe you’re not stupid, though, just mendacious.

    Seriously, the very sentence you altered to suit your purposes directly answers your question: “[…]than their native-born counterparts” was the real quote. If you read even a mite better than you type, you’d know that.

  • ||

    Hey!!! Stupid fuck who do you think belongs to the "MEXICAN" gangs in big cities and not so big cities??? Here is a tip they are illegal and native born Hispanics. In fact they rank just below blacks in per cent who commit crimes. So you can spread all the shit you want...it just don't change the facts!

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    As far as crime goes, any discussion is probably going to end up in a long he said/she said battle of links. That said, "In June 2010, undocumented immigrants represented 14.8 percent of Arizona state prisoners, but accounted for only 7 percent of the state's overall population... For example of all the prisoners serving time in Arizona state prisons for kidnapping, 40 percent were undocumented. Of those in prison on drug charges, 24 percent were undocumented. And 13 percent of those serving time for murder were undocumented immigrants, according to the new data from the Arizona Department of Corrections."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20011391-10391695.html

    I'm not in the camp that holds that violating a nation's sovereign property is an administrative crime any more than violation of an individual's property is an administrative crime.

    If I, individually, have the right to exclude whomever I choose from my property -- I presume you believe that right exists -- I believe we, collectively, have the right to exclude whomever we choose from our country's property.

    That aside, and it's a big aside, I don't have any issue at all with an immigrant like the one you describe.

  • ||

    I believe we, collectively, have the right to exclude whomever we choose from our country's property.

    I concur. The US should be able to keep people it doesn't want out of government buildings, air force bases, and national parks. It should be careful about it, but it is within its legitimate authority to do so.

    Those are, after all, the government's property.

    On the other hand, the vast territory that represents the dominion claimed by the US is not in any sense whatsoever the government's or the citizens' property.

    ...unless, of course, you believe you are a serf or otherwise don't at all believe in individual rights.

  • ||

    The "vast territory that represents the dominion claimed by the US" most certainly IS my property. I pay for it every time the government take a dime from the money I earn.

  • ||

    So are you a (taxpaying) serf or someone who otherwise does not at all believe in individual rights?

  • ||

    So are you a (taxpaying) serf or someone who otherwise does not at all believe in individual rights?

    The two are not mutually exclusive. You can be a taxpaying serf and simultaneously believe in individual rights. You need to think about your posts a bit more before posting.

  • ||

    Okay, you are right. You can believe that you have the individual right to own property, and that unowned property should be commons treated as openly as possible, yet believe that the government has instead appropriated all its dominion as its own property -- by, say, claiming who can enter that commons and the properties around that commons -- and effectively made you a serf.

    But anyone thinking that has to believe the government, in pursuing such immigration policies, has acted illegitimately in violation of individual rights, no?

  • ||

    Since I find your reasoning specious, at best, and far too abstract and leaning towards an abolition of property rights at worst, I'm not sure you'll understand my answer.

    I'm an owner-occupier. I own it, and I live in it.

  • ||

    And you apparently believe that whatever prohibitions or mandates the government imposes on others who live in it -- whether or not they claim to "own" it -- are just fine.

    Is there any limit to what the government can do given your stance?

  • Metazoan||

    So my house is yours? Knock it off with your "this land is my land, this land is your land [if you're a native-born]" bullshit. It's all collectivist crap.

  • ||

    On the other hand, the vast territory that represents the dominion claimed by the US is not in any sense whatsoever the government's or the citizens' property.

    Wow. It doesn't belong to the government or to the citizens of the nation, who does it belong to? Could you be a little clearer? Someone presumably has authority over this area.

  • ||

    Having authority does not mean having property rights.

    In particular, property rights are individual rights and, by their nature, open -- restricted only where they impinge on another's individual rights.

    Government's legitimate powers, on the other hand, are by their nature closed: they are few, limited, and constrained to those that secure individual rights. So while a government has the sovereign authority over its dominion, the legitimate powers it may exercise with that authority are not at all like the rights a property owner may exercise.

  • redefiler||

    Mikey: The border is a militarized zone, you fucking idiot. That's why there are police checkpoints on both sides. Our federal and a few state governments have chosen to ignore their responsibility to its citizens in policing and protecting that border.

    Ever heard of the Coast Guard you nitwit? What do you think they do with the border?

    You've lost. Get over it.

  • ||

    Having the power doesn't necessarily mean using the power.

    The larger debate is whether peaceful people should be allowed to freely migrate, reside, and labor where they wish -- just as peaceful people should be allowed to freely trade where they wish.

    Have the border checkpoints and Coast Guard to handle those who actually mean the country harm. But make it easier for those who don't to pass unrestrained.

  • ||

    Site your sources on the crime numbers.

  • Untermensch||

    Joe, not sure who you are responding too (we’re too deep in nested comments to tell), but I didn’t cite any sources because this has been rehashed about a jillion times on H&R lately. But, to save you the trouble, here is an article from American Conservative. Nobody (OK, almost nobody) would accuse them of being patsies for the left, but they have to acknowledge that immigrants aren’t ushering in a wave of crime.

  • El Segundo||

    Says which statistic? Get that number from some federal agency? Funny how those numbers never jive with the local agencies. Somebody people explain the concept of gerrymandering and political grandstanding to Untermensch.

    I work with rape counseling and prevention centers throughout Southern California, 7 out of every 10 cases is where the rapist was an illegal immigrant, 75% are 'latino', 5% eastern European, and the rest African and Caribbean islanders. However that's just with reported cases by citizens. Illegal immigrant women fair far worse and the brutality of attacks is more severe, many times their 'illegal' attackers are in the same pocket community.

    You can shut up now Untermensch, stick that head back in your isolated little butt hole.

  • Untermensch||

    El Segundo, do you really expect me to believe that there are no white rapists in California? If so, then I can’t discuss this with you because you are disconnected from reality.

    OK. You see statistics like that, but how representative are they? If you’re dealing with the poor (which it sounds like you are), you are going to see the groups that represent the people you deal with. That tells you little about the people you don’t see. The high-level statistics are looking at things you can’t see. And it's not just one set of statistics cherry-picked to show that. Every study of crime rates shows the same thing... Sorry, but anecdotal evidence you have doesn't count for much because it is inherently limited.

  • Brian Trust||

    "Actually, you seem to be missing the point he's trying to make that all immigrants (at least the brown kind) suffer potential negative externalities from any law aimed at enforcing laws again illegal immigrants. Or do you think that police will have a magic illegal immigrant detector that will allow them to only find the illegals and leave the legal residents who happen to look and sound the same alone?"

    That's how it works for every other type of crime, right? If the police are given a rough description of a bank robber, they can unerringly go straight to the real culprit without suspecting or bothering anyone else who may also match that description.

    Wait, it doesn't necessarily work that way? It must be because the police are a bunch of racists.

  • Untermensch||

    That's really a bad analogy and arguments by analogy only work when they are relevant.

    In the case of the bank robber, they are looking for a distinct, particular individual (i.e., the guy who robbed the bank). The Arizona law is different in kind: it would be like a law empowering the police to require everyone they stop for any other reason to prove that they are not bank robbers.

    To be more concrete, if the bank’s employees report that the bank robber was wearing a Darth Vader mask and the police see you running from the area with a Darth Vader mask tucked under your arm, that is probable cause and they can stop you because they have a reasonable basis to believe that you are tied to a specific, known crime. What the police cannot do is cordon off a six block radius and compel everyone to prove that they are not the bank robber just because they are in the general area.

    There is no legal basis for the police stopping everyone who they think, based on general appearance, might possibly be a bank robber (even in the absence of a specific robbery they are investigating). The Arizona law is much more like that: they are now empowered to force people to prove they are not criminals absent any specific basis for assuming that they are in fact criminals.

    Example: You’re a Hispanic walking down the street and drop the wrapper for the sandwich you’re eating and have to prove you’re here legally. You’ve done nothing (other than being brown) to even raise the suspicion that you might not be here legally, but you still have to prove it, and, if Joe Arpaio’s track record is enough, even producing the appropriate paperwork isn’t enough to exempt you from the crime of being brown.

    So please don’t pretend that this is just the same as any other criminal law. The day that any other criminal law is enforced in the same way this is is the day I know that the U.S. is hopelessly, irredeemably gone to total statist hell and the only way out is flat-out revolution.

  • Brian Trust||

    "Example: You’re a Hispanic walking down the street and drop the wrapper for the sandwich you’re eating and have to prove you’re here legally."

    No, you don't. Clearly you have not read the law. Only when there is reasonable suspicion to believe that an individual may not be a legal resident can an officer make a check for one's immigration status. "Being brown" does not cut it, and that is explicitly stated in the Arizona law.

  • Brian Trust||

    Cue the 'Well, they law may say it, but you know the cops will just find a way around it!' response in 4... 3... 2...

  • Untermensch||

    You don't have to cue it. Even absent the proposed law, Joe Arpaio’s selective enforcement of traffic laws (which has been discussed here more than once) in which Mexicans with proper documentation were held until it could be confirmed, shows that this is already an issue, not something opponents are just making up. Or are you going to argue against what has already happened and state that somehow it will be different in the future.

    I also notice you ignored the substance of my response about your crappy analogy...

  • Brian Trust||

    "You don't have to cue it. Even absent the proposed law, Joe Arpaio’s selective enforcement of traffic laws (which has been discussed here more than once) in which Mexicans with proper documentation were held until it could be confirmed, shows that this is already an issue, not something opponents are just making up. Or are you going to argue against what has already happened and state that somehow it will be different in the future."

    And said sheriff has been investigated more than once for doing so. So allegations of racial profiling have already been investigated without this law, and with this new law in place... such allegations will continue to be investigated if and/or when they take place, because this law explicitly forbids such action.

    "I also notice you ignored the substance of my response about your crappy analogy..."

    Yeah, I tend to do what when the premise is based on a total lack of factual knowledge. But if you want to scream about 'the crime of being brown' some more, go right ahead.

  • Untermensch||

    Factual knowledge? What factual knowledge was missing in pointing out that your analogy was completely off basis? What part of the criticism is wrong? It's really easy (and cheap) to get away with your sort of response, and usually means you can’t refute what was said. I responded directly to your analogy, your ignore the criticism, and then when called on it claim that it reflects a lack of factual basis. Pardon me for calling foul on that sissy little tactic.

  • Untermensch||

    And said sheriff has been investigated more than once for doing so. So allegations of racial profiling have already been investigated without this law, and with this new law in place... such allegations will continue to be investigated if and/or when they take place, because this law explicitly forbids such action.

    And they are notoriously difficult to prove when they do happen, which is all the more argument for not giving folks like that any more rope than they already have...

  • Untermensch||

    Also, I don’t trust what is explicitly stated in the law. Or do you really believe all the stuff that the Obamacare bill says it is or is not going to do as well?

  • Untermensch||

    Also, I don’t trust what is explicitly stated in the law. Or do you really believe all the stuff that the Obamacare bill says it is or is not going to do as well?

  • ||

    Got it--we don't trust Obama and his minions and what they say on the crappy health care law, but we do trust Obama and his minions and what they say on the Arizona immigration law because they've cried 'RACISM!'.

    Got it now.

    And here I was wondering how libertarianism got so infected with lefty nonsense. It's all so clear now.

  • Untermensch||

    Who said I trust Obama and his minions on this law either? It's all bread and circuses. I only trust them to take a bad thing and make it worse.

