As a side note, I finally lost interest in Victor Reppert's blog several months ago (*), and so I rarely even pop over there anymore. But, today, for the first time in weeks, I did pop over to Mr Reppert's blog, and saw this: Driving While Mexican, or it's no fun being an illegal alien (or looking like one either)
All eyes are on Arizona today because Governor Brewer signed Senate Bill 1070, and I feel like putting a paper bag over my virtual head. Police in our state have now been given the authority to demand papers on anyone of whom they have a reasonable suspicion that they are illegal aliens. The trouble is, about the only reason for suspicion that I can think of that someone is in the country illegally is if they have brown skin, or speak Spanish instead of English, or English with an Mexican accent. Last I checked, that was called racial profiling, which is illegal. Supposedly they are going to come up with some guidelines for deciding when there is reasonable suspicion. Good luck with that.Mr Reppert's problem is that he's a "liberal" -- which is to say, he's a "soft," that is, an inconsistent, leftist -- and thus, on certain topics he causes himself to be unable to reason soundly; for his leftism dictates the "acceptable" conclusion, regardless of the premises from which he starts.
On every police force there are some Mark Fuhrmans. (One of them is our county sheriff). And what will they do if they get a call about loud music late at night, and that music turns out to be Spanish language music? Do you think they're going to resist the temptation to ask for papers?
Illegal immigration is a serious problem. This is a preposterous way to go about stopping it.
Consider his conclusion: "Illegal immigration is a serious problem. This is a preposterous way to go about stopping it." That is, according to Mr Reppert's (ahem) reasoning, while it is true (as we conservatives contend) that the presence of vast numbers of illegal aliens in the United States is a serious problem for the body politic, to actually attempt to enforce, and very mildly at that, existing law concerning an illegal presence in the US "is a preposterous way to go about stopping it."
How, pray tell, are we to control or, better yet, curtail, the vast numbers of illegal aliens within the borders of the US if we will not enforce either our sovereign borders or our laws against the illegal invasion of those borders? Are "liberals" trying to destroy the unity of the US?
Consider his assertion: "... Last I checked, that was called racial profiling, which is illegal." We *all* know that this assertion is false (and irrational, in any event). And, we all know that "liberals" are just fine with "racial profiling" ... just so long as it's the "po' white trash," you know, folk like me, who are paying the price of the racial preferences and set-asides "liberals" like and demand. We all know that "liberals" are just fine with "racial profiling" ... just so long as it doesn't serve the interests of the citizens of the US. You know, as would be the case to "racially profile" suspiciously-acting Moslems attempting to board airplanes.
(*) The final straw, for me, was this post -- the content is either self-oblivious beyond belief, or simply disingenuous. As I keep telling Gentle Reader, just because I *can* effectively eviscerate someone doesn't mean that I enjoy doing it; it's a chore and a psychic drain. So, I kept putting off responding to that post ... and, eventually, realized that I just didn't care anymore.
------------
Update --
In a comment, Mr Reppert says:
According to Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, this law reverses the burden of evidence for people suspected of being here illegally. You have to prove that you are legal, they don't have to prove you are illegal.How like a "liberal" ... and how like the "liberal" stance on the Geneva Conventions.
I suppose that's the way the do it in Mexico. That is why people get stuck in the Tijuana jail unable to prove their innocence. But that's not the American way.
Notice what Mr Reppert is doing here ... he's asserting that illegal alien non-citizens have the same civic rights as actual US citizens; he's asserting that in order to lay claim to the civic rights that only US citizens have, one should not be expected, and certainly cannot be required, to provide evidence that one is, in fact, a US citizen who does, indeed, possess those civic rights.
To continue Mr Reppert's logic, it is as though one were to assert that the police may not even arrest the suspect of a crime until they have first proven in a court of law not merely that they suspect him of having committed the specific crime, but that he did, in fact, commit it.
The practical result of Mr Reppert's "good intentions" is that there is no real-world difference between being a US citizen and not being a US citizen. How is it that Mr Reppert's "good intentions" differ substantively from the wicked intentions of those who actively seek to cheapen US citizenship and/or destroy the US?
It has never been good enough merely to have "good intentions" -- there must be a rational connection between one's "good intentions" and the good one intends and a reasonable expectation that one's intentions shall result in good, rather than harm.
When one stands in judgment before God, one cannot bleat, "But at least I was 'sincere'" -- God is not a modernist, much less a post-modernist.
