"What would Arizona’s revered libertarian icon, Barry Goldwater, say?"

Some sharp words about Arizona’s despicable new anti-immigration law from New York Times legal correspondent Linda Greenhouse:

I’m not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state, which is what the appalling anti-immigrant bill that Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law last week has turned it into.

What would Arizona’s revered libertarian icon, Barry Goldwater, say about a law that requires the police to demand proof of legal residency from any person with whom they have made “any lawful contact” and about whom they have “reasonable suspicion” that “the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States?” Wasn’t the system of internal passports one of the most distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union and apartheid-era South Africa?

In light of Arizona Sen. John McCain's recent turnaround in favor of his state's harsh new law, it's also worth recalling this observation from McCain biographer and Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch:

Goldwater was never really warm toward his replacement, which is something McCain, to this day in my judgment, has never properly understood.

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.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    What is wrong with internal passports?

    Are there any quotes from the 18th century or the Declaration of Independence decrying the use of internal passports?

  • ||

    Furthermore, what is wrong with tackling the law as it is actually written as opposed to on the basis of what hysterical open borders folks want to make it out to be? People will not be stopped because they "look illegal"; if they are stopped for another violation and there is reason to suspect they are not in the country legally, their immigration status will be checked with the feds. Ooooh, Nazism!

  • BakedPenguin||

    And the police won't pull anyone over because they're not wearing seatbelts...

  • Jake||

    "Will never be used for primary enforcement." Hmmn, now where have we heard that one before?

  • Ben P.||

    Indeed. As has been noted previously, the law does not explicitly ban language from the excluded categories which can be used by police to generate 'suspicion', and further notes that the race/ethnicity categories cannot be used 'solely'.

    So, hey, a buncha guys speaking Spanish to each other while walking down the street? Lemme see those papers, son.

    And those who say this won't happen in Arizona just ain't been following the career of Joe Arpaio.

  • .||

    The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land. I say this only because I'm hearing a shocking number of Senators and Congressmen (and others) these days confusing the Declaration with the Constitution.

  • ||

    The constitution states in the 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    If this is not enough evidence that internal passports are illegal, then perhaps you think the police should also be able to come into your home whenever they want.

  • .||

    I'm pretty sure "the people" means legal residents and citizens.

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure "the people" means legal residents and citizens.

    Fixed.

  • MWG||

    [citation needed]

  • ||

    The constitution also states in the 14th amendment:
    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    "any person" here means literally that; any person. If it didn't, then why would it have separated out citizens of the United States from "any person"??

  • shmergel||

    And "equal protection" means the right to not be stopped because you have an accent and brown skin and are "acting in a suspicious manner".

  • ||

    Why is the Arizona law any worse than what is already federal law? Is it Reason's position that every state has a duty to undermine federal law? The Feds already conduct immigration raids. They already can ask you for proof of citizenship if there is reasonable suspicion that you are not a citizen. And there has never been a time in my life time where you could ever get away with telling a cop who asked you for your ID to fuck off.

    It is one thing to object to borders and the concept of a nation state. That is Reason's position. It is quite another to have a pants wetting fit over a law that does nothing but have locals do what the feds already are.

  • ||

    Well said, John.

  • EMp||

    Gotta agree with John on this one...

  • ||

    It's every citizen's duty to undermine every stupid law as often as possible.

  • .||

    Free people don't have duties.

  • ||

    Wrong.

    Every person has a duty to himself or herself to be able to look back with as few regrets as possible.

  • Ska||

    John - how likely is it to have a federal agent walking around asking someone for ID because they want to bust balls? How likely is it that a local police officer will ask someone for ID because they want to bust balls?

    I've been harassed by my local NYPD servers and protectors many, many times for the crime of being young, wearing too many piercings, and wearing baggy pants (back in the day of course). A law that gives carte blanche for police officers to stop people for possibly being an immigrant (which is anybody they'd like to) does not sit well with me.

  • ||

    I understand that. But the cops still had no problem fucking with you in New York without this law. Whatever you are upset about, it has to do with cops not immigration laws.

  • Ska||

    Yes it does have to do with cops, but it also has to do with giving them a tool to randomly stop individuals on a totally subjective basis.

    Rasonably suspicious illegal immigrant behavior - really, what does that mean? If you run away from immigration officials? OK, that seems reasonably suspicious. Speaking Spanish? Is that suspicious? Having an accent?

    My problem is that it sounds like a law that can be abused by the state rather easily, and to be effective the police have to actively pursue "reasonably suspicious" illegal aliens, which gives an incentive and an excuse to stop anyone who looks Mexican.

    It's like roadblock/checkpoint, but not limited to a fixed location, and even more subjective in its application.

  • ||

    "how likely is it to have a federal agent walking around asking someone for ID because they want to bust balls?"

    WAAAAAAYYYYYYYY too likely. Ask anyone who has ever dealt with the kgBATF, IRS, EPA, or any of literally THOUSANDS of other Federal agencies.

    Or go ask Bob Hoover, Randy Weaver, David Koresh, Ken Ballew, any rancher, any farmer . . .

    My point is that any government agency has their scum. Some more than others. But the Arizona law is essentially the same as current Federal law, the only difference being that it enables AZ cops to do at any time what they are asked to do when the Feds are doing their jobs.

  • ||

    Oh, the irony of a New York Times correspodent arguing against the "distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union ..."

    Is the fact that this lefty is, "not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state ...", supposed to encourage the people of Arizona to repeal the law or to encourage other states to enact similar measures?

  • AA||

    Not sure I agree with the law, but I hope she stays away from my state.

  • JB||

    These are the same cunts who whitewashed on Stalin's behalf.

    I don't see how any self-respecting person can work at the NYT.

  • Craig||

    Lefties are making this their full blown caus celebri, realizing they are not winning the gay marraige fight.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Lefties are making this their full blown caus celebri, realizing they are not winning the gay marraige fight.


    I wonder if they get that having hordes of Roman Catholic immigrants becoming naturalized citizens will make the battle for gay "marriage" so much harder.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    I doubt it. Children, lefties and cosmotarians have a real problem understanding that some of their wants are mutually exclusive. "Pick one" just isn't in their vocabulary.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Really. Any Mexican. Any at all.

  • Ben P.||

    Right, because this behavior and mindset are totally unknown in right-wing conservatives who, you know, want Government Out of Their Medicare.

  • Mo||

    Lefties are making this their full blown caus celebri, realizing they are not winning the gay marraige fight.

    Number of states with gay marriage in 2000: 0
    Number of states with gay marriage in 2000: 5 + DC

    Somebody is losing, but it's not the gay marriage supporters. For historical reference, there were 187 years before the first anti-miscegenation laws were repealed in 1780 (PA) and Loving v. Virginia. Heck, it took 63 years for MA to follow PA's lead and become the second stat to repeal anti-miscegenation laws.

    But you can keep thinking you're winning, your delusion is adorable.

  • ||

    Number of states with gay marriage in 2000: 5 + DC

    Did you mean to say, 2010?

  • Mo||

    Oops, yes.

  • ||

    Number of states who have ever had a referendum on gay marriage pass the popular vote = 0.

    The fact that there are any states at all that recognize gay marriage is a product of its near universal appeal among the political elite not its popularity among the populace. Gay marriage has been and continues to be opposed by large majorities of voters from both parties in every state.

  • Mo||

    False. Vermont passed their law through the legislature and were able to override the governor's veto. DC also passed it through legislation. It's been 6 years in MA and they haven't been able to amend the constitution and the sky hasn't fallen.

