Driving While White

During the height of L.A.'s Rampart scandal–in which a rogue unit of anti-gang cops orchestrated the deportation of hundreds of illegal immigrants and then used deportation threats to elicit all kinds of phony informant testimony and to cover up their own brutally criminal behavior in a heavily immigrant neighborhood–I happened to take a slow drive through the Rampart area to gawk at the few remaining Victorian mansions still standing amidst the graffiti-strewn stucco and open-air smack dealers. Through distracted confusion at a semi-tricky intersection I ended up running a red light, right in front of an LAPD patrol car.

"What are you doing in this neighborhood?" one of the cops asked. I told them, apologized for my mistake, and they...sent me on my way. "Be more careful next time!", etc. It was the most memorable data point in something I've noticed ever since cutting off my hippie hair and losing all the terrible earrings: When you look "normal," interaction with police–or "lawful contact," in the Arizona parlance–tends to go much smoother. Better yet, it rarely takes place at all.

You can observe this phenomenon not just behind the wheel, but out on the street. I jaywalk probably every day (though only when the coast is totally clear), and frequently do so right in front of The Man (him being so prevalent in the District of Columbia). Though I got ticketed once during the longhair days, the only time a cop has said boo ever since was when I blatantly crossed over to the D.C. Convention Center in front of a half-dozen policemen standing there looking at me. "Use the light next time," one said, and I was on my way. Good thing I wasn't some dude walking in L.A.'s Skid Row.

I mention this trivia because Steve Chapman had an important point this morning about the question over what could constitute "legal contact" or probable cause in Arizona. "On the average car," Chapman said a cop once told him, "he could find half a dozen reasons to write up additional citations if provoked. Any of those would serve equally well to justify a stop." When you have thousands upon thousands of criminal laws, chances are non-trivial that you're breaking one of them as we speak, or at least can be seen as possibly breaking one of them, in case you happen to cross paths with a motivated law enforcement officer. The "driving while black" phenomenon is not some Al Sharpton urban legend.

Of all the misguided apologia I've seen for Arizona's papers-please law, chief among them has been the notion that somehow, some way, this won't lead to selective enforcement based on personal appearance. For instance, American Spectator writer (and Reason contributor) W. James Antle III:

Far from authorizing local police officers to pull Hispanics from crowds at random and demand to see proof of legal residency, the law requires a prior "legal contact" -- that is, there needs to already be something going on, like an arrest or a traffic stop. The law specifically bans race and ethnicity as the sole grounds for a "reasonable suspicion" of illegal presence in the United States.

Or the American Conservative's Daniel Larison:

[T]he only people who have reason to complain about this law are those who are here illegally and those who believe that immigration laws should simply not be enforced.

The whole only-people-with-reason-to-fear argument, to put it mildly, has not been a historical friend of liberty. Nor is it usually accurate. If you are a legal resident immigrant from Mexico, you have plenty of "reason to complain" about this law, because now it's more likely that you are going to be pulled over by an Arizona cop. And every transaction with a cop, especially if you are viewed as non-normal, is an opportunity for a negative outcome, from detainment to car impoundment (even if you're never charged with a crime!) to something worse. 

For those clinging to the fantasy that the law's "may not solely consider race, color or national origin" provision will somehow prevent profiling of Mexican-looking people, three points: 1) Steve Chapman's six likely infractions by every driver is a built-in workaround for that "may not solely." When you have thousands of laws, it's not hard finding one that justifies the profiling. 2) Even in jurisdictions that didn't just pass new laws targeting illegal immigrants, when you lower the bar for "legal contact" you increase the likelihood of targeting minorities. In the police empowerment zone that is New York City, a "stop-and-frisk" policy that has averaged 1,260 legal contacts per day has been enforced thusly: "A disproportionate 84 percent of [...] stops involved blacks or Hispanics; only 10 percent involved white people."

But the biggest blind spot in conservatives' trust-the-government approach concerning Arizona is the easily discoverable fact that local law enforcement has already been engaging in the behavior that the apologists say won't happen. Here's a Phoenix New Times story from two years ago:

[Maricopa County Sheriff Joe] Arpaio began sponsoring "crime suppression sweeps" earlier this year, bringing hundreds of deputies and volunteer posse members to heavily Hispanic areas. Residents were pulled over for minor traffic offenses and questioned about their immigration status.

I have sympathy for people who are freaked out by desperate immigrants and ruthless smugglers trampling over their property in southern Arizona, and as I've said elsewhere, us pro-immigrant types too easily skate over rule-of-law objections. Federal immigration policy is a failure, and poses real public policy challenges that no amount of righteous indignation and/or handwaving makes disappear.

But anti-illegal immigration crackdowns almost always end up restricting freedom for the rest of us. And giving cops more power is almost always felt more on the receiving end by people–including people just as law-abiding as you and I–who don't look like the norm. Remember, the stated goal of the new law is "to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona." Those who think you can surgically accomplish "attrition" without inflaming and driving out legal residents, too, are kidding themselves. I doubt that many Arizonans themselves believe it.

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.

  • ||

    I'm sure it will be soon enough that quotas are established to ensure that geeky white guys and Asian A students are arrested at a rate comparable to the disadvantaged, so you gotta take advantage of the main perk of being a non-ruling class white while it still exists. Wear a suit and tie when you have your driver's license and passport pictures taken; dress out of the preppy handbook any time you go through Customs or any other government proctological exercise. Life will be much easier. I once smuggled in a bunch of Cuban cigars without a hitch because I had the great luck to be on a flight with a bunch of raggedy hippies and some bitchy grandmas who were making noise about how long the inspectors were taking. I could have snuck Manuel Noriega in the country while the inspectors were opening a fresh box of latex gloves for my fellow flight members.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    I still use my old sea bag when traveling to foreign countries. It drives my wife crazy, but it gets me through customs without a hitch.

    Even foreign countries see the sea bag and fast lane me.

  • Brian||

    Those who think you can surgically accomplish "attrition" without inflaming and driving out legal residents, too, are kidding themselves.

    My guess is that the Arizonans who voted for this don't necessarily care much for the legal hispanics either, so they're not all that concerned about them being inflamed and leaving.

  • ||

    My guess is you're just guessing.

  • ||

    And by the way, Arizonans didn't vote for this, this bill was voted on by the legislature.

