- First thing … don’t forget: The eBay auctions for souvenir copies of Don’t Shoot the Bastards (Yet) and 101 Things to Do ‘Til the Revolution end Monday morning. Thank you for all the bidding so far, and cheers to the charming young bidder who’s been leading the pack most of the week. Ah, but those last hours can be interesting …
- Daryl Gates. He was even worse than I realized. Especially read the bit from David Cay Johnston. Ugh.
- “Dead Dogs.” This is quite long and may be too painful for dog lovers to read. But its account of lethal stereotyping will make your blood boil.
- In better news, an MIT student has invented a cutting-edge medical device. For $3.
- I think this is good news, too. Only time will tell.
- My goodness. Has somebody been reading a copy of RebelFire: Out of the Gray Zone? (Thank you, S. for sending that along.)
- Whatever else he may or may not be, Steve Wynn is a classy guy. (The headline isn’t the real story.)
- Last week we had really, really good lawmaking news out of Arizona: That state will become the third in the union to go to Vermont carry. Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill into law. Then came the bad. You’ve probably heard that the legislature passed and sent to the gov an alleged anti-illegal-immigrant bill that will make “Your papers, please!” a daily reality for anybody of the tan persuasion. Here’s a very balanced L.A. Times editorial on the pitfalls of the law, and an article explaining why even some cops don’t like — and might refuse to enforce — the measure if it becomes law.
- Finally, a couple of weeks back, 7,500 online shoppers unknowingly sold their souls to the devil. Not to worry; in this case he won’t be collecting. But really, that might teach us to read those dreary product-licensing agreements.
It is politically correct these days to dispose of the illegal nature of illegal aliens, and simply refer to them as “undocumented migrants”. It is also fashionable to equate any attempt at enforcing any type of immigration control as “racist”. My, how those of European descent are manipulated and tortured by this very term.
People, our country has every right to set immigration policy, to control the number of immigrants and the social caste they originate from. This is, in fact, a rather common policy pursued by other Nations, a fact lost on all those “non-racist” whites.
Having spent considerable time among minorities, I can honestly say, you ain’t seen racism until you see it coming from minorities. The sheer hate is truly amazing.
Mexico has suffered through revolutions because they have a ruling elite that could care less about their country. Like our ruling elite of today, they want it all, and don’t even want a scrap going to their people.
Their entire government is addicted to abusing power and killing their own citizenry-why do you think they have bans on civilians possessing arms or ammo? Simply, in order to make it easier for their disaster elite to control and kill them.
It is truly tragic, the quagmire that is Mexico today. It is terrible for their people, yet even so, there is no law or authority real or imagined to condemn the border states to rolling over for the policies of the Mexican disaster elite.
Rural Mike. But passing laws to allow police to stop people on slender (or no) pretext other than the color of their complexion doesn’t solve the problem. And it just creates a worse one.
Claire,
I agree with Rural Mike on this one. The law isn’t so much about allowing the police to stop people because they look brown, it does require police to stop ignoring immigration status. In Phoenix the mayor forbid his officers from inquiring immigration status in the past. This bill helps rectify that. The bill simply provides a legal means for police officers to check immigration status when they believe they have come in contact with an illegal immigrant, it also requires them to actually report it, not ignore and move on.
If the immigrant is documente, they will likely have that documentation with them. If they are carrying an AZ drivers license, it is either issued with proper documentation (green card, birth certificate etc) or was obtained illegally. Officers should always be on the look out for illegal license, or drivers operating without licenses.
In AZ a siginificant amount of our crime is committed by illegal immigrants and/or thier smugglers. Roll over accidents on the highways are caused by illegal immigrant smugglers. The raping and pillaging along the border is caused by illegal immigrants. The state of AZ is doing their best to make up for a federal govrenment that has decided not to defend our borders as required by the constitution.
Could this bill have been done better? Yes, most bills can be written better. Officers that are inclined to stop people because of skin color did that before this bill and will continue to do so.
“The state of AZ is doing their best to make up for a federal govrenment that has decided not to defend our borders as required by the constitution.”
The Constitution *required* our borders to be defended?
Wendy McElroy http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php said something quite simple on the John Stossel Show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwfhSmhuOVY regarding immigration: “I think they should either open the borders or give back the Statue of Liberty.” I think that puts it in perspective.
(BTW, all of the videos [5 of them] on that show, entitled “What Is A Libertarian?” are very interesting. Several different viewpoints on various subjects, and much food for thought.)