  • ||

    And it couldn't pass in California. And it takes more than a majority vote to amend the constitution in Mass. The courts basically shoved it down the voters' throat.

    I don't know why you are hung up on it being popular. Being unpopular doesn't make it a bad idea. But it does no good to deny the obvious.

  • Mo||

    I didn't say it's popular I said that it easily passed a majority vote in 2 jurisdictions, you said 0. Stop moving the goal posts.

  • ||

    DC is a city of 500,000. It doesn't count. I will give you Vermont. But is is Vermont, so who really cares. And further, even there the legislature did it. It didn't pass by popular vote, which was my point. And DC did it by council vote and the decision was not supported by a majority of the residents. Both DC and Vermont are examples of the political class shoving it down the voters' throats.

  • zoltan||

    Tyranny of the majority, ain't it something to admire?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    "If you don't like getting kicked in the balls, you can just move somewhere where they don't kick people in the balls." -- Episiarch.

    God. That quote really comes in handy.

  • Mo||

    99% of all laws are passed by legislatures. Those laws are the will of the people being passed by their elected representatives, but for gay marriage it's "the political class shoving it down the voters' throats". Oddly, the political class didn't get tossed out for that and there weren't protests on the street.

    DC has more people than Wyoming.

  • Apogee||

    99% of all laws are passed by legislatures. Those laws are the will of the people being passed by their elected representatives

    You mean, like Obamacare?

  • ||

    DC has a population of 599,657.
    Wyoming has a population of 544,270.

    Just sayin'.

  • liberty_equality_solidarity||

    How do you know what the majority of DC residents think (I've seen you object to liberals making similar claims)? It would have been close, if it went to a popular vote (I think it should have, and would have voted for - its nice to get to have a meaningful vote every once in a while).

  • ||

    Why is government in the business of marriage anyway? Can any true lover of liberty think it is moral that anyone (gay or straight) should need a license to get married? Marriage should be a private matter, with no government rules or benefits associated with it. I fully support the rights of churches to reject gay marriage because they are private institutions. Likewise, I fully reject the government giving anyone permission (or denying it) to get married.

  • ||

    Thank you for actually talking with some sense.

  • stupidrepublican||

    Why did it take me this long to find someone else who realizes the problem to be with a nanny government with too much power and not the issue it self

  • stupidrepublican||

    Why did it take me this long to find someone else who realizes the problem to be with a nanny government with too much power and not the issue it self

  • Seventh Son||

    Yes.

    I cannot cast a vote for gay marriage--essentially, it would go against my values, because government-sanctioned marriage is an arbitrary construction and I refuse to extend the entitlements.

    All that said, the limitations (such as visitation rights) ought to offend the conscience, and it's partly for that reason that I would readily be rid of government involvement in marriage. Government has done nothing legitimate for the institution.

  • ||

    Since when do rights have to pass a popularity contest?

  • ||

    not really, they want no part of this either. it's the small govt for everyone, but me wing of the gop that is pushing this issue to the front. I guess that whole prop 187 and CA and its 100 million electoral votes always going blue doesn't make the point clear enough for some in the gop though. Maybe someday a liberty party can get hold of the at least a third of the country because I doubt that gop or the dems will ever cut anything, with a built in excuse for never cutting anything. Get them brownies, NO, get that defense budget, No, cut the entitlements, Yeah, wait, never mind we need the old people, get those aliens. Its a never ending story of clusterfucks, making sure the spending always rises.

  • Gabe E||

    Why can't they just focus on things like pot legalization?

    If they did that, I'd love them.

  • ||

    "Wasn’t the system of internal passports one of the most distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union and apartheid-era South Africa?"

    First, CBP already has the authority to do that. Second, the Mexican Border is an international border, not an internal border. An internal passport would be asking you if you were from New Mexico. That statement is just idiotic.

  • kinnath||

    John, the federal government and the state governments actually have different roles and responsbilities.

    Most states bitch when the fed push unfunded mandates (federal responsibility) down to the states. Arizona has just decided that it wants to do the job that the feds have the responsibility to do. I don't care what the subject matter is, this is a disturbing concept.

  • ||

    The states make arrests for federal crimes all the time. Any LE officer has the authority to arrest someone for a crime committed in his presence, even if that crime is a federal crime and the LE a state officer.

  • MWG||

    Yes, states make arrests on behalf, not laws...

  • ||

    Second, the Mexican Border is an international border, not an internal border. An internal passport would be asking you if you were from New Mexico.

    They're not stopping people at the Mexican border. They're stopping people on internal roads within the US.

  • Jeffersonian Republican||

    I'd expect better from Reason, especially from Damon Root who is generally right on in his opinions.Generally speaking I am not a fan of the "What would so and so who is dead now think?" line of journalism.
    Byron York demolishes opposition to this new bill here:
    http://www.washingtonexaminer......_channel=1

    And Goldwater would be in favor of the law as a rightful exercise of powers that the Feds have failed to exercise to protect Arizona "From invasion" as it states in the Constitution.

  • ||

    I don't get it, am I supposed to carry around my passport or birth certificate now? I have brown skin.

  • ||

    GET ON THE GROUND, MOTHERFUCKER!

  • Jeffersonian Republican||

    Typical really, let's ignore what the law actually says and engage in Platonic rationalist debate about what we think it means.

  • ||

    How about, lets talk about what the law should be and not "let's enforce it because it's the law and breaking the law is WRONG!".

  • Barack||

    "Birth certificate" (if you have one).
    ;-)

  • ||

    No. just your drivers' license. Look, have you people been in a coma for the last 50 years? You cannot do so much as board a plane or cash a check without an ID.

    I understand you object to that. And not without reason. But stop it with the hysterics pretending that this bill changes a God damned thing.

  • Mike||

    Not being able to board a plane or cash a check is inconvenient for sure, but being detained by a police officer is kind if a big deal. Have you ever tried to explain to an officer that he/she was wrong about something before? Even when things go well it's a horrible experience.

  • ||

    Have you ever been confronted by a cop and had him ask for an ID? If you don't have one, you get detained. Again, what fucking country do you people live in?

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Been there, refused to present the ID that I was, in fact, carrying. Walked away.

    Maybe I got away with it 'cause I'm a white boy, but that doesn't prove that making ID mandatory is a good idea. It proves that giving the police too many, too arbitrary tool is a bad one.

  • Ben P.||

    The difference is that the people who oppose this bill have not yet been convinced that the average cop will not target the average person on a whim.

    Frankly, if I'm driving with a busted taillight, sure, stop me, and while you've stopped me, if I have given you some legitimate reason to suspect I have committed some other, more serious crime, then, yes, detain me further, sure.

    But that's not what most people are believing this bill is going to cause. Most people who oppose this bill seem to believe that the police a) are not barred by the wording of the bill on its face from evading the limited protections on abuse the bill affords, and b) NOT INCLINED to resist that temptation.

    It becomes a matter of trust, and, frankly, any reader of the Reason blog who thinks for one moment there's any reason to trust a cop with one jot or iota more power than we absolutely have to is an absolute idiot.

  • ||

    what fucking country do you live in? When the fuck have you ever been stopped by a cop and not had ID and been detained? And why on earth would you think that reasonable?

    A few years back I got a speeding ticket and didn't have my license on me. Didn't spend the night in the roundhouse, the cop just issued a second citation which he informed me I could get taken care of (i.e. not paying) by just showing up at the court house with my driver's license.