    I'd think it's a crappy law even if Obama and Newt Gingrich got together and held hands and declared it the bestest thing in the world. My point is that declared intentions and even explicitly stated points of law often have no bearing on reality, just as is the case with Obamacare. If you believe that the Arizona law’s explicitly stated provision will somehow magically prevent race from being the primary factor in this, you should also believe that Obamacare will lower the deficit, because both are about as likely. And remember that we have Joe Arpaio’s forces to point to as actual examples of how race fits in, even before a law that will make it even easier...

  • ||

    You are making race relevent, just like Obama, you are, therefore taking up his call. It may not be intentional, but the effect is the same.

    When one considers that 'race' is absent from the law, that 'race' only enters into the consideration because the majority of people who would cross the border illegally at this point happen--through no fault of any American--to be of mixed Spanish/Indian ancestry(or simply Indian), one realizes that those screaming racism are taking advantage of a demographic coincidence to make whites in Arizona and the US look bad.*

    *I say 'whites', because the cry of racism never seems to tarnish the blacks, hispanics and asians who vote for laws like this. I also generalise it because the accusation tends to splatter indiscriminately over all whites, regardless of their actual stance.

  • DesigNate||

    I am confused how libertarianism is becoming too lefty for you, Az, but too righty for Chad and Tony.

    Immigration has been, is, and always will be about keeping certain races out of our country. Just look at the history.

  • Viper||

    LOL WUT

    Keeping races out of USA?!

    Why Barack Obama is a President?

    Why is there is still a Indians, Africans, Asians, and other races living in USA.

  • MWG||

    Um...

    "The Chinese Exclusion Act"

    "The Gentleman's Agreement of 1907"

  • Viper||

    ^What the fuck are you talking about, MNG?

  • MWG||

    You questioned DN's claim that, "Immigration has been, is, and always will be about keeping certain races out of our country."

    Google the two laws I cited and then go blow Arpaio's dick.

  • MWG||

    ...oh, and I'm not MNG...

  • Viper||

    MNG, why don't you post your address. So I can find you and murder you, chickenshit.

  • ||

    It probably already is.

  • Janet Napolitano||

    What the police cannot do is cordon off a six block radius and compel everyone to prove that they are not the bank robber just because they are in the general area.

    Oh, Untermensch, you're cute when you're angry!

  • Untermensch||

    For you, Janet baby, we’ll make an exception.

  • El Segundo||

    What's the first thing any police officer or law enforcement officer in this country asks you for when they pull you over?

    I've filed police reports for breaking to my car, and guess what they ask for? My fucking ID. If you're breaking the law, and can't provide identification, there are usually only a few legitimate reasons. If you forgot it at home, they can look it up, if you've got a social security number, address, vehicle registration, visitor visa, rental car agreement, or anything tiny shred of documentation or any kind of trail left by any travel/commerce... It's pretty damn easy, even with us brown folks of Mexican heritage to prove our citizenship, usually the cop has a pretty good idea, even before he pulls you over and has run your plates from his cruiser. Where's this grand racial oppression exactly?

  • ||

    El Segundo, you, sir, are a credit to humanity in general.

  • DesigNate||

    Are you being sarcastic?

  • Untermensch||

    There are legitimate times to ask for an ID. I don't argue with that. That’s not racial oppression. But that's also not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about people have to have proof of legal presence in the country (which an ID doesn’t necessarily do), and a requirement that LEOs try to ascertain the legal status of folks even when doing so may be detrimental to fighting other crimes. If an undocumented woman is raped and knows that her status is going to be questioned by coming forward to report it, she probably won’t report the rape. If I had the choice between an undocumented illegal alien and a rapist on the street (even allowing that those are not mutually exclusive categories, which you would insist that I do), I’d choose to let the illegal alien go. That’s why many jurisdictions had policies not to ask for documentation from victims of crimes or those reporting them. Under the Arizona policy there is a strong disincentive to report crimes since it could mean you get kicked out, so more serious crimes are not addressed. There is a reason why many LEO organizations opposed the law.

  • tarran||

    Actually, when it comes to real crimes, you know, where a victim is harmed, innocent people tend to voluntarily cooperate with the investigation even when it inconveniences them, because they see the value in helping zero in on the actual criminal.

    When it comes to political crimes such as getting a job without governemnt permission, or renting a home without government permission, or ingesting a drug without government permission, there are no victims, and thus people are inconvenienced to no good purpose. Being repeatedly stopped and being asked for one's papers is something that few people will consent to.

    Thus, the argument that police investigations must not depend on the consent of pool of those who are in the pool of suspects is silly. Moreover, the whole purpose of the 4th amendment and other legal protections is to explicitly prevent the police from "inconveniencing people" without a very good reason.

  • Merdiful governmental overlord||

    tarran, this “Constitution” word you keep using… I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • JohnD||

    So what's your solution? It's easy to find fault if you don't have to offer a solution.

  • Zeb||

    How about let people hire and rent to whomever they want without government interference?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Right on!

  • El Segundo||

    Well try renting without a credit check, pretty easy to tell your citizen status right there.

    So far that's reality 15 and bullshit excuses for illegal immigration 0.

  • DesigNate||

    Since we aren't getting rid of the welfare state anytime soon I think open borders is a bad idea.

    Here's what my wife and I have come up with.

    1. All immigrants must come forward immediately to be documented. If you refuse, we will assume that you are engaged in illegal activities and should be punished and deported when apprehended.

    2. You will be given a 5 year temporary work visa. You must find legal, gainful employment and you must learn to speak English (that goes for the damn Irish too). If you are found guilty of committing a crime during this time period you will be deported.

    3. Because you knowingly came here illegally you will not be granted citizenship and cannot have access to social services. Minors brought with their parents are excluded from this.

    4. After this is enacted, anyone wishing to enter the country may do so, but they must state if they wish to become citizens or if they're just looking for work. Citizenship seekers must follow #2.

    I know this isn't very "libertarian" of me, and I'm sure I will get blasted by most of you guys for the authoritarian slant, but the two extremes of mass deportation and mass amnesty aren't viable solutions.

  • Viper||

    Since we aren't getting rid of the welfare state anytime soon I think open borders is a bad idea.

    This is why I opposed to open borders unless welfare system dismantled.

  • ||

    Why not simply apply #3 not only to illegal immigrants but to any immigrant who requests a new class of unlimited residence and work visa with those stipulations?

    Then "amnesty" would mean registering for that visa, which could certainly be done en masse as easily as your #1.

  • Untermensch||

    DesigNate, that’s a hell of a lot more libertarian than what we’ve got now.

  • ||

    "anti-immigrant sentiments don't also play a role in them." Who does this? Cite one example of "anti-immigrant sentiment" made by a federal, state, or city employee from any state who has stated, in context, they have a problem with LEGAL immigrants. Or are you just assuming it's out there?

  • ||

    I mean recent example.

  • ||

    Does Tom Tancredo count as recent?

  • ||

    Sullum is a dickhead. He spins this as some kind of evil racist fascist bullshit, which is laughable.

    No cop in Arizona is going to suspect someone's here illegally because he's brown. Ferfuxsake, every third Arizonan is brown, fella. Haven't you noticed? You should get out more.

    No, the obvious thing that will trigger a cop's suspicion is (1) you don't have a valid license, or the photo on the license looks nothing like you; or (2) your English sucks; or (3) your story about who you are and where you're going and what you're doing is obviously made up.

    Do I have a problem with cops under those circumstances insisting on seeing a valid driver's license (for a resident) or a valid passport (for a visitor)?

    Why no, no I don't. And the fantasy that it might lead straight to concentration camps and gas chambers in the Phoenix desert is vile inverse racist bullshit. Screw you, Sullum, for your despicable assumptions about your fellow citizens. We're not the racist scum -- you are.

  • ||

    Let's just open the borders and let in all the fucking idiots....oh, I guess we did!

  • Untermensch||

    This comment shows that you know less that nothing about the actual dynamics of immigration, so your conclusions aren’t worth anything. It helps to know something factual about a topic before opining on it. There has been a lot of sociological work done on immigration and even in cases like Mexico, we are getting the most motivated, hardest working, and most intelligent of the bunch: these are the people with the resources to get here, the drive to do so, and the desire to better themselves. The stupid and the lazy stay there and rot. So unless you are arguing that those from south of the border are by nature stupid, you’re arguing out of sheer ignorance.

  • Untermensch||

    And if you are arguing that, you are arguing out of something worse than sheer ignorance.

  • ||

    Written like a true liberal shithead.

  • Untermensch||

    And I suppose conservative shitheads do like you and don’t bother to engage with real arguments and don’t need facts?

  • ||

    Talk about dumb ass sentence construction!

  • ||

    I don't consider myself a Conservative, but I sure as hell know leftist bullshit when I hear or read it!

  • El Segundo||

    People engaged in illegal activities are highly motivated to come here too. You love to argue emotions, but you need some perspective before you try passing your sympathy diaper off as big boy pants. Anybody looking to better themselves by coming here wants to do it legally, that's the whole point of coming here, not to be on the fringe of society. My parents came here 'legally' so when they started a family, we'd have better opportunities. They worked their asses off to make that happen, people who come here illegally are scum who dishonor the work that real citizens and patriots do. But then again, you're a puto, maybe it's unfair to even entertain your outbursts at the grownup table?

  • Untermensch||

    Better a puto than a puta like you...

  • ||

    Why don't these fucking genius' stay home and fix their own country...that goes for any country!

  • Untermensch||

    Because their country is even worse than ours, perhaps?

  • ||

    Why is it our responsibility to fix their country for them? Why should we allow them unrestricted access to turn the States into the thrid world shithole that mexico is and always has been?

  • ||

    Why is it our responsibility to fix their country for them?

    It is not our responsibility to 'fix' another country, but it's often in our best interests. That said, it's not something that can be done easily or cheaply and may not be worth the cost given the odds of actually succeeding.

  • El Segundo||

    It is? That sounds like feeble but pleasant sounding marshmallow reasoning.

    It's always in your best interest to fix your own problems. People without an appreciation for democracy or a need to defend it, aren't likely to cherish freedoms 'bestowed' upon them.

    But don't take my word, get your ass down to the library and read up on the ins and outs during last century of foreign policy with Mexico instead of clownish rehashings of Newsweek sentiments.

  • ||

    All the more reason for them to stay at home and fix it. I am sure their country can't afford to lose so many genius'.

  • WTF||

    Let's just open the borders and let in all the fucking idiots....

    Is that how we got our current Congress?

  • ||

    Yes.

  • DesigNate||

    +1

  • ||

    The illegals coming across our southern border sur as hell won't be Libertarians.

  • Untermensch||

    How the hell do you know? They generally come here because they want to work. Last time I checked, most libertarians think you should be able to work for what you get. If some of them end up welfare parasites, reform welfare.

    (By the way, not to be too snide about it, but if you are going to call others idiots, you might want to check your spelling and grammar before posting. That’s what the button that says “preview” is for.)

  • ||

    Because most are liberals you dumb shit.

  • ||

    Yeah, everthing you say is correct because I didn't put the "e" at the end of sure.

  • Untermensch||

    It's not the first time. You’re the one who started calling others names, not me. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it.

  • El Segundo||

    You are such an idiot Untermensch...

    Illegals can't vote. Hard to be a politically invested in a system you're currently engaged in completely circumventing. Duh...

    Are you learning disabled? Please let us know if we are unfairly discriminating against your diminished capacity.

  • Untermensch||

    El Segundo, what the hell does your response have to do with what I wrote? If you want to talk about learning disabled, try learning to read first. I said nothing about illegals voting or being politically invested in a system. So if you want to rant and rail against me for something, try to rant and rail against something I actually wrote.

