Immigration

Reason #467 to Oppose Arizona's Immigration Law

|

Yes, but not home right now

When you're worried about being deported or imprisoned—as many of Arizona's 2 million Hispanics no doubt are, thanks to new laws that requires police to ask about immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" someone they have stopped, arrested, or detained is here illegally—you're a little less likely to open your door to a stranger with a clipboard who just wants to ask you a couple of questions about your ethnicity:

On May 1 — eight days after the immigration law was signed into law — 635,000 Census workers nationwide started going door-to-door to every home that did not send back the forms. They will return up to six times until they get answers to the 10 questions on the form.

In Arizona, many civic groups fear the new law will discourage cooperation.

"I've talked to friends and people in the community, and they're saying — whatever they think of the law, wherever they stand on the issue: 'I'm not going to open the door to anyone right now,' " says Tucson City Councilor Regina Romero, who represents largely Hispanic neighborhoods.

"People are scared, they're frightened," says Laura Cummings, a Census employee who works with local groups to build community support.

And, just speculating here, but the current plan doesn't sound like a great way to ease those anxieties:

Paul Fimbres, manager of the Tucson office that oversees many counties along the border…. has a contingency plan for areas tough to penetrate: "In case that happens, we blitz," Fimbres says. "We send 15 or 20 people or teams of two or maybe three."

Because the blitz technique is working really well in other areas.

Lots more on Arizona's immigration hullabaloo here.

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.

103 responses to “Reason #467 to Oppose Arizona's Immigration Law

  1. “We send 15 or 20 people or teams of two or maybe three.”

    Come on, Paul, this is The Census. Be *exact*.

  2. Because if there’s one thing that Americans will rally around to protect the integrity of, it’s………the census.

    1. Arizona should have waited until after the census.

      The ad campaign for the census encourages people to report accurately “so we get our fair share.” Think of how fair that share could be…

      Conservatives suck at gaming the system the way “community organizers” do.

  3. Well if illegal aliens wind up not being counted in the census, that’s a good thing as far as I’m concerned.

    The census data is used to assign Congressional districts.

    More illegal aliens included in the data means more vote dilution for legal citizens.

    1. Absolutely correct.

      The only reason to count illegal aliens is so that you know how many buses you’ll need to ride them back where they came from.

  4. Reason #468.

    1. he was told by authorities that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was detaining him because he was an illegal immigrant.

      Looks like Federal enforcement to me. But lets blame Arizona for everything

  5. By the way, speaking of the census, exactly where in the Constitution is any ennumrated power that authorizes the census to require all the information that it does rather than merely counting heads?

    The census bureau not only requires a lot more info from individuals in the periodic census, it requires companies to provide all sorts of information about their business (about invetories, fixed assets, etc.) on an ongoing basis all the time.

    My copy of the Constitution doesn’t say anything about the federal government havning any authority to require that.

    1. The Census would like to know why you resist assimilation.

    2. that’s why, from what I understand, you don’t need to fill out the other stuff – the only real “requirement” is that you fill out a headcount of people residing in your residence.

    3. I think the “but the Constitution doesn’t say that” defense died about 220 years ago, FWIW.

  6. OMG
    Criminals afraid of knocks on the door?!? NO

    1. Why, it’s just like Nazi Germany.

      1. Don’t be silly. Nazi Germany didn’t have Mexicans.

        1. That’s why they lost the war.

          1. Don’t mention the war!

      2. In that both the US and Nazi Germany criminalize people simply for exercising their individual rights, yes.

        In terms of punishment for those “crimes”, no.

        1. there is no right to enter a country without them having even a cursory notification that you’re doing so

          1. You can enter the US after giving them cursory notification that you are doing so?

            Then what the hell are those quotas for that I hear so much about?

            1. Yeah – we shouldn’t use a quota system, at least not like we have now.

              I’m not saying we shouldn’t allow immigration – I’m saying that regulating it is a valid concept.

              I’d settle for an Ellis Island scheme again, as many people as that would let in, we’d still at least be checking up on who’s coming in. At least a criminal background check is warranted.

