Of Course, We’re Different, Right? Right??

by Don Boudreaux on September 29, 2011

in Civil Society, Immigration

Here’s a letter to the Washington Times:

You report that “A federal judge on Wednesday said Alabama law enforcement officers can try to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally” (“Federal judge upholds key parts of Alabama immigration law,” Sept. 29).

So it has finally come to pass that in America agents of the state go about demanding from peaceful people “Your papers, please.”

The fact that the armed officials speak, not ominously accented German, but familiar American English when demanding to see documentation that someone has government approval simply to be in a certain jurisdiction – the fact that the words spoken literally are “Your papers, please” rather than “Ihre papiere, bitte” – does nothing to make this spectacle any less heinous an affront to freedom and to civilization than it was in Nazi Germany.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

comments

181 comments    Share Share    Print    Email

{ 181 comments }

Daniel Kuehn September 29, 2011 at 1:42 pm

Well, I can think of one thing that makes it an at least somewhat more modest affront to freedom: namely, what happens to you when you don’t have your papers.

Don Boudreaux September 29, 2011 at 1:43 pm

I suspect that typically the undocumented Jew was sent back to his or her ghetto.

Fearsome Tycoon September 29, 2011 at 1:51 pm

I was pulled over for running a stop sign recently. The cop wanted to see a photo ID, just like the Gestapo would have done.

Fred September 29, 2011 at 1:59 pm

Last time I was pulled over they wanted a photo ID, proof that I had insurance despite never being in an “accident” (collision caused by driver error. an accident is a collision caused by something unforeseen or unavoidable like a wheel falling off), and proof that I had paid excise tax on the vehicle. I had forgotten to remove my old insurance card and gave it to him by mistake. He got visibly angry. I gave him the correct one, but the damage was done. As “payment” for my mistake he took the speed he clocked me at and raised it five.

Fearsome Tycoon September 29, 2011 at 2:44 pm

My God. What’s next, gas chambers?

Fred September 29, 2011 at 2:53 pm

“My God. What’s next, gas chambers?”

Don’t you think some in the far right wouldn’t raise a fuss about rounding up and gassing illegals?

Don’t you think some in the far left wouldn’t raise a fuss about rounding up and gassing the Tea Party?

One part totalitarianism mixed with one part hatred, sprinkle on some economic woes, a dash of scapegoat, and you’ve got a recipe for genocide.

Stone Glasgow September 29, 2011 at 3:56 pm

The police already have this power. It is “law.” This is just a formality; putting the law in writing.

The police have the power to confiscate as little as $3,000 from any citizen if they suspect is is drug money. They can throw anyone in jail for literally any reason, and they have the power to search your person, vehicle, and home without permission.

The charges and evidence found may not hold up in court, but that is unlikely. If he can state any type of reasonable probable cause for the search, it will hold up in court. An officer’s word is considered factual in a court of law.

It’s an illusion to think that our rulers do not have the power to enslave us tomorrow. It’s a glorious miracle that our overlords, at least at the local level, are as honest and noble as they are today.

Krishnan September 29, 2011 at 2:38 pm

Starting today, that photo ID would not be enough if you are not white nor black – The cop (like the gestapo) will (can) demand that you show proof that you are a citizen – and non citizens can have drivers licenses

Fred September 29, 2011 at 2:42 pm

“and non citizens can have drivers licenses”

That all depends on what state you’re in.

Some states allow a person to register to vote as part of getting a license. A provision of the REAL ID Act requires that if that’s the case then the person must show proof of citizenship before getting a license.

I will need to bring my birth certificate with me when I renew my license to show proof of citizenship.

Fearsome Tycoon September 29, 2011 at 2:45 pm

Not all legal residents are citizens.

Fred September 29, 2011 at 2:47 pm

In my state legal residents who are not citizens cannot get a drivers license.

Kirby September 29, 2011 at 5:15 pm

Traffic laws are not oppressive.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 6:17 pm

I can assure you, by example, that you are wrong. I’m glad for you that you haven’t yet been the victim of overbearing thugs with badges, and a system designed to fleece you whether you ostensibly “win” or not.

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 11:01 pm

No, for the most part traffic laws aren’t oppressive, in that they don’t represent some tremendous individual liability for one minor infraction.

However, taken in the aggregate, there’s an element of oppression. Enforcement of speed laws is often accomplished by means of mechanical device (out goes right of cross examination) by a constabulary that seems more intent on apprehension than prevention-and with good reason-it’s a meaningful revenue source. Police departments routinely deny the existence of “quotas” but the absence of a numerical target doesn’t preclude “soft quotas”, such as having the supervisor offer to “help” you spot offenders.

Hence we have cops hiding, located at the bottom of hill (when inadvertently exceeding the limit is more likely) and this doesn’t begin to address the rather common sight of a police car blowing by you when your needle is pegged at the posted limit or tossing on the lights for a few seconds in order to go through red lights (and increasing the chance of a collision from people who rely on the opposing green).

Then there was the infamous redefinition of “under the influence” of 15 years or so ago. The feds, having no constitutional authority to mandate speed limits, used the threat of withholding federal highway money if states failed to make their limit that low. The real push came from properly/casualty insurers who want to reduce risk and the bar association, who wins twice with every citation, on the prosecution and defense sides. Today, the feds routinely redirect police effort by offering grants for “targeted enforcement” that cover such things as overtime. Trust me, municipalities know and love these programs.

All of this results in a nefarious redirection of enforcement effort. So, for example, my PA township is rather famous for have an “aggressive” traffic enforcement but did nothing for my seventy-something neighbors when they were broad daylight burgled out of jewelry and other items.

By the way, the National Motorists Association offers a newsletter that details the excesses in motor vehicle law enforcement.

House of Cards September 29, 2011 at 1:58 pm

I think “typically” they were sent to a concentration camp to be exterminated.

Krishnan September 29, 2011 at 2:39 pm

Perhaps they are building prisons to hold the many the police are determined to stop, interrogate and send them off somewhere else

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 3:15 pm

On the rare occasion illegals are sent home (not to gas chambers), they get a lovely parting gift of a medical and dental exam.

Unless you are five, the dentist’s chair doesn’t compare to a gas chamber.

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 3:51 pm

OK, look how awfully we treat illegals. Remember, the prominent relative of this man was just another blowhard on campus in ’92.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1369735

Rob September 29, 2011 at 5:21 pm

And some were summarily executed.

Methinks1776 September 29, 2011 at 1:53 pm

“Please”? Since when do they say “please”?

PrometheeFeu September 29, 2011 at 2:09 pm

It’s a reminder of the fact that they are forcing you. It’s a long tradition of authoritarians and rapists to mock their victims’ powerlessness.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 5:41 pm

Dear Friend,

The INS cordially invites you to attend a celebration of natural rights at your nearest Federal holding center. Please RSVP at your earliest possible convenience. We hope to see you there!

Yours truly,

The INS Family

P.S. The accompanying Welcome Personnel can help you with any questions that you may have. Have a nice day!

Methinks1776 September 29, 2011 at 5:42 pm

I’ve been accosted by the Gestapo…police in Moscow and NYC and I never once heard “please” from either officious bastard when they demanded my documents.

kyle8 September 29, 2011 at 2:02 pm

Wait before we go crazy here what are the particulars? If this is just stop anyone for no reason then it will not hold up in court, and if it is among those state laws passed recently that says that law enforcement can check the immigration status when stopping people for a real reason like a traffic fine, then I have no problem with it.

PrometheeFeu September 29, 2011 at 2:15 pm

“If this is just stop anyone for no reason then it will not hold up in court”

How many people’s rights will be violated with impunity until a court puts an end to this? Many people will simply plea-bargain their way out and loose their chance at stopping that law. Many people will at the very least spend a night in jail.

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 3:18 pm

Wait before we go crazy here what are the particulars?

Too late, the initial post already took the “ready, fire, aim” approach.

Richard Stands October 1, 2011 at 1:12 am

Stopping anyone for no reason (or at least no reason known to be specific to that person) has indeed held up in court. Random sobriety checkpoints were upheld in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990):

“In sum, the balance of the State’s interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program.”

