Obamacare

Reason Writers Around Town: Shikha Dalmia on Arizona's Un-American Anti-Immigration Law

|

Conservatives accused liberals of Europeanizing America through ObamaCare. But now many conservatives are doing the same by supporting Arizona's harsh new anti-immigration law, notes Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia in her latest Forbes column. As she writes:

If universal health coverage was part of the longstanding liberal agenda to implement a European-style welfare state in America, Arizona's tough new anti-immigrant law represents the conservative agenda to install a European-style surveillance state. Indeed, the very same conservatives who could not find words strong enough to condemn the Europeanization of America under ObamaCare are now greeting the Arizona law—which will require residents to prove their lawful status to authorities on demand—with a cheerful smile and a shrug.

The two efforts together will nix any notion of American exceptionalism—the idea that America has a special relationship with Lady Liberty that no other country enjoys. Therefore some things that are permissible in other countries are simply not kosher here.

Read the whole thing here.

NEXT: Your Flight Is Canceled, Starting Today!

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.

  1. “What’s particularly distressing about Bill’s position is that, like Arizona Sen. John McCain, who he has long supported, it represents an about-face from his previous advocacy of sensible immigration reform based not on enforcement but addressing the root cause of the large illegal population: lack of legal avenues for unskilled aliens to enter the U.S.”

    I like Shika but she really doesn’t get it there. The problem for some is not illegal immigration, but immigration. She assumes that everyone wants illegals to become legal. No, Shikha some people want them to go home. She may not like that position. But it does no good to act like it doesn’t exist.

    1. Its true, and honestly to me its more than that. Its about people not liking change and competition. It doesn’t matter what color you are. It could be a bunch of Englishmen moving into the French Quarter, the french quarter residents wouldn’t care if they were legal or illegal, they wouldn’t like the englishmen challenging their culture or competing for their jobs. Illegal immigration is just the red herring for normal xenophobia.

      1. No, that is not an accurate assessment; it certainly is not a nuanced, comprehensive assessment.

        You may not want to face it, but the fact is that there is a profound welfare aspect to this. I know that such facts tend to be ignored and those who cite such facts are branded as racists.

        Fact: In Massachusetts, illegal immigrants do get welfare benefits, including in-state tuition rates for state schools, public housing (see Obama’s aunt) SNAP and others. I have friends and business associates who have section 8 illegal immigrant tenants.

        1. Well, yeah, if you want to speak in terms of reality. But John justs wants us to know that he’s not one of “those people”. You know how those people are – they just don’t like immigrants. Hate those people.

        2. If it was a welfare thing, people would be thinking how they could get people to pay into the welfare system (make illegal immigrants legal after a penalty), but those aren’t the solutions being yelled from the rooftops. The solution being yelled the loudest is “Send’em home, make them go away!! Punish anyone that allows them to earn a living”

          1. Sorry but a one-time $500 penalty (which is what we are talking about here would not cover one month’s worth of welfare costs. Your argument is phony.

            1. I did not list a monetary amount. We spend plenty in salaries rounding up illegals, but I’ve never seen a cost analysis on what illegal aliens cost the US in terms of services. Just assumptions.

              1. Why don’t you put a pencil to paper and figure out the present value of the future welfare costs of typical illegal? Maybe we can have FannieMae issue a thirty year loan to finance.

                1. I would ask the same to you. You’re the one that wants to waste my money hunting down people that haven’t committed a crime.

          2. The solution is to make illegal immigrants legal but ineligible for welfare.

            1. Why though? Unless you can prove to me they’re a bigger drain on the system than natives, why not just have them pay into it just like the rest of us? You merely assume that immigrants come here to sit around and collect food stamps. Most of what I’ve read indicates otherwise.

              1. 1. I don’t believe in welfare.

                2. Immigrants have an advantage over citizens in that they have another place to go if they can’t afford it in the US.

                3. The proper metric is not whether they are a bigger drain on the system than natives, but whether they are a bigger drain on the economy than a benefit. As of now, they are not. In the future, they may be.

                4. Plain and simply, welfare should not be a draw for migration: Migrants should be engaging in mutually voluntary association, not sponging.

                5. Nonetheless, since I believe restrictions on free migration are the greatest abrogation of rights perpetuated by the US today, I will not hold liberalized immigration hostage to worries about welfare.

                1. 1. OK

                  2. If you assume they retain ties. Anyway, you could always migrate to mexico and the same would be true for you. Its a non-argument for anything.