              1. Indeed, the Ellis Island model was great. If you could afford a first or second class ticket, you were admitted without question unless the ship’s doctor noticed you were ill. If you traveled in a lesser class, you had to pass checks of background, health and competence that had an admission rate of 98%.

          2. More specifically, there is no such thing as some global “right” to reside anywhere on the planet that you happen to want to regardless of what the legitimate citizens of the particular country you are attempting to park your butt in think about it.

            It’s called national sovereignty.

            We do not have a one world universal government.

            1. Why, it’s just like Nazi Germany.

              1. Are you serious, do you really believe that? That countries regulating immigration is just like Nazi Germany?

                If you do, you should see a psychiatrist.

                1. Hey, I’m just following Gilbert Martin’s logic.

                  The legitimate citizens of Nazi Germany didn’t want certain other people to exercise their individual right to reside in that country. They were somewhat harsh about it, especially after they could no longer simply drive them away through harassment once the war had closed the borders. But we’re talking fundamentals of rights and sovereignty here, not degrees of enforcement.

                  1. You’re not following my logic – you’re dreaming up your own.

                    The United States didn’t suddenly declare some select group of people who had previously been legal citizens of the country to no longer be legal.

                    Illegal aliens sneaking in from across the border into the US were never legal to begin with.

                    Your attempted analogy is a big fail.

                    1. It’s not an analogy. You are the one claiming that individual rights are subservient to national sovereignty. If you want to qualify your statement, feel free. But you will have a hard time distinguishing what the US does as legitimate and what Germany did as illegitimate without making national sovereignty subservient to something.

                    2. Sovereignty is just another word for the State’s territorial pissing.

                    3. “It’s not an analogy.”

                      Sure it is. You said it was “just like”
                      Nazi Germany. That is claiming an analogy – pure and simple.

                      “You are the one claiming that individual rights are subservient to national sovereignty.”

                      There has never been any such thing as an “individual right” to be anyplace on earth that you want to be in the first place.

                      Your attempt to start with the premise that is is (or ever was) is another big fail.

                    4. There has never been any such thing as an “individual right” to be anyplace on earth that you want to be in the first place.

                      Yes, yes, yes… You have already established that you believe Nazi Germany had the legitimate authority to expel anyone it chose to.

                      The remaining question is whether you think the tools used to exercise this expulsion should be limited to requiring papers from those suspected of being in the country illegally before detention and expulsion, or if you think further efforts of enforcement would be legitimate.

                      And, most importantly, by what principle you would draw that line wherever you would draw it.

                    5. “Yes, yes, yes… You have already established that you believe Nazi Germany had the legitimate authority to expel anyone it chose to.”

                      Nope.

                      That’s not what I said.

                      What I said was there is no such thing as global right to be anywhere you want.

                      Your continue to fail in your attempts to link that in any way with Nazi Germany.

                    6. What I said was there is no such thing as global right to be anywhere you want.

                      Ergo, it is entirely legitimate for Nazi Germany to decide that a certain portion of the population can be removed from Germany.

                    7. Jesus Christ, there Mike P., you really are a world-class shitheel, aren’t you.

                    8. I’m not the one claiming that there is no right to reside wherever one wants to.

                      When someone says the sky is orange, does that not mean the sky is orange over Nazi Germany?

                      It’s not like this exact argument wasn’t used in other places as well: The legitimate citizens of South Africa decided to grant different citizenship to a portion of the population and then resettle them in designated homelands.

                    9. Nazis breathed oxygen. Thus, respiration is a Nazi activity and therefore MikeP must stop immediately or be known as a huge hypocrite, instead of merely a tedious douche.

                    10. Sigh. Okay, lesson learned.

                      When someone throws out a joke Godwin by saying “Why, it’s just like Nazi Germany” in order to stifle debate, it’s not a joke. They really intend to stifle debate.

                    11. “I’m not the one claiming that there is no right to reside wherever one wants to.

                      When someone says the sky is orange, does that not mean the sky is orange over Nazi Germany?”

                      Another bad analogy.

                      No global right to be anyplace you want is consistent with the sky being blue (i.e the normal state of things) – not orange.