- Chief Justice Rehnquist

Julie Jacobson September 29, 2011 at 2:02 pm

Something to think about on Rosh Hashanah

Fearsome Tycoon September 29, 2011 at 2:03 pm

Look, Don, I’m as sympathetic to the cause of open immigration as the next guy, but this letter is ludicrous. First, you’re not helping anything by acting as though this is some recent development. Non-citizens have been required to carry their “papers” since 1940. It just discredits your arguments. Second, no, it’s not like Nazi Germany. The USA has no internal travel controls akin to the USSR or Nazi Germany. It has border controls like nearly every other country in the world. You can argue against border controls without making reference to the Nazis. Third, Nazi Germany is not remembered as horrifically evil because an intrusive bureaucracy micromanaged people’s lives. It’s remembered as horrifically evil because it sent millions of people to their deaths and engulfed Europe in flames. Not that the two are unconnected, but “That’s just what the Nazis did!” pretty much discredits any argument unless you’re talking about genocide and wars of expanding the Lebensraum of your Volk.

PrometheeFeu September 29, 2011 at 2:12 pm

“Non-citizens have been required to carry their “papers” since 1940.”

I am a non-citizen. As a non-citizen, only immigration officials may ask me for my immigration paperwork. The problem with this law regardless of your opinion on immigration is that it makes it de-facto required for US citizens to carry identification. Otherwise, how do you prove that you are not a non-citizen who is not carrying identification?

PrometheeFeu September 29, 2011 at 2:17 pm

By the way. That’s why the California law banning the sale of video-games to minors was struck down. It meant that adults could not purchase violent video-games without an ID.

Krishnan September 29, 2011 at 2:36 pm

I predict that the “whites” and “blacks” will not be stopped and so have nothing to worry about. I also imagine that the majority of the “whites” and “blacks” do not carry either passports OR a birth certificate (notarized) to prove they are “US Citizens” – and yet, I do not think they have anything to worry about … this law is about driving out non natives from Alabama (IMO) – there have been just too many people who have moved to Alabama who are not from Alabama

PrometheeFeu September 29, 2011 at 2:58 pm

What about the latinos who were born in Alabama and choose not to carry ID? Let’s throw them in jail?

Krishnan September 29, 2011 at 4:51 pm

Re: PrometheeFeu: I am appalled at the Alabama Law. And yes, I imagine there will be many who would want to take Latinos born in Alabama who do not carry ID and throw them in jail if they cannot “prove” that they are 100% genuine natives

Fearsome Tycoon September 29, 2011 at 2:50 pm

States have always been able to enforce federal law. Whether or not you think that’s a bad thing, comparing America to Nazi Germany because states, for example, can impose additional fines for EPA violations is stupid and cheapens the Holocaust and WWII.

Patroclus September 29, 2011 at 3:38 pm

I live in Danbury, CT and there are officers who have become members of ICE. This would allow them to check your ID if they stopped you. The point of these laws is to draw attention to the lack of effort on the federal governments part to enforce the laws that already exist.

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 3:09 pm

When it comes to international trade, most agree is it good thing.

People are just part of trade in Don’s myopic vision. Therefore, there should be no restrictions on immigration and certainly no enforcement. Whenever the idea that sovereignty means a right of exclusion comes up, Don tosses that cool logic he uses in defending free markets and heads right for histrionics.

Look, if I get stopped for speeding, i have to produce all kinds of “papers” Two years ago, I was pulled over for an inoperative headlight-guess what? “License, registration and insurance, please”.

If my eyes are bloodshot, I get to blow into a breathalyzer.

Now, I despise cops going fishing, and what lawyers call unlawful expeditions that I think lawyers call “pretextual”. However, he constabulary’s right of inquiry based on PROBABLE CAUSE is not the same thing as the Nazi fiends. I have relatives that lived under Hitler, and then under Stalin. Only an incredibly insular absolutist would make such an assertion that reasonable enforcement of laws that are “necessary and proper” and exist in all places and times is somehow analogous to one of the worst monsters in human history.

MWG September 29, 2011 at 3:39 pm

“People are just part of trade in Don’s myopic vision.”

There nothing myopic about it. Understanding human capital (usually referred to as labor in even the most basic economic textbooks) is an important part of basic economics.

“Whenever the idea that sovereignty means a right of exclusion comes up, Don tosses that cool logic he uses in defending free markets and heads right for histrionics.”

The rights of the individual trump the state… unless you’re a statist. Sovereignty is generally used as a cover for lame arguments like ‘might makes right’ or ‘mob rule’.

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 4:00 pm

The rights of the individual trump the state… unless you’re a statist. Sovereignty is generally used as a cover for lame arguments like ‘might makes right’ or ‘mob rule’.

Right. The efficacy of open doors was proven 9/11/2001.

What about my rights or in your twisted world, the rights of citizens are non-existent? Hey I want to enter your home. Its cold, my house is drafty and if you don’t let me in, I should be able to sneak in.

I have no love for the state, but I don’t let my animus over rule my reason and embrace anarchy.

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 4:02 pm

By the way, when I sneak in, I’m going to help myself to whatever I need. Don’t call the police, you’ll only be empowering the state against an individual.

MWG September 29, 2011 at 4:15 pm

“Right. The efficacy of open doors was proven 9/11/2001.”

Ah the ‘terrorist card’. The race card’s ugly cousin.

“What about my rights or in your twisted world, the rights of citizens are non-existent?”

What rights of yours are being infringed upon by others exercising their right to free association and movement?

“Hey I want to enter your home. Its cold, my house is drafty and if you don’t let me in, I should be able to sneak in.”

Always the collectivist. The country is not analogous to a private home. Who I decide to invite over to my private property is none of you business regardless of the fact that you and I happen to have been born in the same political boundaries.

“I have no love for the state…”

Sure you do.

“…but I don’t let my animus over rule my reason and embrace anarchy.”

Finally, you end with a vain attempt to put words in my mouth. The state has one single legitimate role, and that is to protect our individual rights. I’m not an anarchist.

MWG September 29, 2011 at 4:17 pm

“By the way, when I sneak in, I’m going to help myself to whatever I need. Don’t call the police, you’ll only be empowering the state against an individual.”

Conflating government ‘rights’ with the private property rights of individuals? Typical amongst collectivists.

Mr. Econotarian September 29, 2011 at 2:13 pm

My American company was just screwed because a US Immigration agent refused entry into Detroit of a Canadian contractor who was going to install our technical equipment in Michigan today.

I guess the “border is secure”, idiots!

MWG September 29, 2011 at 2:16 pm

Now that job can go to a hardworkin’ Amurkin.

Who said mercantilism was dead?

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 5:10 pm

Have you thought about thinking with something other than cliches?

MWG September 29, 2011 at 5:24 pm

I apologize that my sad attempt at humor has offended your sensitive eyes.

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 11:04 pm

It wasn’t sad, it was devoid of humor.

MWG September 29, 2011 at 11:09 pm

Ooh… ouch. Your anonymous words on an Internet blog cut deep AP.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 4:11 pm

Federal immigration enforcement is always a third party, unwanted or wanted, forcefully interfering in the affairs of two other parties. Although most people think it is at least in some ways a desireable service (and certainly Constitutional one), the fact of the matter is that it is a violation of the property rights and association rights of the people involved. Most people see it as defending against the spread of disease or crime across a particular political border. But the real crime is that it far more often is a violation of the peaceful and legitimate relationships like the one you decribe.

Methinks1776 September 29, 2011 at 5:46 pm

Installation of technical equipment is aiding and abetting in a crime. That company could use that equipment to make a profit and exploit the consumer, not to mention labour. That kind of thing leads to a dangerous independence from the Federal Family.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 6:22 pm

One of the greatest problems in this country is that far too many people assume that the government actually does what it ostensibly does. Often it is not even close, or only anecdotally true.

vidyohs September 29, 2011 at 2:17 pm

Hmmmmm, mayhaps I disremember correctly, but weren’t the Nazis checking for people of different religious beliefs, and not illegal immigrants.

Mostly our illegal immigrants do not tend to be tall blue eyed caucasians, whereas trying to pick out a Jew by looks alone can quickly lead you astray, and you might wind up with a lot of ethnic Italians, Greeks, Spainards, and yes even French.

And isn’t Alabama’s immigration “problems” predominantly with dark swarthy latino types?

