I've had a lot of the same thoughts about this. My biggest problem with it is that it doesn't pass the Jews in the Attic test. I don't like the idea of papers, and having to prove who I am and that I have a right to be here...then I took a look in my wallet and realized, hell, I'm already carrying them every day. I don't think this really adds any burden on the a citizen. That burden is already there when it comes to dealing with police or government authorities. It's there when you're trying to get a new job (as I just did). It's only a real threat to illegals. The enemy already has enough laws to screw me over if he wants. This particular one, taken with all the others, just doesn't worry me (or wouldn't worry me if I were an Arizona resident).
I don't know what I think about the merits of the law, but I do think that the "big government" argument is a canard. Conservatives are not anarchists. They don't want government doing everything under the sun (that's what they're objecting to when they say "big government") but they do want government to do some things, and do to those things well. In fact, the inability to do all things well is one of the reasons conservatives often cite for opposing "big government" in the first place, i.e., that getting bogged down in the areas where government doesn't belong virtually guarantees mediocre performance (or worse) in the areas where it does. Few dispute that securing our borders is one of the things government is supposed to do. The only thing odd about this statute is that it has the state involving itself in an area normally reserved to the federal government. But that's a federalism question, not a big vs. small government one. And reasonable, IMO, given that in this case the federal government has clearly dropped the ball and is in no danger of picking it up anytime soon.
Will the new law pass Joe's uncommonly silly "Jews in the Attic" test? Of course not, but then again, neither will anything else. Joe says searches without probable cause don't pass that test. Hell, searches with probable cause don't, either. Once Nazi America passes a law making it a crime to either be or harbor a Jew, we're screwed no matter what. Not that Nazi America would abide by any of the procedural niceties the libertarians previously imposed on non-Nazi America, anyway. There's a reason why bringing up Hitler is generally regarded as proof you've lost the debate, not that you are winning it.
Nor is there more than a tiny shred of truth to the statement that the law will be enforced by your worst enemy. Criminal statutes can only be enforced by the D.A. or the AG, neither of whom is necessarily your best friend, but Nazis don't usually win those elections, either - and even if they did they wouldn't get far in the courts. Cook's canard would only be true if it were watered down to the point that hardly anyone would care: "The key to understanding the American system is to imagine that you have the power to make nearly any law you can convince a majority of legislators to enact. But if you pass a law that actually, like, does anything, you can count on the ACLU to gum it up in the courts for years. Once it makes it through that ordeal, if it does, be aware that some of the elected officials charged with enforcing that law will be members of the major party more closely aligned with your views, while others will members of the major party less closely aligned with your views." Na und?
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
This law has an entirely different view of what the proper relationship between the police and the public is.
We have two cases, Terry v. Ohio and Hibbel v. Nevada that basically say that if the police stop you for "reasonable suspicion of a crime" they can a) ask you to identify yourself, and b) detain you until your identity is verified.
Whether you like it or not that's the current case law on the subject.
SB 1070 was written very carefully with these precedents in mind. you can't be asked to show ID unless the stop already complies with the guidance set forth in Terry and Hibbel.
Also under federal law, immigrants have to have their ID (green card, etc) on them.
SB 1070 does not actually change anything with regard to "papers" other than make it an AZ crime to not have your alien registration papers on you if you are an alien.
If you are a citizen and do not have ID (and it's a Terry Stop) they can detain you until you can prove who you are, but they can already do that.
Now I don't happen to agree with Terry and Hibbel, but that's the current state of affairs.
Now the new law may or may not be a good idea, but it appears to be completely constitutional.
From what I've seen on the new law, I would have to agree with Mark. It almost seems that the immigartion status is a secondary offense, only to be checked upon a legal encounter with the police.
what is an improvement is that police are required to check if they have reasonable suspision as to immigration status.
It's a sign of just how desperate the times are that the bill is a plus in the "any chair in a bar fight" sense, because it's a thumb in Teh Won's eye.
My problem with this law is that it runs directly against the ideas that drove the Arizona legislature to pass Constitutional Carry: If we trust the residents of this state (not just citizens, as my very being here proves) with the right to carry a firearm for their protection without a permit slip from the government, how can we not entrust the residents of this state with the right to walk down a street without having to carry a permit slip from the government to do so?
If we believe that the citizen is the first line of defense against crime (and he/she is), we should be empowering the people of the affected communities with the tools and the relationships with law enforcement to accomplish this goal and not make them live in fear of the police who (should be) there to help protect them from the criminals in their midst.
This bill forces legal Hispanic residents of Arizona to take the side of criminals, and that saddens me beyond measure.
This is an argument that I've been on both sides of. Wether our laws apply to people who reside here or to people who are citizens of our country is a main street issue we should all consider. I don't think the answer is clear cut or the least bit obvious. Tell me how I'm wrong.
Speaking as a resident and not a citizen, all the laws of the country apply to residents and not just citizens. I have to submit to all the laws of this country, except I can't vote and I can't serve on jury duty.
I can be drafted (well, I could be drafted when I was a young 'un), and die for this country, but I cannot vote. Under Federal Law, I have to carry my green card (which in my case is actually white) at all times with me. I can own property, own a machine gun (or any other Class III firearm), get my FFL, you name it.
