Here are a few libertarian critiques of the Arizona immigration law.
Shikha Dalmia argues that Europe’s stringent immigration laws are no model for the U.S.
these countries are doing a far more effective job of controlling their citizens than their borders–exactly what will happen in the United States if the Arizona law is replicated or federalized. Indeed, given that the overwhelming majority of undocumented workers are here because some American employer or family member wants them to be, there is no way to clamp down on them without imposing a vast, repressive state on American citizens that criminalizes ever-increasing spheres of life. . . .
the claim that the bill doesn’t apply to citizens is disingenuous. Regardless of what the law says, dark-skinned, naturalized citizens with an accent (like me) will inevitably feel the pressure to carry their papers around at all times. That’s because if you can’t produce them on demand, under Arizona law, you would have to be detained while the local police verify your status with immigration authorities–which will put you on the road to Kafkaland, where your freedom could be held hostage by a typographical error. The upshot will be a dual class of citizens on American soil: Paper-carrying and non-paper-carrying.This is very similar to the situation in Italy, where the law does not require citizens to carry their identification papers–but if they don’t have them, they have to face the prospect of being detained and hassled while authorities conduct a background check.
The only way of making the Arizona law less discriminatory will be by making it more draconian by implementing a full-blown National Identification system that covers all Americans, as in France and Belgium . In France random ID checks by police, especially in poorer neighborhoods, are quite common. And in Belgium, on the threat of fines, everyone over the age of 15 is required by law to carry an identity card complete with an electronic chip full of personal information.
More from Roger Koppl here and Steven Chapman here and here.
yankee says:
What about the fundamental libertarian criticism that our immigration policy is too restrictive, and stepping up enforcement of a bad law is a step in the wrong direction?
There’s no shortage of unskilled laborers from Latin America who want to come here and work, and no shortage of people who are willing to pay them, which is why we have all this illegal migration in the first place. But for practical purposes there’s no visa program under which an unskilled Latin American without a citizen family member can enter the country. The EB-3 visa requirements are extremely restrictive and only about 5,000 are issued a year, which makes getting one a practical impossibility. The majority of Latin America (including Mexico) isn’t even eligible for the diversity lottery.
In the face of so much demonstrated demand for unskilled workers from Latin America, you don’t have to be an open-borders enthusiast to oppose a near-total ban on immigration by unskilled Latin American workers. I find it hard to see anything remotely libertarian about the current regime.
April 29, 2010, 11:21 pmJohn Moore says:
Total nonsense.
The most important part of the solution is to implement effective border control. With that, we wouldn’t have the huge public demand here in AZ for action against illegals. Arguably we are being invaded, and have the right to fight back. If it takes a law like this, its only because the feds have failed to even come close to doing their job.
If this makes some people second class citizens, then too bad – they should be advocating strongly for border control. Then nobody will be suspicious of them.
BTW, the claim that dark skinned people will be targeted is overblown. If you live here, it’s pretty easy to recognize most illegals – it isn’t just that they are Latin Americans, but also their dress, their behavior and their types of work. In other words, they fit a profile. Furthermore, police are not going to go out of their way to harrass these folks – they have more important things to do (except for our wacky Sheriff Joe, who didn’t wait for the law anyway). The law will primarily involve people who are already confronting police due to an infraction.
Stop the invasion, and we can get rid of the law.
April 29, 2010, 11:36 pmLarryA says:
One of the problems in this issue is the label “immigration.” In my experience most of the undocumented workers coming from the south do not want to “immigrate,” i.e. move permanently to the U.S. If there was a guest worker program in place they would be more than happy to enter the U.S., work through a season or for a limited job, then return south.
April 29, 2010, 11:38 pmSmokey Behr says:
Let’s make it real easy for everyone concerned.
We’ll simply make our immigration laws mirror those of Mexico. Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Re-entry, after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Law enforcement officials at all levels, by national mandate, must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations.
April 29, 2010, 11:59 pmyankee says:
I don’t think it’s a defense to “dark-skinned people will be targeted” to say “being dark-skinned is part of the ‘profile,’ but not all dark-skinned people fit the profile.”
That’s a definite overstatement, as the law removes a substantial amount of discretion from law enforcement. The law doesn’t just apply to people who confront the police due to an infraction, it applies to “any lawful contact,” whether as perpetrator, victim, witness, or donut-store clerk. Police also don’t have the discretion to decide they have more important things to do: police must investigate anyone who they have reasonable suspicion to believe is here unlawfully, provided it is “practicable” to do so. The only exception is if the determination would “hinder or obstruct an investigation.”
April 30, 2010, 12:00 amChris Travers says:
I am going to take this from a different direction but one which is probably in line with most Libertarian commenters (again I don’t identify with political labels).
I oppose this law but there is one thing I will say in its defence: the relationship between state and federal governments in many areas has become very dysfunctional, and quite frankly a lot of what the federal government does in this area involves essentially commandeering state resources. For example, instead of taking a sick detainee to a hospital where the government would have to pay the bill, they release detainees near hospitals so that they will be covered as indigents. IMO, that’s patently immoral, but as I suppose the Libertarians know, government is inherently immoral, especially as it grows to be bigger and bigger.
At it’s best I will say that an attempt to provoke a confrontation with the federal government may be necessary just because it is a confrontation with the federal government. In general I agree with the critiques of the Arizona law, but someone needs to stand up to the federal government regarding how they are commandeering state resources in this manner.
April 30, 2010, 12:07 amJKB says:
Yes, because the possibility that Arizona law enforcement are might make a reasonable effort to determine the immigration status a person they are lawfully in contact with is so much worse than the Stop and Frisk program that has been run by NYC for over a decade.
A program that last year “new statistics showing that police officers stopped a record 575,000 people last year — nearly 90 percent black or Hispanic — and that the number of stops is growing as crime falls.”
That’s a bit more than checking someone’s immigration status after developing a reasonable suspicion.
April 30, 2010, 12:08 amLe Messurier says:
Hardly a valid complaint. A driver’s license (as one example)is sufficient proof under the law. Heck, I’m as Anglo looking as one can get and I carry my dl when I walk my dog. And by the way, the law is already working, even before it goes into effect. A local illegal here in Phoenix was interviewed and said she was leaving Arizona because of the law. It broke my heart
April 30, 2010, 12:15 amGatoratlaw says:
The far left wants an European welfare state and the far right wants an European surveillance state. There are less draconian ways to accomplish the bill proponents’ goals, such as punishing employers who hire illegals.
I sincerely hope this place doesn’t become a far-right echo chamber, at least as far as the commentators are concerned.
April 30, 2010, 12:17 amLeeW says:
“Reasonable suspicion” is an objective parameter that, I believe, allows officers wide discretion in making personal determinations when they would choose to find someone suspicious.
There has been much chatter about what is wrong with the AZ law. Much of which I find to be fairly overreaching. However, what I haven’t seen or heard is what some of these talking heads would propose as a reform of the federal immigration laws. Do we embrace Bush’s guest worker program? Do we put in place another amnesty like Reagan did? Do we just open the borders?
I am not being sarcastic. I am trying to see if there is a viable solution that would make sense to a majority of our citizens. As I see it, any reform that falls short of open borders or a decision to fully enforce existing laws just leads us back to this same situation in a decade or so.
April 30, 2010, 12:22 amJKB says:
Oh and let’s not overlook the database being kept on those 90% of New Yorkers stopped but finally let go on their way. Remember these aren’t people who are in lawful contact with law enforcement until law enforcement see a “furtive movement” or something and that the police lay hands on the individuals.
April 30, 2010, 12:25 amKen Arromdee says:
As I’ve said before, being libertarian about immigration law without being libertarian about everything else is like incompletely deregulating an industry–incompletely making something libertarian can easily be worse than not making it libertarian at all.