26 comments:
Yes, the non-enforcement of the border, and the consequent hordes of illegal aliens in the US, is one area where the libertarians shake-out with the "liberals."
Myself, I'd say, "Enough is too much!"
You say: Notice what Mr Reppert is doing here ... he's asserting that illegal alien non-citizens have the same civic rights as actual US citizens; he's asserting that in order to lay claim to the civic rights that only US citizens have, one should not be expected, and certainly cannot be required, to provide evidence that one is, in fact, a US citizen who does, indeed, possess those civic rights.
VR: Nope. When someone is picked up, that person may be an illegal alien, but they may be a citizen. For all the officer knows, the person might be a citizen, and have the rights of citizens.
Well Mr. Reppert, the language in the law describes it as follows:
If a police officer comes into “lawful contact” with a person (because their job as a police officer requires them to do so), and the officer has “reasonable suspicion” that the person is an alien or illegal resident, that officer must make a reasonable attempt to ascertain whether that person is in the United States legally. If, in the course of that “lawful contact”, the person provides an Arizona driver’s license, photo ID, tribal identification, or any other piece of identification for which they had to prove their legal residence when they got it, then that person is automatically assumed to be a legal resident.
An Arizona drivers license, photo ID or any other piece of identification..that's pretty darn generous. You will not find the Federales in Mexico being quite so open minded about how you go about identifying yourself. Now just going to get my valid driver's license renewed I am required to provide tax returns and a birth certificate to prove who I am. Why is it that someone in Arizona should not have to show a drivers license when pulled over by police? They expect that here in Oregon.
Regardless, the effort by Arizona to get some enforcement of their border does not make the people there Nazis. Take the bag off your head. You look ridiculous.
Ilion: "Notice what Mr Reppert is doing here ... he's asserting that illegal alien non-citizens have the same civic rights as actual US citizens; he's asserting that in order to lay claim to the civic rights that only US citizens have, one should not be expected, and certainly cannot be required, to provide evidence that one is, in fact, a US citizen who does, indeed, possess those civic rights.
...
The practical result of Mr Reppert's "good intentions" is that there is no real-world difference between being a US citizen and not being a US citizen. ..."
V.Reppert: "Nope. When someone is picked up, that person may be an illegal alien, but they may be a citizen. For all the officer knows, the person might be a citizen, and have the rights of citizens."
Simply amazing! You assert that I have misrepresented you ... and then you go ahead and make (again) the very argument I said you made.
I hope to say more about this response later, including bringing out an important point I merely hinted at before.
"How, pray tell, are we to control or, better yet, curtail, the vast numbers of illegal aliens within the borders of the US if we will not enforce either our sovereign borders or our laws against the illegal invasion of those borders?"
The truth is he doesn't want to control the illegals, whatever proposal you come up with to deal with illegals, liberals will always whine against it. They are for open-borders and that's it, nothing less.
"Are "liberals" trying to destroy the unity of the US?"
I think we both know the answer to that.
Victor,
I respect you, even though I disagree with you on some political issues. So let me ask you two simple questions.
Do you think that anyone supporting these efforts by Arizona to curb their illegal immigrant population is a racist?
Do you think that at least some people who are crying 'racist!' or 'nazi!' in response to not merely this bill, but even the blandest sentiment behind it ("Illegal immigrants should not be in this country"), are guilty of throwing those terms around more for their rhetorical effectiveness than anything else?
And finally, a side-question I saw brought up elsewhere. Why is it that you have trust in the government when it comes to controlling health care, or controlling corporations - but when it comes to simply checking the citizenship of people in Arizona, the government is helpless to rein in these imagined racist police officers? Don't you find that inconsistent?
Ilion: "Notice what Mr Reppert is doing here ... he's asserting that ..."
V.Reppert: "Nope. When someone is picked up, that person may be an illegal alien, but they may be a citizen. For all the officer knows, the person might be a citizen, and have the rights of citizens."
Now, what did I say that Mr Reppert is asserting? I said: "... he's asserting that in order to lay claim to the civic rights that only US citizens have, one should not be expected, and certainly cannot be required, to provide evidence that one is, in fact, a US citizen who does, indeed, possess those civic rights."
In a move much respected by "liberals" (and, incidentally, so-called atheists, and also Darwinists ... which may well explain why there is so tremendous an overlap amonget the three groups), Mr Reppert denies that what I said is correct ... and then immediately asserts the very thing he denied is true.