  • capital L||

    I'm a born American citizen—next time a cop is trying to ascertain my identity for the purposes of checking my criminal status I think I'll just tell them that they are generating a distinct, unusual and extraordinary burden for me. I wonder how well that will go over.

  • Untermensch||

    This isn’t the same as the police asking you for an ID because they suspect you committed a crime. This would be the same as the fuzz asking you to prove you’re a citizen when you walk down to the store and forget your wallet, so they stick you in the cooler for a while until they can be bothered to confirm what you say. When they do that, I’ pretty sure I’d consider is a “distinct, unusual, and extraordinary burden.” But if you don’t consider that a burden, why are you hanging out here rather than on RedState or Daily Kos?

  • Untermensch||

    Uggh,

    I’m pretty sure I’d consider it
  • Zeb||

    I don't know how it would go over, but I think you would be well within your rights to refuse to identify yourself.

  • Untermensch||

    But not if they have “reasonable suspicion” that you are illegal. And that is the problem because it really does set up a double standard: I would not have to produce my ID, but my good friend (and American citizen) José Flores would have to.

  • Brian Trust||

    If all the officer has is Jose's name to go on, or his skin color, that doesn't grant reasonable suspicion.

  • El Segundo||

    Well retard, what are you going to do at the store without a wallet?

    Instead of supposing a bunch of bullshit, go now and try it out, leave your wallet at home and go commit a crime. See how that works out, report back when you have something more than blubbering to contribute.

  • iamtheeviltwin||

    Wow, you are either foolish or ignorant...

    I can't count how many times I have walked to the store with no wallet, just some bills and change in my pocket.

    BTW, this law would also require passengers in a vehicle that was stopped "legally" to produce ID if the cop felt it was warranted.

    Last time I checked, at least here in KS, you didn't need ID to ride in a vehicle. There are many valid reasons why a person who might come into contact with a police officer would not have any ID on them.

    If you believe that all persons within the US borders should keep ID on them at all times, then I can see why you would support this law.

    However, if that is not your position, then arguing that it is perfectly "OK" because the intent is to catch "illegals" is at best a fallacious argument.

  • redefiler||

    Yeah, I leave my wallet at home too sometimes, but I also don't go and start breaking the law or attract attention from law enforcement. It's that 'legal' vs. 'illegal' thing that is escaping your limited grasp. I suppose all sorts of bad things could happen to you if a cop was corrupt, but there is an existing legal frame work that seems to work pretty well in handling the actual cases of persecution. This law doesn't circumvent that, but I'm guessing you haven't really been thinking this through, you're just looking for a way to win your prejudiced argument.

    From your perspective no law will ever cover all the fantasy abuses you can imagine before it goes into effect. However I think that problem is internal for you, perhaps medical treatment can fix this. Maybe better education and real world experience beyond Candyland sentiments on the Rainbow Land brochure.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: capital L,

    [N]ext time a cop is trying to ascertain my identity for the purposes of checking my criminal status I think I'll just tell them that they are generating a distinct, unusual and extraordinary burden for me.

    I mentioned several times the very same thing - that this law imposes a severe burden on American citizens to "prove" their citizenship, no different than a "Papieren, bitte. Schnell!" policy.

  • El Segundo||

    You've mentioned it, but you've been wrong every time. Tape something to your broken clock, at least you'll be right twice a day.

    Such a burden to produce ID? How does anyone not have an ID or some kind. You' have to never be legally employed, drive a car, been inside a bar, used a credit card... what cave are you hiding in?

    It's also very different than "Papieren, bitte. Schnell." you pathetic clown. There are no ovens as a consequence, worse case an 'illegal' ends up on a ride home, much nicer than his arriving voyage. For a 'legal' he gets to file a big fat discrimination lawsuit.

  • ||

    Just to clarify, if the Nazis had merely deported all the people they instead sent to concentration camps, that would have been just fine?

  • El Segundo||

    Hmmmm, lets see.... if the Nazis had only just deported people who had snuck into their borders illegally, and never got involved in the aggression and atrocity stuff, then yeah you fucking retard, it would be hard to find fault with them.

    But trying to equate Nazis who systematically butchered millions of people over their religious affiliations (as well as lots of other groups) isn't anywhere close to deporting illegal aliens.

    What kind of clown are you, or do you just wear the outfit to not seem out of place while shoveling up the elephant shit?

  • ||

    Approximately zero of the people the Nazis systematically butchered were illegal aliens.

    I asked a simple question. If they had taken all the people they would have killed and deported them instead, would that be okay with you?

  • El Segundo||

    I also asked a simple question, twice. Are you on any meds?

    I answered your pathetically stupid question, go back and reread the whole thread, and stop trying to compare Nazis to American immigration laws using bullshit hypotheticals. Weak minded fool.

  • ||

    The Nazis did all sorts of bad things, from passing laws against smoking to intentionally killing millions of people.

    In the US today, people who I think have done nothing wrong are declared illegal by the government and deported. In Nazi Germany, people who I think had done nothing wrong were declared illegal by the government and killed. If they had been deported instead, would that have been okay?

  • ||

    Killing is NOT the same as deporting. The jewish people would not have been deported (since they were germans after all).
    You do not think that illegal entry into the states should be against the law. How you feel about the law is irrelevent. People who eneter the states unlawfully have still broken that law and deserve the punishment for breaking it.
    If you do not like a law do not ignore it CHANGE IT.

  • ||

    Of course killing is not the same as deporting. That's why I asked if the Nazis had deported expelled the Jews rather than killing them, if that would have been okay.

    How you feel about the law is irrelevent. People who eneter the states unlawfully have still broken that law and deserve the punishment for breaking it.
    If you do not like a law do not ignore it CHANGE IT.

    So if Nazi Germany had passed a law that said that being a Jew inside Germany was illegal and they must all leave or be expelled (this is not at all unprecedented -- think South African homelands), you would offer the same advice?

  • ||

    The jewish people would not have been deported (since they were germans after all).

    By the way, the Nazis didn't agree with you that Jews were Germans...

    A Reich citizen is a subject of the State who is of German or related blood, who proves by his conduct that he is willing and fit faithfully to serve the German people and Reich.

    Also interesting...

    At the instigation of Swiss immigration official Heinrich Rothmund, passports of German Jews were required to have a large "J" stamped on them and could be used to leave Germany - but not to return.
  • ||

    ""I think I'll just tell them that they are generating a distinct, unusual and extraordinary burden for me. I wonder how well that will go over.""

    Like a nightstick in the wind.

  • ||

    It's stunning how authoritarian people get when the authoritarianism will affect people who don't look like them.

    If your name and skin are convergent with "O'Neill" or "Lundgren", you haven't the first thing to worry about. But if you are swarthy or your last name is "Rodriguez", no matter how American you are, you can get get hassled. It is appalling how many people are OK with this. Just because they won't get hassled.

  • ||

    If it weren't for the fact that there are- literally- 100,000 illegal Rodriguez's to every one illegal "O'Neill or Lundgren", we wouldn't have this problem.

    It's a shame that it's happening. I'd like there to be no illegal immigration at all, so no one here in this country would have to be so burdened. But that isn't the reality. The reality is that if you are in Arizona, and you see a brown guy, who speaks Spanish, outside the local hardware store, looking for work, odds are higher that he is illegal. That's just how it is.

  • Take Care of THIS!||

    Sounds like those statistics are courtesy of the Pulled Out of Your Ass Institute for Statistical Science.

  • Brian Trust||

    Here are some statistics from the Dept. of Homeland Security. According to them, fully 3 of every 4 immigrants hails from Mexico or points south.

  • Take Care of THIS!||

    3:1 is considerably less than 100,000:1 would you not agree?

  • Brian Trust||

    I didn't post the link with the intent of agreeing with the original ratio.

  • ||

    If it weren't for the fact that there are- literally- 100,000 illegal Rodriguez's to every one illegal "O'Neill or Lundgren", we wouldn't have this problem.

    Try, literally, 100 rather than 100,000 -- 3 if you bag up all the non-Rodriguezes.

    You can believe a guy named Rodriguez...

    There are an estimated 50,000 Irish illegal immigrants in the U.S.; 30,000 of them are thought to live in New York City. Today, this tiny corner in the northern reaches of the Bronx is perhaps the most heavily Irish-born neighborhood in New York, and advocates believe that as many as 40% of local immigrants are undocumented.

    ...or someone named Hendricks...

    Although most of this country's 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants are from Mexico and Central America, about 50,000 Irish people are among 3 million illegal immigrants from countries outside Latin America.

    So given that your antecedent is completely false, do we not "have this problem"?

  • Suki||

    Are you saying that the 50,000 illegal Irish are a bigger problem than all the rest? I say kick them all out.

  • ||

    I'm saying a lot of people see a serious problem where none exists.

  • Cabeza de Vaca||

    Exactly, there is no problem other that people don't like them darn mejicans.

  • El Segundo||

    You mean the 75% of illegal immigrants who are Mexican? Yes even us citizens of Mexican descent have a problem with that.

    You're just another whining puto race-baiter.

  • Rhywun||

    But they're hanging around outside hardware stores, looking for work!!

  • El Segundo||

    Yeah and all the underage girls and women illegal immigrants are raping with little to no consequence.
    Your little privileged bubble insulates you from any of the dirty business like that. Your perspective is shallow and deceitful you scumbag.

    But I forgot, isolated dipshits like you, only experience the effect of illegal immigration, out the car window on a trip to the Home Depot. Never get your hands dirty, when a call comes in. When the overwhelming majority of these cases is caused by an illegal immigrant, the old tired "they are just here looking for work to better themselves" crap falls down pretty quick.

    Head out of your ass please.

  • DesigNate||

    +1 for using "swarthy"

  • ||

    Y'know, I don't see the anti-illegal immigration people saying that we should retain the O'Neills and Lundgrenses(really? 'Lundgren'? are there a lot of Scandinavian illegals?)--they seem to be saying that they want to get rid of/not reward all twelve million of them--it's you pro-illegal immigration folk who seem fixated on race.

  • rctl||

    Head at the border for everyone!

  • bleek obummer||

    Stop spoofing you idiot

  • -||

    Give me your illegals, your potheads,
    Your huddled pornographers yearning to distrubute Anal Squirters IV,
    The Chinese hookers on your teeming shore.
    Send lesbos and trannies and gang-bangers galore,
    I hold your green card beside the golden door!

  • Rich||

    I'm surprised nobody has raised the analogy of carding in an alcohol establishment: this practice hassles law-abiding citizens just because of their (youthful) appearance.

  • Untermensch||

    That, at least, you can avoid (by not drinking), but the Arizona law you can’t avoid unless you never leave your house, since the cops could ask you to prove you are not breaking the law if they stop you for thinking your muffler is too loud.

  • El Segundo||

    Yeah because just leaving your house cause the cops in Arizona to harass you. Spoken like a race-baiting douche bag from New Haven Connecticut.

  • DesigNate||

    Depends on what kind of establishment it is:
    TGI Friday's = no hassle because it's open to the general public.

    My local Topless Bar = hassle because you have to be 21 to get in the place.

  • ¢||

    I'm surprised nobody has raised the analogy ...

    I think anyone who's attempted to do reasoning-like things re: this shit gave up on it quite a while ago.

    It's the Good Whitey vs. Bad Cracker show, with Mexicans and laws as props.

  • Rich||

    I think anyone who's attempted to do reasoning-like things re: this shit gave up on it quite a while ago.

    Drink?

  • Whatever||

    There's no problem with Irish immigrants because they aren't tacofuckers. If two Irish got together and had a tacobaby, then there would be a problem.