It’s true that libertarian principles say that there should be free immigration, but libertarian principles also say that 1) people should not receive social services from the government, which would discourage immigration, and 2) Mexico should be libertarian as well–it doesn’t get to be non-libertarian, make it good for its citizens to sneak into the US, and get to export the consequences of its own government policies.
If there were no government social services (at least none available to immigrants), and if Mexico was libertarian and therefore did not have mismanaged government that encourages immigration from Mexico, then libertarians should support free immigration. But that’s not so. It would be foolish to have libertarian free immigration without also having the libertarian policies that mitigate the problems of free immigration.
Furthermore, most libertarians do believe in government intervention to stop force and fraud. The government should not look the other way when immigrants trespass, damage property, or commit violent crimes.
Also, the original article fails to comprehend that a driver’s license is sufficient proof under the Arizona law. I suppose if a driver’s license counts as “papers” you’ll have to carry your papers around, but the implication that you have to carry some expensive document that cannot be replaced and which police must take a great deal of time to verify is not true.
April 30, 2010, 12:29 amMark E. Horning says:
1) secure the border.
2) increase the number of permanent legal admitees from South America
3) A large guest worker program similar to the old Bracero program. 6-9 month visa
4) Criminal aliens get deported. Criminal guest workers are not allowed to renew their guest worker visa for 5 years or more depending on the severity of the crime.
After you did that, there may be a way to talk about normalization of existing illegals, but any solution acceptable by the American people is going to be heavily predicated on 1)
April 30, 2010, 12:41 amrequired says:
Not a good attack on the libertarian view, I’ve yet to see a libertarian argue that NYC’s stop-and-frisk program is reasonable.
April 30, 2010, 12:55 amChris Travers says:
I think the stop and frisk programs clearly violate the 4th Amendment.
April 30, 2010, 1:02 amAriel says:
The crisis of illegal immigration is not being addressed, it is being facilitated. I pray California adopts stringent laws against illegal immigration. – This law might ruffle a few feathers, but it is by far drastically the lessor evil over surrendering our country to people who are here illegally… and aside from that cause far more crime than our citizens.
In California, New Mexico, Arizona, or Texas… take a visit to Home Depot, or U-haul and Ryder truck rentals… there is a GREAT place to ask for proof of citizenship. All you hear is, “Labor? Labor?”
April 30, 2010, 1:03 amSteve says:
The fundamental problem is that the economic effects of immigration are so poorly understood. There is a fairly broad consensus among experts, but most people continue to believe that immigrants are a huge drain on our economy, take jobs away from deserving Americans, commit crimes in large numbers, etc. The elites are afraid to try to overcome these deeply ingrained attitudes, but they’re unwilling to bear responsibility for the economic collapse that would result from implementing the wishes of the majority on immigration, and so the issue continues to simmer.
April 30, 2010, 1:06 amChris Travers says:
I rarely keep my driver license on me except when I am driving, am about to drive somewhere, etc. Heck if I am going to walk to the liquor store (which I do occasionally), I don’t often carry my driver’s license. Of course I have a few gray hairs so I don’t have to worry about being ID’d. Heck if I am driving around town I sometimes forget it…. (Of course I often forget to put proof of insurance in the car too….) Of course, if I get pulled over and have forgotten these, it’s a small fine and a major hassle (since I end up having to go to the courthouse an hour away to present the documentation and pay the court costs to have the clerk remove the ticket), but that isn’t common.
April 30, 2010, 1:08 amChris Travers says:
I don’t think you can get to 1 without 2, 3, and 4…..
April 30, 2010, 1:10 amBlue says:
You jest, Steve. Elites have worked tirelessly to try and overcome mass public resistance to illegal immigrants–resistance that makes perfect sense from an economic perspective among working class citizens who see their wages decline as a result of the importation of cheap unskilled labor.
Oh, and can we please dispense with the ridiculous notions that 1) removing illegal immigrants would create an economic collapse and 2) that the rate of criminality among illegals means anything. (It is a zero sum game–every crime committed is a crime that should not have occurred.)
April 30, 2010, 1:11 amChris Travers says:
I think that wins the thread….
April 30, 2010, 1:13 amMurgatroyd says:
If I understand the Arizona law, it does nothing that Federal immigration laws do not already encompass, including the requirement that non-citizens carry identification. Those who object to the Arizona law, especially those who live in other states, seem to be barking up the wrong tree: if you don’t like Arizona’s compliance with Federal laws, then change the Federal laws.
April 30, 2010, 1:18 amSteve says:
Elites have worked tirelessly to try and overcome mass public resistance to illegal immigrants–resistance that makes perfect sense from an economic perspective among working class citizens who see their wages decline as a result of the importation of cheap unskilled labor.
You misunderstand me. I was not saying that elites have gone along with the populist consensus on immigration, which obviously they have not. I was simply pointing out that they have made insufficient effort to educate people about the economic realities, probably because they doubt their ability to overcome entrenched attitudes. That is why many people continue to believe intuitive but false propositions like “unskilled immigration exerts significant downward pressure on wages.”
April 30, 2010, 1:40 amSteve says:
I don’t think it can win the thread, it’s basically a straight paraphrase of the linked article.
April 30, 2010, 1:41 amMark E. Horning says:
And I don’t think the American people will accept 2 and 3 without 1 first. Bit of a conundrum.
April 30, 2010, 1:55 amChris Travers says:
I think the only approach is to go all four approaches at once.
April 30, 2010, 2:05 amAaron says:
No, it’s not. A driver’s license is not proof of citizenship by any means. Birth certificate and passport are the (common) ones for the native born, and naturalization certificates for the foreign born.
The upshot is that citizens who don’t have these on them, but are suspected of being an alien will be rounded up and detained until their citizenship status can be verified — and I expect that on occasion Kafkaesque mistakes will be made.
April 30, 2010, 3:00 amMark N. says:
The law explicitly says, though, that police are to accept an AZ driver’s license as sufficient proof of citizenship, for the purpose of deciding whether to detain people under this law. I.e. if you show the officer an AZ driver’s license, by statute he has to conclude that you’re a citizen and let you go, even though you’re correct that a license isn’t normally proof of citizenship.
What does seem somewhat problematic is that only AZ driver’s licenses get this special status. When I drive through Arizona on I-10 with my TX driver’s license, if a cop suspects me of being an illegal alien, could they really hold me for a day while I get my passport FedExed from Houston? Makes me wary of driving through Arizona if my TX license isn’t sufficient proof of citizenship, because it’s usually the only identification I carry on me.
April 30, 2010, 3:19 amAaron says:
That’s not in the copy I found, which may indeed have been an earlier version. Can you provide a link to the law-as-passed, and tell me the section to look in?
April 30, 2010, 3:27 amAaron says:
Ah, I found it: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/laws/0113.htm
Much easier to discuss things with the full-text there.
This presumption is right at the front, and makes the law much less bad in my eyes.
April 30, 2010, 3:33 amFoobarista says:
A big problem is labor law. It’s nearly impossible to legally hire a day laborer without breaking some law or another, so you may as well hire someone who’s already breaking the law. Same with most low-end regular employment – in a place like California, the various sorts of insurance and other stuff needed to hire a worker can double their cost if hired legally.
So given that the body of law is expensive and mostly ignored by the government, it will be ignored by everyone else and markets will develop that have priced in the off-the-books nature of the employment – or the jobs simply leave if that isn’t an option.
So, until the government makes it easier to hire casual or low-skilled workers, these workers and jobs will exist in the gray economy. The best workers for this gray economy are outlaw workers.
April 30, 2010, 4:07 amPinandpuller says:
Here in Tennessee you have to present a picture ID to enter a bar or buy alcohol anywhere. No tickey-no booze.
April 30, 2010, 4:37 amPinandpuller says:
This will forever be known as the “Born in East LA Scenario”.