  • Pedant||

    Members of the legislature also are Arizonans, at least in Arizona. But you did a good investigative job figuring out the OP was guessing.

  • ||

    You're full of it, Brian.

    About 70% of Arizonans approve of this law, and they can't all be white.

  • ¢||

    Those who think you can surgically accomplish "attrition" without inflaming and driving out legal residents, too, are kidding themselves.

    Really?

    Did getting hassled by The Man make you leave D.C.? It made me leave San Francisco and New York (along with most of the black people there).

    Does your no longer getting hassled by The Man in D.C., and your knowing why, make you not go there? I look richer now (though I'm not), so I assume the SF and NY PDs wouldn't be mysteriously drawn to me anymore, but I've refused a handful of returns to each of those cities, because fuck them.

    There's a line. As well as I can discern it, it's "I might die," or "Those fuckers were gonna kill me and get away with it. I got lucky once." The AZ law doesn't get to that line.

    The cop AZ Mexican 84830B (illegal) meets up with is a violent racist or he's not. There's a lot of violent racist cops (that's the job, pretty much), but this law won't make any, or even further empower the ones who are already there. They could always check AZ Mexican 84830B (illegal)'s citizenship and refer him to the feds if they wanted to (or beat him to death, if they wanted to). Now they're obligated (in theory) to refer him to someone else.

    There's no new "I might die."

  • ||

    It didn't make him leave DC, but as he explained, he now "looks normal". It's much easier to cut off the hippie hair than to make yourself non-hispanic...

  • ||

    I live in Az so I've given this a bit of thought. I don't think this law is the way to solve the problem, but it might just rattle enough cages to get something happening. Maybe that's what the intention of the law really is? AZ can't solve the problems from illegal immigration on it's own in any case.

  • dfd||

    If you don't think a law is good on it's face or the way to "solve the problem" (whatever the problem really is) then doing so to "rattle enough cages" is a stupid fucking reason to pass another law. Unbelievable.

  • ||

    Not at all unbelievable. I didn't say it was a good reason to pass it did I? It's here in any case.

  • ||

    Also, I think immigration should be legal.

  • ||

    Immigration IS legal. Sneaking across the border without papers is not. Please learn to make that distinction.

  • Zeb||

    "Immigration IS legal"

    Not for the people sneaking across the border. That's why they have to sneak across the border. Or do you think they do it for fun?

  • ||

    I gather you think we should automatically let everybody come here who wants to, and give them all the benefits we can?

    Immigration is legal. There are formalities. Sneaking across the border is not a proper way of applying for immigrant status.

  • trizzlor||

    I've seen this sentiment a lot but it just doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't a bad law just rattle the wrong cages - in other words, wouldn't it just provide additional evidence that the anti-immigration side is wrong and that the laws they propose should be treated with suspicion? After the inevitable hispanic granny has to spend a night in jail while her husband gets her passport I can't imagine anyone looking at this law and saying "well, their heart was in the right place". If anything, there will be a backlash to the enforcement that will only set it back further. That's certainly been the case in California.

  • ||

    Whose cages are you writing about rattling?

  • Chrispy||

    This might be a little off topic, but I've been wondering whether "legal contact" is defined in Arizona law. It's legal to walk up to someone at random and say hello, so in plain English that would be a form of legal contact.

    I assume that the term is defined somewhere. But if it isn't, the whole argument about having to already be stopped for doing something wrong before the police can check your status would be nullified.

  • Anonymous Backstabber||

    I was thinking the same thing too. I haven´t RTF bill, but it -is- perfectly legal for a cop to walk up to you and start asking you questions. Like, ¨what are you doing here¨ and so forth. You can refuse to answer, but his contact was legal to start with. So, I´m betting that whatever the law says, cops will have wide latitude to conduct random interrogations as they please.

  • ||

    I have sympathy for people who are freaked out by desperate immigrants and ruthless smugglers trampling over their property in southern Arizona.

    This is snark, right? Is that how you define "sympathy"? By creating a characture? Not people trespassing upon private property or anything but those panty wetters who are afraid of the brown skinned people?

    I guess if you didn't "sympathize" with them you would have simply gone straight to calling them racist?

  • Matt Welch||

    What?

  • Colin||

    +1

  • ||

    I can't read your mind, Matt, only your columns. Sympathy implies that you actually give some minor credence to someones pain. While "ruthless smugglers" are a small part of the problem, that is hardly the only claim of those opposed to your position.

    Using the term "desperate immigrants" also implies that the opposition to these people isn't that they trash fences or leave a ton of trash or steal things or kill livestock, it is simply opposition to helping the desperate. Try this:

    I have sympathy for those whose property rights are being abused

    See, this admits that there are people whose property rights are not being secured, for instance.

    In a free market, immigrants both legal and illegal, compete for jobs with citizens

    This would imply actual sympathy for those whose are affected when we secure the rights of any who can spatially place themselves here. Bragging that you have knowingly hired illegal aliens doesn't really seem particularly sympathetic to the citizen or legal alien who would presumably cost more. Simply more jobs Americans won't do?

    Again, can't read your mind but *I* haven't ever read an iota of "sympathy" from you.

    Perhaps it is a comprehension problem on my part.

  • Matt Welch||

    Yes, it is a comprehension problem.

  • ||

    Really? FoE says it pretty well below.

    You have sympathy for those whose rights are infringed by illegal immigrants?

    Other than saying "I have sympathy for" do you have two sentences in a row in the last year outlining those complaints without derogatory adjectives?

    You have every right not to give a shit about whomever you wish. Your writing does not reflect your claims of "sympathy".

  • Matt Welch||

    No, it really is a reading comprehension problem.

  • ||

    sym·pa·thy:
     a harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another.

    Yes, I am certain that it is.

  • JUST A NORMAL GUY (THE ORIG)||

    WELL IT LOOKS LIKE MARSHA GILL JUST TOTALEY 'OWNED' MATT WELCH BY USING THE DICTIONARY. WELL I WANDER HOW WELCH EVEN GOT HIS JOB AS A WRITER WHEN HE CA'NT USE A DICTIONARY. WELCH PROBABLEY THINKS THAT MARSHA GILL IS JUST A CHARACTURE OF A WRITER BUT AT LEAST MARSHA KNOW HOW TO USE ONE. AND SPEAKING OF ONE THEIR'S LITTERALLY ONLY ONE DEFINISION FOR THE WORD 'SYMPATHY' SO MARSHA GIL IS RIGHT.