  • WTF||

    Another product of our wonderful public education system!

  • Whatever||

    I was home-schooled, little boy. I wasn't taught to kowtow to illegals like you. You're just a slave that can't see his chains.

  • WTF||

    Home schooled, eh? So daddy taught, but never really loved, did he. So what else did daddy touch you - I mean, teach you?

  • Mr Whipple||

    allowing legal residents to sue any state official, agency, or political subdivision for adopting a policy of restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law

    This part of the AZ law removes all discretion from police officers. The City of Philadelphia has a formal policy to not report undocumented workers to federal authorities who have been victims of, or witnesses of a crime. The AZ law does not make this distinction. So, in effect, they are making it more difficult for law enforcement to investigate real crimes.

  • Untermensch||

    For all those who like the law, heed this point. A number of LEO organizations in Arizona oppose the law (this has been discussed on H&R before, so I’m not going to cite anything here) because it hampers their ability to do their job. If this were just another tool to help them enforce the law, you’d think they’d want this (since they usually want all the power they can get). When even the LEOs in Arizona (with the exception of Joe Arpaio*) don’t want something, maybe it should tell us something.

    (*If Joe Arpaio suddenly came out in favor of libertarianism, I’d have to question my sanity in being a libertarian because Sheriff Joe somehow manages to be always wrong on everything I care about.)

  • JohnD||

    Don't you mean you disagree with him on everything you care about? Just because you disagree, doesn't mean he is wrong. In fact, I would argue that YOU are wrong, not him.

  • Untermensch||

    Coming from you, I take that as a compliment.

  • Zeb||

    "In fact, I would argue that YOU are wrong, not him."

    Well, thanks for confirming that you are a worthless piece of shit and can be safely ignored.

  • Whatever||

    Sheriff Joe is the last true American hero. You aren't fit to lick his boot clean, tamale-twat.

  • Zeb||

    Well, you certainly are fit to lick his boot clean.

  • WTF||

    Tamale twat?

    Yet another food to fuck, apparently.

    You've got a very strange fixation there, Whatever.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    This blog is a buffet of fixations.

  • ||

    This blog is a buffet of fixations.

    I've seen a higher density on this thread than others. I just hope it isn't contagious.

  • ||

    ""Sheriff Joe is the last true American hero.""

    I know a couple of people that believe that. Anything negative I say is viewed as trying to taint his image. The funny thing is one of them can't stand it authority figures use authority on him.

  • ||

    Take two

    The funny thing is one of them can't stand it when authority figures use authority on him.

  • El Segundo||

    I'm a legal citizen of Mexican decent, stop with the racist bullshit 'Whatever' or I'll personally skull fuck you with the Constitution and happily accept the jail time. Most legal immigrants hate illegals, get a clue.

    Besides you're just being a tool for Democrats, you stupid shit.

  • James C Bennett||

    This is actually what I like about the law. I don't really care about immigrants one way or the other, but it irks me to have the judiciary striking down a law which, in essence, is the voters punishing the bureaucracy for refusing to do as they are fucking told. If you think the federal immigration laws place an undue and racist burden on "brown people", then strike down those laws, but don't tell us we can't have a law that says "See this section of the federal code? You will make it a priority to enforce that section of the law or we will sue your insolent cop ass." There are few enough weapons for the citizens to use agianst the buyreaucracy as it is--don't argue for disarming us further.

  • ||

    Don't you find it obnoxious that Arizona is inserting its own opinion of what laws should be enforced over the opinions of both the federal government and local governments?

    Any principled argument that can be used by the state against the federal government's enforcement priorities can be used by localities against the state's enforcement priorities, no?

    Why does Arizona get to have its say, but not the feds and not its counties? I know the answer to this question: because that is where the US Constitution puts the power. Nonetheless, it is not a very principled position to hold.

  • James C Bennett||

    If this were a case of, for instance, the people of Tombstone county electing the Erp brothers as their sherrif and police chiefs after they ran on a "we won't enforce the imigration laws" platform, and then the voters in all the other Arizona counties voting for a law that says "No, every county has to enforce the immigration laws, even Tombstone," I would agree with you that the state governmetn shouldn't be allowed to lord over the wishes of the locals. However, from what I've read, that's not what seems to be happening here. As I understand it, an overwhelming majority of Arizona law enforcement agencies, all accross the state, have refused to make enforcing imigration laws a priority, despite a majority of Arizona voters--again, all across the state--supporting enforcing those laws. I don't support the tyranny of the majority over the minority, but I always support the tyranny of the majority over the bureaucracy. In this case the immigration laws are a threat to the liberty of a small group, but, the bureaucracy is always a threat to everyone's liberty. I argue that keeping it in check should take priority, especially in a case like this, where there is a different avenue of attack that doesn't end up empowering the cops.

  • ||

    Forcing localities to enforce a new law at the opportunity cost of enforcing other laws and maintaining the general peace equates to keeping localities in check and disempowering the cops?

  • James C Bennett||

    The cops decided that issuing concealed carry permits was bad so they were not going to do it. The voters made a law that stated that the cops must issue concealed carry permits or face penalties.

    The cops decided that enforcing immigration laws was bad so they were not going to do it. The voters made a law that stated that the cops must enforce the immigration laws or face penalties.

    In both cases, the cops have been kept in check by eliminating some of their discretion. Now, one may think that, in either case, the cops' choice was better than the voters' choice, but that is certainly not always the case, and there is no way to set up a system of government that says "when there is a conflict between the policy the cops want and the policy the voters want, the best policy will be implemented." Somebody has to have the final say, and I would prefer it was the voter. If you would prefer it was the cops, then maybe you need to read more of Balko's articles. ;-)

  • ||

    One of those increases liberty. One of those decreases liberty. Isn't that the important distinction?

    Also, federal voters have made a law that says that immigration is handled by federal law, not state law. Why is their say not final?

    For that matter, many local voters have elected sheriffs who do not go out of their way to care about the legal residence of those they encounter. Why does the Arizona legislature get to override their say?

  • James C Bennett||

    "One of those increases liberty. One of those decreases liberty. Isn't that the important distinction?"

    I disagree. Liberty granted at the whim of unelected bureaucrats is ephemeral. You would have better luck hoping for a good king in an absolute monarchy than relying on the benificence of the bureaucracy, even if they did get it right in this one instance. I'd rather take my chances with the system that gives my neighbors, racist deuchbags that they may be, power over the government's thugs.

    "Also, federal voters have made a law that says that immigration is handled by federal law, not state law. Why is their say not final?"

    Is there in fact a federal law that prohibits the states from enforcing immigration laws? I was under the impression that the feds had implemented a non-enforcement policy administratively, but had never had the guts to actually vote it into law.

    "For that matter, many local voters have elected sheriffs who do not go out of their way to care about the legal residence of those they encounter. Why does the Arizona legislature get to override their say?"

    Because that's what the Arizona constituion says, basically. I don't have enough knowledge of Arizona demographics to tell for sure, but I assume that, given the prevalence of local Arizona law enforcement agencies that refuse to enforce immigration law, then a lot of those same voters who vote for the anti-enforcement sherrifs also voted for the pro-enforcement legislators. Voters are dumb like that. But, if they disagree with their legislators' actions, they can always vote them out. And, if law enforcement's anti-immigration-enforcement policy is the result of bureaucratic resistance rather than policies imposed by elected mamgement--which is suggested by the parts of the law that open up individual officers to the threat of lawsuits for refusal to enforce--then electing new sherriffs and police chiefs might not let the voters enforce their will.

  • ||

    Liberty granted at the whim of unelected bureaucrats is ephemeral.

    Indeed. Which is why your analogy between gun permits and alien detection is a bit off the mark.

    The issuance of a permit to exercise a fundamental individual right ought to be the presumptive result. It is actually the denial of the permit that is the motivated action. If localities are not issuing permits, it is because they are vetoing too many, and a law from above that makes them veto fewer reduces the localities' power and increases people's liberty.

    In contrast, a law from above that forces them to check legal residence increases their power and reduces people's liberty.

    Because that's what the Arizona constituion says, basically.

    As I noted, I full well understand this. I just find it unprincipled to believe Arizona's legislature is the magic spot in the middle that gets to dictate what those above and below do, simply because they have the might to do it.

  • James C Bennett||

    "I just find it unprincipled to believe Arizona's legislature is the magic spot in the middle that gets to dictate what those above and below do"

    It's not magic--it's arbitrary, but it's where it was agreed that the power would reside when the government was formed, and it's not the cops' place to decide otherwise.

    My dad is the proud owner fo a 140 lb. german shepherd that really likes girls. If you are walking with the dog at heel and he tries to run off and let some girls pet him, you have to put him under command and bring him back to heel. You have to do this even though letting girls pet a big dumb dog is good. Because if you don't constantly remind him who is in charge, then next time he might think it's ok to run off and tear out the throat of some guy that looked at him funny.

    Cops need to be treated the same way.

  • ||

    By forcing them to detain, investigate, and prosecute people for something that has nothing to do with the reason they were first approached?

    I'll just say that that's an odd way to keep a cop from doing harm.

  • ||

    I don't recall getting to vote on that law. AFAIK we do not have direct federal referendum on laws.

    No we have laws passed by congress critters from gerrymandered, "winner take all" districts.

    In the recent highly publicised NY district 23 race here are the stats for the winner:
    Bill Owens (D, WFP): – 60,671; 50.0%
    Since a congressional district is almost 700,000, that is less than 10%.

  • ||

    ""The voters made a law that stated that the cops must issue concealed carry permits or face penalties.""

    Really? What is the penalty for failing to issue a carry permit?

  • James C Bennett||

    I don't know. How do the shall-issue laws that all these states have adopted in the last couple of decades work? Presumably there is some mechanism in these laws for dealing with non-compliance.

  • James C Bennett||

    Of course, if this law passing at the state level is the result of, say, a single county having a large enough population for its voters to dictate legislation over the objections of all the other counties, then that's not good. But that's, if that's the case, then Arizona's constitution needs to be fixed, and it doesn't change the proper relaionship between the voters and the bureacracy, which of course includes the cops.

    I suppose it depends on what you mean by "localities." Are you talking about the voters who live in an area, or the bureaucrats who run the government of that area?

  • ||

    I was referring to the elected bureaucrats.

    By the way, I fully expect that if the cops took all their marching orders based on majority rule -- especially when decided at larger jurisdictions -- the result would be considerably less liberty than today.

    All government at all levels should be constrained to the Declaration of Independence's mandate -- the securing of individual rights -- even in the face of majority opinion.

  • James C Bennett||

    So basically you are saying that the federal immigration laws should be declared unconstitutional as they violate the some of the non-enumerated rights protected by the 9th Amendment. I totally support that position.

    What I don't support is giving the bureaucracy any say in making that determination. Leave it to the legislatures and the courts. Unless, of course, the courts reverse their decisions that prevent a newly-elected executive from simply firing everyone that reports to him and starting over. Until that happens, the bureaucrats have too much power just because they are so hard to get rid of.

  • ||

    Federal immigration laws should be declared unconstitutional because the Constitution grants no explicit immigration authority to the federal government, and the 10th Amendment applies. Unfortunately, the 19th Century Supreme Court issued some hand-waving decisions that created the immigration authority as an extra-constitutional federal power pretty much out of thin air. Future congresses, presidents, and courts ran with the ball, and the power grab has endured for so long (serving xenophobic popular sentiment as it does) that people who have not actually read the document think the Constitution is the source of federal immigration "authority."

