57 thoughts on “FriendFeed: “Anti-Government” Tea Partiers …”
gahrie
Yeah, because we all know supporting one of the legitimate functions of government means you are not allowed to oppose all of the illegitimate functions of government.
David K.
Holy crap, gahrie has suddenly discovered NUANCE! Its a freaking miracle!
Incidentally I disagree with him, detaining me because I don’t happen to have proof of citizenship on me at all times is not a legitimate function of government.
“Anti-government”? So now they’re anarchists caught in some cognitive dissonance?
Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine the country to our south had a billion people and was predominantly Islamic (think Saudi Arabian or Algerian-style Muslims), but was dirt-poor like India and had opium fields like Afghanistan. No doubt we’d have hordes of people coming across the border that would make Mexican immigration seem like a Samoan invasion, and the impacts from culture to terrorism and drug smuggling would be exponentially worse than what we have today. In that scenario, how likely is it that your positions on illegal immigration, amnesty, and border enforcement would be as tolerant and liberal as they are today?
The moral of the thought experiment should be: It doesn’t matter who’s coming across the border and why they are coming across, we need to secure our borders and enforce our freakin’ immigration laws. Once that is accomplished and we have a handle on who’s still here legally and who’s here illegally, then we can take stock and consider whether we want to offer some sort of amnesty and/or reform our immigration laws to allow increased immigration for skilled workers and temporary visas for unskilled laborers and whatnot.
Until that happens, expect normal law-abiding Americans to start demanding the government get meaner and crack down on this shit.
Arizona’s under siege. Sorry, but if the Federal government won’t step up, then the people of Arizona are justified in demanding their state government step in.
This commentary is lame in the extreme. Strange that it’s the leftist side trying to basically say “You must be 100% against government or if you Tea Party you’re a hypocrite.” Funny, isn’t that what you guys usually claim rightist Christian fundamentalist troglodytes do? Holding the Tea Partiers up to that standard given the crap that is going on in AZ would be like saying that if the current government that you helped elect decided to start killing 1 out of every 10 children that, well, you couldn’t say anything because you _must_ think everything the President does is swell since you uttered one word of praise for him.
Mexico is in the throes of a low grade insurgency. It’s starting to spill over the border. I think _everyone_ in AZ has the right to say, “Okay, y’all need to keep that sh*t on your side of the border…everyone out of the pool!”
Matt Wiser
So when the cops pull you over and demand that you have proof of US citizenship on you, what are the odds you do? This isn’t about actually helping anything, this is about giving the racist thugs led by Joe Arpaio legal cover to harass anyone who looks Mexican instead of actually doing things like serving warrants. But apparently stealing documents in open court and attacking newspapers that criticize the department are far more important uses of the Sheriff’s Office than pursuing rapists and murderers.
David K.
Yeah all those illegal immigrants living in squalor and harvesting produce for wages that make McDonalds look luxurious are a real threat…
Brendan Loy
I think Matt Wiser gets at the actual point here, which is that someone who is supposed skeptical of “Big Government” — and abuse of power by those in the government (like OMG the Chicago corruption machine!) shouldn’t just take at face value what a law claims to accomplish, and support it on that basis. Nobody is claiming that immigration enforcement, broadly, isn’t within the government’s legitimate powers, but when government passes a law that is pretty much designed to be abused, no self-respecting “small government” advocate should support it. If they do, they may or may not be hypocrites, but they certainly are dumbasses.
Brendan Loy
P.S. And I would draw a distinction between supporting it — as in, “this is a good law, I’m glad it passed” — and saying something more qualified like, “well, this isn’t the greatest law in the world, but if the feds aren’t going to take action, this sort of thing is going to happen.” The latter position is legitimate, if somewhat superficially ironic, for a small-government type to hold. But actually, actively supporting the law as an intrinsically good thing? Well, let’s just say I have a very hard time seeing how that can be fit into any type of “small government” mentality. It’s more like the fusion of utopian liberalism (completely ignoring the law of unintended consequences, no matter how obviously predictable those consequences are) with “security” conservatism. A very dangerous combo.
But I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. It’s well established that the current crop of “conservatives” check even a healthy mistrust and skepticism of government at the door when it comes to anything that can be labeled “national security,” and completely trust the government 110% when it comes to such things. (In a nutshell, that is the #1 reason why Andrew Sullivan is so at odds with the “conservative” movement these days.) This creates, if not hypocrisy, certainly an odd dichotomy… mild social and economic reforms / emergency measures are OMG THE BEGINNING OF SOCIALISM AND THE END OF AMERICA AS WE KNOW IT, but laws that institutionalize torture, racial profiling, etc. etc. are perfectly fine, no matter how much latitude they give the government to abuse its power.
As a “conservative,” I don’t check my “small government principles at the door” when it comes to national security. Once again, check your archives to see my rather vitriolic responses to the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, etc., etc.. So, once again, painting in broad brushes isn’t helping your case.
Is this a bad law? Don’t know. I think the governor’s instructions to the attorney general as well as the fact DoJ is in close hover waiting to pounce will probably help us find out more. However, once again, it’s not _conservatives_ who are allowing Arizona to be used as a superhighway for the cartels. It’s not _conservatives_ who are refusing to deploy National Guard troops along the border, nor is it _conservatives_ who are abrogating the fundamental responsibility of the Feds.
Now, if you want to replace every _conservative_ with _government_ in the previous sentence (because I don’t think it’s liberals either), that would be accurate. But I don’t think it’s justified to criticize folks who are suffering the effects of immigration passing a law to try and take care of things. Talk to someone around Tucson sometime about their hospital / schools situation and I think you can see why folks on the ground actually support this.
Finally, I don’t recall the Tea folks saying they wanted no government. They just want A. less government and B. government that does what it’s supposed to. You know, that whole “talking to Tea Partiers” thing I mentioned as opposed to just following it on the news comes in handy. Taxed Enough Already has no synonyms for “Anarchy” that I can see–but I apparently must not have the “liberal smear lexicon dictionary.” It is not antithetical to “small government” to support a bill that allegedly enhances the ability of law enforcement to do its job, especially when you have good reason to fear the other outcome. Now, a bill that openly defies the Constitution (as opposed to second and third order Bubba effects maybe leading to problems) would be a different matter, but this bill _specifically targets non-citizens. In previous times, they used to, you know _kill people_ for jumping into a neighboring realm and wreaking havoc. I think having to find your birth certificate isn’t such a problem, but I guess that’s why I have multiple copies and a passport down in my firesafe.
BTW, if you think fundamentally that doing a forcible transfer of wealth (i.e., giving taxpayer money to banks people, OH MY GOD, IT’S FINANCIAL ARMAGEDDON) is a “mild social and economic reform” then your lens is vastly different from mine. Sorry, but in the Great Depression folks lost all their world belongings when they ran an investment house that f’ed up. To me, that’s how it should work, and the fact that Bush, Paulson, et. al. didn’t make this happen before coughing up money your children will have to pay off is not “mild.” But hopefully you’ll be around to explain to your offspring and their offspring why the confiscatory tax rates are taking massive chunks out of their paychecks.
I wish to make one immigration point here. I just wish to note that controlling the borders is NOT POSSIBLE, no matter how much conservatives wish otherwise. No power in history ever managed to stem the flow of immigrants into their country from an economically challenged neighbor. You just can’t do it: there are too many motivated people to stop. My solution is to arrest those doing horrible crimes who are here illegally and don’t worry about the rest. Maybe force businesses not paying illegal immagrants to pay fines as well in an effort to level the playing field. But we can’t deport all of them. Impossible. And someday, they may rule US, so keep that in mind. Just ask the Egyptians ruled by Cushite Pharoahs after years of Cushite immagration about that.
JD
So when the cops pull you over and demand that you have proof of US citizenship on you, what are the odds you do?
This isn’t about actually helping anything, this is about giving the racist thugs led by Joe Arpaio legal cover to harass anyone who looks Mexican instead of actually doing things like serving warrants.
That is hardly a good-faith argument, Matt, and I expect better from you. Aside from the fact that it’s unlikely someone who spent a good deal of his career working for the DEA in places like Turkey and Mexico is a closet KKK supporter, Joe Arpaio has long since made himself into the symbolic nexus of the get-tough-on-crime philosophy. From chain gangs to pink underwear and handcuffs, from tent jails in the desert to webcasting pre-trial detainees, from the Norberg incident to the harassment of illegal immigrants, what is plainly obvious is that Arpaio has anointed himself as the last stalwart holding back a culture gone soft on crime. As a result, a county sheriff who wins reelection quite easily every four years drives national negative coverage based upon winning enemies like Amnesty International, the ACLU, and the NY Times editorial board. Like him or hate him, Arpaio and his tactics have nothing to do with racism.
Step back and look at the broader picture for a moment. If you want to blame the tea party movement for things like this Arizona bill (which is just another iteration of Prop 187 and similar initiatives that have been put up for vote over the years), then you are conceding that the tea party movement is in fact a mainstream, majority movement. This Arizona bill is incredibly popular, as was Prop 187, and Gov. Gray Davis’s refusal to continue an appeal of a liberal judge’s decision to strike down Prop 187 provided the initial momentum for his recall.
