…have a right to defend itself? It seems pretty clear that the federal government has fallen down on one of its basic jobs, per Article IV, Section 4.
[The United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion;
As Glenn notes, when armed people are coming across your border and kidnaping and killing people, seems like a textbook example of an invasion. But no, the federal government is too busy making us buy health insurance and regulating how much salt we should eat to meet its constitutional responsibilities.
Of course it doesn’t. And our Fearless Leader will stop it from doing so, as he’s already proclaimed.
I notice one of the powers states have in case of actual or immanent invasion is that of making compacts with foreign powers. Now, that has a lot of possibilities.
Israel has been very effective recently in stopping illegal border-crossings, I notice. And they certainly need allies more than ever now.
Perhaps AZ, NM and TX should form a joint pact for that purpose. No chance of getting CA to join in, at least not before January. Maybe Arizona will just have to patrol the river.
TX would probably go for it. I doubt NM would.
Texas could even have a navy (again) if they wanted too.
We also have the dubious honor of having the kidnap capital here in Phx. I was wondering why the pickup trucks full of Mexicans were out the other day with signs, then remembered the gov. was signing the bill.
There has been an on going war with our police by politicians not to enforce the existing laws. It’s been nasty.
Rand,
What I find surprising is libertarians supporting a bill that basically requires everyone to carry proof of citizenship with you at all times.
Tom
Did I say I supported the bill?
You didn’t say you opposed it although making it a crime if they fail to carry proof of citizenship would seem to be an automatic red flag to anyone who is libertarian.
BTW I hope Arizona has lots of money from its red light cameras as its going to need it when the civil rights lawsuits start.
As for me, this is just one more reason to avoid the state that is rapidly become the poster boy for right wing wackos.
You didn’t say you opposed it
I didn’t express an opinion on it at all. It wasn’t even the subject of this post, though it’s related.
this is just one more reason to avoid the state that is rapidly become the poster boy for right wing wackos.
It is? In what way? And what is a “right wing wacko”?
Are you kidding? There’s no enforcement mechanism here any more than there is for making sure the President of the United States is actually a native born citizen. The Supreme Court can’t even find a personal right to self defense in the 2nd Amendment.
Besides, stateless actors aren’t an “Invasion.” It’s not like it’s the Mexican government (with the UN Ambassadors and flags) that’s doing the invading.
DISCLAIMER: I don’t agree with the above. The Constitution ought not be a suicide pact, and self-help should always be an option in the face of Federal inaction.
70% of us here sopport the bill, myself as well.
The ad homs are always the subject when the Alinskyites want it to be!
Besides, stateless actors aren’t an “Invasion.” It’s not like it’s the Mexican government (with the UN Ambassadors and flags) that’s doing the invading.
There is no requirement for invaders to have a state (any more than a home invader robber must be acting on someone else’s behalf). Invasion is a physical act, not a legal one. I’m pretty sure that if you’d asked the Founders if armed people coming across a border and killing and kidnapping Americans constituted an invasion, they’d have no problem saying yes, and wouldn’t care what color their uniforms were, or whether they even had any.
“a bill that basically requires everyone to carry proof of citizenship with you at all times”
This is the straw man argument I have been seeing about this issue. No one is going to get deported because they left their wallet in their other pants.
definition : “right wing wacko” = anyone who,
A: believes the founders had it right;
B: is brash enough to say A is right;
C: has the guts to vote for candidates who agree with A,B, and D;
D: has a gun, or doesn’t hate guns or gun owners or gun manufacturers, or the NRA;
E: thinks we should protect the American citizens FIRST and everyone else next;
Right wing, as in social conservatives that have zero tolerance for any social or cultural change, zero tolerance in interpreting and enforcing the law, who believe that police should have extreme power to enforce laws with minimal rights for the accused and who support the imposition of harsh sentences for minor crimes.
This is confusing because
A: I agree with Der Schtumpy Says
and
B: I am left of center but hold the same values.
…zero tolerance in interpreting and enforcing the law…
No law should ever be so ambiguously written as to permit interpretation. Period, dot, stop. If a law is written in such a manner that does permit such interpretation, then it will not be evenly applied or enforced . That strikes at the very heart of the American idea of equality – equality before the law.