    It is about as unAmerican as I can think to require that people walk around this country carrying some form of proof of citizenship. I carry my Driver's License (now : D)because it's a requirement of the privilege of driving a car, not a requirement of being a citizen, it is also a handy and almost universally accepted form of identification in America. If I am not driving I shouldn't have to fear going out of my house with ID and being arrested. This isn't fucking East Germany. We don't submit the to the Stasi here.

  • Jennifer||

    You cannot do so much as board a plane or cash a check without an ID.
    I understand you object to that. And not without reason. But stop it with the hysterics pretending that this bill changes a God damned thing.

    The bill DOES change things -- now, at least in Arizona, you cannot go anywhere in public without ID, and if you don't have any ID to show on demand you will be fined $500.

  • ||

    Again, I don't think you could get away with not having an ID if you were confronted by a cop anywhere. I dare anyone on this board to tell a cop, "I don't have an ID and I am not going to get one".

  • Half-naked jogger||

    I believe we are exempt.

  • Jennifer||

    John, if a cop asks your name you are supposed to identify yourself, but you are NOT legally obligated to have an actual physical identification card on your person, and you will NOT be fined or imprisoned if you merely walk down the street without ID in your pocket. Christ, are you so determined to stick it to illegals that you'd change this, and make America the sort of place where cops have the legal right to demand identity papers from any person they see?

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Blame it on the clowns who facilitated the situation that required the law. Apparently the good citizens of Arizona didn't think "bend over and take it" was an appropriate response.

  • ||

    And you would be 100% fucking wrong. In WA you do not have to present ID, and there was a recent case here in Seattle about someone being arrested anyway.

    So get your shit straight, John.

  • Ska||

    Was it the John Rambo case from 1982?

  • ||

    That would be Oregon, dude.

    "Oh, yeah? I was hunted once. I just came back from Nam. I was hitching through Oregon and some cop started harassing me. Next thing you know, I had a whole army of cops chasing me through the woods. I had to take 'em all out. It was a bloodbath!"

  • ||

    The laws may read that way. But good luck with that next time you talk to a cop. I am fully aware of what the law says in it letter. I am talking about the reality of dealing with a cop. And no cop in any place I have ever lived is going to let you get away without producing an ID. Maybe you live in the magic kingdom or something where cops are like Andy Griffith and take your word for who you are, but that is not how it works in the real world. If you tell a cop that you don't have an ID, he will detain you until he is satisfied who you are. And he may follow you back to your house for you to get one.

    Jesus fucking Christ Epi. Do you actually read any of the posts on here? Since when do cops abide by the law as written. And yeah, you can sue them after he arrests you when you tell him to fuck off you don't have to show an ID. Good luck with that.

  • ||

    Guess what, John? Did you read the story I linked to? The guy sued and won.

    So fuck you and your bend over for the cops attitude. Shit, you don't even care as long as it picks up some illegals--I mean, that's what I expected from you, but you could try and hide it better.

  • Ben P.||

    Let me translate John, here: "Because Cops abuse power, it's okay to give them more pretext to do so, because we can't stop them anyway."

    Yay.

  • MWG||

    So your response to the bad behavior of cops, is to legitimize it?

  • stupidrepublican||

    im brown, have been pulled over and stopped on several occasions, almost always failed to produce id, and never once recieved fine or jail time for it, most cops dont look at skin, they look at profile, hows he, dressed, whats he doing here, why are there 40 guys jumping in the back of that truck? basic stuff, its not their fault if most of the criminals they stop are either hispanic or black or some other minority, white people just dont break as many laws, absolute fact.

  • ||

    I don't know of any place in the US where you are required by law to have an ID. If a cop asks you for identification all you are required to do is give him your name (and some places don't even require that if he has no cause to ask).

    Yes, you can be detained for failing to identify yourself and you can be prosecuted if you give a fake name. But the fact is that most of the time your identity is your own business. Hell the requirement th have an ID to board a plane is barely ten or fifteen years old.

    This isn't France, you know, even if everyone is acting like cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Like said above. Been there, done that. They don't seem to sell t-shirts, though.

  • Mike||

    My experience has been different. I live in a small town, I bike or walk places. Often I don't carry government ID. It's not a big deal, it's not against the law. Cops don't ask for ID and then detain people who don't comply... that's tyranny.

  • ed||

    "in Arizona, you cannot go anywhere in public without ID, and if you don't have any ID to show on demand you will be fined $500."

    Not sure how you interpreted that from the bill's language:

    S.B. 1070
    - 3 -
    1 B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF AN
    2 ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY EITHER:
    3 1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL
    4 GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
    5 2. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY COMMUNICATING WITH THE UNITED
    6 STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES BORDER
    7 PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
    8 C. A PERSON WHO IS SENTENCED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IS NOT ELIGIBLE
    9 FOR SUSPENSION OR COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE OR RELEASE ON ANY BASIS UNTIL THE
    10 SENTENCE IMPOSED IS SERVED.
    11 D. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL
    12 ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE
    13 FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:
    14 1. AT LEAST FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A FIRST VIOLATION.

    I doubt that a white retiree out for a walk will be fined $500 for not having ID on her.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    I cash a check without showing ID almost every week. That's because showing ID to cash a check is a measure that private individuals and companies have introduced to protect themselves from fraud, not some execrable government mandate, and the folks cashing my checks know my face.

    Big difference.

    As for planes, there aren't many regulars here who find that acceptable. It is an abominable violation of the right move freely, and what little security assurance it provides can be picked up in other ways.

    "Papers, please." from an officer can (sometimes) be the sign of an official who see a ID check as a quick-n-easy way to to avoid imposing further on you time. Probably Hiibel could have avoided a lot of trouble that way. But when it is made policy it is always a sign of a government that does not know its place.

    If Arizona wants to do immigration enforcement that's their business, but insisting that I carry papers to avoid being inconvenienced by the minions of the state is not acceptable.

  • ||

    Unfortunately, you very well may have to start carrying either your passport or birth certificate! If I lived in AZ, I damn sure would make sure I had my "PAPERS/DOCUMENTS" on my person at all times! The way this law is written, it WILL be violated and abused by law enforcement!

  • ||

    I am a staunch Libertarian, but I am not an anarchist. If a police officer has reasonable suspicion that someone is committing a crime, she should questions the person about the possible crime. This is not despicable, this is part of the rule of law.

  • zoltan||

    Police never interfere with those not committing or crime or seeming suspicious. Unless that person is singing and dancing down a street in Maryland.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    shorter J.G.: "I am a staunch Libertarian, but I am also a naive tool."

  • MWG||

    "If a police officer has reasonable suspicion that someone is committing a crime, she should questions the person about the possible crime."

    So what would constitute "reasonable suspicion" that someone is committing the crime of being in the US illegally? Accent? Skin color? Low riders and bandanas?

  • mattwelcheatshit||

    reason give up the immigration battle. you're like totally to the max against all things "pc". only when it's not illegal immigration.

    i think goldwater would probably be like anybody else who actually lives there. it's just too much. too much of anything gets old.

  • ||

    Damon,

    The lives of people who live right on the border have been really uprooted by illegal immigration. People have been murdered. Their property rights are routinely violated. There are roads out there you cannot drive at night for fear of your life. People come on your property and demand food and water. The stories are endless. Is it your position that Arizona owes nothing to the people whose lives and property are being threatened?

  • Mike M.||

    It goes without saying that Linda Greenhouse and the other lefty bedwetters in the media couldn't give a rat's behind about the family of Robert Krentz or anyone else down there whose lives are being disrupted on a daily basis. They live thousands of miles away after all; to them it might as well be Mars.