I repeat, this is not about racism, and it’s not about Arpaio’s controversial tactics, it’s about addressing a larger issue on which the feds have abdicated their responsibilities.
So when the cops pull you over and demand that you have proof of US citizenship on you, what are the odds you do?
Well, hopefully you’re carrying a driver’s license, otherwise you’re a total idiot. And now that this bill requires non-citizens to carry alien registration documentation (a not unreasonable requirement — we require peace officers to carry a badge, drivers to carry licenses, and so on), you better have that too (Like it or not, we’re going to have a national ID card someday).
Look, most of the controversy around this bill has to do with this provision, and I totally understand why — there’s little doubt it will have a disproportionate impact on Latinos. However, the Left has had limited success winning cases based on disproportionate impact, and this law mimics most other law enforcement provisions in using terminology like “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause”. In that sense, this law is no more or less dangerous than most law enforcement provisions that, in general, give police wide latitude to stop and harass just about anyone they want to. Police authority is already “designed to be abused”. We function as a peaceful, free, law-abiding society because, generally speaking, it’s hardly worth the police’s time, energy, and limited budgets to harass any passerby, but you’re pretty naive if you think they don’t have that ability already.
The other significant thing this bill does is strike down internal rules like the LAPD’s Special Order 40. Local law enforcement agencies are not wild about enforcing immigration policies, and they typically find it easier to work in their communities when the folks they’re trying to get help and information from are not cowering in fear about being deported. But this is a parochial view that many feel must be balanced by the broader reality that we can’t solve illegal immigration if illegal aliens face almost no obstacles in day-to-day life finding work and interacting with government and civilian agencies. Folks who are critical of the war on drugs make frequent use of the argument that you can’t solve the problem without fixing the demand side, and that’s exactly what anti-illegal immigration activists are trying to do here by forcing companies to verify legal status of workers and ratcheting up the pain of day-to-day life for illegals. Everyone agrees that walls, towers, and drones on the border aren’t sufficient, but nobody (except an extreme minority) wants mass deportation either, so the goal here is to make them less welcome so they’ll leave voluntarily.
Brendan, as to your point in #7 (and the first half of #8), I’ll simply make the broader point that “law-and-order” conservatism is not synonymous with, nor is it at odds with, “small-government” conservatism. Conservatism is a diverse collection of warring tribes, and this is manifested in the thinking of many conservatives. As for myself, my libertarian principles rankle at some of the abuses that may now be inevitable under this Arizona law, but in the bigger picture, I see our lax enforcement of immigration laws and the border as a far more deleterious problem and I am not about to let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
It’s well established that the current crop of “conservatives” check even a healthy mistrust and skepticism of government at the door when it comes to anything that can be labeled “national security,” and completely trust the government 110% when it comes to such things.
Brendan, it’s about the role and parameters of constitutional government, not “mistrust” and “skepticism”. The government has clear constitutional ground to protect and defend the country, as well as enforce its borders, therefore conservatives tend to be wildly supportive of those things the government is supposed to be doing, and wildly critical of those things the government is not supposed to be doing (e.g. healthcare, welfare, etc.). You confuse conservatism and libertarianism. Libertarianism is broadly skeptical of the government across the board, which is why they make bedfellows with some leftists on civil liberties, and bedfellows with conservatives on the size and scope of government. I myself am a libertarian-leaning conservative, but just as you are a Trojan who is also Irish, so I am a conservative first who generally leans libertarian. There is no irony or danger in this combo.
In a nutshell, that is the #1 reason why Andrew Sullivan is so at odds with the “conservative” movement these days.
In a nutshell, Andrew Sullivan is not a conservative, and he mirrors the Left in their “mistrust and skepticism” of the military and government’s role in national security, while being naively, blindingly trustful and accepting of the broadening of the scope of government to touch just about every other aspect of economic and civilian life. His views are so transparently driven by personal emotions and reactions centering on his identity as a homosexual, he is simply not to be taken seriously as a credible political thinker. Concerns about things like torture and racial profiling are overblown, disconnected with reality, and almost completely tied to a vested interest on the part of the Democratic Party to sow social discord and leave problems like illegal immigration to fester and divide Americans. Democrats don’t want to fix the problem of illegal immigration, and Democrats don’t want to put together a credible national security policy; they gain far more mileage (votes and dollars) out of creating a climate of fear by painting Republicans and tea party folks as racists. They have a vested interest in growing the size and scope of paternal government, and expanding the size of the poor and minority constituencies of government paternalism (including increasing the ranks of the army of unionized workers it takes to operate this burgeoning behemoth), all in order to secure the pipeline of money and votes it takes to keep them in power — at the expense of the middle and wealth-creating classes.
David K.
JD, Drivers license isn’t proof of citizenship, so even if I have that on me they can detain me for being an illegal immigrant. Further you can’t just pull someone over and ask for their license, you have to have cause. Admittedly “cause” can be pretty vague, but it is action based not appearance based and cops who use appearance are breaking the law.
gahrie
David K:
1) The point is, if a cop can ask for a driver’s license, they can surely ask for immigration papers.
2) The wording in the laws allowing a cop to ask you for your driver’s license is almost identical to the wording of the law allowing cops to ask you about your immigration status. The word “appearance” does not appear in Arizona’s law. The term used is “reasonable suspicion”.
3) The Arizona law is arguably draconian. What you are ignoring is that the crisis in Arizona now requires draconian measures.
How will you feel when kidnappings and drug murders are commonplace in your community. When your children are in classes with forty students, twenty of which can’t speak English and see no value in education.
JD
You can’t get a DL in Arizona without being a citizen. There are fake IDs, of course, but 95% of the time a driver’s license will be a citizen’s. The police are going to know that. And I didn’t say anything about police “using appearance” to pull someone over. I was just responding to your assumption that people don’t carry what the vast majority of the time can be considered proof of citizenship.
David K.
Please provide citations that demonstrate this supposed “crisis”.
Brendan Loy
I confess I’ve pretty much tuned out this thread, not having had time to follow it in detail, but I can’t resist pointing out that this argument by gahrie — “if a cop can ask for a driver’s license, they can surely ask for immigration papers” — is precisely the sort of argument that would be rejected by gahrie under other circumstances, such as “if the IRS can collect taxes that are then allocated to pay for universal single-payer health insurance, surely it can also simply impose a penalty on people for refusing to buy private health insurance.” Just because the government can do one thing that sounds somewhat superficially similar to another thing, doesn’t necessarily mean the government can also do the other thing. Or so I thought gahrie and other conservatives believed.
(Perhaps more to the point, checking someone’s driver’s license when stopping that person while they are driving is surely closer to the core point of a traffic stop than checking immigration status.)
Matt Wiser
James Young:
That is hardly a good-faith argument, Matt, and I expect better from you. Aside from the fact that it’s unlikely someone who spent a good deal of his career working for the DEA in places like Turkey and Mexico is a closet KKK supporter, Joe Arpaio has long since made himself into the symbolic nexus of the get-tough-on-crime philosophy. From chain gangs to pink underwear and handcuffs, from tent jails in the desert to webcasting pre-trial detainees, from the Norberg incident to the harassment of illegal immigrants, what is plainly obvious is that Arpaio has anointed himself as the last stalwart holding back a culture gone soft on crime. As a result, a county sheriff who wins reelection quite easily every four years drives national negative coverage based upon winning enemies like Amnesty International, the ACLU, and the NY Times editorial board. Like him or hate him, Arpaio and his tactics have nothing to do with racism.
It damn well is a good faith argument. Arpaio’s made himself into the paragon of getting tough on crime while ignoring serious crime and closing cases without bothering to investigate in favor of pointing all his efforts at harassing Mexicans and those who point this out. How the hell is that not racist? Best case, he’s not racist, but plays one in order to win reelection. Giving his office draconian powers is a horrific betrayal of justice.
Brendan, drivers licenses, traffic stops, and immigration status are more connected than you make it sound — especially in a place like Arizona, where people often cross the border through the desert to meet at some rendezvous point at which they can be picked up and transported to a safer locale (family residence, etc.). Given that one must have proof of citizenship or legal residence to get a driver’s license in most states, and that buying a minimum level of car insurance is usually required by law as well, it is not unreasonable in a place like Arizona to ask a driver who is unable to produce a license, whether they are able to produce papers documenting their immigration status — especially when you consider the vast majority of illegal aliens drive without any form of license, paperwork, or insurance.
Matt, I’m not James Young, just as you clearly are not Mike Wiser.
It damn well is a good faith argument. Arpaio’s made himself into the paragon of getting tough on crime while ignoring serious crime and closing cases without bothering to investigate in favor of pointing all his efforts at harassing Mexicans and those who point this out.