Suspecting people of being Jews and asking for papers means stopping everyone not known personally; but there are just so few Swedes, Danes, Dutch, Norwegians, and really not many Asiatic types either. etc. coming over our southern border and through the deserts.

Why even dark swarthy Arab types speaking decent spanish could be mistaken for, or pass for, Mexicans, and none of those types intend any harm here, do they?

When this nation gets its own welfare, give-away, and crime problems fixed, including that done by, or going to “native” recipients, then I can support you. But, when various states in this nation have school systems, health care systems, and prison systems overwhelmed by hispanics, and those that aren’t in prison are being whipped into a “reconquista” fervor, then I can feel easy about rounding up those we can find and sending ‘em back, even when it means, gasp, culling our prisons of illegals as well.

Fred September 29, 2011 at 2:21 pm

They didn’t care if the Jew (race) was Jewish (religion) as long as they were Jewish (race).

tarran September 29, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 4:05 pm

I think there’s a leftist virus in “liberty papers”, its signature algorithm is its use of the subroutine “race card”.

tarran September 29, 2011 at 4:36 pm

? Could someone translate the above into english?

MWG September 29, 2011 at 4:53 pm

Aopearanly your link was full of teh race card.

MWG September 29, 2011 at 6:27 pm

Grrr… Damn iPad keyboard.

tarran September 29, 2011 at 7:40 pm

The question then becomes whether AnotherPhil is disingenuous or is struggling with reading comprehension.

vidyohs September 29, 2011 at 4:57 pm

So you think it is freedom that you be required to support not only our native welfare class, but an illegal immigrant one as well?

Sorry, but I don’t buy into that stupidity.

Do away with that welfare to our own native population, and SCOTUS giving 14th amendment rights and privileges to immigrants won’t matter, because that ruling won’t include support from the public purse.

What Don (and you I guess) want is to not interfere with the steady flood of illegal immigrants, most of whom wind up on some sort of public assistance programs, because of a distorted idea of a libertarian principle. Are you and Don convinced, in the face of decades of evidence, that some how in the next year, month, day, that America is going to fix its welfare state problem and all those illegals will become entirely self-sufficient?

Fat chance.

PrometheeFeu September 29, 2011 at 2:54 pm

Woopy! Now we’ll have government racial discrimination. But it will be against those dirty “brown” people, not the holy “whites” or protected “blacks”. So that’s ok…

So my question to you is this: What do we do with the latinos who don’t carry identification?

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 3:12 pm

“Now we’ll have government racial discrimination”

We already have it. Google “minority (or woman) owned business”.

MWG September 29, 2011 at 3:13 pm

So… IOW, you want more of it.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 3:59 pm

What do you call someone who claims to oppose evil, while simultaneously using evil to justify more evil?

MWG September 29, 2011 at 4:07 pm

Collectivist?

vidyohs September 29, 2011 at 5:06 pm

You’re on a roll today. Read whatever you want to read in a comment and respond to what you think instead of what is written.

Where in Anotherphil’s comment did you get even a glimmer that he wants the existing situation, much less more of it?

MWG September 29, 2011 at 5:27 pm

@Vid,

I guess I should have asked Phil what his point is in bringing up affirmative action type law. Does he think Prom is in favor of it?

vidyohs September 29, 2011 at 5:02 pm

And all the superior privilege laws, such as Afirmative Action and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

PrometheeFeu September 29, 2011 at 5:31 pm

Yeap, that’s a problem. But as much as I don’t like racial-biased subsidies, racial-motivated detentions are much worst.

EG September 29, 2011 at 2:26 pm

With all due respect, the “you’re a Nazi” argument is the lowest form of argument.

Ike September 29, 2011 at 2:44 pm

Technically speaking, Don is not calling anyone a Nazi.

He’s merely questioning the morality of a set of behaviors.

Fearsome Tycoon September 29, 2011 at 2:52 pm

I wear boots. The Nazis wore boots. Is wearing boots moral?

PrometheeFeu September 29, 2011 at 2:56 pm

Yes. It can be quite attractive in fact. But pulling people over to ID them in violation of their privacy rights is not.

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 3:38 pm

Whether he used a metaphor or a simile, its a tool of the left and low.

Ken September 29, 2011 at 2:47 pm

Typical response from someone who wants to be as fascist as a Nazi without being identified as one.

Regards,
Ken

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 3:47 pm

With all due respect, the argument in his post is that it is a “heinous…affront to freedom and to civilization”.

EG September 29, 2011 at 5:04 pm

Well, I think thats grossly exaggerated as well.

g-dub September 29, 2011 at 4:06 pm

Someone will mistake this for a liberal blog — a big insult. Or is it a way to draw them in by deception? Ends, not means!

Krishnan September 29, 2011 at 2:33 pm

I expect that the Police will start stopping people who are neither obviously “white” nor “black” – but “brown” and those that “look” like they may be illegal. There is almost NO check on the police powers – they can stop anyone if they “suspect” that the people may be illegals.

Even as Alabama has emerged from the depths of it’s shameful past in how it treated those that did not have a white skin, this new law will give those hidden racists to play God and harass whoever they choose – they are now protected by the Alabama Law.

And oh please – do not give me any crap about how there are safeguards in the law and nonsense. The simple fact is that the Police (and Law Enforcement) have almost unlimited power to stop, interrogate and demand “papers”.

A state with a population of 4 million has reportedly 130,000 people who may be illegals – an opportunity for the natives to get rid of anyone who may not be a native – Yes, even others – Why would people live in fear? Wondering as to what may happen if they are stopped?

MWG September 29, 2011 at 2:40 pm

It’s an interesting disconnect from conservatives who supposedly ‘oppose’ big government.

Krishnan September 29, 2011 at 2:42 pm

What these “conservatives” and talking heads are doing about immigration is reprehensible. (yes, immigration – not just illegals)

Patroclus September 29, 2011 at 3:41 pm

What exactly are “conservatives” doing about legal immigration? From what i have heard from them they are all for legal immigration, and for replacing the backed-up system that we currently have; so that more people can more easily enter the country legally.

MWG September 29, 2011 at 3:59 pm

Not until e border is secured. It’s a bit like saying, “I’m all for ending alcohol prohibition, but not until we’ve ended illegal alcohol consumption first.”

As a former down the line conservative, don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

vidyohs September 29, 2011 at 2:59 pm

Got a question for you MWG. Does this sound like a big government conservative?

“When this nation gets its own welfare, give-away, and crime problems fixed, including that done by, or going to “native” recipients, then I can support you”

The fact of the matter is that the welfare, give-away, and crime problems of our own native population are the results of our own laws and SCOTUS interpretations of those laws, and consequently the illegals come here and can partake legally thanks to those SCOTUS interpretations.

This little government guy, says “stop the madness by demanding and forcing people to be self supporting, no public purse, and let the graves fill up as they may.

Then we can have open borders and unrestricted immigration and know that those who come are coming to contribute at best, or at least not be a burden.

That is ultimately “little government” policy in action.

It is your big government guys that say, “let ‘em all come regardless, hell we can feed, treat, and prevent crime among them like we do our own population.

Yeah right. We do such a good job of building character and independence in this country any more.

MWG September 29, 2011 at 3:07 pm

Vid, we’ve had this discussion before. As tarran said above, what you seem to want is for us to prop up the welfare state by restricting immigration.

Your argument (and it’s a popular one amongst conservatives) is that we must have more government in order to limit it.

Should the govt. be able to limit the number of births because of the welfare state?

Are you against lowering taxes because of the welfare state?

I’m against the welfare state, and I’m against trampling on the rights of others (Free movement? Free association?) in order to sustain it.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 3:49 pm

Well said.

MWG September 29, 2011 at 4:06 pm

Thanks VV. Immigration is one of the few areas Vid and I disagree on.

vidyohs September 29, 2011 at 4:48 pm

How do you do that?

I don’t see how you come to the conclusion that I want to prop up the welfare state when I repeatedly state I want to do away with the welfare state completely so that immigration doesn’t matter or effect the public purse. Without the welfare state immigrants can come and go with no effect on the life styles or standings of any one else. Over and over I have said this. (BTW that means less government in every respect)

Read again, my consistent statements it is the welfare state we have that makes illegal immigration attractive, and I object to the welfare state as SCOTUS just piles it on by giving 14th amendment rights to illegal immigrants.