It doesn't matter that Mr Reppert doesn't want his position laid out so bluntly as I have put it; he is asserting exactly what I said he is asserting. And the logical-and-legal consequence of his position is just as I said it is: "... he's asserting that illegal alien non-citizens have the same civic rights as actual US citizens;"
But, there is more -- in order to cripple enforcement of US and State immigration law, Mr Reppert is asserting a civic right that doesn't even exist (and by which he will not stand in a different circumstance). This is one of the things I hinted at previously.
But first, another thing I hinted at in making reference to the Geneva Conventions -- the obvious thing I meant is a reference to the "liberal" insistence that the Geneva Conventions apply to the captured military personnel of non-signatory states, which is incoherent; and *also* their insistence that the Conventions apply to captured "non-state actors," that is, combatants not in the uniform of any state when captured, which insistence is intellectually and morally wicked (along with being contrary to the express purpose and language of the Conventions).
But, the deeper, and perhaps not-so-obvious, meaning in the reference is to the constant "liberal" insistence upon applying standards where they do not, and cannot, apply. What Mr Reppert is asserting here is that the court-room legal standard of "innocent until proven guilty" applies at all times and in all circumstances ... except, of course, for when it's convenient for the "liberal" cause to assert the opposite.
To tie these two things together (for they are reflections of the same "liberal" impulses), let us consider the structure of Mr Reppert's argument; let us consider whether it will hold up when the circmstances change; let us consider whether Mr Reppert will stand by the application of his own argument when the circumstances are changed --
Let us suppose that Mr Reppert is pulled over by a police officer. What does the officer immediately ask Mr Reppert to produce for his inspection? Why, for his "papers," of course -- for his driver's license (for proof that he has the right to be operating a motor vehicle on a public road), for the auto's registration (for proof that he has the right to be operating a *this* motor vehicle on a public road), and for his proof of insurance (for proof that Mr Reppert is financially capable of meeting any liabilities which may result from his operation of a motor vehicle on a public road).
Who amongst us believes that, in this case, Mr Reppert will argue along the lines that "When [I am pulled over, I], may be an illegal [motorist], but [I] may be a [legal motorist]. For all the officer knows, the [I] might be a [legal motorist], and have the rights of [legal motorists]"?
Bueller? Anyone? No! I'm not sure that even libertarians would argue on those lines.
Let us modify the hypothetical.
Let us suppose that the reason Mr Reppert was pulled over is that an all-points bulletin was broadcast for officers to be on the look-out for vehicle of the make, model, and color of Mr Reppert's auto. For, there was a bank robbery (in which a teller was murdered), and the was seen to be fleeing in such a vehicle. Now, in Mr Reppert's city, there may be dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of vehicles matching the discription. But, let us say there are only one dozen. Therefore, any time an officer pulls over a vehicle pursuant to the bulletin, the odds are that the drive had nothing to do with the robbery and murder.
Who amongst us believes that, in this case, Mr Reppert will argue along the lines that "When [I am pulled over, I], may be [guilty of a potentially capital crime], but [I] may be [innocent]. For all the officer knows, the [I] might be a [completely innocent], and have the rights [to be allowed to go my way without further question]"?
Bueller? Anyone? No! Not even libertarians -- and they're fairly insane -- would argue on those lines.
Let us modify the hypothetical, one last time.
Let us suppose that the reason Mr Reppert was pulled over is not only that his vehicle matches the description, but that the license-plate of his vehicle matches that of the get-away car. Now, in the hypothetical, Mr Reppert is still innocent, and being pulled over is the first he has even heard of the crime (the guilty party is his hypothetical ne'er-do-well son).
Who amongst us believes that, in this case, Mr Reppert will argue along the lines that "When [I am pulled over, I], may be [guilty of a potentially capital crime], but [I] may be [innocent]. For all the officer knows, the [I] might be a [completely innocent], and have the rights [to be allowed to go my way without further question]"?
No, we all know that he will not. Only someone as insane as anarchists would argue on those lines.
====
Mr Reppert's stance and reaction isn't simply intellectual incoherence, though it is that, too. Rather, it is intellectual dishonesty; it is hypocrisy with respect to reason -- for he asserts an argument to get to his desired result, the form of which argument that he will not allow as valid when the circumstances at issue are changed. This is not reasoning, this is rationalization; this is saying anything, so long as it advances "the cause."
