Immigration

Arrest Everybody

Arizona encourages police to emulate "the toughest sheriff in America."

|

A few years ago, David and Jessica Rodriguez were leaving Arizona's Bartlett Lake with their two children when they accidentally took a road that had been closed because of rain damage. They were stopped by deputies from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, who demanded documentation from David Rodriguez, including his Social Security card, and cited him for failing to obey a road sign.

Although several other motorists made the same mistake around the same time, the deputies simply warned them about the washed-out road and let them go. Unlike David and Jessica Rodriguez, who are U.S. citizens of Latino descent, the other drivers were white.

This sort of experience, poisonous to the principle of legal equality, is bound to become more common as a result of Arizona's new law requiring police to investigate the immigration status of people they encounter in the course of their work. The law encourages police to emulate Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio by seizing upon any excuse to hunt for illegal immigrants.

A 2008 quote gives you an idea of Arpaio's approach. The self-described "toughest sheriff in America" complained that concerns about probable cause were preventing arrests of Latinos who might be illegal residents. "I wish that the Phoenix police would arrest everybody," he said, "even if they're not sure."

The Rodriguez family was detained during one of Arpaio's "crime suppression" sweeps, in which his deputies use traffic stops as a pretext for checking Latinos' immigration status. The state legislature has invited more use of this technique by amending the immigration law to specify that police should demand proof of legal residence only during "a stop, detention, or arrest" related to enforcement of another law. 

If speeding, broken tail lights, cracked windshields, and unfastened seat belts do not provide enough opportunities for immigration checks, police can use local ordinances regulating things like noise, yard upkeep, and residential occupancy. Reports about violations of such rules, even if unfounded, trigger the obligation to do an immigration check when there is "reasonable suspicion" that someone is "unlawfully present in the United States."

Another trick favored by Arpaio is to stop people based on "reasonable suspicion" that they are engaged in criminal activity (which in his view includes living in the U.S. without permission). The Supreme Court has approved such investigatory stops, which can include pat-downs aimed at finding weapons.

According to the Court, "reasonable suspicion" requires "specific, articulable facts which, when considered with objective and reasonable inferences, form a basis for particularized suspicion." By itself, driving (or walking) while Latino is not enough. But the standard leaves considerable room for police discretion, subject to legal review only if a lawsuit or criminal case ensues.

Recognizing the potential for racial profiling, the Arizona legislature originally said immigration checks should not be based "solely" on "race, color or national origin." The revised law says police "may not consider race, color or national origin …except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."

What extent is that? The answer is uncertain enough that Gov. Jan Brewer surely exaggerated when she claimed the amendments "make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal and will not be tolerated in Arizona."

David and Jessica Rodriguez are plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit arguing that Arpaio's sweeps rely too much on race. The lead plaintiff is Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, a Mexican who was detained for nearly nine hours even though he presented several forms of ID, including a valid visa.

Arpaio, who also faces a federal civil rights investigation, is unrepentant. "My office has been enforcing federal immigration law for three years," he bragged in May. "The new law just gives us a little extra tool." 

Senior Editor Jacob Sullum (jsullum@reason.com) is a nationally syndicated columnist.

© Copyright 2010 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Advertisement

NEXT: Recently at Reason.tv: Feminist Constance Penley on Porn, Obscenity, & John Stagliano

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. They were stopped by deputies from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, who demanded documentation from David Rodriguez, including his Social Security card, and cited him for failing to obey a road sign.

    These police officers are being ridiculous – who the fuck goes around with their SSN card in their fucking wallets?

    Unlike David and Jessica Rodriguez, who are U.S. citizens of Latino descent, the other drivers were white.

    The new police powers given by the new Arizona law, in a nutshell.

    People, you really think this law is about catching undocumented aliens? Think *again*: it is meant to HARRASS US Citizens whose ass is Brown. Nothing more, nothing less.

    1. As is apparent from the example given, minorities were being harrased BEFORE the law was passed.

      This law changes nothing.

      1. Sure it does. It makes it even more difficult to mount a legal defense against the harassment.

        1. Really? The law doesn’t provide a “he looked Hispanic” defense against a harassment lawsuit.

          1. Re: Tulpa,

            Really? The law doesn’t provide a “he looked Hispanic” defense against a harassment lawsuit.

            No, the tax-fed leeches will allude to some after the fact made-up “crime in progress” as a defense.

            1. I was wondering if Arpaio would like to come over and perform acts of Hooverism (or Dysonism if you prefer) upon my throbbing member for awhile, because this freak of nature is a sure-fire example of a grade-A cock$ucker….

          2. Use you brain. Who, in Arizona, could possibly have this law used against them more than their white brethren.

            That this law will be used discriminatorily against Hispanics is obvious to the point of self-evidence.

            1. *your* – gah. joe’z law is in effect people. We are at DEFCON 1.

              1. Waaaa-haaa….

            2. The only extra immigration enforcement this law is going to bring about is that performed by officers who previously did not want to check immigration status. So, it stands to reason that such officers are going to be coming up with every available excuse NOT to use the law.

              The racial profiling by Arpaio types, which I agree is execrable, is not affected by the law, as it happened in the past, happens now, and will continue to happen in the same fashion regardless of this law going into effect.

          3. Who in their right mind would even admit the race of the defendant on a harassment suit? They would simply allude to their duty to enforce the new law when committing harassment.

            1. The article assumes that a thin account of someone getting stopped and asked for their ID is accurate. If it’s easy to suppose that the police are being racist (of which hard evidence is lacking), then you must also assume it’s very easy for people who’ve had run-ins with law enforcement to glamorize details.

              I suspect this whole thing is a combination a cop who shoots his mouth off and minority rights groups looking for a free lunch off a civil suit, and nothing more. Just braggarts and babies. No tears shed either way here.

      2. I don’t see how it makes more difficult to mount a legal defense against the harassment.

        The harassment consists of

        (a) being pulled over on a pretext. The law doesn’t change that at all, and

        (b) being asked to show valid ID, including citizenship papers. The law doesn’t change that.

        (c) being taken downtown if you can’t show your papers. The law may have changed that, a little, but I doubt it in practice.

        (d) being referred to ICE. The cops have always been able to do that.

        Really, as far as I can tell, the law is mostly theater, annoncing that the AZ cops will by god keep doing what they’ve always been able to do. So how does this bit of theater ratifying pre-existing police powers make it harder to raise a defense?

        1. I agree it is mostly theater and doesn’t change any pre existing ability the police have to stop or detain anyone they want. Since the Supreme Court created the automobile exception to the 4th amendment by pulling out of their asses the idea that people have less right to privacy in their vehicles than their persons and homes, it’s all been downhill.

          1. I don’t think the 4th amendment says what you think it says. The entire body of law surrounding proper search procedures has been “pulled out of the ass” of the courts, since the amendment only prohibits “unreasonable” searches.

            If you want to throw out everything the SCOTUS has just made up on the fly, you’re going to have to throw out the idea that evidence found during unreasonable searches is inadmissible in court, too. That is NOWHERE in the Constitution and a pure invention of the federal courts after the fact.

            1. I’ve got my pocket copy of the Constitution so I know what the 4th amendment says. The court should have ruled that a search, any search, is unreasonable unless there is some particular reason to believe a specific person is committing a crime or hiding evidence or contraband. “Unreasonable” literally means without reason. The random roadblocks, home entries to check on code compliance, etc DO NOT fit the definition of reasonable, and should not have been allowed by the courts.

              I agree the exclusionary rule was made up out of thin air by the courts. It helps those who are in fact guilty and does not help those whose rights are violated but who are in fact innocent. I would not object to doing away with it, as long as we also do away with qualified immunity for the polcie and subject them to criminal prosecution for tresspass, perjury etc. if in fact they violate the law.

              1. “Unreasonable” literally means without reason.

                No, it doesn’t. It is a synonym of irrational, contrary to reason, under the other meaning of the word reason.

                But, the exclusionary rule also helps the innocent by removing any incentive police might have to conduct an unreasonable search. Even if they find any evidence, they can’t use it in court.

              2. the main probem with the fourth amendment ( and amendments in gerneral) is they founders never provided remedy for violations of said amendment. what should happen to law enforcement officials who violate rights?

        2. …and

          (e) being prosecuted and punished under Arizona law for violating a brand new crime in Arizona, and

          (f) having the officer and the officer’s agency under threat of suit if they don’t prosecute the new law to the fullest extent possible.

          1. being prosecuted and punished under Arizona law for violating a brand new crime in Arizona

            Arizona is in a country called the United States, in which the activity prohibited by the new law was already a crime. So it’s not really a brand new crime.

            having the officer and the officer’s agency under threat of suit if they don’t prosecute the new law to the fullest extent possible.

            There is absolutely no way that such a suit would see the light of day in court. The plaintiff would have to prove a completely unproveable claim.

            1. So it’s not really a brand new crime.

              Oh. Can you tell that to the state DAs and judges who suddenly have to prosecute and try it?

              There is absolutely no way that such a suit would see the light of day in court.

              Are you saying that the Arizona legislature wrote a bad law?

              1. “state DAs and judges ”

                They don’t prosecute it. They hand it over to the Feds just like before.

                1. Have you read the law?

                  13-1509. Willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document…
                  A. In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).

                  D. A person who is sentenced pursuant to this section is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon, commutation of sentence, or release from confinement on any basis except as authorized by section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed by the court has been served or the person is eligible for release pursuant to section 41-1604.07.
                  E. In addition to any other penalty prescribed by law, the court shall order the person to pay jail costs.

              2. Can you tell that to the state DAs and judges who suddenly have to prosecute and try it?

                From the POV of the people committing the crime, it’s not brand new. You were looking at the law from that point of view, since you framed it as “being prosecuted” rather than prosecuting or enforcing.

        3. Maryland does not even have the same law and they arrest and turn over illegals for deportation.

          Maybe others forgot about that recent one that was going on blocks away from the White House while Maobama was ignoring it to pick on Arizona.

          1. Exactly.

            So why this law? Why make it a state crime not to have federal papers? Why legislate the threat of civil action for enforcing and prosecuting this new state crime with a lower priority than other law enforcement priorities?

            1. You don’t even need federal papers. In the law, an AZ driver’s license is evidence of citizenship.

              From what I gather from more reasonable places on this subject, it is the AZ state reaction to some of their cities trying to be sanctuary cities.

              1. glug glug glug.

                aaaah.

              2. Not all legal residents are citizens either. Those guys are the most screwed up, because while a citizen can fight back in court, a non-citizen, even legal, has a specific interest not to be deported for talking back at the police.