Doing away with the welfare state automatically means less government, especially in the revenue borrowed to finance it, less government to administer it and expand it. To say I want more government in my desire to eliminate the welfare state is ludicrous.

What does births have to do with the debate? That is a strange thing to bring in.

I suggest you try reading what I actually wrote and not what you think I wrote, sir.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 4:58 pm

Does the CotUS grant any nongovernment individuals rights that they did not already possess? Was that the original intent? What about the CotUS or Founder’s intent leads you to believe that you have any rights not possessed by anyone else in the world?

tarran September 29, 2011 at 5:03 pm

Vidyohs,

Opposing immigration because of the stresses it places on the welfare state is, in effect, an attempt to prop up the welfare state.

Let’s consider the other avenue for new human beings to enter the U.S., births. Can you imagine your reactin if confronted with someone arguing that the government should restrict how many babies a person can father/mother, and that they would support unrestricted childbearing only when the welfare state was dismantled?

My guess is that you would be horrified and argue that forcing people to get permission from the government to have children was a violation of their rights – and tell him that the insolvency of the welfare state was irrelevant.

The welfare state is going to collapse sooner or later, merely because of the load placed on it by children born in the U.S. By opposing immigration, you are supporting a policy to put off the day of reckoning, and one that in no way reduces the severity of the collapse.

It’s sacrificing some important human rights (the right to free association, the right to contract etc) merely to timeshift a coming collapse farther into the future.

MWG September 29, 2011 at 5:04 pm

You’re probably correct that I implied too strongly that you’re in favor of the welfare state. What I meant is that your argument against immigration in light of the welfare state inadvertently props it up.

Theoretically, if illegals are so bad because of the welfare state, you should want more of them to come here to speed it’s collapse. In reality the evidence that illegals are a net burden on the welfare state is mixed… but I digress.

“What does births have to do with the debate? That is a strange thing to bring in.”

I brought it up because your argument essentially comes down to the idea of restricting rights in light of the welfare state. If the Feds have the power to infringe on the rights of free movement and association, why can they restrict the right to procreate.

I think the last time you and I debated immigration our disagreement came down to whether or not one has the right to free association and movement… but I could be wrong about that.

vidyohs September 29, 2011 at 5:16 pm

@MWG
“Theoretically, if illegals are so bad because of the welfare state, you should want more of them to come here to speed it’s collapse. In reality the evidence that illegals are a net burden on the welfare state is mixed… but I digress.”

Another of those theories that sound good in theory but have no chance of ever becoming reality.

In reality it is clear that the net burden of illegal immigration far outweighs the contributions.

Imprisonment is a burden, and 35 to 45%, is I believe the amount of hispanics in our prisons now, and the vast majority of those are illegals. Health care systems in the southwest, including California are being slowly bankrupted by the burden of the welfare state, and government is not going to do a damn thing about it. The looney lefties have set it up so this nation goes down the tubes before they give up on their dream of equally shared misery, death, and degeneration.

In short, this government will see everything collapse and will never make an attempt to do anything rational, like back away and leave people to their own pursuits and to suffer the rewards or failures thereof.

vidyohs September 29, 2011 at 5:27 pm

@MWG,
“What I meant is that your argument against immigration in light of the welfare state inadvertently props it up.”

What I see you saying there I can analogize thus:

We have a staph infected abcess on our leg, vidyohs wants to cut it out and use drugs to eliminate the poisons so that healthy flesh can grow back there; obviously vidyohs hates healthy flesh, and I think we should let it run its course and hope the abcess becomes so bad it cures itself, singling out dead flash and poisons only means the abcess won’t crash the body and we want it to crash the body. Once the body is crashed we can revive it and make it healthy.

Miracle working for sure.

MWG September 29, 2011 at 5:38 pm

@Vid,

“We have a staph infected abcess on our leg, vidyohs wants to cut it out and use drugs to eliminate the poisons so that healthy flesh can grow back there; obviously vidyohs hates healthy flesh, and I think we should let it run its course and hope the abcess becomes so bad it cures itself, singling out dead flash and poisons only means the abcess won’t crash the body and we want it to crash the body. Once the body is crashed we can revive it and make it healthy.”

LOL, I’ll give you credit for the attempt, but I think the analogy was a bit wordy.

How bout this:

The welfare state is the cancer. Doctors can’t agree on how to go about surgically removing. Illegal immigration is the perfect way to go about killing it from the outside.

PrometheeFeu September 29, 2011 at 5:42 pm

“Imprisonment is a burden, and 35 to 45%, is I believe the amount of hispanics in our prisons now, and the vast majority of those are illegals.”

Being unable to work legally and living in fear of police knocking on your door does have the effect of driving one towards illegal activities. It would also be interesting to know how many are in jail for things such as identity theft and other “crimes” that one must commit to circumvent immigration restrictions.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 3:43 pm

“supposedly” is a defining characterstic of conservatives.

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 5:12 pm

Actually, its a defining characteristic of utopians.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 5:47 pm

“Supposedly” is a defining characteristic of statists? How so?

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 11:09 pm

“Supposedly” is a defining characteristic of statists? How so?

Marx supposed that the government would be rendered non-existent when the perfect socialist society emerged to make it so, he supposed human nature was perfectly mutable and we are routinely provided laws that suppose the existent of perfectly knowledgeable and public-spirited central direction.

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 3:45 pm

No, I expect the government to enforce the border against invasion, whether by one or one million. Unlike you, I’m not an anarchist.

By the way, Krishnan, try breathing in a paper bag, it’ll help you with your frequent hyperventilation.

We get it, you think wanting to be here should be good enough. Well its not. Its not good enough here and its not good enough there. For all the indignity about treatment of illegals, you’d think some of it would be directed at the really abhorrent way Mexico treats Guatemalans and Salvadors, seeking to enter their country “illegally”.

MWG September 29, 2011 at 4:04 pm

“No, I expect the government to enforce the border against invasion, whether by one or one million. Unlike you, I’m not an anarchist.”

Migrant farm workers don’t represent a foreign power and are not invaders (certainly not in the constitutional sense), no matter how much you wish they were.

“We get it, you think wanting to be here should be good enough. Well its not. Its not good enough here and its not good enough there”

You’re every bit the collectivist muirgeo is. You’re merely the opposite side of the coin.

“For all the indignity about treatment of illegals, you’d think some of it would be directed at the really abhorrent way Mexico treats Guatemalans and Salvadors, seeking to enter their country “illegally”.”

So… we should be more like Mexico?

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 4:33 pm

“Migrant farm workers don’t represent a foreign power.”

Neither did Mohammed Atta. To assume every potential threat needs to be an agent of a state is quite frankly, stupid.

But I’m curious, if it wasn’t migrant farm workers, what profession was marching in the streets a year or two ago, demanding amnesty, flying the flag of a foreign power and in some cases insisting that large chunks of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas are ceded to that bastion of liberty, Mexico? Then again, didn’t we hear the head of a foreign power “advocating” for those migrants to be allowed to stay, regardless of their mode of entry-in effect-telling, no demanding our legislature change its laws. That sounds like, to borrow from De Tocqueville, a “soft” invasion to me. (I’m still waiting for Mexico to host the Guatemalan head of state for a similar exercise in bad taste)

Funny thing, I had a Cuban teacher as a kid. Now she was proud of her heritage, but told us in no uncertain terms, she came to be an American. She meant it, her son is a military physician. Never flew the Cuban flag, never demanded welfare. Her husband was a doctor in Cuba, but due to the unavailability of records, post Castro, worked in a “less glamorous” jobs, until he could prove education and training to take the “boards”. Her testimony inoculated me against cults of personality. She also prided herself on risking everything and following ALL of the laws in order to become naturalized.

As for Muirbot, you are the one who resembles him, complete with the recto-cranial inversion. Muirbot feeds on emotion, visceral indignity and a complete disregard for reality-and that pretty much describes you-wedded to a cultish, absolutist fantasy. You can call me a collectivist, but in doing so, prove you don’t know the meaning of the term, anarchist.

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 4:49 pm

So… we should be more like Mexico?

No, but you should be more concerned with the more perilous plight of Guatemalans, unless you aren’t really aren’t the humanitarian you imagine yourself to be.