====
Considering that Mr Reppert believes that "the rich!" should be made to pay more in taxes, while simultaneously bitching that he pays too much in taxes, I am confident in my belief that were the hordes of illegal aliens in the US directly affecting his bottom-line -- say, were universities hiring illegal aliens as professors of philosophy -- that we'd find him arguing that the Arizona law is just, and perhaps not strong enough.
MK: "The truth is he doesn't want to control the illegals, whatever proposal you come up with to deal with illegals, liberals will always whine against it. They are for open-borders and that's it, nothing less."
I'm confident that it's safe to opine that the only "solution" to the problem of vast hordes of illegal aliens in the US which Mr Reppert will support is one in which the problem is "solved" by declaring them to be legal immigrants.
I think it's also safe to opine (as I did above) that he'll not be so copasetic about it when universities start trying to reduce labor-costs by hiring “undocumented Democrats” as professors of philosophy.
Previously, I wrote, "I'm confident that it's safe to opine that the only "solution" to the problem of vast hordes of illegal aliens in the US which Mr Reppert will support is one in which the problem is "solved" by declaring them to be legal immigrants" and I continue to believe this to be the case.
In a recent post on his blog, called "Legalize illegal immigration yes or no?" (which links to this page), Mr Reppert answers the question thusly: "There's only one problem. It's logically impossible. You can't make it legal to enter the country illegally."
So, I must be wrong, right?
Well, no, I'm not. Recall the case I presented above, analyzing his own words made directly to me. Recall that Mr Reppert avers that enforcement of the Arizona law would violate the civil rights of US citizens were a police officer to request to see "their papers" (*) of persons he suspects (pursuant to some other "official contact") to be in the country illegally.
Recall that the practical effect of Mr Reppert's position is to make it logically impossible ever to enforce any of the laws on illegal aliens ... or any law distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens. For, as no governmental entitiy in the US has the legal authority to violate the civic rights of US ctizens, were it indeed the case that such a request is such a violation, then no such request can ever be made. Ever (including at the voter registry office or the polling station!)
Gentle Reader may recall that I sometimes point out that it isn't enough to look at the individual stances a person or group may take, but that it is also necessary to look at how the individual items relate as a set, and to look at the logical consequences. Gentle Reader may recall from above that Mr Reppert seems to acknowledge that the vast numbers of illegal aliens in the US is a serious problem ... but the practical effect of his opposition to the Arizona law is:
1) nothing at all may be done about the problem;
2) the problem must be allowed to get worse;
3) the distinction between legal alien and illegal alien must be made moot;
4) the distinction between citizen and non-citizen becomes moot de facto.
(*) And, as others have pointed out, all aliens legally in the US have been required by Federal law (since the administration of FDR) to have on their persons at all times the documents granting them legal stay in the US.
Crude: The answer is no. I do not think that people who support bills like 1070 are motivated by racism, and, interestingly enough, neither does Attorney General Holder. There are certainly non-racial reasons for wanting to control illegal immigration.
However, sometimes people slide from resentment against illegal immigration to resentment against Hispanics, and people sometimes presume that people are here illegally because they are Hispanic, they speak Spanish, they are lower-class, etc. Resentments about illegal immigration can be a mask for racism, and those who have those resentments sometimes can attach those resentments towards Hispanics as a whole, as opposed to illegal immigrants. The movie 9500 Liberty shows just how these distinctions can end up getting blurred, and when they are blurred, you can get a slide into racism.
Perhaps the most efficient way to fight illegal immigration is to develop some kind of DNA-matched ID card for all citizens to have. You can't get a job if you don't have one. However, a lot of people will think this is too big-brotherish or even mark-of-the-beastish to be acceptable. You can also increase security along the border and prevent entry that way. I would support either measure if done in a feasible way.
When she signed the law Governor Brewer said that racial profiling was against the law and that she would enforce the law in such a way as to be in compliance with the prohibitions against profiling. Is she wrong about that? Should she just not worry about profiling?
My question is whether you have a workable law if you are trying to enforce the law and abide by the profiling laws at the same time.
I would have thought conservatives would object to the law for exactly the reason that they support tort reform. Whether a immigration inquiry is initiated is a matter of somebody's "reasonable suspicion????" The subjectivity of the law's terminology means that all sorts of things have to be settled in court, and that is not where conservatives, last I checked, like to see things settled.