  • James C Bennett||

    Out of curiosity, why do you reject a 9th Amendment right to move freely in favor of a 10th Amendment power for the States to control movement across the borders?

  • WTF||

    Related story: illegal alien with prior convictions for drunk driving and with suspended license drives drunk again - kills a nun and critically injures two other nuns.

    Napolitano asks how come he's still here. We'd all like to know that too.

  • Untermensch||

    Yes, because argument by anecdote makes for great policy. Guess what, I know American citizens who have done equally heinous things, and that proves what, exactly?

    But more to the point, that bastard should have been thrown out. But he should have been thrown out under existing laws. This is the sort of guy who had committed real crimes and for whom the Arizona law wouldn’t have been needed anyway since he had already been caught and detained under current law. How would asking police to check on the status of anyone they come into contact with have changed this if the Feds weren’t enforcing their law in the first place. If anything, adding to the pile of folks turned over to the Feds would make this sort of thing more likely.

  • Zeb||

    Oh, but you don't understand. Being Mexican was a contributing factor to his crime, so all Mexicans need to be hassled so that this never happens again.

  • ||

    He gets drunk, kills nuns and you STILL do not want to kick him out of the country. What would he have to do for you to want to deport someone? Rape a child? Vote republican?

  • DesigNate||

    Can you not read?

    Untermensch|8.4.10 @ 9:49AM|#

    ..., that bastard should have been thrown out.

    So tell me again where he was defending the guy staying here?

  • Untermensch||

    Thanks. I really think half the people here can’t read.

  • ||

    Because kicking him out would be raceist against drunk brown people.
    You should read all of your posts not just one of them.

  • Untermensch||

    I challenge you to find a single post of mine where I defend keeping actual criminals here, you subliterate, coprophagous moron. I’d object just as much to doo-gooder namby-pamb liberalism that says that we can’t touch selected races as to those who propose laws that would (explicitly or implicitly) target them for unequal treatment. It's called consistency in my beliefs. If you can’t comprehend that, that’s your problem, not mine.

    I don’t care if you’re white, black, brown, red, yellow, or whatever color Captain Kirk’s latest conquest was: If you’re a real criminal, you should be subject to the law. On the other hand, a law that will disproportionately target a visible minority is something else. And if the law in Arizona isn’t there because of the perceived Brown Menace, why is it there? They aren’t putting it in place because of Canucks, Krauts, or those groups: there is no perceived crisis about them (nor would there be, since they don’t stand out so much).

  • ||

    They aren’t putting it in place because of Canucks, Krauts, or those groups: there is no perceived crisis about them (nor would there be, since they don’t stand out so much).

    One reason they don't stand out so much is that there are not so many. What is the population of Canada compare to Mexico? How easy is it for 'Krauts' to illegally immigrate here. (Hint: It's a bit more than walking distance.) If illegal immigrant constituted a significantly lesser portion of the population, there would not be so much of an issue.

  • ||

    It's far easier for Canadians and Germans to illegally immigrate to the US because they can travel here without any visa whatsoever and simply stay.

  • Untermensch||

    Exactly. I’ve known a number of illegals from Europe who were never hassled. I actually know more of them than I know Hispanic illegals. I’ve even technically been an illegal in Eastern Europe for a few years. It was a whole lot easier than trying to cross the U.S./Mexican border.

  • ||

    "Yes, because argument by anecdote makes for great policy." Eat your own words you stupid prick!

  • Untermensch||

    Wegie, please try to grow half a brain. I know you're just trying to play the game, but you’re really not convincing at it.

    People die trying to cross the Mexican border. Chinese dealing with the snakeheads die trying to get into the U.S. When was the last time you heard of a Brit dying while trying to get in the U.S.? It is much easier for a Brit, for example, to get into the U.S. and overstay a visa than it is for a milpero who wants to pick crops in the U.S. The Mexican and the Chinese guy have to spend far more of their money and run far more risk to get here than a Brit or a German...

  • El Segundo||

    Which is why you should shut up about laws and your fantasies about how they with unfairly burden brown people.

    You have no idea, and are just spreading fear of racism without cause. You're a cheap whore for race. Try to make your case without it or shut the fuck up.

  • Viper||

    Proof needed, dumbfuck.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Do mean "actual, actual" or do you mean "what Untermensch thinks the law should be, actual"? Because if it's the latter, it's tautologically true that you don't defend keeping people you think we shouldn't keep but if it's the former you implied upthread that immigration violations shouldn't be held against the illegal immigrant, which sounds to me like you are defending keeping actual criminals here.

  • Untermensch||

    “Real criminals” = murderers, rapists, child molesters, robbers, hired thugs: criminals we all can agree are criminals. Whether we think a violation of U.S. immigration law (rather than criminal code) should be counted is another matter, but I’ve made it abundantly clear that I don’t support keeping the guys who actually hurt people here.

    Whether I think illegals should be deported is another matter. For what it’s worth, I think that immigration status should factor into these things, but I don’t think that LEOs should be monitoring it as a matter of primary concern. I’m much more concerned about getting rid of the class of criminals who actually do harm to us...

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I don't agree with the implication that illegal immigrants don't actually harm us unless they are "murderers, rapists, child molesters, robbers, hired thugs," etc. but I agree generally with your point.

    I don't know what the "proper" division of labor is within a police department but my impression is that the guys involved with implementing the AZ law on a day-to-day basis aren't generally the same guys who are solving the cases of "real criminals" unless they happen to come across a crime in progress.

    My understanding -- informed by such sources as The Andy Griffith Show, Barney Miller, and Police Squad -- is that generally the patrol officers are going to be on the hook for enforcing this law and detectives are on the hook for solving the types of cases you mention. I admit my understanding could well bear no connection to reality and, even if it does, that the current allocation between patrol and detective may not be ideal, anyway. I agree that solving/preventing murder is more important than determining a random person's immigration status, I just don't know that it isn't possible to do both, outside the unrealistic position that all cops do nothing but work on murder cases.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    Nun killing is a bonus here. You must be new.

  • ||

    the Supreme Court overturned a Pennsylvania federal law that required noncitizens to register with the state federal government, carry an "alien identification card," valid visa and present it to police officers immigration agents upon demand. The Court said the law conflicted with a federal policy, based on treaty obligations and the constitutional principle of equal protection, that sought to "protect the personal liberties of law-abiding aliens" and keep them "free from the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance," including "indiscriminate and repeated interception and interrogation by public officials."

    I don't get it. The feds aren't allowed to violate treaty obligations and equal protection, yet they have exactly the same policy described above. The cited principles should require that the feds abandon their policies, shouldn't they?

  • Untermensch||

    Yes, and crossing a border to enter the country is exactly the same as living in the country…

  • Untermensch||

    Why don’t we ask new-born babies for their passport then? Your logic would dictate that we do this. I know it’s absurd, but arguing that two different functions of law should behave exactly the same is just as absurd.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    The finding in the PA case was that the state's actions (requiring a separate registration, ID, and fee for aliens) conflicted with treaties and agreements made by the federal government with other countries. For example, if the US negotiated a visa agreement with a country that ensured free movement within the country, then the states cannot add their own restrictions, or remove any that the federal government has placed.

    It's not clear that the Arizona law conflicts with this. Of course, Congress & the President could easily resolve this by passing a law that states cannot make illegal immigration a state crime. They're too chickenshit to do that, of course, so they're (once again) using the courts to get around their legislative responsibilities.

  • ||

    No treaty, not even one that is ratified by Congress, can give the Federal government authority or power that it does not have under the Constitution. Any treaty provisions that obligate the government to act unconstitutionally are null and void.

  • Old Mexican||

    It's a shame that it's happening. I'd like there to be no illegal immigration at all, so no one here in this country would have to be so burdened.

    I cannot even conceive how Americans can be so cavalier about what amounts to gross violations of their natural rights.

    "How much can it hurt?" "It's for your own good, anyways"

    I am pretty sure those words flew many times over the heads of those going into the "showers". Americans, you are being lead like SHEEP, and still don't understand that your rights come from your nature as human beings, and not because the Government gave them to you.

  • ||

    Yeah, we're just like Nazi Germany!

  • Merdiful governmental overlord||

    Glad you can admit it. Acceptance is the first step to change…

  • Alice Bowie||

    We should have NEVER FOUGHT the CIVIL WAR.

    Today's immigration debate is no different. It is really the same people that hate people of colour. It's the same people like George Wallace. it's the same people that put together Jim Crow. It's the same people that wanted to continue slavery.

    America made a big mistake in the 1860's by fighting the south. They should have let the south be.

    I don't care what Arizona does. Latinos and other brown people should consider moving out. There are many places in America where they will be welcomed.

    LEAVE ARIZONA to the worshipers of Jim Crow.

  • Alice Bowie||

    And perhaps by making Arizona a Jim Crow State, those who would prefer to live in a Lilly-white state would move out of the NorthEast. A win-win situation if you ask me.

  • Old Mexican||

    Alice,

    More than simple racism, this problem stems from economic fallacy: the idea that jobs are "American", that jobs are limited, and that somehow, only "Americans" are entitled to "American" jobs. This constitutes a GROSS VIOLATION of PROPERTY RIGHTS and the RIGHT OF FREE ASSOCIATION.

    In the 1800's, you had the EXACT same sentiment against Irish immigrants, because they would always underbid "Americans" for certain jobs. Many people were wary about freed blacks flocking to the North and taking "white" jobs.

    So these Mickey-Mouse laws are nothing more than crass and infantile protectionist schemes. Nothing more, nothing less.

  • Viper||

    Hey dipshit, why immigrants can't get a job or live illegaly in Mexico?

  • Jason||

    The Socialist International-affiliated PRI dominated Mexican government for most of the country's independence. Therefore, there are no jobs in Mexico if you don't have the right familial or political connections.

    If Mexican politics were more libertarian, Mexico would have a large American illegal immigrant population.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Whoa.

  • ||

    "If Mexican politics were more libertarian, Mexico would have a large American illegal immigrant population."

    I believe that to be a true statement, except for the fact that, if Mexican politics would be truly libertarian, legal immigration to Mexico would be so quick and easy that only those who wanted to hide would immigrate illegally. It should be that way here, too, but the xenophobes and other protectionist-types will not permit it.

  • El Segundo||

    Old Mex won't answer that very valid question, he only chimes in to whine about imaginary oppression of 'his people' by the 'man'.

  • El Segundo||

    Says you, but you're wrong on all of this. Irish couldn't get work in most cases, and most of the Northern support for ending slavery came from industry looking to get more and cheaper labor into the factories in the North. Their might of been concern by a few, but somehow I doubt 3% of the population would have went to war to free 1.5% in the South just to take their jobs.

    Stop the race-bait bullshit and open a book retard.

  • El Segundo||

    Sorry, my typo - 3% of the population died fighting the civil war to free 1.5%.

  • Race Card||

    Nice job, Alice! (claps) And you guys thought I was becoming obsolete. Never!

  • Old Mexican||

    If the suspect is from one of the 36 nations whose citizens are allowed to visit the U.S. for up to 90 days without a visa — Spain, say — the police can look at his passport to verify his citizenship and see when he entered the country.

    Sucks to be a swarthy Spaniard . . . Arpaio will have his ass for breakfast.

  • WTF||

    Show of hands - who has actually READ the Arizon law at issue, the briefs in the case, and the judge's ruling?

    Not that that should stop anyone from commenting freely.

  • Old Mexican||

    I did. That's why I commented about it many times about its many absurdities.

  • ||

    Where the fuck is your concern for Mexico's shit immigration policy????