  • Warty||

    This gets a gold star of cruelty. Outstanding work.

  • ||

    Really, seriously, stop "helping" me.

  • ||

    I was going to ask for links where you recognized the other side's arguments as being worthy of consideration, but it looks like Gill beat me to it.

    But Gill has got you on the use of "desperate" in that sentence. The desperation or lack thereof of the immigrants has nothing to do with why people don't like them trampling on their property.

  • dfd||

    Bragging that you have knowingly hired illegal aliens doesn't really seem particularly sympathetic to the citizen or legal alien who would presumably cost more.

    Well no shit. But why in hell should we have sympathy for someone who would charge me more for the same thing as someone else? And when those who would charge me more seek to use the power of the state to secure their ability to extort higher than market returns, sympathy is the last thing that comes to mind for those implicit welfare pigs. People who want to extract rents at the expense of another human based on a purely arbitrary characteristic of birth are the real criminals.

  • ||

    And when those who would charge me more seek to use the power of the state to secure their ability to extort higher than market returns

    No, they are subject to onerous laws. Matt wasn't able to hire illegals because they charged less money for the same service, he was able to hire them for less because they basically are avoiding minimum wage laws.

    I am completely opposed to minimum wage laws. Citizens and legal immigrants, however, are subject to the market forces those laws create. I totally understand why Matt did what he did. I am not saying it is evil. It is not sympathetic to non-illegals, is all I am saying.

  • Matt Welch||

    Avoiding minimum wage laws by paying more than $10 an hour? OK....

  • ||

    Minimum wage laws, Social Security Taxes, OSHA regs, etc., ad nauseam, ad infinitum, ad infinitum nauseam.

    Let's face it: you broke the law for your own greed, and the lack of enforcement of existing law let you do that.

  • zoltan||

    I break laws that forbid marijuana use for by own greed. Greed for the green, that is. And the lack of enforcement of that existing law let me do it (actually I am pretty good at sneaking around too). But hey, great argument!

  • Tman||

    Exactly the problem I have when Matt raises this point. I don't disagree with him that there are some potentially troubling precedents that could be raised by this law, and on the surface the law appears to be a straight up profiling instruction manual.

    But other than expressing "sympathy" which, besides being the wrong word (you sympathize? you too have had a Mexican drug cartel come over the border and kidnap your children?) Matt doesn't even begin to offer any alternative solution to the problem that Arizonans are facing.

    Until I hear what your alternative is for addressing a serious problem that is infecting a larger part of Arizona each day, all of your bluster about how anti-freedom and anti-liberty this new law is is simply fapping in the breeze.

    Come out with it. What's your alternative?

  • Chrispy||

    I don't see why a person necessarily has to have been a victim of Mexican drug violence in order to sympathize with people who have been.

    And I can't speak for Matt, but here's my solution: legalize drugs.

  • Tman||

    I was being a grammar Nazi. He should have used empathized.

  • Tman||

    And now I realize that I am the grammar doofus. Matt had the word right, he should use sympathy, NOT empathy.

  • Matt Welch||

    It's all good. There's some iron Internet law about calling out gramar/speling....

  • Tman||

    Yeah, I shouldn't have gone there to begin with. I hate it when people call out my grammar so it's pretty damn hypocritical of me to do the same.

  • ||

    Aw, you overdid it.

  • Tman||

    You spelled overdid wrong.

  • joe'z law||

    Hey! I'm doing God's work! Ask Yglesias..

  • Ted S.||

    Wouldn't that make you a usage Nazi instead? :-p

  • Word usage nazi||

    That should be "word usage Nazi", not "grammar Nazi". Grammar has nothing to do with the unnecessary correction you attempted to make.

  • ||

    Freeing up immigration eliminates the private trespass issue.

  • ||

    By creating a characture?

    I can't read your mind, Marshall, only your blog comments. Do you mean "caricature" or "charcuterie"? I hope you mean that latter, because I could go for some nice, fresh homemade Thuringer Bratwurst about now.

  • ||

    Do you mean "caricature" or "charcuterie"?

    Why, both, of course.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...and as I've said elsewhere, us pro-immigrant types too easily skate over rule-of-law objections.

    I actually hadn't read that acknowledgement before here so it's good to see now. While the Arizona law is all kinds of bad, there are, in fact, legitimate immigration concerns that the federal government has so far refused to address, perhaps simply because no one can agree what to do.

    The political left sees a possible new and reliable voter base, and the political right sees cheap labor. The citizen left sees an overly romanticized view of the plight of the illegals, and the citizen right sees a wildly overblown picture of cop killers and drug dealers. (Citizen right seems to have prevailed in Arizona.)

    In the midst of all this, each side is ignoring the others' legitimate concerns, and when that happens the debate suffers.

  • ||

    legitimate immigration concerns that the federal government has so far refused to address, perhaps simply because no one can agree what to do.

    They can't liberalize immigration laws because that would infuriate whites in border states and labor unions. They can't strictly enforce existing law because of the growing Hispanic population that the two parties are jostling to capture (as the GOP did with evangelicals and the Dems with the blacks).

    Now if you ask me, it's sad as hell if Hispanic citizens truly will vote for whoever promises not to enforce the law.

  • ||

    I think they might vote for whoever intends not to hassle them. Can't blame them for that.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    They can't enforce existing laws mostly because ICE is totally incompetent.

    I met my wife in college and when we got married it was a nightmare. If it is hard for someone who has a bachelors degree and a native born husband to become a citizen think how much worse it is for a poor worker from Mexico.

    The only time I ever went to the INS office and wasn't fuming by the time I left was the one time where they gave us a bunch of advice on how to handle our marriage. Of course it turns out that the advice they gave us was later used against us. We had to pay a lot of money to file various waivers for all the infractions we committed following their advice.

    If I hadn't gone through the process, I would probably be pretty anti-illegal immigrant. However, after my experiences, I sympathize with them. There really is no way they can legally immigrate.

  • Mo||

    ICE is incompetent because they're not accountable to many voters. The only voters they're accountable to are people like you and my buddy. An immigrant can't angrily write to their Congressman because they were treated shabby.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Exactly. In my case, I was a citizen who could have complained and not been deported, but my new bride sure could have been if I pushed it.

    After 18 years of marriage, I'd be much more willing to push the envelope....

