Immigration

Now Appearing in Oklahoma: Arizona's Immigration Law

|

Oklahoma state Rep. Randy Terrill wants to adopt Arizona's immigration bill in the Sooner State, only with added asset forfeiture provisions.

Because what's the point of passing a new law if you can't also take away people's stuff?

NEXT: Budgetary Three-Card Monte

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. Hm, it seems to be missing a “shoot your dog too” provision, sure it’s just an oversight.

    1. I’m sure the law doesn’t say they can’t shoot any dogs.

    2. Seems to be lacking language that overrules/works around the 4th amendment as well. You can’t be serious about law and order if you respect the fourth.

      1. Why don’t we put them in prison too so they can build crappy office furniture for cents per day?

      2. That’s why we have an appeals process, court challenges, official discretion…those Framers thought of everything! And you know why? They knew us humans are imperfect.

  2. “Terrill says the Oklahoma bill would also likely include asset seizure and forfeiture provisions…”

    Well how else is he supposed to pay us to enforce it?? Sheesh, Radley!

    1. Nice photoshop.

      1. Alas, I can’t claim it as my own creative production.

  3. Oh, isn’t hating on foreigners fun?

    1. And just in time for Cinco de Mayo.

      1. ARRIBA ARRIBA ANDELE ANDELE

        1. Watch out for that Frito Bandito!

            1. Most excellent.

  4. This is good politics and it isn’t going to stop. Open borders are a dead political loser. People better think of a way to limit the damage, because things are not going to go on as they are.

    1. I wish opening the border was an issue, but, unfortunately, it isn’t even under consideration.

      In the meantime, I don’t see why probable cause isn’t as applicable to immigration status as it is to any other crime, and I don’t think most of the rest of the American people understand why probable cause is suddenly so cruel and unusual either.

      I think it has legs. I think we should expect to see Arizona’s solution spread to just about every state with a sizable immigrant population that’s having budget difficulties, especially layoffs in their public school system.

      Personally, I’d rather move towards open borders, and I think American citizens would be a lot more receptive to that if they didn’t feel like immigrants were sucking up public resources. …even as American citizens are having to deal with cuts in public services.

      1. “In the meantime, I don’t see why probable cause isn’t as applicable to immigration status as it is to any other crime”

        Cops don’t need probable cause to conduct a threshold inquiry for any crime. All they need is reasonable suspicion. If they want to arrest, they need probable cause, and that goes for immigration crimes too.

        1. Still, every time a cop asks me if I know why he pulled me over–and they always do–I always ask, “So why’d you pull me over?”

          I think it’s common knowledge that if a cop doesn’t have probable cause, you can defend yourself against an arrest in court, and somehow the idea that even illegal immigrants should be able to defend themselves that way keeps getting lost in the shuffle.

          Drug traffickers get off on these kinds of technicalities, even if they’re guilty, and there’s nothing in the proposals I’ve seen that suggest illegal immigrants won’t be able to get off that way too. …that’s more or less all I was trying to say.

          If probable cause was necessary before, it’ll still be necessary–a lot of the critics I’ve seen seem to suggest that Arizona’s law means probable cause just went out the window, and it just ain’t so.

    2. The Constitution puts immigration within the power of the federal government. The reason is so the union doesn’t have 50 different laws regarding a national issue.

      States usurping the Constitution when they feel it’s necessary is not good politics.

      1. That’s partially right. States are not debarred by the Constitution from passing laws in harmony with federal immigration law, which Arizona’s was designed to be.

        1. How silly would it be if states were barred from reporting a suspected counterfeiter because that was a federal rather than a state crime?

          1. Exactly. We need to remember that Arizona isn’t deporting anyone here, but simply identifying illegal aliens and turning them over to the federal government.

      2. The Constitution puts immigration within the power of the federal government.

        Not exactly. The Constitution puts citizenship as a federal power. It is actually silent on immigration, and correspondence by the Founders indicates that at least some of them viewed immigration as a state power.

  5. Good thing not too many companies are based in Oklahoma. My boycott list has been getting too long to be easily manageable.