  • DesigNate||

    We don't fucking live in Mexico and the last time I checked, not a lot of people flocking there.

  • ||

    Yeah, the Mexicans fucked it up....so bring them here to fuck up this country ....more.

  • ||

    You're right. We should all head down to Mexico City right now and protest.

  • MWG||

    Um... this post is about SB 1070 in AZ, not about Mexican immigration policy.

  • Viper||

    ^Um... Fuck off and go blow Felipe Calderon.

  • ||

    It's about whatever I say it's about!

  • Untermensch||

    It doesn’t improve with reading it...

  • iamtheeviltwin||

    Read the law and still found the section that allows officers to detain anyone who cannot "prove their immigration status" highly distasteful.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I did not read the law.

    However, I do know that the law does NOTHING SPECIAL.

    Police officers can top and harrass anyone they want. They can arrest ANYONE for disordery conduct and make an individual stay in jail for days...just to have the charges dismissed. And, the police can do this with impunity.

    This LAW is a political statement. Believe it or not WTF, many of us know this. We are just disappointed that the state is actually legislating the increase of LEGAL CONTACT for Latinos. That is what we don't like.

    When Guilliani imposed the 'STOP-AND-FRISK' program in NYC, it significantly increased the LEGAL CONTACT of blacks/latinos. And, this LEGAL CONTACT was not executed by some BULL CONNOR cops, it was executed by many black/latino cops. It's called RACISM WITHOUT THE RACIST.

    And, I don't think you would want this to happend to you or your loved ones. It's rather embarassing to be spread-eagle on your car while you in-laws, boss, or neighbors drive by when you are doing NOTHING WRONG.

    It's plain and simple. No matter if you are in NYC or ARIZONA. White Americans are OK with increasing legal contacts on everybody but themselves to obtain LOWER CRIME rates regardless if the crime is a $5 bag of weed or an immigration violation (which isn't even a felony).

  • Alice Bowie||

    Hey Race Card, that was funny.

  • ||

    What a load of white-guilt, PC balderdash. The Arizona law is nothing like the 1941 card carry law. Police are required to check on whether a federal law is being violated and then turn over the illegal. The Obama administration's legal argument is revealing: They don't intend to enforce their own laws and they don't want Arizona asking them to.

    Imagine, say, if state said they weren't going to enforce civil rights violations against blacks by the KKK or detain such violators because, hey, that would "interfere" with Federal law. Oh, wait, it's ok for the state to help enforce laws that the federal government isn't lying about.

    Hence the more the Obama pushes, the further it alienates people from his party (just before an election year too).

    The Libertarian party sent me an envelope asking for money. I'm sending it back and suggesting they ask socialist,racist illegals for the cash. Good luck with that!

  • ||

    Police are required to check on whether a federal law is being violated and then turn over the illegal.

    Could you please actually read the law?

    Arizona state agencies and agents are required to investigate, prosecute, and punish a brand new state crime -- not simply turn them over to the feds to be handled under federal law as so many other states' laws require.

    Furthermore, any agency or agent who does not enforce this Arizona statute to the fullest extent practicable faces civil suit by anyone who wants to file one.

  • El Segundo||

    Mike, sorry buddy, you need to re-read the law. Put down the cliff notes.

  • ||

    ?

    13-1509. Willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document...
    A. In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).
    ...
    D. A person who is sentenced pursuant to this section is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon, commutation of sentence, or release from confinement on any basis except as authorized by section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed by the court has been served or the person is eligible for release pursuant to section 41-1604.07.
    E. In addition to any other penalty prescribed by law, the court shall order the person to pay jail costs.
  • El Segundo||

    And you've read sections 31-233 & 41-1604.07 before hyperventilating?

  • ||

    What the hell do statutes having to do with the release of prisoners from detention have to do with anything?

    People claim that Arizona's illegal alien law does nothing but remand suspects into federal custody. It clearly does more than that. Knowing more about Arizona's prison system doesn't change that fact.

  • El Segundo||

    Yes you better have a better understanding of the parole and sentence commenting proceedures for criminal convictions before you go whining about rights violations for criminals, and expect anyone to take you seriously. Which political site highlighted that section for you? I guess they think you're stupid enough to be biased by a few lines out of context and a hysterical claim. They were right.

    Just say you want illegals here and stop being an intellectual coward. You're obviously trying to pick at every little item looking for a crack, because you can't win an argument against a law that says "we're going to start prosecuting people already doing something clearly illegal".

  • ||

    If it's not patently obvious from this thread alone, I want illegals not to be illegal.

    I didn't learn what the law said from any political site. I simply read every iteration of SB1070 and HR2162 that came out.

    And I am not claiming that people's rights will be violated by Arizona's law. I am simply correcting some of the far too many people who support the law yet who obviously don't know what the law says.

  • ||

    It's ironic, MikeP, that you're criticizing us for not reading the law but illegals, hey, that's different. And if one of us were to go to Mexico when they lived there and had OUR rights violated, they'd be ok with that.

    Heck, it's clear that this is the primary reason why they will vote socialist redistributionist since they'll be a "protected class" racial entitlements group.

    I wanted to tell you to try living in Mexico and see how they respect your rights but, as I just observed, if they get their way we'll find out soon enough.

  • DesigNate||

    I don't think people would get all up in a tizzy about it if it was just about turning them over to the feds. And I totally agree that the feds should be doing their jobs, but that doesn't require every state to enact new laws to get them to do so.

  • ||

    I just have such a problem with this whole 'it could inconvenience brown* people who are in the country legally' thing.

    Inconvenience how?

    If I'm stopped by a cop for "any lawful stop, detention, or arrest," including those associated with trivial offenses such as jaywalking, failing to leash your dog, and biking on a sidewalk, I've got to produce ID--and I can get screwed-up police statist crap if I don't, or can't. Are brown* people too special to be treated like everyone else?

    Or is the problem that some brown* people are here illegally and this might catch more of them? Or is it simply that it's scaring them into moving places where their vote for the Democrat won't matter as much(if they're legal)?

    I cannot see this as a burden any more onerous than the one citizens carry now.

    brown* apparently brownness makes someone special for some reason. Not sure how brownness at a police stop is any more damning than other indicators of foreign origin--that tell-tale English accent, that overblown Japanese politeness, that horrific Canadian sense of fashion, you know. Still, can we get over this asinine brownness thing? Or, will those that insist on it please do us all the courtesy of appending their screen-name with something that lets us know that you're really an undercover collectivist?

  • Untermensch||

    How is objecting to a law with collectivist implications a sign that that we are collectivists? I really don’t follow: I want laws that won’t target a visible minority and that makes me a collectivist, while the apologists for said law are not apologists? Oh, I get it, you’re visiting from Bizarro World...

  • ||

    Can you find a single word in that law that refers to 'targeting a visible minority'? Does it say 'hispanic', 'latino', or 'mexican' anywhere in the law? No.

    It is you--and others like you--who are using the fact that the Mexican nationals who cross the border most often are swarthy or more darkly complected as a means to inject racism into this.

    Nowhere in the law does it say that whitey gets a pass--does it?

    The law says nothing about color. The people who support tighter border controls before immigration policy reform say nothing about color.

    You inject color.

    And you do it because you have no valid point you can make.

    When reason is not on your side, play the race card.

  • Rhywun||

    "The law says nothing about color."

    Which means that a couple years down the line, the Authorities will start hassling "non-obvious" targets in an attempt to seem "unbiased", or maybe they'll just skip that stage and start hassling everyone. We all know that "reasonable suspicion" is a bullshit excuse to target anyone they feel like.

  • ||

    Hahahaha! Indeed, whatever happens, we can surely expect the "browns" to start hassling whites down the line. That's part of the illegal immigrants' "civil rights" agenda and any opposition to the notion that whites are second class citizens is considered "racist."

  • Untermensch||

    Can you find a single word in that law that refers to 'targeting a visible minority'? Does it say 'hispanic', 'latino', or 'mexican' anywhere in the law? No.

    It doesn’t have to: The law was passed in response to a very specific situation that has race all over it. It was not written because the citizens of the great state of Arizona are objecting to Italian illegals or Nigerian illegals. It was written because they are objecting to Hispanic illegals. To pretend this is not the case does you no service. It is not a coincidence that the states where this sort of law plays the best are the ones that have issues with visible minorities while states along the northern border with Canada aren’t passing these sorts of laws.

    At the very real risk of Godwinning the thread, I’d point out that Weimar-era and early Nazi-era laws banning comparative advertising in Germany nowhere mention Jews either, yet they were enacted for the purpose of clamping down on Jewish-owned shops. It is disingenous at the very least to argue that the Arizona law has nothing to do with the presence of a large and visible illegal minority. If that minority didn’t stand out in some way, nobody would make an issue about it.

    If you think this law has nothing to do with race, why then is the debate all about race? Everybody on both sides knows race is involved, whatever they may believe about their own motivations. I don’t think all supporters of this law are motivated by racism, but that does not mean it doesn’t have racial implications, like those outlined in the article. I haven’t seen you arguing that those implications don’t exist, but rather that they are reasonable implications. Whether something is reasonable depends very much on whether you are hassled by it or somebody else.

    It is you--and others like you--who are using the fact that the Mexican nationals who cross the border most often are swarthy or more darkly complected as a means to inject racism into this.

    And you, and others like you, are pretending that we can talk about this issue in some way and leave race out of the picture. Again, if they were not visibly different, would people care? I’ve seen enough blog posts from people talking about how “they” don’t learn English, “they” don’t work, “they” are social parasites, “they” bring in the disease, “they” only come to have babies here, etc. When the on-the-ground supporters of such laws consistently cast these things in us vs. them terms, it isn’t unreasonable to ask how they define “them” and “us” and no matter how they dance around it, the descriptors of “them” inevitably come out looking a lot like foreigners from south of the border. Nobody ever complains (except as a token expression in debates like these) about folks from northern Europe bringing any of these bad consequences. And police are going to treat someone with a German accent walking down the street very differently from José García on the street, whether they are motivated by racism or not. So now we add a requirement that they check immigration status and think that this time it won’t somehow result in disproportionate hassle for Hispanics (since they fit the “illegal immigrant” stereotype)?

    Whether or not you are racist, this law will have a disproportionate impact on Hispanic minorities. Pointing that out should be a matter of common sense, so let’s not pretend that race is not inevitably part of any discussion about laws dealing with immigration.

    Nowhere in the law does it say that whitey gets a pass--does it?

    No, but what would arouse reasonable suspicion about immigration status for an LEO about a white guy who sounds like he’s from here? You could get around it by mandating that LEOs ask everyone for proof of legal residency, but they would ignore the requirement because it gets in the way of doing their real job… So only people who look or sound like foreigners are going to get asked to prove their status. Again, those are overwhelmingly hispanics in Arizona, so we’re back to a visible minority, whether or not anyone is racist in intention.

    The law says nothing about color. The people who support tighter border controls before immigration policy reform say nothing about color.

    Of course they don’t, but even if they are not racist at all, it is still clear that Joe Sixpack and Jose Cervesas, both legal citizens of the U.S., are going to be treated very differently under a law like this. Again, this is even if there is no racist intent. There is simply no way to enforce this law without targeting minorities unless everyone is tagged, which won’t happen (even if it did, the folks who support this law would complain about the hassle). We have a lot of laws on the books (like those about drugs) that disproportionately impact minorities, even though they say nothing about color and even if they were not written with race in mind. The intent and wording don’t somehow make them not racist in actual impact.

    You inject color.

    And you pretend it’s not already there.