  • ||

    It's a stupid, offensive, dangerous law and all the wide-eyed insistence on how cops won't use it as an excuse to profile are bullshit, and the people making said wide-eyed protestations know it's bullshit, and these are the same people who (rightly) believe you can't trust the government not to do what a law says it can't do.

    However.

    I don't think that a majority of the bill's supporters are motivated by racism, I don't think it's an excuse to ethnically cleanse Arizona. I think a lot of people in Arizona, and New Mexico, and Texas (I live in Houston) are scared and angry and frustrated. The border area is in a state of anarchy, and not the good kind. The Mexican state has lost even the appearance of control, drug gangs have free rein and the violence is spilling over the border more and more each day. That's not some right-wing fantasy. Anyone who's been paying attention to the news realizes that.

    A government's most fundamental duty - many people would say a government's only fundamental duty, and purpose - is to protect its citizens. That's the only reason we need government. All the other stuff people can accomplish better on their own.

    The US government has failed spectacularly, through both Republican and Democrat administrations, to protect citizens on the border. And when citizens on the border - I'm thinking of South Texas ranchers but I'm sure it happens in New Mexico and Arizona as well - take steps to protect themselves and their property, they are prosecuted and sued by the government whose duty it is to defend them in the first place.

    This is not, at its root, about immigration. If it were only about immigration, then people living on the border of Canada would be freaking out about undocumented Canadians. But Canada doesn't use the United States as an excuse not to clean up their own failed government, and Canadian drug gangs don't murder people in restaurants in northern Montana, and Canadian immigrants don't destroy the property of northern Washington landowners.

    The law has forced the US government to pay attention to border security. That's a good thing.

  • ||

    Just a quick note: Thank you for spelling "free rein" correctly.

  • ||

    The US government has failed spectacularly, through both Republican and Democrat administrations, to protect citizens on the border. And when citizens on the border - I'm thinking of South Texas ranchers but I'm sure it happens in New Mexico and Arizona as well - take steps to protect themselves and their property, they are prosecuted and sued by the government whose duty it is to defend them in the first place.

    I'd say a majority of citizens living on the border likely oppose this law as well as building a wall.

  • j||

    Matt,

    The reason the cop asked you "What are you doing in this neighborhood?" is that if you were white and driving in the Rampart area at that time you were probably buying drugs. He didn't let you go because you were white. He took a quick look in your car, a look at you, and decided you too much of a nerd to be buying dope.

  • Matt Welch||

    Totally true, despite the abject shittiness of the car itself.

  • peachy||

    Fortunately, he didn't know you were a libertarian. :)

  • ||

    Your car probably wasn't worth seizing.

    I was thinking solicitation rather than drugs, but that too.

  • ||

    Yeah, that's what I thought the post was going to be about at first. Here in Chicago if you're white and driving through certain neighborhoods you're pretty much guaranteed to get pulled over if a cop sees you.

  • Coeus||

    It's the same in Houston.

  • wayne||

    This is incredible. Are you saying that WHITE PEOPLE are profiled? This is where I draw the line.

  • ||

    It's possible he thought Matt was a lost out of towner who needed to be shown the way out of a rough neighborhood. Let's not immediately jump to negative conclusions.

  • ||

    And perhaps gilded monkeys are going to come flying out of your posterior orifice Tulpa. You give the motto "To Protect and To Serve" way too much consideration.

  • T||

    The cops already have the power to stop any of us for no real valid reason. It's easy as hell if you're driving a car, and only slightly harder if you're walking around. The cop simply needs to have memorized a few pre-approved phrases that are basically unfalsifiable in court. ("driving erratically" is one example) Now when they decide to hassle you, they'll check your immigration status. If J. Random AZCop was inclined to hassle you before, he'll still hassle you. If he wasn't, he won't. If you piss him off, just like before, all bets are off.

    Do I think it's a good idea? No. Is it the end of the world? No. Does our immigration system need more help than anybody is willing to give it? Oh yes indeedy.

    But, isn't this the idea behind federalism? We let AZ do something and see how it turns out so the other states can decide what to do?

  • prolefeed||

    The idea behind federalism doesn't include trashing a portion of the bill of rights.

  • T||

    Which portion is being trashed, specifically?

  • Mo||

    See: Amendment, 4th

  • Mo||

    See: Amendment, 4th

  • ||

    Only if you neglect that portion of the 4th which says we'll be free of "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Searches and other enforcement measures have had to meet a reasonableness test since the country was founded.

  • ||

    Allow me some thread-jacking.

    E-mail sparks a furor over race at Harvard Law

    Here is a link to the Boston Globe, and much more context at Feministe.

  • ||

    The degree of p.c. intolerance at that Feministe site is frightening.

  • Jennifer||

    Now that the statute of limitations has expired, I can confess: one day back when I was in grad school a cop pulled me over for running a red light (it had just turned yellow when I entered the intersection, I swear!). Since I am and was a harmless-looking little white woman who acted very apologetically I got a ticket, but that was all. Given the town I was in I'm pretty sure that had I been black or Hispanic, even behaving with identical deference, the cop would've searched my car, and had he done that I would've also been arrested and charged with possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, and (since I'd've failed a drug test) driving under the influence (even though I actually wasn't).

    Years later, working a newspaper job where I had to type out the police blotter reports every Sunday, I noticed there were days when NONE of those listings were what libertarians would consider actual crimes, like theft or assault; the overwhelming majority of them were for possession of drugs and paraphernalia, with most of those arrests made at traffic stops ... and mostly of people with Hispanic names.

  • ||

    As you describe some of those Sundays, it appears that the cops discriminated against latinos.

    Is it fair to assume that you did not know the racial makeup of the arrestees?

    I have no doubt that many of those arrested were black or bi-racial; however, we should not allow the race hustlers or ourselves to conflate race with hispanic.

  • Jennifer||

    Hispanic is not an official race, but let's not pretend "dark hair/dark eyes/dark tan" won't describe the physical appearance of the overwhelming majority of those whom the Arizona cops will consider suspicious.

  • just an obvious point.||

    And let us pretend that Phoenix does not have the highest kidnap rate in the United States.

  • ||

    Only if we pretend that all those kidnappings have to do with anything but the trade in illegal drugs and illegal immigrants.

  • just an obvious point.||

    I support legalizing all drugs. But I do not see that happening any time soon. In the meantime I want people to be able to leave their homes without fear of being killed, kidnapped or raped.