April 30, 2010, 4:40 amBrett Bellmore says:
Wrong. The law explicitly states that any federal, state, or local ID which requires proof of citizenship for issuance is acceptable. That’s not just AZ driver’s licenses. Granted, a lot of the states are fighting the Real ID law’s requirements in this respect, but AZ is hardly the ONLY state complying.
April 30, 2010, 6:39 amOhReginaldIDisagree says:
The arguments against are disingenuous. Simply throwing out like “all brown skinned folks will carry papers” is such BS and not supported by any case law. Given that we allow searches based on police officers saying “it smells like weed in here”; I’m certain there will be more objective evidence to run immigration checks on folks in Arizona. Of course, the same people who would argue against the “smells like weed” searches are the same who argue against this law.
Let’s do a thought experiment. “Walking around while Hispanic” is not reasonable suspicion of being here illegally.
“Soliciting work on the corner” is not reasonable suspicion of being here illegally. Heck, I’m not even sure (given Virginia v. Harris) that simply “walking in the desert at night with other people” is reasonable suspicion, but one might be getting closer (as is the “driving a car with people in the trunk”).
Off the top of my head I can think of things like: “Driving without a license and insurance” (which would apply to all people not just folks whose skin is a different color); “Driving without proper registration” (again, this would apply to all people). It would be reasonable to me if someone is an “undocumented driver” they might be an “undocumented alien”… but that is about it; and even if someone forgets their license but has insurance it might not even evoke reasonable suspicion.
I wouldn’t think simply getting stopped for “speeding” or “running a stop sign” is reasonable suspicion that someone is here illegally. Yet that’s what opponents against this bill would leads us to believe. Really, are these people lawyers who understand case law and “reasonable suspicion”, or are they people who have some political agenda they want to perpetuate? By all means feel free to perpetuate that agenda; don’t do so in such a fear-mongering manner. I really think it would be funny for courts to overturn a law which incorporates “reasonable suspicion”, did that term begin in the courts?
But I guess if you can fool most of the people with this type of FUD, than its a legitimate method. If I’m wrong someone please correct me. I would think the police officers would be asking their lawyers to draft up some rules on what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” prior to enforcing the law, simply to cover their rears.
April 30, 2010, 7:36 ammikeyes says:
Evidentally Senator Schumer proposed 1) tightening the border, 2) strict rules allowing illegal aliens to become citizens after scrutiny, 3) a “biometric” Social Security card that all workers have to present in order to obtain work, 4) a guest worker program similar to the Bush proposal.
The Republicans categorically oppose this even though it sounds like they could have proposed it 2 years ago. http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=314990 for the details.
One very good thing this law has done is spotlight the issues, The organization of AZ police chiefs has asked Congress to address these issues in order to resolve them.
April 30, 2010, 7:46 amEdward Lunny says:
Would that these millions of illegals, and their apologists, put forth as much effort in fixing their homes as they do in breaking our laws and creating excuses for doing so. Of course that wouldn’t necetate all of this drama about our immigration policies.
April 30, 2010, 7:46 amOhReginaldIDisagree says:
Regarding immigration reform, in my mind it is a false solution to say “we need a comprehensive solution”. The solution I have advocated for, gosh it must be 6 years now; is that the Federal government vigorously enforce the immigration laws we have, build a lot more border walls and then, after they’ve shown they can enforce the law grant some type of “amnesty” via a guest worker program which includes a path to citizenship. However, in the interim I think there needs to be a program set up that will allow employers to maintain critical employees (if they feel as such) who are undocumented and get caught during the enforcement phase. The upshot for those current illegals is they go to the “front of the line” when some type of guest worker plan is implemented. The employers would have to strongly show they are unable to hire an American to do the work, additionally I think we need to link some of this to unemployment rolls. And… at this point my head is rolling with complexities as unemployment is a state issue, immigration is a Federal issue.
With health care the Federal government showed they can implement some solutions now, and defer other solutions until 2014. So why can’t they implement enforcement now, and amnesty in 2020? Oh, I know why, its because the American people aren’t convinced there are “jobs Americans won’t do”, even if I think such a proposition is likely (living in Southern California I’ve never seen a white person working in the fields). Personally I’d like the solution to “jobs Americans won’t do” to be economical, as in maybe those jobs would have Americans doing them if they paid more… and then you get into the BS like “That will cause $20 heads of lettuce”. I didn’t realize we had a right to exploit cheap labor in this country. Not to mention it is the state taxpayers who subsidize the things the cheap employers won’t pay for.
And people wonder why Americans are angry about illegal immigration? All the costs are offloaded to the taxpayer, and the employer is probably skimming from the worker as well.
April 30, 2010, 7:59 amBen P says:
How much of a tax increase are you willing to bear to pay for it?
April 30, 2010, 8:06 amOhReginaldIDisagree says:
mikeyes,
Its the same solution American people like me have rejected, for the past 6 years. In 1986 we granted amnesty with the promise that border enforcement would happen. Fool me once, shame on you… fool me tw- CAN’T FOOL ME AGAIN!
The simple fact is no Executive Branch has ever enforced the laws vigorously enough to solve or prevent the problem in the future. Nor have they shown a will or desire for it. This is all based on the unspoken politics of business support for cheap labor (which a guest worker program would reinforce), which I actually believe is 80% of the rationale and allegedly a political voting block.
So even though in some ideal world I’ll fool myself into thinking “hey, its different this time” I come to the conclusion that the status quo just works better instead of pretending to solve the problem only to re-open it in another 10 years. I have sympathy to the cheap labor working here, but I know their children and future generations are inherently benefiting, and integrating which is good enough for me.
Schumer’s bill is the same political kabuki we’ve seen again and again that has been rejected by the American people. Until I see extensive walls on the southern and northern border, I don’t want to hear anymore about “comprehensive immigration reform”. Until I see any Executive Branch mount a sustained effort at cracking down on illegal immigration, I don’t want to hear about it. There really seems to be no enforcement even against the violent illegal immigrants importing crime (ie. Phoenix is now the kidnapping capital).
April 30, 2010, 8:11 amBen P says:
From what you wrote, I think you might be confused.
Setting aside whether or not any of this can rationally be applied to the question of whether or not you can tell if a person is in this country illegally, there’s two different standards.
The first is “reasonable suspicion.” This is the terry stop standard. In other contexts, it requires the officer have “specific articulable facts” that lead him to believe a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. Once the officer has “reasonable suspicion” he can stop someone long enough to dispel that suspicion. Under terry, if he believes the people to be dangerous, he can can conduct a pat down search. Under Hiibel, if the state has a stop and identify law, he can require that person to give his name. The supreme court has never ruled on a statute that requires more than a name.
On the other hand, “probable cause” is “reasonable belief that a crime has been committed.” It’s a higher standard, and has been also described as the reasonable belief that there is a “substantial chance” or “fair probability” that a crime has been committed.
Under the Arizona law as I read it, if an officer has “specific articulable facts” to believe that a person may be unlawfully present in the United States, he’s required* to investigate their status.
If that investigation ripens into a reasonable belief that they are in the country illegally, and they are unable to present documentation. He more than likely has probable cause to arrest them until that determination can be made.
*required Unless it’s “not practicable” or it “would interfere with a criminal investigation.”
In Kobach’s defense he talks about “lots of people in a car, in a known corridor, and an evasive driver.”
That particular situation probably does create “reasonable suspicion.” that people are in the car. It’s a bit weak to provide the perfect situation and then argue that the law as a whole is not vague on that point, but there are situations where something like that can exist. Even in that situation, if the people in the car are all white teenagers, would the outcome be different?
April 30, 2010, 8:23 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
I don’t understand. Are you planning to shoplift when you get there? Or do you frequently take your license out of your wallet, just to admire your own picture, and then forget to replace it?
April 30, 2010, 8:31 amjames says:
Yeah we should use Mexico as our gold standard. That makes perfect sense.