                      When you get your own planet, you can make up whatever global rights you want for it.

                      On this one, no.

                    12. There has never been any such thing as an “individual right” to be anyplace on earth that you want to be in the first place.

                      I hear this argument a lot, but, why not? Where is that stated? Who decides these “individual rights?” I get that the US can decide, within its own understanding of “national sovereignty,” that this is true for its own territory, but you’re stating this like it’s a commonly accepted universal truth. Which… it’s not, at least to the best of my knowledge.

                      But, for the sake of argument, say it is – say that humans do not, currently, have the right to reside where they want to.

                      The next question is, is that OK? Are you cool with that?

                      Do you think that because someone is born in some armpit of the earth that they are doomed to die there? Do you not believe that there should exist some kind of global upward mobility?

                      If global upward mobility can exist, then some people have to leave the circumstances in which they are born – i.e. migrate. And guess what – those people for whom migration = upward mobility the most (poor people) are those for whom the laws/regulations are insufficient.

                      And of course it’s a can of worms/slippery slope – we’re talking about migration, but being born somewhere is just like being born under a different set of circumstances – poverty, for example.

                    13. “I hear this argument a lot, but, why not?”

                      Simple.

                      Because we do not have a one world universal government where everyone on the planet has agreed upon a common set of rights (and rules) and agreed to be governed by such.

                      Unless and until there is one, not only is there no such thing as global right to be anywhere you want, there is no such thing as ANYTHING being a global right.

                    14. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

                    15. But on the flip side – seems like without a “one world government” there is no global agreement on what rights we do not have either, huh?

                      So why is there global agreement (in your mind) that we CANNOT reside where we like?

                      I assume you will answer something about national sovereignty, which then puts us at the second point I made (which you did not yet respond to).

                    16. “So why is there global agreement (in your mind) that we CANNOT reside where we like?”

                      I never said there was a global agreement on anything – and that is the point.

                      Unless there IS a global agreement that being anywhere IS a right – then it’s not one.

                      It’s as simple as that.

                      Like I told Mike P, when you get your own planet, you can make up all the global rights you want.

                      On this one, no.

                    17. You do not believe in the principle of inalienable individual rights. Yet you do believe in the principle of national sovereignty.

                      How then do you determine what the limits of government power and action are?

                    18. The only reason that we in the United States have the rights that we do is because we have defined them for ourselves and used our national sovereignty to defend them.

                      Rights are an abstract concept. There is no way to “prove” that one thing is an “inalienable right” and another thing isn’t. A lot of European countries have defined all sorts of affirmative “rights” to materal goods and services regardless of the individual’s ability to pay for them. Should we be bound by their definition? If there is no national sovereignty, who gets to decide these things when there is disagreement as to what gets included?

                      We define the limits of our government’s power with via the Constitution.

                      If you want to impose your particular concept of what is and ins’t a “right” on everyone else in the world, you are going to have to use national sovereignty to assemble a big enough military machine to conquer the rest of the world to do so.

                    19. Okay, let me rephrase the question:

                      How do you determine what the limits of Nazi Germany’s government power and action are?

                    20. The only way you can determine what anyone else can do is by force.

                      And that’s exactly what we did with Nazi Germany.

                    21. You would have saved a lot of time if you had just said that might makes right way upthread.

                    22. Saying that the only way you can determine what someone else does is by force does not translate into saying that “might makes right”.

                      It is a statement of physical fact.
                      If someone is not inclined to do what you want, you either have to use force or a credible enough threat of it to make them comply.

                      Let’s see you answer my question.

                      If there is a disagreement between people as to what is and isn’t a right, who gets to decide?

                    23. I believe the answer to your question is the same as the answer to:

                      If there is a disagreement between people as to what the color of the sky is, who gets to decide?

                      Rights exist, as Jefferson and MWG note, independent of and before governments. The fact that people or governments can abrogate those rights does not negate their existence.

                      You are correct that sovereignty — and might in general — is a positive fact. But that positive fact goes nowhere in trying to make a normative determination as to what ends such positive power should be used for.

                    24. “Rights exist, as Jefferson and MWG note, independent of and before governments. The fact that people or governments can abrogate those rights does not negate their existence.”