All the laws of this country apply to me, but I cannot vote.
And serve on jury duty. which ticks off my friends when they get their notices. :)
We have two cases, Terry v. Ohio and Hibbel v. Nevada that basically say that if the police stop you for "reasonable suspicion of a crime" they can a) ask you to identify yourself, and b) detain you until your identity is verified.
Those cases aren't really germane to this discussion. The law challenged in Hibbel merely required the person stopped to identify themselves orally NOT To provide government issued ID. IIRC Hibbel's 5th Amendment claim was also dismissed because providing his name to thet police was not in any way incriminating.
There are times where I carry no form of government ID on my person. I should not be compelled by law to do so.
It's one thing to say that we are required to provide our name to law enforcement upon request. It's another to require everyone to provide ID upon request.
Peel's first principle: "The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder."
The other principles can only apply when the first principle is actively being upheld. Allowing a bonafide invasion without doing anything seems like a dereliction of duty...
I think this thought you quoted is incomplete. There is a missing middle part.
"... you have the power to make nearly any law you want, but" the stupidest person you can think of will write it, and "your worst enemy will be the one to enforce it."
People getting wee-weed up about this law should remember that if the borders were secure we wouldn't need it. If we at some point decide to get serious about the border and actually secure it, then we will be relatively sure that the people here are here legally, and this law won't make any difference anymore.
Whether "all the laws" apply to residents or just to citizens is the wrong question. The right question is whether non-citizens should have all the rights and benefits of citizens. I say no -- that would make citizenship meaningless. Democrats say yes, because they get power from letting illegals vote and giving them money earned by citizens.
No, securing the border now is much like closing the barn door after half the residents have fled. It keeps the other half inside, but you still need to round up the ones who have already left.
As to the remainder of your point, I'm in agreement.
"The Obama administration’s plan is for the drones to patrol the border, and if a US government official notices a threat and tries to actually do something about it, the drone will be programmed to quickly eliminate said government official.
The only remaining question is whether or not Eric Holder’s review of the Arizona law will lead to a civil trial or a military tribunal for Governor Jan Brewer."
I'm not convinced this enbiggens the government, but I am sure it is not the law I would have passed to deal with this very real problem.
How it plays out from this point forward....?
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/04/cooks-postulate.html (18 comments)
I've had a lot of the same thoughts about this. My biggest problem with it is that it doesn't pass the Jews in the Attic test. I don't like the idea of papers, and having to prove who I am and that I have a right to be here...then I took a look in my wallet and realized, hell, I'm already carrying them every day. I don't think this really adds any burden on the a citizen. That burden is already there when it comes to dealing with police or government authorities. It's there when you're trying to get a new job (as I just did). It's only a real threat to illegals. The enemy already has enough laws to screw me over if he wants. This particular one, taken with all the others, just doesn't worry me (or wouldn't worry me if I were an Arizona resident).
I don't know what I think about the merits of the law, but I do think that the "big government" argument is a canard. Conservatives are not anarchists. They don't want government doing everything under the sun (that's what they're objecting to when they say "big government") but they do want government to do some things, and do to those things well. In fact, the inability to do all things well is one of the reasons conservatives often cite for opposing "big government" in the first place, i.e., that getting bogged down in the areas where government doesn't belong virtually guarantees mediocre performance (or worse) in the areas where it does. Few dispute that securing our borders is one of the things government is supposed to do. The only thing odd about this statute is that it has the state involving itself in an area normally reserved to the federal government. But that's a federalism question, not a big vs. small government one. And reasonable, IMO, given that in this case the federal government has clearly dropped the ball and is in no danger of picking it up anytime soon.
Will the new law pass Joe's uncommonly silly "Jews in the Attic" test? Of course not, but then again, neither will anything else. Joe says searches without probable cause don't pass that test. Hell, searches with probable cause don't, either. Once Nazi America passes a law making it a crime to either be or harbor a Jew, we're screwed no matter what. Not that Nazi America would abide by any of the procedural niceties the libertarians previously imposed on non-Nazi America, anyway. There's a reason why bringing up Hitler is generally regarded as proof you've lost the debate, not that you are winning it.
Nor is there more than a tiny shred of truth to the statement that the law will be enforced by your worst enemy. Criminal statutes can only be enforced by the D.A. or the AG, neither of whom is necessarily your best friend, but Nazis don't usually win those elections, either - and even if they did they wouldn't get far in the courts. Cook's canard would only be true if it were watered down to the point that hardly anyone would care: "The key to understanding the American system is to imagine that you have the power to make nearly any law you can convince a majority of legislators to enact. But if you pass a law that actually, like, does anything, you can count on the ACLU to gum it up in the courts for years. Once it makes it through that ordeal, if it does, be aware that some of the elected officials charged with enforcing that law will be members of the major party more closely aligned with your views, while others will members of the major party less closely aligned with your views." Na und?
From Peele's Principles:
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
This law has an entirely different view of what the proper relationship between the police and the public is.