    And you do it because you have no valid point you can make.

    I would think things like LEOs opposing it would be valid points, but you are the one doesn’t care about any of those points.

    When reason is not on your side, play the race card.

    It cuts both ways: you’re playing it back and arguing that because race has been raised as an issue nothing else can be an issue...

  • ||

    To write so much to say "I have no argument besides the brownness of many of the people who are crossing the border illegally into Arizona" is sad.

    Listen very carefully, okay, if there is no 'racist intent' then there IS NO racist intent, got it? And it remains so even if demographics make it look as if there is.

    They arrest a lot of black people in Nairobi--it LOOKS racist....until you factor in the reality that it's a majority black nation.

    Why is that so hard for you lefties? Things can LOOK like racism without actually BEING racism. And this becomes apparent if you take the time to remove your head from your ass and look at all the factors.

    If you're going after illegal immigrants in an area, and the majority of illegal immigrants come from a majority 'brown' nation right on the other side of the border, then, no matter how you try, most of the illegal immigrants you pick up are gonna be brown.

    And you know what? Ol' Jose Cervesa knows that--he probably knows it far better than you ever will.

  • Untermensch||

    Azaroth, if intention is all that determines the actual outcome of a law, then Obama’s policies will make us all rich, cap and trade will usher in an era of environmental wonder… If no racist intent means no racially biased outcome, would you then support the crack/powder cocaine sentence disparities or the MJ laws that disproportionately affect blacks (even though they use MJ at the same rate as whites)? Those laws were supported by black community leaders who wanted to improve their communities, so it is hard to argue they were racist in intent. But in application it is a whole different story. I don't care what the intent was, but the application is where it matters. And in Arizona there is no way to apply this law without considering that most illegals look and sound a certain way.

  • Untermensch||

    Strike that. It should read:

    How is objecting to a law with collectivist implications a sign that that we are collectivists? I really don’t follow: I do not want laws that target a visible minority and that makes me a collectivist, while the apologists for said law are not collectivists? Oh, I get it, you’re visiting from Bizarro World...
  • ||

    The law makes NO collectivist assumptions. It attempts to identify people who've crossed the border illegally.

    You make collectivist assumptions by assuming(pun mandatory) that there can be no other reasoning behind the law besides racial animus towards brown people.

  • El Segundo||

    And by attaching a whole lot of anecdotes about foreign historical fasicm to an attempt to contextualize 'illegal immigrants' based on their least interesting trait -skin color.

    I always ask in these cases why is so hard to require all visitors to sign the fucking guest book when they cross a national border? If that's too intrusive, don't fucking intrude here.

    Of course it's logically and practically impossible to counter such a basic concept WITHOUT whining about race and all the supposed biases of law enforcement (long before the law actually goes into effect and of course long before anyone actually might unfairly 'burden' a legal immigrant). Don't police officers have to be consider innocent before they break the law? But that doesn't matter, by keeping up hypothetical judgements about institutionalized racism and imagining nightmare scenarios (each more convoloted and desperate) Proves this is just a fucking fantasy exercise by race baiters, and a poor attempt at a cheap way to win an argument.

  • ||

    Can you name a single person on this thread who would object to having immigrants sign the guestbook? It's that hundreds of thousands of people per year aren't allowed to sign the guestbook that causes large-scale illegal immigration. That's the problem that needs to be fixed.

  • El Segundo||

    So it's okay to have a guestbook for the party, but not ok to have a long line if it's a popular one?

    And it's not ok to let the bouncers pull the people without wristbands, who snuck in, to allow more people who have waited in line inside?

    Do yourself a favor, ponder this with some serious quiet reflection time.

  • ||

    Number of illegal immigrants per year: 500,000.

    Number of visas available to them per year: 5,000.

    How much quiet reflection does it take when the expected time to get to the door is longer than one's expected lifetime?

  • ||

    Number of "undocumented" sex acts per year: 500,000

    Number of times that police catch the rapists: 50,000

    How much quiet reflection does it take Mike to figure out that out-of-control criminal behavior shouldn't automatically be legalized?

  • ||

    Number of victims of 500,000 rapes: 500,000.

    Number of victims of 500,000 illegal border crossings: 0.

  • ||

    And it's not ok to let the bouncers pull the people without wristbands, who snuck in, to allow more people who have waited in line inside?

    Incidentally, there is nothing about illegal immigration that makes the line for legal immigration any longer.

  • El Segundo||

    I''m aware, I have family on the list.
    Life is fair? How many people play the lottery, how many win?

    I told you to reflect quietly on this, clearly you need more time.

  • ||

    Why do you think that people's inalienable rights to travel, reside, and work where they can find mutually agreeable terms should be abrogated by the very government that should be securing those rights?

  • El Segundo||

    What's a US citizen?

    Or are you trying to mix US law with that of the Federation of Planets from the Star Trek program?

    I'm beginning to see the confusion. First I thought you were in a political cult, now I realize you just got lost on the way to the Spock forums. Yes yes live long and prosper. Just don't forget that even Captain Kirk was out there policing the Neutral Zone from intruders.

  • ||

    A US citizen is a pragmatic political construct of the US government that primarily (1) mediates the election and operation of that government and (2) defines who the US represents in international law.

    That of course has little to do with government's sanction with respect to individual rights.

  • DesigNate||

    If I'm stopped for "trivial offenses such as jaywalking, failing to leash your dog, and biking on a sidewalk" I sure as shit don't need to produce ID and I definitely don't have to prove I'm a citizen.

    And the last time I checked, State issued ID's are not proof of citizenship status.

    God help us if we get to a place where the government tells me I can't step outside without proper identification.

  • ||

    If the cop decides to cite you, you most assuredly DO get asked for ID.

    Or do you live in the same mythical world that every other liberaltarian lives in who responds to me when I bring this up on this site that so often rails against the encroachments of the police state? Because in that world your cops seem to be angels.

    In the real world, if a cop is gonna cite you they ask for ID.

    In the real world, if you want a job, they ask for ID.

    In the real world, if you wanna pay by check, they ask for ID

    In the real world, if you wanna enroll in school, they ask for ID

    In the real world, there are all kinda of situations where someone needs to see your ID as proof of something or another--are they all undue burdens? Are they all racist because occasionally there's more of one race than another being asked? In Vermont, more white people get asked for their ID than black people--is that raaaaacist?

  • ||

    But none of the above requires proof of nationality. But if they keep up the pressure, you can expect that the up and coming US national ID card will work in the above.

  • Mr Whipple||

    A biometric National ID card, bitches!

  • ||

    It does if you're not an American citizen.

    And, I'm sorry, but you've obviously missed the boat. The US has had national ID cards since Social Security was implemented(when they said it wasn't ID they were lying).

  • ||

    Arguments about "unequal" burdens sound unconvincing to me, considering the extraordinary amount of burden the government imposes on us for matters more trivial than this, and the fact that federal law already require immigrants to carry proof of citizenship.

    Moreover, as Rich Lowry observes in NRO, Arizona isn't ran over by citizens from 30+ nations with visa waiver programs. If I had week when I encountered 3 unique "foreign" Europeans in one week, I don't remember it. Mexicans are dime a dozen, followed by assorted Asians.

    It's not particularly burdensome to keep your green cards, driver's license, or passports either in your wallet or the glove department of your car. If a legal citizen was stopped while going for a walk near his house (left his wallet at home) because he resemebled a wanted criminal, then it shouldn't be that particularly burdensome for the cop contact the INS.

    The fear over the police stopping a brown looking guy for not picking up after his dog (and other minor offenses) also seem far fetched. One could argue that's against the law's mandate on the police to conduct "reasonable" attempt to verify the subject's citizenship. Racial profiling may apply.

    If you're not retarded enough to throw a bong party for 40 pot smoking illegls dancing to pulsating raggaeton music that disturbs the peace of shrill white neighbors, the chances are, the police will leave you alone.

  • ||

    Have you taken into account the fact that the police can be sued for leaving people alone?

  • El Segundo||

    Sure... Mike, thats a real danger for the people. The ability to sue the government for NOT doing their jobs, yeah that's a real hardship. Imagine the kind of terrible precedent that would set.

    One quick question: are you smoking crack?

    OK, moving along...

    Why should law enforcement be protected from not doing their job in enforcing laws enacted by the state? Because the federal government has decided it's politically inconvenient to enforce one if theirs? Or do you think the INS exists to fail? Would this whole problem be a lot more palatable if the INS got sued until the Feds fixed their failure to police these crimes?

  • ||

    Why is this law special?

  • El Segundo||

    There's very little that makes this law special Mikey. In almost every way it's completely redundant with existing laws. But your side is arguing that a law passed in AZ in 2010 isn't really in good faith because of secret Illuiminati racist plans. That's a very precarious intellectual limb to climb out onto, which is why I was speculating about your self medication regimen.

  • ||

    I am not aware of another such law that encodes within its statute the ability to sue state agencies or principals for failure to enforce the law. Are you?

    That makes this law pretty special. It also calls into question lee's claims that it won't be enforced strongly, since failure to enforce it is deemed actionable misconduct.

  • El Segundo||

    Mikey, no offense, but based onyour overreaction to sentencing for criminals and other discussion. Your grasp of law does not warrant any investigation. I need to see your legal résumé soon, or I'm grabbing a can of bean, a Dos Equis, and saying my ancestry as a Mexican trumps whatever bullshit you're trying to spew.

  • ||

    I take it you aren't aware of any other law that deems failure of enforcement actionable misconduct.

  • El Segundo||

    You really are a dumb shit? Do you have Google?

    There are many, many laws with similar provisions for several States and Federal agencies. In fact, it's been to court lots of times over at least the last 40 years, where these types of provisions were used to sue law enforcement. The consensus is that it's very difficult to prove and almost impossible to pursue beyond an officer's personal liability for failure to enforce into the agency or department at large.

    It appears you've discovered the secret, racist legal framework called 'boilerplate'. Congratulations pig, soon you'll be mowing my lawn! Nite nite, it's Dos Equis time!

  • ||

    You are really going to help me with this. I searched on the most boilerplate part of the lawsuit clause: "A PERSON WHO IS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE". I couldn't find anything that wasn't related directly to the new Arizona statute.

    However, in fishing through comments on Volokh I did find this...

    That kind of explicit permission to sue the government for not enforcing the law is almost unheard of, according to Mark Miller, a professor at the University of Arizona Law School. "This kind of ... private right of action for an executive decision," -- that is, a law enforcement policy adopted by the government -- "is to my knowledge completely unknown, and to my mind, stunning," Miller told TPMmuckraker.

    Could you use your Google to provide some references to such laws?

  • ||

    From a more thorough SSRN paper by Arizona and Arizona State law professors (emphasis mine)...

    SB 1070 includes two striking provisions previously unknown in United States law. The first is the provision in 11-1051(A), which provides:
    No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

    The second is the citizen suit provision in 11-1051(H), which provides:
    A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws, including 8 United States Codes Sections 1373 and 1644, to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

    "Previously unknown" is a far cry from "boilerplate".

  • El Segundo||

    Ummm... Try searching for exactly what you said in your 8:33... Nitwit. You'll find many laws that enable citizens to sue agencies for "failure to enforce"

    If you can... only... just... keep... polishing... your... turd...

    Google also reveals you've got quite the insight into "trade deficits" - haha! Seems this forum isn't the only one you inflict with your stupidity.

  • ||

    U.S. citizens are required to produce identification and legal visitors to this country are advised to carry their passports as a matter of good practice. Conversely, Americans travelling abroad are advised to carry their visas as a matter of security and sensible behavior. Why then are so many Americans wrapped around the axle that the descendants of the Spanish conquistadors are expected to honor our borders and immigration laws? Given that the large majority of illegal immigrants within our borders are of Spanish extraction, it is only natural they bear the majority of the burden in this matter. It is only reasonable that we expect in these times of war and recession that we should take extra efforts to secure our borders and insure jobs in America go to Americans. If they are unhappy with circumstances, I invite them to take advantage of the many travel options back to the nations of their origin.

  • Holy Cow||

    What a bunch of crap. The law doesn't call that you immediately prove your citizenship or be thrown out.

    Deportation is a long process. It's not as if you get caught driving without a license at noon and by 3, you're on the tarmac in Mexico City.

    I wanna see a Blue state pony up and say they'll grant residency to any illegals caught in AZ.

    Oh, Alice Bowie, you're a fucking idiot. You really are. And you're a race baiter, too. Probably a chronic masturbater, too.

  • Holy Cow||

    I love all these clowns here who posit how law enforcement should act. Well, clowns, ever been a victim of a crime?

    Did you call the police? When they caught the perp, were you worried that he was caught on a technicality?

    Of course you weren't. Because you're mostly a bunch of race baiters with no argument re: the AZ law.

    I loved the douchebag up above who said "anecdotes of illegals commiting crimes shouldn't be used by those supporting these laws." Then went on to base his aversion to the AZ law on things that have yet to even happen.

    Nice...

  • Metazoan||

    Ever been a victim of law enforcement?

  • Mr Whipple||

    +1

  • El Segundo||

    Seems every criminal labels themselves a 'victim of law enforcement'.

    The people who are actual victims of law enforcement are very few and you can spot them by the massive damages awarded to them in the resulting suits.

    Victims... what a crock of shit.

  • ||

    No. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts though that far more people have had their rights violated by MS13 and other illegal immigrants than innocent legal immigrants have suffered severe harm by immigration police...

    And it says a lot that the illegal immigrant apologists don't seem to mind or care.

    The only difference between old fashioned 'racism' and the modern white-male guilt variety is that the former is a lot less hypocritical.

  • Vinny||

    It would be interesting to see Reason dissect the healthcare bill with the same vigor they go after Arizona. Mindless open borders activism promotes wealth transfers from existing citizens with our current model.

    Get rid of the welfare state, and you get rid of 90% of the opposition to illegal immigration.

  • ||

    It would be interesting to see Reason dissect the healthcare bill with the same vigor they go after Arizona.

    Well, then go see it.

    Get rid of the welfare state, and you get rid of 90% of the opposition to illegal immigration.

    Maybe for the libertarian-leaning. But the majority of Americans want restrictions on immigration for reasons of plain old protectionism.

  • ||

    Let's compare the term "protectionism" to another: environmentalism. Both are about preserving resources via government intervention. Most libertarians agree that the government should have a right to step in to prevent people from draining all the wetlands or chopping down all the forests. This brings up another classical term: "The tragedy of the commons".

    "Open borders" means that millions of poor people will flood into healthy, balanced economies and nations and tear it down as they weigh down upon the infrastructure and move on, like locusts. Libertarian support for illegal immigration is a form of anarchy and gives it a bad name.

  • ||

    Case in point.

    By the way, you may want to study up on how to construct convincing arguments. It's hard to think of a better way to persuade libertarians that protectionism is bad than to compare it to environmentalism.

  • ||

    Thanks MikeP! I never thought before that your arguments are convincing and those who disagree with you are wrong, even sinful, by comparison. Praise science! :-)

    Seriously though. You want to argue that we should legalize "undocumented" dumping of oil into drinking water supplies, running cars with leaky exhaust manifolds, etc and that any opposition is anti-technology?

    Good luck with helping educate the world how it will all work better when we all obey you. In the meantime, I almost WELCOME all the republican stuff libertarians oppose if only because anarchist, white-guilt-racist agendas drive voters into their arms. Good going!

    You're so smart!

  • ||

    Apologies for being brief, but my point was not to try to prove that protectionism is bad. My point was that the main reason for restrictions on free migration is protectionism, just as the main reason for restrictions on free trade is protectionism.

    Indeed, as your examples imply, environmentalism does differ from protectionism in one very important way: there are actually cases where environmental laws are good for the economy. There are no cases where protectionist laws are good for the economy.

  • ||

    Your claim is delightfully unsupported and misleading. I guess this is how "convincing arguments" are created. :-)

    For starters, making a specious claim that the main reason for X is "protectionism" and then attacking protectionism is an ad-hominem argument. Many claim that the main reason for restrictions on free migration is racism (although those claimants usually also SUPPORT free migration for their own racist agenda.)

    On a personal level, I oppose free migration for political reasons ironically in defense of limited government and liberty: These migrants have a racist and socialist entitlement agenda, that actually helped ruin the places they came from, and allowing them to invade would only lead to the same thing happening here.

    This is precisely how so-called protectionalism is similar to environmentalism and no, you're wrong, there are plenty of cases where protectionist laws are good for the economy. For example, zoning and occupancy restrictions require that cities have limits on how many people can live in an apartment and whether farmland should be paved over in outerlying suburbs in order to expand a city center into a megopolis. Such restrictions, promptly applied of course, prevent sprawl, congestion, and help to encourage other city centers to spring up and grow. Ironically, the opposite has been the policy of government that subsidized massive roadways to the suburbs and leftist sponsored desegregation that created white flight. Next time you're stuck in traffic for 2 hours watching people rubberneck at someone changing a tire, don't blame "protectionalism!" :-)

    Other cases where protectionist laws are good for the economy is in encouraging local development and manufacture where price margins are narrow. If you save a nickel on a tomato flown in from Ecuador, after all expenses are added up, versus one locally grown, is it really worth it? Sure, you saved a nickel but the grower in Ecuador saw only a fraction of that. You encouraged an importer to burn up gasoline to get it here ultimately helping to drive up the price of gas!

    Short sighted thinking.

    Which fits perfectly into immigration policy. Save a buck on a hotel room or a nickel on a dollar value by looking the other way at illegals and then have your car broken into, bicycle stolen, or pay higher taxes for anchor babies hospital care. Yeah, thanks a lot. Really makes people want to go liber, er, I mean, looneytarian!

  • ||

    If you don't believe in free markets, it is hard to expect you to believe in free migration.

    In other words, if someone believes that protectionism has a place in the law, that person is very likely to believe that strongly regulated immigration has a place in the law.

    This is entirely consistent with protectionism's being the main reason for restricting immigration. I don't see how that is an ad hominem claim.

  • ||

    MikeP, as I said, your argument is precisely what drives away people from libertarianism who perceive, correctly, that many of it's adherents don't know the difference between limited government and anarchy.

    By saying that a country shouldn't have effective borders, you undermine the very concept of the state. And indeed, that's precisely why socialists, who want to undermine the libertarian culture of the country, want to bring them in. To paraphrase Marx, you're the capitalist letting in the gunman to shoot you just to save a few bucks on a hotel room. Marx said that your greed is your downfall, but it's also probably driven by a rigid, impractical orthodoxy or white guilt.

    It's hilarious that you clearly can claim that protectionism is correlated with strongly regulated immigration, but you can't seem to figure out that illegal immigration is strongly correlated with socialism and anti-white racism. But that's what happens when people have a bigoted (in the classical use of the word) worldview. Wake up MikeP! Wake up! I remember the stupid scene in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom where the little boy hits the prince with fire. "Wake up Zombie! Wake up!"

    I love your little wordgame with "strongly regulated" immigration. Yeah, versus "lightly regulated" which means just come on in, have some anchor babies on welfare, and then get amnesty as a reward. That's like comparing the Anti-Sex League of George Orwell to, say, legalizing rape. You aren't anti sex, are you?

    Finally, you resort to what is known as an argument of ignorance or denial. YOU don't see how that is an ad hominem claim so, hey, peek a boo! If you're arguing against something correlated with something, that is an ad-hominem argument whether you believe it or not. I agree that my own opposition to illegal, er, "undocumented" immigration is also ad-hominem: I oppose it for the effects I outlined above. As it turns out, I happen to be right too which is nice when that happens.

  • ||

    It's hilarious that you clearly can claim that protectionism is correlated with strongly regulated immigration, but you can't seem to figure out that illegal immigration is strongly correlated with socialism and anti-white racism.

    It hardly matters. Individuals' inalienable rights are being abrogated by the very governments mandated to secure those rights. There is no good argument against liberalized immigration -- either moral, legal, or economic. Immigration should be liberalized.

    If you're arguing against something correlated with something, that is an ad-hominem argument whether you believe it or not.

    I am not arguing that they correlate. I am arguing that one is the cause of the other: If you don't believe in the free movement of goods and services, you hardly can be expected to believe in the free movement of people.

  • ||

    MikeP, now you're blustering. "There is no good argument..." Yeah, right. There are two types of people in the world, those who agree with you, and those with bad arguments. :-)

    Yeah, there's no good "legal" argument to be made against illegal immigration except, oh, wait. It's ILLEGAL!

    Finally, your attempt to claim that it's not a correlation but that one causes the other is a minor quibble but also clearly false. Plenty of leftists are against "outsourcing" but happily support illegal immigration since the illegals tend to vote with them.

  • ||

    You continue to conflate liberalized immigration with illegal immigration. If open borders were legal, what we now call illegal immigration would not be illegal.

    And I would say that those leftists who are against outsourcing would absolutely be against effectively open borders. While liberals and unions may be for the controlled assimilation of lower skilled workers as voters and to fill their ranks, I expect that the notion of wide open borders where anyone at any skill level can move next door and compete with them is very unpalatable.

    After all, what is open borders but outsourcing from the native-born into your own neighborhood instead of into another country?

  • ||

    MikeP, I try not to get too much into the mind of a leftist (it's a very strange, twisted place), but from conversations with them, they either don't think things out through to their logical conclusion or they just don't care.

    I asked several of them, particularly white male leftists, why they favored such policies as affirmative action even when they clearly were harmed by them. They indicated that they didn't think it was a problem since they thought that they were so smart that they would be safe. They didn't think it could happen to them or at least that's what they chose to think rather than address the 500lb gorilla in the room.

    I think that their opposition to outsourcing is based upon the notion that it's evil corporations making profits and their political agenda doesn't benefit, so they easily oppose it.

  • Federale||

    Ah, such dishonesty. First your and the judges misinterprestion of the burdens test of the Pennsylvania decision. The aliens have no more burden under the Arizona law than they do of Federal law. They have to carry their Alien Registration Receipt Card.

    Next your lies about Visa Waiver visitors. They have their passport and the passport has their date admitted to stamped in it. The law says once they show that, there is nothing more for the officer to do. He doesn't have to seek out information regarding any other violation.

    Next the other groups: TPS protected aliens are issued a Employment Authorization Document. T and U visa applicants unlawfully present are so registered with ICE by an alien registration number, as are VAWA applicants. That information is readily available to ICE and their Law Enforcement Assistance Center that the local officers will be calling to verify status.

    Basically you are lying and misleading your readership. Please stop being so dishonest.

  • mosquitoman||

    How is it that people can't (or won't) see Obama's agenda? He's never bothered to hide it. Has he ever publicly sworn that he wants to get immigration under control? Has he ever publicly said, "I don't want amnesty." No. No, he hasn't. http://rubylee1776.wordpress.c.....nowledged/

  • surpa shoes||

    The Court said the law conflicted with a federal policy, based on treaty obligations and the constitutional principle of equal protection, that sought to "protect the personal liberties of

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

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