    1. You’re going to boycott business for something state legislature is doing? How does that make sense?

      1. Paying for goods or services from a company subsidizes the government of the state where the company is located through corporate taxes. I don’t want a percentage of my money to support, among other things, legislation that I don’t agree with.

        1. So you don’t pay federal taxes? Or do you pay them because you agree with all federal legislation?

          1. I don’t have a choice in paying federal taxes, other than withhold just as much as to not incur penalties when filing my tax returns. However, I can limit my contributions to sales taxes and corporate income taxes by bartering and second-hand cash-only purchases.

            1. can limit my contributions to sales taxes and corporate income taxes by bartering and second-hand cash-only purchases.

              For now…

              Didn’t you know immigrants and drug lords use “second-hand cash-only transactions”? Clearly they need to be banned ASAP.

        2. OK, Jozef, you have to pay federal taxes.

          Do you do business with any companies located in the United States? Or do you agree with all federal legislation?

          1. I get where you’re going, but its the same predicament.

            If he lived on the border of Canada or Mexico and bought all his consumer goods across the border (groceries, clothes, medicine, cars, tronics, construction materials for building his house, fuel for running a generator, etc.), the Fed would still slap him with an import tax. Plus his life would be a living hell of paperwork and shipping delays.

            So ultimately, your argument is “if you disagree with the Fed, you should get the fuck out. Otherwise you’re just supporting their policies.” Fair enough, i suppose. You looked into Costa Rica yet?

            1. MY point is that he’s refusing to support any business that merely resides in a particular state because of what that state’s government does. And in this case, I doubt that any business in Oklahoma has much input over this bill, so it strikes me as punishing someone for something someone else is doing.

  6. You might find these photos of Immigrant rights supporters interesting.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2010…..-wont-see/

    1. I hate when people do crap like that, including when it (seemingly) supports a position with which I agree. It’s an extension of the intellectual laziness that seems to dominate public discourse these days: why debate the merits of a policy when you can cherrypick photos of stupid people holding up stupid signs?

      1. …or stupid people vandalizing stupid businesses (and rioting, and setting cops on fire (Spain, for that one, but coming to a May Day ‘celebration’ near you…)

    2. I don’t think any issue should be decided because of the stupidity of protesters at a rally.

      Honestly, whatever our policy should be, it should be that regardless of what some idiot wrote on a sign.

    3. So, just because I’m a glutton for punishment I actually read through the slideshow. I think my favorite is the sign that reads: “We built your home. Don’t take mine apart,” which Malkin captioned with “Behold the culture of open-borders entitlement.” Regardless of your position on immigration, how does asking to be left alone qualify as an entitlement? We’ve got liberals who think that entitlement are rights and now we’ve got conservatives who think that rights are entitlements. No wonder we’re screwed.

      1. It seems more like an appeal to fairness (quid pro quo, reciprocity) than either entitlement (which would read more like “You can’t do this to me! Do you know who I am?”) or rights.

  7. Looks like the libertarians are going to be riding the immigration issue right over the cliff and into (even more) irrelevancy.

    1. Shut up, you neo-fascist piece of shit.

      American Third Position Party

      1. At least nationalist parties are getting their candidates elected in Europe, and probably will here, too. How are the libertarians doing?

        When people would rather vote for “neo-fascists” than your party, you aren’t in any position to be telling people to shut up.

        1. Who the hell has voted for them in the first place? They haven’t been in any elections. When they do get into elections, they’re not going to get 1/100th the votes that the Libertarians/Greens/Constitution Party gets. They just had a bunch of visitors to their official website, 99% of which were there to laugh at them.

        2. Democracy? That’s the hand-waving your going with?

          You found some idiots to vote for your idiocy. Congratulations.

        3. Are you suggesting that neo-fascists are more influential than libertarians in the American political debate?

          Because they’re not.

          Being associated with anything like neo-fascism is the end of political relevancy in the USA.

          Why does it matter what the backasswards Europeans are doing.

          P.S. You are aware that single-member districts aren’t necessarily the norm in European politics, right?

          1. I’m not the one calling them “neo-fascist”. The are, however, ethno-centric.

            And if you’re trying to tell me libertarianism is more influential than identity politics in America, I submit you are the one that’s delusional.

            1. Just because all of the buttfuckers in your little klub are into this sort of thing does not mean main street America buys this bullshit.

              No offense to buttfuckers

              1. None taken.

              2. LOL!! They don’t, eh? Would you care to tell me which presidential candidate 95% of black people voted for, and why?

                Or don’t black people qualify as “main street”?

            2. You can call it whatever you want, when 98% of the people in this country see it for what it is, they reject it straight up.

              It doesn’t even stand a chance against free minds and free markets. From marijuana legalization in states like California to opposition to using our future earnings to bail out Wall Street investors, libertarians are right in the middle of the road, politically…

              And the fact is that if the American people happen to agree with you on any particular issue for the time being, it’s only because they haven’t caught on yet to what you’re about. ’cause the minute they catch on that you’re about neo-fascism or ethnocentrism or whatever you’re calling it this week? They’re gonna treat you and any issue you’re involved with like it’s a venereal disease.

              1. Specifically, what policy are they advocating that leads you to believe they’re fascists?

                C’mon! Point to it! It must be somewhere on their website, shouldn’t it? You wouldn’t just be pulling statements like that out of your ass, would you?

                1. “I’m not the one calling them “neo-fascist”. The are, however, ethno-centric.”

                  I’m talking about whatever false distinction you’re making between neo-fascist and ethnocentric…

                  Call it whatever you like. But if you focus on trying to make Americans hate immigrants, you’re gonna lose.

                  1. ROTFLMAO!! Dude, if every organization that promotes the interests of an ethnic group is by definition “neo-fascist”, you might as well throw in the towel now – if that’s the case, we’re been a neo-fascist country for well over 100 years!

                    1. I don’t think I said that. I think I only suggested that the distinction between neo-fascist and ethnocentric doesn’t exist for most American voters.

                      I suspect it’s like the distinction between anarcho-capitalist and tiny-state libertarians–the American people don’t care about that distinction, only the libertarians do.

                      I don’t care about the distinction between neo-fascist and ethnocentric either–I suspect only the neo-fascists do…

                      And when it comes to the American people, I don’t think they care whether you’re a neo-fascist or ethnocentric either–either way, when they see you for what you are, they’ll treat you like a pariah.

                    2. Today is Ignore-A-Troll Tuesday.
                      Perhaps y’all didn’t get the memo.

                    3. In my defense, I didn’t realize how bad it was until I realized how bad it was.

                      I hate to dignify those arguments with answers, but I’d also hate to be the guy that didn’t call it like I saw it too.

                      Sometimes I think libertarians get held back because some of the weirdos in our midst we have to overcome, if there are reasonable people in the immigration restriction side of the equation, can you imagine trying to get your arguments heard over these sick jokers?

                      Can you imagine being like Michelle Malkin and havin’ your take linked by these guys? It almost makes me want to feel sorry for Michelle Malkin.

                      Almost.

                    4. “Can you imagine being like Michelle Malkin and havin’ your take linked by these guys? It almost makes me want to feel sorry for Michelle Malkin.”

                      Hey Michelle!

                      The “ethno-fascists” are givin’ you a big thumbs up! Keep up the good work.

                      That would make me sick.

      2. “American Third Position Party”

        Would that be wheelbarrow or reverse cowboy?

    2. And you’re proving this by linking to the website of what is, effectively, a white supremacist organization?

      1. This isn’t the first time slappy has linked to these assclowns. First time I clicked on the link, I saw that heroic banner of that fuck Lindbergh and quickly left, regretting that I gave those shits a hit on their site.

      2. Where do you see anything about “supremacism”? Or is representing the interests of white people supremacist by definition in your book? Presumably, representing the interests of an ethnic group should likewise discredit the NAACP, La Raza, the ADL and AIPAC, no?

        In any event, they listed their source for their figures. If you don’t like hearing it from them, you certainly have the option of checking them yourself.

        1. When the guy featured prominently on the top of your web page says thing like;

          We must limit to a reasonable amount the Jewish influence…Whenever the Jewish percentage of total population becomes too high, a reaction seems to invariably occur. It is too bad because a few Jews of the right type are, I believe, an asset to any country.

          you might be a supremacist group.

          1. Or how about;

            We can have peace and security only so long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood, only so long as we guard ourselves against attack by foreign armies and dilution by foreign races
            ?

            There are more if you like.

            1. Would you like me to post a few quotes from Jefferson regarding blacks?

              People who live in glass houses, shouldn’t.

              1. Would you like me to post a few quotes from Jefferson regarding blacks?

                Oh noes! Please don’t, the political party that I started has pictures of him plastered all over the place.

                Oh wait, I didn’t and don’t, so go right ahead dipshit.

        2. I’m sorry but when did the NAACP, La Raza, the ADL and AIPAC nominate candidates for political office? There’s a HUGE difference between running a group that looks out for the rights of a specific group and operating as a political party in which successful candidates will be asked to represent people beyond one specific group.

    3. I was going to post a comment saying I wonder how long it’s going to be till that stupid party of yours posts a link to your site, but I guess I don’t have to now.

      1. Please don’t go there. They’ve had enough hits.

  8. They need to add officer’s discretion for rape, murder, kidnapping, slavery, and torture of illegal aliens, then we’ll have adopted most of Mexico’s immigration policies.

    *I* say that as a joke, (funny, no?) but lots of people are using Mexico’s horrific treatment of immigrants from their southern border as a baseline for our own policies, which does not bode well.

    1. I hear that a lot too. It seems like a lot of their efforts (see the Malkin link above) are about trying to get Americans to hate the opposition rather than consider the arguments.

      Because Mexico does it, then we’re supposed to do the same stupid thing too?

      I’m not dumb enough to even consider that argument. I’d question the intelligence of the people who make those arguments except nobody ever went broke underestimating…

      So, who knows? People buy all kinds of stupid arguments. Some people buy male enhancement products from email they pick out of their Junk Email folder. I’m guessin’ they’re the same people who buy the argument that we’ve gotta do stupid stuff ’cause that’s what Mexico does…

      Somebody must be buyin’ all that junk.

      1. I don’t think that’s the point at all. I think they’re just pointing out it’s pretty rich for the president of Mexico to be criticizing our immigration policy, considering the one they have.

        1. It is the point.

          I don’t take orders from El Presidente. …one way or the other.

          I make the call in what I thinks best for me and best for the country. And what El Presidente has to say doesn’t have anything to do with that.

          So there’s idiots on one side saying that Arizona is part of Mexico? So what? Idiots say all kinds of stupid things. …none of which has any effect on any of my thinking. At all.

        2. It’s just bullshit — it’s not as though Americans know or give a flying fuck what the president of motherfucking Mexico thinks about our country. Conservatives don’t give a shit about any country’s opinion, and liberals only care about developed, predominantly white, social democratic countries.

      2. Get Free Viagra and Cialis

    2. I do wish the protesters would appreciate the ridiculous hypocrisy of waving the Mexican flag at a rally against immigration laws.

      1. Not having the protests on a communist holiday would be a good idea too.

        1. You asshole. May Day is for May baskets and hidden love, not communism.

          1. Don’t forget may poles.

            1. Phallic stand-ins to remind everyone that Teh Patriarchy! is still in charge.

            2. Perish the thought!

      2. I saw them do that down Hawthorne Boulevard in Los Angeles during the rallies against Prop 187.

        That was a stupid tactic then, and if they’re still doing it, it’s as stupid now as it was then.

        Smart people, or course, try to insulate themselves from such stupidity. If they were marching under American flags, it wouldn’t make their arguments any better, so there must be at least something to the suggestion that marching under a Mexican flag doesn’t make their arguments any worse.

        If they were arguing that we should get rid of the income tax and privatize the public school system, I wouldn’t have to look at what flags they were marching under before I decided whether I agreed with them.

  9. I get teh feeling that redneck hillbilly Sheriff Joe Arpaio is behind the whole immigration thing.

    Lou
    http://www.whos-logging.se.tc

    1. I also get the feeling that the fusion of hydrogen to helium is behind the whole sun thing.

      1. Do not mock The Bot.

  10. This is from the Sooner state! If you don’t know what a Sooner is….

    A Sooner was a (white) settler that (illegally) entered the Oklahoma Territory in the Land Run of 1889 before the allotted time, thereby claiming the choicest homesteads. They hid out until the legal time of entry, then staked their claims (received amnesty). Strictly speaking, Oklahoma’s official state mascot is the “Oklahoma Illegal Immigrant.”

    Illegal immigration has been a part of this country since the founding of the Union. From white settlers illegally crossing the Appalachians in the late 1700s to illegal American settlers in Texas and California when they were Mexican territory to the Oklahoma Sooners. It’s arguable that the “illegal” Mexican immigrants are more American than the lazy white folk that want the government to restrict the flow of labor in order to protect their jobs.

    1. Delicious Irony.

      While i was attending OU, I always thought it was perverse that our mascots were in effect cheaters.

      1. Your friends in Stillwater just figured it must be a result of Truth-In-Advertising laws.

  11. These are good laws just like the drug laws. These people are breaking the laws. And like their drug using brothers, they must be put in our jails. The states must do something to keep their people safe. Laws must always be followed or society breaks down.

    1. It’s good to have you back.

    2. M’am, can I see your citizenship papers, please?

  12. When did Oklahoma become a border state?

    1. We’re only one state up from the border, and one of the least expensive places to live in the whole country. Quite a few illegal immigrants here.

      Not defending this bill or anything, just pointing that out.

    2. It’s been a while.

    3. When did illegal aliens confine themselves only to border states?

      1. Obviously they don’t, but if the crime they committed is crossing the border illegally, it is not possible to have done that in a non-border state, so the argument could be made that they don’t have jurisdiction.

        1. If you enter someone’s house illegally its still illegal even if you are past the front door and are in the upstairs bedroom.

          1. Depends on whether it’s a crime of presence or entry into the US. If it’s presence, you’re right. If it’s entry, the actual crime happened in another state — crossing interstate borders is unrestricted.

  13. If they were marching under American flags, it wouldn’t make their arguments any better, so there must be at least something to the suggestion that marching under a Mexican flag doesn’t make their arguments any worse.

    Well, their arguments are what they are. By marching under Mexican flags, though, they are also signalling that they have no real interest in assimilating into American culture.

    Which is probably a bad idea if you are trying to convince people to loosen up on immigration laws.

  14. today PA state representatives Daryl Metcalfe and Harry Readshaw have introduced HB 2479. I hope there are others in PA that will help stop this insane law from passing. I refuse to carry identification unless I need it to buy something.
    http://www.wnep.com/wnep-pa-la…..9661.story

  15. Ever since Republicans took control of the OK state legislature, it’s been one obnoxious fascist thing after another. If it’s not ten commandments on public property it’s abortion restrictions, over and over. I advocate for a special line in the state budget to cover all of the litigation that will result from all of the unconstitutional bullshit they’re passing, and taxing the churches to pay for it.

  16. It’s not the issue of immigration that’s divisive, is it the illegal immigrants themselves (and proponents of amnesty / open borders) who are divisive. They would rather divide and destroy the U.S. than lose their free lunch. That’s what kind of people they are.

  17. I would like to see the American – Mexican border closed, and keep it closed until Mexico is willing to stop Illegal Immigration into our country. The U.S. has been victims of a twisted and unjust Lawlessnes, being played out by Mexican Politicians, as well as American Politicians. No Amnesty, all Illegal Immigrats have to go, Remember “Illegal is not Racist, anyone who is Illegal in our country is a criminal, don’t try playing the race card or twist it into racial profiling, thats just dumb.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.