We have two cases, Terry v. Ohio and Hibbel v. Nevada that basically say that if the police stop you for "reasonable suspicion of a crime" they can a) ask you to identify yourself, and b) detain you until your identity is verified.
Whether you like it or not that's the current case law on the subject.
SB 1070 was written very carefully with these precedents in mind. you can't be asked to show ID unless the stop already complies with the guidance set forth in Terry and Hibbel.
Also under federal law, immigrants have to have their ID (green card, etc) on them.
SB 1070 does not actually change anything with regard to "papers" other than make it an AZ crime to not have your alien registration papers on you if you are an alien.
If you are a citizen and do not have ID (and it's a Terry Stop) they can detain you until you can prove who you are, but they can already do that.
Now I don't happen to agree with Terry and Hibbel, but that's the current state of affairs.
Now the new law may or may not be a good idea, but it appears to be completely constitutional.
Speaking of "law": www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNvEZuP-t3g&NR=1
From what I've seen on the new law, I would have to agree with Mark. It almost seems that the immigartion status is a secondary offense, only to be checked upon a legal encounter with the police.
what is an improvement is that police are required to check if they have reasonable suspision as to immigration status.
It's a sign of just how desperate the times are that the bill is a plus in the "any chair in a bar fight" sense, because it's a thumb in Teh Won's eye.
Hammer meets nailhead.
My problem with this law is that it runs directly against the ideas that drove the Arizona legislature to pass Constitutional Carry: If we trust the residents of this state (not just citizens, as my very being here proves) with the right to carry a firearm for their protection without a permit slip from the government, how can we not entrust the residents of this state with the right to walk down a street without having to carry a permit slip from the government to do so?
If we believe that the citizen is the first line of defense against crime (and he/she is), we should be empowering the people of the affected communities with the tools and the relationships with law enforcement to accomplish this goal and not make them live in fear of the police who (should be) there to help protect them from the criminals in their midst.
This bill forces legal Hispanic residents of Arizona to take the side of criminals, and that saddens me beyond measure.
This is an argument that I've been on both sides of. Wether our laws apply to people who reside here or to people who are citizens of our country is a main street issue we should all consider. I don't think the answer is clear cut or the least bit obvious. Tell me how I'm wrong.
Speaking as a resident and not a citizen, all the laws of the country apply to residents and not just citizens. I have to submit to all the laws of this country, except I can't vote and I can't serve on jury duty.
I can be drafted (well, I could be drafted when I was a young 'un), and die for this country, but I cannot vote. Under Federal Law, I have to carry my green card (which in my case is actually white) at all times with me. I can own property, own a machine gun (or any other Class III firearm), get my FFL, you name it.
All the laws of this country apply to me, but I cannot vote.
And serve on jury duty. which ticks off my friends when they get their notices. :)
We have two cases, Terry v. Ohio and Hibbel v. Nevada that basically say that if the police stop you for "reasonable suspicion of a crime" they can a) ask you to identify yourself, and b) detain you until your identity is verified.
Those cases aren't really germane to this discussion. The law challenged in Hibbel merely required the person stopped to identify themselves orally NOT To provide government issued ID. IIRC Hibbel's 5th Amendment claim was also dismissed because providing his name to thet police was not in any way incriminating.
There are times where I carry no form of government ID on my person. I should not be compelled by law to do so.
It's one thing to say that we are required to provide our name to law enforcement upon request. It's another to require everyone to provide ID upon request.
Peel's first principle: "The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder."
The other principles can only apply when the first principle is actively being upheld. Allowing a bonafide invasion without doing anything seems like a dereliction of duty...
I think this thought you quoted is incomplete. There is a missing middle part.
"... you have the power to make nearly any law you want, but" the stupidest person you can think of will write it, and "your worst enemy will be the one to enforce it."
People getting wee-weed up about this law should remember that if the borders were secure we wouldn't need it. If we at some point decide to get serious about the border and actually secure it, then we will be relatively sure that the people here are here legally, and this law won't make any difference anymore.
Whether "all the laws" apply to residents or just to citizens is the wrong question. The right question is whether non-citizens should have all the rights and benefits of citizens. I say no -- that would make citizenship meaningless. Democrats say yes, because they get power from letting illegals vote and giving them money earned by citizens.
No, securing the border now is much like closing the barn door after half the residents have fled. It keeps the other half inside, but you still need to round up the ones who have already left.
As to the remainder of your point, I'm in agreement.
"The Obama administration’s plan is for the drones to patrol the border, and if a US government official notices a threat and tries to actually do something about it, the drone will be programmed to quickly eliminate said government official.
The only remaining question is whether or not Eric Holder’s review of the Arizona law will lead to a civil trial or a military tribunal for Governor Jan Brewer."
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/04/28/obama-make-illegals-register-and-learn-english/
I didn't make the big government argument as much as the "we have to do something" argument. (Specifically, I think I cited Johnny Utah http://planetutah.typepad.com/planet_utah/2010/03/why-im-unhappy-tonight.html ) I think it was Exurban Kevin who specified this is the GOPs big government moment.
I'm not convinced this enbiggens the government, but I am sure it is not the law I would have passed to deal with this very real problem.
How it plays out from this point forward....?
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>