April 30, 2010, 9:00 amStephen Lathrop says:
Here is one reason that proposition seems intuitive to me: try to find a labor economist who won’t say that a 2% shift in the unemployment rate is a major determiner of wage trends. That’s just standard. Most economists would fly into a bug-eyed panic if you had unemployment at 5%, and six months later it was at 3%. They would predict end-of-the world inflation driven by skyrocketing wages. Turn the proposition around and enlarge the work force 2% with immigration, and for some reason it’s not the same. I don’t get it.
April 30, 2010, 9:15 amAngus says:
Let’s be honest here. Most conservatives are never going to go for #2 or #3. Period. A large number (my sense is a clear majority) are for fewer overall immigrants coming to the country.
April 30, 2010, 9:32 ammikeyes says:
OK, let’s reject the Schumer proposal which includes a transition to citizenship if you learn English, pay your taxes and have not committed a crime in 8 years. Let’s reject the national ID card. Let’s reject any solution to the border problem other than building a wall. As John Boehner says, “these are a cynical ploy to try to engage voters, some segment of voters, to show up in this November’s elections.”
What do we do with the 11 million illegal aliens already here? The logical solution is to
find them and then deport them leaving their children behind if the children wish to stay and put them in foster homes. I’m all for that.
The logical consequence is to accept the economic damage such a move would make and I will accept that too.
Of course in order to accomplish this you would have to have a direct or indirect national ID system (which we have already rejected), a vast increase in law enforcement and administrative budgets and the wall.
Just how long will it take to rid us of these illegals assuming full cooperation of all law enforcement? How much would it cost? What is the economic effect on this country of such a policy? And since this is a blog on the constitution, what are the ways such a law can be written and still pass muster?
April 30, 2010, 9:38 amAngus says:
We could even build them in tribute to the Berlin Wall, that noted symbol of freedom!!!
April 30, 2010, 9:55 amCarlsson says:
Murgatroyd has it right: the AZ law does not impose any obligations on aliens that are not already found in federal law; and it does not violate any rights of aliens that are guaranteed by federal law.
The problem, for a libertarian, is this: there are federal laws that say (i) control the border, and (ii) find and deport illegal aliens, but neither is enforced. And, the central point, the federal pols do not want the laws enforced, for political reasons.
What’s a poor libertarian to do with that? As pointed out above, opening the borders may be the ideal, but that’s impractical in a welfare state with a poor neighbor to the south. So, I say with libertarian zeal and gusto, let’s abolish the welfare state and legalize drugs, and then we can let all peoples and all the drugs come in freely. As a matter of fact, I’d support that — any day, all day. Getting rid of the welfare state, that is.
But until that happens, if ever, we’re stuck looking for a second-best solution. And, as a libertarian, I still believe that laws should be enforced, even if they aren’t the laws I’d like to see on the books, because I’m firmly wedded to a society of laws. So my problem is this: if the federal pols don’t want to enforce their own laws, and can’t agree on how to change them, should I oppose a State taking it upon itself to enforce federal laws? I don’t think so. If I don’t like what AZ is doing, I just avoid going there. My choice. If I’m an illegal and don’t like the AZ law, I can go to CA or NM. Also my choice. As a libertarian, I believe in reasonable federalism, and personal choice. If Congress does not want AZ to make state laws to enforce federal laws, let Congress change the laws and take the political heat.
So, as a libertarian, I recognize that I have to compromise on my ideals, in a world where there are soo many interference-loving nanny-statists to contend with. How far can I compromise and still call myself a libertarian? I don’t know.
But I do know this: I’m increasingly beginning to support State (not Federal) issued, tamper-proof ID cards for all legal residents, but only if a State also mandated showing those ID cards when voting. I believe we’re facing a public policy crisis in two areas, illegal immigration and voter fraud. I’d accept the infringement on my personal liberties to solve both.
Maybe I’ve now sacrificed so much that I’m no longer a libertarian, and I’m showing my European immigrant roots. But I feel that both immigration laws and the voter franchise are key elements of a society, and the US is failing desperately in both areas.
April 30, 2010, 10:23 amGatoratlaw says:
Even in the (unlikely) event this law is upheld, this is just another way for cops to invite themselves into our lives, for whatever reason. And it seems a lot of people just can’t wait.
April 30, 2010, 10:23 ammikeyes says:
Again, the main value of the AZ law is a renewed focus on the problem.
Here is the Shumer response. It is quite extensive.
What else would you want to put in it?
April 30, 2010, 10:26 amThorley Winston says:
That’s (mostly) correct. The Arizona law actually allows any form of federal, State or local government issued identification that requires proof of legal presence in the United States (as opposed to citizenship) for its issuance to be accepted. That would include both citizens and legal immigrants as well.
April 30, 2010, 10:36 amDarel Finkbeiner says:
I read that piece by Dalmia before coming here. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems to boil down to “Nazis!” (Though, to be fair, it’s more “European Fascists!”) I find it unconvincing, as I do most of her writing.
April 30, 2010, 10:40 amThorley Winston says:
If the individuals who meet those criteria were actually interested in becoming citizens, they probably could have done so already if they had followed the law in the first place.
Considering that the major objection to Arizona’s law seems to be the possibility that a citizen might be asked to show proof of their identity during a lawful encounter with law enforcement, I don’t see how a national ID card is an improvement over that. If anything, it would likely be more objectionable coming from the federal rather than State level.
I don’t think anyone has said that. What a lot of people will reject is any proposal that they think includes anything that smacks of an “amnesty” or a reward to people who have broken the law because they assume – based on experience with the 1986 law – that it will just encourage even more people to break the law in anticipation of another amnesty.
Or the parents take their kids with them (who can return later if they’re citizens when they’re adults). The parents do not have the right to be here and shouldn’t be able to use their kids to stay but that doesn’t require them to terminate their parental rights.
April 30, 2010, 11:01 amgeokstr says:
More patently phony moral equivalence from a true believer in the Religion of St. Karl.
A wall that is built to keep illegal invaders out, because it’s so (relatively) wonderful to be here, is the same as a wall to keep desperate escapees in, because it’s so (literally) awful to be there. What the heck, they’re both walls, and so should be condemned equally, right?
This is the same as comparing a guy who pushes old ladies in front of speeding buses to a guy who risks his life to push old ladies out of the path of speeding buses, and saying they’re both equally bad because they both push old ladies around.
Only a supporter of killing old ladies could make this bizarre equivalency with a straight conscience. Although, according to their other patron saint, St Saul, a conscience is just for losers anyways.
Oh, and by the way, Angus, that wall in Berlin was put up by the true believers in the philosophy you hold dear, not by right-wingers.
April 30, 2010, 11:22 amThorley Winston says:
“Comprehensive reform” is an automatic deal breaker after the health care debacle.
Break each component into a separate standalone bill (no tying the promise of enforcement to a “guest worker” program) and let each one be judged on their individual merits.
Do that and then we’ll talk.
April 30, 2010, 11:22 amElliot says:
Seems like the problem is Arizona stood up and shouted, “The emperor has no clothes!” Now, all the usual suspects are rushing to cover up their complete incompetence and negligence.
April 30, 2010, 11:22 amgeokstr says:
Thorley, best get used to the silence then. You see, your proposal does not contain the guarantee of a solidly reliable Democratic voting bloc 20-million strong that the left demands. It’s gotta have amnesty in there somewhere for that.
April 30, 2010, 11:31 ammikeyes says:
Thorley,
I was just being literalist with what OhReginaldIDisagree said which sounded like “Let’s build a wall and ignore what Senator Schumer wants” to follow it to its logical conclusions. Of course the solution for the immigration problem is going to involve a lot of discussion (more goes on here than in Congress), vetting of ideas and political will. It is going to involve the input of persons who disagree with each other and a good compromise reached.
Schumer is, at least, offering something and judging by the response on both the right and left getting some response. The Republicans not so much. I know they have good worthwhile ideas if they ever let them out.