If you are going to use state and local law enforcement to make immigration inquiries, you need a set of procedures as fixed as the procedure whereby you and I are asked for our DL, registration, and proof of insurance when we are pulled over by the police. As it stands, police departments are climbing the walls on this law, because they know they can be sued for profiling, but 1070 also says they can be sued for not enforcing the law.
The cases I am thinking about are cases where the police come out but don't ordinarily ask for identification, such as when an officer comes to a house on a complaint about loud music late at night. I would argue, in such a case, that if the people in the house appear to be lower-class Mexicans, if they are playing Spanish-language music, that is not a reason for an officer to initiate an immigration investigation.
It seems to me that there are two replies which have to be kept separate. One is "this is not profiling" and the other is "what's wrong with profiling?" But if it really isn't profiling, why do people then argue that profiling isn't wrong?
"I think it's also safe to opine (as I did above) that he'll not be so copasetic about it when universities start trying to reduce labor-costs by hiring “undocumented Democrats” as professors of philosophy."
Oh i'm sure there will be a lot of angry ranting then. These types are always for, until it's their ass on the line.
You weren't paying attention? I said I was certainly prepared to support ID requirements that will make it difficult or impossible for illegal immigrants to be employed.
My objection is to the use of subjective criteria for immigration investigations. These need to be clearly spelled out and applied to everyone. When you get pulled over, everyone is asked for the license, their registration, and proof of insurance. Period. The cops don't have to make a judgment call about reasonable suspicion, they just do it. It should be the same way with immigration status investigations, assuming that it is constitutional for local cops to check that sort of thing.
V.Reppert: "My objection is to the use of subjective criteria for immigration investigations. These need to be clearly spelled out and applied to everyone. ..."
Your objection is to acknowledging and dealing with reality as it really is -- life cannot be navigated with a check-list which makes our decisions for us; we must make the decisions, as subjects. It is impossible to spell out (much less for anyone to remember them) all the possible permutations and the appropriate response to each. If we are to live together in societies, we can spell out only the general principles are then we must trust one another to act appropriately.
V.Reppert: "You weren't paying attention? I said I was certainly prepared to support ID requirements that will make it difficult or impossible for illegal immigrants to be employed."
Let's see: your initial objection to a police officer following up on his (subjective) suspicion that an individual with whom he is presently engaged in "lawful contact" may not be in the country legally was that such follow-up:
1) is illegal because the (subjective) suspicion may, and probably does, make note of the fact that the person fits the profile of vast numbers of persons in the country illegally;
2) all police departments contain some racists.
Point one is a false assertion, however much the assertion is beloved of "liberals" -- except, of course, for when they like profiling and government-enforced racial discrimination. Point two is a red herring.
Then, your objection moved to the assertion that the Arizona law in unConstitutional because:
1) it violates the civil rights of all citizens by giving the officer the authority to request some modicum of evidence to allay his (subjective) suspicion that the person with whom he is dealing may be in the country illegally;
2) it violates the (non-existent!) civil rights of non-citizens by giving the officer the authority to request to see evidence that they are in the country legally.
Being asked to allay an officer's (subjective -- and reasonable) suspicion is annoying, for sure, but it is not a violation of one's civil rights. And non-citizens don't have civil rights, in any event.
NOW, you're admitting that what you really object to is the possibility/freedom of the officer to individually exercise his rational judgment in the encounter by enquiring about legal residency status only in those cases in which he has rational reason to suspect there is some call to question the person's status.
THUS, while you will hyperventilate in your irrational opposition to the very minor and reasonable Arizona law:
1) you are willing to support a nation-wide ID law requiring all citizens to possess an ID showing them to be citizens (what was that concern about *our* civil rights, again?);
2) you are willing to support a nation-wide requirement that all police officers in all policing activities ask of all persons: "Your papers!"
3) you are willing to support a nation-wide requirement that all employers act as agents of the state by demanding "Your papers?" before they can move to hire a prospective employee.
So, who isn't paying attention?
Let me get this straight, Ilion. You are saying that
1) is illegal because the (subjective) suspicion may, and probably does, make note of the fact that the person fits the profile of vast numbers of persons in the country illegally;
is false. In other words, you expect that law to be enforced without reference to the racial profiles?
Or is it false because the use of profiles is legal?
BREWER says that profiling is illegal and that the law will be enforced without profiling. She said that when she signed the law. Is she wrong?
And don't tell me police procedure can't be standardized. When you're pulled over, you are asked for your DL, your proof of insurance, and your registration. Everyone expects this.