I have a hard time giving much credit to these kinds of statistics and allegations when they are not properly comparative. Line them up against similar metrics from other major metropolitan counties in Arizona, or vs. similar-sized sheriff jurisdictions in other states, and I’ll be more inclined to take the charges seriously. The fact is, a great many cases everywhere go unprosecuted for a variety of reasons (some good, some bad, some convenient), and without having access to the sheriff’s internal administrative guidelines, these accusations are no more helpful than hearing only the plaintiff’s argument of a court case.
Best case, he’s not racist, but plays one in order to win reelection.
So you’re willing to assume that 55-60% of Maricopa County in Arizona is racist or tolerant of racism? That’s hardly plausible. Arpaio is a hero to a ton of people who believe our country has gone soft on crime and illegal immigration, but that does not make him a racist xenophobe.
In fact, if you perform even some modest research, you’ll probably be dismayed to learn that illegal immigration and crime are intimately interwoven problems in many cities with high immigrant populations. As just one minor snapshot:
• In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.
• A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.
• The leadership of the Columbia Lil’ Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.’s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former assistant U.S. attorney Luis Li. Francisco Martinez, a Mexican Mafia member and an illegal alien, controlled the gang from prison, while serving time for felonious reentry following deportation.
Given these links, there’s arguably a direct connection between increased public safety and focusing law enforcement efforts on enforcing immigration policy, just as Rudy Giuliani found a direct correlation between clamping down on minor crime like vandalism and graffiti, and reducing more serious crime like burglary and murder.
Giving his office draconian powers is a horrific betrayal of justice.
I appreciate your opinion, but that statement is potentially true or not true independent of any phony allegations of racism.
As to the “someday they might be ruling you” argument–yeah, _that_ will turn the temperature down on both sides. I think it’s far more likely that there will be something that sparks a backlash–like the Mexican Army helicopters that keep straying into Texas actually shooting up something. Just a hunch.
As to Sheriff Joe–I find it interesting that there are all these allegations and have been for years, yet somehow Sheriff Joe hasn’t gotten nailed to the wall. As a person who knows a little about the powers the Feds have when they come after you, let’s just say if there was so much of an atom of evidence, Eric Holder would be on Sheriff Joe like white on rice. Especially given that the current DHS Secretary sort of, you know, _hated_ Sheriff Joe and I am certain would know what rocks needed to be kicked over to build a case. I’m an Occam’s Razor kind of guy–if he’s not doing the perp walk, it must be because folks are long on whining, short on evidence.
Let me make it clear: my argument isn’t that someday “they” will be ruling us . . . the way this country works, immigrants become us. Its just that our ruling class will look more and more Latino, especially in the border states. In that way, we’re unlike Egypt.
And you never did address my main argument, which is that there’s nothing we can do about this movement, short of somehow bringing the whole country of Mexico up to our economic standards (which won’t happen – wouldn’t happen even if for some odd reason we took Mexico as a state). This is the problem: our country is rich. Mexico is poor. There is economic opportunity in the US that can’t be had in Mexico. Ergo, immigrants will keep coming into the USA from Mexico. Any policy that doesn’t address this basic reality is in fantasy land. Unless, of course, this situation adjusts itself the other way – the USA becomes a less promising place to come. But I’d rather not plan on that. I don’t think this will happen any time soon, but then again, we continue to not deal with our basic problems, so this scenario may not be as far fetched as some think.
Like I said, our focus shouldn’t be on “round them up and deport them!” It should be like a secondary offense on a speeding ticket – we catch someone doing a felony, and discover he’s an illegal immigrant, we should make the punishment more severe. Draconian measures won’t help, and will just serve to increase the tension in a situation that doesn’t need it.
In my lifetime, this country will shift to where the white population will be a plurality, but not a majority. Policies that spit in the face of this basic reality will not be helpful.
gahrie
In my lifetime, this country will shift to where the white population will be a plurality, but not a majority. Policies that spit in the face of this basic reality will not be helpful.
I don’t understand your point here.
Are you saying non-Whites can’t follow the laws of our country?
Non-Whites won’t enforce the laws of our country?
gahrie
And you never did address my main argument, which is that there’s nothing we can do about this movement, short of somehow bringing the whole country of Mexico up to our economic standards
How about we begin by enforcing the exact same laws on our southern border that Mexico enforces on its southern border?
gahrie: I’m not saying that “non-whites” can’t or won’t follow our laws. They can and will. But there may be a day when they make the laws. Its something to keep in mind when a bunch of white guys make laws now, is all. (In essence, I’m saying that it is possible that “non-whites” will MAKE the laws of our country.)
And what laws does Mexico enforce on its southern border? And are they effective? I get the impression that despite a tougher enforcement, they are having the same problem. So mayhaps the lesson here isn’t “we should get tough like Mexico”, but “we should deal smartly, not harshly, with illegal immigrants.” I really don’t see how we do anything other than just kinda put up with it, deporting criminals when they come, possibly cracking down on companies not paying their workers minimum wage (which would help with the illegals issue, since if it can be proven they are doing stuff under the table, they are probably employing workers who won’t complain), but other then that, just plain deporting illegal immigrants isn’t going to work.
Jazz
I bet if you asked the average non-ideological American, they would more or less agree with the following two concepts:
1) Entitlements are okay to the extent that they keep people from starving on the streets, and also okay to the extent that redistributing wealth increases consumption and helps economic growth. However, putting entitlements into the hands of a government bureaucracy is a recipe for abuse and excess, since bureaucrats often thrive on feeding at the trough of their beloved cottage industry.
2) The American empire needs to project force internally and externally to ensure that other nations do not take advantage of us and other people do not abuse our blessings. However, putting projection of force into the hands of guys like Arpaio is a recipe for abuse and excess to the extent that bureaucrats like Arpaio are primarily interested in cultivating their “security theater” cottage industry.
Which puts those who see the necessity of entitlements and those who want to project American power, but wish to do so with a sense of balance and a suspicion of others motivated to abuse such balance, into a weird place:
It drives them into the arms of Ron Paul, a politician openly opposed to entitlements and the projection of American power.
…bureaucrats like Arpaio are primarily interested in cultivating their “security theater” cottage industry.
Arpaio wants to be a martyr for a cause, he doesn’t want to feed at a trough. To the extent any of us have a clue what motivates him, your conjecture seems particularly inapt.
…but other then that, just plain deporting illegal immigrants isn’t going to work.
B. Minich, I can tell you what else isn’t going to work: Everything the federal government is (and isn’t) doing today.
I would love to see a new bracero-type program, as well as a massive increase in visas available for entrepreneurs and skilled workers in critical industries. But neither of those things is politically viable until our government demonstrates a serious commitment to getting some level of control over illegal immigration. And if the Feds continue to lack the willpower to do something, things will happen instead at the state level.
Matt @ 22, I am aware of these controversies, but I go back to my original point, which is that Arpaio is politically very controversial but not necessarily racist, and his behavior is simply a distraction from, and not an argument for or against, this particular Arizona law.
Sandy Underpants
I wish I checked this blog this weekend when I was thinking the exact same thing. Amazing how the Tea Partiers have different views on expanding government powers. In an instance like the one in AZ where the voters OUTRIGHT gave up American civil liberties voting for the government to be able to demand identification from citizens even when no crime has been commited, is mind blowing. More mind-blowing is that they criticize the government for saving General Motors from going completely out of business and essentially putting tens of thousands of Americans out of work and dealerships out of business as would have been the result had the Fed done nothing.
This exposes the short-sighted ignorance and hypocrisy of the current Tea Party movement.
As far as “protecting our border”, it’s already the law. When an illegal alien is cited in the commission of a crime, like a speeding ticket, they can be deported because they don’t have a valid driver’s license and/or proof of citizenship, this new law gives the government MORE POWER to now demand proof of citizenship without any cause. That’s the law.
People that claim the government has done nothing to enforce the current laws are willfully ignorant or bald-faced liars. Look up “INS”, “ICE”, “Border Patrol”, and “Border Check”.
David K.
Sounds to me like the problem is with crime and not immigrantation. Seems to me if you can catch these guys commiting/involved/etc. with a crime you can easily check their papers then legally prior to this law and deport them/incarcerate them. What is ignored by the statistics above is an even more important question, how many of these illegal immigrants are involved in crime, seems to me that would be a relavent question to ask. If its a small percentage aren’t we hurting safety by focusing our resources on detaining peaceful immigrant workers (legal or not) instead of focusing the resources on the criminals?
gahrie
What is ignored by the statistics above is an even more important question, how many of these illegal immigrants are involved in crime,
Well the easy answer is all of them, since they broke the law by coming here illegally.
But for the sake of argument, ignore that crime.
How many of them are involved in identity fraud?
Welfare fraud?
Failure to pay taxes?
Drug crimes? Gang activity?
The real question is: How much crime is committed by illegal aliens?
But they’ll mow my lawn once a month and clean my house for cheap cash under the table, so let them come on over!
Sandy Underpants
How much crime and devastatation was created by Legal Residents working on Wall Street and the financial district? Not only have I not seen anyone arrested (other than Madoff), I don’t see much (if any) voice to have accountability for the fraud that went on. Those legals did more to destroy this country than all the illegals put together from the beginning of America til the end of America combined.
