Arizona Immigration Laws...?

Miscellaneous Current Events
1

Hi all. I’m new so, you know, not sure if this is appropriate to discuss (should be, no? - do we talk about immigration here? It seems like it could be relevant to so many things - private property, anarcho-capitalism, etc.)

Anyhow, I have relatively recently adopted a libertarian philosophy (around the time of Ron Paul’s candidacy) . I was just looking for thoughts on the recent Arizona Immigration law, allowing police officers to ask for “papers” if they have “reasonable suspicion” that someone might be in the country illegally. This seems like a violation of personal liberty (in the same vein as National ID cards) and will almost certainly subject citizens to detention by the police (as well as subjecting illegals to the same; but I guess that’s the point, it’s dangerously arbitrary, or functionally will be, despite the best efforts of the police).

The issue of (illegal) immigration seems to be a divisive issue among libertarians and I myself am not sure about how I feel about it. General thoughts? Thoughts specific to the new law in Arizona? Thanks.

2

It might be struck down as violating the 4th amendment

“the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” They’ve changed the grounds for search to “reasonable suspicion” which is obviously less strict.

However, I’m not clear that illegal immigrants are protected under this clause because in the 14th amendment it says:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, with due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of law.”

So basically, if you’re not naturalized (legal) then you might not be privy to equal protection. I’m not entirely sure though.

I’m also not sure whether there are other statutes that could be used to strike this down. I do think we’ll see some serious lawsuits because inevitably, a legal immigrant will be asked for papers and/or detained and if the media jumps all over that, there will be a public demand for redress.

Now, apparently, the issue of illegal immigration is supposed to be a federal matter but obviously people in Arizona got tired of waiting for the President to do something about this.

I feel that it’s a strict measure, but I think that if it is in fact constitutional and therefore consistent with the law then it can be enforced and I’m ok with that. This isn’t a national policy, this is a state policy and if Arizonans feel this is necessary to solve the problem, then that’s their prerogative.

3

General thought:

The right of a person to move about freely and choose where they live is so basic that I would be suspicous of any state action in that arena.

4

Except that the infrastructure and roads used by these freely moving individuals are being financed by taxes they are probably not willing to pay, and understandably so.

Not a justification, but a hint as to why some people might support “cracking down on illegal immigration”.

5

I’m sure a lot of them find ways to collect medicaid and welfare too.

6

I remember reading somewhere that most illegal immigrants actually do pay income tax, and obviously they can’t (totally) avoid paying sales taxes. Plus, cities with a higher proportion of immigrants tend to have less crime than comparable cities with fewer immigrants. So immigration itself isn’t a bad thing.

People are justifiably concerned about drug related violence, but that’s caused by the government’s prohibition on drugs. And while most immigrants come to the US to try to find a job, there are probably at least a few who just want to mooch off the welfare state. Obviously another government created problem. Finally, some people are concerned that immigrants are just going to “steal our jobs.” There would be plenty of jobs for everyone if the government didn’t interfere in the market via minimum wage laws, licensing schemes, union monopoly laws, etc. Any supposed problems associated with immigration are created by the government in the first place.

We don’t need to build fences, hire border guards, give police gestapo-like powers or anything else. All we need to do is end drug prohibition and the welfare state.

7

Indeed. In a sane world, immigration would never be viewed as a problem. People coming to your state to do work? What the hell is so bad about that?

If the government didn’t interfere with the price system (which is what a welfare state does) immigrants wouldn’t need to be told whether to come or not; they would make the correct decision for themselves via price information. They would make a decision based on expected earnings vs. expected costs. If the former is greater than the latter, then by definition, they are benefiting the economy as a whole. If the latter is greater then the former, they’d be evicted and “forced” to live somewhere where this wasn’t the case.

Immigration isn’t a real issue. It’s one that politicians make up to legitimize their plunderers reign.

8

Very incorrect.

Immigration is not some issue concocted by politicans without a prior cause, which is, people regionally having tolerances for or against immigration.

In some twisted sense, many politicans actually end up representing concerns on immigration, but usually not to the end benefit to the supposed represented.

I’m sorry, but saying the Immigration issue is a figment of politican’s imagination completly ignores the cultural situation in Texas (arguably, one of the state’s with the strongest emotions regarding the issue itself).

Even in a stateles society, people would still view immigration as an issue, if private enclaves and/or free-association allows communities to pop-up wherin people agree to not allow certain particulars.

The only differences is that it wouldn’t be referred to & dealt with, within the statist framework. Individually, & per the supposed expousing of subjective views, immigration will always be an issue for some.

Immigration would also look different in a stateless society, where technically everyone could be considered an immigrant in relation to another sovereign individual.

9

We’d probably use the term moving though.

10

Maybe, maybe not. It entirely depends if nationality exists in some form, & if that is a majority view or a minority view of the population.

Some sort of mini-nationality could exist, for instance, for stateless individuals from different regions, in which different needs & conditions occur relative to another region (geographically & socially, but not necessarily politically, since this is a stateless society we are talking about, politics themselves would be too different to predict, imo).

*I realize how odd it is to use nationality in relation to stateless society, but a less roundabout way of saying it would be an analoug. In this case, a feeling of regionality, in the greater context of the de-centralized stateless society, that replaces the previous over-arching & centralized nationality.

I mean it sounds silly, but I would feel some sort of affiliation with those I’ve grown up around and/or with, in a certain location I’ve grown up with, compared to a different location with different people I might move onto later on in life.

11

All persons, regardless of immigration status, are protected by the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment. Citizens get privledges and immunites.

12

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside…”

It doesn’t say “all persons living in the United States, regardless of immigration status”

13

It clearly delineates which sections apply to citizens and which apply to all persons:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” This states which persons in the US are citizens.

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;” This section applies only to citizens.

“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of law.” This section applies to “any person”.

14

Hmm, you might be right.

I dunno, we’ll see if and how the SCOTUS rules on this. Perhaps they’ll strike it.

15

I just joined the forum because I had to reply. This phrase, “illegal immigrants” has become just another thing people and politicians throw around. Yet does anyone actually stop to think what the word illegal means?? They’re not supposed to be here, period. If you’re not a legal citizen of the USA, you get deported, sent back to your country, end of story. Clean up this freakin’ country and get us back on track damnit!

Yeah it’s hard line to take, but as we know, you can’t appease everyone and the crime is beyond belief. I’m pretty sick and tired of seeing dark skinned bald men with long white t-shirts and pants around their dicks bringing down my standard of living… Aren’t you?? Illegal = get out if you’re here, and we DO have the capability to build an impenetrable wall, we just don’t do it.. My God, look at the Berlin wall and how well IT did so many decades ago. I’m not saying the Berlin wall was a good thing, just that if you want to keep people out of your country, you can.

So, to sum it up, count your blessings every day for being born in this country and never take it for granted. People immigrated here legally for years and years, learned English and built the infrastructure and backbone of the nation. This country has become so wishy washy about EVERYTHING it’s ridiculous.. Ok, bye bye.

16

bloomj31: So basically, if you’re not naturalized (legal) then you might not be privy to equal protection. I’m not entirely sure though.

Ok but how does the police officer know or gather this suspicion prior to knowing this to be true about the person or not?

17

I don’t know, the law says the police has to have “reasonable suspicion” that the person they’re stopping has committed a crime. I don’t know how they’ll determine that reasonable suspicion. That’s for the court to decide.

A lot of the law just states that if a person is detained for some other reason and it turns out they don’t have papers that they can be immediately deported. I think the thing about reasonable suspicion is only in relation to traffic violations.

Here’s the full text for the law: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

18

You guys have got to lose the PC stuff. How do you determine? It’s simple - if he’s MEXICAN (yeah I said it, so what? It is racial profiling because that’s the race that’s flooding the country), and doing stuff he shouldn’t be doing, or acting intimidated simply by the police officer’s presenence. I think when you cut the crap, it’s really not that difficult.

19

I suppose it is reasonable to suspect that any Mexican in Arizona could be illegal. I mean they’re right on the border.

20

dax702 - What are you on about? I know that is the case and I’m pretty sure that bloomj knew I was leaning exactly towards that. My point would be, and it should be obvious, that it gives the police officer virtually no limits to stopping someone to ask for papers.

bloomj - Thanks for the link!