Now, if Mexico were as charitable with its “illegals” as we are, I might give a rat’s butt what their head of state said.

tarran September 29, 2011 at 5:05 pm

Al Queda isn’t a foreign power?

Did they not seek to capture territory? Did they not have men at arms? Where they from the United States?

Wow!

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 5:14 pm

Atta was let into this country by US immigration services. Violent criminals don’t need to make a perilous walk across a dirty barren desert. They either are born here, or fly in first class with US government approval. Even if you were right about that or other anecdotes, the shear numbers of legal and illegal immigrants drown your argument to insignificance.

With government immigration control, security is a red herring. The real purpose and effect, is economic protection of political cronies.

MWG September 29, 2011 at 5:18 pm

“Neither did Mohammed Atta. To assume every potential threat needs to be an agent of a state is quite frankly, stupid.”

9/11 wasn’t an invasion (again, not in the constitutional sense).

“But I’m curious, if it wasn’t migrant farm workers, what profession was marching in the streets a year or two ago, demanding amnesty, flying the flag of a foreign power and in some cases insisting that large chunks of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas are ceded to that bastion of liberty, Mexico? Then again, didn’t we hear the head of a foreign power “advocating” for those migrants to be allowed to stay, regardless of their mode of entry-in effect-telling, no demanding our legislature change its laws. That sounds like, to borrow from De Tocqueville, a “soft” invasion to me.”

What land in the US is occupied by Mexico again?

“As for Muirbot, you are the one who resembles him, complete with the recto-cranial inversion. Muirbot feeds on emotion, visceral indignity and a complete disregard for reality…”

Ad hom combined with hypocrisy. Emotion? What was the point of telling me the wonderful tale of your Cuban teacher and her son if not an appeal to emotion.

“You can call me a collectivist, but in doing so, prove you don’t know the meaning of the term, anarchist.”

You are a collectivist. You believe the rights of the collective, trump the rights of individuals.

I don’t know how you can claim I’m an anarchist when I said the legitimate role of GOVERNMENT is to protect the rights of the individual.

“…but you should be more concerned with the more perilous plight of Guatemalans, unless you aren’t really aren’t the humanitarian you imagine yourself to be.”

I think it’s bullshit how the Mexican government treats migrants. Unfortunately I live in the US and my greater concern is with how our government respects the rights of individuals here. You’re the one who brought up Mexico. Should we be more like them or not?

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 5:20 pm

No Tarran, AQ isn’t a “foreign power”, its a transnational association. No governance, no historic home, no taxing power, no capital, no citizens, no recognition as a state, no military. It is however dangerous and ambitious.

However, if I accept your view for the sake of argument, then we really need scrutinize every entrant because they might pose a threat based on loyalties to such organizations.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 5:21 pm

“you should be more concerned with the more perilous plight of Guatemalans,”

You know, I haven’t once posted a comment on this thread about my wife. Does that mean I care less about my wife’s health than I care about immigration? Or does it mean that I’m responding in context?

Sorry, but diversionary fallacies don’t often fly here. Nice try.

tarran September 29, 2011 at 7:51 pm

facepalm

However, if I accept your view for the sake of argument, then we really need scrutinize every entrant because they might pose a threat based on loyalties to such organizations.

So because some members of a violent South Carolina gang were arrested in my home town in Massachusetts, we need to scrutinize everyone driving accross the border on route 84?

Even better, should we scrutinize everyone driving accross the border on Concord Ave? and Mt Auburn St? and Grove St? and School St? Can”t forget Blanchard Rd too!

Better do something about Route 2, as well!

And of course, the collapse of the economy as tens of thousands of people have to alter their work habits toward much less productive arrangements well that’s a small ;price to pay, better millions of people be inconvenienced than to no allow police a chance at possibly catching an actual criminal prophylactically despite the fact that the criminal will be a needle in a haystack of false positives.

Autarchy now!

Fearsome Tycoon September 29, 2011 at 2:54 pm

Does the Alabama give the police the power to stop anyone they merely suspect of being here illegally, or does it have to be in the context of stopping them for some other reason?

MWG September 29, 2011 at 3:07 pm

How does one prove they’re a citizen?

Fred September 29, 2011 at 3:16 pm

In my state I must bring my birth certificate with me when I renew my drivers license to show proof of citizenship.
From then on my license becomes proof.

MWG September 29, 2011 at 3:31 pm

There are a number of states that don’t require proof of citizenship which would make a valid driver’s license less the fool proof. IOW, if you’re in Alabama, make sure you have a birth certificate or social security card together with you license on you at all times.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 3:55 pm

The problem is, if I am peacefully living my life even without ANY kind of papers, it is violent offense, and a violation of my rights, to restrain me, threaten me, take my property, or kidnap me. Yes, governments the world over have been massively violating those rights for centuries. But the US government was supposed to be different.

vidyohs September 29, 2011 at 5:51 pm

Yeah it was supposed to be different. However tell that to the SWAT team when they invade your home, stand up and holler at them “YOU AIN’T SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THIS! Who knows they may apologize and leave.

But, reality says they’ll leave dragging your handcuffed body or corpse (your choice) with them.

It is particularly irksome to have the fruits of your labor taken to support Dashawn & Lakisha down the street, from you and it is equally irksome to have to support Jose and Maria up the street from you.

I don’t care if Jose and Maria are here, I just don’t want to support them; but, I am bright enough to know that the reason you and I support Jose and Maria is because we let the government make us support Dashawn and Lakisha.

Just think if we can get out from under Dashawn and Lakisha, we can also get out from under Jose and Maria, and then it won’t matter if Jose and Maria have children, invite their Tio Pepe and Tia Jaunita to come live next door to them. Why? Because Tio Pepe and Tia Jaunita won’t come unless they know they can support themselves in all things.

You’re better off, I am better off, Dashawn and Lakisha are better off, Jose and Maria are better off, the nation is better off. Immigrants can come and go and everyone will be better off.

Gollygee, I am so stupid and evil. My idea that self supporting people can live anywhere and move freely and be a plus where ever they decide to stop is just so stupid. To think I am so stupid that I want to turn my back on the self destruction of an increasing welfare state. Wow, I am such a sad case.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 6:09 pm

It is evil to initiate offense against the nonoffensive. Dash and Lak commited no offense. The offense is entirely at the hands of government officials.

You fight evil by atacking the evil doers.

vidyohs September 29, 2011 at 6:42 pm

@VV

Hmmm, so refusing to pay support for Dashawn and Lakisha is in your book an offense against them. Amazing, simply amazing.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 6:53 pm

Nice try, vid. The forceful restraint and removal is the offense, of course.

tarran September 29, 2011 at 7:56 pm

No vidyohs, the crime is when you support the laws that prevent them from getting jobs and buying plane tickets on the chance that they might go on welfare.

The welfare state is stressed by new people whether born or immigrating. If you have your way on the issue of immigration, the only effect it has is to shift the collapse of the welfare state into the future. End stop.

You are in no way fighting the welfare state by opposing immigration, unless you are starving the beast by denying the welfare state the extra production that the welfare state provides.

vidyohs September 29, 2011 at 9:54 pm

Tarran,
Go home and go nite nite for us, please. You keep coming up with ridiculous stuff.

Dashawn and Lakisha are not on welfare because they can’t find jobs, they are on welfare because they don’t want a job. Or, should I say being on welfare and making babies to ensure more welfare is their job.

Now you idiot try to get your thinking around the understanding that I have repeatedly pointed out, stated firmly, that I am not opposed to immigration. I am opposed to welfare and please tell me how in your twisted logic, that my wanting to end welfare now will ensure its survival into the future if my wish prevail? God, that is so stupid.

End it now so it will live forever, com’on tarran, you gotta do better than that.

End welfare for everyone and the immigration issue disappears as a valid point of contention. Did you get that tarran? Did I type it slow enough for you, and the others?

tarran September 29, 2011 at 10:56 pm

A thousand apologies Vidyohs, I has assumed that the person who made this comment under your handle was you when he wrote:

When this nation gets its own welfare, give-away, and crime problems fixed, including that done by, or going to “native” recipients, then I can support you. But, when various states in this nation have school systems, health care systems, and prison systems overwhelmed by hispanics, and those that aren’t in prison are being whipped into a “reconquista” fervor, then I can feel easy about rounding up those we can find and sending ‘em back, even when it means, gasp, culling our prisons of illegals as well.