It’s important to remind some Americans that the parents and siblings of many of our founding fathers, like Ben Franklin, were wetbacks, border jumpers, and illegals also.
gahrie
I don’t see much (if any) voice to have accountability for the fraud that went on.
That’s because they all have jobs in the Obama administration now. What are they supposed to do..investigate/prosecute themselves?
David K.
Seriously gahrie? Do you just make this shit up?
gahrie
Right…because NO ONE from the Fed or Goldman Sachs is working for Obama…….
Well, I personally think there is something we can do–enforce the laws on the books. As in, actually _enforce_ rather than let the bureaucracy slow, obfuscate, and basically hinder the system.
Failing that, I also think draconian systems would solve things. But we lack the political will for this. Which means we’re sorta screwed.
Sandy Underpants
Draconian systems are great for people who love the government to run their lives. Didn’t you participate in a thread just a few days ago on your support of the Tea Party and less government involvement in our lives?
The hypocrisy and contradiction of the right is over-whelming and unending,
David K.
No Sandy, draconian systems are great for the dragons. For they rest of us they pretty much suck.
gahrie
Would you guys just stop it!
There is nothing in the Arizona law that is not already a Federal law.
All the Arizona law does is give State officials the duty to enforce the laws that the Federal government is refusing to enforce.
David K.
gahrie, would you stop commenting on things you clearly have no clue about?
gahrie
David K:
OK…list one thing the Arizona law allows State officials to do that Federal officials aren’t supposed to be doing already.
Check for documents? Since 1940 federal law has mandated that immigrants carry their immigration documentation AT ALL TIMES.
Every person in the United States shows their documents almost every day, whether it is to use a credit card, cash a check, been pulled over by a cop, buy cigarettes or booze, …whatever. We all do it all the time without even thinking.
Those damn NAZI checkout girls…..
Sandy Underpants
Gahrie, coincidently (not!) yesterday Rush Limbaugh said the EXACT same things on his radio show. Of course, since he doesn’t have any intelligent people on his show, or in his audience, nobody could point out what he’s missing.
If there is “nothing in the Arizona law that is not already federal law” then there would be no need to pass the law, because it’s already law.
One thing this Arizona law allows state officials to do that federal officials aren’t suppose to be doing is: 1) Stop ANY American citizen and ask them for proof of citizenship (this means, YOU could be stopped walking down the street and harrassed by police, and you have no protection against this because it’s now the law that police have this right to do this to you).
You just said that “every person in the united states shows their documents almost every day.” If that statement isn’t total bullshit, then illegals as well as legals are showing their documents daily. Let me know how many times a day you get stopped by police to show your documents, because that’s never happened to me in this country, or any other country, and I hope it never does, as do I hope a law is never passed that takes this freedom away from me. Republicans on the other hand like giving up their freedoms if they think they can screw other people. Unfortunately Republicans are too stupid (still) to see that they’re only screwing themselves.
David K.
Sandy actually covered some of it, but basically you are conflating things here.
Showing a piece of ID to a checkout person to verify that you are in fact the person who gets to use the credit card is completely utterly and totally different than the police demanding to see my proof of citizenship.
First, a driver’s license does not establish legal citizenship.
Second, I can refuse to show the checkout girl my ID, at which point the only consequence is she can (and should) void my use of a credit card. At no point can she arrest me.
The problem is, as Sandy has pointed out the requirement that I show my proof of citizenship to the cops. I actually don’t carry my birth certificate with me, because, well I shouldn’t have to prove to random joe cop who feels like it that I’m a legal resident. The default assumption is that I am and they should treat me as such. Asking me for such information is a violation of my Fourth ammendment rights actually (which is kinda the problem with this law).
Yes immigrants are required to carry their papers on them, but that doesn’t mean they can be required to show them to anyone at anytime. There are specific FEDERAL laws that deal with immigration and those papers. Arizona police, not being federal agents, aren’t empowered to enforce those laws, which is yet another problem with the Arizona law and yet another reason why it will be declared unconstitutional.
Alasdair
David K – so, if I understand you correctly, an Arizona State Law, which says that the things in Federal Law that are federally illegal are now illegal at a State level too, that Arizona law is unconstitutional – but the Federal equivalent isn’t ?
I am not a lawyer, but I still hae a consistency problem with the above …
Is there some overriding reason whereby a State Law may duplicate a Federal Law ?
I also have to suspect that the folk who will be caught by this will be those who cannot speak english, most of the time … and those are folk who, if here legally, are oblige by Federal law to carry their proof of legal status with them at all times … (just as I have to carry my Green Card) …
Sandy U – I am impressed that you have had such a life that “Let me know how many times a day you get stopped by police to show your documents, because that’s never happened to me in this country, or any other country, …” ! Unless you intend to weasel out by saying that Immigration folk in other countries are not “police”, then you have shown your documents when leaving this country *and* when entering this country …
Perhaps you don’t drive a car, or you may even only drive your car compeltely within the driving laws – but most of us, at some time in our Life, have had to show some authority figure our documents as a result of becoming a driver … most of the time, it’s not harassment …
Perhaps you don’t fly, either, cuz you sure need to provide ID nowadays to fly as a passenger on commercial airlines …
Oh – and you state “If there is “nothing in the Arizona law that is not already federal law” then there would be no need to pass the law, because it’s already law.” … the reason there can be a need to have a State Law even when a Federal Law exists, is when the Federal Law is not enforced …
gahrie
Sandy:
If there is “nothing in the Arizona law that is not already federal law” then there would be no need to pass the law, because it’s already law.
Except the Federal government isn’t enforcing the law, which is exactly why Arizona passed a State law that mirrors the Federal laws…so that State officials can enforce the laws the Federal government won’t.
gahrie
David K:
The problem is, as Sandy has pointed out the requirement that I show my proof of citizenship to the cops. I actually don’t carry my birth certificate with me, because, well I shouldn’t have to prove to random joe cop who feels like it that I’m a legal resident. The default assumption is that I am and they should treat me as such. Asking me for such information is a violation of my Fourth ammendment rights actually (which is kinda the problem with this law).
Not according to a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court:
The Court further held that the officers’ questioning of Mena about her immigration status during her detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The officers did not need to have reasonable suspicion to question Mena. Moreover, the Court had held repeatedly that mere police questioning did not constitute a seizure.
Yes Alasdair, the State can not usurp power from the Federal government.
gahrie
David K:
You are right, but not in the way you think. The State cannot usurp power from the Federal government, but only because the Federal government only has what powers the States and people grant it. You can’t usurp what you already possess.
David K.
No gahrie, the States don’t grant the federal government anything.
Alasdair
gahrie – for David K, we need to simplify the concept – after all, look how little he understands the word “usurp” …
By enforcing the same laws, which are instead passed at a State level in an overlapping physical area, the State of Arizona in no way usurps anything from the Federal Government … the Federal Government reamins completely free to prosecute under Federal Law … I would further put forward that, if the Feds would actually enforce the Federal Laws, the State of Arizona would happily stand aside and let ’em do so …
Perhaps a more simple example is needed …
If gahrie and I are out for a meal together, and he says that he is going to pick up the check, and, instead, beacause he forgets his wallet,I have to do so, I am not usurping that check … since someone needs to pick up the check, and he is not able to, then I can do so without usurping anything …
In such an example, for me to “usurp” in some way, I would have had to say that I was going to pick up the check, and then, when he wasn’t paying attention, steal the money from *his* wallet to pay the check …
gahrie – more importantly, you cannot usurp something which is beyond your control …
Now, it would rpesumably be possible for the Feds to insist that the Feds be the ones to prosecute those who break the immigration laws – but that only works if the Feds actually prosecute folk for breaking immigration laws … and I doubt if even the most devout Obama/Holder supporter Fed is likely to say to an Arizona State Prosecutor who is starting to try an immigration law prosecution under Arizona law “You can’t prosecute this person, because *I* am going to” and then said Fed releases the defendant … I just don’t see that as likely to occur …
gahrie
David K:
Apparently you have either forgotten your history..or never learned it.
The States CREATED the Federal government and, along with the people, gave it certain enumerated powers. All powers not given to the Federal government, were retained by the States and the people.
So the States cannot “usurp” powers from the Federal government, at worst they can “reclaim” them.
By the way..where is that list of offenses in the Arizona law that aren’t already part of Federal law?
Sandy Underpants
You guys are hillarious (in a pathetic way). States have the right to enforce any federal laws in existence. State police and agencies deport illegal immigrants every day. You guys have no clue, apparently.
Here’s a list of the offenses of the Arizona Law that aren’t part of Federal Law. It’s the 4th amendment, and if you’ve never heard of the bill of rights, Wikipedia has a whole page devoted to the 4th Amendment, read it:
The short-sightedness of the supporters of this crap is astounding. Yes, maybe you can use the law to harrass and detain mexicans today, but when there is a government in place that you don’t see eye-to-eye with (sort of like the one in Washington right now) those laws can be turned around on you real fast, and only then you will realize why less government, every time, is better.
gahrie
Sandy:
Apparently you missed my citation of a unanimous Supreme Court decision that ruled that asking someone about their immigration status is not a 4th Amendment violation.