I am not proposing that the Schumer or the OhReginaldIDisagree responses are the end point of this discussion. They are clearly a beginning, but there are some points with which a lot of us can agree in principle. The AZ law is making this type of discussion more likely whether you like the law or not. The problems will not go away and solutions – none of which will have universal acceptance – have to be found.
I’m not a fan of an Universal ID even though (by choice) I have a passport and military IDs. I don’t like the idea of illegal aliens but I do like cheap food. I also have respect for my immigrant ancestors, some of whom were here in a suspect manner, and understand why economic refugees come to this great country. I’m conflicted on parts of the problem like a lot of Americans. It is not a simple and easy problem to solve.
April 30, 2010, 11:31 amAngus says:
Nice strawman, there. I suppose I should say that you hold dear an ideology that bakes people in ovens?
And, by the way, if you knew your history you would know that there were two reasons for the Berlin Wall:
April 30, 2010, 11:33 am-Keep East Germans from defecting to the West
-Keep Americans and their allies out of East Germany
Martinned says:
Huh?? I thought this was a story about Mexicans. Now you have a problem with all thos illegal immigrants from Canada, too?
April 30, 2010, 11:35 amgeokstr says:
Talk about straw people.
And the Nazis were just another variant of socialists, and were lionized by the same people here in the US along with the USSR until they committed the mortal sin of invading the motherland.
April 30, 2010, 11:38 amJaimeInTexas (Jam) says:
1) I support the AZ law but if it becomes a “your papers, please” at any moment I will support getting rid of the law.
2) I would support open immigration and I am willing to implement open immigration when:
a) we no longer have welfare
b) we no longer have citizenship by virtue of being born in a State in Union
c) we no longer have government owned parks, roads, etc
3) Murray Rothbard concluded that there is no right of immigration because there is no right of entry into private property. If all property is private then …
4) I wish that every time that Mexico states anything about these uS immigration laws that Mexico be asked, in a very public manner, these three questions:
a) What is the penalty for illegally entering Mexico?
b) What is the penalty for illegally entering Mexico after having being convicted of a previous illegal entry?
c) Which law enforcemnt jurisdiction is required to enforce immigration laws in Mexico?
(thanks Smokey Behr)
5) There is another course of action that can be taken to insure that the Federal government enforces borde protection: impeach and remove the POTUS for failure to enforce immigration/border laws.
April 30, 2010, 11:45 amSmokey Behr says:
So do DUI Checkpoints, but SCOTUS has seen fit to make them legal. Those are more of a “papers please” stop than 1070 ever will be.
Actually, the law says that a DL that has a citizenship component for its issuance is sufficient.
April 30, 2010, 11:48 amBlue Neponset says:
To all the supporters of this law:
How long do you believe it will take for this new law to materially affect the illegal alien problem in AZ?
My answer: never
Illegals are facing the same consequences for working illegally in AZ right now and they are choosing to work there. The only thing this law will do is make it a bit more difficult for illegals to work in the Grand Canyon State. In six-eight months they will figure out some good ways to skirt this law as well.
IMO, anyone who can’t answer my question with an “X” number of years is not serious about fixing the problem. This new law is nothing but a waste of money and effort.
April 30, 2010, 11:49 amAngus says:
Sorry, Jonah Goldberg’s historical ignorance aside (even some conservatives laughed at the absurdity of his claims), Nazis were solidly right-wing and utterly hated communists (and the feeling was mutual), and the remnants of them are still solidly right wing still today.
April 30, 2010, 11:51 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Communists hated socialists. Trotskyites hated Stalinists. And the feeling was mutual. Does that mean that one of the two groups in each pair was “right wing”?
April 30, 2010, 12:10 pmMark N. says:
It does, however, in practice, impose more obligations on non-aliens than in federal law. While federal law requires aliens to carry identification with them, it provides no penalties for not doing so, and no justification for officers to detain people who have no ID on suspicion of their immigration status during normal encounters.
So, a citizen, as far as federal law is concerned, is well within their rights, and moreover fairly safe from legal harassment in practice, to walk around without identifying documents on them. The Arizona law changes this, and essentially authorizes officers to demand that one be able to prove to them that you’re in this country legally. This seems like it’ll end up being a de-facto requirement that citizens must carry documentation at all times within their own country, a requirement quite alien to U.S. law and tradition, and more in keeping with European-style ID-card laws.
April 30, 2010, 12:12 pmMark Field says:
I think the objection of some is a little different, namely that some people will have to show ID and others won’t.
April 30, 2010, 12:13 pmBrett Bellmore says:
It’s not a matter of wanting more put in it, it’s a matter of having absolutely no reason to suppose, after decades of deliberate non-enforcement of existing immigration laws, that anything that was in it we liked would ever get enforced.
We liked the border fence they passed a law to build. Notice that they stopped building it?
April 30, 2010, 12:13 pmmikeyes says:
I agree, hold the government to its promises, especially if the action has positive results (which in this case there is a very good reason to think it will help.) But is that the only thing that needs to be done?
I bring up the Schumer proposal because it is a start of a dialogue that the other party does not seem to want to engage. Ideas brought up in this discussion are certainly valid but there is no one to propose them in Congress. The prior Bush and Reagan answers are addressed by Schumer as is the idea that present laws are not being enforced. Just because the Democrats have proposed these things doesn’t make them anathema. If these ideas are already on the table, what is to stop them from being modified in a way that will make them more effective?
Lack of interest on the Republican’s side, it seems.
April 30, 2010, 12:37 pmCarlsson says:
@Mark N — in my experience, you’re a little off. Driving from El Paso, TX, to White Sands, NM, I was hauled over by ICE at a roadside stop. I and my colleague, both US citizens, had to show ID papers to prove that we were in NM legally. So, I say again, what’s new about the AZ law?
April 30, 2010, 12:44 pmChris Travers says:
Two things:
1) A DUI checkpoint only requires papers of the driver, and
2) A DUI checkpoint is directly related to road safety.
I am much more concerned about being asked to see my passport (to my knowledge nobody has asked me for proof of citizenship in obtaining my driver license) just because I am a PASSENGER in Arizona. I have travelled around places where one does go through checkpoints where all passengers are required to show passports or other government-issued ID (Costa Rica, for example). I can tell you there’s a huge difference between asking for a driver’s license in the course of a traffic stop and asking for every passenger’s ID…..
Also, I’m not entirely sure to what extent a police officer can seize or detain a driver at a DUI traffic stop without additional reasonable suspicion. Flagging everyone to stop is one thing. I don’t know what the extent of law enforcement powers during such a stop is, however.
April 30, 2010, 12:48 pmyankee says:
This has got to be the strangest form of libertarianism I’ve ever encountered. Stepping up the War on Drugs and prosecuting every harmless pot user would be superior to what we have now? Sending everyone* who gave or received oral sex to jail would have been superior to leaving the anti-sodomy laws unenforced?
* Most American anti-sodomy laws applied to both straight and gay sodomy, although late in the 20th century some were relaxed to apply to gay sodomy only.
April 30, 2010, 1:05 pmSkip Intro says:
How many of the tough on illegals crowd support making it a felony to hire an illegal immigrant? I support a $1,000,000 fine and 2-year prison term for each violation of the law.
Can I get an Amen?
April 30, 2010, 1:06 pmBill Haynes says:
The libertarian argument for open borders seems to focus on philosophical consistency at the expense of practical realities. The fundamental concern is whether large scale immigration, legal or illegal, is in practice compatible with a libertarian system. Experience suggests that the resulting cultural/ethnic diversity and increased wealth disparities will encourage an emphasis on group rights and wealth redistribution. A scan of individual US states suggests that as a general rule the states that are more homogenous with less wealth inequality are more likely to be of a libertarian bent.
April 30, 2010, 1:09 pmGuest14 says:
The comments on this so-called “libertarian” blog get downright nationalistic and authoritarian when the topic turns to brown people.