Obviously, that person was an impostor; you never wrote those words; and I ow you an apology for my failure to recognize the obvious sockpuppetry.

Now with that being said, I don’t see how your response actually addresses the point I made, that immigration is largely orthogonal to the problem of a welfare state. Immigration restrictions are a violation of the basic rights known as freedom of association, and the right to contract. People who advocate keeping immigrants away because they strain the welfare system are, in effect, arguing that because a person might be a burden at the future, their rights should be violated. This is stupid and immoral; after all, it’s quite possible that the person who is being kept out is going to be the mother of the next generation’s Selma Hayek or Albert Einstein.

vidyohs September 30, 2011 at 6:20 am

Your failure of debate is in taking what I said and making it into what you want to believe, I think it is called a strawman here.

My version of common sense says end all welfare and then immigration as an issue goes away.

Now you can take that position and conjure up your projected creations of my attitudes and beliefs, and argue your own projected creations, but it is silly as hell.

EG September 29, 2011 at 5:05 pm

“There is almost NO check on the police powers ”

Thats almost certainly…not even remotely true.

Don Lloyd September 29, 2011 at 2:55 pm

All government employees, elected officials, etc., should be required to wear color-coded clown hats at all times in public, as silly-looking as possible. This might help control their self-inflated egos and sense of unbridled power.

Regards, Don

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 3:40 pm

That’s kind of how I aleady see them.

Stone Glasgow September 29, 2011 at 3:50 pm

Awesome.

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 4:51 pm

You realize that colleges and universities when not a de jure part of the government apparatus, are de facto its appendage, since the are dependent upon it through direct and indirect subsidies. Do you really want to condemn your host to wearing outlandish headgear?

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 5:00 pm

If that is true, then you can come up with a specific example of Don making a governmental action. So, is it true?

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 5:29 pm

He accepts a paycheck. He may bite the hand that feeds him, but it feeds him and he therefore is a “government employee”, unless GMU is like Hillsdale and accepts no federal aid (outside the maintenance of a tax exempt status).

You can’t recognize sarcasm? You have people in this thread talking about all sorts of rights, thumping their chests as absolute purists, resorting to speculative and absurd arguments, and yet a suggestion of wearing clown hats (if I were Don, I’d point out Nazis made people wear special things at all times in public so they could be readily identified-you know, yellow stars, pink triangles) gets two attaboys.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 5:56 pm

Not that it matters, but you should read up on how the GMU Economics department is funded.

It doesn’t matter, because you cannot live without in some way being construed as the beneficiary of some government action. What you CAN do is advocate in the strongest possible way against those interventions. There is no place he could go that doesn’t ostensibly recieve a government benefit. And there is likely no place he could go where his advocacy would have greater effect.

tarran September 29, 2011 at 7:58 pm

Perhaps if academics were forced to look silly, they might stop pandering to the state… ;)

I expect MIT and Harvard would rediscover independence faster than Chuck Schumer jumps in front of a news camera in the Capitol Rotunda.

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 11:12 pm

Not that it matters, but you should read up on how the GMU Economics department is funded.

So no student attends using government grants, or subsidized loans?

In any case money is fungible. You should know that.

vikingvista September 30, 2011 at 12:33 am

Anotherphil,

Thanks so much for ignoring the largest of my two paragraphs. Afterall, why should you waste time trying to avoid posting non sequiturs? Good strategy.

Dan H September 29, 2011 at 3:03 pm

I am extremely sympathetic to immigrants, as I am engaged to one and have become close to many of her immigrant friends.

But I do not want an open border until we end the drug war and end the welfare state.

As far as this law goes, yes it does seem to cross the line. This is what happens when simple people – in this case, Alabamans – try to clean up the problems caused by progressive policy. They become reactionary. Someone besides Ron Paul and Gary Johnson needs to stand up and explain that the problems are the drug war and the welfare state, and that the majority of immigrants that are decent hard-working people.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 3:32 pm

What about the army of American drug gangs and welfare abusers? Perhaps Minnesota needs to clamp down on its borders to stop the flow of such undesireables from Chicago, the deep South, and California. Maybe Collin County needs to clamp down on movement from Dallas County. San Francisco from Oakland?

Or maybe we should remember that US government action is supposed to be always in the context of inalienable human rights, not rights earned through payment of taxes or place of birth. Using government abuses to justify more government abuses is a positive feedback dynamic that seems both unamerican and unwise.

Dan H September 29, 2011 at 3:41 pm

Valid points.

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 4:41 pm

US government action is supposed to be always in the context of inalienable human rights,

Rights untethered to responsibility isn’t freedom, its kleptocracy and what got us where we are today. Internationalizing it will finalize it.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 5:02 pm

Sorry, but “responsibility” does not mean “violation of rights”. Try again.

tarran September 29, 2011 at 8:02 pm

Can someone translate this Anotherphilism into English?

Rights untethered to responsibility isn’t freedom, its kleptocracy

A right is a property people have; Responsibility is essentially the exposure of people to the consequences of their actions. Where does the theft come in?

Related to renting an apartment without government permission, if I rent an apartment without government permission and make my payments diligently, how am I stealing?

PrometheeFeu September 29, 2011 at 7:28 pm

As an immigrant I may be biased, but I find it quite painful to see the US decide to hurt people and deny them their rights just because it can’t get its act together. Would it be acceptable for instance to abrogate 2nd amendment rights because buying flak jackets for police officers has proven politically difficult? Would it be acceptable to forbid people from performing dangerous sports because we have mandatory disability insurance?

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 8:28 pm

It is painful to see how Americans have changed. There was a time when it was widely believed, with little exception, that every human being has the natural right to be left alone. The rhetoric and treatment of both legal and illegal immigrants shows that belief is dying fast, and being replaced by a belief in unearned entitlement.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 8:30 pm

rhetoric about

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 3:08 pm

Ausweis.

Dan H September 29, 2011 at 3:45 pm

Immigration is an issue that the Ds and Rs play between the 40 yard lines. Until a third party comes along, there ball will never move.

Stone Glasgow September 29, 2011 at 4:00 pm

This is already “law,” according to your definition. The Alabama immigration law, and the judge’s statements are just a formality; solidifying what was already understood by the people and the police.

Henri Hein September 29, 2011 at 4:00 pm

The Supreme Court already gave away the fourth amendment in Hiibel. The advantage to the Hiibel case is that you can see the arrest on Youtube. Watch that video and then tell me the cops are here to “Protect and Serve” me.

Stone Glasgow September 29, 2011 at 4:25 pm

The 4th amendment had never been law, it has only ever been words on a page. Officers have virtually limitless power over civilians, and their testimony is accepted as factual in courts of law.

Viewing the Hiibel video, it is unfortunate that he does not know how to properly address an officer in a polite way that retains his rights. He could have easily avoided this. His proper course of action would have been:

“I’m sorry officer, I do not have my identification.”

OFFICER: “Okay, what is your name and address?”

“My name is Hiibel, And I live at ______”

OFFICER: “We had a report regarding a fight between a man and a woman here, is everyone okay? What happened?”

“My wife and I were speaking loudly with each other. We are okay now. Thank you.”

OFFICER: “Is the vehicle registered in your name? How long have you been in the United States? Where do you work?”

“Am I being detained or am I free to go?”

At this point the officer must tell him he is free to go or detain him. He will need a reason to continue his investigation. Hiibel is under no obligation to answer any questions beyond his name and address, and can state his name only if he feels his address will be self-incriminating.

Stone Glasgow September 29, 2011 at 4:27 pm

All citizens are legally required to giver their name and address (unless self-incriminating) to an officer at any time for any reason. It has been this way for some time.

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 4:44 pm

It hails from common law, its known as the constabulary’s right of inquiry.

Asserting a fifth amendment right with a cop, I think would amount to an unspecific, but uncoerced confession, enough to give rise probable cause to continue their inquiry.

Stone Glasgow September 29, 2011 at 5:11 pm

Nah. It’s possible to politely decline when asked to answer questions. It’s not a confession, and former officers recommend that one not answer any questions, because even innocent people may offer evidence that is crucial to their conviction.

For example, if you are innocent, and you honestly state that you were alone in your home during the time of a murder; what happens when officers find someone who thinks they saw you near the murder sight? The other person’s testimony will contradict yours, and indicate that you are lying to an officer.