“Anti-Government” Tea Partiers Support Massive Expansion of Police Power
Yeah, because we all know supporting one of the legitimate functions of government means you are not allowed to oppose all of the illegitimate functions of government.
Holy crap, gahrie has suddenly discovered NUANCE! Its a freaking miracle!
Incidentally I disagree with him, detaining me because I don’t happen to have proof of citizenship on me at all times is not a legitimate function of government.
“Anti-government”? So now they’re anarchists caught in some cognitive dissonance?
Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine the country to our south had a billion people and was predominantly Islamic (think Saudi Arabian or Algerian-style Muslims), but was dirt-poor like India and had opium fields like Afghanistan. No doubt we’d have hordes of people coming across the border that would make Mexican immigration seem like a Samoan invasion, and the impacts from culture to terrorism and drug smuggling would be exponentially worse than what we have today. In that scenario, how likely is it that your positions on illegal immigration, amnesty, and border enforcement would be as tolerant and liberal as they are today?
The moral of the thought experiment should be: It doesn’t matter who’s coming across the border and why they are coming across, we need to secure our borders and enforce our freakin’ immigration laws. Once that is accomplished and we have a handle on who’s still here legally and who’s here illegally, then we can take stock and consider whether we want to offer some sort of amnesty and/or reform our immigration laws to allow increased immigration for skilled workers and temporary visas for unskilled laborers and whatnot.
Until that happens, expect normal law-abiding Americans to start demanding the government get meaner and crack down on this shit.
Arizona’s under siege. Sorry, but if the Federal government won’t step up, then the people of Arizona are justified in demanding their state government step in.
This commentary is lame in the extreme. Strange that it’s the leftist side trying to basically say “You must be 100% against government or if you Tea Party you’re a hypocrite.” Funny, isn’t that what you guys usually claim rightist Christian fundamentalist troglodytes do? Holding the Tea Partiers up to that standard given the crap that is going on in AZ would be like saying that if the current government that you helped elect decided to start killing 1 out of every 10 children that, well, you couldn’t say anything because you _must_ think everything the President does is swell since you uttered one word of praise for him.
Mexico is in the throes of a low grade insurgency. It’s starting to spill over the border. I think _everyone_ in AZ has the right to say, “Okay, y’all need to keep that sh*t on your side of the border…everyone out of the pool!”
So when the cops pull you over and demand that you have proof of US citizenship on you, what are the odds you do? This isn’t about actually helping anything, this is about giving the racist thugs led by Joe Arpaio legal cover to harass anyone who looks Mexican instead of actually doing things like serving warrants. But apparently stealing documents in open court and attacking newspapers that criticize the department are far more important uses of the Sheriff’s Office than pursuing rapists and murderers.
Yeah all those illegal immigrants living in squalor and harvesting produce for wages that make McDonalds look luxurious are a real threat…
I think Matt Wiser gets at the actual point here, which is that someone who is supposed skeptical of “Big Government” — and abuse of power by those in the government (like OMG the Chicago corruption machine!) shouldn’t just take at face value what a law claims to accomplish, and support it on that basis. Nobody is claiming that immigration enforcement, broadly, isn’t within the government’s legitimate powers, but when government passes a law that is pretty much designed to be abused, no self-respecting “small government” advocate should support it. If they do, they may or may not be hypocrites, but they certainly are dumbasses.
P.S. And I would draw a distinction between supporting it — as in, “this is a good law, I’m glad it passed” — and saying something more qualified like, “well, this isn’t the greatest law in the world, but if the feds aren’t going to take action, this sort of thing is going to happen.” The latter position is legitimate, if somewhat superficially ironic, for a small-government type to hold. But actually, actively supporting the law as an intrinsically good thing? Well, let’s just say I have a very hard time seeing how that can be fit into any type of “small government” mentality. It’s more like the fusion of utopian liberalism (completely ignoring the law of unintended consequences, no matter how obviously predictable those consequences are) with “security” conservatism. A very dangerous combo.
But I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. It’s well established that the current crop of “conservatives” check even a healthy mistrust and skepticism of government at the door when it comes to anything that can be labeled “national security,” and completely trust the government 110% when it comes to such things. (In a nutshell, that is the #1 reason why Andrew Sullivan is so at odds with the “conservative” movement these days.) This creates, if not hypocrisy, certainly an odd dichotomy… mild social and economic reforms / emergency measures are OMG THE BEGINNING OF SOCIALISM AND THE END OF AMERICA AS WE KNOW IT, but laws that institutionalize torture, racial profiling, etc. etc. are perfectly fine, no matter how much latitude they give the government to abuse its power.
Brendan,
As a “conservative,” I don’t check my “small government principles at the door” when it comes to national security. Once again, check your archives to see my rather vitriolic responses to the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, etc., etc.. So, once again, painting in broad brushes isn’t helping your case.
Is this a bad law? Don’t know. I think the governor’s instructions to the attorney general as well as the fact DoJ is in close hover waiting to pounce will probably help us find out more. However, once again, it’s not _conservatives_ who are allowing Arizona to be used as a superhighway for the cartels. It’s not _conservatives_ who are refusing to deploy National Guard troops along the border, nor is it _conservatives_ who are abrogating the fundamental responsibility of the Feds.
Now, if you want to replace every _conservative_ with _government_ in the previous sentence (because I don’t think it’s liberals either), that would be accurate. But I don’t think it’s justified to criticize folks who are suffering the effects of immigration passing a law to try and take care of things. Talk to someone around Tucson sometime about their hospital / schools situation and I think you can see why folks on the ground actually support this.
Finally, I don’t recall the Tea folks saying they wanted no government. They just want A. less government and B. government that does what it’s supposed to. You know, that whole “talking to Tea Partiers” thing I mentioned as opposed to just following it on the news comes in handy. Taxed Enough Already has no synonyms for “Anarchy” that I can see–but I apparently must not have the “liberal smear lexicon dictionary.” It is not antithetical to “small government” to support a bill that allegedly enhances the ability of law enforcement to do its job, especially when you have good reason to fear the other outcome. Now, a bill that openly defies the Constitution (as opposed to second and third order Bubba effects maybe leading to problems) would be a different matter, but this bill _specifically targets non-citizens. In previous times, they used to, you know _kill people_ for jumping into a neighboring realm and wreaking havoc. I think having to find your birth certificate isn’t such a problem, but I guess that’s why I have multiple copies and a passport down in my firesafe.
BTW, if you think fundamentally that doing a forcible transfer of wealth (i.e., giving taxpayer money to banks people, OH MY GOD, IT’S FINANCIAL ARMAGEDDON) is a “mild social and economic reform” then your lens is vastly different from mine. Sorry, but in the Great Depression folks lost all their world belongings when they ran an investment house that f’ed up. To me, that’s how it should work, and the fact that Bush, Paulson, et. al. didn’t make this happen before coughing up money your children will have to pay off is not “mild.” But hopefully you’ll be around to explain to your offspring and their offspring why the confiscatory tax rates are taking massive chunks out of their paychecks.
I wish to make one immigration point here. I just wish to note that controlling the borders is NOT POSSIBLE, no matter how much conservatives wish otherwise. No power in history ever managed to stem the flow of immigrants into their country from an economically challenged neighbor. You just can’t do it: there are too many motivated people to stop. My solution is to arrest those doing horrible crimes who are here illegally and don’t worry about the rest. Maybe force businesses not paying illegal immagrants to pay fines as well in an effort to level the playing field. But we can’t deport all of them. Impossible. And someday, they may rule US, so keep that in mind. Just ask the Egyptians ruled by Cushite Pharoahs after years of Cushite immagration about that.
So when the cops pull you over and demand that you have proof of US citizenship on you, what are the odds you do?
“May I see your driver’s license?”
That is hardly a good-faith argument, Matt, and I expect better from you. Aside from the fact that it’s unlikely someone who spent a good deal of his career working for the DEA in places like Turkey and Mexico is a closet KKK supporter, Joe Arpaio has long since made himself into the symbolic nexus of the get-tough-on-crime philosophy. From chain gangs to pink underwear and handcuffs, from tent jails in the desert to webcasting pre-trial detainees, from the Norberg incident to the harassment of illegal immigrants, what is plainly obvious is that Arpaio has anointed himself as the last stalwart holding back a culture gone soft on crime. As a result, a county sheriff who wins reelection quite easily every four years drives national negative coverage based upon winning enemies like Amnesty International, the ACLU, and the NY Times editorial board. Like him or hate him, Arpaio and his tactics have nothing to do with racism.