I could be misconstruing “provide for the common defence” as a requirement to defend the U.S. borders. However, if that isn’t a job suited for the federal government, then whose job is it? I have always believed that a country has the right to decide who can enter their country, when, how etc. The U.S. has a robust legal immigration program. Legal immigration does need to be reformed but by and large it has many different options for traveling and living in the U.S.
That second article on Darryl Gates was really informative, I had no idea he was THAT bad…
And again maybe this makes me a bad person or something but the fact that a police cheif who thinks that drug users should be killed spawned a son who is a hard-drug addict…words cannot describe how much that delights me!
And I always thought “provide for the common defense” was too vague, Matt, to be interpreted properly. If each State was its own sovereign state (as was originally set up), when does the “common defense” take over, i.e. who decides under what circumstances–the federal government when it chooses to step in, or the individual States when they ask for help?
But what bothers me about “defend” in the rhetoric surrounding immigration is that the word is becoming more aggressive in meaning. Ordinarily we *defend* ourselves against an *attack*–yet immigration per se is NOT an attack on us (no matter how one may abhor its influence on the country or on a particular region)–therefore neither laws nor physical borders should be applicable here. I think another perspective should be applied to immigration, from the standpoint of government action, and also from the individual’s understanding of the issue.
I belong to no government, and neither does anyone else. For governments to dictate “who” can live (or pass) “where”, in spite of the property owner’s wishes, is ridiculous. Defend your OWN property from trespass, but don’t support government when it pretends it owns someone’s property just because it happens to sit along a “national border”. And END THE STUPID WELFARE CULTURE that acts as the most common “justification” for opposing immigration.
Claire,
The law allowing police to stop and demand authenticity of citizenship does not meet the P.C. test, that is for certain.
That said, I’m honestly not certain that it creates a worse problem. What it does potentially do is to allow law enforcement to deal with the problem of illegal aliens.
Much has been said and written regarding illegals. It is often said that they support and introduce significant economic input to the US economy.
Frankly, this opinion is not only dangerous, but absolutely wrong. Illegal aliens give employers exactly what they want, a compliant, passive, low payed workforce too afraid to demand any basic service other than a laughable paycheck.
I know people who regularly employ “undocumented migrant workers”, and whatever their justification what they really want are the three points above.
The real result of our country being flooded with “undocumented migrants” is an entire dumbing down of wages and other compensations. So, is it problematic to demand that wages are commensurate with living expenses? Or is it problematic to look the other way while brown migrants do the work for ridiculously low pay?
Pat & Matt,
From a constitutional perspective, I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who stated flatly, and I paraphrase here…The Feds have the powers so written in the constitution. Any power not specifically delegated to the feds, and not prohibited to the states is the power of the states, or the power of the people…
AZ is fully within her constitutional authority to declare the duty of AZ law enforcement to treat illegals as a law enforcement problem, no matter what the stance of the feds.
AZ is clearly within her jurisdiction to determine which criminal activity to prioritize for enforcement.
Y’know, my papers are not in order. If somebody demanded it of me, I’d have a really hard time proving I’m a citizen. Nor do I have any desire to.
The only way to solve the “immigration problem” would be to issue national ID cards and set up random, roving checkpoints, and god help the undocumented individual caught without his “papers.” I refuse to live in that world.
I’m with Kent on this one. I’m nobody’s property, and neither are brown people.
Rural Mike, I don’t dispute that immigration (both legal and otherwise) can cause problems. But if you think I oppose the AZ immigration bill because it’s “not politically correct,” you misunderstand me badly. I oppose living in a society where “the authorities” can demand, “Your papers, please!” randomly or on flimsy excuses.
That’s a police state. As Joel says, I don’t want to live in one.
As to the specific problems migrants may cause, I can imagine many possible solutions to them (anything from guest-worker programs to opening the borders but ending the welfare state). But any solution that pushes this country further toward a police state is no real solution at all.
I’ll leave others to answer your economic questions, if they wish (I think your assertions about wages call for an answer). I don’t pretend I have the solution to all problems surrounding immigration. All I know is that it’s a complex issue and that its being used by those in power to gain more power for themselves — and, sadly, to persuade many otherwise freedom-loving people to support policies that can only end in the destruction of liberty for all.