April 30, 2010, 1:20 pmThorley Winston says:
So when you say “hire” are you proposing to apply that penalty to individuals who hire a day laborer, gardener, nanny, etc. who is an illegal alien? Frankly, I think those are the people most likely to intentionally hire an illegal alien (not to mention pay them under the table) rather than an established company but they may not do so in large numbers individually. The aggregate effect may be a different story.
April 30, 2010, 1:23 pmbartman says:
the AZ law does not impose any obligations on aliens that are not already found in federal law
I’m a bit confused. I am a legal alien who has spent 7 of the last ten years studying and working, legally, in the US. No customs officer, no INS or ICE employee has ever told me I have to carry immigration documents at all times. What do I carry? The only “immigration document” I have is an I-94 card stapled in my passport, am I supposed to carry my passport on me at all times? That doesn’t seem like a sensible thing to do.
Of course, I’m an anglo with a local drivers license who usually wears a jacket and tie, drives a newish sedan at the speed limit, owns an average suburban house and looks and sounds like a typical middle-aged, middle-class American, so the question is pretty moot to me. But still, it’d be nice to have an answer.
Are tourists supposed to carry passports on them at all times?
I have been told by Green Card holders that when they get the card they are told to carry it at all times, but that’s for resident aliens. What about for non-resident aliens like me and the tourists?
April 30, 2010, 1:25 pmArizona is killing the Republican Party : Off the Axis says:
[...] ’suspects’ they are illegal immigrants. This law would seem to be a slap in the face of traditional libertarian and Republican aversion to “National IDs,” and undue power of the government over [...]
April 30, 2010, 1:26 pmyankee says:
Most of the bloggers are libertarians of some stripe, but very few of the commenters are. Most are perfectly ordinary liberals or conservatives.
April 30, 2010, 1:29 pmBobC says:
That is misguided. Libertarians are extremely zealous about enforcing laws. For example, property rights. Libertarians view the enforcement of property rights as having no exceptions. Not only do they(me) desire government to be small, government should not make exceptions or apply the law unequally. That is a form of tyranny.
April 30, 2010, 1:30 pmCarlsson says:
@yankee.
Libertarians are not anarchists or criminals, and I don’t think they preach civil disobedience, although they may choose to engage in it individually. I understand libertarianism as a political philosophy/movement that is based on individual responsibilities and duties, including support of the rule of law. If the laws are on the books, however wrong they may be, the solution, in my libertarian opinion, is not to advocate public disobedience of them but to propose a political solution. Revolution is not in the libertarian handbook.
Where did you read that libertarians are not supportive of a constitutional democracy? What we believe in is that there should be limits on the political sphere of collective decision making, not that there should be no laws. By implication, I think libertarians support obeisance to even objectionable laws, of which there is a plethora in our times.
April 30, 2010, 1:36 pmyankee says:
Banning pot but declining to prosecute state-licensed medical marijuana users is more tyrannical than banning pot and prosecuting state-licensed medical marijuana users to the full extent of the law? I’m sure some libertarians believe this but it’s not exactly the majority position.
Can you find any examples of libertarians condemning the Obama administration’s policy of declining to prosecute state-licensed medical marijuana users and dealerships as tyrannical? The libertarian critics I know of criticized it because it allowed prosecution of state-licensed medical marijuana users and dealerships if they weren’t in “unambiguous” compliance with state law, not because a failure to prosecute was tyrannical.
April 30, 2010, 1:36 pmKen Arromdee says:
They are not facing the same consequences. They’re facing basically the same laws, but the federal government is refusing to enforce the laws.
April 30, 2010, 1:37 pmKen Arromdee says:
You have a driver’s license, so you’re okay by the law, regardless of being Anglo. Passports are not a requirement.
April 30, 2010, 1:40 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Chris Travers,
1) A DUI checkpoint only requires papers of the driver, and
2) A DUI checkpoint is directly related to road safety.
But if the purpose of a DUI checkpoint is merely to ascertain that the driver isn’t drunk, why does it involve “papers” at all? You can breathalyze someone in the absence of DL and registration, can’t you?
April 30, 2010, 1:43 pmCarlsson says:
@skipintro
You don’t get an amen on that from me. Rather than enforce the laws they have on the books, the Federal Government has already made it a crime for employers to hire illegals. That is putting the enforcement of immigration laws on employers. So, those who oppose the AZ law seem to say that it’s ok to require employers to enforce the law, but it’s not ok for States to do it. I don’t get it, and I don’t agree with it.
I’ll give you an amen on raising the fines on employers to astronomical levels if you give me an amen that the fines will only be imposed if and only if (i) the Federal Government can be shown to have made every reasonable effort to enforce its own laws, and (ii) the Federal Government has provided active support to all public institutions, such as State and local governments, including their peace officers, in enforcing federal laws.
Do I get an amen on that?
April 30, 2010, 1:45 pmzuch says:
… which explains why it was the RW in the United States, the America First crowd, the Bunds, and the extreme conservative Republican politicians, who showed the most sympathy or favour to Nazi Germany….
Cheers,
April 30, 2010, 1:48 pmKen Arromdee says:
The problem is that the idea of cracking down on employers is usually presented as a red herring by people who like illegal immigration, who propose it hoping that businesses won’t like it. Whenever someone does crack down on employers the same people change their tune and complain that we’re just depriving hardworking people of their ability to support a family.
That said, I’d support making it a felony if the employer should have reasonably known. I wouldn’t make it strict liability, to allow for situations where the alien has forged papers and tricks the employer.
April 30, 2010, 1:48 pmzuch says:
Coming from Ensenada to San Diego ten days ago, I was quite surprised at how little documentation examination and inspection we got.
Cheers,
April 30, 2010, 1:50 pmbailey says:
Are libertarians against national borders or a nation’s sovereignty? How about respect for a nation’s laws? If, in fact, that is the libertarian position, could they please publicize it more so that there is even more reason to not be a libertarian.
April 30, 2010, 1:55 pmbailey says:
Of course, all libertarianism means to most of the non-academics is the right to smoke pot.
April 30, 2010, 1:57 pmJust Dropping By says:
Some lower case “l” libertarians are against the first two things you listed. It’s mostly those who lean toward the anarcho-capitalist side of things, but it is definitely there. As for “respect for a nation’s laws,” I’d say that a core tenet of libertarianism is to be skeptical of a nation’s laws, since the premise of the philosophy is that government should be small and relatively unobtrusive. That doesn’t mean you break every law on the books, but uncritically “respecting” a nation’s law sounds like something that pretty easily descends into an “I was just following orders” mentality.
April 30, 2010, 2:15 pmCarlsson says:
Yankee, Bailey, and others:
I have no idea where you get your uninformed notions of libertarianism, maybe under some left-liberal rock along with other inflammatory garbage.
This blog is run by a cabal of reputable law professors of reasonable libertarian persuasion. Whaddyathink, they’re gonna advocate law breaking? Not bloody likely. Whatever they smoke in private, if anything, is none of your beeswax. They all support the rule of law, and will not advocate even public smoke-ins or -outs. They’re legal eagles, and constitutional scholars to boot. Trust me, they believe in the rule of law, and are dedicating their professional lives to it.
For a libertarian concept of just immigration, read this if you’re interested:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/04/29/to-control-the-border-first-reform-immigration-law/
I guarantee you’ll find nothing there advocating law breaking.
April 30, 2010, 2:17 pmunhhyphenatedconservative says:
“In the face of so much demonstrated demand for
unskilled workers from Latin Americaworkers who will undercut the wages of native born and legal immigrants.”Corrected.
The issue with a 10% official unemployment rate, 20% real unemployment in places impacted by illegal immigration is not one of demand for workers. It’s employers who don’t want to pay wages that Americans would accept.
If libertarians just view America as one zone in the vast economy, then I suppose in-sourcing folks to depress wages isn’t much of a problem. However, it will also be a reason that libertarianism will never be a mainstream ideology.
April 30, 2010, 2:25 pmyankee says:
carlsson—who said anything about “advocating” lawbreaking? Opposing stricter enforcement of a bad law isn’t the same thing as advocating violations of the same law. The line between the two is fuzzy, but they’re not the same thing.
For an example of a Conspirator supporting lax enforcement of a law he thinks shouldn’t exist, see Ilya Somin’s criticisms of Obama’s medical marijuana policy here. Ilya’s criticism isn’t that there’s something wrong with selectively refusing to prosecute medical marijuana users and dealers: it’s that Obama’s policy continues to allow prosecution of medical marijuana users and dealers.
I’m not a libertarian, but the view that one has a moral obligation to follow the law, no matter how unjust, strikes me as antithetical to liberty. There was nothing wrong with opposing prosecution for oral sex when sodomy was banned, and there was no moral obligation to refrain merely because the State had banned it. And it’s a strange view of liberty that says it was immoral to refuse to obey the mandatory segregation of Jim Crow.
April 30, 2010, 2:41 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
zuch,
… which explains why it was the RW in the United States, the America First crowd, the Bunds, and the extreme conservative Republican politicians, who showed the most sympathy or favour to Nazi Germany….
Father Coughlin is oddly absent from your list. Whyever can that be?
April 30, 2010, 2:52 pmyankee says:
Well, the OP was about “libertarian critiques” of the law, and if there’s anything unlibertarian it’s using government power to prop prices above the market rate!
April 30, 2010, 2:56 pmSimon Jester says:
Odious. I suppose the idea of natural rights or “all men are created equal” never crossed your mind. I should be able to hire whoever I bloody well choose and it is none of YOUR sodding business!
April 30, 2010, 3:01 pmCarlsson says:
Yankee, I have a more purist view of this, perhaps. I think sodomy and pot laws are perfectly unreasonable laws, and therefore I respect anyone who, as an expression of individual values, violates them, knowing that there may be consequences. But I do not object to reasonable enforcement of those laws either, since they’re on the book. If you want to take your chances, go ahead, it’s a (reasonably) free country. As an implication of that, I think that laws that have become silly over time, like prohibitions against sodomy or suicide, should be repealed. Enforcing them may be the way to create public and political pressure for their repeal, so I don’t object to that at all.
What I was taking exception to was the silly statement that all libertarianism is about is smoking pot. Legalizing drugs is only one example of excessive laws that cannot be enforced. So I find no contradiction in a position that says that current immigration laws are perverse, but still should be enforced, until changed to a more rational condition.
I think the position on the other side is much more troubling. It seems to be that current immigration laws are only enforceable by the Federal Government, and if the Federal Government does not want to enforce them, then the States have to accept all the costs of illegal aliens. The States did not invent the concept of illegal aliens, and have no power to make laws about them. But I don’t see how a libertarian can object when a state decides to enact laws that are in conformity with federal laws, even though the effect of that will be to enforce laws that the Federal Government does not want to enforce. Support of the status que here cannot be a libertarian position. But it seems to be the position of liberals on the left. It amounts to advocacy for ignoring laws, which is pretty direct support for allowing them to be broken. That may be a liberal society, but it’s not a libertarian one.
April 30, 2010, 3:05 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
unhyphenatedconservative,
The issue with a 10% official unemployment rate, 20% real unemployment in places impacted by illegal immigration is not one of demand for workers. It’s employers who don’t want to pay wages that Americans would accept.
That really is it, isn’t it? And the employers are right (not legally, but economically), when legal labor is much more expensive than illegal, and they each have no guarantees that their competitors won’t undercut them. To which I’d add that I think sub-minimum wage illegal labor is generally a lot better than minimum-wage legal labor, which does add to the quandary.
The only thing you can do, practically, to go after employers is give them all some reliable means of determining whether a worker is legal, and make its use mandatory, and damn well track it.
The not-all-that-pretty sequel is huge disruption in many sectors, followed by rather large price increases in some. We might actually have to pay for our fresh produce something like what it would cost to bring it to us if we hired Americans at ordinary minimum wage to harvest it. I think we can adjust to that. We’ve been free-riding on underpaid, exploited labor for too long.
But then there’s the “what the hell do we do about all those illegal parents with citizen kids?” problem, which is just going to be a bitch whatever we ultimately do.
April 30, 2010, 3:08 pmSimon Jester says:
Your ignorance of libertarianism is overwhelming.
National borders denote the limits of domestic jurisdiction; they are not a garden fence for preventing the peaceful movement of people.
Respect for a nation’s laws extends only to the extent that those laws are not constitutionally or morally objectionable, which is why libertarians support jury nullification. Also, advocating for a change in the law is not “disrespect” for a nation’s laws.
If i invite a foreign national into my home or hire a foreign national to work a job, I have done nothing but enter a consensual relationship with a non-citizen. I have not offended anyone else’s rights or impinged on anyone else’s liberties.
The crime of “being illegal” is illusory. Real crimes have victims. The proper role for law enforcement, in the libertarian paradigm, is to prevent and punish murder, assault, rape, theft, and other crimes that have victims, not harass people over paperwork or imprison people for choosing homegrown medicine.
There you are: a primer on libertarianism. Now read some Harry Browne.
April 30, 2010, 3:09 pmMark Field says:
If that was what you were reacting to, your reaction was kind of strange. What you said was “I have no idea where you get your uninformed notions of libertarianism, maybe under some left-liberal rock along with other inflammatory garbage.”
Putting aside any other issues with this response, the commenter who made the statement about smoking pot was bailey. He (she?) isn’t a liberal, but is one of the most conservative commenters here.
April 30, 2010, 3:21 pmunhhyphenatedconservative says:
Yankee, then that begs the question of what the market is. Do libertarians support the notion of America as a sovereign entity with borders borders it has a right, indeed a duty, to protect? If not, this is again why libertarianism is never going to go mainstream.
April 30, 2010, 4:13 pmTed says:
Yes. But it also aligns the incentives of employers with that of the anti-immigration policies. In this time of behavioral economics, it seems pretty obvious that the best way to socially engineer behavior through law is to create laws that create incentives or disincentives for particular conduct. It seems such efforts are more effective if they go beyond mere direct prohibition of the conduct, but also create “indirect” incentives. Thus, if the problem is too many immigrants, laws should enacted to reduce the demand of coming to this country. If the risk of imprisonment is not sufficient alone, then laws which take away other incentives, such as better economic opportunity, better health, etc. are appropriate. These laws should, of course, be tempered by ethical and moral considerations.
Why not? Because strict liability it is immoral? Obviously not, traffic offenses and statutory rape are strict liability violations/crimes, as well of a host of regulatory provisions that carry monetary penalties. Are they unfair? Perhaps. By fairness can be balanced by imposing different penalties based on degree of culpability. $1M + jail for knowing/should have known offenses, $10 for strict liability offenses…or maybe somewhere in between.
With respect to the AZ law, I have a 2 questions (one posted on the other thread). What are specific and articulable facts that create a reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant? Are there any such facts that do not involve the apparent commission of another crime/violation?
Also, do people believe that the AZ law gives AZ police the authority to require US citizens to show identification based on reasonable suspicion that they are illegal? That is, may a cop articulate specific facts creating a reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) of illegality and demand identification? If so, has such authority existed previously under any other constitutional law? As far as I know, law enforcement officers cannot currently demand identification (unless you are doing something that requires identification, like driving, drinking, etc.) based merely on reasonable suspicion. It seems this law changes that.
Oh, and if I move to Cuba, do I become an illegal emigrant?
April 30, 2010, 4:17 pmChris Travers says:
Furthermore, a brief stop to look at the driver is different from either asking for papers or conducting an actual sobriety test. So even if we accept that the stop is legal, we might have occasion to question how much search powers police have in such stops (and requesting papers and conducting sobriety tests are both searches).