                1. Legal residents (who are not citizens) can get drivers licenses and non-driver IDs as well.

            2. MikeP, I had no idea you were so concerned for the proper prioritization of law enforcement activity in Arizona.

              Seriously though, you seem to be vacillating between this law being a terrible encroachment on liberty and being completely meaningless and without effect, depending on what the nearest supporter of the law just said. It can’t be both.

              1. How so? I’m just reading the law. I think it’s obnoxious. It’s sadly constitutional, given that the Constitution reserves immigration regulation to the states. But it’s obnoxious to create a new state crime and to threaten localities’ law enforcement priorities.

                The former is because the state doesn’t believe the federal government is enforcing the law adequately. The latter is because the state doesn’t believe the localities are enforcing the law adequately.

                To me that’s plainly obnoxious.

                1. There’s an awful lot of e-ink being spilt and liquid crystals being reoriented on a supposedly serious site against something that’s merely “obnoxious”. If only you cared as much about Reason’s editorial priorities as Arizona’s law enforcement priorities.

                  1. I don’t know about Reason’s editorial policies, but I find restrictions of free migration the most egregious violation of rights the US perpetrates today.

                    Seeing more of it from more levels of government — even if it doesn’t change the restrictions themselves — is obnoxious.

              2. How about encroaching and petty?

                1. Petty: That’s the right word. Encroaching is a given.

                  1. Worries about future labor costs be-deviling us, eh?

                    1. It’s perfectly reasonable to require visitors to sign the guestbook. It’s also perfectly reasonable to require them to leave before operating hours are over.

                      However the mental gymnastics attempted in counter arguments are totally unreasonable.

              3. I agree. This law is an infringement on liberty. And, more importantly, it will not accomplish anything. Want to eliminate the drug violence on the border? How about putting an end to the drug war — an unwinnable war if ever there was one? Want to protect ranchers on the border? How about restoring property rights to their proper place in the hallowed halls of government? There is no need for this law to accomplish the above objectives. Anyway, if Obama gets his way, this will be a moot point and we’ll all be forced to moved to Canada since he is hellbent on establishing the same socialist policies that have failed so miserably in Latin America and have forced folks to leave their families behind in search of better economic opportunities.

          2. Who’s winning?

        4. Precisely because they had alredy been engaged in harassment and racial profiling, it is dangerous to give them a law that justifies it. If they had never been involved in it, many of the speculative but plausible hypotheticals would not be seen as plausible.

    2. who the fuck goes around with their SSN card in their fucking wallets?

      I do.

      The thing that chaps my hide about that issue, however, is the fact that your SSN was not meant to be used as identification. In fact, it was that very issue that was one obstacle for FDR – when he proposed the SS system, and assigning a number to everyone in the U.S., many complained that he was creating a national ID number. To placate their fears, he promised the SSN could not be used for ID and the law as passed expressly stated that no government agency could use the SSN as ID.

      It was that way for many years – several decades. In fact, my first SS card said right on it “not to be used for identification.”

      That whole concept went out the window several years ago. I don’t recall which law it was, but Congress changed the law and now of course everyone and every government agency uses your SSN as an identifier.

      Just another example of government lying through its teeth to the American people. It’s a well-established practice.

  2. The lead plaintiff is Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, a Mexican who was detained for nearly nine hours even though he presented several forms of ID, including a valid visa.

    Don’t think this sort of unlawful discrimination by tax-fed leeches happens only in AZ: While I was in CA, the DMV refused to give my wife a driver’s license even though she had a license from the TX DPS, because he has no SSN, although she had a valid US non-resident Visa.

    1. The strange thing about all these horror stories: they all occurred before the law went into effect (since it’s not in effect yet). So Sullum’s listing of all the past power abuses of Arizona LEOs (and I agree they are rank abuses) doesn’t really do anything to argue against the new law.

      1. Re: Tulpa,

        The strange thing about all these horror stories: they all occurred before the law went into effect.

        The point of mentioning the horror stories is that the law does NOTHING to address the fact that the AZ police will cast a wide dragnet to get every single Brown-assed person (which will be mostly US Citizens) in an effort to catch, here and there, the very few unlucky bastards that happen to be in the US with no immigration papers.

        1. “the very few unlucky bastards that happen to be in the US with no immigration papers.”

          It’s not very few in AZ, or in CA, etc.

          That’s the problem. If it was very few no one would care.

          1. Re: Kroneborge,

            Let me rephrase that: The very few unlucky bastards that get caught with no immigration papers on hand. The rest of the fish caught in the net will be US Citizens, harrassed to the point of tears, because the AZ tax-fed leeches will not (conveniently) believe their own AZ-issued licenses and IDs.

            1. Yes, I’m sure there will be some of that. I’ve been pulled over twice for a “license plate light being out” of course it wasn’t out, but shit happens.

              Still, I think the better solution is to reduce the 100000000 reasons cops can pull you over. If they do pull you over, and you DON’T have a license, then yeah, your immigration status should be checked too.

        2. Why this constant reference to ‘brown’ people? Do you mean negroes? That would be odd. It is my understanding that the people of Mexico are, for the most part, of Spanish(caucasian) and Native American descent–and the various admixtures thereof. So…’brown’?

          Additionally, it strikes me that unless Joe Arpaio is simply a big fan of Spanish/Hispanic surnames and simply applied one to himself willy-nilly, he is of Hispanic descent himself–possibly even descended of those ‘brown’ assed people you seem to like so much.

  3. Yeah! We should let the illegals get away with it!

    1. Finally some sanity in the debate. Thank you.

    2. If the feds would do something about it, this wouldn’t be a problem.

    3. End illegal immigration! Legalize it!

    4. What does harassment of citizens and legal residents do to fight the problem with illegals?

      1. You need to learn to differential between reality and claims about reality.

        If citizens are actually being harassed, then there’s a problem. If someone is claiming they were harassed, there’s not necessarily a problem. You’ve invested heavily into the later, if your wrong will you buy the next cop you see a dozen donuts?

        Or is there an intellectual cowardice that enables any conspiracy fantasy?

  4. And yet many people (although likely few, if any, here) think that primary enforcement provisions for minor offenses like seatbelts or the like are a good idea, when all they do is give the police the incentive to launch a fishing expedition on anyone they think gives them a better-than-average chance of making an arrest or writing a ticket…

    1. Thank you! I got a bullshit ticket here in Texas for not having my front license plate mounted on the front of the car! It was in the front windshield which is technically legal under Texas DPS statute 502.404

      I’m so tired of hearing the “they broke the law!” whining about illegal immigration…as if these people think whatever law is spoonfed to them must be fair and just automatically?

  5. Arizona’s new immigration law

    Everything that could be said has been said, but thanks for not calling it “Arizona’s controversial new immigration law.” That’s unique.

  6. Yeah! We should let the illegals get away with it!

    I bet everyone who posts on this board has done something illegal, but only the “good people” should be allowed to get away with it.

    1. Oh, I hate being held responsible for my actions. But that doesn’t mean I won’t ever hold anyone else responsbile for their actions.

      To quote from Harold and Kumar

      “Do like getting Hand jobs? Hell yeah, Do you like giving Hand jobs? Nope. Doesn’t that make you a hypocritizer???”)

      1. You bet I hold legislators and administrators responsible for taking away people’s liberties. I have more trouble holding authorities responsible for enforcing the laws legislators and administrators pass. But if they do it with vigor, yes, I hold them responsible. This Arizona law forces them to do it with vigor — or at least more vigorously than all the other laws they must enforce that don’t carry the threat of lawsuit for underenforcement.

        Wait. What was your point?

        1. I’m sure they’re worried about you holding them responsible.

    2. I never complained (long) for getting a speeding ticket, even when the limit was stupid low. But I have all my papers too.

  7. Article Summary:

    I found an example of a cop being racist.
    All cops will be racist because of SB1070.

  8. If speeding, broken tail lights, cracked windshields, and unfastened seat belts do not provide enough opportunities for immigration checks, police can use local ordinances regulating things like noise, yard upkeep, and residential occupancy.

    In other words it is impossible for an individual to go about their daily routine without breaking some rule, and all the police have to do is follow someone long enough to have the opportunity to demand to see some papers.

    Juden. Juuuuuu-den.

    1. all the police have to do is follow someone long enough to have the opportunity to demand to see some papers.

      They can do that already. Again, most of these complaints have nothing to do with the new immigration law. It doesn’t require police to come up with pretexts for traffic stops or home visitations, it just deals with what happens when there is already a traffic stop or home visit in progress.

      1. My point is that there are too many laws and rules.
        If criminal actions were limited to the use of force and fraud on others, we could easily fire 90% of the police force, force most lawyers to find respectable employment, and set free two thirds of our prison population.

        1. Actually, a lawyer’s employment would become respectable because the majority would be dealing with private contract disputes. Also, since it would not be illegal to practice law without a license and since it would be much easier to learn a legal system with so few laws, there would be many many more lawyers than there are now. Sounds bad at first until you think about how they would have to compete against eachother and pull their rates down to those of a good carpenter or something.

    2. Yes. Clearly this can only lead to the ovens.

      1. Your right, with the exception of the ovens, everything else Nazi’s did was perfectly acceptable.

  9. that they are engaged in criminal activity (which in his view includes living in the U.S. without permission)

    As an Australian citizen trying to immigrate legally to the US, it has been made pretty clear to me that it is a crime to live there without permission, so much so that if caught, it would pretty much prevent me from ever receiving permission to do so legally.

    Those hopping across the border and flouting the law are criminals and should be treated as such.

    Should that extend to treating US citizens as such – of course not – but let’s not pretend the criminals are poor and hard done by when they complain they are being unfairly targeted or discriminated against.

    1. Watch out Aussie, the open borders crowd here will want to lynch you and tell you to mind your own business.

      1. Criticizing a bad law that is blatantly open to abuse doesnt make one pro-“open boarders”

        1. What exactly does this law change or add? The only noteworthy thing about it, is it’s complete redundancy.

          You’re assuming there’s been abuse based on your own prejudice, which is what you are supposedly rallying against.

          Bill, in plain rodeo terms, what you’ve got there is plain, ‘ole bullshit. No matter how much you say otherwise, not one piece of authentic chocolate. BTW – you might want to consider a breath mint.

    2. Well said.

    3. As someone who has also gone through the immigration process I can say that as long as US immigration policy is as restrictive as it is, there will always be Mexicans “hopping across the border and flouting the law”.

      Think alcohol and drug prohibition.

      1. +30,000,000 brown bonus points.

      2. As someone who has also gone through the welfare process I can say that as long as US welfare policy is as generous as it is, there will always be Mexicans “hopping across the border and flouting the law”.

        Think Octomom.

        1. …and because you’re completely consistent, I’m guessing you’re also against any form of tax cuts, being as we live in a welfare state.

      3. Well bro, if pot and other drugs are legalized, then you really won’t have a legitimate reason not to support fully militarizing the border.