                  3. Assuming they’re not committing crime, there is no way an immigrant can be a drain on the economy if they’re not being provided free services by my working. At worst, they would be a net zero on the economy or a plus.

                  4. I doubt our welfare is currently a draw for migrants.’

                  5. Not just the US, pretty much everywhere, but I agree. In fact, I’d like to migrate right now, but I couldn’t unless I had a company sponsor me, filled out 100’s of pages of paperwork and then it would only be probational.

                  1. 3. This appears to be our only area of feigned disagreement.

                    I take the stance I do because opponents of immigration use welfare as an excuse. On (3) in particular, they will show you government budget balance sheets that say that immigrants receive in government services more than they pay in taxes and that this net “deficit” of the average immigrant is higher than that of the average native.

                    As I point out, that is the wrong metric. You must look at immigrants’ total contribution to the economy, and that as of now and even for illegal aliens is positive.

      2. Illegal immigration is just the red herring for normal xenophobia.

        Is xenophobia bad?

        1. As a rule, yes

        2. It is when it’s used as an excuse to violate rights.

        3. Sure, I’ve been called a xenophobe, but the truth is I’m not. I just feel that America is the best country and all the other countries aren’t as good. That used to be called patriotism.

          1. In other countries, its called nationalism. Always works out great on a large scale…

  2. But now the Arizona Republican establishment’s effort to foist a German-style “your papers, please” immigration policy on its residents perturbs him [Rich Lowry] not one bit.

    Drink!

  3. Shakha also fails to mention that ICE and CBP already have the power to ask for proof of citizenship from anyone for whom there is a reasonable suspicion they might be illegal. If you work in a place that is raided by ICE, you will have to produce proof of citizenship.

    I understand her concerns. And I am sympathetic to them. I hate the idea of a national ID card. But I would ask Shikha how are we supposed to enforce immigration laws if police cannot ask for proof of citizenship? I don’t see how you can. Indeed, I think that is exactly the point. Dalma doesn’t believe in borders or the nation state and wants to get rid of all immigration enforcement. And that is a respectable position. But she ought to take that position. Instead she is dishonestly pretending that there is a way to enforce immigration laws without offending her sensibilities about the surveillance state. And that is just bullshit.

    1. As per some arguments made yesterday, isn’t it worth highlighting the fact that strict immigration laws require a “papers please” surveillance state?

      The question on the table is what do you prefer, freedom or freedom from wetbacks? Shikha prefers freedom.

      1. I am sure she does. But she ought to be honest enough to admit that. Instead she lies about “increased legal immigration”. She advocates nothing of the sort. She advocates the complete abolition of borders.

      2. I would also ad that we seemed to have no problems enforcing our borders in the past without a surveillance state. This country had very little immigration between the 1920s and the 1960s, yet managed not to become a police state.

        1. Not necessarily agreeing with your date ranges, but in periods of low immigration, obviously immigration enforcement becomes less of a concern to the existing majority, because the impact of immigration isn’t nearly as visible.

          It’s periods of high immigration that’s relevant to the argument. And in the past, the concern was about having too many legals, not too many illegals. Since they were legal before, there was no need for this type of police state enforcement.

          1. In the 1920s Congress basically ended legal immigration. Immigration did not start in large numbers again until the 1960s. So clear through the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s, we managed to enforce our borders without a police state? Why can’t we now?

            1. In the 30’s, we had 1/3 of our military on the southern border. Pancho Villa was considered the greatest threat to our nation. There was pretty strict enforcement of immigration laws at the workplace.

            2. How many Mexicans were walking across the border back then? It’s pretty easy to stop a ship full of Jews and send them back to the camps, but it’s much harder to stop 10 million peasants walking across the wilderness.

            3. A depression followed by a world war probably helped reduce the demand.

              1. If anything the war increased the demand. But as Warty points out, Mexicans were not coming by the millions. We don’t have an illegal problem. We have a mexican problem.

                1. It is true, damn the easy access.

                  My guess would be they had to walk alot further in the 40’s to get to anywhere where they could find work. Texas and Arizona were just backwater states with little need for low skilled labor and the iron works of Michigan, Illinois and Ohio were a hell of a long way away.

                  1. All the aircraft factories were in Southern California, don’t forget. Although I don’t know how labor-intensive it was to assemble Mustangs and B-sans, I’d have to imagine they needed lots of people to pour concrete and such.

                    1. Well let’s take distance from the other direction. How big were the border towns near CA and TX right after the depression. It takes a while to build up recognition of the opportunities that just popped up because of the war.

                  2. In Texas, there was demand for Mexican cowboys. The ranchers in South and West Texas got a lot of the shakedowns from whoever enforced immigration law then.

                    1. shakedown

                      appropriate use of words. Also known as “racketeering”

                2. “”We have a mexican problem.””

                  I think that’s closer to the issue. But I think Mexico has problems, which is making it a Mexico problem for us, which is why they want to come here.

                  If Mexico was a great place to live, work, raise families, some Americans might try to illegally migrate there.

                  The solution to the Mexican problem is to somehow help Mexico be a better place. Easy words for a very complex problem.

                  1. Ending the war on drugs would probably a damn good STEP #1.

                    1. Allowing Mexicans to come here (Legally), work, build businesses, and send money back to Mexico to be invested there would be another good step.

                    2. Propping them up simply enables them to avoid facing up to their problems.

      3. Yes, it would be awful if we were to lose our unfettered freedom to live our lives free of government intrusion. As it is now, as I walk to my job in Chicago, I’m probably under photo surveilance the whole way. Plus, tracking of phone calls, internet, credit card transactions, etc.

        Get real. Unless you are the Unabomber, you already live in a surveillance state. Sorry to intrude on your version of reality.

      4. As per some arguments made yesterday, isn’t it worth highlighting the fact that strict immigration laws require a “papers please” surveillance state?

        Current law already allows this, as ICE can ask for proof of citizenship or legal residency from people they reasonably suspect to be illegal aliens.

        And as a matter of fact, resident and visiting aliens are required to carry documentation with them in public.

    2. Basically, you are saying hat immegration law cannot be enforced without being able to randomly check people’s citizenship.

      I’d say that the police would be more likely to catch drug users if they were able to randomly frisk or enter the homes of anyone they suspect might be carrying drugs. But there is a reason we don’t allow this: even if you think illegal immegration is a problem and it needs to be stopped, you cnanot justify dimishing everyone’s liberty to do it.

      Some example of the kind of police excesses this law allows:

      Lets say you were driving around a friend of yours and you get pulled over. You prive ID and the cop think, for whatver reason, that your passenger might be an illegal immegrant. IF he asks for that person to provide proof of citizenship and they don’t have it, did you know your car could be immediatly impounded? Since by not providing ID the law say that your passenger may be presujed to be an illegal?

      Scenario 2: Lets say you are out walking your dog or going for a bike ride and the police ask for your ID. If you don’t have it, nothing prevents them from immdiately taking you into custody. On nothing other than thier suspision that you might be illegal, with no evidence required mind you other than your inability to provide ID!

      For someone who normally gets thier back up about police abuses, you sure have your blinders on here.

      1. First, as someone says below, the police have to have some other reason to talk to you before they can ask for proof of citizenship. So, I don’t think that your second scenario would ever happen.

        I do think the “knowingly transporting” provisions do go to far. But I don’t see how giving the ability to police to inquire about your immigration status is creating a police state. All you have to do is produce a driver’s license. There is a good case to be made that we shouldn’t have to have things like that. But whatever that case is, it was lost long before this law.

        1. First, as someone says below, the police have to have some other reason to talk to you before they can ask for proof of citizenship

          I do not think this is true, see my reply below.

        2. Not everyone has a driver’s license. My elderly grandmother with moderate dementia could not prove her identity if she were riding in the car with me, which she does from time to time.

          1. There is a non-driver ID too. This or the driver’s license has been the de-facto national ID for decades.

        3. …and what would those “other reasons” be? If I ask a cop for directions? If he strikes up a conversation with someone at random, is that a reason?

  4. What I have to ask is, how does the government have the right to tell you who you can or can not hire and how much you have to pay them? Thats a decision that should only be between the employer and the employee, it shouldn’t matter whether he is from Mexico or Indiana, or whether he is being paid $8 an hour or $3

    1. The government has that right because we want it to. Otherwise we are back to the days of indentured servitude, which I know is fine with the loony libertarian right but not something the rest of us want to return to.

      1. Another blast. This time, the impact ruptured a govee tube above the ship’s secondary retty, causing thick poinnooas mist to fill the bridge.

        “Faavrogg!” Smith cried out, “See if you can stabilize that asternatium by vogalizing the tyricnal klinbirators!”

        1. You fucking warthog from hell!

          Everyone knows you can only stabilize asternatium by renuflecting the poingraffical harmonics to 2.3 t-hertz.

      2. Oh yea, where in the constitution did we give the govt. that right?

  5. Arizona’s tough new anti-immigrant law represents the conservative agenda to install a European-style surveillance state

    Jeez, what a stretch. Does she really think conservatives are thinking “Oh boy, a chance to create a European-style surveillance state!” Or is it more likely they are thinking “Cripes, this problem has gotten out of hand, and the Feds are doing nothing”?

    “That is the huge horrible civil rights violation that’s going to occur five times or eight times or 13 times in Arizona,” […] If that’s all that the law will do, then what is the point of it, dear Bill, given that there are nearly half a million undocumented workers in Arizona?

    Because, dear Shikha, the point of the law is not to create civil rights violations, nor does it depend on them to work. Already there are (admittedly anecdotal) accounts of illegals who say they will move elsewhere, and the law has not even been enforced yet, AFAIK. The point is to enforce a law that’s not being enforced.

    (This topic is one of the reasons I call myself a “moderate libertarian.” I am wary of taking any philosophy and applying it at 100% strength everywhere. The idea that libertarian principles are served by an open Southern border seems to me to be naive idealism. Immigration is generally a good thing, but it’s always possible to have too much of a good thing. And mass importation of socially-conservative people who reliably vote for statism in their home countries and here seems short-sighted, no?)

    1. Does she really think conservatives are thinking “Oh boy, a chance to create a European-style surveillance state!”

      I don’t know. But politics is driving this debate at least as much as a concern for the welfare of Arizonans both legal and illegal. Look, for instance, at how MSNBC and other lefty news organizations are framing the controversy: Evil Republicans want to turn America into Nazi Germany! It’s just another Red vs. Blue dustup, conveniently overlooking the fact that the federal government keeps kicking this can down the road.

      1. Evil Republicans want to turn America into Nazi Germany!

        With Mexico as America’s Auschwitz?

        Not even Haiti is close to Auschwitz.

        And mass importation of socially-conservative people who reliably vote for statism in their home countries and here seems short-sighted, no?

        Look up Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution and tell everyone how it got there.

    2. “And mass importation of socially-conservative people who reliably vote for statism in their home countries and here seems short-sighted, no?”

      No more than mass-importation of socially-liberal people who reliably vote for statism in their home States, which is what happened to California during the mid-to-late 20th century. And now look at us.

      It isn’t the liberal- or conservative- part of the statement that bothers me — it is the “reliably voting for statism” part. Unfortunately, the Constitution guarantees free migration between States. It seems to me that if we are really committed to that particular aspect of freedom as encoded in our own Constitution, we ought to practice it on our national borders as well. Besides, the whole “visa and passports” thing is effectively a European import, originally instituted by bellicose and paranoid Old World governments to deal with the flow of tourists, immigrants, etc., in that part of the world. Governments required visas because they were paranoid; people — especially Americans — carried passports only because OTHER governments required them, or because they wanted to be able to get protection from their own governments while abroad. We embraced this game in a big way as a result of our own WWI-era paranoia (and cemented it in place in WWII and during the cold war). But this was another case of making the US just like the rest of the world for no good reason and to the detriment of our own ideal of liberty.

  6. While I certainly agree that the law will create many civil rights abuses, does she really have to ask why? Arizona has taken on huge numbers of refugees from a drug war, and a lot of the violent crime that comes with it. People are scared and looking for government to “do something”, and this qualifies as “doing something”. I don’t think the law will do any good, it might make it worse, but it’s not an unexpected response. It’s not that much different than liberals running to the gun law security blanket when Chicago or Detroit or Washington has a lot of gun murders.

    1. Letting police inquire about immigration status will do some good. Police will arrest an illegal alien for a crime. Then after the alien gets out of jail, is deported, and sneaks back across the border, the cop will see and recognize the guy. But he is only committing an immigration violation. As it stands, there is not a damn thing the local cop can do about it. And that happens a lot. Why not let the cop police they guy up and turn him over to ICE?

      1. Make sure to brand the illegal with a stamp to make it easier next time.

        1. Tattoo on the forehead would work much better.

  7. Just when you think conservatives might be okay, they do something creepy like this.

  8. Arizona has taken on huge numbers of refugees from a drug war, and a lot of the violent crime that comes with it.

    Correct. You’ve identified the root cause of the problem.

    People are scared and looking for government to “do something”, and this qualifies as “doing something”.

    So, let’s solve a different problem.

    1. I’m sure you’re talking about legalization of drugs. I don’t think there’s any political will to legalize anything stronger than marijuana, and legalization of marijuana wouldn’t make a dent in the problem.

      1. If the problem is caused by the drug war, then it is a drug war problem and not an immigration problem.

        I am not proposing a solution to the drug war problem only showing the error of treating the problem as something it isn’t.

  9. I guess I can’t get too worked up about this new law for a couple of reasons: firstly (unlike what the author says), only those persons who have contact with the police for other reasons have to provide ID on demand. Secondly, I thought that was the case already!

    If I were in an altercation, traffic accident, or accused of a crime, I would expect the cops to demand ID. To refuse to provide it seems like tossing chum in the water in front of a shark and not expecting a violent reaction involving teeth or handcuffs.

    Mind you, I understand the slippery slope in this – the seatbelt laws were originally promulagated under the pretense that a seatbelt violation was not going to be the reason for a primary traffic stop, and we know what happened to that. And of course, a cop can stop you for pretty much any reason they want to now, so the new laws’ requirement of “contact with law enforcement” may be an inconsequential hurdle.

    But really, how does this new law change things aside from making local enforcement do ICEs job for them?

    1. firstly (unlike what the author says), only those persons who have contact with the police for other reasons have to provide ID on demand

      I don’t know where you are getting this. The law says:

      For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision

      The word sused are legal contact, as opposed to illegal contact. I am no lawyer, but my layman’s understanding of this term is that so long as the police arent breaking any laws in order to contact with you (eg: they couldn’t phycially break into your house) they can approach you in any public placerand ask for ID.

      It’s right ther ein the first paragraph, here is a link to the bill:

      http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDoc…..ps.doc.htm

      1. “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision …”

        I think the term lawful is key. Cops do not have the right to question you without at least a reasonable suspicion that you are committing a crime. They can’t just pull you over for no reason to check your ID. Although, bullshit DUI stops have been ruled legal. So they could randomly check citizenship there. But understand, you already have to have a DL and proof of insurance to drive the car. So I don’t see how the law changes much.

        1. You ever lived in Az John.

          The police were a contributing factor in my decision to leave nearly 20 years ago.

          1. No I never have. But my experience is cops are assholes almost every where. The DC MPD are some of the worst I have ever had to deal with.

            1. Had a tech show up in the lab on a monday morning with a black and blue face. He had a routine traffic encounter with the highway patrol. His brown skin trumped being a US-born citizen.

        2. If that were the case, this law would not allow the police to, say, chase off day laborers waiting in from of the home depot. Those poeple havnt broken any law. I really, really doubt that.

        3. “I think the term lawful is key.”

          Reason had an article about the ambiguity of this part of the law.

          https://reason.com/blog/2010/04…..chapman-on

          The fact that you “think” the term might be key only proves the articles point.

    2. What chaps my ass is that these liberal whiners who promoted this open borders shit are acting so surprised and outraged over the result. What did they really expect? Typical smart-asses that they are, they figured if they crap-flooded the country with illegals, then turned around and smirked, “Well, they’re already here. What are you going to do about it? You wouldn’t really do that, would you?”, they’d have mass immigration by fait accompli.

      Jokes on you, assholes. Yes, we really would do that. And I suspect this is just the beginning of that.

      1. Pretty much. As I said in the first post. What people like Dalmia don’t get is that the majority of this country doesn’t want immigration period. The governor of Arizona is more popular because of this. The transnational get rid of borders crowd are a small minority. They really don’t want to have this fight.

        1. “”What people like Dalmia don’t get is that the majority of this country doesn’t want immigration period.””

          Look where it got the native Americans.

          1. Sovereign territory and the right to organize their own affairs (albeit after a bunch of dispossesions, long marches and massacres)?

            1. “”Sovereign territory and the right to organize their own affairs (albeit after a bunch of dispossesions, long marches and massacres)?””

              If you want to believe that. Their land is sovereign and their affairs are their own until the government decides it has an excuse for it not to be.

              If the feds don’t abide by state sovereignty of their own citzens when they want, why would they honor the indians in a like situation?

              1. Since the Fed runs BIA and BLM, they have a huge amount of pull with the Res lands.

                The states, not so much. If they did, you’d see lots of eminient domain abuse driven by state and city desires for adjacent prime tribal land.

        2. Any proof to support that idiotic statement, John?

      2. Agreed. Did they honestly believe that people were just going to do nothing but take it sitting down forever when people are being kidnapped and murdered? Talk about being totally and utterly detached from reality. The utter contempt you have to have for your fellow citizens in order to have this kind of mindset is staggering.

        1. Why am I not surprised that the people who fell for the “we were attacked by some people in Afghanistan, let’s invade Iraq!” are falling for this shit too?

          1. Last time I checked, state governemnts weren’t really involved in the descion to go to war – that was left to the bi-partizan Federal congress.

            Wait – what was you point again?

            1. “”Wait – what was you point again?””

              That regardless of political party or belief, people have no problem usurping the Constitution when the issue is important to them?

        2. People don’t seem to mind the many that are kidnapped and murdered by the state for victimless crimes, so why do they get all bothered when a few people are killed (allegedly) by illegal immigrants?

          Someone is detached from reality- probably the vast majority.

        3. “kidnapped and murdered”

          This only people being kidnapped and murdered here in AZ (With very very few exceptions) are those involved with human smuggling and drug smuggling. Both of which are a result of the US’s prohibition on poor and middle class immigrants, and drugs.

          The idea that there is a crisis of US citizens being kidnapped and murdered by hoards of illegals is totally untrue.

  10. I’m sure that there would be something wrong in the details, but shouldn’t there be some technologically advanced way to check immigration status instantly? In Texas now, cops can check insurance status instantly from a database, whether you have proof of insurance or not. It saved me a ticket a few months ago. I would think we could come up with something like that pretty easily.

    1. The problem with such a system is that you would have to put everyone, citizens and non citizens in it. It would basically turn everyone into a alien in their own country. What happens when DHS fucks up the database and you as a citizen can’t prove you are?

      1. “”The problem with such a system is that you would have to put everyone, citizens and non citizens in it. It would basically turn everyone into a alien in their own country.””

        For many, that’s a small price to pay.

    2. RFID chips implanted in every person legally entitled to live in the US would easily solve the problem — technology saves the day once more.

      1. You could have senors on the streets that track the chips IDs and finds people who does not have a chip. Think of it like IFF transponders. Those not broadcasting are subject to arrest.

    3. See – it’s OK for cops to determine whether the person have valid auto insurance but it’s totalitian to determine whether they are in the country illegally. Perfectly logical.

      1. It is if you understand the details.

        State law can require you to have auto insurance if you have a car. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution gives the responsibility of auto insurance to the federal government.

        States can not enforce laws about issues of naturalization, the U.S. Constituion gives that job to the federal government. Like it or not.

        You can say that is immoral or unfair, but your opinion does not trump the U.S. Constitution.

        1. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution gives the responsibility of auto insurance to the federal government.

          Neither did the Constitution give the federal government responsibility over hate crimes.

          1. “””Neither did the Constitution give the federal government responsibility over hate crimes.””

            So states can pass their own hate crime laws. That still doesn’t give the states the right to usurp the Constitution with respects to immigration.

        2. Thanks. Valid point.

          What, then, do you make of state and local governments with “sanctuary” policies? Is that OK?

          1. Personal opinion? The state couldn’t enforce it unless the feds passed a law allowing it. If ICE showed up, local and state LEOs would be required to stand aside. It wouldn’t really be a sanctuary. But if the feds will allow churches to do so, then they can.

            Immigration affairs are given to Congress (Article I), so if Congress wanted to pass a law that allows states to pass laws, they can. But states could not step outside the scope of the Federal law.

  11. I am willing to bet that hillbilly red neck sheriff Joe Arpaio becomes Governor of Arizona!

    Lou
    http://www.post-anonymously.us.tc

  12. I wonder if Limbaugh tells his followers that the reason certain European countries “have no trouble whatsoever kicking out their illegal aliens” is to pursue the sort of tribal/ethnic/racial homogeneity that hasn’t existed in America – ever.

    1. I wonder what he thinks about all the Germans who were kicked/raped out of their ancestral homes in Eastern Europe by the Poles, Romanians, etc. at the end of the war.

      1. Fuck the Germans. When you use the existence of a racial minority as an excuse to invade a country, then that minority deserves what it gets when the mother country loses the war. Can you blame the Poles and the Czechs for telling the ethnic Germans to get the fuck out so that Germany would never have that excuse to invade again? I don’t.

        1. The Germans are pretty low on the list of people you should feel sorry for, but it still sucked pretty bad for them.

          1. It sucked terrible for them. But if I had been a Czech or a Pole at the time, I would have said they had to go. Let’s end the danger of Germany ever trying that again.

            1. John – are you now a Pole or a Czech? Was there a change in your status?

    2. Well, the next thing he’d need to acknowledge is that he’s full of shit. Europe has lots of illegal immigrants. And it has them in spite of the police having far more authority to stop, and inspect you for more reasons than any American cop could ever dream of in his most orgiastic authoritarian wet dream.

      As well as mandatory registration of all residents and a requirement to carry an Identity Card and produce it on demand for any policeman for any reason at any time. (Note, such laws are not universal or uniform across all of Europe* and are in part justified to ensure compliance with and to prevent fraud against the ever present welfare state.)

      I guess someone needs to ask Rush when he when he decided to become a cheese eating surrender monkey. (Maybe ask him if he’s stopped using deodorant yet.) 🙂

      *Britain has fought against ID cards for years. But then lots of Brits don’t want to be considered part of Europe either.

      1. “”I guess someone needs to ask Rush when he when he decided to become a cheese eating surrender monkey. “”

        You would first have to get him to admit he’s not always right.

  13. Shikha Dalmia and many other immigrants should be given a special hearing in matters of illegal immigration–we can all learn something. In the Forbes column, her arguments seem emotional, relying mostly on the ad hominem form. Why? Asserting that illegals are here because someone in America wants them here is a classic straw man. Asserting that showing id is a risk to liberty is potent emotionally, yet we are required to show id often times when using charge cards, banking, voting, etc. Every day. The list goes on. No one complains because proof of identity seems to actually expand individual liberty in an open society. In the information age, people with no identity will be severely constricted in their ability to pursue happiness. In the Arizona case, why not ask this question: could it be that they have reached a “tipping point”…where illegals relative to the population is large enough to threaten the society’s liberty in some way? Arizonans may well be expanding their liberty with the new law. We should at least consider that while thinking about Dalmia’s challenges. Yes, we can learn much from Dalmia. As an immigrant, her reaction should be observed, taken seriously as far as it goes, and wrestled with robustly and reasonably.

    1. Nino – very nicely stated.

    2. Asserting that illegals are here because someone in America wants them here is a classic straw man.

      Methinks you don’t know what a strawman is…

      Asserting that showing id is a risk to liberty is potent emotionally, yet we are required to show id often times when using charge cards, banking, voting, etc. Every day. The list goes on.

      I don’t show my ID when using charge cards.

      No one complains because proof of identity seems to actually expand individual liberty in an open society.

      Just because you state something doesn’t make it true

      Arizonans may well be expanding their liberty with the new law.

      Alright, I get it, you’re trolling. Nevermind.

      1. A long time ago, I had to renew my drivers license while in the Marine Corps. I had the option to renew from my home state, which I did. The funny thing is when I got it in the mail, right where the photo goes, it said “Valid without photo”. That drove some people behind counters nuts. They would try not accecpt it and I would say what part of valid without photo do you not understand? They would just shake their heads and comply. Fun times.

      2. In reply, in order (roughly)

        Straw man is defined as an argument based on the misrepresentation of an opponent’s view. One straw man she erects is that illegals are here because Americans wish it…then she proceeds to attack the very straw man she created. This is a classic form of the straw man argument.

        Anyone (sans fraud) who has a charge card has already established and proved identity–otherwise the card wouldn’t have been issued in the first place. Whenever you use a charge card, you are by proxy demonstrating a proof of identity. Establishing and proving identity expands liberty profoundly–you can charge goods and services all over the world with out the need for packing huge amounts of cash–liberation in no mean proportion. Carrying a driver’s license entitles you drive anywhere you like in the USA with the knowledge that everyone else on the road has passed a basic safety and traffic rules test. In America, the tradeoff of establishing and proving identity is in every case a net gain in liberty.

        I don’t know if Arizonans were attempting to stop the erosion of liberty–it’s just a guess–hence the use of the word “seems.” It’s a notion that should be considered and is just as legitimate as assuming dark motives.

        Many make the argument that illegals will suffer a loss of liberty under the Arizona law. Yet, establishing identity produces quite the opposite–just look at the freedom enjoyed by documented workers and you will see a far freer human being in every respect. Establishing and proving identity is a major enabler of liberty in the information age. Without it, life is severely constrained and un-free.

        ciao.

    3. “In the Forbes column, her arguments seem emotional, relying mostly on the ad hominem form.”

      I don’t see any problems there.

      There are lots of issues where the utility arguments fail. It’s like the torture argument and a lot of other things; it isn’t always about what you get out of something. Sometimes it’s about what kind of society and what kind of person you want to be.

      I don’t want to live in an intolerant society. I don’t want to be an intolerant person. Immigration is part of that, and I don’t necessarily want the government defining the limits of what I’m willing to tolerate.

      I should be able to hire whomever I want to mow my lawn. And I’ll balance how much I care about other people’s intolerance when I make that hiring decision. If society doesn’t want to give them social services, then don’t–but how much I’m willing to sacrifice in terms of my range of choices is a personal decision…

      So it seems to me that personal appeals are essential to the argument. If you don’t want me to hire illegal aliens to cut my lawn, that’s fine, get behind the environmentalists and other charities that want me to make personal sacrifices for them. They make personal appeals all the time–as they should.

      There’s no reason why people who want to see more immigration shouldn’t be able to do the same thing too…

      If, on the other hand, you* want to use the coercive nature of the law to enforce such personal sacrifices–and I really do value my freedom of choice–well then you’ve crossed a line. When you’re* comin’ after me personally–don’t be surprised at all if people take it personally and turn the argument around on you*.

      *No second-person singulars were harmed in the making of this comment. If the “you” fits, wear it.

      1. Well, argumentum ad hominem doesn’t illuminate any argument, so I’d call that a real problem for advancing understanding. On the other hand, it takes a promethean effort to resist the technique.

        ciao.

      2. Well, argumentum ad hominem doesn’t illuminate any argument, so I’d call that a real problem for advancing understanding. On the other hand, it takes a promethean effort to resist the technique.

        ciao.

  14. The link between immigration–legal and otherwise–and economic vibrancy is pretty obvious to me. It’s also pretty clear to me that the more social services (like public schools and prisons) are cut, the more reluctant people are to make sacrifices for other people–especially other people are less like them.

    So for the sake diversity, it makes a lot of sense to try to reduce the costs of social services in hard times, and yet the President is working overtime trying to increase that burden with ObamaCare and other initiatives…

    Also for the sake of diversity, it makes a lot of sense to promote economic growth at the expense of government programs–we should be eliminating the capital gains tax instead of letting it jump this year. We should be slashing marginal tax rates to promote growth…

    Because immigration may be a key to economic vibrancy, but economic vibrancy makes people a lot more tolerant of immigration too. …legal and otherwise.

    1. Its true, the natives chill out when they are prosperous, but that’s mainly because they feel confident in the ability to afford ways to blunt the affects of cultural change (move to the suburbs, have vacations in more uniform places, buy culturally relevant stuff).

      1. So Obama should get the message…

        The more prosperous we are, the less intolerant we tend to be.

        So how do we make us more prosperous?

        Hint: It probably isn’t about mandating personal sacrifices–that probably has the opposite effect.

        1. “Hint: It probably isn’t about mandating personal sacrifices–that probably has the opposite effect.”

          But…but…our national greatness. Happy, healthy people are ungrateful bastards. Gotta beat’em and starve’em a little to build character.

        2. He and other leftists already have the message, but don’t see it that way. If times stay tough, that brings out the “racism” and “nativism” they love to rail against, and thus more need for hate crime laws, smearing Tea Partiers and Republicans, etc. The worse, the better!

  15. Arizona immigration policy does not exist in a vacuum, as simpletons would have you believe. It isn’t about racism or xenophobia or Republican meanies or Democrat bleeding hearts. What we as a nation doggedly fail to address is why people want to come to the United States, and how our various drug and labor and trade policies have contributed to the conundrum.

    1. We know why they come. They want to make a better life for themselves and their families. The problem is people see life as zero sum regardless of whether we’ve proved it is or not, so we believe we get more pie and better pie without them, so we want them gone. Only when we are busy consuming so much pie we don’t think we’ll ever be hungry again do we tolerate their pie eating and pie garnishing.

  16. Very interesting and informative blog. Hope we get some updatesSteel Pipe Supplier

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.