I mean, if you go through a checkpoint, and the police officer is asking everyone for ID, and you say, “Am I being detained or am I free to go?” can they ask for ID without reasonable and individual suspicion?
April 30, 2010, 4:20 pmbailey says:
Is loyalty to one’s country part of libertarianism? The more I hear some about the philosophy here and in the comments to some of the Reason articles, I am finding that the answer is no. Actually, I think I prefer the nice simple druggy pot smokers to these ideals.
April 30, 2010, 4:21 pmChris Travers says:
Well, I wnet to Ecuador once for 6 weeks to learn Spanish. Coming back through JFK airport at 1 am, I made the mistake of responding to a request for paperwork in Spanish…… They had a few more questions for me…. I would assume that if asked a question by LEO in English and you reply in Spanish, maybe…
Or maybe dialing 911 when trying to call relatives (suggesting unfamiliarity with our telephone system and relatives in New Delhi)?
April 30, 2010, 4:27 pmTed says:
Thanks for the examples. But what about your examples suggest illegality, as opposed to merely immigrantality. I mean, you have definitely provided resonable suspicion that you are a foreigner or immigrant, but what about a person’s language or unfamiliarity with local customs suggests illegality? Indeed, each time I travel, I struggle with the different phone systems, but I have never entered a country illegally.
Shouldn’t the articulated facts focus on the illegality of a person’s status, rather than merely their foreign status. That is, it is not a crime for an immigrant or a foreigner to be in this country, only an illegal immigrant and illegal foreigner. I conclude, therefore, that this law is stupid, not because of what it tries to do, but because there are no specific or articulable facts that create a suspicion of being in this country illegally. There is no way for a reasonable person to determine either illegality or immigrant/foreigner status by mere observation. Such facts require investigation, usually a legal basis to request or demand identification. This means that the result of this law will be that LEOs will use facts such as the ones you offer, facts that show only foreig-ness or immigrant-ness, as justification to demand identification.
April 30, 2010, 4:45 pmJaimeInTexas (Jam) says:
If you are a tourist from another nation you should carry all your papers with you.
April 30, 2010, 4:50 pmTed says:
A rule I abide by. But under what circumstances should US law enforcement officer have the authority to demand to see those papers? That is, to what degree must they distinguish between a tourist, a legal immigrant, and a naturalized citizen?
April 30, 2010, 5:11 pmbartman says:
If you are a tourist from another nation you should carry all your papers with you.
For most tourists, “all your papers” means your passport. When I travel as a tourist, I usually leave my passport in a safe, or hidden in my hotel room, especially if I’m in places where stolen passparts fetch a good dollar, like SE Asia. The hassle from a lost passport is much bigger then any hassle I have ever had from not having one on me. In lots of coutries they take a photocopy of it when I check into hotels, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to take my passport with me to the beach, poolside, nightclub, gym, etc. That’s just asking for trouble.
April 30, 2010, 5:18 pmbartman says:
Is loyalty to one’s country part of libertarianism?
Define “country”. Are you talking about a patch of land, or a government, or a group of people who happened to be born within a set of arbitrary lines on a map, or a set of founding documents, or something else?
Then tell me what you mean by “loyalty”. Is that deference, or worship, or subservience, or reverence, or what? Does it mean unquestioning allegiance, no matter what your “country” does?
Most libertarians I know, including myself, tend to see human beings as individuals, and not as merely members of some convenient category, be that a nationality, skin color, gender, etc.
April 30, 2010, 5:26 pmMark N. says:
Yeah, that’s a separate problem: the ICE 100-mile-width “constitution-free zone” is certainly not libertarian either, and the AZ law in that regard isn’t totally unprecedented. But extending something like it to the entirety of Arizona, and using police at all levels of jurisdiction to make those kinds of stops, is not a step forwards for the freedom of citizens to move around in their own country without being hassled for their papers.
April 30, 2010, 5:27 pmMark N. says:
It depends on what state your driver’s license is from. The AZ law only allows licenses from states that require citizenship/residency as a condition of getting a license, which not all states do (I believe somewhere around 40 states do, and ~10 don’t). I guess people from the other states have to carry their birth certificates or passports with them whenever they travel to Arizona? Is it even legal for Arizona to put requirements like that on citizens of another state who wish to travel to Arizona?
April 30, 2010, 5:30 pmDan Weber says:
For hiring an illegal at all, or only for knowingly hiring an illegal?
If it’s for hiring an illegal alien at all, then the effect of your law would be for employers to just not hire anyone that looks foreign. Lotsa luck.
April 30, 2010, 6:43 pmSimon Jester says:
Yes, and a peaceful person crossing a border with no intent to harm someone is not a threat that demands “protection.”
April 30, 2010, 7:03 pmJohn says:
What truly happens when someone meets the “reasonable suspicion” test, but does not have their ID?
April 30, 2010, 7:11 pmYou mention that they would be held. Would that mean detained? Or would it be like checking someone’s driver’s license, where the police could do it from their car while you wait?
JaimeInTexas (Jam) says:
I do not support in any form anything that gives the local, state or federal law enforcement “authority” to just stop anyone and ask for papers. I do not support state officers enforcing federal laws either. But I do support the AZ law. If there was already a probable cause for an arrest, then, with an AZ type of law state officers and other subdivisions can check on immigration status and take appropriate actions.
April 30, 2010, 7:46 pmOhReginaldIDisagree says:
I posted numerous scenarious upthread but everyone has ignored them. 7:36 am.
There seems to be a lot of case-law on the subject from the Supremes, all of which seem to dispel the notion that police will be allowed to stop people on the streets. But lets not allow facts get in the way of a decent political catfight.
mikeyes @ 12:37 pm:
May 1, 2010, 12:56 amThat is a lame political attack. Schumer’s bill is just a re-hash of the Bush plan which went down in bipartisan flames in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Try, try, try again… politicians don’t learn.
Somegirl says:
How this law will be enforced puzzles me. I have to wonder about this hypo: I’m a naturalized American citizen of Hispanic descent, driving around in AZ. My passenger sister is an illegal immigrant. A cop stops me for speeding and asks me for proof of status and I say I’m a citizen but don’t have proof of citizenship with me. I think:
May 2, 2010, 10:31 pm1. He must let me go. If he arrests me for refusing to produce documentation, he blatantly violates a list of my constitutional rights.
2. He cannot question my sister because she was not driving so she didn’t commit any violation that entitles the cop to question her status.
3. If he does question my sister even though there would be no “lawful stop” with regard to her, and she simply says she is a citizen, he has to let her go too. (Note I said she was my sister so you would think we look very similar).
How does this not turn exactly on racial profiling? What would it take for the cop to believe us? Oh wait, I have the answer: the right shade of brown!
JaimeInTexas (Jam) says:
Somegirl: If you are within 100miles from the border, you coould be stopped by “la imigra” and you and your passengers can be asked for ID by the officers. It has been like that for years.
May 4, 2010, 11:16 amAnn says:
Illegals come in through the Canadian border also. However, AZ does not stretch as far north as Canada.
May 13, 2010, 11:54 pmAlvin Ray Yount says:
I find nothing wrong with Arizona S.B 1070. I have a copy on my desk. It requires probable cause for a vehicle stop and probable cause for additional questioning. Nevertheless, it fixes nothing. Once returned to Mexico, the illegals will simply turn around and come back. Our Arizona code needs to address this issue. For example, if illegal aliens were required to work on the international fence a few months before being returned to Mexico, this might slow the migration across the border.
Blessings,
May 27, 2010, 8:19 pmAlvin Ray Yount, M.A.
Libertarian Candidate for Arizona Governor 2010
adam gold says:
Well, people need to stop just looking at Arizona. I’m reading that Utah is working on similar legislation anytime now. Other states are not far behind. This will be an interesting case for the Supreme Court. Not just for the practical implications of immigration law, but as an issue of Federal v. States’ Rights.
July 8, 2010, 7:46 pm