Step back and look at the broader picture for a moment. If you want to blame the tea party movement for things like this Arizona bill (which is just another iteration of Prop 187 and similar initiatives that have been put up for vote over the years), then you are conceding that the tea party movement is in fact a mainstream, majority movement. This Arizona bill is incredibly popular, as was Prop 187, and Gov. Gray Davis’s refusal to continue an appeal of a liberal judge’s decision to strike down Prop 187 provided the initial momentum for his recall.
I repeat, this is not about racism, and it’s not about Arpaio’s controversial tactics, it’s about addressing a larger issue on which the feds have abdicated their responsibilities.
Well, hopefully you’re carrying a driver’s license, otherwise you’re a total idiot. And now that this bill requires non-citizens to carry alien registration documentation (a not unreasonable requirement — we require peace officers to carry a badge, drivers to carry licenses, and so on), you better have that too (Like it or not, we’re going to have a national ID card someday).
Look, most of the controversy around this bill has to do with this provision, and I totally understand why — there’s little doubt it will have a disproportionate impact on Latinos. However, the Left has had limited success winning cases based on disproportionate impact, and this law mimics most other law enforcement provisions in using terminology like “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause”. In that sense, this law is no more or less dangerous than most law enforcement provisions that, in general, give police wide latitude to stop and harass just about anyone they want to. Police authority is already “designed to be abused”. We function as a peaceful, free, law-abiding society because, generally speaking, it’s hardly worth the police’s time, energy, and limited budgets to harass any passerby, but you’re pretty naive if you think they don’t have that ability already.
The other significant thing this bill does is strike down internal rules like the LAPD’s Special Order 40. Local law enforcement agencies are not wild about enforcing immigration policies, and they typically find it easier to work in their communities when the folks they’re trying to get help and information from are not cowering in fear about being deported. But this is a parochial view that many feel must be balanced by the broader reality that we can’t solve illegal immigration if illegal aliens face almost no obstacles in day-to-day life finding work and interacting with government and civilian agencies. Folks who are critical of the war on drugs make frequent use of the argument that you can’t solve the problem without fixing the demand side, and that’s exactly what anti-illegal immigration activists are trying to do here by forcing companies to verify legal status of workers and ratcheting up the pain of day-to-day life for illegals. Everyone agrees that walls, towers, and drones on the border aren’t sufficient, but nobody (except an extreme minority) wants mass deportation either, so the goal here is to make them less welcome so they’ll leave voluntarily.
Brendan, as to your point in #7 (and the first half of #8), I’ll simply make the broader point that “law-and-order” conservatism is not synonymous with, nor is it at odds with, “small-government” conservatism. Conservatism is a diverse collection of warring tribes, and this is manifested in the thinking of many conservatives. As for myself, my libertarian principles rankle at some of the abuses that may now be inevitable under this Arizona law, but in the bigger picture, I see our lax enforcement of immigration laws and the border as a far more deleterious problem and I am not about to let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
Brendan, it’s about the role and parameters of constitutional government, not “mistrust” and “skepticism”. The government has clear constitutional ground to protect and defend the country, as well as enforce its borders, therefore conservatives tend to be wildly supportive of those things the government is supposed to be doing, and wildly critical of those things the government is not supposed to be doing (e.g. healthcare, welfare, etc.). You confuse conservatism and libertarianism. Libertarianism is broadly skeptical of the government across the board, which is why they make bedfellows with some leftists on civil liberties, and bedfellows with conservatives on the size and scope of government. I myself am a libertarian-leaning conservative, but just as you are a Trojan who is also Irish, so I am a conservative first who generally leans libertarian. There is no irony or danger in this combo.
In a nutshell, Andrew Sullivan is not a conservative, and he mirrors the Left in their “mistrust and skepticism” of the military and government’s role in national security, while being naively, blindingly trustful and accepting of the broadening of the scope of government to touch just about every other aspect of economic and civilian life. His views are so transparently driven by personal emotions and reactions centering on his identity as a homosexual, he is simply not to be taken seriously as a credible political thinker. Concerns about things like torture and racial profiling are overblown, disconnected with reality, and almost completely tied to a vested interest on the part of the Democratic Party to sow social discord and leave problems like illegal immigration to fester and divide Americans. Democrats don’t want to fix the problem of illegal immigration, and Democrats don’t want to put together a credible national security policy; they gain far more mileage (votes and dollars) out of creating a climate of fear by painting Republicans and tea party folks as racists. They have a vested interest in growing the size and scope of paternal government, and expanding the size of the poor and minority constituencies of government paternalism (including increasing the ranks of the army of unionized workers it takes to operate this burgeoning behemoth), all in order to secure the pipeline of money and votes it takes to keep them in power — at the expense of the middle and wealth-creating classes.
JD, Drivers license isn’t proof of citizenship, so even if I have that on me they can detain me for being an illegal immigrant. Further you can’t just pull someone over and ask for their license, you have to have cause. Admittedly “cause” can be pretty vague, but it is action based not appearance based and cops who use appearance are breaking the law.
David K:
1) The point is, if a cop can ask for a driver’s license, they can surely ask for immigration papers.
2) The wording in the laws allowing a cop to ask you for your driver’s license is almost identical to the wording of the law allowing cops to ask you about your immigration status. The word “appearance” does not appear in Arizona’s law. The term used is “reasonable suspicion”.
3) The Arizona law is arguably draconian. What you are ignoring is that the crisis in Arizona now requires draconian measures.
How will you feel when kidnappings and drug murders are commonplace in your community. When your children are in classes with forty students, twenty of which can’t speak English and see no value in education.
You can’t get a DL in Arizona without being a citizen. There are fake IDs, of course, but 95% of the time a driver’s license will be a citizen’s. The police are going to know that. And I didn’t say anything about police “using appearance” to pull someone over. I was just responding to your assumption that people don’t carry what the vast majority of the time can be considered proof of citizenship.
Please provide citations that demonstrate this supposed “crisis”.
I confess I’ve pretty much tuned out this thread, not having had time to follow it in detail, but I can’t resist pointing out that this argument by gahrie — “if a cop can ask for a driver’s license, they can surely ask for immigration papers” — is precisely the sort of argument that would be rejected by gahrie under other circumstances, such as “if the IRS can collect taxes that are then allocated to pay for universal single-payer health insurance, surely it can also simply impose a penalty on people for refusing to buy private health insurance.” Just because the government can do one thing that sounds somewhat superficially similar to another thing, doesn’t necessarily mean the government can also do the other thing. Or so I thought gahrie and other conservatives believed.
(Perhaps more to the point, checking someone’s driver’s license when stopping that person while they are driving is surely closer to the core point of a traffic stop than checking immigration status.)
James Young:
That is hardly a good-faith argument, Matt, and I expect better from you. Aside from the fact that it’s unlikely someone who spent a good deal of his career working for the DEA in places like Turkey and Mexico is a closet KKK supporter, Joe Arpaio has long since made himself into the symbolic nexus of the get-tough-on-crime philosophy. From chain gangs to pink underwear and handcuffs, from tent jails in the desert to webcasting pre-trial detainees, from the Norberg incident to the harassment of illegal immigrants, what is plainly obvious is that Arpaio has anointed himself as the last stalwart holding back a culture gone soft on crime. As a result, a county sheriff who wins reelection quite easily every four years drives national negative coverage based upon winning enemies like Amnesty International, the ACLU, and the NY Times editorial board. Like him or hate him, Arpaio and his tactics have nothing to do with racism.
It damn well is a good faith argument. Arpaio’s made himself into the paragon of getting tough on crime while ignoring serious crime and closing cases without bothering to investigate in favor of pointing all his efforts at harassing Mexicans and those who point this out. How the hell is that not racist? Best case, he’s not racist, but plays one in order to win reelection. Giving his office draconian powers is a horrific betrayal of justice.
Brendan, drivers licenses, traffic stops, and immigration status are more connected than you make it sound — especially in a place like Arizona, where people often cross the border through the desert to meet at some rendezvous point at which they can be picked up and transported to a safer locale (family residence, etc.). Given that one must have proof of citizenship or legal residence to get a driver’s license in most states, and that buying a minimum level of car insurance is usually required by law as well, it is not unreasonable in a place like Arizona to ask a driver who is unable to produce a license, whether they are able to produce papers documenting their immigration status — especially when you consider the vast majority of illegal aliens drive without any form of license, paperwork, or insurance.
I’m also going to make the charge that you tend to “tune out” inconvenient threads that refute your flimsy logic.
Matt, I’m not James Young, just as you clearly are not Mike Wiser.
I have a hard time giving much credit to these kinds of statistics and allegations when they are not properly comparative. Line them up against similar metrics from other major metropolitan counties in Arizona, or vs. similar-sized sheriff jurisdictions in other states, and I’ll be more inclined to take the charges seriously. The fact is, a great many cases everywhere go unprosecuted for a variety of reasons (some good, some bad, some convenient), and without having access to the sheriff’s internal administrative guidelines, these accusations are no more helpful than hearing only the plaintiff’s argument of a court case.
So you’re willing to assume that 55-60% of Maricopa County in Arizona is racist or tolerant of racism? That’s hardly plausible. Arpaio is a hero to a ton of people who believe our country has gone soft on crime and illegal immigration, but that does not make him a racist xenophobe.