                      You are merely avoiding the question and appealing to authority.

                      Merely chanting “inalienable rights” over and over again does not prove they exist or that you are the arbiter of what is and isn’t included in the set of them.

                      There has never been any global consensus on such things and probably never will be.

                      When you get your own planet you can decide that everyone has an “inalienable right” to be anywhere they want.

                      On this one, it isn’t up to you.

                    25. When you get your own planet you can decide that everyone has an “inalienable right” to be anywhere they want.

                      Actually, I can’t decide that. They either have that right or they don’t, just as the sky on that planet is either blue or it isn’t.

                    26. I said: “So why is there global agreement (in your mind) that we CANNOT reside where we like?”

                      You said: “I never said there was a global agreement on anything – and that is the point… Unless there IS a global agreement that being anywhere IS a right – then it’s not one.”

                      Then later you said: “If you want to impose your particular concept of what is and ins’t a “right” on everyone else in the world, you are going to have to use national sovereignty to assemble a big enough military machine to conquer the rest of the world to do so.”

                      But it seems that above, you imposed what “isn’t” a right – that humans do not have rights to reside anywhere. My point was, by stating that something is not globally agreed on as being a right, at least in this case, it is the same as globally agreeing that it is NOT a right. Which you stated can’t be done except via force.

                      Anyway, the “national sovereignty” argument affects this, and whatever; I’m more curious what you would say about my second point – copy-pasted here, because maybe you forgot it? You didn’t address it in either response:

                      Do you think that because someone is born in some armpit of the earth that they are doomed to die there? Do you not believe that there should exist some kind of global upward mobility?

                      If global upward mobility can exist, then some people have to leave the circumstances in which they are born – i.e. migrate. And for those people for whom migration = upward mobility the most (poor people), the laws/regulations are insufficient.

                      I would add: Because I believe that “residing where one likes” is, in fact, a right, I believe that laws (say, regulating immigration) should reflect this right.

                      Agree/disagree? (There are three questions here).

      3. Its not at all like Nazi Germany. Lest you forgot, the officials performed medical experiments on the Jews, sent them for forced labor camps, and killed them when they were done. All the law wants is to have those who are not here legally to go back home.

  7. “People are scared, they’re frightened”

    Why? Could it be that they are hiding something?

  8. Too bad.

  9. If it wasnt this it would be something else. Groups are often recommending poor and minority areas not cooperate with census surveys.

    I recall reading that anytime a major city has tried to get a handle on how many homeless people are within the city the local homeless advocates fan out and ask the homeless to not cooperate. An accurate count would not support their agenda.

    “When you’re worried about being deported or imprisoned?as many of Arizona’s 2 million Hispanics no doubt are…” I suspect those in AZ legally arent all that concerned. Carry a legal driver’s license and there is no issue.

  10. Sorry, Katherine, but anything that interferes with the Census ultra vires gathering of data is a good thing, not a bad thing.

  11. They only come back six times? I’m halfway there then…

  12. A census worker came to my apartment and asked me if my parents were home, I thought for a second and said “no”. Then he asked me if I knew when they would be home, I quickly responded and said “no”. He then left. I am 27 years old and live by myself. Apparently I look like a kid when I am hung over and am in my pajamas.

    1. If you’re a typical libertarian, maybe it explains why Salon got so confused.

      1. IIRC, she’s a woman, so she can’t be a typical libertarian in any way.

        If I’m wrong about your gender BKA, my apologies.

        1. I don’t know. My boobs and vagina do disqualify me as being a typical libertarian. But at the same time, I do have natural distrust of authority, a Gadsden flag tattoo, and a perverted sense of humor. So where does that place me in the libertarian spectrum?

          1. That depends – where exactly IS the tatoo?

            1. Where I don’t want people to tread.

              1. OK, you’re in. Welcome to the club

            1. Or, more accurately, Lesbotarian?

          2. I don’t know. My boobs and vagina do disqualify me as being a typical libertarian. But at the same time, I do have natural distrust of authority, a Gadsden flag tattoo, and a perverted sense of humor.