        My advice: best to enjoy your bud in the thinking-time off hours.

        1. Way to miss the point there champ.

    4. People who smoke pot are criminals. I suppose we shouldn’t complain about them (us) getting unfairly targeted or discriminated against. It is illegal afterall. Or maybe smoking pot or walking across an imaginary line to find work aren’t really crimes.

      1. C-

        You failed to answer in IRAC form and equivocated.

    5. Paint your ass brown, apparently that helps.

    6. You can’t get an E-3 Visa?

      1. Yeah I can, but the E-3 is valid for 2 years (renewable indefinitely) and I have to agree to return to Oz when I no longer have a valid reason to stay, (or am no longer able to find an employer willing to sponsor the E-3 should the current sponsor retrench me, go out of business etc, or should I desire to find a new sponsor and be unable to do so within the allowable timeframe)

        Also from my understanding, I have no option to apply for US permanent residency or citizenship under an E-3, regardless of how many times it is renewed, and that is the real sticking point for me because I have no desire to return once I immigrate.

        And I am quite sure the consular official will not be too impressed should I say to him or her during my interview “Yes I agree to return when I no longer have a valid reason to maintain the E-3, but just out of curiosity, say I decided not to return and wanted to stay, how would I go about doing that despite this visa being issued on the basis I will return?”

    7. Actually, being here without the proper paperwork is a civil offense, not a criminal one. Undocumented immigrants are not criminals in any manner unless they present false ID. The civil nature of the offense is one of the things the AZ law changes.

      1. Crossing the border illegally… criminal offense. Bam!

        Pretty sure it’s a violation of all sorts of international laws to boot.

        I’ll also bet you a few bucks or pesos, it’s illegal under Mexican law to cross their northern border illegally.

        1. Plenty of illegal immigrants are visa overstays…

    8. Nobody wants to see a less restrictive, more common sense immigration policy than I do.

      Of course maybe I should just lob over on a plane and if I get picked up try the “I’m not really a criminal because it is just an imaginary line” defense and see how that goes for my application.

      Or perhaps the US can just extend it borders halfway into Mexico (or even better for me, all the way to Australia), annexing everyone and everything within, saying that it is just an imaginary line so who cares?

      I can sympathize with those caught up in the system but fail to see why those who try to cheat it should be given any free pass and not pursued to the fullest extent to prevent them benefiting from cheating the system.

      1. Funny you mention the Australia, any U.S. Citizen try going there illegally?

        You’ve got to get a VISA from their embassy to even fly there from here.

        I’m sure poor Paco is only illegal in Sydney because of the unfair practices of Aussie regulations. How will Kylie Monogue ever get her weed?

        1. Brilliant….

  10. Actually, this law specifically prohibits racial profiling. It would theoretically make it EASIER to defend yourself against harassment of this type. If you haven’t read the law, read it. If you have read it, then you are being intellectually dishonest.

    This is more of the usual ad hominem/strawman argumentation from the open borders crowd.

    The law has nothing to do with Sheriff Joe, and you don’t have to be a supporter of Sheriff Joe to like this law. It makes it no easier to stop someone on suspicion of anything. In fact, it is intended to be used in conjunction with an otherwise lawful arrest or stop, and mimics PRECISELY the federal laws which require immigrants to carry appropriate identification at all times. The only major difference between this law and say, California’s Penal Code which (while never enforced, our politicians here are pretty much in the left wing open borders camp) says pretty much the same thing, is that it also makes it a state crime, trespassing. Rhode Island has been doing this for years. Where’s the outrage there? Where are the accusations of horrific racial profiling?

    The federal laws allowing local police to enforce immigration law have been on the books for decades. The argument that someone, somewhere could misuse a law doesn’t carry a lot of weight, honestly.

    If you don’t like the federal or Arizona law, feel free to see if you can get it changed on a political basis. Frivolous legal arguments combined with the rampant judge shopping and the nonsense FUD spread by articles like this one are dishonest, intellectually, ethically and morally.

    There’s a law on the books. Most of the American public disagrees with you as to whether it should be enforced. Convince us with honest discourse, don’t fill us full of crap and try to scare us. Otherwise you’re just more of the same political jackassery.

    1. Re: Brian,

      Actually, this law specifically prohibits racial profiling.

      And since the omnipotent State obeys its own laws, well, why would we complain, right?

      Are you wearing a red hood, by the way? You sound so innocent and sweet.

    2. The issue is California voted for Obama, Arizona didn’t.

      1. Re: Suki,

        The issue is California voted for Obama, Arizona didn’t.

        Who gives a shit, Suki? The fact is, the law does nothing to curb “illegal” immigration, but it does give more undeserved feeling of power over legal US Citizens to illiterate, tax-fed leeches and other State parasites.

        1. OM,

          Why don’t you complain about something that is IN the law instead of making things up?

          The reason Obama ignored what was going on in Maryland while he was crying about Arizona was politics, not some outrage about an injustice.

          1. Re: Suki,

            Why don’t you complain about something that is IN the law instead of making things up?

            I judge ACTS, Suki, not intentions. I am not an utilitarian, like you seem to be. I care nothing about what intentions are behind this law, the ACTS perpetrated by the AZ police, casting a WIDE NET to get every brown-ass person they can so that they *may* catch a few unlucky schmucks, in the meantime harrassing vast numbers of US Citizens, just to justify their jobs as tax-fed parasites they are.

            1. OM, you were wrong on this yesterday, too. Utilitarianism is teleological – meaning it judges only outcomes, not intentions.

              1. That is what OM said. Did you mean Suki?

        2. I knew those reports of illegals fleeing Arizona were untrue! They knew, like you, this law does’n not target them any more than anything before.

          Obama must not have got the word. He is still stomping his feet and crying about it.

      2. Actually, the political calculation works in the opposite way. Since the law is popular in AZ, the national Democrats are really endangering local Democrat officeholders by harping on this law.

        Whereas, Obama could pick a random baby from a Rhode Island hospital every day and eat it for breakfast on live TV, and they’d still vote Democrat.

        1. You mean like a cannibal?! RACIST!!!!

        2. Now who’s winning?

        3. He needs the stem cells to survive!

    3. “Convince us with honest discourse, don’t fill us full of crap and try to scare us. ”

      You mean like, “they’re taking our jobs”.

      1. How about “no access” unless you’ve got a backstage pass?

        Try your illegal immigration crap at a concert and a liberal roadie will bounce your head off the concrete, then glance at your SS# as he picks your wallet.

        In relative terms, this makes you a total pussy. If you think illegal immigrants deserve more delicate treatment than sweaty teens at the Warped Tour, let’s just hope you never have to spend a day without electricity… end up below the neighbor’s cat in the food chain.

    4. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      As we all know, the government and its officials have always followed the Constitution to the letter and never even thought about limiting free speech or gun possession. Ever.

    5. America is really many Americas. We call ourselves a nation of immigrants, and that truly what we are. We have drawn people from every corner of the Earth. We’re composed of virtually every race and religion, and not in small numbers, but large. We have a statue in New York Harbor that speak of this ?- a statue of a woman holding a torch of welcome to those who enter our country to become Americans. She has greeted millions upon millions of immigrants to country. She welcomes them still. She represents our open door.

      All of the immigrants who came to us brought their own music, literature, customs, and ideas. And the marvelous things, a think which we’re proud, is they did not have to relinquish these things in order to fit in. In fact, what they brought to American became American. And this diversity has more than enriched us; it has literally shaped us.

      1. Hey – President Reagan! One of my political heroes! Can you settle a question for us? The Simpson-Mazolli Bill that was signed into law was supposed to be a one-time-only amnesty, afer the roughly 2.5 to 3 million illegal immigrants were to be given said amnesty and then the border was to be vigorously enforced, at least that was your intent. So now, about 12 to 20 million more illegal immigrants later – any idea what happened and who is to blame for the lack of enforcement? 🙂

        1. The libertarians are to blame, as always.

        2. Mazzolli and Simpson wrote an article for The Washington Post that addresses their bill and how the immigration situation has changed little.

          1. The immigration situation has changed a little… D-U-H!! Problem with immigration reform is that enforcement is promised, but never delivered. Why should the public trust the pols on this one? Because they really, really mean it this time? Sorry – that will not wash. How are the issues of unfunded hospital visits, overcrowded schools, gang crime, drop out rates and burdgeoning incarceration facilities supposed to be addressed? These ‘all of a sudden’ new and ideal citizens will, 70%-80% of the time vote for more liberal pols so that they can start raising taxes in order to ‘close the gap’ on budget deficits. And it will be done in the platitudinal guise of ‘helping the children’. I do not understand, especially when it is as plain as the nose on one’s face, why this issue is so patently viewed from the quick buck, short-term gain without seeing the very possible deleterious effect to our Constitutional Republic.

    6. May I suggest conservative columnist Jason L Riley’s Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders?

      You can hear him make a short presentation on the book from this random website.

      He makes a factual case that every reason to close American borders is false and bad for America.

      1. I like how in the review section of this book, in the subsection of comments when the reviewer got some negative flack, he resorted to the typical, “racist, xenephobe, blah-blah-blah” attack. Almost as predictable as Joe Bidens’ gaffe-a-minute fests. Jason – it’s only factual for corporatists that it is bad for their bottom line to restrict immigration generally, and illegal immigration in particular – as well as bad for ethnic grievance lobbies / totalitarian leftist pols for controlled and orderly (restricted, legal- like 60%-70% of americans want) immigration to happen.

        1. EMp, I don’t think you’re using “corporatist” correctly. Corporatism, or guild socialism, is a philosophical, economic, and political system that views society as a body (Latin, corpus). In a corporatist society, businesses governance is by representatives from their management/ownership, employee, and customer segments. Government is not by regional representation but by occupation (medical professionals vote for medical professionals, lawyers vote for lawyers, etc).

          See The Coming Corporate State for a exposition of corporatism from an actual corporatist.

          The book addresses whether or not immigration is good for American workers (it is) and why immigrants vote Democratic (the Republicans are trying to drive them out of the party).

          1. Thanks for the ‘dictionary’ definition of corporatism, but I was speaking of it from the view where the rubber hits the road and where crony-ism, insider information is exchanged, and backroom deals are cut. Kinda like the private sector version of our hallowed congress.

  11. “Although several other motorists made the same mistake around the same time, the deputies simply warned them about the washed-out road and let them go.”

    While I can’t dispute that this isn’t factual, what evidence do you have that this statement is factual? Did you interview each of the several other motorists? Do you have records of all police activity in the area?

    I don’t mean to be a dick here, but this statement is rather critical to the core of your theory.