A worker has the right to demand whatever wage he wants, and an employer has the right to either agree to the demand or not. If what you’re really afraid of is competition, you might consider lowering your expectations until they meet the market available, or improving your qualifications until they rate the wage you want. But that would require working on yourself, and why bother when it’s so much easier just to trample on the competition?
“So, is it problematic to demand that wages are commensurate with living expenses? Or is it problematic to look the other way while brown migrants do the work for ridiculously low pay?”
I’d say the first, because nobody owes me a living. But that’s just me. If “brown migrants” are taking work I want, there’s a logical reason. It’s up to me to keep up with them, or find work they can’t take. But siccing the law on people just because they’re competition is immoral.
Actually I agree with Kent on this too, and I’m spending too much time trying to explain a “fair” position when the entire issue of immigration is totally unfair; made unfair by government fiat… unfair by people who don’t like brown people — for whatever reason… and unfair by the charge of “illegal alien,” which automatically places them in an Us-vs-Them position. (Both words are disgustingly vulgar in my book. To call a person “illegal” makes him a criminal; to call him “alien” makes him other than human.)
When the Constitution was written, no one knew how “free” would play out, there were only tyranny governments to compare with, and no precedent to set up a new country. Writers such as Locke, Voltaire, Henry, Jefferson, et al had their ideas, but no one had yet applied them. So individual States were considered more able to run the business of a smaller region than the federal government was to run it all.
But States (and local and County governments) are no better equipped, no more knowledgeable, and no more *benign* than federal government when it comes to establishing control over “their” territory. Adding questionable laws on top of inadequate laws — at whatever level — serves no purpose but to alienate everyone, and distort the real focus of what to do “about” them (if anything).
Can we step outside the known (government) modus operandi and (individual) prejudices and try to think beyond them to something different, perhaps unique, certainly more workable than what we have now?
Joel,
Asserting that the issue with economics is merely one of education is both trite and simplistic. Following this argument, one finds no fault with the outsourcing of American jobs to the lowest bidder, and transferring manufacturing out of the country.
Like so many barons of industry, one can blame the American worker for everything. When the protection of American jobs becomes an issue, well, its just those unwashed bozos in the southwest who are too lazy to go back to school.
When boss hog wants another 10 mil for himself, its those damn American workers standing in the way with ridiculous claims like wanting to feed their family or afford health insurance.
Nice try, Joel, heard it all before, over the last 30 years, and its just as disingenuous now as it was then.
Your vision of roadblocks and police state tactics are exactly what we have right now-the new law will do nothing beyond what already exists on this front.
What you are really defending is the politically correct notion of colorblind non-racism, and its tenderfoot tiptoeing around issues that are hitting real Americans square in the face every day. Typical of this tenderfoot approach is to view any attempts at identifying the real problem as nothing more than ideology.
Look, no one that I know is standing up and saying the AZ law is the new model for the country. What people are saying is that it is past time to deal with the fact that illegal aliens are causing impact and harm on American soil.
Claire,
No one here is advocating for despotism. In fact, actual legal immigration is a way for the country to expand its knowledge base, and to meet new challenges.
As I replied to Joel, the horse is already out of the barn when it comes to a police state here in our insanely managed country. That said, I am not advocating for martial law, nor am I suggesting that I applaud further marginalization of our dwindling rights.
What I am saying is that it is past time to address the issue of illegal aliens, and that AZ has the right to treat it as a legal issue because, as lawyers are fond of saying, the definition of a crime is something that causes harm, and rivers of illegal aliens do cause harm.
Illegal immigration is really nothing more than a refusal by foreign nationals to obey the laws of their new country because they find it difficult, inconvenient, or time consuming to do so.
I have already stated that Mexico is so dysfunctional that it makes our country appear to be enlightened by comparison. Acting as if illegal immigration is something ok is in effect simply perpetuating the murderous, sick situation our southern neighbor has devolved into. It is the millions of American dollars funneled into Mexico every month that alleviate the Mexican disaster elite from having to make any significant changes on behalf of their people, or their country.
AZ is out gunned and outflanked in trying to deal with the illegal alien issue, and their choice of methods might strike us as doomed, foolish, or even wrong, but if you knew directly what people were having to deal with on the ground, you might understand why these same people are demanding action.
Pat,
In many ways the problem with illegals is symptomatic of the tortured relationship Mexico and America have had for 200 or more years.
It is a real mistake to assume that the illegals are but innocent, hard working people caught between larger forces, they are actually knowing and willing partners in the daily press of events.