In fact, if you perform even some modest research, you’ll probably be dismayed to learn that illegal immigration and crime are intimately interwoven problems in many cities with high immigrant populations. As just one minor snapshot:
Given these links, there’s arguably a direct connection between increased public safety and focusing law enforcement efforts on enforcing immigration policy, just as Rudy Giuliani found a direct correlation between clamping down on minor crime like vandalism and graffiti, and reducing more serious crime like burglary and murder.
I appreciate your opinion, but that statement is potentially true or not true independent of any phony allegations of racism.
Sorry about conflating you and James, AML.
Okay, here’s just a couple of his abuses of power:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2009/12/21/20091221polk22-ON.html
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2009/12/23/20091223wed1-23.html#comments
These two are from a DA’s pointing out that Arpaio’s abusing his office.
Here’s him arresting a newspaper’s ownership for criticizing him:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1019newtimes1019.html
And here’s the DoJ coming after him for his discriminatory practices:
http://www.kpho.com/news/22177676/detail.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/08/arizona.sheriff.immigration/#cnnSTCText
And here’s the department failing to do their jobs because they’re upset one of their own actually was disciplined by a judge.
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/4197
Yeah, I was sort of confused how I had posted on a thread when I hadn’t been near my comp.
For those wanting info on AZ being under siege:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/19/phoenix.drug.kidnappings/
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/12/nation/na-drug-kidnappings12
http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/kidnapping-capital-of-the-united-states-phoenix-137967.php
As to the “someday they might be ruling you” argument–yeah, _that_ will turn the temperature down on both sides. I think it’s far more likely that there will be something that sparks a backlash–like the Mexican Army helicopters that keep straying into Texas actually shooting up something. Just a hunch.
As to Sheriff Joe–I find it interesting that there are all these allegations and have been for years, yet somehow Sheriff Joe hasn’t gotten nailed to the wall. As a person who knows a little about the powers the Feds have when they come after you, let’s just say if there was so much of an atom of evidence, Eric Holder would be on Sheriff Joe like white on rice. Especially given that the current DHS Secretary sort of, you know, _hated_ Sheriff Joe and I am certain would know what rocks needed to be kicked over to build a case. I’m an Occam’s Razor kind of guy–if he’s not doing the perp walk, it must be because folks are long on whining, short on evidence.
Let me make it clear: my argument isn’t that someday “they” will be ruling us . . . the way this country works, immigrants become us. Its just that our ruling class will look more and more Latino, especially in the border states. In that way, we’re unlike Egypt.
And you never did address my main argument, which is that there’s nothing we can do about this movement, short of somehow bringing the whole country of Mexico up to our economic standards (which won’t happen – wouldn’t happen even if for some odd reason we took Mexico as a state). This is the problem: our country is rich. Mexico is poor. There is economic opportunity in the US that can’t be had in Mexico. Ergo, immigrants will keep coming into the USA from Mexico. Any policy that doesn’t address this basic reality is in fantasy land. Unless, of course, this situation adjusts itself the other way – the USA becomes a less promising place to come. But I’d rather not plan on that. I don’t think this will happen any time soon, but then again, we continue to not deal with our basic problems, so this scenario may not be as far fetched as some think.
Like I said, our focus shouldn’t be on “round them up and deport them!” It should be like a secondary offense on a speeding ticket – we catch someone doing a felony, and discover he’s an illegal immigrant, we should make the punishment more severe. Draconian measures won’t help, and will just serve to increase the tension in a situation that doesn’t need it.
In my lifetime, this country will shift to where the white population will be a plurality, but not a majority. Policies that spit in the face of this basic reality will not be helpful.
In my lifetime, this country will shift to where the white population will be a plurality, but not a majority. Policies that spit in the face of this basic reality will not be helpful.
I don’t understand your point here.
Are you saying non-Whites can’t follow the laws of our country?
Non-Whites won’t enforce the laws of our country?
And you never did address my main argument, which is that there’s nothing we can do about this movement, short of somehow bringing the whole country of Mexico up to our economic standards
How about we begin by enforcing the exact same laws on our southern border that Mexico enforces on its southern border?
gahrie: I’m not saying that “non-whites” can’t or won’t follow our laws. They can and will. But there may be a day when they make the laws. Its something to keep in mind when a bunch of white guys make laws now, is all. (In essence, I’m saying that it is possible that “non-whites” will MAKE the laws of our country.)
And what laws does Mexico enforce on its southern border? And are they effective? I get the impression that despite a tougher enforcement, they are having the same problem. So mayhaps the lesson here isn’t “we should get tough like Mexico”, but “we should deal smartly, not harshly, with illegal immigrants.” I really don’t see how we do anything other than just kinda put up with it, deporting criminals when they come, possibly cracking down on companies not paying their workers minimum wage (which would help with the illegals issue, since if it can be proven they are doing stuff under the table, they are probably employing workers who won’t complain), but other then that, just plain deporting illegal immigrants isn’t going to work.
I bet if you asked the average non-ideological American, they would more or less agree with the following two concepts:
1) Entitlements are okay to the extent that they keep people from starving on the streets, and also okay to the extent that redistributing wealth increases consumption and helps economic growth. However, putting entitlements into the hands of a government bureaucracy is a recipe for abuse and excess, since bureaucrats often thrive on feeding at the trough of their beloved cottage industry.
2) The American empire needs to project force internally and externally to ensure that other nations do not take advantage of us and other people do not abuse our blessings. However, putting projection of force into the hands of guys like Arpaio is a recipe for abuse and excess to the extent that bureaucrats like Arpaio are primarily interested in cultivating their “security theater” cottage industry.
Which puts those who see the necessity of entitlements and those who want to project American power, but wish to do so with a sense of balance and a suspicion of others motivated to abuse such balance, into a weird place:
It drives them into the arms of Ron Paul, a politician openly opposed to entitlements and the projection of American power.
How did we get to this place?
…bureaucrats like Arpaio are primarily interested in cultivating their “security theater” cottage industry.
Arpaio wants to be a martyr for a cause, he doesn’t want to feed at a trough. To the extent any of us have a clue what motivates him, your conjecture seems particularly inapt.
…but other then that, just plain deporting illegal immigrants isn’t going to work.
B. Minich, I can tell you what else isn’t going to work: Everything the federal government is (and isn’t) doing today.
I would love to see a new bracero-type program, as well as a massive increase in visas available for entrepreneurs and skilled workers in critical industries. But neither of those things is politically viable until our government demonstrates a serious commitment to getting some level of control over illegal immigration. And if the Feds continue to lack the willpower to do something, things will happen instead at the state level.
Matt @ 22, I am aware of these controversies, but I go back to my original point, which is that Arpaio is politically very controversial but not necessarily racist, and his behavior is simply a distraction from, and not an argument for or against, this particular Arizona law.
I wish I checked this blog this weekend when I was thinking the exact same thing. Amazing how the Tea Partiers have different views on expanding government powers. In an instance like the one in AZ where the voters OUTRIGHT gave up American civil liberties voting for the government to be able to demand identification from citizens even when no crime has been commited, is mind blowing. More mind-blowing is that they criticize the government for saving General Motors from going completely out of business and essentially putting tens of thousands of Americans out of work and dealerships out of business as would have been the result had the Fed done nothing.
This exposes the short-sighted ignorance and hypocrisy of the current Tea Party movement.
As far as “protecting our border”, it’s already the law. When an illegal alien is cited in the commission of a crime, like a speeding ticket, they can be deported because they don’t have a valid driver’s license and/or proof of citizenship, this new law gives the government MORE POWER to now demand proof of citizenship without any cause. That’s the law.
People that claim the government has done nothing to enforce the current laws are willfully ignorant or bald-faced liars. Look up “INS”, “ICE”, “Border Patrol”, and “Border Check”.
Sounds to me like the problem is with crime and not immigrantation. Seems to me if you can catch these guys commiting/involved/etc. with a crime you can easily check their papers then legally prior to this law and deport them/incarcerate them. What is ignored by the statistics above is an even more important question, how many of these illegal immigrants are involved in crime, seems to me that would be a relavent question to ask. If its a small percentage aren’t we hurting safety by focusing our resources on detaining peaceful immigrant workers (legal or not) instead of focusing the resources on the criminals?
What is ignored by the statistics above is an even more important question, how many of these illegal immigrants are involved in crime,
Well the easy answer is all of them, since they broke the law by coming here illegally.
But for the sake of argument, ignore that crime.
How many of them are involved in identity fraud?
Welfare fraud?
Failure to pay taxes?
Drug crimes? Gang activity?
The real question is: How much crime is committed by illegal aliens?
Answer: A lot.
But they’ll mow my lawn once a month and clean my house for cheap cash under the table, so let them come on over!
How much crime and devastatation was created by Legal Residents working on Wall Street and the financial district? Not only have I not seen anyone arrested (other than Madoff), I don’t see much (if any) voice to have accountability for the fraud that went on. Those legals did more to destroy this country than all the illegals put together from the beginning of America til the end of America combined.