    1. I thought the same thing. Is there any proof that this is actually true, and not just a claim made by David and Jessica Rodriguez in their lawsuit? The article presents it as a fact, not an allegation.

  12. Hey, if we’re going to throw out the 4th Amendment for one group, then we might as well go ahead and arrest everybody. Then see how much support there is for such measures when people have to deal with it firsthand.

  13. This is more of the usual ad hominem/strawman argumentation from the open borders crowd.

    No it isn’t.

    It’s the usual fallacious pseudo-argumentation that unjustly siphons moral force from others’ open-borders arguments, from the non-open-borders indentured-servitude crowd.

    Know your Kochtopus!

  14. Let me say this, guys: Whether through this law or not, what AZ does as a matter of ROUTINE is cast a WIDE NET to catch every single Brown-ass person to get the few schmucks careless enough to be caught, but in the meantime serves to inconvenience and even harrass totally legal US Citizens who have to suddenly SCRAMBLE to obtain their FUCKING BIRTH CERTIFICATE just to prove to the TAX-FED LEECHES they were born in the US. That’s all.

    THe law will only serve to justify the drag net. Nothing more.

    1. Same as the metal detector at the airport. Deal with it.

      1. A metal detector doesn’t discriminate based on race. It treats everyone the same no matter if they are white, black, brown, yellow, or some other color, so it’s not the same at all. Unless of course you think the cops are not going to target Hispanics, and if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

        1. You must not know any cops or be familiar with the training most of them get. They are drilled endlessly with anti-discrimination info. And are then placed in situations where they have to make split second, life and death decisions. Walk a mile in those shoes – then talk.

          People enforce ALL of our laws. So any and ALL of those laws are subject to the same abuse. Why pick on this law?

          1. Re: bigT,

            You must not know any cops or be familiar with the training most of them get. They are drilled endlessly with anti-discrimination info.

            My heart bleeds for those unproductive, tax-fed, jack-booted parasites.

            1. Did you that ‘Old Mexican’ is really just a surefire way to get an intestinal infection?

              As a self-proclaimed and proud foreigner, your opinion of any American immigration policy is worth less than a peso. And twice as loco as a cross-eyed castrated rooster.

          2. They are drilled endlessly with anti-discrimination info.

            Yeah, and I’m sure it makes every one of them suddenly see a little light bulb that awakens them to the error of their previously-held world view.

            Many of them need more “drilling” with the anti-descrimination stuff. You can have all the training in the world, but when they’re out there in the real world, the simple fact is that many of them will treat brown people quite differently than beige people.

            1. So, we just assume that they are, by and large, racists.

              Here’s the thing, if the law is about enforcing our border laws and illegal immigration statutes and the vast majority of illegal immgrants in Arizona are brown-assed people, is it racism if that’s what they pick up more often than not? Or is it simple demographics? If the same law was passed in Vermont and Maine, would it be racist that they were picking up more French people than otherwise?

              And, if it’s brown assed illegal immigrants they go for, do the lighter assed ones get left alone? Ther ARE lighter, even white mexicans who’ve crossed that border without papers

              1. Re: Azathoth,

                [I]f the law is about enforcing our border laws […]and the vast majority of illegal immgrants in Arizona are brown-assed people, is it racism if that’s what they pick up more often than not?

                How do you know a person is in the US legally? Only by asking, right? Would you ask a white-assed good ol’ boy, or would you ask someone you think *looks* like he’s in this country “illegally” (i.e. a brown-assed, pointy-haired Mexican)? Who would you dare to bother more?

                What this law does is simply justify the use of a WIDER dragnet by the tax-fed leeches: by relying on every single statute and ordinance, no matter how stupid or trivial, to stop people (brown-assed) and ask them for their papers.

                Again, the tax-fed leeches have to cast a WIDE net (that is, to detain and harrass bona fide US Citizens) so that they get lucky and get a few illegal immigrants here and there. This law just allows them to justify that wide a dragnet.

                1. Well, in Vermont, I’d ask the white guy speaking french with the touqe and matching leather pants. And, in Arizona, I’d ask the guy speaking Spanish who’s carrying the weed whacker.

                  It’s a function of where one is rather than deliberate racism. If you’re looking for a bunch of skinheads who are suspected of having attacked a black church, you don’t tend to look for “brown-assed’ people, now do you? You’re going to find yourself stopping more white people.

                  But, if I were following this law, I’d only ask them that if I had a badge and I had already stopped them for something else.

                  And, yes, I can see the problem with how the law can be abused, but as someone who has ‘fit the description’ on numerous occasions, I’m not really sure that not enforcing the border laws at all because some might abuse the law is a valid stance.

                  1. In your skinhead example, the search is post facto, with a specific description of a specific offender. Both the Vermont and Arizona examples happen ante facto, with no description because no offense is known to have been committed (Of course, some are committed; the point is that you as LEO don’t know it).

                    Never mind, also, that the French Canadians, like all Canadians, have visa-free travel to the USA. You’d have to find an overstayer for that to apply in Vermont, and by the time they overstay, they could just as well have travelled all the way down to Maricopa County.

                2. If he looks like a Mexican illegal, and doesn’t have paperwork like a Mexican illegal… Then he just MIGHT be a Mexican Illegal.

                  How is this an astounding example of anything but the obvious? Gotta stop sucking on those peppers so hard bro.

                  “Let’s get these illegal immigrants out of here, one by one if we have to.” -C?sar Ch?vez

              2. Most illegals in AZ are brown, but most browns in AZ are not illegals. That is where it becomes racist beyond any possible utilitarian-ish argument about profiling.

          3. …now if there was only more training on not shooting pets, arresting people without cause, and being less all around ass-holish, we’d have a perfect crime fighting force.

          4. You must not know any cops or be familiar with the training most of them get. They are drilled endlessly with anti-discrimination info.

            So in the incident from the article you think that the only Hispanic couple was chosen at random from all the families that drove by? That seems likely. What cops are trained to do and what they do in practice are not the same thing.

            And are then placed in situations where they have to make split second, life and death decisions. Walk a mile in those shoes – then talk.

            Non sequitur and appeal to authority.

            People enforce ALL of our laws. So any and ALL of those laws are subject to the same abuse. Why pick on this law?

            I’d like to get rid of seat belt laws, speed limits, and similar laws that are basically fund raising schemes for small towns and give police more chance to abuse their powers. But this article isn’t about those laws.

            1. I’d like to get rid of seat belt laws, speed limits, and similar laws that are basically fund raising schemes for small town

              Good idea. Step one: divest federal government from a role in the transportation system. Then states can experiment with their own systems for financing roads and enforcing rules on them.

      2. Same as the metal detector at the airport.

        Totally not the same. You have no constitutional right to travel on an airplane. Air travel is a well-known terrorist target. You want to fly, you agree to be subject to increased inspection and searches.

        In contrast, you’re walking or driving down the road, not doing anything wrong, there’s no reason to believe you’re engaged in any criminal activity – why can the police stop you and demand ID?

        1. Well, Mexicans have no Constitutional right to wander into this country. So, for them, it is the same thing.

          And I think we have no Constitutional right to wander into their country(but none of you open borders folk ever seem to complain about that)

          1. When open borders folks start imagining that the Constitution defines rights, we’ll get back to you.

          2. Re: Azathoth,

            Well, Mexicans have no Constitutional right to wander into this country. So, for them, it is the same thing.

            The Constitution does not grant rights, numbskull. Only God grants rights. Or our nature as human beings confers us rights, but not pieces of paper nor tax-fed leeches.

            1. Hey, don’t complain to me–I was just using the vebiage provided by WTF–

              You have no constitutional right to travel on an airplane.

              Oh, and the gods don’t ‘grant rights’–how silly. All the gods ever did was fuel that spark that gives you the ability to see infinity–while the cat can only see until lunch.

              ‘Rights’ are the parts of human nature that are essentially uncontrollable. Hence the endless attempts by humans to control other peoples’ ‘rights’.

          3. Americans have visa-free entrance to Mexico. It would be illegal to overstay or to enter on visa-free entrance for work or study, but entering you sure can do.

        2. I have no constitutional right to travel on an airplane? Really? What constitutionally enumerated power allows the government to regulate air travel? The fourth amendment? The due process clause? Which one of these allows the government to search me at will? Which one says they can put my name on a secret list and prevent me from flying?

        3. “In contrast, you’re walking or driving down the road, not doing anything wrong, there’s no reason to believe you’re engaged in any criminal activity – why can the police stop you and demand ID?”

          Well, at least with respect the the AZ law, they cannot. The stop has to occur for one of the myriad reasons enumerated in case law – which is not to say this may not be abused by law enforcement, but it will be done under the guise of one of the well-known boilerplate probable cause scenarios, not because of a demand for your citizenship papers by some passing cop.

    2. Arizona driver licenses and nondriver IDs are valid proof of citizenship under the law. So the birth certificate and Social Security card horror stories are just canards.

      1. Re: Tulpa,

        Arizona driver licenses and nondriver IDs are valid proof of citizenship under the law.

        How sweet and precious! Your mummy must be so proud of you!

        Really, the omnipotent State, obeying its own laws? Right.

        1. Ah, so you’re not addressing the actual law, you’re just engaging in scattershot complaints.

          1. Re: Tulpa,

            You don’t get it, do you? The law can say anything. When has the omnipotent State ever obeyed its own laws? The very POTUS swore to uphold the Constitution, and he uses it as toilet paper.

            This is not about what the law says. This is about what the State does routinely, and like the scorpion, it does what it does.

            1. OM – if no laws are beyond abuse, why have laws at all? The best we can do is train our people and punish actual abuses rather than complain about things that might happen.

              1. Re: BigT,

                OM – if no laws are beyond abuse, why have laws at all?

                Why have the State at all? Isn’t that the ultimate question we as anarcho-capitalists ask all the time?

                A lot has been said about the supposed safeguards in place in this law to *limit* the State’s reach. WHEN HAS THE STATE EVER CONFINED ITSELF TO ITS OWN “LIMITS”? Come on.

                1. Totally off the point…if you add ‘capitalist’ on to ‘anarchist’, then you’re a capitalist who’d prefer that no one interfere with your rules.

                  You’re not an anarchist at all. Oh, I know it’s the current fad to add qualifiers to anarchist, but, like the uniformed black blocheads, you’ve missed the whole ‘anarchist’ point by doing this.

                  The State has never confined itself to it’s own limits. It is a voracious beast that has eaten all of us. Some seek to try to climb back up it’s throat and get out. Others seek to take the ride to the stomach in the hopes that they can kill the beast before they get digested.

                  Most end up coming out the other end.

                  I’ve always like ‘rational anarchist’.

                  Until we can kill it, we’ve gotta deal with it.