            Oh deity, I’m in love. I want to have your children. Come over here and kiss me.

  13. “I’ve talked to friends and people in the community, and they’re saying ? whatever they think of the law, wherever they stand on the issue: ‘I’m not going to open the door to anyone right now”

    And that is a bad thing?

  14. TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets ,, Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama , threatens friends and bows to enemies INPEACH OBAMA THE COMMUNIST ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur; TO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT .THE COMMANDER REPOST THIS IF YOU AGREE

    1. I could go for some inpeach cobbler right now.

      I think my favorite part of this post was the random caps-lock sentence, but I could be persuaded otherwise.

    2. I’m thinking about changing religions – how does one become a Mmslim?

      1. I think it has something to do with Slim Jims; not sure.

  15. I’m in the process of moving. At the current addy I got nothing. I got a note on the door of the new place. There was a ph# for the nice census gentleman, I called and identified myself. He asked when we could set up an interview.. I said “1”. He said “what?” I said thats all you need to know. He sputtered about the other questions. I again said “1”.

    it got real quiet on the other end of the phone. Then I hear “Thank you sir”

    I think I’m done…

    1. Actually if you moved into the new place on or after April 1, for census purposes you didn’t live at that address. If nobody lived there already April 1, the correct answer is “0”.

      1. they never canvassed this place. Mail or in person. Granted its a strange little place

        1. You mean the place you’re moving out of? I’d be interested in knowing where that is, and what characteristics make it strange and cause it to be overlooked. I was a field worker in address canvassing quality control last spring, and we considered it fun to be able to identify places that might be living quarters. As we passed over the bridge on Pelham Pkwy. going to & from training on City Is., we would see a seemingly beached barge near Co-Op City, and one among us saw a person on it, and he said he was hoping to be assigned to the area so he could canvass it, even if he had to wade out there.

          Address canvassing was biased in favor of locations’ being living quarters rather than not, because the census takers could always verify later that it was not. So deletions of addresses were subject to Final Delete Verification, and we’re still getting plenty of deletions in census taking. Usually it’s a matter of bldgs. & houses having fewer apts. than they might.

          As I’ve suggested below, phoning me at my local office on Memorial Day weekend (718-684-9715, for one possible extension) would probably be welcome. I might as well answer some questions from the public, because although for technical reasons we have to be staffed during that time, there may not be much to do unless they give me returned enumerators’ questionnaires to review for completeness. Or you might call Recruiting at your own Local Census Office to give my counterparts all over the country a workout.

  16. “They will return up to six times until they get answers to the 10 questions on the form.”

    The immigration law is creating jobs with a multiple of 5X the number of illegals in the state.

    1. Nah, actually we’re going for just any 3 of the first 7 Qs answered, and won’t visit 6 times if it becomes obvious before that time that we won’t get a response. I know because I’ve been reviewing questionnaires at LCO 2219 as to whether to send the census taker back there again. 3 positive “refusals” from an address means we for sure won’t send anyone back there. Unless we change evaluation criteria, that is.

  17. FWIW, the Supreme Court says that you have to answer all the questions, and can be fined if you refuse. But for question 9, Race, I wrote in “American,” and everybody here should, too.

    1. I’d like to tell you some of the odd answers we get for that one, but I’m not sure I can divulge any at this stage, even if the info is not personally identifiable. But I can say that in general, a lot more people (maybe a majority) are checking “other” and writing something in than those who designed the question probably expected. Mostly, respondents are slicing very finely rather than lumping as suggested above.

      1. Robert,

        Maybe you’ll have the answer. Why are Asians and Hispanics divided into so many national groups, while whites, blacks and American Indians are just single check boxes?

        1. I should remember to check the printed FAQ I’ve had at my “boat” in the office lately. But for one thing, the “race” categories were already numerous and with many synonyms or equivalencies stated in the choices, so that part of the form was crowded already. For Indians, there was also room to write in tribes. Contact me for an answer in a few days, or to remind me to look for one. You may phone me there at 718-684-9714 (among other extensions) this weekend from 8:30 AM to 5 PM; it’s been slow at my operation/dept. lately, and I expect to have even more time on my hands there on the holiday weekend. I might as well do some p.r. as anything else, especially since everybody there thinks answering phones is my strength.