Leftists like to blame all of the problems of Mexico on the U.S.of A., as if somehow America is the negative force manipulating all those poor campesinos. The debate here is coming dangerously close to the same tired leftist ideology constantly perpetrated by Pacifica, NPR, and CNN.
Well, if America is so dark and negative, how come they all line up to get here?
Any real step to deal with illegals on a systemic level must deal with all the forces they are engaged with. How else to explain that dealing only with the illegal issue has not resolved the problem?
Rural Mike,
You say:
“The debate here is coming dangerously close to the same tired leftist ideology constantly perpetrated by Pacifica, NPR, and CNN.”
“Acting as if illegal immigration is something ok is in effect simply perpetuating the murderous, sick situation our southern neighbor has devolved into.”
“What you are really defending is the politically correct notion of colorblind non-racism, and its tenderfoot tiptoeing around issues that are hitting real Americans square in the face every day.”
Although you articulate your own position very well (and I thank you for your continued civility on a topic that often rouses tempers), statements like the ones I just quoted show that you’re misunderstanding the positions others have expressed here. I won’t try to speak for Pat or Joel or Kent, but I can say for sure that not one of us is a a leftest, or a believer in PC, or has been brainwashed by NPR or Pacifica. We’re coming from an entirely different viewpoint than that — a viewpoint of individual rights and limited government (you won’t find that on NPR or Pacifica).
Also, I don’t think anybody is saying or implying that immigration (state-sanctioned or otherwise) never causes problems. I for one am just saying that there are better ways to deal with those problems than to give more power — and power that violates the Fourth Amendment, besides — to police. I realize you’re not precisely defending Arizona’s particular methods. But nor do you show much understanding of the Constitution-violating dangers of what AZ proposes to do — not just dangers to “illegals,” but to us all. Should Joel be thrown into a detention camp because he doesn’t carry “papers”?
BTW, I do have some idea what’s going on “on the ground.” Pretty hard to live in the desert SW without dealing with that issue. And before that, I lived in a agricultural area in a state which, while far from the Mexican border, had a lot of working-class immigrants, legal and otherwise.
I won’t have any more to add on this subject, though. Because if you so misperceive my basic point and my viewpoint, we’ll just end up head-banging.
Claire,
I did not intend to grandstand here. These will be my final thoughts on the matter…
1) Your point regarding constitutional infringement is well taken. We loose rights and freedoms through incrementalism, and through elevated fear-911 for instance. In many ways, both are happening right now all along the US-Mexico border. I do not have a link, but I heard recently the sheriff of a border country in Texas telling his jurisdiction to arm themselves for their self defense. Now, Mas would probably wring me out more than folks have done here for saying this, but in order for LEOs to confirm in the media they are telling their constituents to get armed the situation has to be pretty bad.
2) People are stuck between inability to act, and being taken to task for acting in the limited ways available to them-recall the mountain of bad press hurled constantly at the Minutemen, including lots of hysteria and lies. The reality was-they simply observed and reported what they observed to the authorities. Certainly there were far fewer laws broken by the Minutemen than the press would have people believe. Yep, anyone who stands in the way of the human tide is vilified and hung out to dry. This creates an atmosphere of anger and resentment among those who must deal with the fallout every day. It is simply fact that demeaning AZ attempts to deal with the human tide is a constant source for copy in many markets.
3) Illegal immigration has many negative and harmful impacts to border residents that transcend ideology. I have yet to find anyone honest who refutes the evidence that floods of low wage workers dumb down conditions for everyone else.
According to recent news out of Yuma, 10% of all undocumented migrants are involved in some other additional criminal activity. Not included in this 10% are the common crimes; vandalism, theft, harassing livestock, assault, mugging, and battery. I won’t even begin to describe the impact these waves have on the fragile desert ecology other than to say, they are heavily impacting areas they frequent. By any measure, this constitutes a problem. When combined with points above, this constitutes a crisis.
In conclusion, it is a given that nobody along the border is happy with the current state of affairs. It is also a given that for whatever reason, the human tide is afforded more leeway, and extended more forgiveness, than local residents. People who wish to simply preserve their way of life are portrayed as the evildoers.
I doubt anything I’ve said will actually get people to look deeper into the issue. But here is one last point , or perhaps if I may be so bold-food for thought. Our system of government, our experiment of freedom was never intended to be extended beyond our own citizenry. How is it than one can justify lavishing the fruits of our culture upon those who don’t respect it enough to even follow a basic law?