                2. The safeguard is the courts you bonehead!

                  Need to read more books, ease of on crying race wolf. Sorry that cop took your weed that one time, if someone wearing a bandana and a mexican flag as a cape gives you a hug, will you pipe down and take it easy gramps?

            2. That makes perfect sense to most libertarians when you talk about drug and prostitution laws, but somehow when it involves “illegal immigrants” those same “libertarians” turn into conservatives all of a sudden.

              1. Re: MNG,

                but somehow when it involves “illegal immigrants” those same “libertarians” turn into conservatives all of a sudden.

                That’s because they are not libertarians, MNG. We the top-corner libertarians are more principled than that.

                1. MWG !!!= MNG

                  1. I really should change my handle..

                2. Don’t ever confuse me with MNG again.

                  1. You all look alike anyway 😛

              2. Drug and prostitution activity occurs entirely within the domain of the rights-enforcing government. Immigration, like invasion, does not, so the normal libertarian principles don’t apply.

                Oddly enough, it seems that wherever the principles of libertarianism are silent (ie, questions involving activity outside the government’s jurisdiction or after conviction), most libertarians automatically align with the left.

                1. As a libertarian I believe in free trade in goods, services, and labor. I’m absolutely consistent. You, as a conservative, on the other hand…

                2. Why do you think the principles of libertarianism do not exist outside of government? They exist solely outside of government. Government merely recognizes and secures them.

                  1. Well, the principles of libertarian are nonphysical, so talking about their location is kind of inappropriate. My point is, the principles of libertarianism deal solely with the proper activity of government within its territory: working against the initiation of force inside its territory. Libertarianism does not specify how individuals are to deal with each other, how the government is to deal with individuals outside its territory, or how the government is to deal with individuals who initiate force against other individuals.

                    1. The government should not violate the individual rights of those outside its territory. The government should not violate the individual rights of those inside its territory.

                      The boundary condition is trivial: The government should not violate the individual rights of those crossing the border.

                    2. The government should not violate the individual rights of those outside its territory.

                      Full stop. Not justified by libertarian principles.

                      The reason the government can protect the rights of individuals in its own territory without violating rights is because it has unquestioned dominance in the initiation of force in that territory. That condition does not hold outside its territory.

                    3. So if the government executed everyone whose name started with a vowel to protect the rights of everyone whose name started with a consonant, that would be fine by your understanding of libertarian principles?

                      Why do you think governments can violate people’s rights without some basis in the compelling public interest? Governments are just collections of people: they don’t have any more rights than any other collections of people.

                    4. So if the government executed everyone whose name started with a vowel to protect the rights of everyone whose name started with a consonant

                      How would that protect the rights of people whose names begin with a consonant?

                      Inside its territory, libertarianism only allows the government to use force against those who are really violating the right to life, liberty, private property, and bodily integrity of other individuals. So, executing people for having names starting with vowels would not be allowed (inside the government’s territory).

                      I also don’t think it would be a good or moral idea to do that outside the government’s territory, but not because of libertarianism, just because of common sense.

                    5. Not violating the rights of people outside the government’s dominion is a purely negative act. I am not asking for the government to secure, promote, or defend their rights. I am simply asking that they not violate them.

                      …by, for example, preventing their emigration from that territory.

                    6. Very well, but don’t pretend that your requests are libertarian in nature. There are a lot of beliefs and opinions I hold that I don’t claim are libertarian, much less denounce others as unlibertarian for not agreeing with.

                    7. I don’t believe I ever said anyone was unlibertarian. I recognize that if my tent included only those who were as strongly libertarian as I, it would be a mighty small tent.

                      That said, the Libertarian Party Platform has an open borders plank for a reason — and it’s not because it’s written by raging liberals.

                    8. I wouldn’t identify libertarianism with the LP if I were you, much less make the LP’s activity some sort of gold standard of libertarianism.

                    9. Out of curiosity, why not?

                3. Surely you were asleep for the past 40 years: these days both drugs and prostitution are international trade as well as internal. (Less so in the USA than other places, because of the sheer size of the US population, territory and economy – but still)

                  1. Like I said, libertarianism doesn’t say that governments can’t restrict goods and persons crossing the border. I think restrictions on international trade of drugs and prostitution qua prostitution (as opposed to particular prostitutes) are foolish, but not anti-libertarian.

                    1. Re: Tulpa,

                      Like I said, libertarianism doesn’t say that governments can’t restrict goods and persons crossing the border.

                      Yes, it does say that: Restriction of the flow of goods is a gross violation of property rights. The limits on migration is a violation of personal liberty.

  15. I motion that we speed up the legal immigation process, open the diversity visa lottery to people from all countries, and increase the number of diversity visas to 1 million annually.

  16. Now back to 100 comments of …

    RACIST ——>

      1. {—– CRIMINAL

  17. Where are the Libertarians? I feel I stumbled into the Drudge Report.

    1. Eh, most of us are just Republicans who are pussies afraid to stand up for the Bushpig in public despite our secret lust for him. Remember, all taxes are evil; racial profiling and torture of brown people… the legitimate role of government.

    2. They’re right where they belong: standing between you and the good people of Arizona.

      1. you’re not still calling yourself a libertarian, are you? I thought we had settled all that.

        1. Shouldn’t you be out fighting for the right to drive drunk, you hypocrite? Your brave brethren, yearning to belch free while driving on public streets with 0.20 BAC, are being crushed by the boot of the oppressive state. And the best you can do is test wits with a tool of the oppressor?

        2. Where is your libertarian I.D. card? You must have it on you at all times to post at this site!!

  18. So the big problem is that in addition to having to present your driver’s license to the cops when they pull you over, you’ll also have to show proof of citizenship? It doesn’t give the cops any new powers to pull you over. It doesn’t allow them to say, “Hey, you Mes’can. Git over here and show me ya’ papers.” I don’t like the law, but I don’t think that this law’s worth the giant hissy fit people’ve thrown about it.

    1. If Tulpa is correct about what the law says, your driver’s license IS proof of citizenship.

      1. He is correct, and additionally there is a reciprocity clause that allows ID from other official issuers to be used as proof, as long as the issuer requires proof of citizenship before issuance.

  19. It’s been said here, but I’d like to single out this critical point:

    Opponents of this law argue against the way it is ENFORCED. And they cite examples of this enforcement that occurred BEFORE the law was created.

    Disagreeing with the LAW and disagreeing with the ENFORCEMENT are two entirely separate points. I’ve been following this thing since the story broke, and I have yet to hear an argument against this law that deals with it honestly in terms of the *law* itself.

    1. We won’t know what’s in it until it’s passed? Why thank you, Speaker Pelosi.

      1. This law is only 8 pages, I think.

        Not exactly Obamacare.

      2. You know exactly what’s in it.

        If you don’t like the MANNER in which it is enforced, you can take that up with those who enforce it incorrectly.

        My point, which is plainly obvious to anybody who isn’t trying to grind a race-baiting axe, is that failure of LEOs to avoid improper profiling has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the law.

  20. If speeding, broken tail lights, cracked windshields, and unfastened seat belts do not provide enough opportunities for immigration checks, police can use local ordinances regulating things like noise, yard upkeep, and residential occupancy. Reports about violations of such rules, even if unfounded, trigger the obligation to do an immigration check when there is “reasonable suspicion” that someone is “unlawfully present in the United States.”

    Sounds good.

    1. Indeed. So, brown-assed US Citizens, beware! Don’t make a lot of noise, or you may find yourself asking your wife to go downtown to get a copy of your birth certificate.

      Oh, you really think AZ tax-fed leeches will believe their own AZ-issued IDs and licenses, especially those issued to brown-assed US Citizens? You surely jest if you do!

      1. So….federal laws overturning state laws banning discrimination over blacks = bad. Federal law overturning state laws that target Latinos = good.

        Did I miss something?

        1. Yes – there is a private/public distinction you deliberately elided.

          1. Someone’s never heard of Jim Crow Laws — and he posts here!

        2. In a nutshell, HPNN. In a nutshell.

    2. Um, I think the law requires an actual arrest, not just a speeding ticket, to trigger an ICE check.

      1. Wrong, it requires “lawful contact”.

        1. Actually, the original wording required the immigration status check for any lawful contact. The actually wording once passed moved that bar a bit and requires an actual enforcement contact of some type (detention, arrest, etc.), but the wording is a bit vague as to what counts along these lines…at least to my non-lawyer eyes.

  21. Some questions for you closed borders people:

    As a libertarian do you think that even if a law is bad that people should follow it anyway?

    If not, explain to me what exactly is wrong about crossing an imaginary line to find work?

    1. Re: Law Student,

      As a libertarian do you think that even if a law is bad that people should follow it anyway?

      Can you spell “NULLIFICATION”?

      If not, explain to me what exactly is wrong about crossing an imaginary line to find work?

      Un-Libertarian crackpots are still trapped in 18th Century Merchantilism, believing that the pool of jobs is somehow a) “Theirs” and b) Limited, instead of thinking that every individual has a right to offer a job to whomever he or she sees fit, and any individual has a right to rent his or her dwelling to anybody he or she sees fit, no matter what the federal tax-fed leeches say.

    2. You must have missed class during the week that we discussed the notion of “sovereignty.”

      1. Sovereignty is the positive fact that a state has the power to do whatever the hell it wants within its dominion. It is in no way an argument for what a state should do with that power.

        Do you want me to list some historical examples of states that you can defend on the basis of sovereignty? Or would you rather keep Godwin at bay…

        1. A basic part of sovereignty is the right to control what and whom crosses your border. We have every right to tell 50,000 North Korean troops they can’t peacefully cross our imaginary line in the desert and exercise their natural right to bear arms while peacefully camping out in the public lands in the Arizona desert…but I don’t see how you can justify such an exclusion with your philosophy.

          1. Migrants who pose no threat to the public whose rights the government is sworn to protect should be allowed entry.

            Foreign armies, foreign agents, terrorists, or violent criminals are threats to the public whose rights the government is sworn to protect and should be denied entry.

            It’s not that hard.

            1. There’s a lot of leeway for abuse coming off your suddenly less consistent philosophy now.

              1. Indeed there is.

                Government’s exercising of its powers in the compelling public interest is always open to abuse — both in terms of public interest and in terms of exercise.

                Still, raising the acceptance rates of otherwise unvisable migrants from 2% to 98% — like it was at Ellis Island — would be a mighty big increase in freedom.

                1. It would free up a lot of INS agents to go after people intent on committing terrorism rather than intent on picking strawberries.

                  1. Strawberries are just troubled abused young ladies corrupted by the Patriarchy who need a helping hand (of the state, of course) to help them lead productive, subsidized lives that contribute to the progressive movement of society.

          2. I understand the function of borders and obviously “imaginary line” is hyperbole in a world where nation states exist. However, these people are not the North Korean Army. What if when you walked up to the border they made sure you weren’t driving a tank but otherwise said “welcome you are free to go as you please and work as you please as long as you get the mutual consent of the property owner/business owner” would you have a problem with that? Because if you think I shouldn’t be able to hire someone or invite them over to my house just becuase they happened to be born across an “imaginary line” then you don’t really believe in individual liberty.

            1. If you’re denying someone permission to cross the imaginary line because they’re exercising their human right to bear arms, then it is YOU don’t believe in individual liberty.

              1. Your right, you should be able to have a tank. Lets just say they stopped an invading army? My point is that immigration laws should be just about as lax as they could possibly be. Maybe you agree with that or maybe you don’t but if you do agree then complaining about illegals entering the country is just like complaining about people smoking pot or any other victimless crime. An immigration policy that restricts immigration for any reason other than national security (real national security) is just a form of protectionism that says “we’ve got ours but you can have yours”. Even if you are a full blooded Native American your ancestors immigrated here.

                1. “can’t have yours”

              2. Just for clarification…you are okay with stopping someone from crossing the border because they are not “from here” but don’t think it is justified to stop them from crossing the border because they are in a tank? Carrying a suitcase nuke? Driving a truckload of pipe bombs?

                If it is okay to stop them because of where they are from (“not here”) then denying their right to bear arms seems a pretty small extension of the degree to which you are willing to restrict their individual liberty.

                Or did I miss something?

                1. That was for Tulpa … damned thread nesting.

                2. You missed something. I was arguing from an in-universe point of view (the universe being the one where the government is not free to restrict movement across borders).

                  1. But you were responding to an “in-universe” that suggested that restrictions should be limited only to those that pose a national security threat.

                    “Open borders” does not, necessarily, include a border that is open to invaders. In other words, you are responding to a strawman rather than addressing the real distinction being discussed.

                    Or did I miss something?

          3. Re: Tulpa,

            A basic part of sovereignty is the right to control what and whom crosses your border.

            Border. n An imaginary line traced by tax-fed leeches in an effort to show simple minded folks that they are “necessary to safeguard sovereignty.”

            Also used as an excuse to loot importers and extort favors from exporters.

            1. So I take it you don’t have a problem with the invasion of Iraq, ie our military crossing an imaginary line.

              You also do not support Posse Comitatus, since it also depends on the imaginary line.

              1. Re: Tulpa,

                So I take it you don’t have a problem with the invasion of Iraq, ie our military crossing an imaginary line.

                “Our” military? Yours and who else’s?

                You also do not support Posse Comitatus, since it also depends on the imaginary line.

                Actually, there would not be any need for Posse Comitatus if the USGov had obeyed the Constitution and not have a standing army. Don’t you agree?

            2. A border can be a line between the land I own, and the land you own. Would you have a problem with me crossing that imaginary line and annexing your pool?

              Or is that imaginary line important? And, if it is, why not ‘larger ones’?

              1. What are illegal immigrants annexing?

                1. I’m not sure. But, as someone else said, in the past, immigrants seemed to want to become Americans. Even in ethnocentric neighborhoods, where one could feel the old country all around, there was an appreciation of the fact that one was American. Now, not so much.

                  With Mexican illegals, it often seems like they don’t really want America–they just want America’s cash.

                  1. “But, as someone else said, in the past, immigrants seemed to want to become Americans.[citation needed]

                    Even in ethnocentric neighborhoods, where one could feel the old country all around, there was an appreciation of the fact that one was American. [citation needed]

                    Now, not so much.[citation needed]”

                2. Uuuhh…. I guess you’re not aware of the term ‘Reconquista’, amigo?

              2. Re: Azathoth,

                A border can be a line between the land I own, and the land you own. Would you have a problem with me crossing that imaginary line and annexing your pool?

                Oh, so the USGov owns the land inside the line? I did not know Americans were the serfs of the US Gov… news to me.

                Are you going to misconstrue a political boundary as a *property* boundary?

                1. Well, the US govt paid for that Louisiana purchase thing. And they paid in blood for a lot of the rest.

                  I would say that the territory claimed by the US is, in fact, owned by the citizens of the US, and administered by the idiots elected to represent them.

                  Surely that’s what national borders are–property lines writ large. Otherwise, what’s the point of having them at all(which might be the position you’re coming from–and if you’ve leap on that particular slippery slope, you’re aware of how things can work as your property lines are arbitrarily eradicated, right?).

                  1. Surely that’s what national borders are–property lines writ large.

                    Surely not.

                    Property rights are fundamentally open: They are limited only at the fringes where they bump against others’ individual rights.

                    Government powers, in direct and pointed contrast, are fundamentally closed: They are few, limited, well-defined and, to be legitimate, do nothing but secure those aforementioned individual rights.

                    Property rights and government dominion are not at all analogous.

                2. Don’t pay your property taxes for a few years. You will find out REAL QUICK how much of your property belongs to you.

              3. Governments are a collective, and as such shouldn’t be able to “own” property. Governments also do not respect that “little line” of my property so why should I respect their “big line”? Your government is supposed to protect everybody’s rights not just the majority’s’. Never works out that way.

            3. Re: open borders and sovereignty

              Sure, open borders are fine. I’ll make sure to stop by and take a dump on your porch from time to time. The border between “yours” and “mine” is just imaginary, anyway, right?

              1. See MikeP’s post right above yours.

              2. And I am also free to send you a bill for the cleanup of said feces. Or demand some other form of restitution.

      2. Which, of course, has nothing to do with it.

    3. 1.) Nope.

      2.) Nothing.

    4. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.

    5. Anyone who pulls out the “imaginary line” canard better not have opposed the invasion of Iraq, or any other US troop presence on foreign soil “the other side of the imaginary line”.

      Hell, even Posse Comitatus is based on the concept of that imaginary line, so you have no right to complain when US military are enforcing laws in your home town.

      1. Good heavens.

        Are you saying that libertarians should support government oppression of people on both sides of any line on a map? Because I think you just said that.

        1. I think your reading comprehension is subpar.

        2. To explain, I don’t think there’s a set libertarian position on any of the issues I specified.

          I think Posse Comitatus is a very good idea, ie, that your military should not be enforcing laws on this side of the imaginary line.

          I also think our military shouldn’t be crossing imaginary lines elsewhere unless (a) they have permission from the government of the side of the imaginary line they’re crossing into, or (b) preserving national security requires crossing that imaginary line.

          Note the importance of the imaginary line to BOTH of these positions, and the complete inability to hold or even articulate such positions if you treat borders as inconsequential.

          1. They should be inconsequential to the movement of individuals.

            They of course are not inconsequential to the movement of governments. After all, the very definition of the border is the greatest extent that government exercised its dominion before being stopped by another government.

            1. An invasion is a movement of individuals.

              1. Generally in the service of a government or other conspiracy.

                Economic migrants are not invaders.

                1. But but…they want to take back the SW for Mexico…I heard it here. They are just waiting for a path to citizenship so they can vote to secede.

                  /sarcasm

                2. <devil’s advocate>
                  Tell that to the Mexican people who lived in the territory that became Texas…after thousands of individual Americans emigrated there – some of whom were dirtbags evading justice, while most were just profiteers looking for more room to grow cotton.

                  Eventually they formed their own republic, and then joined the US.

                  Fortunately, we fought (and won) a war over all that, so our claim to the territory was legitimized.
                  </devil’s advocate>

                  1. You fought a war so its legit? Nice try. Doesn’t make it right.

                  2. You fought a war so its legit? Nice try. Doesn’t make it right.

      2. US citizens in the US 50 states, at least theoretically, enjoy all the rights in the Constitution and elect their Congress Representatives and Senators, and President.

        Unless you are making Iraq a US state and Iraqis US citizens, you are occupating their place, not defending your own – or even theirs.

    6. There’s an imaginary line between the stuff you call ‘yours’ and the stuff I want as ‘mine’. Can I ignore that imaginary line? Is that okay with you? I’ll cross it when you’re not looking, just like those brown-assed imaginary line crossers, okay?.

      1. Is America ‘yours’? No? Then don’t make it into an exclusive club asshole.

        1. Well, yeah, it is. That’s the whole point of being a citizen of this country.

          And it’s yours, too–if you’re a citizen.

          And it can be anyone’s–just get in line.

          What/ Don’t like the line? Too bad. Every country has a line–even if no one’s standing in it. Why is the one to get into the US the only ‘bad’ line?

          I don’t see anyone complaining about the hoops you gotta jump through to emigrate to Canada(which, according to some friends who are trying to do it, pretty hoopy–hell, their daughter was born there and she just became a citizen a few years ago….American parents…)

          Try this analogy.

          Say you head to the cinema to see the movie you’ve been waiting for all your life. You get in, sit down and start enjoying the movie.
          After a bit a group of people come in. They’re talking, not loud, but loud enough to be understood. The movie they went to sucked so they snuck into another theater to see something else. They keep talking. They’re not talking too loud, and there’s room in the theater but it’s starting to be annoying. And now they’re saying that the movie they were at before is better than this one, and they’re getting louder. And they won’t stop when shushed. Finally, you go tell one of the ushers, who escorts them out. Now they’re angry–and so are some of the people who were getting annoyed by them…..? They’re annoyed at you! They’re saying that they weren’t hurting anybody–but, the movie!?.

          Finally the whole movie is ruined for you. You’re the ass for trying to get what you–and the rest of the audience–paid for.

        2. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I now present to you, ‘the Effin’ Lord’, in different guise, but with the same ole’ tude we all know and love! 😉

  22. I think the fact that laws would be completely unreasonable to use against a Caucasian, make them inherently discriminatory. If I was driving through Arizona and got strung up like Mr. Rodriguez, I’d probably sue for false imprisonment. It simply would not be reasonable, even if I don’t go carrying around my social security card and birth certificate with me. The fact that these kinds of demands suddenly become reasonable when you’re Hispanic mean the law is inherently discriminatory. I don’t understand how this is hard to see. If you really believe in this kind of nonsense law, you should man up and demand that we allow the federal government to racially discriminate against people. Just humming away and pretending there is no higher law on the matter makes the republican support base look like a bunch of moronic racist douche bags, because that’s how they’re acting.

    1. I’m fine with the law. Unless they start using it against Caucasians, that would be very, very bad.

    2. Hispanics are not a ‘race’.

      The problem the insane race consciousness of the US runs into here is that, in this case, the people illegally crossing our border are from Mexico, a nation whose entire population the US classes as a protected minority.

      Thus, when they leave their nation(in which they enjoyed majority status) and sneak into the US(in which they are fast on their way to enjoying majority status), they aquire a plethora of false assumptions that people in the US attach to the idea of ‘protected minority’.

      No voluntary immigrant–legal or illegal–should have this status. They were not dragged here in chains against their will–they came here because they wanted to.

      And if the grass ain’t so green once you get here–too bad.

      1. Which should be enough to shoot down the false analogy of slavery = illegal immigrant, border fence = Berlin Wall, btw…..

    3. “Strung up” — are you kidding me?? have you read the article? It only states that “They were stopped by deputies from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, who demanded documentation from David Rodriguez, including his Social Security card, and cited him for failing to obey a road sign.”

      They cited him for failing to obey a sign! Not arrested, not beaten, not strung up. Man, his kind of hyperbole makes it hard to have an honest national discussion. The article provides NO information about “the other” drivers who are all allegedly white. Really? In a state with a large hispanic minority, this guy was the ONLY latino stopped? And who does this information come from, the same sole source angry guy? What was the context for the citation, what was his attitude when stopped? Did he back talk the cop, exhibit an angry attitude? ANYONE doing that should expect to get more than just a warning.

      This is a crap article full of much opinion but little fact.

  23. To recap:

    (1) AZ cops who want to harass Mexican(-looking) people seem to have all the opportunities they want now.

    (2) The AZ law does little if anything to expand the current opportunities for said cops.

    (3) Federal immigration law is a hopeless clusterfuck, as written and as enforced.

    (4) The AZ immigration law does nothing to mitigate said clusterfuck.

    (5) The administration’s reaction to this law is driven purely by politics (NTTAWT!).

    Some people believe we are on the brink of a major outbreak of anti-Mexican(-looking) harassment in AZ (in spite of (1) and (2)) above.

    Some people seem to think the AZ law somehow makes (3) worse, in spite of (4).

    Does that about sum it up?

    1. Pretty much, RC. Pretty much.

    2. (6) it gives some libertarians license to complain randomly, argue about the definitions of words, and prove that people they dislike are “not libertarian”.

      I think (6) is the most relevant to the evolution of this thread.

      1. You’re not a libertarian though, so what does it matter to you?

        1. Shit, I forgot to call you a bitchface.

          Bitchface.

          1. Temper, temper….

            1. EMp, I never get angry with Tulpa, but every so often I get the urge to call him a bitchface.

              Why the fuck does the spell-check not recognize “bitchface”?

              1. Because it’s spelled P-E-L-O-S-I, dummy.

                1. Jeebus Herald Kamikaze, I am sick of hearing that name. Pat Toomey has been blitzing local T.V. with the same Sestak/Pelosi axis of evil commercial for weeks now.

                  1. I’m watching it right now on ESPN — it’s a Chamber of Commerce ad, not the Toomey campaign. Thank you, Citizens United.

              2. I never get angry with Tulpa

                You obviously don’t know me.

                1. So you admit to the charge of bitchfacery?

                  1. Just waiting for capitol l to ask Tulpa for his papers…. of the ID variety… xD

                  2. I occasionally have a bitch on my face, if that’s what you mean.

        2. You’re not a libertarian though, so what does it matter to you?

          Who better to lecture us on libertarianism, cap-l? Really, tell me who better?

    3. I agree that the administrations reaction is purely based on politics.

      But if the law doesn’t do anything, why is it necessary?

      I am by no means an open border advocate, but surely you can see how this law could be used by AZ LE to further discriminate against non-white individuals.

      1. So you would be in favor of repealing the AZ law and the police just enforce the same, existing federal one, in the same way that they’ve already been doing?

        I think there are people who want to find a rational justification for their emotional support of illegal immigration. I have a lot of Mexicans in my own family who feel this way. Unfortunately they are full of shit. It’s always a way for them to create a scapegoat for their own insecurities.

        There’s always some cop out to get them, always some devil hiding in the shadows, always a chupacabra stealing babies and livestock. Never do you hear, yeah the cops pulled us over because we we’re doing our best to look suspicious or fuck around in an area that’s popular with dirtbag criminals.

        In the end a bunch of cholo babies weeping over yet another fantasy tale of hard luck. It’s the oldest con in the books, people like Old Mex fall for it every time. Sad.

  24. So? What’s your point? To tell a story with no evidence that it ever happened about somebody who got stopped and asked for ID by the police? We know that never happens anywhere else on the planet!

    But I have to admit that it would be great to have the cops ticket everybody here in Frisko Bay Area go around to write citations for everybody who has illegals mow their lawn or picks them up at Home Depot to fix their house. Just a $100 ticket for all of them. Raises money and boy would it put a stop to jobs for illegals!

    Can you imagine some bro waving his ticket eating at McDonalds or shopping at WalMart and having to deal with somebody who barely speaks English. HA they would turn in the store so fast it would make you head spin!

    All those white “Mexican trucks” full of weed whackers and 3 guys in the front seat driving around the Bay Area would disappear like worms drying out on the sidewalk after the rain stops!

    1. Come back tomorrow and Jacob will perform his “those niggers are ruining America” trick. You can’t miss it!

      1. Obviously you don’t go to Home Depot very often. You are also unaware that the only thing that migrant landscape labor has impacted is lawnmower sales, not jobs. Before pussification, people used to mow their own lawns. Now it’s affordable for even lower middle class families to have part-time slave labor just like Nancy Pelosi.

        In fact this new touchy feelie liberal version of slavery is wonderful. You get all the benefits of slavery, but none of the mess, and instead of having them live on plantations, build wonderful slums for them to liv in out of site. You also get to act all pompous about how progressive you are a cocktail parties, by once in a while naming a street with an inspirational figure’s name like Martin Luther King Jr. or C?sar Ch?vez. Instead of working to better conditions, constantly dilute with imported, more severely impoverished laborers and claim even greater tolerance. It’s all bullshit, and time Americans of Mexican ancestry stand up for other Americans before a bunch of criminal foreigners. La Raza can kiss my brown ass, Old Mex too – as long as he doesn’t try any of that fruity tongue stuff.

        1. Agree with your general point, but in what universe is Cesar Chavez an inspirational figure? He’s probably more responsible for the clusterblow that is current immigration law than anyone for his craven union opposition to the Bracero programs.

        2. Exactly correct. The Latin Americans who flock to Home Depot and all the other places are “the new slaves”.

          “those niggers”. Are not the ones ruining America, it is every homeowner or “small business” or big business who pays them nothing let’s them got to the emergency room instead of giving them medical insurance and all the rest. “those niggers” are disposable slaves we can all use for nothing to mow our lawns and serve our food and wipe our special asses.

          Just imagine if all the slave masters were the ones who were given that ticket by the police for a change.

          1. …except that those slaves came here voluntarily and stay here voluntarily.

            “…big business who pays them nothing…”

            Any idea what the average day laborer makes an hour? No? So basically you’re just talking out your ass…

        3. Preach on, El Segundo, preach on….

  25. Illegal immigrants are simply filling a labor vacuum created by social programs that enable Americans to turn their nose to work that they deem to be beneath them.

  26. How would Arpaio treat a Middle Eastern carpenter named Jesus?

    1. Re: TrickyVic,

      How would Arpaio treat a Middle Eastern carpenter named Jesus?

      He would probably place him in a make-shift jail in the middle of the desert until he could hand him over to Pontious.

      1. I think the Jesus you speak of would probably not be confused too easily with an illegal immigrant named ‘Hey-soos’….

        1. Don’t fuck with the Jesus, man.

          1. Duly noted, Tulpa….

    2. Yeah, Jesus is lucky he never had to deal with the Maricopa County Sheriff.

  27. And make Him wear pink drawers.

  28. Its hard for me to understand anyone supporting increased police powers in the pursuit of people causing absolutely no harm to anyone; simply living peacefully and working to improve their station in life. I would never go to AZ. The very idea that I would be pulled over and have to have my papers proving citizenship is repulsive to me. Now you can be pulled over for using a cell phone. Soon it will be tinted windows, then low-riders, and then……….

    1. You see the mentality among the Paleocons is that its ok for the Government be it state or federal to harass people that dont fit their mold of American. They secretly wish for immigration never to be solved because its one of two clubs they have the other is Affirmative Action. They regularly refer to both illegal and legal immigrants as third worlders. Which is implied that they arent even human in their eyes. Their opposition to the Patriot Act isnt because they think harassing Arabs and Muslims via the state jackboot is wrong is because Liberals will one day get power and use it against whites.

      1. So tell me, ‘Free Willy’- do you think that the ‘Paleo-con’ view is wrong and not justified, or is wrong, but justified? 🙂

    2. Try visiting europe and not having a passport or ID. As far as the ‘no harm’ issue – I will agree that most come here and work very hard, but they are not in a very strong negotiational position with perspective employers and are quite disposable. But the rate of drunk driving, auto-thefts, fatalities to police officers has been duly noted here in the Houston metro area.

      1. I never stated to be against showing ID, big freakin whoop. I show my Driver’s License to vote (Im in NY) but Im against giving the tax payer funded thugs more power than they should have.

    3. The very idea that I would be pulled over and have to have my papers proving citizenship is repulsive to me.

      But that’s standard operating procedure–and it has been for a long time–“License and registration, please”. And you have to prove it when you want a job…and when you want to pay by check…and whenever you rent something…

      Americans have this thing about ‘producing their papers’, they complain about it incessantly–and they do it all the damned time.

      It’s like this asinine thing against a national ID card–while carrying their Social Security card(hey, just because they say it’s not an ID number doesn’t mean that it’s not…it’s attached to your identity, and it’s a number! duh.)

      Oh, I don’t like it—but that bridge was crossed a long time before most of us were thoughts in our parents minds.

      1. “But that’s standard operating procedure–and it has been for a long time–“License and registration, please”. And you have to prove it when you want a job…and when you want to pay by check…and whenever you rent something…” Wrong. I have no drivers license nor are any of my vehicles registered. I “drive” every day. I work for myself so i don’t have to show any ID. I have never been asked for ID to rent… or buy property for that matter. Just because you have been brainwashed into thinking these things are necessary does not make it so for everyone.

        “Oh, I don’t like it—but that bridge was crossed a long time before most of us were thoughts in our parents minds” So that means you should just bend over and take it right? Coward.

        1. Ah, so when you’ve been stopped by the cops–oh, wait, that’s never happened, right?

          You know, I could say that I am the mad, blind god at the Center of all things, enjoying the endless piping of my retainers as Chaos swarms around me–and hey, I do! But I can’t prove it.

          Just like, in this format, you’ve got no way to prove you’ve lived your entire life without ever being asked for any of the things that pass as ‘papers’ in the US.

          But we can say these things all we want. Aren’t teh intarwebz fun!

          Coward? No. I fight where I can, and deal where I can’t. Rational anarchist.