  • ||

    Yet your solution to that problem appears to be not to let them move to Phoenix.

    You think they'll be safer back in Mexico?

  • PIRS||

    Many of the people who are kidnapped are U.S. Citizens who were born here.

  • ||

    1. Cite? That contradicts everything I've been reading about this oft-tossed stat in the last few days.

    2. If they are children of illegal immigrants, the point still holds.

  • PIRS||

    According to this article they also kidnap people who are engaged in illegal activities where large sums of money are often kept in cash such as prostitution and illegal drugs. I don't know about "just an obvious point" but my point is simply to help people understand why some may support this law. If you had a bunch of people kidnapped off the street in your neighborhood it would be tempting to support a law like this. Even if you are not an illegal immigrant, prostitute or drug dealer someone might mistakenly think that you are depending on where you happen to be walking at the time.

    http://www.drugaddictiontreatm.....intensify/

  • ||

    You could have tried to find a more emotive, less fact based article than one at a drug addiction guilt generation site, but you might not have succeeded.

    People in Phoenix, on the other hand, are kind of irritated at being tagged as a kidnapping capital...

    Sgt. Thompson puts it this way, "Does anyone know how many kidnappings there are in Bogotá? In Mogadishu? In Baghdad?"

    For that matter, does anyone know how many there are in Los Angeles? In San Diego? In Houston? Or other big cities in border states?

    "We (in Phoenix) recognized that we have a problem and we are doing something about it," Thompson said. "We're also not afraid to talk about it. A lot of people are."

    Phoenix is upfront about the roughly 370 kidnappings each year linked to criminal smuggling gangs. Other cities may not keep track of the problem in the same way or may simply avoid speaking about it publicly.

    And for good reason. I'm no expert, but "kidnapping capital" doesn't strike me as the best slogan for a tourist town.

    So I asked Thompson if visitors or residents should be quaking in fear.

    "We're talking about drop houses where people who have used coyotes to get into the country may be held for ransom," Thompson said. "And we're talking about the kidnapping of smugglers and associates. I have no fear that my kids or grandkids will be victims. Or that E.J. Montini will be a victim."
  • PIRS||

    "People in Phoenix, on the other hand, are kind of irritated at being tagged as a kidnapping capital..."

    Sure, and I am sure that people in Barrow, Alaska are kind of irritated at being tagged the cold-temperature capital of the United States. Does anyone know how cold it gets in Antarctica? In Northern Russia? In Greenland?

  • ||

    Barrow, Alaska, is the second coldest city in the world after Mexico City.

  • PIRS||

    MikeP,

    Your comparison makes no sense unless you are saying there is never any kidnapping in Mexico City..

  • ||

    Just making a little joke at the expense of those who did so little research that they knew no city in the world had more kidnapping than Mexico City.

  • ||

    ...or, for that matter, that no city in the world had less than Mexico City but more than Phoenix.

  • PIRS||

    I never claimed anything about Mexico City itself.

  • ||

    Sorry. Just assuming everyone knows the whole Phoenix kidnapping meme...

    In what officials caution is now a dangerous and even deadly crime wave, Phoenix, Arizona has become the kidnapping capital of America, with more incidents than any other city in the world outside of Mexico City and over 370 cases last year alone.
  • ||

    Indeed, let's not pretend. Most of the illegal immigrants in Arizona are from Mexico and - gasp! - they look like Mexicans. So it's kind of inevitable that Mexican-looking people will come under more suspicion. And that, as we all know, is a crime against humanity on par with Auschwitz.

  • ||

    I have no doubt that many of those arrested were black or bi-racial; however, we should not allow the race hustlers or ourselves to conflate race with hispanic.

    I seem to recall you calling a certain man of mixed race "the negro communist," so you have to confess to miscegenating in your racial terminology too. But it's nice to see that race is still foremost on your mind.

  • PIRS||

    So, as a white guy of mostly Irish decent and a Mid-West United States accent, what would happen if I started driving around in my car wearing stereotypical Mexican dress? Apart from strange looks that is?

    I have noticed I get treated much better by the police if I am wearing my work clothes which are slacks, dress shoes and a tie. I don’t think this is a race thing. I have been pulled over a couple of times for speeding wearing t-shirt shorts etc. and have gotten tickets. When I wear my dress clothes I am much less likely to get a ticket.

  • ||

    I think you're onto something there. I got pulled over for speeding, wearing a Metallica T shirt and blue jeans, and wound up being handcuffed having my car searched for drugs by the two cops (Comically, it was the most half-assed search ever; anything reasonably well-hidden wouldn't have been found.), because I seemed "too nervous".

    I'm white and the cops were both white, so race had nothing to do with this.

  • ||

    I think you're onto something there. I got pulled over for speeding, wearing a Metallica T shirt and blue jeans, and wound up being handcuffed having my car searched for drugs by the two cops (Comically, it was the most half-assed search ever; anything reasonably well-hidden wouldn't have been found.), because I seemed "too nervous".

    I'm white and the cops were both white, so race had nothing to do with this.

  • Joanne Jacobs||

    My daughter, aged 29, has reddish blonde hair and blue eyes. She has been pulled over by cops but has never gotten a ticket. That includes a recent stop for speeding: Her license and care registration had expired. She explained the DMV had been closed for a furlough day when she went to renew the license and she'd paid for the registration but it had gone to my house instead of her apartment. (True, in both cases.) The cop let her off. I credit Driving While Cute.

    There's no way the Arizona law will be applied to redheads and blondes. Officers will target people who look like the vast majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona. (Maybe they'll listen to the accent before demanding documentation.) A great many Mexican-American citizens and legal immigrants will be pulled over and forced to prove their innocence.

  • ||

    I have lived in Tucson Arizona for over 40 years and I cannot describe what a "Mexican" looks like.

    Furthermore Mexican, Mexican-American, Hispanic, Latino and beaner seem to be interchangeable.

    Is there anyone out there who can provide a description of "Mexican"?

  • Warty||

    Is there anyone out there who can provide a description of "Mexican"?

    Mestizo. If they're indios, they from El Salvador and are in MS-13.

  • Warty||

    They are. Fuck you, preview.

  • ||

    Black hair, brown eyed Spanish speakers who tend to be short, wear cowboy boots, listen to El Grande something or other on the radio and drive pick ups with their last name in the rear window.