It’s important to remind some Americans that the parents and siblings of many of our founding fathers, like Ben Franklin, were wetbacks, border jumpers, and illegals also.
I don’t see much (if any) voice to have accountability for the fraud that went on.
That’s because they all have jobs in the Obama administration now. What are they supposed to do..investigate/prosecute themselves?
Seriously gahrie? Do you just make this shit up?
Right…because NO ONE from the Fed or Goldman Sachs is working for Obama…….
B. Minich,
Well, I personally think there is something we can do–enforce the laws on the books. As in, actually _enforce_ rather than let the bureaucracy slow, obfuscate, and basically hinder the system.
Failing that, I also think draconian systems would solve things. But we lack the political will for this. Which means we’re sorta screwed.
Draconian systems are great for people who love the government to run their lives. Didn’t you participate in a thread just a few days ago on your support of the Tea Party and less government involvement in our lives?
The hypocrisy and contradiction of the right is over-whelming and unending,
No Sandy, draconian systems are great for the dragons. For they rest of us they pretty much suck.
Would you guys just stop it!
There is nothing in the Arizona law that is not already a Federal law.
All the Arizona law does is give State officials the duty to enforce the laws that the Federal government is refusing to enforce.
gahrie, would you stop commenting on things you clearly have no clue about?
David K:
OK…list one thing the Arizona law allows State officials to do that Federal officials aren’t supposed to be doing already.
Check for documents? Since 1940 federal law has mandated that immigrants carry their immigration documentation AT ALL TIMES.
Every person in the United States shows their documents almost every day, whether it is to use a credit card, cash a check, been pulled over by a cop, buy cigarettes or booze, …whatever. We all do it all the time without even thinking.
Those damn NAZI checkout girls…..
Gahrie, coincidently (not!) yesterday Rush Limbaugh said the EXACT same things on his radio show. Of course, since he doesn’t have any intelligent people on his show, or in his audience, nobody could point out what he’s missing.
If there is “nothing in the Arizona law that is not already federal law” then there would be no need to pass the law, because it’s already law.
One thing this Arizona law allows state officials to do that federal officials aren’t suppose to be doing is: 1) Stop ANY American citizen and ask them for proof of citizenship (this means, YOU could be stopped walking down the street and harrassed by police, and you have no protection against this because it’s now the law that police have this right to do this to you).
You just said that “every person in the united states shows their documents almost every day.” If that statement isn’t total bullshit, then illegals as well as legals are showing their documents daily. Let me know how many times a day you get stopped by police to show your documents, because that’s never happened to me in this country, or any other country, and I hope it never does, as do I hope a law is never passed that takes this freedom away from me. Republicans on the other hand like giving up their freedoms if they think they can screw other people. Unfortunately Republicans are too stupid (still) to see that they’re only screwing themselves.
Sandy actually covered some of it, but basically you are conflating things here.
Showing a piece of ID to a checkout person to verify that you are in fact the person who gets to use the credit card is completely utterly and totally different than the police demanding to see my proof of citizenship.
First, a driver’s license does not establish legal citizenship.
Second, I can refuse to show the checkout girl my ID, at which point the only consequence is she can (and should) void my use of a credit card. At no point can she arrest me.
The problem is, as Sandy has pointed out the requirement that I show my proof of citizenship to the cops. I actually don’t carry my birth certificate with me, because, well I shouldn’t have to prove to random joe cop who feels like it that I’m a legal resident. The default assumption is that I am and they should treat me as such. Asking me for such information is a violation of my Fourth ammendment rights actually (which is kinda the problem with this law).
Yes immigrants are required to carry their papers on them, but that doesn’t mean they can be required to show them to anyone at anytime. There are specific FEDERAL laws that deal with immigration and those papers. Arizona police, not being federal agents, aren’t empowered to enforce those laws, which is yet another problem with the Arizona law and yet another reason why it will be declared unconstitutional.
David K – so, if I understand you correctly, an Arizona State Law, which says that the things in Federal Law that are federally illegal are now illegal at a State level too, that Arizona law is unconstitutional – but the Federal equivalent isn’t ?
I am not a lawyer, but I still hae a consistency problem with the above …
Is there some overriding reason whereby a State Law may duplicate a Federal Law ?
I also have to suspect that the folk who will be caught by this will be those who cannot speak english, most of the time … and those are folk who, if here legally, are oblige by Federal law to carry their proof of legal status with them at all times … (just as I have to carry my Green Card) …
Sandy U – I am impressed that you have had such a life that “Let me know how many times a day you get stopped by police to show your documents, because that’s never happened to me in this country, or any other country, …” ! Unless you intend to weasel out by saying that Immigration folk in other countries are not “police”, then you have shown your documents when leaving this country *and* when entering this country …
Perhaps you don’t drive a car, or you may even only drive your car compeltely within the driving laws – but most of us, at some time in our Life, have had to show some authority figure our documents as a result of becoming a driver … most of the time, it’s not harassment …
Perhaps you don’t fly, either, cuz you sure need to provide ID nowadays to fly as a passenger on commercial airlines …
Oh – and you state “If there is “nothing in the Arizona law that is not already federal law” then there would be no need to pass the law, because it’s already law.” … the reason there can be a need to have a State Law even when a Federal Law exists, is when the Federal Law is not enforced …
Sandy:
If there is “nothing in the Arizona law that is not already federal law” then there would be no need to pass the law, because it’s already law.
Except the Federal government isn’t enforcing the law, which is exactly why Arizona passed a State law that mirrors the Federal laws…so that State officials can enforce the laws the Federal government won’t.
David K:
The problem is, as Sandy has pointed out the requirement that I show my proof of citizenship to the cops. I actually don’t carry my birth certificate with me, because, well I shouldn’t have to prove to random joe cop who feels like it that I’m a legal resident. The default assumption is that I am and they should treat me as such. Asking me for such information is a violation of my Fourth ammendment rights actually (which is kinda the problem with this law).
Not according to a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court:
The Court further held that the officers’ questioning of Mena about her immigration status during her detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The officers did not need to have reasonable suspicion to question Mena. Moreover, the Court had held repeatedly that mere police questioning did not constitute a seizure.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1423
Yes Alasdair, the State can not usurp power from the Federal government.
David K:
You are right, but not in the way you think. The State cannot usurp power from the Federal government, but only because the Federal government only has what powers the States and people grant it. You can’t usurp what you already possess.
No gahrie, the States don’t grant the federal government anything.
gahrie – for David K, we need to simplify the concept – after all, look how little he understands the word “usurp” …
By enforcing the same laws, which are instead passed at a State level in an overlapping physical area, the State of Arizona in no way usurps anything from the Federal Government … the Federal Government reamins completely free to prosecute under Federal Law … I would further put forward that, if the Feds would actually enforce the Federal Laws, the State of Arizona would happily stand aside and let ’em do so …
Perhaps a more simple example is needed …
If gahrie and I are out for a meal together, and he says that he is going to pick up the check, and, instead, beacause he forgets his wallet,I have to do so, I am not usurping that check … since someone needs to pick up the check, and he is not able to, then I can do so without usurping anything …
In such an example, for me to “usurp” in some way, I would have had to say that I was going to pick up the check, and then, when he wasn’t paying attention, steal the money from *his* wallet to pay the check …
gahrie – more importantly, you cannot usurp something which is beyond your control …
Now, it would rpesumably be possible for the Feds to insist that the Feds be the ones to prosecute those who break the immigration laws – but that only works if the Feds actually prosecute folk for breaking immigration laws … and I doubt if even the most devout Obama/Holder supporter Fed is likely to say to an Arizona State Prosecutor who is starting to try an immigration law prosecution under Arizona law “You can’t prosecute this person, because *I* am going to” and then said Fed releases the defendant … I just don’t see that as likely to occur …
David K:
Apparently you have either forgotten your history..or never learned it.
The States CREATED the Federal government and, along with the people, gave it certain enumerated powers. All powers not given to the Federal government, were retained by the States and the people.
So the States cannot “usurp” powers from the Federal government, at worst they can “reclaim” them.
By the way..where is that list of offenses in the Arizona law that aren’t already part of Federal law?
You guys are hillarious (in a pathetic way). States have the right to enforce any federal laws in existence. State police and agencies deport illegal immigrants every day. You guys have no clue, apparently.
Here’s a list of the offenses of the Arizona Law that aren’t part of Federal Law. It’s the 4th amendment, and if you’ve never heard of the bill of rights, Wikipedia has a whole page devoted to the 4th Amendment, read it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The short-sightedness of the supporters of this crap is astounding. Yes, maybe you can use the law to harrass and detain mexicans today, but when there is a government in place that you don’t see eye-to-eye with (sort of like the one in Washington right now) those laws can be turned around on you real fast, and only then you will realize why less government, every time, is better.
Sandy:
Apparently you missed my citation of a unanimous Supreme Court decision that ruled that asking someone about their immigration status is not a 4th Amendment violation.