Did illegal immigrants violate the laws regarding immigration?
Yes – by definition. Legal immigrants followed those laws, and natural-born citizens are by definition not immigrants. We are talking about a self-selecting group of scofflaws, some of whom have put the lives of citizens at risk (or worse, taken their lives), through either accident or malice. No government that permits such behavior will long stand, nor would one deserve to.
At that point, there is no further room for discussion, as far as I’m concerned. Yes, the laws are broken (in fact, they’re so broken they should be replaced at our soonest convenience). But the way to resolve the situation is to fix the law, not to conveniently ignore it for some and apply it to others (those who actually follow the rules). I was taught from an early age that the best way to get a law changed, is in its absolute enforcement – which produces such an outcry from the citizens that changing the unjust law becomes the first order of business. Simply ignoring it (and breaking it at will) breeds a profound disrespect for the law as a whole – and respect for the law is the basis of any just, civic society.
No law should ever be so ambiguously written as to permit interpretation.
While I agree with your sentiments be aware that any set of rules will have ambiguities. This I believe is why the bible talks about law being a tutor to christ and christians have a law written in their hearts. Principles are superior to laws. Laws are derived from principles. Principles allow you to deal with the limits of laws. Godel’s theorem is suggestive.
R. Anderson
An example of Zero Tolerance in action in Arizona
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=348&dat=19990414&id=o2owAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LTUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6825,4456367
A high school kid expelled because he brought a Estes model rocket to class. Seems an administrator felt it was a “weapon”. That is Zero Tolerance in action.
As for the immigration laws. Yes, they are very broken. The were originally created to keep the U.S. a WASP nation, to keep those “strange” eastern and southern Europeans, and Asians out and that bias is still built into them, both in their structure and enforcement. I suspect the police in Arizona won’t be stopping any illegal immigrants from Ireland asking for their IDs even thought there is an estimated 50,000 in the U.S.
If you have some time look up the Immigration Act of 1924 on Wikipedia, the basic foundation of current immigration law and see the major motives for it and who push it through Congress. Especially note the book that motivated the immigration laws and who else that little book inspired. It might surprise you.
Yes, I usually don’t recommend Wikipedia but they did a good job on this one.
“A high school kid expelled because he brought a Estes model rocket to class.”
How many examples do you want from blue states full of left wing wackos? This is common everywhere. It’s that zero tolerance policy. As far as immigration law goes, you want to ignore the laws you don’t like? You don’t want border enforcement? Sounds like anarchy to me. How about we enfore our southern border like Mexico does? Sauce for the gander, as it were.
The were originally created to keep the U.S. a WASP nation
How does being born here regardless of who your parents are, square with that?
Can we apply this line of “reasoning” to Planned Parenthood, too?
…cartoon characters in your Gramscian-meme-addled brain?
Titus,
Actually Planned Parenthood did come from the same roots. But it matured beyond it to be an voluntary program.
Bill,
[[[As far as immigration law goes, you want to ignore the laws you don’t like? ]]]
Seems to me those were the same arguments used in regard to the segregation laws that came from the same root motive, to keep America culturally pure.
You may tell the morally of a law or political movement from both its origins and supporters. Again, take the time to learn the philosophical roots of the nation’s immigration laws. Again it may surprise you and dismay you, unless of course you agree with the views of those who created them.
And yes, that does fit well the classic definition of right wing as individuals who are socially and culturally conservative and are against any changes from the “ideal” culture that existed in the good old days.
Maybe you think 1890, the base year for the quotas in the Immigration Act of 1924, was a great world to live, and perhaps it was if you were a white northern European Protestant male. But for the rest it was not all that great a time and place. The U.S. immigration laws are the last residual of that mindset and philosophy which is why its long past time they were changed and brought into the 21st Century from their 19th Century roots.
As for the damage the laws have done to the economy, while just talk to the farmers who have to leave produce rot in the fields because there is no labor to pick it or the ranchers with no one to handle their herds. It should be note that Hispanics have been crossing the border since it was created to work in those industries. Unlike the T.V. westerns in real live most of the hands on cattle drives and ranch hands were migrate workers from Mexico. It was just normal commerce until laws restricting this movement were passed in the 1960’s to appease those in Congress against the passing of civil rights laws, and to get votes from the Unions and it was not seen as a big deal.
Just as prohibition created organized crime so have the immigration laws created the crime folks now associate with immigrates. And BTW, I say this as someone who has first hand experience having lived along the border in places like Del Rio and Eagle Pass Texas, and in southern New Mexico. While in New Mexico I worked in law enforcement as a dispatcher and while in Texas I had many border patrol agents as my students so its just not theory, its based on what the actual situation is along the border. This new law is not going to solve the problem, its just going to make it a lot worst.
“Again, take the time to learn the philosophical roots of the nation’s immigration laws”
I don’t care. The borders are in chaos now. Open borders would be worse. I live in Texas so don’t lecture me about immigration.
“As for the damage the laws have done to the economy,”
Yes, distorted wages for years as employers hire illegal labor at lower wages.
“Maybe you think 1890, the base year for the quotas in the Immigration Act of 1924”
How about 2010? Do you think we can keep absorbing huge numbers of people with no controls? You criticize us yet Mexico has stricter enforcement on their southern border than we do. Who’s going to pay for all of these new people?
“And yes, that does fit well the classic definition of right wing as individuals who are socially and culturally conservative and are against any changes from the “ideal” culture that existed in the good old days.”
If this is about zero tolerance, lefties developed this gem. Get a clue. Your own bigotry is showing. “Ideal” my as#.
Bill,
[[[Who’s going to pay for all of these new people? ]]]
Pay what? illegal immigrants work harder then most Americans, which is why employers like to hire them, especially for agricultural jobs that Americans simply won’t take at any price.
FYI from the Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5790992.html
Price put at $1.8 trillion
Study: That’s what U.S. would lose if undocumented immigrants vanished
By JENALIA MORENO Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
May 19, 2008, 10:40PM
[[[If the 8.1 million undocumented immigrants who cut lawns, bus tables and perform other jobs disappeared overnight, the nation’s economy would lose nearly $1.8 trillion in annual spending.]]]
The study goes on to show they contribute $652 billion to the U.S. GDP. It then compares it to the costs foes of immigration always cry about and found its only about $27 billion a year.
Really the idea that illegal immigrants are somehow costing the nation money is another myth that foes of immigration keep spreading.
Again, do some research and don’t just parrot the views of the folks around you.
But yes, lets crack down on them and drive the economy further into recession….
“Again, do some research and don’t just parrot the views of the folks around you. ”
Put your “parrot” where the sun don’t shine. I don’t “parrot” anybody. What part of they aren’t citizens don’t you understand. Plus, your numbers mean they’re spending over 222,000 dollars each.
How much are they sending to Mexico? How much do they cost in health care? Uninsured motorists? You’re also making the mistake to treat that money as zero sum. What makes you think there would not be an alternative? Short of government interference, markets get what they want.
Bill,
Yes, and the immigration laws are an interference in the free functioning of labor markets in the U.S. Which is why unions were also a group pushing for them.
But close your eyes and hide behind the old Barney Fife catch phase “The law is the law, Andy” just as those that supported segregation did.
Thomas, Obamacare is going to make things a lot worse for me. Can I flout that law, too? I mean, since you’ve made yourself the arbiter of which laws we should follow, I guess you’re the one to ask. Or may I so appoint myself, as well? (props to Walt Whitman).
Just trying to figure out how that variable justice system of yours works.
Titus,
Several states have filed lawsuits against Obamacare and it will be interesting to see their outcome as they follow their path to the Supreme Court. The same will be true of the Arizona Law which will also work its way up to the Supreme Court.
But keep in mind one of the core values of the United States, and the founding fathers, was that laws must be looked at from the viewpoint of their morality as well as legality. Thomas Jefferson wrote often on that topic. I suspect he would be shocked by the zero tolerance approach to laws many advocate today.
Keep that up, Thomas, and you might become a right-wing wacko yet.
(I’m excluded because of my skin color. I always thought it was my practicality, but the left-wing wackos have since set me straight (after trying to set me gay, to no avail.))
“But close your eyes and hide behind the old Barney Fife catch phase “The law is the law, Andy” just as those that supported segregation did.”
You’ve insulted me twice now. I’m curious why you think that’s okay?
Bill,
I do not intend to be insulting, merely showing that you seem to be looking at immigration from a very narrow perspective by focusing on the law aspect.
Basically you seem to be arguing its a crime because it is the law, but the real question is if the law is moral or immoral in its current form. Given its history and application a very strong argument could be made that its immoral and instead of passing new laws to enforce it the law itself should be reformed current standards of morality.
What exactly are you advocating Thomas? Should we give the vote to illegals as they have demanded in marches in Phoenix? Is AZ a sovereign state in a sovereign country? I had an immigrant wife. We followed the law. What makes Arizonans wacko for having law enforcement checking the legal status of people they happen to interact with in the normal course of business. When I went into Canada and back I had to identify myself as an American citizen. Same when I went to Greece, Turkey, etc. People are dying on the AZ border. The new AZ law simply says enforce the federal law. Please explain how that is wacko?
So what is your moral argument against the new AZ law? I don’t want to live in a Nazi, “show me your papers” state. But that is not what this is.
I’m excluded because of my skin color
You know we’re all brown, Titus. I’m the light shade of brown they inaccurately call white guy. 🙂 I’ve got white socks… nothing like skin color.
Also, my family here in Phoenix are Mexicans going back generations. When my grandmother died the funeral just about closed down the city that day. Call me a racist and I’d have to call you an idiot. I don’t like government intrusion and certainly not abuse, but we have to enforce immigration laws rather than the wink and nod we’ve been doing for so long.
I’m looking at it from a very broad perspective. Unchecked, uncontrolled immigration bad, controlled immigration good. I don’t care where they come from as long as they bring something to the table besides an appetite.
Basically you seem to be arguing its a crime because it is the law, but the real question is if the law is moral or immoral in its current form.
Well Thomas, is it moral for a municipality to allow foreigners into town to kidnap citizens? That’s just one issue that is causing Arizona to take more draconian steps. And yes, they are draconian measures, but when invaders come into an area and start doing immoral things, then you have to respond with tighter enforcement. And yes, they are invaders. They even hold rallies and wear signs talking about their race and that the land is really Mexican terroritory illegally and immorally taken away from Mexico. Some are immigrants just looking for a job, but they still have a legal means to do so. Those legal means are very moral, and indeed much easier to follow than most nations in the world.
Ken,
The Arizona Law also makes it a state crime which it isn’t at the moment. And the state crime is not carry papers to show you are a U.S. citizen.
In terms of what I advocate. I advocate redoing the immigration laws from zero to rid them of the bias from the Cultural Purity/Eugenics that has been their foundation from the beginning and place them on a solid moral setting. Also I would take into account the economic factors that have been ignored so long on the value of high immigration rates in driving an expanding economy. Its no accident Japan, with one of the strictest immigration polices in the world, is also so stagnate economically.
As the economist Julian Simon pointed out in regards to the limit to growth group human capital is the ultimate resource and the U.S. is very good at attracting it. Instead of impeding the flow we need to leverage it to build a stronger economy. The ratio of economic value to economic costs is well documented by many studies, not just the one I linked to and its time we start making rational rather then emotional decisions on immigration.
Also think for a moment of the courage and motivation it takes to be an illegal immigrate. Most are individuals who decided that rather then let their family starve they will cross hundred of miles of desert with just what they are able to carry with them to work hard at poor quality jobs, often sleeping out in the open, risking both death on the way and imprisonment if caught, to make a better life for their family. Tell me, is that a choice you would make? Really, it represents a level of courage and motivation, on the same level of the pioneers that settled America, one that should be harnessed instead of tossed away because of an outdated mindset.
Bill,
Keep in mind that a good portion of the food on your table was probably produced by the labor of illegal immigrates.
Leland,
Do you honestly think that the new law will stop drug dealers from kidnapping people? Do they care if they have papers? Or they won’t have the money to get false ones if they need them? The kidnappings are related to the drug and mafia wars in Mexico and are a separate issue. If anything the new law will make it worst as it will provide a strong disincentive for illegal immigrates to report what they know to the police on those crimes for fear they will end up in jail or deported.
Mom & Apple Pie. The rest is political boilerplate. Everyone wants “change”, but unless you plan to throw down all borders, there must be some limitations and some enforcement and some consequence of breaking the law. If you’ve read this blog (or, in fact, the Internet in general), you should have picked-up that merely shouting “racist” in a crowded forum is unproductive and uninformative.
I am just pointing that most folks are not aware of the basis of where the current laws come from. And until they do the problem is not going to be fixed and immigration policy will continue to fail as it has for the last 90 years.
As for enforcement, Adam Smith, whose day job was as a customs officer trying to stop smuggling, pointed out long ago that laws must be based on a solid economic foundation or no amount of effort will enforce them successfully. Just think of prohibition or the 55 MPH speed limit and how “successful” they were as laws.
The reason the problem gets worst instead of better is that the current law ignores the economic realities, and the new Arizona law is even worst in that aspect. Laws and policies driven by emotions never turn out well.
Thomas, I have a passport. If I leave the United States, not only do I need that passport, but I need a visa for each country I visit as well. This is the way the world works.
Number one, do not assume racism when controlling the borders. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with race. Any person, of any race, crossing our borders needs a passport. Or are you saying people should not be required to show a passport to enter our country?
If we need workers, they can come into this country by the same legal process other do. Like my stepson, who this year became an American citizen. He’s twenty and has lived here for eight years now.
It offends me that people are breaking the law to illegally enter this country. Once here, they have little regard for other laws as well.
If you don’t think illegals cause a financial burden on the state you don’t realize that for every hardworking illegal there is usually a large family on welfare, using the emergency rooms with no insurance, adding a burden to our schools. Driving and getting into accidents with no insurance. Crime increases when illegals sell drugs, a primary source of income. People in the cities are not picking lettuce, they are selling drugs. Phoenix and Tucson have changed for the worse in the last two decades. Drugs are everywhere where they were not before. I hear gunfire almost every night. That’s a law enforcement cost.
Unemployment is up. You can’t say they take jobs nobody wants. They do lower wages for legal residents and reduce the available jobs.
I just can’t see how you can advocate anarchy.
Do you honestly think that the new law will stop drug dealers from kidnapping people?
Do you think that was my point?
The kidnappings are related to the drug and mafia wars in Mexico and are a separate issue.
So if the kidnappings are related to wars in Mexico, but the kidnappings are occurring in the US, perhaps you can explain how it is a separate issue?
If anything the new law will make it worst as it will provide a strong disincentive for illegal immigrates to report what they know to the police on those crimes for fear they will end up in jail or deported.
You have some evidence that the illegal immigrants are supporting the police now? Are you suggesting we should offer citizenships on the basis of being a police informant?
I could play this game all day, but…
Read what Ken Anthony wrote, because its how I see the situation as well. The stuff Thomas is claiming as immoral is no less than most nations do around the world. You can’t enter the UK without a passport and visa. And if you are found there without them, you’ll be arrested and deported. Same with France, Germany, Spain, Japan, China, etc… It’s what nations do to protect their citizens. What the Arizona law is provide my enforcement capabilities for the federal laws where the federal government won’t otherwise provide adequate enforcement.
Ken,
[[[If we need workers, they can come into this country by the same legal process other do.]]]
And there in is the core of the problem. Very few are able to do so because of a quota system still rooted in the original 1924 Immigration law designed to keep our cultural purity. The number of quotas are very limited and linked to the current ethnic distribution of the U.S.
That is why if you are from northern Europe its fairly easy to get one of the quotas. If you are from other parts of the world its generally very difficult.
Fix the quota system so it reflects the real need for their labor, and is no longer linked to the current ethnic origin distribution in the U.S., and you will go a huge way to solving the overall problem.
Ignore it and the law of economics will trump the immigration laws every time and no immigration reform will succeed. Yes, old Adam Smith understood well the power of the market and how it always will overcome the government’s efforts to control it and the need for labor is a market.
Fix the quota system
If this is the issue (and I haven’t researched it) then we should fix this. That gives no excuse for not enforcing the law.
the law of economics
I understand and to a large extent agree. But again, this does not mean law should not be enforced. Either we are a nation or we are not. Your position, while sounding noble in some respects, is an abdication of the responsibility of a citizen if protecting a nation is important at all.