    That help? Really, living in Tucson you should get out more.

  • PIRS||

    "Is there anyone out there who can provide a description of "Mexican"?"

    Mexican is a nationality - pure an simple. A citizen of Mexico.

  • ||

    But not a racial category. Mexican is not a race. Nor is latino.

  • PIRS||

    I agree. Mexican is not a race and neither is Latino. A Latino is an Ancient Roman who spoke Latin. Any living Latinos must be very, very old.

  • ||

    If we're going to be pedantic, then Mexicans, Colombians, Argentinans, etc, are just as much "Americans" as those born in the US.

    "Latino" comes from the Spanish word people from Latin America apply to themselves.

  • PIRS||

    "If we're going to be pedantic, then Mexicans, Colombians, Argentinans, etc, are just as much "Americans" as those born in the US."

    Which is very true. As an ancap I reject nationality anyhow.

  • Coeus||

    I don't see any Americans getting offended at being called Irish or Italian. Most lighter brown people in the southwest are of Mexican descent. It's simple probabilities.

  • Coeus||

    This is in reference to the nitpicking in order to find PC terms in this comment thread. The law in question obviously sucks ass, for the many reasons stated above.

  • PIRS||

    Are you accusing my comment about the term "Latino" as being that? That is not my intent. I am just a language nerd. The term "Latin America" is absurd unless you include Quebec in that definition. French is just as much of a Romance language as Spanish or Portuguese. And What about Belize? Belize is an English speaking country and yet it is usually grouped in that definition.

  • Coeus||

    I replied to mike, but the nested comments can make it difficult to follow. Your comment wasn't on my page when I posted. If anything, it's supporting my argument.

  • PIRS||

    OK, no problem.

  • ||

    If you distinguish between "Americans" and Mexicans, then you're committing a far greater linguistic sin.

  • PIRS||

    "If you distinguish between "Americans" and Mexicans, then you're committing a far greater linguistic sin."

    I agree! Yo soy estadounidense!

  • Zeb||

    You could argue that one either way. The US is officially called "The Unied States of America" Mexico, "Estados Unidos Mexicanos". So if you should call people from E.U.M. "Mexicans" then it would make sense to call people from USA, "Americans", even though the term also properly applies to others from the new world.

  • Ted S.||

    I'd be offended to be called Irish or Italian. But then, I'm of mostly Bavarian descent.

  • Coeus||

    That's ok Ted, I've seen this before. I even found a forum dedicated to your condition.
    http://forums.wrongdiagnosis.c.....hp?t=26206

  • Alice Bowie||

    I'm sure most of you Libertarians will join the the likes of Arizona-Republicans in voting out those STUPID LIBERALS in office.

    Just be ready for a lot more of THIS.

    You (Libertarians) have a choice:

    A> Liberals and High Taxes and some government programs and a LITE police state

    B> Conservatives, High Taxes and a POLICE state and a bunch of Jesus Freaks...not to mention WAR and yes, less government that REPUBLICANS like Guliani and the like promote. Ask anyone who lives in NYC.

  • PIRS||

    You are proposing False alternatives. There are more than two choices.

  • Alice Bowie||

    In our last Presidential Election ... who were the alternatives?

  • PIRS||

  • Alice Bowie||

    Voting for any of those people (especially Nadar) is the SAME as voting republican

  • PIRS||

    Alice, tell me, what would happen if a majority or plurality of the voting Public voted for one of those candidates?

  • Alice Bowie||

    Look PIRS,

    I tend to vote for the LIBERAL party in 2012. So, basically, I'm voting republican.

  • PIRS||

    Alice, I do not understand your thinking here. Why does voting for Jones Soda = Voting for Pepsi?

  • PIRS||

    And do you mean the Liberal Party of New York? Or do you live in Australia?

  • Zeb||

    And if you were a Republican, you would say it is the same as voting Democrat (and be just as correct). Either way, it only makes sense if you are assuming that all votes properly belong to either Democrats or Republicans.

  • cynical||

    Of course, voting for anyone in a rigged election is the same as voting for the guy that rigged it, in a certain sense.

    We can't help that the voting system is bullshit and intended to cause people to vote for the second greatest evil rather than for someone that represents their beliefs.

  • Alice Bowie||

    KeWl LaNgUaGe DoOdEr!

  • PIRS||

    ?

  • ||

    -1 for not making any sense.
    +1 for being into the whole brevity thing.

  • ||

    Mexican is a nationality. A citizen of Mexico that infests the United States with their large familys, using up scarce resorces such as Schools and Hospitals and other public services.

  • ||

    Reggie White? That you? Thought you were dead!

  • Macy Clinton||

    Their anchor babies are Mexican-American!

  • ||

    Funny, here in Texas the resources I see them using up are generally shovels, dish washers and jack hammers.

    Eric must want to be a roofer in Phoenix or Houston this August and can't find a job because of those damn Mexicans.

  • Zeb||

    Don't forget the smelly food and too many people in a car. Oh, and they are all reefer addicts who want to steal our women.

  • Jay||

    Good to see Reason finally coming out strong against that insane AZ law.

  • ||

    Sounds reasonable to me dude.

    Lou
    www.logfiles.net.tc

  • Mo||

    My own experience earlier this year was a similarly eye opening experience. Every time I go through customs, I get grilled by the customs officer over why I traveled, my purpose for entering the U.S. (because I live here, in case the American passport didn't tip them off), what my job is, where I live, what the average velocity of an unladen African swallow is and how long I've lived with my current roommate*. Last time I traveled in January, I walked up to the desk with my fiance, a good Irish Catholic girl from Iowa and the guy looked peeved that we walked up together and asked me if she was my wife. After I said she was my fiance, he waved me right through.

    In the 2-3 dozen times I've dealt with customs, that was the shortest encounter ever, including a trip back from TJ with 4 buddies when all you needed to get through the border was a driver's license. My first thought was, "So this is what it's like to be a preppy white guy (I'm of Arab decent)".

    * Only one of those questions was never asked of me.

  • Mo||

    Addendum, what made this really surprising was that we had arrived from our 8 hour layover in Amsterdam and our clothes reeked of "coffee" after spending a couple of hours in a coffee shop.

  • PIRS||

    If you do not mind my asking, were you born in the United States? I am just trying to get the larger picture here. I am in no way justifying this harassment by the way, simply wanting more info.

  • Mo||

    I was born abroad, but my family moved here when I was 1, so I have no accent (unless Southern Californian is an accent). I actually thought the 20 questions was normal until I drove back from Canada w/ my girlfriend a year ago. After I got grilled with about 10 random questions, she asked what that was about. I told her, "Oh that happens all the time to me, you don't get asked all those questions?" She said, "No!" and was shocked at it. What's funny is I get grilled more here than in other countries, like the UK, France or Germany, even though this is my home.

    Interestingly, profiling was worse pre-911 than post. Pre-911 I was flat out told I "fit the profile," while post, there was more of an effort to avoid profiling due to the outcry.

  • PIRS||

    "Interestingly, profiling was worse pre-911 than post. Pre-911 I was flat out told I "fit the profile," while post, there was more of an effort to avoid profiling due to the outcry."

    Interesting, thank you, there may then indeed be something to what some people claim about the AZ law having the unintended consequence of creating less profiling than before. If people are watching law enforcement closely they need to be more careful not to step over the line.

    Thank you for the info!

  • Mo||

    No prob PIRS. Though I will note, that the profiling is only better domestically. Entering and leaving the country is much worse now than it was before. Also, pre-911 my travels were as a college student when I was unkempt, had strange hair (large afro once, bleached blond fro another) and poorly dressed. After 9-11, I was a clean cut professional, so it may also be partly due to the same factors that caused Matt Welch to get harassed less as well.

  • Joshua||

    Damn Matt! You were kind of an ugly girl. How did you get a hot french wife?

  • Matt Welch||

    De-girling was a precondition.

  • ||

    You bear a striking resemblance to the TMZ surfer dude "reporter."

    Coincidence?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's worse than being an ugly girl. Why didn't someone tell me I've been following a goddam hippie all this time?

    That's it. I'm switching to the Gillespie camp. I can deal with a beatnik.

  • ||

    Picking Lou Reed over Gunnar Nelson? Good choice.

  • ||

    It's The Jacket. Sooner or later, everyone succumbs to the lure of The Jacket.

  • ||

    My and my attorney body were "pulled over" by a female hispanic cop right outside my apartment for absolutely nothing. In her defense an arsonist (later found out to be an illegal Mexican immigrant living across the street--not that that matters) was on the lose and had burned three places on my street in the last several months. Her story was that we had been behind and had put on our brights to annoy her. Interestingly we had never been behind because we can down another street than from the one she came on. Her backup (she actually called for backup... on two white attorneys coming back from dinner) came by, checked us out and did an open view search of the vehicle we were in, and then the guy cop finally said... I quote, "I think it was a white truck that was behind you and not a white car". Then they let us go... right in front of my apartment.

    Totally surreal. She may have been a brand new cop and had no clue what she was doing. Regardless, she was incompetent.

    So even sophisticated looking white dudes (if I can say that) get pulled over and almost arrested over nothing.

  • ||

    "My and my attorney body"? You must be a partner. I've seen what happens when you don't let an associate proof-read your writing first. ;-)

  • ||

    Yep, my grammar is atrocious. :) Particularly online, where I just spew out words incoherently.

  • ||

    I can relate.

  • MING||

    You too?

  • Some Guy||

    I can assure you that as a white person you can run all the red lights you want in Camden, NJ. If stopped, the police will simply ask that you slow down and look both ways, then give you the quickest route out of town.

  • Paul||

    I told them, apologized for my mistake, and they...sent me on my way.

    I do have to ask, Matt, had you still had your hippie hair and related accoutrement, would you have 'told them and apologized'?

  • Paul||

    When you have thousands upon thousands of criminal laws, chances are non-trivial that you're breaking one of them as we speak, or at least can be seen as possibly breaking one of them, in case you happen to cross paths with a motivated law enforcement officer.

    I refer to these as "levers to power" that can be reached for at any time by those in power when convenient to those in power. Even libertarians pooh-pooh me on this concept.

  • ||

    If the law sucks, it will be repealed. If it works it will save lives and solve some other serious problems. I'm willing to take that chance and so is Arizona. I expect neighboring states to envy those horrible Arizonans very soon. It will be much easier for them to dial back and fine tune this law for success that other states to go the other direction toward that balance. Something needs done and nobody else is moving anything but their whinny lips.

  • Some Guy||

    If the law sucks, it will be repealed.

    That would be a very rare thing, indeed.

    If it works it will save lives and solve some other serious problems.

    You think that about the war on drugs, too, don't you?

  • Warty||

    I happened to take a slow drive through the Rampart area to gawk at the few remaining Victorian mansions

    The situation entire
    it's going away, it's not going away
    Since you're wasting time again, my friend
    on Bonnie Brae, on Bonnie Brae, on Bonnie Brae

  • ||

    Got stopped by the cops yesterday. They asked for my driver's license right away. Since I'm white you could see they assumed that I would produce it immediately. I did too without hesitation. I should have said F-you copper. I have rights. You libtards are all idiots including this author.

  • ||

    Obviously there are some big gray areas in the implementation of this law, and some opportunities for abuse (which BTW, as Welch points out exist with what we already have!).

    That said, the 'profiling' argument is at least 50% idiotic on its face -- the people who are the vast majority of the illegals (at least in the SW) are from Mexico and points south. And, yes, Mexico happens to associated with certain ethnicities (duh): hispanics and those with much more Native American blood, their poor. The more Euro/Spanish (ie more 'white') Mexicans are not the ones jumping the border. The people coming also tend to not speak English (duh).
    So, yes, the people I described are naturally the ones forming the pool of cndidates for a closer look.

    That's not profiling, that's merely reality.

  • Some Guy||

    That's not profiling, that's merely reality.

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • Zeb||

    "That's not profiling, that's merely reality."

    The two are not mutually exclusive. It may be both.

  • ||

    You are correct that this law will restrict the freedom for all people in Arizona, but you fail to notice that people living in Arizona already have their freedom restricted by the problems created by illegal immigration.
    Basically, we implement laws that limit some freedom in order to preserve more valuable freedoms. I can't drive over the speed limit- that restricts my freedom, but it also provides me freedom to drive safely, to walk safely along the street, etc. because it controls the speed of traffic. If every road were a free for all, I would have to limit my activities just to avoid dangerous situations.
    Illegal immigration presents a real threat to the liberties of the legal residents of Arizona. Showing a police officer a driver's license or ID isn't a tremendous sacrifice of liberty, and addressing the problems caused by illegal aliens will in the long run provide the people more liberty.