    But the pantywaists are going to like the situation a hell of a lot less than they do now if the redneck gringos should get angry enough that they start taking defense matters into their own hands and just start shooting the people who are trespassing on their property every single day.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    And what kind of libertarian would endorse defending one's property over an illegal immigrant's right to march into any country he pleases?

  • EMp||

    Why - only an uneducated, unenlightened, intolerant,redneck, racist, nativist, knuckle-dragging troglodyte! ;-)

  • ||

    You have to ask yourself whether that shit is caused by the immigration, or the fact that it's illegal, and hence these people have to protect themselves from the police, and travel in secret.

    They wouldn't be crossing the desert in the middle of the night if they could go by car through a boder checkpoint.

  • Ice||

    Reason, you are a shining light in a dark tunnel, or something like that. I'm a libertarian and I just can't understand why libertarians would support this bootlicking, quasi fascist law.
    Soon, this "war on immigrants" is going to become the new war on drugs. Bad idea guys. How about we just get rid of welfare and then really there is no reason to not let them in.

  • ||

    You people really need to get a fucking reality check on this welfare shit. As someone who made a grand total of $458.00 for the year 2009, I can tell you that there ain't a lot of fucking welfare for a poor white educated man. At least not in Arizona. If I hadn't had good friends to live with I would have been on the street.

  • Ice||

    Dont get me wrong I'm always sure to criticize corporate welfare before criticizing personal welfare. But either way, the thing is how are you going to be for welfare? Through taxes, and that's theft. Even though it may well intentioned, it's still theft.

  • Ice||

    i mean pay for welfare

  • MWG||

    As a resident of AZ, I can tell you you're not looking hard enough.

  • ed||

    I'm confused. Does "illegal alien" still mean you've committed a crime or not?

  • Jeremiah||

    Only the federal crime of violating national sovereignty.

  • ||

    Oh, is that all?

  • ed||

    P'shaw!

  • nickggoesonglennbeck||

    why doesn't reason just get the koch brothers to donate to all illegal immigrants, so the burden doesn't fall on everyone else? everyone knows reason mag gets the same koch subsidy given to cato.

  • Ramsey||

    I would like to move to Arizona and walk around all f'in day with no papers, eating empinadas and tomales and speaking Spanish just to mess with the cops.

    It makes absolutely no sense to crack down on illegal immigration while supporting the slow, expensive, and foolish system of legitimate immigration in the US.

    I wonder how many of the Republican elites (and rank and file) have used illegal labor. I think the numbers might surprise us!

  • ||

    Ramsey,

    The Republican elites love immigration. Read the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Elites on both sides love their slave labor. And love the idea of being an elite in a country that looks more like Latin America.

  • Mo||

    Slave labor? Have you ever dealt with illegal immigrants? They generally cost money to employ, usually above minimum wage. They're not being kept here against their will.

    I suggest you pick up a dictionary and look up the word "slave".

  • ||

    You don't have to pay workman's comp or worry about them suing you if you fire them. They are a much better deal than legal workers.

  • Mo||

    How does that make them slaves though?

  • ||

    It is called hyperbole. They are not literally slaves. But they are definitely disadvantaged in their relation to their employer. And that was my point.

  • Mo||

    So all employees that are disadvantaged relative to their employees are slaves? Do you hand out SEIU agitprop on weekends?

  • ||

    MO,

    If you don't know what the terms "hyperbole" and "metaphor" mean, look them up.

  • ||

    Doesn't the unrestricted illegal immigration supress wages and render legal workers "disadvantaged in their realtion to their employer"?

    So, I guess Democrat and Libertarian elites are "pro-slavery" too.

  • ||

    It makes them disadvantaged in looking for a job since illegals are cheaper to hire.

  • Mo||

    The point of my joke, is that the SEIU would say that all non-unionized employees are disadvantaged in relation to their employer and as such everyone should be unionized.

  • ||

    If I am an illegal living in this country and my employer can call ICE on my ass whenever they get the urge and I have no way to file any kind of official grievance over my treatment, I am pretty disadvantaged.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Which is why most libertarians want some sort of guest worker / legal method to get the workers above ground.

    It's those who are fighting against increases in legal immigration who want pseudo-slavery, since people will come here regardless.

    With a legal process to allow people in, the vast majority who will come here to work and for other legitimate reasons won't be trespassing on private property or killing ranchers. And the job of ICE would be made much easier. If coming here legally was easy (and the WoD was over), anyone who was trying to sneak over would obviously be a scumbag out for some nefarious reason. As it is now, the scum are mixed in with those who just want jobs.

  • MWG||

    "Doesn't the unrestricted illegal immigration supress wages..."

    Nope.

    http://cafehayek.com/2010/04/s.....labor.html

  • MWG||

    Bull shit, would be a more appropriate term.

  • EMp||

    Nail on the head there, John.

  • hurly buehrle||

    That's empanadas and tamales, chulo.

  • ||

    Im guessing the dude is probably rolling over in his grave!

    Lou
    www.anon-vpn.se.tc

  • Bingo||

    Let's say Bob wants to hire Juan. What business does the government have preventing this relationship from taking place?

  • ed||

    Let's make this interesting. What if Bob wants to marry Juan?

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Let's make it real interesting. Suppose Bob wants to hire Charlie Manson. What business does the government have preventing that relationship from taking place?

  • zoltan||

    Durrrrr, what if people want to marry their dogs!?!?!?

  • ed||

    Chihuahuas?

  • Alex G||

    Yo jamas le daria mis papeles a un policia que yo creia me los pedia por sospecharme un ilegal. Mis derechos vienen de la naturaleza, no de el hombre y menos de un papel escrito hace mas que 200 anos.

  • ||

    Great Alex, but I have one thing to say to you, welcome to la carcel. Even if you are stopped for a traffic ticket, the cop can ask you for your license. How are you going to tell whether he's legitimately asking for your license because you ran a red light, or because he thinks you are here illegally?

  • guy in the back row||

    wouldn't an illegal not have a license, so would be arrested for that reason even without this law?

  • Evil Teabagger||

    To the people in Arizona who support this law: how will this make your life better exactly?

    I guess I'm being partly rhetorical, but I haven't really heard why the average Arizona citizen thinks this is necessary.

  • Evil Teabagger||

    Sorry, the average Arizona citizen who supports this bill, not just the average Arizona citizen.

  • fish||

    Maybe because people who live here legally are getting shot and having their property rights violated by the current "Democrat Voter Enhancement Plan"! You want to work it out so the borders are open...fine! I got no beef with that! But you can't just stop there! You have to fix the" if I show up I get free shit" problem as well! Thats the other half of the Libertarian argument!
    .

  • Evil Teabagger||

    Are there any stats to show illegal immigrants create a significant number of violent crimes?

    What free shit do they get?

    How much is hiring enough people to effective patrol the borders and throw out all the immigrants likely to cost?

  • wingnutx||

    "What free shit do they get?"

    Education, ER visits, etc...

    I do volunteer work as an EMT 7 social worker for Phoenix Fire, and we provide a lot of services to illegal aliens.

  • ||

    There is no etc.

  • fish||

    Are there any stats to show illegal immigrants create a significant number of violent crimes?

    Yes, but I leave it to you to do your own research.

    What free shit do they get?

    They very frequently are able to obtain food stamps, their children go to public schools and routine illegal immigrant visits to hospital emergency rooms are causing serious financial stress to hospitals across the southwest. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Pelosicare cover illegals as well?!

    How much is hiring enough people to effective patrol the borders and throw out all the immigrants likely to cost?

    Don't know as I suggested neither! I don't care if they are here as labor and I don't care if they pursue US citizenship but take a shot at doing it legally for shit sake!