          1. Rational anarchist.

            How can any modifier on ‘anarchist’ possibly explain your position that the powers of a government over its dominion are equivalent to the rights of an individual over his property?

            This position is completely akin to might makes right. I suppose you can believe that if you want to, but where does anarchism come in?

            1. Let’s start here…

              Anarcho-capitalist
              Anarcho-communist
              Anarcho-syndicalist

              These are modifiers to ‘anarchy'(or you can do it the other way around if you so choose). All remove the ‘anarchy’ and replace it with some ‘ism’.

              Rational anarchist does not modify the anarchy. I am an anarchist. I am rational about it. This means, because– however much you might not like it– might DOES make right, that I understand that, on occasion, someone else’s ‘might’ can force me to aquiesce. So, rationally, I aquiesce.

              Anarchy is not about coopoeration, or collectivism–voluntary or involuntary. At it’s best, it’s people acting with enlightened self interest–but an anarchist understands that things won’t always be ‘best’.

              The guy with his gun to your head is god–if only for a while.

              There is no ‘utopia’ in anarchy. There are only individuals, doing what they want, as they see fit, in their own best interests. Some of those individuals might want to lord it over others. Anarchy lets them try–and succeed, if they can—which destroys the anarchy in that locale until someone restores it.

              Very volatile. Chaotic, even. But I like that.

              1. So for you “anarchist” means:

                1) Have no normative beliefs on the best forms of societal regulation.

                2) Acquiesce to whatever regime the government in power imposes.

                Is that about right?

  29. I’m not interested in kissing third world christians’ asses.

  30. I have to agree with Tulpa that there is nothing very special about the AZ law, since it is just as stupid as federal immigration policy in general.

    However, Tulpa’s assertion that libertarianism doesn’t say anything about immigration is completely idiotic. A true libertarian should believe that a person has the right to do anything as long as they are not impeaching on the rights of others. This includes crossing a border. An invasion is only an invasion because invaders attack the people they are invading.

    There is no credible excuse for Tulpa to have missed this simple logic. The only explanation is that he willfully ignored logic in order to espouse his idiotic beliefs.

  31. Citations from the horse’s mouth:

    To explain, I don’t think there’s a set libertarian position on any of the issues I specified.

    Idiotically self explanatory.

    Anyone who pulls out the “imaginary line” canard better not have opposed the invasion of Iraq, or any other US troop presence on foreign soil “the other side of the imaginary line”.

    Tulpa implies that libertarians oppose the Iraq War because US soldiers stepped over the Iraq border. The real reason is that US soldiers crossed the border with the intent to invade Iraq. (See the difference between moving over a border and invading a border in my post above)

  32. I have no problem with granting temporary admission into the country and then issuing work visas to anybody that can secure employment within a reasonable period of time.
    I am a libertarian, but that doesn’t mean that I am in lock-step with the libertarian mainstream (i.e. Reason, Cato etc. although I contribute to both). The United States has laws pertaining to illegal immigration and those laws should be enforced until they are changed/repealed. The AZ state law mirrors the federal law. Quit bitching about AZ and go after the federal law.
    Having said all that, the bottom line for me is I have a problem with anybody having to ‘show their papers’ in the ‘land of the free’. (If this is incoherent blame it on the Two Fingers tequila).

    1. Sorry I don’t follow stupid words put on paper by people I have never met. I know not to kill people. I know not to lie,cheat,steal. I don’t need someone to tell me that. All the other laws are useless. Where i live its ok to shoot Indians, as long as you do it from a covered wagon. Should i follow that stupid law just because its the law and has not been changed yet?

      It is physically impossible for you to know all the laws you are supposedly “bound” by. You could sit down and read the law books for your entire life and you couldn’t get through it all before you died. YOU break laws every day. You just don’t know it because they are stupid and no one pays any attention to them, unless you piss off a public servant.

  33. I was wondering if Arpaio would like to come over and perform acts of Hooverism (or Dysonism if you prefer) upon my throbbing member for awhile, because this freak of nature is a sure-fire example of a grade-A cock$ucker….

  34. Meeeeeeeeh…

  35. Pitifully weak. Whites turned around are reported by Mr. Rodriquez while receiving the ticket. When you are pulled over for speeding, many many people blow buy because the cop is occupied.

    Illegal immigration is, duh, Illegal Mr. Sullum. I know the open borders crowd wants zero law breaking immigrants to be deported.

    1. Is coherency really this difficult?

  36. “Practicable” is the key term. Not “practical”, “practicable”. That term leaves it wide open to the officer’s discretion to make the check. If they don’t want to do it, they simpyl call it not practicable and don’t.

    It’s right there in the law’s plain language.

    Of course, it makes a difference when people complaining about it actually go and read it and understand what it really means first–like all the fools wasting time and taxpayer money with these frivolous lawsuits.

  37. Arrest Everybody
    Arizona encourages police to emulate “the toughest sheriff in America.”

    Oh, BS; it does no such thing.

  38. This is a crap article full of much opinion but little fact.

    People here are flinging hyperbole around like monkey poo in a zoo. The article can at best state of Mr. Rodriguez’ family that “They were stopped by deputies from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, who demanded documentation from David Rodriguez, including his Social Security card, and cited him for failing to obey a road sign.”

    They cited him for failing to obey a sign! Not arrested, not beaten, not strung up. Man, his kind of hyperbole makes it hard to have an honest national discussion. The article provides NO information about “the other” drivers who are all allegedly white. Really? In a state with a large hispanic minority, this guy was the ONLY latino stopped? And who does this information come from, the same sole source angry guy? What was the context for the citation, what was his attitude when stopped? Did he back talk the cop, exhibit an angry attitude? ANYONE doing that should expect to get more than just a warning.

    The article goes on to state that they Rodriguez family is part of a suit, and that “The lead plaintiff is Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, a Mexican who was detained for nearly nine hours even though he presented several forms of ID, including a valid visa.”

    Does anyone know the context for this? Was this an unreasonable time period to wait? Do we know how long it takes a LOCAL police department to verify the validity of a Visa? Was the time of day when he was arrested a factor — aka, were the State/Federal bureaucrats who were the ones who can check the Visa on the job, at lunch, after hours??

    This a crap article designed to stir emotions and fling monkey poo. “Reason” it ain’t!

    1. “Reason” it ain’t!”

      DRINK!!!

  39. No mention whether David and Jessica Rodriguez spoke with an accent. Things would be different were it not for the Hispanic crime wave in AZ. How many whites are in AZ illegally? Most Hispanic crime on on Hispanics I think, have the Rodriguez no concern for other Hispanics? A man can be arrested for going into the ladies’ restroom on the basis of appearance. Is that unreasonable?

  40. This is so unsurprising. I avoid AZ at all costs, especially Maricopa County, since it is home to the most corrupt police force in the United States. The county police there are, for all intents and purposes, nothing more than a crime syndicate. Extortion is their main game.

    I highly recommend avoiding the state, but especially avoiding it if you might need a rental car: AZ marks them with obvious bright yellow plate stickers that make you easy pickings for their dirty cops. Peel them off if you ever have the misfortune of having to go there. Being brown may be the claimed reason, but they simply have another basis to pull over, harass, arrest, etc, anyone they happen to get in their sights. I guarantee they won’t use it just for a certain skin color, but will use it for anyone and everyone as a blanket law to cover any questionable questioning. You’d better have your papers with you, or they’ll arrest you on the spot. After all, it’ll cost a fortune to get your car out of impound, pay towing fees, and pay bail, then return a month or so later for a trial to prove your citizenship…

    All in a day’s work for the Maricopa County Sheriffs.

  41. Customer Service – What is it worth to you? You can email us 24×7! Our represnetative. will reply you in 24 hours. You can check our tracking page, and seehttp://www.suprashoesfans.com hundreds of orders which we have delivered.Now you can Google most of http://www.suprashoesfans.comthese other places and see they have histories of not providing products or having terrible customer service.

  42. This is a really nice article. I am sure a lot of people will benefit from it. Thanks!
    http://www.cl-shoescom.com
    http://www.max-tn-chaussure.com

  43. any architecture of the Sheepskin Ugg Boots , sheepskin congenital, applying mesh lining utter surprise and also a foreign bistered surface. Purchased in Australia as an affectionate use of the Ugg Boots Online Store shoe Arctic altitude and are therefore also used as ugh boots and ug boots

  44. What surprised you contemplate a bitter Uggs Australia Outlet boots ideal, love or like the prospects for the upgrade? in bearings which are in the midst of ambagious them again I will bring my Ugg Boots On Sale boots favored.

  45. plenty of Australians and their domestication, to carry out Ugg Sheepskin Boots assertive that the margin can be mounted to the load and the turmoil in the mild winter. Cheap women Uggs affordable precision of most visitors alike armpits website

  46. hello there and thank you to your information I’ve unquestionably picked up one thing new from correct right here. I did nevertheless expertise some technical concerns working with this website, as I knowledgeable to reload the website a great deal of instances earlier to I could get it to load appropriately ???? ??? ???? ???????

  47. one of the terms of the “marriage contract,” if you want to look at it as a contract, is that any child born during the marriage, while the parents are living together, are deemed to be the children of the husband whether they are genetically his children or not. ???? ?????? ????? ???????

  48. Well said. Tucker is despicable, Crossfire became despicable (despite the presence of supposed “heavyweights” like Novack and Carville), and Jon Stewart is a comedian who has never proclaimed himself to be anything else. Just because certain people here don’t understand how satire works doesn’t change that fact. The fact that The Daily Show has gained some cultural traction doesn’t change that. ???? ????? ?????? ???????

  49. Even if you go on his website, it’s still just a a ten minute discussion. The interview with Jim Cramer simply amounted to Jim sputtering something every couple of minutes while John wagged his finger at him the whole time. I’ve never seen him have an intelligent discussion with anybody, and he only talks to people that he knows he can bully into a corner. Usually idiots, yes, but it’s still dispicable. I don’t watch him that often, but it is people like him that make me wretch. The fact that people go around saying “He slammed so and so” in that “debate” pisses me off. John’s not directly responsible for that, but he certainly plays his audience to get that effect. ???? ????? ????? ???????

  50. I agree there is room for legitimate differences of opinion on the quality of data, and the extent of government responsibility, but to argue that the government had no role in directing credit, or in the subsequent bust, is simply ideological myopia. ???? ????? ????? ???????

  51. he deputies simply warned them about the washed-out ro

  52. er motorists made the same mistake around the same tim

  53. Hello, I believe your blog could possibly be having internet browser compatibility problems. Whenever I look at your website in Safari, it looks fine however, when opening in IE, it’s got some overlapping issues. I merely wanted to provide you with a quick heads up! Apart from that, wonderful website!
    Cheers,

    http://www.prokr.com/blog/

    http://www.albyaan.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.