  • ||

    Interesting example. You do realize that speed limits are generally set on a new road by having no speed limit, watching the traffic, and then setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile.

    In other words, speed limit laws, like all the best laws, are designed to legalize what most people tend to do when left on their own.

    Carrying this principle to immigration would yield immigration law that legalized a lot more of it.

    ...addressing the problems caused by illegal aliens will in the long run provide the people more liberty.

    Well, except for the illegal alien people.

  • That Guy||

    California is the only place I know that generally follows a process similar to what you described. I too believed it was generally true until I moved out of the state.

    It isn't.

    Speed limits in most areas are established by a political process. They are set not based on empirical studies or 85th percentiles. They are a negotiation between different interest groups. Reality rarely has a voice.

  • ||

    After 10 minutes of hunting around, everything I have read says that every state views the 85th percentile as at least the major guideline in establishing speed limits.

    They may not have the speed trap laws that California has where motorists can appeal speeding violations based on the 85th percentile, but they all at least consider the 85th percentile when posting the limit.

    Interestingly, it seems to be a battle between the engineers who want higher speed limits and politicians who try to make lower speed limits. From a DOT/FHA-contracted study...

    Although there are variations from State to State, on average, speed limits were posed 5 and 16 mi/h (8 and 26 km/h) below the 85th percentile speed. As all States use the 85th percentile as a major criterion for establishing safe and reasonable speed limits, it is surprising that the new speed limits posted on the experimental sections examined in this study deviated so far from the 85th percentile speed. There are several plausible reasons. Once commonly cited reason for posting unreasonably low speed limits is public and political pressure. While individuals and politicians clearly influence some speed limit decision, there are other factors involved.

    Although the 85th percentile speed is used as the major guideline in setting speed limits, other factors such as land use, pedestrian activity, accident history, etc., are often subjectively considered in the decision making process...

    The data collected during this study indicate that there are no benefits, either from a safety or operational point of view, from establishing speed limits less than the 85th percentile speed. This does not mean that all speed limits should be raised. Traffic and engineer investigations should be conducted to obtain an accurate measure of the speed distribution. Greater emphasis should be placed on using the 85th percentile speed in setting safe and reasonable speed limits. These studies should be repeated as land use and traffic characteristics change.
  • ||

    Dude, for real, the hair needs to come back pronto. Rock that shit out.

  • ||

    If the feds would enforce the already in place laws local and state governments would not have to do things like Arizona has had to do. Just because you want the law enforced does not make you a racist or a bigot. The greatest injustice thrust upon us by illegals is to those who are of Hispanic descent who spent years if not decades trying to become legal citizens. The ability to swim a river, climb a fence, or climb in the back of an illegal 18 wheeler should not be the only prerequisites for becoming American citizens. I have great respect for those in our society who did it the right way. They are among the best citizens we have. I wish every state would pass similar laws to counteract what is happening.We have the highest unemployment rate in 25 years, yet 12-17 million illegals are gainfully employed with most not even paying taxes. Please do not give me all of those bleeding heart arguments about how they do jobs no one else wants. Tell that to someone living in Michigan who can not find a job of any kind anywhere. Companies are not going to pay citizens minimum wage or above to do things they can pay slave labor,aka, illegals to do for almost nothing. Why don't the government or some of the ACLU type groups go after the companies who provide jobs and means for illegals? The answer is it only grows their voter base. The whole system needs to be overhauled starting with the federal government in which Obama has only made worse. The Republicans are no better with Bush wanting amnesty for all. It will take a grass roots movement which apparently has already began. I am informing my Senators and Congressmen that they need to push for similar laws if they expect to be voted back in next election. I encourage everyone else to do likewise!

  • That Guy||

    So Arizona man gonna check the papers of anyone "reasonably suspected" of lacking a legal right to be in country. Why all the bitching? Fed man was doin it already. I grew up in SoCal, passed those checkpoints 100 miles north of Mexi hundreds of times, saw vehicles painted INS green in suburban OC and urban LA. One Man or two, what does it matter?

    What you are saying, translated: "yeah, the law sucked before, but nobody was enforcing it so tra la la. But now they're gonna start enforcing it, and by enforcing it destroy freedom!"

    Fuck you. The freedom was jeopardized when those laws went on the books. In the 20s and 30s and 80s and today. You laughed and did nothing because you thought nobody would ever enforce them, thought they didn't really matter except as an intellectual exercise. Fuck you.

    Maybe instead of wringing your hands predicting the Arizona will induce unprofessional (but statistically very easily detectable) behavior by law enforcement, you should try fighting the laws that Arizona is now going to enforce? The federal laws. Change federal law to not require papers for aliens and the Arizona law is neutered. Change the federal law to not require citizenship or immigration status for permanent residency and the whole thing goes poof.

    You are a hypocrite if you bitch about enforcement of laws you were happily tolerating last month. Yeah, you may have editorialized against them, but so many of the people wringing their hands today are perfectly fine with the Federal laws that stand behind the Arizona legislation. By jumping on the "bad stuff gunna happen now" bandwagon you are lumping yourself with people a lot more hypocritical than you all across the political spectrum.

  • Verbal Hooligan||

    I live in NYC and have been wearing a t-shirt that states "Suspected Terrorist" since 2003. Everyone chuckles sardonically when they see it, except tourists. Only papers you need where we've actually been attacked by terrorists.

  • Really?||

    Matt--I believe that if we have a law, we should be willing to enforce that law. If we are not willing to enforce a law, we should repeal that law and replace it with one what we are willing to enforce. That said, what do you think should be the requirements to legally immigrate to the United States? Please provide any personal or numerical restrictions (e.g., annual limits, if any). What I am interested in is the law that you would be willing to see enforced. Feel free to differentiate between would it takes to become a citizen and what it takes to just cross the border to seek employment.

  • moncler||

    I had fun understanding this post. moncler coatI want to see more on this subject.. Thanks for writing this

    respectable article..moncler vest

  • Global Exporters||

    stops involved blacks or Hispanics; only 10 percent involved white people.

  • Discount Ugg Women Boots||

    The ability to swim a river, climb a fence, or climb in the back of an illegal 18 wheeler should not be the only prerequisites for becoming American citizens. I have great respect for those in our society who did it the right way.

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