It is best not to answer questions on the street. Questions are for the courtroom.

Henri Hein September 29, 2011 at 5:51 pm

Yes, but I do not think Hiibel gives up his rights by being obtuse.

You can turn it around and look at what the cop could have done different. All he had to do was walk over to the truck, ascertain that the young lady was alright, then be on his way and chase some real crooks.

Stone Glasgow September 29, 2011 at 11:42 pm

Hiibel broke the law by refusing to cooperate with the officer. Being polite would have gone a long way for him.

Stone Glasgow September 29, 2011 at 11:46 pm

He could have done that, yes, but he is trained to control the situation during the investigation to insure safety. The officer behaved reasonably and in keeping with his training, shared by every officer I have ever encountered in a non-personal setting.

Kirby September 29, 2011 at 5:27 pm

The problem with the open immigration policy is that the existence of a welfare state makes it a true detriment to the whole country if anybody immigrates who has a below-average income. Remove the welfare state and only the rednecks will care.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 6:50 pm

Well then, that’s a problem of the welfare state and not open immigration policy, isn’t it?

Josephine Stalin September 29, 2011 at 6:59 pm

You want to feed your children, your papers please. Fiat money only.
Its all in my manifesto, “I Rifle.”
I have appointed central bankers to eat out your sustenance.
I have quartered American soldiers in 150 of 195 countries.
I have enslaving all peoples everywhere to Chartocracy, the rule of paper.
Consider just the 4000 soldiers in my Djibouti base. From there I have created little Mexican borders for the citizens of dozens of African & Asian countries. I have 370,000 soldiers doing far worse.
The only deliverance you dream of is from the Constitution Myth I feed, a Constitution made entirely of paper.
You are nothing without of the sacred sacerdotal rites of my purified bureacracy priests. You are not fed, wed, or dead until my stamp be upon the deed.
Through environmental and travel laws, I am starving you out, for soon you will be of no use to me. Men without freedom are no men at all, I grow tired of looking at you, and dream of new races and faces to step upon and thrones to be manufactured for my eternal ascension and limitless glory.

Craig September 29, 2011 at 8:08 pm

If citizens did not have to surrender property to the state to support illegal non-citizens, we might very well not even be having this discussion.

I’ve mentioned before that the excellent, libertarian econo-bloggers (no supporters of the welfare state, they) completely ignore the issue of the welfare state when illegal immigration is being discussed.

There must be a reason. They cannot deny that caring for, educating and feeding the undocumented is a drain on productive citizens. So, why the insistence on promoting open immigration all the while ignoring its practical effects?

MWG September 29, 2011 at 8:27 pm

Illegals also pay taxes into SS and Medicare. Two programs they’ll never see the benefits from. As I said above, the evidence that illegals are a drain on the welfare state is mixed, at best.

I wonder if you could cite a study that weighs both the economic pros and cons to illegal immigration?

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 11:24 pm

A lot of people pay into those programs and never see any benefits. They are intrinsically designed to be tontine. That impeaches their design, and does not mitigate or exculpate the violation of our sovereignty.

I used to think that “the evidence that illegals are a drain on the welfare state is mixed, at best.”. Then I spent a couple years as a medicaid auditor. Then I spent some time doing budgetary work in the corrections system.

Its an awesome testament to Hayek’s insight when you learn how things really work when you get proximity to a situation and realize the professoriate and their groupies, even those that those that have (or especially those) that have Phds think themselves beyond such influences are slaves to defunct theories.

MWG September 30, 2011 at 1:24 pm

“A lot of people pay into those programs and never see any benefits. They are intrinsically designed to be tontine. That impeaches their design, and does not mitigate or exculpate the violation of our sovereignty.”

Way to miss the point. Point being that there are certain aspects of the welfar system that benefit from illegal immigration.

“I used to think that “the evidence that illegals are a drain on the welfare state is mixed, at best.”. Then I spent a couple years as a medicaid auditor. Then I spent some time doing budgetary work in the corrections system.”

Anecdotal evidence? Sounds definitive. Can you cite any studies that weigh the economic pros and cons?

“Its an awesome testament to Hayek’s insight when you learn how things really work when you get proximity to a situation and realize the professoriate and their groupies, even those that those that have (or especially those) that have Phds think themselves beyond such influences are slaves to defunct theories.”

The benefits of free trade and movement of goods, services, and labor are taught in some of the most basic economics courses. They don’t stem from some crazy Hayekian economic theory. We’re talking pretty basic stuff here.

MWG September 30, 2011 at 1:30 pm

“That impeaches their design, and does not mitigate or exculpate the violation of our sovereignty.”

I’d love for you to defend this idea of ‘sovereignty violation’ without spouting the same collectivist bullshit we hear from muirgeo on a daily basis. If I want to rent my home to or hire someone from Mexico (you know… freely associate) why the hell is it any business of yours?

Ken Royall September 30, 2011 at 4:06 am

FICA revenue is not used to fund local school systems or public services so your analysis falls flat right there. You are also extremely naive to assume they will never see their benefits. The pro-amnesty supporters have already promoted the idea of crediting illegals for their payments retroactively. The day they are made citizens through some sort of legislation, it would undoubtedly contain language to allow them to get their benefits.

There have been many studies that have shown that illegals are a net drain. They simply don’t pay enough in taxes to offset the costs of public services. States and municipalities aren’t cracking down on them for the hell of it, they are doing so because they are losing their ass financially.

Anotherphil September 30, 2011 at 10:37 am

they are doing so because they are losing their ass financially.

Money doesn’t talk, it screams.

vikingvista September 29, 2011 at 8:41 pm

What ultimately matters is how individuals are treated. Illegal aliens did not create and have no authority over the welfare state. They don’t collect your taxes, or enforce your laws. It is not the fault of the arbitrary American or non-American if in the course of peacefully living his life (driving on roads, going to the hospital, seeking an education, etc.) he is not being appropriately engaged or billed for services.

But you treat any peaceful person violently, that is your fault.

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 11:25 pm

Illegal aliens did not create and have no authority over the welfare state.

When they partake, they are the system.

vikingvista September 30, 2011 at 12:39 am

You can’t not be a part of the system. That doesn’t make them anymore responsible for its offenses than your driving on government roads makes you responsible for Abu Ghraib. The imposition of a “system” is not a justification for violating anyone’s natural rights.

Anotherphil September 30, 2011 at 10:34 am

I’m not, a lot of people aren’t-I have to pay for it. I certainly would move predicated on the existence of government financial support, sort pardon me but your assertion is bovine excrement, but not terribly different from the rest of your polyannish blither on this topic.

Have you ever thought about a class in elementary logic? Your “analogy” between voluntarily accepting welfare and having no control over the nature and location over penal institutions is inane.

vikingvista September 30, 2011 at 2:55 pm

I’ll take the degeneration of your discourse as a consequence of your frustrated intellectual struggle.

But one aspect of your tirade of desparate nonsense bears pointing out, as it appears to be your modus operandi. You are again (for at least the third time) employing a diversionary tactic by missing the point about the impossibility of avoiding the system.

A human being, regardless of whether or not any taxes have been successfully extorted from him by any group of thugs, has the right to peacefully interact with welcoming friends and strangers. He has the right to wander the earth, property owners permitting, and to seek out offered services that he desires. The fact that some gang forcefully tries to insert itself in his way, by the violent userpation and mismanagement of services, is not his fault, and does not cancel his natural rights. He is not to blame for their sins.

And the system is inescapable, as you oddly pointed out with your asinine response to me making the same point about money being fungible. National defense, police, roads, record keeping, social security, medicare, courts, regulatory controls, schools, etc. are things none of us can avoid being touched by, and therfore ostensibly benefit from.

Whatever you personally pay in taxes and consume in services, it is a matter of fact that the taxes most US citizens pay, do not cover the government services that they use. You oddly claim that you are paying for them, without recognizing that it isn’t a fee for service system. It is designed NOT to be. Much of it is expected to never receive compensatory funding from those who most use it.

For your argument about being a taxpayer to have any weight, you would have to deny those services to everyone, citizen or not, who is not paying for it. Since you clearly are not about to do that, the fact that you are a taxpayer is completely irrelevant.