  • ||

    Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Pelosicare cover illegals as well?!

    You are extremely wrong.

    Not only does it not cover illegals, it prohibits illegals from bringing their own money to participate in the health insurance exchanges.

  • fish||

    Well good! Now I know that I'm wrong and I thank you for correcting me!

  • Evil Teabagger||

    "I don't care if they are here as labor and I don't care if they pursue US citizenship but take a shot at doing it legally for shit sake!"

    And better yet, pass laws that make it easier for them be here legally.

  • MWG||

    "Don't know as I suggested neither! I don't care if they are here as labor and I don't care if they pursue US citizenship but take a shot at doing it legally for shit sake!"

    I'm guessing you know very little about the legal immigration process...

    http://1486960888559850746-a-1.....edirects=0

  • ¢||

    Rhetorical question?

    Barry Goldwater was an "enforcement" guy on immigration — enforcement against border-jumping laborers, not against the companies who hired/lured them. For them, he proposed state-corporate partnerships to trade and move labor where it was determined to be in shortage — to send laborers between countries, not let them move between them.

    Nine drinks?

  • ||

    Strange... "The law is the law!" is usually an argument that libertarians accept. That's why they are such big fans of the War On Drugs.

  • ||

    Libertarians come in two varieties; the trans-nationalists who deny the legitimacy of the nation state and thus borders and the nationalists who want a free society but recognize borders. The split around here seems to run about 60 to 40 in favor of the trans-nationalists.

  • ||

    Either way, "the law is the law" is not an argument. It's a short-circuit to thinking.

    A law is only as good as its outcomes, it has no intrinsic value just by existing. Saying that illegal immigration is illegal because it's illegal is just moronic.

    The way immigration is done in the this country produces a whole lot of bad outcomes. The difference in opinion should be about how the law should be changed; blind enforcement of a law with bad outcomes doesn't produce good outcomes.

  • ||

    I don't think anyone is saying "the law is the law". They are saying that the State of Arizona owes a duty to its citizens to do something about the violence and problems associated with illegal immigration. Also, it is a bit rich to act like it is the end of the world to have a state do what the Federal government is already obligated to do. I understand that people think there shouldn't be national borders. But the fact is we have them. And I don't see how it makes much difference if Arizona enforces them along with the Feds.

    It is not the objection to the law. It is the hysterics.

  • ||

    Jeff|4.27.10 @ 2:20PM|#

    Furthermore, what is wrong with tackling the law as it is actually written as opposed to on the basis of what hysterical open borders folks want to make it out to be?

    If you don't agree with him, then my comment doesn't really pertain to you.

  • ||

    If they want to protect their citizens, there are many other measures (including drug legalization) that would serve the state and its citizens far better. As it stands, this law is less to "protect the citizens" and more to "win votes in November".

  • Michael||

    What's it like to see the world from such a stark, absolutist perspective? I imagine it's gotta really suck.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    People come in two varities; those that think everyone can be easily divided into two black and white categories...

  • ||

    I am the law.

  • ||

    I fucking hate that tautology. That constitutional scholars actually use it as an argument shows the udder vapidity that is called "legal reasoning."

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Man, this is a depressing thread. Where have all the libertarians gone? The one time* Damon gets it right everyone pisses on him.

    *Not really the only time, Damon. I love your Herbert Spencer column every time you write it. Hofstadter was totally wrong on Herbie, even if he didn't know a fact from a concept.

  • .||

    We smell blood!

  • ||

    It's okay, usually he has to pay extra for that . . .

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Man, this is a depressing thread. Where have all the libertarians gone?

    Maybe they got fed up with being told freedom means having to tolerate having their country turned into an international public toilet, and went here instead.

  • ||

    And how is this recent spate of IMMIGRANTS BAD any different from similar fits throughout our history?

    By your reasoning, our country has been an international public toilet since before its founding.

  • Michael||

    Go away, asshole. Go far, far, far the fuck away.

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

  • Bingo||

    It got taken over early on by the libertarians who think our freedoms (or whats left of them) are a result of cultural purity and tradition.

  • ||

    I think the Democrats really have a loser here. Their hope that Americans are simply going to fall for the typical NYT, WP, MSNBC knee-jerk attacks is misguided. Most Americans can see that this is a law created out of frustration with the lack of federal enforcement of laws designed to stop illegal immigration on our southern border. Laws built on frustration are usually not good. I have problems with this law on some levels. But I think most Americans will demand that the current administration, and the Democrat controlled congress, do something about protecting Arizona citizens from the effects of lax (nonexistent really) border defense.

  • Evil Teabagger||

    Protect them from what? Is this about jobs? Crime? Terrorism? I'm really curious what the "threat" the needs "protection" is.

  • ||

    I think Robert Krenz and his neighbors on the border could explain that to you.

  • Robert Krenz||

    I'm not saying a word.

  • Evil Teabagger||

    I don't know him! Paraphrase for me what he would say.

  • joelshoe||

    Are we absolutely sure that Robert Krenz was killed by an illegal? Even assuming arguendo that he was, that's one murder by an illegal. And two by Shawna Forde, the leader of the Minutemen Defense Force. So maybe AZ should require all of its citizens to sign a document saying they aren't minutemen?

  • .||

    Doesn't matter. He's their poster boy now. Look for a "Krenz's Law" soon. Move over, Amber.

  • Mike||

    Why does an anecdote about someone who was the apparent victim of a crime that everyone agrees should be a crime have to do with whether we should authorize police to further harass anyone they so choose to?

  • Arizona||

    Because we said so.

  • ||

    Well, crime is a good one. I'm not sure how they could need protection from jobs, but if you mean from competition for jobs, that might be a reason for some. Please don't tell me that illegals are the only people who will work as maids or wash dishes, because that is simply bullshit. I've known many Americans who have done, and continue to do, both. I have not heard about any terrorism in Arizona. I don't live in Arizona. Maybe you do and understand the issues better than I do. But it is beyond any doubt that people who live here and take advantage of services that are paid for by others paying taxes, might be seen as a problem by some.

    In essence, to deny that illegal immigration is a cost to America, simply does not wash. Can it be handled better than this law? I hope so.

  • Evil Teabagger||

    Illegal immigration as it is now is a problem. I don't mean that any concerns about it are illegitimate. At least you gave some concrete objections to illegal immigration. A good deal of rhetoric sounds almost apocalyptic regarding the threats posed but it.

    But, I'm guessing this law will cause a lot more problems than it will solve.

  • Xeones||

    My favorite Barry Goldwater quote is, "If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream."

    Thus ends the totality of my contribution to this particular discussion.

  • Warty||

    Was he saying that as practical advice, or as some sort of awesome metaphor?

  • EMp||

    HA-ha-haaa!!

  • Alex G||

    Finally! After all these years, the people of Arizona will be protected from economic prosperity!

  • EMp||

    Alex - then why isn't Mexico and the majority of central America a vast cauldron of prosperity? Hmmm??

  • MWG||

    As surprising as this may seem to you, the US is lot more free economically than Mexico and Central America... but somehow I think you already knew that...

  • Ice||

    I also might add, putting the blame on illegal immigrants for the economic hardships lets politicians get away easy, when it actually them(the pols) who are the problem.

  • Evil Teabagger||

    That is true. It seems very unlikely this bill would've passed in 1999 or 2005.

  • wingnutx||

    Similar bills passed, but were vetoed by Janet Napolitano.

  • Alex G||

    Remember the Brady Bunch? Remember Alice? No middle class family in the '60s could afford a house keeper! Today that is a reality and it is thanks to these illegals! Recognize!