I don't have a problem in principle with "papers, please," so long as a pasty white boy like me has to present papers just like everybody else.
IF we are going to deputize state and local officials to make immigration checks on people (and that involves a constitutional question I don't know how to adjudicate), then we need uniform procedures for enforcing them. It is the differential treatment of people who look like Hispanics, as opposed to people who look like me, that I am concerned about.
Oh, one other thing. I don't trust the government in the area of health care. I only trust them more than I trust the insurance companies. Having to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea, I choose the deep blue sea.
I believe in sin, which means that I believe that we need to be protected from Leviathan monsters. Sometimes those monsters are governments. Sometimes they are corporations.
We need precision in the law because police departments are liable to be sued for profiling, and they are liable to be sued for failing to enforce the law. Therefore, they need clear, black-and-white guidelines to keep the law from leading to excessive lawsuits.
Unless you've decided that trial lawyers like John Edwards are hunky-dory after all.
Victor,
Thank you for your reply.
I don't think that some people "presume that people are here illegally because they are Hispanic". Maybe they presume that someone who is hispanic, particularly a hispanic person who does not speak english, has a good chance of being an illegal immigrant. But that's the point where we have to ask "Just how many illegal immigrants are there in the US? How many are hispanic? What's the proportion of legitimate hispanic citizens to illegal hispanic immigrants are there in the country? In this neighborhood?"
Also, I suggest there's another way to make illegal immigration issues slide into racism: To make it so anyone who supports treating illegal immigrants as lawbreakers is accused or suspected of racism. Or to suggest that there are racial solidarity concerns, such that hispanics should support illegal immigrants because 'they (or many of them) are hispanic too', in essence. There are ways to be racist and against addressing illegal immigration concerns.
Finally, you say that you trust the government more than you trust insurance companies. What makes you think that trusting the government isn't tantamount to trusting insurance companies? That seems like someone saying "I don't trust elected officials more than I trust banks". Those officials are entirely capable of being proxies for banks.
Yes, you can slide into thinking that any opposition to illegal immigration is racially motivated. That's a mistake that opponents of this sort of legislation are inclined to make. If you go to Bill Vallicella's blog and find his piece entitled "legal and illegal immigration," he lays out the non-racial motives for a distinction between legal and illegal immigration, and border enforcement to back that up.
I have the stats on illegal to legal Hispanics, at this site,
http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/RobertRobb/83338
I should point out that Robb is a conservative Arizona Republic columnist who believes in border enforcement, as the column amply demonstrates. He shares many of my concerns about 1070, which suggests to me that dragging the terms "liberal" and "conservative" into every discussion of a political issue is probably a mistake.
Finally, the big issue between me and opponents of any kind of health care reform is the fact that insurance companies do exclude on the basis of pre-existing conditions, and make it impossible for many people to get health insurance who can't get it through their employers. And sometimes they engage in what I consider to be unethical cost-cutting measures to avoid paying claims, including rescinding medical insurance when people get sick. In the end, some people have to be trusted to make these health care decisions, but the market-driven health care economy needs, at the very least, regulation from either God or the government to prevent what I consider to be an injustice. You may not. You may think it's just free market economics, and inability to buy health insurance is no different from inability to buy a starter home or a late-model car. But I think it's an injustice, and I have to trust somebody to right that injustice. Unfortunately, it looks like it has to be the government, even though the government, like everything else, is run by sinners.
But, in the case of the immigration law, I think you have a problem if too much is left to "reasonable suspicion."
Victor,
Well, I think there are plenty of 'conservatives' who will be dead set against any serious immigration reform. Insofar as conservatism (as a movement, and at least in part) tends to be associated with business, and business profits from illegal immigration, that's going to show up.
As for health care, I'll put deeper discussion of it aside. I just wanted to point out what I thought was an inconsistency, where you were griping about the Arizona law - suggesting that it could not be trusted to be enforced without widespread, racist affronts by cops - and how strange it was that the government can't be trusted with this relatively simple state law, but it sure can be trusted to oversea a major intrusion into the health care industry. The merits of such views I'll leave for some other time.
If you look at the Robert Robb column from the Republic, again please note he's a conservative columnist who supports border enforcement, you will find that he thinks that so long as the "reasonable suspicion" arises in the course of ordinary police investigation of other crimes. That is what the law intends. However, he thinks the law doesn't provide adequate protection against what I would call "fishing expeditions," such as the ones Joe Arpaio has been engaging in.
Consider the following:
Case 1: An officer sees a car with a broken tail light. He stops the car, asks for a DL, notices that the people look Hispanic and don't speak English, and can't produce a license. The officer calls ICE.
Case 2: The officer sees a older-model car with a Spanish-language radio station bumper sticker. He notices the people look Hispanic. He THEN looks at the car closely for an onstensible violation and finds one, one that he would let pass if the people in the car looked like Anglos. He makes the stop, and if the DL is not produced, he calls ICE.
Fishing expeditions are going to harm citizens and legal immigrants, because a group of people (and actually this could include Hispanic-looking people who aren't Hispanic at all, such as Bhutanese refugees). I consider that unacceptable.
The trouble here is that, from the point of view of public record, these two stops are indistinguishable. The first officer is not fishing, but the second is.
Another set of cases I'm concerned about, which Robb doesn't talk about, are cases with pedestrians or passengers, not to mention cases where the police are called to a home but ordinarily ID is not required. If an officer comes to a home to tell them to turn their music down, he doesn't normally ask for a license. But if the music is in Spanish, and the people look like lower-class Hispanics, should he ask for papers? To me, that's fishing also.
The trouble here is that, from the point of view of public record, these two stops are indistinguishable.
How do you know, if you get pulled over for one reason or another, a deciding factor wasn't that the cop has something against white people? Philosophers? Chess players?
Notice that in the case you just gave, the actual law in question in Arizona doesn't mean a thing. As it stands now, the exact same reasoning can take place in a "fishing expedition" sense of hoping to find evidence of any other crime (A DUI, drug possession, what have you.) All that will change is there will be one additional thing that can be found.
So really, unless you're demanding an overhaul of law enforcement behavior that goes vastly beyond this particular illegal immigration law, I don't even see it as a particular point of concern. It highlights a particular danger of empowering the government with just about any kind of authority or capability, perhaps, but it doesn't seem like an overriding concern in this case especially.
But this law, without adequate safeguards in place, will lead to a systematic unequal treatment of Hispanics and non-Hispanics, to a degree that will inflict too much collateral damage on innocent, law-abiding citizens. If, on the other hand, adequate safeguards are installed to prevent this kind of collateral damage, then it is not at all clear to me that the law does much of anything.
If you want an example of what profiling looks like, a look at Sheriff Arpaio's crime sweeps is a good place to start.
There is a fine line between concern about law enforcement and anti-Hispanic prejudice. I take it you are familiar with the history of white supremacists involved with FAIR, the organization that actually wrote both 1070 and the law in Prince William County.
Victor, think about what I just pointed out: These 'fishing expeditions' you talk about, that you say are particularly nefarious, already are possible. This law will not "lead to a systematic unequal treatment of Hispanics and non-Hispanics", because this very capability is already available with or without the passage of that law. Unless you're suggesting that A) There are many racist Arizona cops, B) They'll eagerly use 'fishing expeditions' to harass hispanics, but C) They aren't doing this now, even though they can, but this new law will change all that. And frankly, that's not exactly persuasive.
Again: Unless you are talking about the need to rewrite quite a lot of laws from the ground up, your point here has vanishingly little to do with this particular illegal immigration law. Meanwhile, you yourself are painting this entire situation as a catch-22 where if the law works, it must be 'harmful' to innocent people, and if it isn't harmful, it has no chance of working. You may as well say, "Some collateral damage is unavoidable. That's just a sacrifice we'll have to make here."
As for FAIR, getting into who is 'involved' with FAIR in what capacity is a distraction. 1070 is the law in question, and the effects and implementation of it are the real concern. Again, I can use the Health Care example: Out and out communists (Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez) praising Obama's health care bill or Obama's policies in general. It's ridiculously easy to find some disreputable people agreeing with just about any position, but I see no reason to get into that here.
As for Joe Arpaio, he's famous for being anything but a typical sheriff. On the other hand, I'll also point out he's pretty damn popular where he is - they keep re-electing him. It's a distraction either way, unless 1070 plans on putting illegal immigrants into pink pajamas before sending them back to their country of origin.
It may turn out that SB 1070 won't really do much of anything by the time everything is said and done, except give lots of work to lawyers.
Or, we can put it another way. Can we have effective, non-racial criteria for "reasonable suspicion?" My suspicion is that the law either leads to invidious profiling OR will be ineffective.
Post a Comment