People have a right to live within the limits of their negative rights, regardless of how others have screwed up the world in which they must live.

Dan J September 29, 2011 at 11:15 pm

I will only comment enuf to say that borders currently require a blockade. Upon the economic advancement of Mexico and restricted travel policy toward homicidal maniacs in name of religion or some political cause, then the limitation of cross border passage can be forgotten.

Anotherphil September 29, 2011 at 11:37 pm

Assuming its feasible, we should not erect a blockade. However, that requires effective individual screening and periodic monitoring, paid for by the entrants (so that costs and benefits are linked). No “social” benes, no birthright citizenship or other inducements to fraud should exist. I’m not even opposed to allowing sponsorship of foreign nationals, if they want to pay the costs of entry and validation.

Otherwise we have socialized costs and private benefits. Honestly, there really should be a check valve by now on thinking people that induces additional skepticism when you find yourself on the same side of an issue with people like Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the Ag lobby.

vikingvista September 30, 2011 at 12:42 am

Better to be on the same side as the unions.

Anotherphil September 30, 2011 at 10:35 am

I’m on the side of sovereignty.

MWG September 30, 2011 at 1:32 pm

Talk about speaking in cliches. Go ahead, define sovereignty and defend it without using terms similar to ‘social contract’ and ‘government rights’

vikingvista September 30, 2011 at 2:58 pm

To bad it is state sovereignty, and against individual sovereignty.

richard September 29, 2011 at 11:41 pm

Don,

The proper German terminology is “Ausweis, bitte”.

Ken Royall September 30, 2011 at 4:19 am

I have some questions for the open borders crowd.

Should America accept any number of entrants into the country from all parts of the world? For example, how about 20 million starving Africans? Why should Mexicans and South Americans get preference? Geographical coincidence?

Would the US economy be worse off if we hadn’t had a failed state on our southern border causing many of their poor people to come here? Is there any legitimate reason to know if a new immigrant has any communicable diseases or a criminal background?

Is assimilation into American society important? If so, can than be reasonably accomplished when the onslaught of new arrivals is overwhelming our ability to do that? Would it matter if we had another 20 million people arrive within a short time who did not speak English? Would it matter if immigrants of a certain ethnic origin organized into concentrated areas and preferred to retain the language and customs of their home country in those areas?

If some of them couldn’t find work should they be given the same benefits as Americans? When they go to the ballot box and vote for left wing Marxist candidates to get benefits for themselves would Libertarians realize the folly of their views on immigration? Or, would all of these poor people with few marketable skills volunteer for the perpetual Ron Paul presidential campaign? Is the situation in regard to immigration in LA County a template for the rest of the nation to follow? Do Libertarians realize it is a hellhole?

Ponder those and get back to me.

MWG September 30, 2011 at 1:50 pm

This comment is so full of teh stupid… but here goes…

“Should America accept any number of entrants into the country from all parts of the world?”

‘America’ should accept the number of immigrant based on demand… you know? Basic economics.

“For example, how about 20 million starving Africans?”

I wonder how 20 million starving African will be able to afford their travel expenses… you know? Being that they’re unable to afford food.

“Why should Mexicans and South Americans get preference? Geographical coincidence?”

Life can be unfair like that. Some people are born taller. Some people are born better looking. Some people are born into wealth. Some people (GASP!) are born in better geographical locations.

“Would the US economy be worse off if we hadn’t had a failed state on our southern border causing many of their poor people to come here?”

Differences would probably be mixed.

“Is assimilation into American society important? If so, can than be reasonably accomplished when the onslaught of new arrivals is overwhelming our ability to do that? Would it matter if we had another 20 million people arrive within a short time who did not speak English?”

Gee… sounds like the early part of the last century. Sounds like hell.

“Would it matter if immigrants of a certain ethnic origin organized into concentrated areas and preferred to retain the language and customs of their home country in those areas?”

Ever been to New York? San Francisco? Any major US city?

“If some of them couldn’t find work should they be given the same benefits as Americans?”

Nope… and neither should Americans for that matter. Separation of state and economy.

“When they go to the ballot box and vote for left wing Marxist candidates to get benefits for themselves would Libertarians realize the folly of their views on immigration?”

Immigrants can’t vote; only naturalized citizens can. You’re talking about two different issues.

“Is the situation in regard to immigration in LA County a template for the rest of the nation to follow? Do Libertarians realize it is a hellhole?”

California has a number of problems mainly stemming from bloated government pension systems which have nothing to do with teh scary immigrantz.

Russ Roberts (One of the owners of this blog) had an excellent podcast on immigration where he and the guest discussed all the questions you put forward.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/10/caplan_on_immig.html

Fred September 30, 2011 at 1:53 pm

“Separation of state and economy.”

*like*

vikingvista September 30, 2011 at 3:10 pm

Great responses. I’ll just add this…

“When they go to the ballot box and vote for left wing Marxist candidates to get benefits for themselves would Libertarians realize the folly of their views on immigration?”

Americans have already done that themselves. At least the economics of a return to open borders would make such policies impossible to implement. Besides those aren’t the incentives of immigrants. Immigrants of course use what is available to them, but those managing to tear themselves from the poverty or despotism of their home countries typically are overwhelmed by the multiples of their former incomes they can readily achieve in a free enterprise system with a fraction of the effort it took to even come here.

Actually, I suspect a return to open borders would solve many of our political problems.

PrometheeFeu September 30, 2011 at 3:01 pm

“Should America accept any number of entrants into the country from all parts of the world?”

Short answer: Yes. Long answer, there is no “America accept[ing]” them. It is about a couple of American people (the government) not stopping people from exercising their liberty of travel, contract etc…

“For example, how about 20 million starving Africans?”

People who are so poor that they are actually starving are unlikely to have the means to travel across the Atlantic en mass. But yes. If they did, don’t let the government use violence to keep them out or keep them from working.

“Would the US economy be worse off if we hadn’t had a failed state on our southern border causing many of their poor people to come here?”

Probably would have been better. However, given that there is a failed state on the southern border (Mexico really isn’t a failed state but we’ll leave that for another time) letting the poor people come in and work is better for the “american economy” as it is generally understood.

“Is there any legitimate reason to know if a new immigrant has any communicable diseases or a criminal background?”

Yes. I don’t think many people would object to the idea that given the fact that many communicable diseases are basically gone from the US but prevalent in other countries we maybe should make sure people from abroad don’t bring in the bubonic plague.

“Is assimilation into American society important?”

Important to whom?

“Would it matter if we had another 20 million people arrive within a short time who did not speak English? Would it matter if immigrants of a certain ethnic origin organized into concentrated areas and preferred to retain the language and customs of their home country in those areas?”

Would it matter to whom? I think it might make for some interesting cultural neighborhoods to visit.

“If some of them couldn’t find work should they be given the same benefits as Americans?”

Well, most people here think you should not be given benefits if you can’t find work. So yes. The same non-benefits.

“When they go to the ballot box and vote for left wing Marxist candidates to get benefits for themselves would Libertarians realize the folly of their views on immigration?”

Wait, are you really asking us if we want to use violence in order to keep people out of the country based upon those people’s political views? Do you perhaps also want to hunt down and kill all the Marxists? Or would revoking their right to vote be sufficient for you? As a side note, open borders does not necessarily mean everyone who is allowed to vote in elections.

“Is the situation in regard to immigration in LA County a template for the rest of the nation to follow? Do Libertarians realize it is a hellhole?”

I don’t know enough about LA County to answer your question.

Greg Webb September 30, 2011 at 3:31 pm

Such is another sad affront to freedom. The right to travel, especially within the United States by those not attempting to harm others, is a fundamental freedom that should not be infringed upon by State law enforcement officers. Alabama’s law will also serve to instill fear among US citizens of different racial backgrounds, naturalized US citizens, and others who are legally here. My fiancee recently lost her wallet, which included her work permit that she carried with her just in case the local police ever stopped her and asked for proof that she is here legally. She worried that they might take to INS if she could not provide the work permit immediately upon request. And, given the corruption of her home country’s government, her concern was not overblown. A good Samaritan found and returned the wallet intact so this ended well. But, arguing that the United States should become more like the rest of the world, including the so-called social democracies, is, at best, a silly idea designed to further control by the few of the many.

Previous post:

Next post: