-
Tebowing and ‘Polarizing’
June 11, 2013 | 7 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Over at Reason, Matt Welch takes issue with my (and Daniel Larison’s) defense of the Arizona immigration law:
The whole only-people-with-reason-to-fear argument, to put it mildly, has not been a historical friend of liberty. Nor is it usually accurate. If you are a legal resident immigrant from Mexico, you have plenty of “reason to complain” about this law, because now it’s more likely that you are going to be pulled over by an Arizona cop.
I don’t actually take the “only-people-with-reason-to-fear” position: I recognize all government power can be, and typically is, abused. But in principle the Arizona law tries to balance two competing interests — trying to reduce an illegal population that is mostly Hispanic while protecting the rights of Hispanic legal residents and citizens, who are also large in number. Whether it works out that way in practice, we’ll soon see. But in the context of federal non-enforcement of the border and immigration-related problems affecting Arizonans of all races and ethnicities, it simply makes no sense to not use routine police contacts with illegal immigrants to determine their legal status.
As Welch himself observes, the problems associated with illegal immigration are real and they are faced by decent, law-abiding people in Arizona every day. That is why this law was enacted with 70 percent popular approval. There is no truly surgical or cost-free way to deal with those problems. And with all due respect to my libertarian friends, that includes legalization: even fixing the immigration black market won’t prove cost-free.
View all comments (21) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/04/30/driving-while-government
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Celebrating Our Lady of Paris
- Sweet Home, Alabama
- Screwtape Protests
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
brucet| 4.30.10 @ 1:25PM
Is the United States entitled to determine who can enter, in what numbers and under what terms and to enforce the laws which protect it’s sovereignty or does the United States simply exist as a place for half the world to come and “work hard”?
Why are native born Americans required to show ID (driver's license) to do JUST ABOUT ANYTHING, but illegal latinos are given carte blanche?
The real question is: does every latino in Mexico and Central America, have a God given right to "migrate" to the USA?
I say no. I say deport all illegals and LOWER LEGAL immigration for a period of ten years or so. Re-balance the scales.
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.1.10 @ 2:35PM
Ladies and gentlemen,
I hope you will send this link to every one you care about in the military, a veteran, or in law enforcement.
Tell 'em God bless 'em at the same time.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
I hope each of you will spend some time there as well.
Goo| 4.30.10 @ 3:33PM
What about temporary worker visas? why is that not the best solution? does no one listen to the Cato Institute anymore?
Holdmynose| 5.3.10 @ 9:22AM
Does a work visa require you to have a skill? Does it require more than a DESIRE to come here? Does it require a predetermined employer? I'm serious, I don't know.
Why wouldn't a worker get a visa if all they wanted from the USA was a job?
brucet| 4.30.10 @ 4:07PM
Goo - have you heard? We have a weak economy with nearly 10% unemployment. Even the Barry Soetoro adminstration says unemployment will likely remain around 10% for YEARS TO COME.
Again, does every foreigner, every Latino have a God given right to "migrate and work hard?
No, actually they don't. A better solution is for poor Latinos to work to reform their own highly corrupt, highly inefficient governments....and stay home with their families. Better for everyone.
Ran / Si Vis Pacem | 4.30.10 @ 4:11PM
"because now it's more likely that you are going to be pulled over by an Arizona cop."
What utter bull! ...and Matt ought to know. The difference now is that it's more likely that will be consequences for being illegal. What Matt is rejecting is the Law that there are substantive responsibilities with Liberty. It's not a libertarian position he adopts, it's an adolescent one.
Al Adab| 4.30.10 @ 4:14PM
One little law -16 pages- from one far off small state and the universe rattles. How exactly did Arizona manage to hit such a nerve?
The state has many LEGAL immigrants and a rich Hispanic heritage they respect. What they also have is about 10% of their population Illegal and aboput 25% of their jail and prison population also Illegal. Phoenix was recently the subject of a Geraldo report about the kidnapping rate and crime rate caused by Illegal residents (not immigrants).
We do ourselves, as a country, a great disservice when we confuse this issue with immigration. The bill is not anti-immigrant, it is anti- lawbreakers.
Jocon307| 5.1.10 @ 11:31AM
Excellent post.
I am coming to realize that many of our elected officials seem to care more for illegal entrants to this country than the do about the voters and taxpayers who pay their salaries.
George W. Bush was a supreme example of this.
NO AMNESTY - SECURE THE BORDER.
TomSwift| 5.1.10 @ 12:26AM
I regularly read posts on Cato.org
However they don't seem to get it on the immigration issue
For example, here (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11718) they write:
"The key to reducing illegal immigration will be a strong temporary-worker program." In all of history, how many temporary workers haven't become permanent workers?
"In the 1950s, Congress dramatically expanded the number of temporary-worker visas through the Bracero Program. The result was a 95 percent drop in arrests at the border" Actually, it was Operation Wetback that caused the massive reduction in illegal immigration. Increased immigration only causes more immigration as the first wave sends back information about how good it is here.
I've always thought immigration punishes successful cultures with dilution, while allowing 3rd world dictators to proliferate as the oppressed would rather leave then fight, given a choice.
theRadix | 5.1.10 @ 2:40PM
We have a post on our blog [http://theradix.net] that describes just how this new law will have a discriminatory impact on not only legal immigrants, but also American minorities.
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.2.10 @ 1:39PM
Legal immigrants who are not full citizens are required by law to carry their "papers" with them when they are in public. This law does not infringe upon their civil rights because it requires them to do nothing more than what the federal immigration law does.
As for the "minorities" who could "possibly come under scrutiny" through the enforcement of this law. Do you not carry your driver's license or identification when you leave your home? There are many instances in which individuals are required to make known their identity, and if you are suspected of, or caught in the commission of, a crime and you do not have your identification credentials then the arresting officer in question must take steps to ascertain your identity beyond verifying your non-present documentation.
If you don't agree with this law and you live in AZ and you are a "minority" that could "come under scrutiny" because of this law, you are free to misrepresent yourself, not carry identification, and lie to law enforcement about your identity so you can feel the inconvenience of having your civil rights "violated."
Citizens and even illegals who behave otherwise lawfully will have a much lesser chance of coming under the scrutiny of law enforcement. Of course, with rigorous enforcement of these standards I would expect the illegally present individuals residing in AZ to remove themselves from that State, likely preferring New Mexico, California, Nevada, and other neighboring States who aren't taking such "harsh" actions to shed the problem of illegally present nationals, who are not all Mexican in nature.
Crusader| 5.1.10 @ 9:10PM
Ya know, if illegal alien canucks were streaming across the northern border, committing crimes in the USA, mooching off welfare from the nanny state, flooding hospitals and causing them to shut down, and demanding services in French, I would hope every person in a northern border state who said "aboot" instead of "about" would get pulled over and asked to show papers.