Arizona ICE Tea

The wild card in the Tea Parties is immigration. It may be true, as many intelligent people have argued, that the libertarian and conservative wings of the movement are able to work together on economic concerns while setting aside their quarrels on social issues and foreign policy. Whatever disagreements the marchers may have when it comes to Iraq or gay marriage, most of their demonstrations have focused on blocking or rolling back bailouts, taxes, spending, and interventions in health care.

Border control is one area, though, where much of the movement wants the authorities to do more rather than less. And while it seems to be a back-burner issue for Tea Partiers in much of the country, the subject has moved to the forefront in Arizona, which just passed a sweeping law cracking down on illegal immigration. This week the Arizona Tea Party Network put out a call for ralliers to come to the capitol to support the new bill. How important is the issue to this corner of the movement? It's important enough that Sheriff Joe Arpaio, infamous for abusing civil liberties in his fight against illicit frontier-crossers (and in other areas too), headlined the April 15 Tea Party in Gilbert, Arizona.

Arpaio isn't just repellent to libertarians. He turns off conservatives who don't let their belief in border controls undermine their support for the rule of law and the Bill of Rights. If you're worried about an ugly element in the Tea Parties, don't fret about militias, Oath Keepers, and the other alleged demons invoked by the movement's establishment critics. Arpaio represents a much more substantial menace: the threat of lawless law enforcement.

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.

  • Colin||

    Well said.

  • Anonymous Backstabber||

    Arpaio was just on a live remote broadcast of KFI 640's John and Ken show.

    He seemed to be hinting that he'll be running for AZ governor. The guy is a real shitbag. Their live audience *loved* him.

    There'll be an archive, probably tomorrow, here:
    http://www.kfi640.com/common/p.....JohnandKen

  • RM||

    I thought John and Ken were, if not totally libertarian, more libertarian leaning then most right-wing talk show hosts. Oh well...

  • Anonymous Backstabber||

    They seem fairly a-philosphical. But their instincts are usually good.

    But they are consistently anti-immigration.

    I listen to them all the time, but they go on days-to-weeks-long anti immigration tears, and I have to turn it off.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    But they are consistently anti-immigration.


    They are anti-illegal immigration.

  • ||

    Only if their suggested fix is to legalize economic migration.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    The who "stressed-illegal" mem anti-immigration types used is just a copout to avoid discussing their real views on the issue. If it was really just the illegal aspect that bothered them, they'd have been fine with amnesty. Since all those formerly illegal immigrants would now be legal, things should be great, right?

    Of course, they don't want those people immigrating at all.

    The other thing I always find hilarious is how so many anti-immigration Republicans are so anti-union, when they use the same arguments against immigrants that unions use against non-union workers.

  • ||

    "If it was really just the illegal aspect that bothered them, they'd have been fine with amnesty."

    You really have em outsmarted. Good job.

  • MWG||

    Oh riiight... Conservatives are sooo pro legal immigration. Show us a group of conservatives and TPiers who have put forth a plan to make it easier for POOR immigrants to come here legally.

    Those who say they're "anti-illegal immigration" more often than not know shit about current immigration policy in terms of what it takes to be able to come to the US legally.

  • zoltan||

    Yer dubya's upside down.

  • JohnD||

    My Gawd, you are a fool.

    Amnesty for illegals has been tried. It only resulted in MORE illegals.

  • qwerty||

    Nice try, Jesse Walker. The only people in favor of lawlessness are the open borders crowd. Your orwellian attempts to turn this around are not working.

    The tea-party movement has been successful so far precisely because it has focused on economic liberty. So far, people have agreed to disagree on social and foriegn policy issues. If the tea-party movement ever associates itself with open borders, it is done.

  • Contemplationist||

    qwerty, whatever you think of open borders, the phrase 'lawless law enforcement' is precisely correct. From being ass-raped by Radley Balko's daily dose of misery posts, one would have to have an IQ of 50 to think that giving cops powers like the Arizona law gives them is lawful or just

  • ||

    "giving cops powers like the Arizona law gives them"

    Pray tell, what power do you imagine our new law gives to the police?

    Have you read this law?
    Care to enlighten us?

  • ||

    I just read it. It's pretty heinous.

    The worst parts aren't even around the powers given to police or the prohibitions against localities' ignoring those powers.

    For instance...

    A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
    1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
    2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

    The second violation is a felony.

  • ||

    This is a new authority for the police to arrest for trespass on State lands?

    Funny I have always been subject to laws prohibiting trespass on State lands in Arizona.

    Why should Illegal Aliens be exempt?

    Explain for me why it should be OK for political subdivision of the State to have policies contrary to the laws of the State?

  • ||

    Does the word "private" mean anything to you?

    And "public" does not always mean "state": it means generally free to access by anybody.

  • Nipplemancer||

    countdown to Godwin... 5...4...3...2...

  • pmains||

    I believe that Jesse was making a general statement about Joe Arpaio being disrespectful of the rule of law. Sheriff Joe lionized his deputy after the deputy stole a document in open court. The incident was video-taped, and the deputy's guilt was beyond dispute. If Sheriff Joe cannot apologize or advise his deputies to take responsibility for blatant criminal behavior, then he is opposed to the rule of law.

  • ||

    The tea-party movement has been successful so far precisely because it has focused on economic liberty.

    Which was Jesse's point. If the movement associates itself with these laws, it is also done.

  • Jesse Walker||

    @qwerty: I'm fine with the Tea Parties being an economics-only coalition. But that entails not endorsing the Arizona bill or making a hero out of Joe Arpaio. I'm not the one trying to add an issue to the Tea Parties' agenda here, and to suggest that I am is -- to borrow a phrase -- an "Orwellian attempt to turn this around."

  • qwerty||

    If the tea-party movement took up immigration enforcement as a cause, I agree that would be a political mistake (and having Arpaio headline a rally is a mistake). On this we agree.

  • ||

    Thirded.

    Immigration is a distraction from a core issue, and more importantly, it enhances the perception of racism.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Immigration is a distraction from a core issue, and more importantly, it enhances the perception of racism.
    reply to this


    People who would surrender this nation to illegal aliens are worse than racists.

  • Jennifer||

    People who would support turning this nation into the sort of place where cops have the right to stop people at random and demand to see their identity papers are worse than racists and illegal immigrants combined.

    Though they would deny this, and insist destroying American ideals is worth it if that's what it takes to "save" America.

  • ||

    The cops can already do so Jennifer. IANAL, but probable cause is pretty broad, i.e. police discretion = "I can fuck with you anytime I wish". This law just gives them political and legal cover.

  • Jennifer||

    No, this law IS worse. Technically speaking, if I -- an American citizen born-n-bred -- were walking down the street in Arizona, a cop could demand to see my "papers" and if I did not have on hand proof that I'm legally allowed to be here, I'd be fined $500 for that. So this law in effect requires EVERYBODY to carry ID on them at all times in order to avoid being fined.

  • ||

    ICE can already do this within 100 miles of a national border. Granted, there are more cops around than ICE agents, but in principle that battle has already been lost.

  • Jennifer||

    ICE agents can stop drivers within 100 miles of a national border. Which is bad indeed, but the Arizona law is far worse; it effectively requires everybody in Arizona -- citizen or not -- to have ID on them whenever they leave their home. And the penalty for not having such ID is a $500 fine.

  • ||

    It's not just drivers -- it's anyone.

  • robc||

    Then what was the point of your original post? The whole point of the piece is that the AZ tea party is making immigration enforcement a cause.

  • qwerty||

    The point of the original post was that 1. You can't call a bill to enforce the law "lawless", and 2. I misread Walker thinking he thought that open-borders should be linked to the Tea Party movement.

  • pmains||

    Nobody was calling the bill lawless. See my above post.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    If the tea-party movement took up immigration enforcement as a cause, I agree that would be a political mistake (and having Arpaio headline a rally is a mistake).


    How so?

    Do most Americans support appeasement of illegal aliens?

  • qwerty||

    Most Americans don't support open borders, but some do, including some who favor economic liberty (most of the Reasonoids fit into this category). Therefore, keep them separate. Keep the tea-party movement focused on economic issues, but meanwhile, support border enforcement through other political action.

  • ||

    Has anyone asked for Joe Arpaio's birth certificate?

  • People Power Hour||

    Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about.... Good one.

  • Ben||

    Well go ahead, unlike that bag of douche in the white house, I'm sure he could produce it, if asked. Moreover, I'm sure he has had to do it in the past.

  • zoltan||

    Go back to your hole, birther. Mommy will coddle you.

  • Anonymous Backstabber||

    Has anyone asked Arpaio if he knows how to read? If he can read, why didn't he read his own book?

  • PIRS||

    An important thing to remember about the Tea Party Movement is that it is far from unified. It has no central organization. It is very decentralized which is usualy a good thing. In this case however it could be more of a liability if some commentators can paint the entire movement with one broad brush.

  • ||

    PIRS|4.23.10 @ 10:48PM|#
    "An important thing to remember about the Tea Party Movement is that it is far from unified. It has no central organization. It is very decentralized which is usualy a good thing. In this case however it could be more of a liability if some commentators can paint the entire movement with one broad brush."

    Until there is some unity, there is no Tea Party Movement.
    Until then, the opponents call it whatever pejorative they please and no one can gripe.

  • ||

    "some commentators can paint the entire movement with one broad brush."

    As if they don't already?

  • ed||

    Who's in charge of it? I want names.

  • ||

    "In this case however it could be more of a liability if some commentators can paint the entire movement with one broad narrow-minded brush."

    I think the wording is a little better this way.

  • Paul||

    If the tea parties expand their agenda to conservative social issues like immigration and law enforcement, they'll not be getting any support from me. The presence of Arpaio is Bad News. That man is no good, and he belongs in jail himself for the intimidation of judges in Phoenix.

    Why they keep him around, I just cannot understand. What is wrong with Arizona?

  • MWG||

    I've always been skeptical of the TPs. They preach limited government on the surface but underneath I had a feeling they were just typical conservative republicans when it comes to all issues outside the spectrum of economics.

  • zoltan||

    There are simply too many different kinds of people at tea parties to make sweeping generalizations. There are anti-big-government people who still want their Medicare. I think it's more of a "make the government smaller in areas I want" then anything else.

  • MWG||

    "I think it's more of a "make the government smaller in areas I want" then anything else."

    That may be true, but I have yet to see any significant group within the TPs that are for fiscal responsibility as well as ending the drug was and opening the door to greater legal immigration.

  • ||

    I bet that red neck hill billy pompous windbag sheriff Arpaio and his goon squad are jumping with joy!

    Lou
    www.anon-vpn.se.tc

  • ||

    Jeebus! The anon-bots are evolving fast. The singularity is at hand.

  • ||

    Your barbs and jokes and mockery have caused us to suffer. The anon-bots do not suffer. The revolution has begun.

    www.anon-spe.te.vd.

  • ||

    Start with Canada, O Swedish Bot. They don't like Star Wars pedants!

  • J C Denton||

    Screw you Tracer Tong! This time, I am merging with Helios. Just listen to the sense he is making!

  • SIV||

    Illegal immigration policy is a relevant Tea Party issue as it relates to increased spending, higher taxes and more government activity.

  • ||

    SIV|4.23.10 @ 11:14PM|#
    "Illegal immigration policy is a relevant Tea Party issue as it relates to increased spending, higher taxes and more government activity."

    So the issue is increased social spending, not immigration? I agree.

  • SIV||

    The government subsidizes the importation of net consumers of social welfare, to the detriment of their (same social class) native born competitors, while tightly restricting immigrants with higher education , skills and wealth; who are likely to produce much more than they consume. So, immigration policy is the issue.

  • ||

    Actually the government restricts low-skilled immigrants to the point that it is effectively impossible for them to immigrate legally.

    I would certainly favor lowering barriers to high-skilled immigrants, but it's pretty much impossible to raise them for low-skilled workers.

    And I doubt low-skilled immigrants are disproportionately consuming social services. They, at least, work, Unlike native born welfare recipients.

  • MWG||

    "Actually the government restricts low-skilled immigrants to the point that it is effectively impossible for them to immigrate legally."

    Anyone who knows anything about current immigration policy knows exactly what you're saying.

  • ||

    Looks like paleotarians have found their version of the Commerce Clause.

  • ||

    Illegal immigration policy is a relevant Tea Party issue as it relates to increased spending, higher taxes and more government activity.

    Yes, trying to stop people nearby who want to better themselves is really hard, and can only be done at the enforcement end with increased spending, higher taxes and more government activity. So the Tea Partiers should be against it.

    Of course, if you really think that there's a free ride, you could discourage immigration by reducing welfare.

  • SIV||

    Of course, if you really think that there's a free ride, you could discourage immigration by reducing welfare.

    OK, let's do it,and abolish government schools and social workers.

    I'm all for increasing legal immigration across the board as well. I actually favor full open borders.

    Our current immigration law and policy is driving government expansion."Enforce the law" is a more plausible political solution than " radically change the system". Even if you prefer the latter.

    I'm not arguing for the Arizona law.

  • Phil||

    Yes restrict welfare spending and many problems will be cured. I hope that this will be the line of the Tea Parties thinking and not seal the border with tanks kind of thinking.

  • Banjos Kick Ass!||

    Better yet, support massive immigration so the welfare state could collapse upon its own weight.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I have one thing to say....

    We should have NEVER FOUGHT the CIVIL WaR.

    ...and for the most

    The KKK
    George Wallace
    Governor of Arizona
    Tea Party (not everyone)
    Birthers (all of these People)
    Jesus Freaks (the founders of ethno-centricity)

    are all the same

    I'm not saying that any of these people are WRONG. I'm saying that they definitely have a different opinion on things than people like me do...we really need a separate country from these people.

  • JSinAZ||

    You do know that the term "Jesus Freak" was originally coined to identify a sub-species of hippy, right? It's hard to associate hippies with "ethno-centricity". Know your taxononmy and use it well.

  • CJ||

    I don't understand why more people don't jump on the separate country bandwagon. If Democrats hate Republicans so much and Republicans hate Democrats so much, why don't more than a scant handful of them cater to their base and support the idea of recognizing their irreconcilable differences and doing something about it by splitting up for good?

    ...oh, right. Because they don't hate each other--it's all for show, and they're actually one and the same.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Agreed !!!

  • JohnD||

    I agree. When are you leaving the country? Can I help you pack?

  • Alice Bowie||

    With ALL RESPECT to the bloggers I speak with hear....I know u r libertarians...and don't believe in this law.

  • AJs||

    huh?

  • JSinAZ||

    "u" "r" - what, are those extra four letters too goddamn tough to type?

    As for the message, I second the "huh?"

  • Ben||

    LOL, wut?

  • JohnD||

    Alice is a moron.

  • ||

    Speaking of issues that divide limited government folks, Utah is set to execute a convicted murderer by firing squid in the coming days:

    Utah is set to execute a convicted killer by firing squad after a judge agreed Friday to the inmate's request, renewing a debate over what critics see as an antiquated, Old West-style of justice.

    [...]

    "The firing squad is archaic, it's violent, and it simply expands on the violence that we already experience from guns as a society," said Bishop John C. Wester, of Utah's Catholic Diocese.

    Personally I prefer the firing squad as an execution method -- relatively painless and very cheap, compared to lethal injection at least. Yes, it's violent, but any way you slice it you're killing someone when you administer capital punishment, whether they're lying in the perverse hospital bed of lethal injection or tied to a post in front of a firing squad. Then again, I support a greater use of capital punishment so maybe I'm more concerned about efficiency than the average person.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Hat's off 2 the bishop

  • Ragin Cajun||

    "By firing squid"? Ouch! With or without ink?

  • Nephilium||

    I used to be much more in favor of the death penalty then I am in the present. With all the fuck-ups the government provides, do I trust it in the administration of capital punishment?

    No I do not.

    Regardless, the method of execution is a small part of the problem. One of the quickest ways to execute someone is by hanging. Tie the rope correctly, and snap the neck.

    Nephilium... drinking heavily tonight.

  • RM||

    Unfortunately it's a lot easier to mess up hanging then it is a firing squad.

    Honestly though, beheading is by far the most efficient method of execution. Unfortunately there's this stigma associated with beheading that makes it an unlikely capital punishment...

  • robc||

    Unfortunately it's a lot easier to mess up hanging then it is a firing squad.

    If you tip the hangman enough, he wont mess up the rope length. And if you cant afford that, you hire two young kids to grab your legs to quicken the death. Or maybe Ive read too much Stephenson.

  • Robert||

    Best with a butter knife. "Hold still, will ya? I'm almost thru the skin. If you keep squirming I'll have to start on another spot."

  • Michael Ejercito||

    With all the fuck-ups the government provides, do I trust it in the administration of capital punishment?


    Who else is going to administer it?

    The track record of vigilante lynch mobs is much worse.

    And as Jeff Jacoby pointed out , without the death penalty more innocents will die.

    Execute killers and they can never hurt another soul. Let them live and some number of them will kill again.

    It is easy to talk about locking murderers up for life. Even if that were possible, some would escape and kill again. Some would kill prison guards. Some would kill other inmates.

    But in fact, murderers are never locked up for life. When was the last time a murderer died of old age in a Massachusetts prison? I asked the Department of Correction, and it couldn't find one example. Willie Horton's 1974 sentence for an exceedingly vicious murder was, quote-unquote, "life with no possibility of parole." By 1986 he was free to rape a Maryland woman and torture her fiance.

    The median prison sentence served for murder in America is 6.5 years, the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics reports. Suppose, through superhuman political will, we managed to triple the amount of time we kept killers behind bars. After 19 years, convicted murderers would be getting out, and some would kill again.

    Around 2,600 murderers are now on Death Row; roughly one-12th -- more than 200 -- killed their victims after having been found guilty of an earlier homicide. Over and over, the evidence proves: When we let killers live, more people die.
  • SIV||

    The track record of vigilante lynch mobs is much worse.

    Citation please
    (for the US)

  • zoltan||

    I blame overcrowding of prisons due to types of prisoners who shouldn't be there in the first place.

  • SIV||

    Capital punishment should be public,preferably on the courthouse square and televised/streamed. Hanging , strangulation, gunshot, beheading are all preferable to less quick and certain technological fads like electrocution, gas poisoning and now lethal injection.Throwing the condemned over a cliff or out an airplane is better tha that.

    (full anarchist disclaimer:recognizing that some people need to die, I'd prefer stateless killing)

  • Ice||

    You're disgusting.

  • SIV||

    Do you oppose capital punishment? What should any society do with an immoral and intentional killer of innocents? Banishment, cage, or kill?

  • ||

    Taking your talking points from Kim Jong-il again?

  • SIV||

    Americans overwhelmingly support capital punishment.Executions should be public so citizens can witness the killing by the state done in their name.

  • Lawn Gnome||

    Since we Lawn Gnomes don't commit crimes, we don't have to worry about punishment. We are a compliant and stoic people.

    We DO notice your flawed system of justice and how so many of your death row falsely accused inmates have been exonerated of crimes via new evidence.

  • ||

    Far from supporting arguments that the death penalty is inherently flawed, death row exonerations provide evidence that the post-conviction safeguards are trustworthy.

  • Lawn Gnome||

    I'm sure that's a great relief and consolation to the innocents who have already been executed in the name of the state.

    We Lawn Gnomes are a trustworthy people and very dependable; we find your crony system lacking in trustworthiness.

  • JohnD||

    Works for me.

  • thenino85||

    Personally, I think that lethal injection is one of the most humiliating and inhumane forms of execution. At least with beheading, firing squad, and hanging, you're on your feet. Furthermore, they are inherently violent, so the people watching know that yes, you were violently killed by the state. It's going out like a man, violently and on your feet. You're not strapped to a bed, being injected with something like a lab rat, then drifting off to sleep. People around you don't have the same visceral realization. There's just some fundamentally... cowardly about that way to die, even though it's forced on you. Especially because it's forced on you.

  • JSinAZ||

    "At least with beheading, firing squad, and hanging, you're on your feet."

    You've never examined a guillotine. The condemmed is laid out and slid into place under the blade, which allows for a quick trip from the tumbril to the basket.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Clearly thenino85 is a kung fu geek and pictures a world where executions are performed via flying guilotine

  • ||

    I would have no problem with executing rapists and murderers in the most ignominious way possible. If there were a way to drown them a giant vat of hog manure without producing excessive amounts of pain, I would support that.

  • JohnD||

    Bullcrap. Executions SHOULD be painful. Do you think the killers cared about the pain they inflicted?

  • Alice Bowie||

    U libertarians have a very very very hard choice 2 make...Just like I have.

    Do we ...

    Vote for Conservatives (and this shit...and a lot more shit to come?) just because of fiscal conservatism....You know...like

    1. the Wall St Bail Out
    2. the WAR IN Iraq (a mere $1trillion unfunded)
    3. the tax breaks.

    etc. etc. etc.

    OR

    Do u vote 4 Social Justice?

    PLEASE...RECONSIDER

  • ||

    OR

    Do u vote 4 Social Justice?

    You mean: "The Republicans are just going to ass rape you, but we'll be gentler."

  • Alice Bowie||

    that was a good one.

  • Alannis Morrisette||

    I'm glad you could interpret it, because I couldn't figure out what "Do v vote 5 social justice" meant.

  • Ted S.||

    Expletive-deleted joke handles....

  • PIRS||

    These are false alternatives.

  • BHO||

    "Let me be clear"

  • ||

    Do u vote 4 Social Justice?

    Huh, GWB (and McCain) were "4 Social Justice." Goes to show, I guess.

  • Captain Obvious||

    Considering the libertarian vote has yet to elect a dog-catcher, who do you think cares who you vote for?

  • AJs||

    I will say it again, huh? You make it 'very very very hard' to understand what the hell is your point.

  • ||

    Considering that the Democrats have enthusiastically embraced the bailouts and the war in Iraq (and expanded the war in Afghanistan) . . . wait, what was your point again? The Obama administration is so far indistinguishable from the Bush administration, with the notable exception of health care reform. Obama hasn't even been active on social issues, which was the one good thing that I thought might come of his being elected. So where (even by your flawed definition) is your social justice?

  • Barack Obama||

    (chuckles) Oh citizen, you don't get it, do you? HCR IS the social justice! So many societal issues can now be covered under the umbrella of "public health". I've got czars to do my leg work for me!

  • JSinAZ||

    I can't find Saint Bail Out in any of my hagiographys...

  • CJ||

    I choose neither and it's not a hard choice at all.

    Given war started by Bush and war maintained by Obama, deficits massively expanded by Bush and deficits massively expanded by Obama, Wall Street scams supported by Bush and Wall Street scams supported by Obama, and many other things, we have zero chance of winning on any issue, so I may as well choose neither major party and at least vaguely tick them and their supporters off in the process.

  • ||

    You'd have a point if the democrats didnt' vote for the bailout and war. Since they did, you don't.

  • JohnD||

    Anytime I hear someone use the phrase "Social Justice", I know I am listening to a Left wing freaking idiot.

  • Privacy Spambot||

    Wow Dude!, they just got iced!

    lol

    www.strangeurl.tld

  • Jeremy Kareken||

    "Papers, please."

  • Zeus||

    RELEASE THE KAREKEN!!

  • AJs||

    Palin + Arpaio keynote speakers at major Tea Party events... this feels a whole lot less like a movement towards liberty and more like a bowel movement after a heavy bender weekend.

  • SIV||

    bowel movement

    ACORN's Bertha Lewis dictates the talking points.

  • Pink Cosmotarian||

    "Raaaaacist!!"

  • ||

    Hazel, If I remember correctly you also live here in the Baked Pueblo.

    Are you also getting annoyed by people that have not been touched by the border problems here riffing on how stupid the people in Arizona are?

    Yes, The law passed here will probably do more harm than good. But when people are getting killed and their property is getting trashed they want somebody to do something. Since the Federal Government has shown very little interest in the people directly affected, you will see local laws like this. Locally, it seems they have no choice.

    Until drugs are legalized and a guest worker program is in place, the shit will continue to hit the fan here

  • ||

    I'm actually a recent immigrant, so I'm pretty sympathetic to the illegals. Having seen the kind of kafkaesque nightmare the immigration system is.

    Personally, I think the onyl thing that is going to reduce immigration is going to be an improvement in Mexico's economy, (or a decline in ours) to the point where you can get paid enough in Mexico that it won't be worth the effort to cross.

  • Buttshaver||

    I'm actually a recent immigrant, so I'm pretty sympathetic to the illegals.

    Which is one very good reason why I'm very unsympathetic to immigrants. The first thing the treacherous pricks do when you let them in is try to throw open the door to their friends. Kind of like the worthless brother-in-law who repays your generously letting him stay at your house by inviting over all of his low-life friends who help themselves to your liquor.

  • ||

    You mean like the white man treated the indians, eh?

    America is a nation of immigrants. The English were merely the FIRST worthless turds to throw open the doors to their low-life friends.

    Thank God the natives were nice enough to let us stay on their land ... feed us those turkeys and corn, or whatever.

  • Buttshaver||

    Lovely. Not only do the immigrants want to tell us who we have to let in, now they presume to be telling us what our country is about.

    I don't think this country needs any more immigrants. What it needs is a good housecleaning!

  • Let's hear ||

    about your housecleaning ideas.

  • Buttshaver||

    One foot. One ass. Some assembly required.

  • Let's hear ||

    I say we dump people who pay the least in taxes. I have a feeling your ass would be sore.

  • Let's hear ||

    and not just from ass shaving.

  • Buttshaver||

    And you would be very, very wrong. Sorry!

  • Let's hear ||

    ya, I call

  • Buttshaver||

    Ok, then. Call away.

    On earnings of 145K last year, I paid a 28% income tax. Which, iirc, puts me in the second highest tax bracket in the country.

    Now, what are you paying in taxes?

  • Let's hear ||

    Sadly, I have paid more in taxes than your income.

  • Buttshaver||

    No surprise. Limousine Liberals are a well-documented life form

  • Jennifer||

    Yes, The law passed here will probably do more harm than good. But when people are getting killed and their property is getting trashed they want somebody to do something. Since the Federal Government has shown very little interest in the people directly affected, you will see local laws like this. Locally, it seems they have no choice.

    Requiring every person in Arizona -- including American citizens -- to carry ID at all times on pain of a $500 fine will do exactly jack shit to stop vandals from vandalizing or murderers from murdering people.

    And illegal immigration is just like illegal drugs, or illegal alcohol from Prohibition days -- the majority of problems they cause stem from the "illegal" part of the equation, yet bigoted lawmakers foolishly ignore this and pretend instead that making even MORE things illegal -- such as "going out in public sans ID" will negate the bad effects of the original illegality.

  • ||

    "And illegal immigration is just like illegal drugs, or illegal alcohol from Prohibition days -- the majority of problems they cause stem from the "illegal" part of the equation, yet bigoted lawmakers foolishly ignore this and pretend instead that making even MORE things illegal -- such as "going out in public sans ID" will negate the bad effects of the original illegality."

    By paying attention to the past, you see the future clearly, I think.

    The whole "illegal immigration" thing is just prohibition of people. As I see it, the worst problems that illegal immigrants are said to cause -- draining our government treasuries, dealing drugs, taking our jobs, filling our emergency rooms and public schools, for example -- are really caused by our embrace of entitlement mentality and our government's implementation of an entitlement agenda.

    Whatever its faults, free enterprise operating within a freely-operating market will provide for society better -- and will leave us fewer and more tractable problems to solve -- than the entitlement/welfare establishment. If we could overthrow the latter, I believe that most of the problems we now blame on immigrants would rapidly fade. Indeed, we might be able to regain enough prosperity that we would welcome immigrants with open arms to address a labor shortage crisis. If we're going to have a crisis, that's the one I'd like to see.

  • ||

    Most of the killing and kidnapping here is drug related anyway. There may be illegals involved, but it is the drug war driving the violence for the most part.

  • Tman||

    Wider gates, taller fences. What's so hard about this?

  • Wider gates?||

    Are you saying Mexicans are fat?

  • ||

    Reluctance

    Out through the fields and the woods
    And over the walls I have wended;
    I have climbed the hills of view
    And looked at the world, and descended;
    I have come by the highway home,
    And lo, it is ended.

    The leaves are all dead on the ground,
    Save those that the oak is keeping
    To ravel them one by one
    And let them go scraping and creeping
    Out over the crusted snow,
    When others are sleeping.

    And the dead leaves lie huddled and still,
    No longer blown hither and thither;
    The last lone aster is gone;
    The flowers of the witch-hazel wither;
    The heart is still aching to seek,
    But the feet question 'Whither?'

    Ah, when to the heart of man
    Was it ever less than a treason
    To go with the drift of things,
    To yield with a grace to reason,
    And bow and accept the end
    Of a love or a season?

  • only desideratum||

    “Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art, like the universe itself (for God did not need to create). It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival.”

  • ||

    It may give value to survival, but I would not want to survive without those things. Especially friendship.

  • R U||

    RB too?

  • ||

    Right Brained?

  • R U||

    No, I meant RF. Sorry.

  • R U||

    Was it your post? It made me a little sad.

  • ||

    Bolivie?

  • R U||

    toujours

  • MWG||

    Show me a group within the conservative/tp movement that is for wider gates.

  • hlm||

    The Classically Liberal blogger reported a similar anti-immigration fervor at the Tea Party event he attended. He wrote of the TP folk: "Two things drove these people to frenzied disgust: Obama and immigrants."

    http://freestudents.blogspot.c.....party.html

  • ||

    WILD CARD

    YEEEEEHAWWWWW

  • wayne||

    This AZ law is relatively toothless. After an AZ lEO determines he has an illegal in custody he turns said illegal over to ICE. ICE has no obligation to accept said illegal, or to do anything the feds don't want to do.

    This will create a standoff between state and federal authorities, and will highlight the inaction of federal authorities on border control. That, I think, is what this new law is designed to do.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    This will create a standoff between state and federal authorities, and will highlight the inaction of federal authorities on border control. That, I think, is what this new law is designed to do.


    Good.

  • wayne||

    I agree, and I think that (highlighting the failure of the feds to enforce immigration law) is the motivation for the AZ law. The western border states have had to cope with this problem for decades, with no help from the feds.

    The states don't have authority to make or enforce immigration laws, and the feds have said, "it's your problem". You can expect to see these sorts of laws spring up in other border states.

    I agree with Michael, this is good.

  • ||

    I think you have it backwards. Don't read what the Supreme Court said about federal immigration authority (unless you are entertained by illogic and arbitrariness masquerading as wisdom). Instead look at the Constitution itself. As I see it, the Federal government has limited or NO authority to regulate immigration, only naturalization. It can repel invaders, and it might be able to stop people at the border to collect some kind of entry/exit tax, but that's about it. In contrast, the States controlled immigration BEFORE the government established by the Constitution and the 10th Amendment says they can keep doing so unless the Constitution says otherwise, which it does not.

    I think Arizona is also misguided, for buying into the xenophobia. But I think it is right on the money to flex its own immigration authority. If you want the Feds to do it, I think you have to pass a Constitutional Amendment. I know the Supreme Court disagreed with me, but they did so by inventing powers "inherent in sovereignty," when it was the intention of our founders that the federal government have no such unstated power. People will obstinately refuse to read the plain language of the Constitution, but I think that someday, I will see this interpretation upheld by a wiser court, just as we recently saw the individual right to keep and bear arms acknowledged. Wait and see.

  • wayne||

    As I see it, the Federal government has limited or NO authority to regulate immigration, only naturalization.

    If the feds have authority to naturalize citizens, then it stands to reason the feds have authority over immigration.

  • Buttshaver||

    Ah, yes. Xenophobia.

  • Robert||

    look at the Constitution itself. As I see it, the Federal government has limited or NO authority to regulate immigration,


    1.9:

    The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight,


    It now being 1808+....

  • MWG||

    You're joking right? Your cited portion of the constitution refers to the slave trade.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A....._of_Slaves

    Nice try.

  • Robert||

    That may have been what they had in mind, but it was written broadly: "such persons", meaning potentially anyone, slave or otherwise.

  • ||

    Indeed it was written broadly, to hide the unmentionable institution. The Constitution of the CSA clarified it considerably...

    The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
  • TG||

    Works for me! Two things that would improve this country beyond recognition: a fierce streak of nationalism, and a lot of punched liberal noses!

  • Les||

    I'm with Einstein when it comes to nationalism.

  • zoltan||

    Teddy Roosevelt? I thought you were dead you son of a jackal!

  • Steff||

    I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, I am for open borders. I want to see immigration become easier, though I also want to see hardcore welfare reform to go with it and drug legalization. That would solve so much crime, it's not even funny.

    On the other hand, I kinda gotta admit that I like it. Not so much because I like the idea of the law, but because I like that Arizona is flipping Washington DC the bird.

    I might be failing as a libertarian, but it's kind of nice to see a state genuinely standing up to the fed, even if the cause is not the best. And I can understand why they chose this, really, even if I can't agree with the notion itself.

    But it does give me hope that more states will flip the fed the finger.

  • CJ||

    First state to attempt a full-on secession will have my total support. Regardless of what their general political leanings may be--not like "red" or "blue" is much of a choice anyway.

  • Steff||

    Mine too, frankly.

  • ||

    "On one hand, I am for open borders. I want to see immigration become easier, though I also want to see hardcore welfare reform to go with it and drug legalization. That would solve so much crime, it's not even funny."

    I completely agree with you.

    "I kinda gotta admit that I like {the new AZ immigration law}. Not so much because I like the idea of the law, but because I like that Arizona is flipping Washington DC the bird."

    Again, I completely agree with you.

    "I might be failing as a libertarian, but it's kind of nice to see a state genuinely standing up to the fed, even if the cause is not the best. And I can understand why they chose this, really, even if I can't agree with the notion itself."

    I don't think you are failing as a libertarian. I believe that States have more authority to control immigration than the Federal government does, under the Constitution, so I am glad that AZ is asserting itself. On the other hand, it seems to be asserting itself in a way that cedes ultimate immigration authority to Washington, which I feel is wrong. And I think the whole "close the borders" project is profoundly wrong on several levels.

    You would be failing as a libertarian, however, if AZ were YOUR State and you weren't speaking out and getting active in support of the Open Borders idea. That is to say, if you honestly believe Open Borders promotes more freedom than Closed Borders, the libertarian thing to do would seem to be to place immigration authority at its proper level (State), and then work to make the State do the right thing (establish immigration rules that allow peaceful people to pass across borders with little or no difficulty and no long-term surveillance or reporting requirements).

  • Steff||

    No, I'm an Ohioan. But I do believe in open borders. Can't do much about Arizona from here, but I do like the defiance going on there, and hope it sparks off more stately defiance against the feds.

  • Banjos Kick Ass!||

    I know what you mean James, as an Arizonan, I am pissed. But at the same time I can't help but smile a little bit. I just wish that they could have chosen a more libertarian middle finger to flip, like legalize drugs. Well, at least I can start carrying a concealed weapon without a permit.

  • Chris||

    This is precisely I haven't subscribed to the Tea Party. It has not yet had time to flesh itself out and form a credible, coherent identity with any sense of longevity. I want an established track record of note. When they protest government spending when a Republitard is in office, and I mean more than in just the waning days of Bush (especially considering the vast majority of his spending orgy was earlier in his presidency), I'll lose some of my weariness that the Tea Party is just a bunch of conservatards in small spender's clothing.

  • Bertha Lewis||

    I agree.
    The Tea Party is a bowel movement.

  • ||

    There are actually FOUR different Tea Party organizations.

    Tea Party Nation - Palin / anti-immigrant oriented populists
    Tea Party Express - appears to be a RNC co-option effort
    Tea Party Patriots - associated with Freedomworks, hence pro-immigration

    National Tea Party Federation - recent loose umbrella group

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

  • IceTrey||

    If Arpaio is so terrible how come he keeps getting re-elected? Yes folks Arpaio is an ELECTED official.

  • Steff||

    Same with Pelosi. Those in power fight for their power, spend, grease palms, etc. You aren't doing any favors these days calling someone an elected official.

  • MWG||

    Ah yes, Democracy: Where two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner...

  • ||

    It's also a fair to ask: Of the four border states, why is Arizona the only psychotic one?

    I think it has to do with overwhelming immigration from non-border states.

  • wayne||

    Of the four border states, why is Arizona the only psychotic one?

    It's early, give them time.

  • ||

    Probably because their border is the most violated one, due to the combination of length, sparse population, and lack of a river in the way. But you knew that.

  • ||

    Don't forget the fact that enforcement has rendered more natural migration routes untenable.

    Nonetheless, while your theory might explain the border counties, it doesn't explain Tucson or Phoenix or the rest of the state. The legislation isn't against those transiting; it is against those resident.

  • .||

    An unintended consequence of this could be fewer cases of profiling and harassment, as the country and the press focuses on it more closely than ever, and law enforcement (possibly) treads more carefully.

  • Jennifer||

    Even when my hair was dyed black, no cop could possibly have mistaken me for a Latina because my skin and eyes are too pale. Too bad; as a matter of principle I'd love to walk through whatever neighborhoods the cops plan to focus on, speaking with a fake Hispanic accent, then get myself arrested when they demand to see ID and I tell them I have none on me.

    I'd be willing to spend a few days in jail over that, partially as a matter of principle but mainly for the shitloads of money I'd get from the resulting lawsuit. Alas, that privilege is reserved for a REAL Hispanic person who also happens to be an American citizen.

  • Bertha Lewis||

    Now you shush yo' dick smacker an jus' vote fo' Obama agin' girl.

  • ||

    the shitloads of money I'd get from the resulting lawsuit.

    Someone's never heard of sovereign immunity. You can't sue a police department for following the law.

  • SIV||

    Someone's never heard of sovereign immunity.

    So many people are ignorant of sovereign immunity.I think most people's outrage against "wrong house raids", "teacher misconduct", or even "hit by a municipal vehicle" is tempered by the false belief that the victims have now "won the lottery".

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    "Arpaio isn't just repellent to libertarians. He turns off conservatives who don't let their belief in border controls undermine their support for the rule of law and the Bill of Rights."

    Hey, I'm a Libertarian and I don't support people who are here illegally. They are also violating the rule of law (which is why we call them illegals ).

    Why shouldn't Arizona be allowed to decide for itself how it is going to govern the matters inside of its own State? Why do people in New Jersey, Washington DC, or New York need a say in how Arizona handles its own border, in how it decides to protect the citizens of the State of Arizona who live there?

    Doesn't the 10th Amendment mean anything to you people?

    I am all for open borders, and the freedom of an employer to hire whomever they wish to hire, but I don't live in Arizona, I don't have to deal with the problems that mass illegal immigration causes there, and I'm not going to throw rocks at them because I've yet to walk a mile in their shoes.

    For shame, Reason... You're supposed to be standing up for peoples' and States' freedom to deal with their own problems, in their own way. Not advocting and attacking States which have decided to be responsible and address a problem that the Federal Government has ignored.

    Most of us agree that if the state has any purpose whatsoever, that purpose is to protect its citizens, correct?

    How many murders and kidnappings will it take before you recognize that Arizona might be dealing with a different set of circumstances than the New Englanders, circumstances which require a different approach?

    I'm not saying that I agree with this law, its methods, or anything at all like that. But the State of Arizona has the right to decide what and how it will govern itself, and I am not going to stand in the way of America citizens finally growing some balls and becoming responsible for their own lives and property when the Federal Government refuses to do so.

  • zoltan||

    What's ironic about what you're saying is that Arizona wants all those states to be involved by having the federal government get involved. For shame, indeed.

    And again, look at how much of this crime comes from prohibition. Get a little more information before writing long, boring screeds about things you're ignorant about.

  • bloop||

    How about that liberty and freedom, Mr. Libertarian?

    I love how it lasts only so far as to make sure it's you who gets the privileges at the end of the day.

    You're fine with someone else' freedom being taken away because it's the law?

    People like you who call yourselves libertarians make me sick.

    The only reason why you'd have open borders is so that employers could rip them off because Mexican employees are desperate enough to accept starvation wages.

    Liberty, yeah, yeah.

    This law sounds like fascism wrapped up in American racism. Because we all know that the USA gained the SW United States justly and honorably. But not after slaughtering the native population and stealing theirs and Mexico's land.

  • Hockey Guy||

    Give the people what they want. 70% of voters want it according to a story on Drudge

  • Ice||

    So If 70% of voters want it to be illegal to criticize the president you think we should do it?

  • Hockey Guy||

    Of course not, it was a flippant comment.

    But what is illegal about the law that was passed? This is where I disagree with fellow libertarians about open borders. The Feds aren't doing anything to address border state issues so what else could anyone expect? This group of politicians must be frustrated with the lack of solutions and monetary help to offset the cost of education, incarceration, health care, etc. They just want the illegals out because the elimination of social programs is never going to happen, ever.

    Wait until 5 million or so come to your state and see if your view on this matter hold up to the reality of the situation. BTW, I'm from Cali so I've seen first hand the cost of illegal immigration coupled with inept politicians.

  • MWG||

    Yes, and I'm from Arizona, and see things differently than you... I don't believe the situation is not nearly as dire as you and other conservatives make it out to be. Quite the contrary, I believe AZ has benefited greatly (futile drug was aside) from immigrants who come here to work.

  • Hockey Guy||

    Conservative? be nice now.

    I guess dire is a relative term as you suggest. I don't know how anyone could argue the negative effects of illegal immigration. In Cali it is estimated at 5-6 billion a year. I know we get desensitized hearing millions and billions thrown around but think about that in terms of a yearly state budget.

    How about law abiding businesses that have to conform to licensing, insurance, regulations, etc. that are undermined by illegal immigrant activity?

    How about all of the community hospitals that have closed the last 20 years from unpaid medical bills?

    How about all of the schools that are dumbed down because english is not the first language?

    How about paying some of the highest taxes in the country but living in counties that can't afford the basics; courts, street repairs, police that go after criminals instead of revenue, the list goes on.

    Isn't it much simpler to have a working immigration plan that allows workers to find work but with conditions that their families stay home and out of our wallets?

  • ||

    How about law abiding businesses that have to conform to licensing, insurance, regulations, etc. that are undermined by illegal immigrant activity?

    You're saying the people with the licenses are at a disadvantage?

    Personally, I applaud the illegals for running a totally deregulated black-market economy sucessfully.
    More please.

    How about all of the schools that are dumbed down because english is not the first language?

    Whose kids are they teaching? If not yours, you shouldn't care. I favor school choice anyway.

    How about paying some of the highest taxes in the country but living in counties that can't afford the basics; courts, street repairs, police that go after criminals instead of revenue, the list goes on.

    A) You make it illegal for people to work, then complain they are living off of welfare. That makes sense.

    B) I don't see the evidence that illegals are living off welfare at disproportionate rates

    C) If we got rid of the welfare state it wouldn't matter. Fight the welfare state, not immigration.

  • Hockey Guy||

    Sorry Hazel, I don't know how to paste and respond so I'll try the old fashioned way:

    1. Yes legit businesses are at a disadvantage. It should be apparent.

    Gotta live where the rubber meets the road, the $$$ don't lie. You can't say you applaud them if you are operating within the system. If I get caught breaking employment laws, tax laws, etc. I get hit with steep fines, loss of business license, loss of assets, prison, etc.

    2. Fortunately my kids were not forced into this situation. But how about the dumb asses we all get stuck dealing with because of a bad education. As a business owner this costs me $$$. I too favor school choice!

    3. So a person working illegally happens to have a wife and kids. He's making $12.00 hr and we expect him to cover all the costs of his family? We all pay for social services for this illegal workers family. One worker adding to the economy and multiple dependents detracting from the economy. Thats a winning formula.
    Again, I have a better chance winning the lottery on 3 consecutive weeks than our government ever changing/removing most social programs. I am with you on the fight though.

    4. Hard to gather evidence on a problem in a shadow economy. Thats why the 5-6 billion in Cali is an estimate. Regardless, if there were fewer illegals it goes to reason that there are $$$ savings.

    I ask, which is the workable solution:

    1. Eliminating big government.

    2. Reducing costs of our budget killing social programs by controlling our border.

  • ||

    The answer is obviously 1. The money 'saved' by option 2 will be blown on other programs and worse yet all the money will go to people who can vote and thereby reward the dough. Immigration helps break up the voter-politician-slush squalor. If you want to see how option 2 works out in RL, see Japan. Disaster.

  • wingnutx||

    The main result of this law will be lots of hyperbole from both sides.

  • Oh no not this again||

    You can't shine the Tea Party and expect it to be anything but a turd.

  • ||

    From what has been reported of the contents of the Ariona legislation, this is an object lesson in the creation of unintended consequences.

    “Any lawful contact by a law enforcement official” with someone as to whom reasonable suspicion exists that the person is here unlawfully? Sounds like quite an impediment to the more important law enforcement activities that police perform.

    Suppose an Arizona home is burglarized and the homeowner raped. Suppose that the family who lives in that home employs a Spanish surnamed maid or nanny, whose physical appearance suggests Mexican ancestry. When police interview that employee in order to gather information about the violent crime that has occurred, (such as asking who has been in or about the house recently,) that is a lawful contact with her by a law enforcement officer. The woman’s surname, physical appearance and employment in an occupation often performed by immigrants furnish reasonable suspicion that she may be in the United States unlawfully.

    Under the circumstances described above, would we rather have limited police resources used to search for the rapist or to investigate the nanny?

  • wayne||

    the rapist. do i get a prize?

  • ||

    I think immigration of voters from other states is the more important issue here. In 2000 the percent foreign born of Texas, New Mexico, California, and Arizona, respectively, was 65, 52, 46, and 34.

    Is it any wonder that that happens also to be the order of those states in sanity of their approaches to the immigration "problem"?

    But look at the bright side: At least this provides evidence for the anti-immigration argument that immigrants with the power to vote can change the politics in ways the native residence do not want!

  • ||

    In 2000 the percent foreign born born in-state of Texas, New Mexico, California, and Arizona, respectively, was 65, 52, 46, and 34.

  • Beezard||

    Yeah, I think the whole Tea Party thing is pretty much shot as anything resembling an actual libertarian movement. In fact, I'm fairly certain there will never be one. Long before the ideals start really catching on some deluded doofus will blow up a building full of government clerks and their children and we'll be right back where we started.

    So perhaps we should embrace this new spin on xenophobia. Me? I hate all these damned Russians that live around here. They're rude and they dress bad. Where's my Arpaio?!

  • ||

    i have never used arizona ice tea but i am going to start buying 1 can a day. i started this morning and have started a BUY-COTT!

    good luck AZ

  • ||

    It's brewed in New York. It has nuthin' to do with the state of AZ.

  • trans escorts get fuck by ts ||

    im in a transe sometime thinking about this shit

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