  • Becky Chandler||

    Its impossible to say what anyone would think from statements they made 32 years ago—like all people with a good functioning brain Goldwater changed his opinion over time--basically his libertarianism grew stronger--he was pretty much ousted from the conservative movement when he came out in favor of gay rights and they were ready to crucify "Mr. Conservative" when he commented that every good Christian should kick Jerry Falwell in the ass.

    But here are his comments on immigration from 1978: http://bit.ly/d9dfxH and http://bit.ly/aohXP5

    He obviously is in favor of enforcing immigration--hardly a radical idea—it is specifically written into the constitution (and unambiguously made a federal function). But even though he disfavored “amnesty” he would be considered a RINO for favoring a guest worker program—which actually works.

    I very much doubt Barry Goldwater would like what they are doing in Arizona— for one thing it is causing great division in the state that he loved. Barry was also an old Arizonian--born in the territory. For the most part it is not these old timers who are leading the charge on immigration in Arizona—this largely comes out of Maricopa County—Joe Arpaio country—which is largely populated by a tsunami of relatively recent immigrants from the Midwest, who sit in their gated communiteis and elephant graveyards fretting about and scared to death of Mexicans.

    He was also a big believer in the Constitution despite his advocacy of state's rights—you really have to be a follower of living constitution theories to be able to comfortably argue that Arizona is not stepping on what is a pretty clearly exclusive federal power.

    But most of all, the libertarian in Barry Goldwater, hated tyranny--he would be appalled that citizens of Arizona could be stopped by the police and forced to show their papers because some local cop had a” reasonable suspicion” they were here illegally."Reasonable suspicion" just means they look Mexican and have a funny look on their face.

  • ||

    People. Y'all need to relax. This law won't change anything. John is right.

    One of the first things I noticed when I worked in Douglas was the lack of ethnic unity. Douglas is largely Hispanic but damn if they wanted to see all these illegals. You see, the illegals, whether they were mexican or swedish, would tear through their yards, destroy their gardens and reek mucho havoc.

    A very good friend of mine use to live here alone with her daughter and we, hispanic and cracker a like, worried for her safety and wanted the feds to do something about it.

    http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF.....h&z=18

    The Cochise County Sherriff's office is pretty wise as to who is illegal. So for you assholes whining about your brown skin and whether if you come down from Portland, Oregon your gonna be singled out....please. Obviously you are fucking ignorant how "Americanized" Hispanics north of the border have become. When you show up in your fucking birkenstocks and Old Navy shit, yuou'll stick out like a sore thumb.

    What this law will do is to allow Arpaio to shit on the constitution. but he is already doing that and getting away with it. So I don't know what the big deal is either.

  • Evil Teabagger||

    "You see, the illegals, whether they were mexican or swedish, would tear through their yards, destroy their gardens and reek mucho havoc."

    Perhaps, but where I grew up it was usually rich, spoiled, white teenagers on a drunken binge destroying people's property. Are you sure it is the all the illegal immigrants who are responsible?

    Like most such laws, it seems like enforcing it to an extent that it will make any difference will prove difficult, so to appear effective, the police will get ugly in order to look effective. High profile drug raids much police look tough, but make no difference.

  • ||

    What a stupid question. Go to Douglas, Arizona. You won't see very many stupid, spoiled, white teenagers.

    And yeah, I drove Bisbee to Douglas everyday for about a year. The only people I ever saw walking around were poor looking, disheveled, tired and hot looking, illegal immigrant...;.not stupid, spoiled, snotty, white middle class teenagers.

  • Evil Teabagger||

    OK, I'll just accept your wisdom that people you see around in the daytime are the same ones committing crimes such as vandalism at night.

    Even if were certain that it was illegals committing the majority of these crimes, I have little faith that this crackdown will be effective in kicking out a significant enough number of illegals.

  • ||

    Even if were certain that it was illegals committing the majority of these crimes, I have little faith that this crackdown will be effective in kicking out a significant enough number of illegals.

    Agreed.

  • ||

    http://tinyurl.com/68da56
    I live in Tucson and have volunteered to do clean up on BLM & State trust lands. I've seen alot of areas that look like this. This is not the work ofrich, spoiled, white teenagers on a drunken binge. The worst areas are in Cochise county.

    Troy hits the nail on the head with the local attitudes in Douglas & Nogales. The Hispanics there are 3rd , 4th generation or more. And most have no love for the illegals.

    Most of the protesting I've seen in Tucson is from the community activists/ La Raza crowd that their living making stirring shit up.

  • Evil Teabagger||

    I didn't mean it was either rich white teens OR illegal immigrants. My only point was that if there is vandalism, locals often point to "outsiders," assuming that those there legally would never do such a thing.

    But, again, even if it were exclusively the illegals doing it, this heavy-handed law is unlikely to really make any difference. It will inconvenience a lot of people, but probably won't stop the flow of illegals.

  • ||

    Too late statists, I've already immigrated! Muaahahahahha.

  • ||

    How dare the American people take in more legal immigrants, without regard to race, than all the rest of the world combined.

    Racists! Nazis! Teabaggers!

    It's time for libertarians to disassociate themselves form these vermin. Where ya movin' Damon?

  • ||

    I should point out that legal immigrants were *already* required to carry their passports and/or immigration documents on them at all times, since at least 2003.

    However, the difference is that now the cops can stop and demand identification from US CITIZENS. And if they don't have IDs, then those US CITIZENS will be presumed to be illegal alins and detained.

    That's the issue. it has nothing to do, really, with immigration. It's about the police's relationship to legal residents and American citizens.

  • ||

    I agree that this is the issue that sticks in my crawl. But I don't see anything that would assert a rebuttable presumption that just because you don't have papers, that means you are illegal.

  • ||

    What do you think is going to happen?

    Cop suspects that someone is illegal.
    Cop asks for immigration papers.
    Person (not being an illegal alien) doesn't have immigration papers. Unless he or she is carrying his US birth certificate or passport, then the cop is going to assume he's an illegal alien.

    Effectively, it means that if you're a hispanic-looking US citizen, you damn well better be carrying around your birth certificate or a US passport, or you're risking being thrown in jail.

  • ||

    Well, maybe you lived in a different part of Arizona than I did. Maybe you prosecuted in a different part of Arizona that I did. Maybe you defended criminal cases in a different part of Arizona that I did.

    But, IMHO, the only asshole that is going to abuse this is Arpaio.

  • ||

    Paul Babeu in Pinal seemed really really happy when Brewer signed it

  • Evil Teabagger||

    "But I don't see anything that would assert a rebuttable presumption that just because you don't have papers, that means you are illegal."

    No, but you could likely be detained until you do. And a situation where citizens of their own country have to go through all that should worry people supporting this bill.

  • guy in the back row||

    wasn't there a movie or music video or something with Cheech Marin in it about this?

  • ||

    It would be nice if we could have a conversation about the law itself, rather than this cartoon version:

    Arizona’s despicable new anti-immigration law

    Its an immigration enforcement law. It does not change in any way whatsoever the immigration laws themselves. As noted, it merely directs the state cops to do with the federal cops have been doing all along.

    The law itself is actually pretty well drafted to avoid Constitutional concerns. Of course, it will be abused by the same authoritarian a-holes who have been abusing civil liberties even without this law. Net effect? A marginal increase in civil liberties violations in a few jurisdictions, is my guess.

    I hate this kind of immigration enforcement in general, because this is what you get when you have a failed and fundamentally flawed immigration policy. But that policy, and its many failures, is not Arizona's to fix.