    2. How about 3-legged?

  18. I get no less than 2 calls a day + a visit 2 times a week now. Gotta give it to the guy he takes his job seriously.

    Has anyone seen the 46 question survey that a select lucky few are getting? That one is just wrong.

  19. Arizona Immigration Law? There is now an APP on iTUnes store for that: http://tinyurl.com/35jmx4j

  20. How are people in Arizona supposed to ignore illegal immigration from Mexico, pretend Mexico is Canada when it’s not Canada, but Mexico.

    Most illegal immigrants in Arizona are Mexican… how the heck can that be ignored? Race classification and what not suck, but Mexicans come from Mexico for god’s sake. There’s no way to be cute about it, I’m afraid.

    1. That’s awful, and thankfully he wasn’t deported for looking Mexican.

      Again illegal immigration is just going to be a bitch for the Hispanic community until more illegals start coming from Canada or Asia, and the it’ll be a bitch for Canadians and Asians. Hell, for some Asians, in certain cities, it’ll be a burden too.

  21. Hey Asswipe. Been to Green Valley? tons of Canadians there

    1. Illegal Canadians, really?

      I don’t follow your asswipe comment. Why exactly am I an asswipe? Or most illegals in Arizona Mexicans or not?

  22. That was for Lyle

  23. Today, a copy of the “long form” American Community Survey census form made a round in the census office I work at. My office only deals with the decennial census, and every person there that looked at it thought that the questions were ridiculously intrusive and private, not too surprising considering that one of the questions asks if have difficulty bathing or changing clothing. Where I’m from, a question like that will get you hit in the face. The fact that it asks for a name to go with all those personal questions just pushes the whole thing over the edge into the insane.

    Now our office has to deal with people are legitimately upset with the long form and don’t want to deal with the census bureau when all we want is the number. (and race if possible) The confusion that goes with two different census forms also opens up the door for people running scams. Why they don’t put the American Community Survey on hold once every 10 years while they do the real census, I may never know.

  24. I came across a good debating resource that allows you to post comments and cast votes either for or against the New Immigration Law of Arizona without prior registration. I really recommend it: http://www.civiltalks.com

  25. you have to remember that the law in Arizona has a large amount of support amongst backers, this was put in place to protect the citizens of that state.

    My feelings are that the law is unconstitutional, however, i weigh up both points of view in an article done recently, check it out http://www.globalvisas.com/blog/arizona‘s-new-take-on-the-us-immigration-law-divides-a-state.html

  26. Instead of militarizing the U.S.-Mexico border in the false hope that it can ever be sealed, why not make it go poof by expanding it to the Mexican coast and incorporating Mexico into the U.S. as several new states? Find out how it can be done with a happy ending for all at http://go.to/megamerge

  27. Instead of militarizing the U.S.-Mexico border in the false hope that it can ever be sealed, why not make it go poof by expanding it to the Mexican coast and incorporating Mexico into the U.S. as several new states? Find out how it can be done with a happy ending for all by Googling “Megamerge Dissolution Solution”.

  28. Do you support SB 1070? Do you oppose SB 1070? … law enforcement has the right to inquire about your immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion
    Make you voice heard at http://immigration.civiltalks.com/

  29. The Governor/Lawmakers in Arizona should be commended! Finally, someone has stood up in an attempt to uphold the immigration laws of our country. Bravo! This is the kind of “balls” our Presidents should have had long ago.
    The Governor of Arizona should run for President! She would get my vote.

  30. are we supposed to feel sympathy for the hispanics afraid of being imprisoned or deported? THEY ARE COMMITING A CRIME! If they were really in this country legally they wouldnt have a problem answering a simple ten questions. THEY ARE ILLEGAL, THEY DESERVE TO BE IMPRISONED AND DEPORTED. We don’t see people on the news fighting for the rights of murderers and drug dealers do we? but we continue to see people fighting for the rights of ILLEGAL ALIENS who are commiting crimes just by crossing the border.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.