  • ||

    How exactly will letting the cops harass legal residents do anything to mitigate the effects of a flawed immigration policy?

    As far as I can see, the only serious damage done by illegal immigration lies in the fact that the degree of enforcement forces it underground into organized crime.

    If they just let people walk across the desert and didn't make a serious enforcement effort, would there be human-smuggling operations? Would there be gangs with guns?

    No. The violence comes from the same source as drug-related violence. The police-state mentality towards it forces illegal immigrants to turn to organized crime for protection and assistance instead of the police.

  • ||

    you really have to be a follower of living constitution theories to be able to comfortably argue that Arizona is not stepping on what is a pretty clearly exclusive federal power.

    The notion that the federal government has exclusive power over immigration has a fair dose of "living constitution" thinking behind it.

    The Constitution says the feds can say who can become a citizen. It is silent on who can make the law on immigration, but the founders were pretty clear, that they regarded this as a power reserved to the states under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

    Sorry, no links handy.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center. -- L. Neil Smith.
    Smith was writing about gun rights.
    I feel the same about immigration. This is my line in the sand. If the folks who favor this anti-immigrant shit are good libertarians, I'm apparently going to have to find a new word to describe myself. Not that I won't be happy to work with you good libertarians on reducing the capital gains tax and shit. But sorry, anyone who believes in the magic voodoo of national borders and that I can't invite anyone I want to Casa del Citizen Nothing or give a job to anyone I want is certainly no CitizenNothingtarian.

  • EMp||

    Citizen Nothing - do you ever stop to think about the implications of vast numbers of people have no concern about civics or tradition being imported into the country? If all you want is some hard-working, low-paid expendable worker-drones who get out of your site after work - that is probably any business owners ideal, but enough of those new arrivals become members of identity-politicians voter rolls. I think to most Americans that means, instinctively, voting in more plutocratic demagogues who will eventually draw up more legislation to create more social-welfare programs to pay back their constituency for re-electing them. And then the cycle gets repeated over and over and over. Eventually your stance on capital gains will not matter a hoot because demographically and politically the country is transformed into a fiefdom of which (if we are not already there) the majority demands government subsistance and will be given such due to a majority rule that has been set by the new national ethos. JMO. :-/

  • EMp||

    Sorry about the Zeppelin-esque Ramble-on.... :-)

  • Citizen Nothing||

    You are obviously a good libertarian, EMp. I'm more than happy to work with you on eliminating the Fed or legalizing hemp socks or any other issue we have in common.

  • EMp||

    HA-haa!! Thanks - you are a great CitizenNothingtarian. I just think that freedom without laws is destined for anarchy. Distrust Big business ALMOST as much as Big government.

  • EMp||

    BTW - hemp belts and hats are more to my liking - the socks have a bad after-taste for some unscrutable reason....

  • MWG||

    "do you ever stop to think about the implications of vast numbers of people have no concern about civics or tradition being imported into the country?"

    It sounds like you're arguing against naturalization. That's not the same thing as immigration.

  • oncogenesis||

    do you ever stop to think about the implications of vast numbers of people have no concern about civics or tradition being imported into the country?

    Yeah, I hate the Irish, too.

  • ||

    Amen.

  • ||

    And Jennifer is just fucking wrong. I lived there for over 10 years. The idea that the Kingman or Bibsee PD is going to just walk up to you and ask you for your papers is just stupid bullshit even if you are brown.

    Most of the people I ever talked to about the subject, and yeah I know this is only anecdotal, weren't against immigration per se, just illegal immigration. Most of the people I ever talked to were of the attitude, "sure, come on over...just do it legally."

    And, to a certain extent, I don't buy the rascism. Many of the Hispanics have been incorporated into this wonderful homogenization called america. they wear the same middle class J.C. Penny's and Ross' crap, drive Ford focus's just like everyone else. I doubt that any of these will be asked for their papers.

    It will be urban punk looking gangbangers in the low-riders with that ridiculous fucking looking sideways cap driving around at 2:00 a.m. that are going to be accosted for their papers.

    Now Maricopa county Sheriffs....that is a completely different story. You probably have to give some kind of secret white-power oath to become a member of that society.

    And the highway patrol, which is now losing positions anyway, are going to do what they've always done when they come across a coyote with a large load. They will detain them and call the border patrol...just like they've always been doing.

  • ||

    Most of the people I ever talked to about the subject, and yeah I know this is only anecdotal, weren't against immigration per se, just illegal immigration. Most of the people I ever talked to were of the attitude, "sure, come on over...just do it legally."

    That's like saying "I don't mind people smoking marajuana. Just do it legally."

    Do you not realize that it is NOT POSSIBLE for these people to immigrate legally?

    Are you really so clueless as to what the legal immigration laws actually are?

    There are three main ways to immigrate:
    1. Be a refugee.
    2. Get an employer to spend three years proving that he can't hire an American to do a job that he wants to hire you for. (Impossible for virtually anyone without a college degree)
    3. Have a family member sponsor you. You have to have relatives who are legal residents for this.

    So what's an unskilled laborer with no American relatives supposed to do? Oh yeah, win the fucking visa lottery. The one where there's one visa for everyone 10,000 applicants.

  • ||

    Not impossible. Just very improbable. There is a fucking differnce and I am compentent enough to understand it even if you aren't.

  • ||

    That's like saying "I don't mind people smoking marajuana. Just do it legally."

    Do you not realize that it is NOT POSSIBLE for these people to immigrate legally?

    You know, with acute written comprehension skills like this, you should become a constitutional scholar. Yes, most of the people I talked to were of the idea "siure, come on over, just do it legally." And yes, I am quite sure that THOSE PEOPLE, are not aware of the cluster fuck that is immigration.

    But I do, having had a modicum of legal training. So take your 'tude and shove it up Warty's ass.

  • Warty||

    Awesome, I love 'ludes!

    Oh wait, 'tude. Fuck off.

  • ||

    Um, yeah, so these people saying "sure, come on over ... just do it legally." might as well apprendix that with a low guffaw.

    Yeah, come on over legally, if you win the fuckin' lottery HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

  • ||

    Your missing the fucking point. The point is the most Arizonans, the ones I talked to, weren't for the proposition that "NO MORE IMMIGRANTS EVER CROSS THE BORDER EVER."

    Most were willing to allow immigration, just in an orderly, legal fashion. Is the current legal strata fucked up? Of course it is. Everything the federal government touches turns to shit. These stupid cocksuckers at the federal level aren't even competent enough to print enough coupons for digital-to-analog converters.

  • fish||

    Then maybe you rattle some scumbag legislators cage about improving the system instead of assuming that I'm a fucking racist as your default position!

  • ||

    New York City's stop and frisk policy forbids racial profiling. How's that working out?

  • ||

    If you want to stop illegal immigration you do so at the border, and by cutting entitlement spending which will force deadbeats of their lazy asses and work, then their is less demand for illegals. But this bill is in direct violation of the fourth ammendment of the Constitution, and is a slippery slope towards a national I.D. card.

  • ||

    Where is this entitlement spending? I was unemployed for 18 months and all I ever got was a lousy $200.00 in food stamps. No cash assistance. No free houseing other than a homeless shelter. i couldn't get unemployment, that I fucking paid for, becuase I didn't have a car a was thus, considered unavailable for employment.

  • ||

    The interviewed the Police Chief of Tucson on NPR last night.

    He was not thrilled about having these powers at all.

  • ||

    This whole Arizona thing demonstrates one huge problem with immigration: immigrants will move in, get political power, and use it in ways prior citizens find objectionable.

    After all, 60% of the US-born residents of Arizona were born outside Arizona. They immigrate to Arizona, find the way Arizonans had lived for decades to be objectionable to them, and get these crappy laws passed.

  • ||

    ""Wasn’t the system of internal passports one of the most distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union and apartheid-era South Africa?""

    I doubt it. You really think that was the problem in those places?

  • Skip||

    Both the Democratic Party and Big Business want to turn the country into Latin America. But the rich guys are too dumb to realize that once the Democrats pick up a couple million new parasites, their profits will go bye bye anyway.

  • EMp||

    It may sound paranoid - but I think a lot of people in this country are wary of that future scenario (specifically with the warm and fuzzy sounding 'family reunification' issue)and putting the pressure on these pols... hence the new law in AZ.

  • ||

    This will be an important test. I am not alone in thinking that "libertarians/Libertarians" are simply GOP younger people who want to smoke marijuana.

    If "libertarian" means anything, it must mean that a private citizens do not have to prove to authorities that he is not guilty.

    All those Nazi movies, "Your papers, please!"

    But since this is Arizona and the new frightened post-911 "Please let us give up all our freedoms" America, the authorities will not say "Please".

    Sheriff Joe would never stoop so low as to respect anybody but a member of his entourage.

  • ||

    This will be an important test. I am not alone in thinking that "libertarians/Libertarians" are simply GOP younger people who want to smoke marijuana.

    If "libertarian" means anything, it must mean that a private citizens do not have to prove to authorities that he is not guilty.

    All those Nazi movies, "Your papers, please!"

    But since this is Arizona and the new frightened post-911 "Please let us give up all our freedoms" America, the authorities will not say "Please".

    Sheriff Joe would never stoop so low as to respect anybody but a member of his entourage.

  • ||

    "I am not alone in thinking that 'libertarians/Libertarians' are simply GOP younger people who want to smoke marijuana."

    Or you may be alone and only feel that you aren't because you double post.

  • ||

    Wasn’t the system of internal passports one of the most distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union and apartheid-era South Africa?

    More of a symptom than a disease, I think.

    And just to be clear (again) - I really, really don't like this kind of "Paperen, bitte" laws. But the real problem here isn't the enforcement; its the fucked up system that makes this kind of enforcement inevitable.

    Arizona has a pretty serious problem because of the fucked up immigration system we have. Arizona has practically no options in trying to deal with this problem than what it has done here. I don't think this is an open and shut "Lookee there at what those racist fascists have done now" type of a deal. The government is failing at its most basic responsibility. I'm not willing to say it should do nothing about it.

  • .||

    Arizona has a pretty serious problem because of the fucked up immigration system we have.

    No, Arizona doesn't have a problem because of our fucked up immigration system - Arizona and the rest of the US has a problem because of the fucked up countries to the south of us who make life hell for their own peoples.

  • EMp||

    Hear, hear....

  • ||

    E-fucking-xactly. I don't like these laws. I am of the open borders stripe.

    A couple of days ago we had a thread about fucking pigs from 3 different agencies (2 federal) ruffing up an Amish farmer for selling raw milk.

    IMHO, Arizona is playing a game of chicken with the Feds to see who will blink. And I don't blame the Arizona legislature for wanting to protect it citizens from a problem that I've seen with my own fucking eyes (Read: if I had a dollar for every illegal I had to dodge on Highway 80, I could get really drunk).

    It isn't going to ever happen, but the feds need to stop jacking off with the former and dealing with the later.

  • Liberal Democrat||

    Everybody knows that this bill is racist and turns Arizona into police state. Furthermore, it distracts everybody from the serious problems we're having in Chicago because of all the guns that are going off by themselves and killing all the disadvantaged children. What we need is a police state in Illinois, not Arizona!

  • ||

    the drug war and 50 years of growing left wing entitlement programs are the problem.

    Mexicans and free labor markets are not.

  • ||

    sorry for some reason i still think it is 1990...

    "50 years of growing left wing entitlement programs"

    should be "70+ years"

  • ||

    If you want to "do something" about violence, focus police efforts on crimes which are mala in se, not malum prohibitum. Arizona's liberalized CCW law, which allows Vermont-style carry ( no need to ask for permission from the government ) is a good step. But spending police efforts asking "where are your papers?" and "are you carrying any politically-incorrect substances?" diverts resources which could be used to fight violent crime.

  • Barry G.||

    "Get me out of this motherf*cking coffin!"

  • guy in the back row||

    So this law and the attendant hoorah is all due to the goodies we give away, like health care, schooling, food stamps and the like?

    Guess the only thing to do is scuttle the 4th amendment.

  • ||

    "What would Arizona’s revered libertarian icon, Barry Goldwater, say?"

    Hmm. Maybe this: "I don't like this law because many people who have been here for generations may feel targeted and that's just wrong.

    And another thing. The arrogant, liberal city slicker who asked the question can take her self-righteousness and shove it up her prissy ass."

  • Michael||

    Dead as this thread may be, I've decided to announce here that I am no longer pro-immigration.

    As of this very moment I am pro-freedom-of-movement.

    All you nativist jerkofficers can gobble my schwantz.

  • ||

    Most illegals (well, let's say non latinos) don't tremble in their beds nightly fearing immigration raids or big brother watching their every moves. We're pissed about the INS though, which is like DMV on crack. My green card application process took 5,6 years, and I'd told I was one of the lucky ones. It's so unbelievably random - some people apparently get it in a matter of months, while others wait 10 years.

    Remember, most Asians actually fly in here legally. They become illegal when their tourist or work visas expire. I don't think most Americans would mind living with illegals if their legalization was imminent, say within a year or two. But INS don't work that way. Seriously, La Raza is wasting their time picking their fights with Republicans and Arizona.

  • ||

    No they aren't. The Race knows exactly what it is doing. Transnational demagoguery.

  • ||

    Arizona, bereft of L. Greenhouse!

  • Michael Kielsky||

    This law is fundamentally incompatible with Libertarianism -- that based on mere suspicion, the police may detain someone until they have proven, to the (standard less) satisfaction of the police that they are here legally -- that police are absolved from any willful or negligent abuse of their power -- that police are liable if they fail to use this power.

    The awesome power it grants to law enforcement, without commensurate responsibility -- in fact, by the explicit banishment of accountability -- is entirely incompatible with a government of limited powers and citizenry endowed with inalienable individual rights -- when government's purpose (see Ariz. Const., Art. II, Sect. 2) is for the protection of individual rights.

    -- Michael Kielsky
    Chairman, Arizona Libertarian Party
    Candidate, Maricopa County Attorney
    Counselor & Attorney at Law

  • Das Boot||

    John McCain and John Kyl, of Arizona's Nazi Party want to turn Tubac into Checkpoint Charlie...They're in bed with the steel and concrete companies who want federal pork to destroy riparian areas and divide cities in half. Who needs the fear-mongering of idiot sellouts who worship invisible masters while benefiting finacially from beer distributorships? Old Stupid Hypocrites are the worst kind. The wall didn't work for East Berlin and demanding that everyone carry papers didn't work for Hitler. Why are stupid old people once again demonizing an entire population? In 2000 it was "The Terra-sists!" and in 2004 they vilified "The Gays" now it's "The Latinos" who are the problem they want to galvanize everyone against. Why can't Arizona conservatives prepare for the future instead of just shooting themselves in the foot over and over (like idiot with a gun in a bar)?

  • LOL||

    Cindy McCain is NOT addicted to painkillers!!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement