« How Come I End Up Where I Started? | Main | Multipass »

April 29, 2010

Comments

Yup.

It's going to worse, too.

It's funny how crapbag Reynolds bases his decisions on the outrage he can muster up from the extreme positions on the other side. Or claims to- frankly, anyone who argues this way isn't really arguing, they're just waving pom-poms and hoping it distracts from their underlying, broken argument.

I mean, I could base my position on stuff like this:Drudge highlights Bloomberg article with unrelated image of what appear to be Latino gang members.
If someone on the other side does something that ugly, it must mean that they're in the wrong and the bill is bad...

the opposition displays that special combination of self-righteous outrage and bone-deep ignorance that really sets me off

It's like irony personified.

Let's also call it the Spirit of Hate Radio/TV, because that's what it is, as well: cynical manipulators aiming their audiences straight at--well, not just progressives, but even conservaDems like Obama, and using it both to advance an agenda of moving the nation further to the right, and remove what little spinal vestiges remain in the Democratic party.

I would suggest two things: Hating the other side just because they are the other side is mutual in our political discourse.

Daniel Larison seems to spend a lot of time complaining about conservatives, to the delight of progressives.

I would suggest two things: Hating the other side just because they are the other side is mutual in our political discourse.

Well, one can find examples of any behavior on either side, but that doesn't mean that they're representative.
And there's something beyond 'hating the other side' here; the issue as I read it is hating the other side so much that actual policy preferences become irrelevant. Here, a self-proclaimed libertarian sides with a policy where police can stop people and ask them for their papers- and solely because he just doesn't like liberals & this policy irritates them.
The presumption of guilt and the preemptive search- these things should outrage conservatives. Yet aimed at an ethnic group that trends liberal, they are eagerly supported.

I genuinely can't think of an example of a policy pursued by liberals *just* to stick their thumb in the conservative eye, or more specifically one where the policy is actually contrary to genuine liberal principles.
But maybe Im just to close to liberalism to see such a thing, so if you can think of one let me know.

I should say "eagerly supported by some"; many conservatives, including some further right (eg Tom Tancredo) have objected to aspects of this bill.

I would suggest Marty is fair and balanced to a fault.

"Hating the other side just because they are the other side" is indeed unseemly, but is it "mutual"? Does Marty hate me just because I am almost always on "the other side" from him? He's welcome to confess that he does, but he's not entitled to attribute the same knee-jerkism to me.

I am not one of those namby-pamby libruls who shy from any suggestion that I "hate" conservatives. In fact, I welcome the accusation that I hate their ideology.

But I want to assure Marty that I positively seethe with good will toward my fellow Americans, however misguided they may be. If they feel I "hate" them "just because they are on the other side", that's just more evidence that they are misguided -- not evidence about my feelings toward them.

--TP

Daniel Larison seems to spend a lot of time complaining about conservatives, to the delight of progressives.

Marty, Marty, Marty, that's not how you do it. Seriously, that was just weak sauce. What you should be saying is that it reflects poorly on progressives that they give so much credence and exposure to Larison, a guy who boasts about his membership in a racist hate group. Of course the response will be that many people who aren't racists list VDare.com under their recommended sites list and besides, Larison's belief that Lincoln was the one who started the Civil War should in no way call into question his judgment.

Thanks Turb, properly chastised.

Marty; Hating the other side just because they are the other side is mutual in our political discourse.

Because the concept that anyone could hate Republicans just because they're pro-life, pro-torture, and anti-habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions, is just inexplicable to you, Marty?

In British politics, some Parliamentary reporter said once that it was easier for Conservatives to whip themselves up to partisan hatred against Labour than the other way round, because Conservatives knew that Labour was wrong - and Labourites didn't have that kind of class privilege.

Both your mainstream political parties are right-wing, of course, but it does seem that wherever you go, the more right-wing a political party is, the more utterly convinced they are that anyone who wants to stop them carrying out their political program is evil. The BNP in the UK; the Republican Party in the US; extremist right-wingers just tend towards fanaticism, and it doesn't seem to change once they're in power - I'd offer examples, but there's an Internet law that if I did, it would stop the thread.

Still, nobody expects the immigration police! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to our Republican leaders.... Our four...no... Amongst our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

Hating the other side just because they are the other side is mutual in our political discourse.

why have i never seen a "piss off a conservative, get an abortion" bumper sticker ? i see the "piss off a liberal [do something liberals don't like]" versions all the time.

i wrote this at BJ last week, in a similar thread, so i'll just copy it here:

it’s one of my favorite aspects [of modern conservatism]; by defining themselves as the opposite of whatever liberals are doing that day, the intellectual hollowness of “conservatism” is made manifest. they are pure reaction. knee-jerks.

if their contribution to the conversation is to prefix everything you say with a logical NOT, then there’s no reason to pay any attention to them.

How's this for a timely 1787 Founding Father quote?

"Liberty is a word which, according as it is used,comprehends the most good and the most evil of any in the world. Justly understood it is sacred next to those which we appropriate in divine adoration; but in the mouths of some it means anything, which enervate a necessary government; excite a jealousy of the rulers who are our own choice, and keep society in confusion for want of a power sufficiently concentered to promote good." --Oliver Ellsworth

What you should be saying is that it reflects poorly on progressives that they give so much credence and exposure to Larison

Indeed, the irony* is that in another post, Larison decries all the "overreaction" to the Arizona bill. He's a paleoconservative who works for Pat Buchanan's magazine; while we might approve of his diagnoses of modern conservatism's excesses, we must remember that paleoconservatism is "better" than the current default pseudoconservatism only because it's not completely insane. Mr. Buchanan himself illustrates that as well. I presume that he loves the AZ law, and would like it replicated everywhere, because he even hates legal immigration ("Buchanan" is an old Iroquois name). Yet at the same time, the notion that you would nuke someone for hacking into a computer strikes him as nonsense, which puts him far outside the current mainstream of the Republican Party and their Tea Party allies. As always, wheat from the chaff.

*Is this actually irony? Thanks to Ms. Morissette, I can't tell anymore.

Marty,

A couple of thoughts:

1. When Democrats support torture, I don't defend torture because they're Democrats doing it. I complain. Loudly. Republicans? Not so much. Including Reynolds - who won't oppose torture, at least partly, because he doesn't like the tone of torture's critics. Similar to the "libertarian's" unwillingness to challenge the AZ law - a law that should be anathema to a libertarian.

2. Adding to Cleek's point, how many stories have you read of conservatives on Earth Day turning on all their lights, leaving their car running, etc., in an effort to uselessly waste energy because...it will piss off liberals.

That's injuring your own pocketbook and environment for the sake of spite.

I'm not sure there's an analogue on the left, but I'm open to your counterpoints.

Jes,

Of all the things we have eveer discussed on this site, my opinion is that you should carefully consider whether you have the experience to judge how to deal with mass illegal immigration in a practical way.

There are practical discussions and disagreements about how to stem the flow of illegal immigration along a thousands mile border that without the experience of dealing with it is hard to have a measured opinion about. That is also true of most of the people in northern states whose actual experience with illegal immigration is perhaps a few people that are being mistreated as underpaid undocumented workers.

The people proposing these solutions are tasked to fix a very complex problem that even most Americans have little practical experience with.

The assumption that these are bigots is, of course, the answer to cleeks 7:21. The liberals don't need those bumper stickers, they just call anyone that disagrees with them a bigot or worse.

As far as the particular law is concerned, I am not sure that the law solves much. Sending illegal immigrants back or jailing them is fixing the wrong end of the problem.

However, there are real problems here where part of the problem is that people are happy to ignore the problem, or even dismiss it, if they live two states from the border.

However, there are real problems here where part of the problem is that people are happy to ignore the problem, or even dismiss it, if they live two states from the border.

This is an incredibly pernicious claim. It is also completely wrong. Living in a border state doesn't give you magical knowledge about policy. It might give you anecdotal evidence but the last thing American policy needs is more policymaking by anecdote. Policies are either good or bad based on how much sense they make, not the distance of their author from a border.

Finally, I don't recall anyone invoking this law of "geographic proximity before opinionating on policy" when conservatives talk about welfare queens with their cadillacs in inner cities.

Marty,

Here's a suggestion:

Levy significant fines on companies that employ undocumented workers. If US businesses won't hire them, they won't come for jobs.

Problem with that is the GOP will never back such a plan because they are hand in glove with US business interests.

So instead, we get the types of laws that focus on the workers themselves, which is kind of like ignoring the drug dealers and focusing on the addicts. Not very effective, but good political theater.

Unfortunately, this political theater has undertones of racism and persecution.

Like when a GOP congressional candidate in Iowa recently suggested catching undocumented workers, implanting microchips under their skin and releasing them - into the wild as if they're animals that we want to track.

Or when GOP Rep Duncan Hunter suggested deporting US citizens (children as it were) whose parents were in the country illegally.

Again: the most effective way to deter entry is to disincentivize entry by cutting off the economic incentive (by making it costly to hire undocumented workers) which is 99% of why people cross the border.

Marty: Of all the things we have eveer discussed on this site, my opinion is that you should carefully consider whether you have the experience to judge how to deal with mass illegal immigration in a practical way.

Thank you for mansplaining that to me, Marty.

Now perhaps you would let me know what position - paid, voluntary, official, or unofficial - you have held that enables you to speak with authority about how to deal with "mass illegal immigration"?

Because if all you have is the same as I have - the experience of living in a country where the authorities deal with mass illegal immigrants in ways that swing between the horrifyingly cruel and the mundanely indifferent - then I presume you are merely ignorant of the fact that the UK has mass illegal immigrants too...

The liberals don't need those bumper stickers, they just call anyone that disagrees with them a bigot or worse.

Ah, the good old "I don't understand why my sweeping comments about Those Kind Of People led someone to call me a bigot!" Well, Marty, usually it's because bigots think their sweeping opinions are just plainspoken truth - and they get very cross at being identified as bigots because of them.

Google "Gillian Duffy" if you don't get what I mean... British people tired of getting told that we're all natural bigots are making #iloveimmigrants a trending topic in Twitter, thank you.

I can't say it any better than this:

“Righties have no idea what we lefties think, because they never listen to us. They listen to the straw lefties that live in their own heads, and then they explain to each other what we think.”
Barbara O’Brien

The liberals don't need those bumper stickers, they just call anyone that disagrees with them a bigot or worse.

I think there's more than a little truth in this.

The two camps employ different styles in putting each other down, or dismissing each other, but both certainly extend their differences from points of policy to more ad hominem attacks.

There is also more than a little truth to the stereotypes they use in talking about each other. Stereotypes are rarely coined out of thin air.

There are lots of different kinds of people in this country, and lots of us don't make a lot of sense to lots of others of us.

What I do think is more true of rightwingers, and less true of lefties, is that they are motivated by a deep and ingrained sense of exclusion and resentment.

It's a sensibility that I find hard to dialogue with. There are lots of folks who have a far stronger claim to exclusion, disenfranchisement, and general being put upon than your average rank and file self-identifying conservative.

A little perspective goes a long way.

That's my take on it, anyway.

Regarding the immigration issue, I have some family in Phoenix and my impression is that folks in AZ experience illegal immigration in pretty different ways than folks like, for instance, me, living here in MA.

For example, noone has ever stolen my truck from in front of my house and driven it off into the Mexican desert, as happened to my brother in law. Boatloads of refugees have never landed on the beach that's a mile or so from my home, as has happened to relatives in FL.

So I think there is a difference in the sense of urgency or crisis, justified or not, with which people in different parts of the country experience the problem.

Not saying that should drive policy, or not. Just saying it's a reality.

To me, the immigration issue seems almost like a problem in physics. People living in Mexico and South America can improve their lot in life quite a bit by coming here, legally or otherwise. And they can get here by foot, even if at great risk to themselves.

So that is what they are going to do. It's like osmosis, the system is inevitably going to seek equilibrium. Period. You might as well try to stop the tides as try to stop that.

I agree with Eric that, if our goal is actually to keep illegal immigrants out, our focus should be on the folks who hire them.

But I guess I don't see why can't just let them come here, become citizens, and live their lives.

The nativist thing just makes no sense to me. Americans of northern European extraction are not natives to this continent, and brown skinned Spanish and/or Indian speaking people have been living in the American southwest for centuries longer than English-speaking people. For most of the area, English-speaking Americans hold political sovereignty due to a war of aggression that occurred fairly recently, historically speaking.

We're the usurpers. If anyone has a strong claim to the southwest as a "homeland", it's the folks we're trying to keep out.

My two cents, FWIW.

You would think that conservatives would be strong believers in supply and demand. In the case of illegal immigration, the potential supply is just too enormous to make pretty much any approach to choking off the supply unrealistic. So, if you understand supply and demand, the only thing that is going to work is to choke off the demand.

And how do you do that? By enforcing the existing employment laws. (See anyone running a small business for the paperwork they are legally required to file on each and every employee. E.g. I-9 forms) If that proves to be insufficient, once you actually enforce them, you may want to run up the penalties. But at least make the risk/reward for employing illegals such that businesses stop doing so.

Drastically reduce demand, and the supply drops substantially as well. Just that simple.

The liberals don't need those bumper stickers, they just call anyone that disagrees with them a bigot or worse.

True, but beside the point.

The point I, and Larison, am making is that some Republicans have begun to embrace policies that go against their ostensible core beliefts out of spit.

So, if mindlessly wasting energy will piss off an environemntalist, do it even if it costs you money and contributes to the degradation of the environment. This from a party that produced Teddy Roosevelt.

Also, if Democratic opponents of torture argue in a certain way, then support torture.

With the AZ law, ditto: it's an affront to freedom, but worth it if supporting it will be an affront to liberals, then support it (or at least mute criticism thereof).

So this is not about "both sides ridicule the other" which is true.

This is about one side that has grown so preoccupied with pissing off the other that they back all manner of terrible policies out of spite.

My "favorite" conservative bumper sticker was one I saw about a month ago:

"Abortion, AIDS, crackheads... don't liberals just KILL you?"

"{This is about one side that has grown so preoccupied with pissing off the other that they back all manner of terrible policies out of spite. "

I understand the point of this, and recognize that at times the preoccupation clouds good judgement. But it is not true of every time conservatives experience the mental breakdown of applying nuance to a problem that requires them to see more than one side.

A long way of saying, yes, but I disagree that the law in Arizona falls into this category.

I believe that, in Arizona, the problem is so acute as to drive conservatives to consider less good options in an attempt to solve a worsening problem. The knee jerk reaction, in this case, is from the liberals who offer no solution, just a criticism of the one being put in place.

the more right-wing a political party is, the more utterly convinced they are that anyone who wants to stop them carrying out their political program is evil

I dunno Jes, I can think of a lot of examples of very strident left-wing groups. If there's a correlation here, I might attribute it to the relationship between religious belief and politics. Of course, with some left (and right) groups, the political objectives become very similar to religion anyway (eg Stalinism).
And, in the modern West, the Left is the party of pluralism/multiculturalism, which tends to put us more in the habit of accommodating the Other.

"The knee jerk reaction, in this case, is from the liberals who offer no solution, just a criticism of the one being put in place. "

Well, Marty, they just announced their solution to control things by having everyone use biometrics to sign in at work everyday. So they are offering some solutions, even if they are even nore draconian than the Arizona law.

"Well, Marty, they just announced their solution to control things by having everyone use biometrics to sign in at work everyday. So they are offering some solutions, even if they are even nore draconian than the Arizona law."

I hadn't noted the proposal and I am not sure how I feel about it. It seems very difficult to implement across the mass of small businesses.

Or if the implementation only requires me to have my work bob in case the INS shows up then perhaps it is a universal implementation of the Arizona policy that is more elegant and less racially charged.

The fact that the ACLU doesn't like it concerns me though, it means I have to evaluate whether they don't like it because it really impedes my rights or because objecting supports their overall right wing agenda.

out of spit

Speling flame!

I would suggest two things: Hating the other side just because they are the other side is mutual in our political discourse.

Daniel Larison seems to spend a lot of time complaining about conservatives, to the delight of progressives.

One of this things is not like the other.

Speling flame!

Yeah, there should have been an "until they're" in front of "out of spit."

Regarding the immigration issue, I have some family in Phoenix and my impression is that folks in AZ experience illegal immigration in pretty different ways than folks like, for instance, me, living here in MA.

I spent a portion of my formative years in Arizona, my parents only just returned to Iowa from living there, and despite the hype, the instances of undocumented immigrants galloping in on horseback and taking over towns were actually few and far between. But they always made good scapegoats for crime and drugs. (Hint: "illegals" sneaking across the border to work at all the big Republican-owned agricultural and construction concerns aren't the ones brewing up most of the bathtub meth.) To hear the defenders of this new law tell it, my middle school cafeteria must have been the site of pitched gun battles between van-driving Mexican gangs. Sorry, but reality is still reality, no matter how much people think otherwise.

But yes, having the undocumented workers come from Ireland or Cape Verde is different from having them come from Central America in much larger numbers. And if you don't embrace von Mises' unrestricted flow of labor, there's a potential problem here. But again, the place to crack down the hardest (employers) is the one that receives the least effort for some reason. At least Democrats are getting to the root of the problem by wanting to burden workers with something cribbed directly from the Mark of the Beast, 'cause that will really help.

Eric: So instead, we get the types of laws that focus on the workers themselves, which is kind of like ignoring the drug dealers and focusing on the addicts. Not very effective, but good political theater.

Uh, I think there's actually a very good case to be made for focusing on drug users rather suppliers in reducing drug use and the damage wrought by the war on drugs. In fact I'm pretty sure of it.

Not that I disagree with you on going after employers, just that a comparison to users/suppliers in the drug context doesn't work, for many reasons.

the instances of undocumented immigrants galloping in on horseback and taking over towns were actually few and far between.

FWIW, my brother in law's truck actually was stolen from in front of his house, driven to Mexico, and abandoned in the desert somewhere.

Certainly, that doesn't happen to everyone. But, it happened to him.

And, for another example, the question of whether folks should put out water or other supplies to keep illegals crossing in undeveloped areas from dying in the process never really comes up in Maine or New Hampshire.

Net/net, I think Marty's point, that the actual experience of illegal immigration is different in border states vs elsewhere, is apt.

I don't think it should drive policy, and I think the law passed in Arizona is crap. But I also think folks in some places find the problem more frustrating, in more direct and concrete ways, than folks in other places.

That's all.

Net/net, I think Marty's point, that the actual experience of illegal immigration is different in border states vs elsewhere, is apt.

Probably true. But that wasn't Marty's only point; he had another:

There are practical discussions and disagreements about how to stem the flow of illegal immigration along a thousands mile border that without the experience of dealing with it is hard to have a measured opinion about.

Not so true. In fact, a good argument could be made for just the opposite, especially in the "measured" department.

"Not so true. In fact, a good argument could be made for just the opposite, especially in the "measured" department."

Other than to note it, I am speechless at the hypocrisy in this statement. I will assume it wasn't thought through.

FWIW, my brother in law's truck actually was stolen from in front of his house, driven to Mexico, and abandoned in the desert somewhere.

I do appreciate your empathy, russell. But FWIW, a car was recently broken into in a neighborhood near the university here, and a GPS unit stolen. Illegal immigrants from Mexico don't seem to be the primary suspects. This is why anecdotes are not an apt way to craft policy. Especially in a state where people's different experience frequently comes via relocating from Whitesville, Minnesota for the weather, then hunkering into exurban subdivisions and screaming "Oh my God, there are people speaking Spanish living in the city! Why won't the government do something?" That was the point of my reference to living part of my childhood there; the "actual experience" of illegal immigration is often very little, unless you fancy hanging around in the shantytowns created by agricultural workers, or don't do your own yard work. The perceived experience of illegal immigration is much higher, but only because of an endless flow of cheap demagoguery from those who prey upon the fears of northern arrivals, and because the culture has a strong Hispanic flavor going back to the US conquest. Cinco de Mayo isn't a big deal just because of illegal immigration.

And as far as anecdotes go, returning to Iowa from Arizona has allowed my parents to start bitching about all the illegals working in the meat packing plants. It's an Iowa political candidate who brought up "microchipping them." And some people in this part of Connecticut resent bilingual signage at the Wal-Marts, and want all those Puerto Ricans to go back to the country they came from. So distance from the southern border might not be the most relevant variable after all.

Other than to note it, I am speechless at the hypocrisy in this statement.

Indeed, never before in history has the diagnosis "You're too close to the problem" been uttered. As the old saying goes, the best view of the forest is always provided by getting right up against a tree.

Other than to note it, I am speechless at the hypocrisy in this statement.

I'm equally curious. Marty, are you unaware of the concept of being too close, too emotionally invested to be as rational as necessary?

This may or may not be correct in the current instance, but I don't think it should render anyone speechless or be considered hypocrisy to posit.

"I'm equally curious. Marty, are you unaware of the concept of being too close, too emotionally invested to be as rational as necessary? "

IMHO, We (people here who generally discuss issues in a serious manner) generally don't suggest that those that are actually experiencing the harm in a situation should look to those who have no experience with the harm for guidance on what is an appropriate solution.

We don't suggest that the Afghans are too close to the problem, the Iraqis, ethnic groups, etc.

But those in Arizona dealing with this problem on a day to day basis should look to someone else for guidance on the solution because they can only see the trees.

We don't suggest that the Afghans are too close to the problem, the Iraqis, ethnic groups, etc.

Is this real? Do you really have enough gall to compare the million Iraqis whose lives have been obliterated by a war we started for no reason with...a bunch of people who live in the richest country in the world and who may be experiencing a slightly elevated crime rate? Wow. I am...impressed.

Let me spell it out for you Marty. Most people in border states don't have experience.
What they have is fear. Sometimes that fear is rational, many times it is not. But either way, they haven't studied policy seriously, they don't know any statistics and they're often completely ignorant of how the law actually works. That's why 70% of people in AZ support a law that experts can see will very clearly not address the problem.

Look Marty, contracting herpes does not actually make you an expert in infectious diseases, virology or public health. Just like having your truck stolen doesn't make you understand one frakking thing about how your crime rate is actually pretty low compared to most places and how illegal immigrants actually have lower crime rates than citizens. But I guess all the years I spent studying statistics don't count for anything compared to some loser in AZ who pretends that all crime is committed by brown people, right?

We (people here who generally discuss issues in a serious manner) generally don't suggest that those that are actually experiencing the harm in a situation should look to those who have no experience with the harm for guidance on what is an appropriate solution.

Well, we do sometimes. In some cases, we prefer those with expertise (eg we prefer a doctor's opinion over a parent's, usually, when treating a child). In others, we probably would recognize that someone is too close (eg the old Dukakis debate question about executing his wife's murderer, where he failed to explain that distinction).
I think the former is more important than the latter here; people on the border have 'experience' with the results of the problem, but they don't necessarily have 'experience' in policy decision-making to deal with it (or other relevant areas eg civil rights issues). And the latter is what informs us as to what the best solutions might be.

On the gripping hand, I dont think border residents have less of an idea on those issues that the average non-border resident either, or that emotion clouds the issue so much as to prevent rational consideration.

One aspect not yet mentioned is the influence of the demographic shift on the political landscape. Since attempts to lure latinos into the GOP camp are thwarted on a daily basis by blatantly racist demagoguery, the perceived only way to keep the red states red is to prevent the 'takeover' by Dem leaning minorities growing into majorities. That is, keeping them out if possible and keeping those that are already in the state from voting. Governor Brewer has done huge voter purges http://www.alternet.org/story/146657/the_real_reason_why_arizona_passed_such_harsh_immigration_laws>in the past (as secretary of state) that were directly targeted at Hispanics. The group that claims to have authored the new law has numerous connections to notorious racists (cf. Rachel Maddow on this Thursday). All that makes the idea that this law is just another tool in the GOP box at least worthy of discussion.

Other than to note it, I am speechless at the hypocrisy in this statement. I will assume it wasn't thought through.

Marty: Having a thought train that you don't agree with or can't follow well enough to do anything with but twist it into straw doesn't make me a hypocrite. Nor do I think your patronizing assumption that I didn’t think carefully before writing is an improvement over direct insult.

Anyhow, if you had really wanted to grant the benefit of the doubt, you wouldn’t have tossed in the insult first. I won’t bother to assume it wasn’t thought through.

In your 5:11 you seem to have lumped all kinds of things that you imagine people “here” to have said into one amorphous ball (with lots of misinterpretation thrown in for good measure), then reacted resentfully to it on behalf of the people of Arizona. Since you didn’t give any supporting evidence, I can only assume you did the same lumping thing in order to call me a hypocrite; that is, you didn’t bother to notice what I’ve actually said, but rather just lumped me into that undifferentiated mass of opinions “here” that you don’t agree with. Whether you’re being dense, lazy, or deliberately inflammatory doesn’t much matter at this point, it’s just offensive.

I doubt I have ever said a word here about the Afghan people or the Iraqis. Nor did I or anyone else say that people in Arizona shouldn’t have opinions or a say in what happens in relation to illegal immigration. I said that other people’s distance from the situation doesn’t disqualify them from having a “measured” opinion (you had asserted to Jes that it did), and that “it could be argued” that it may be hard for people close to a situation to have measured opinions about it. That is a long way from saying that their opinions don’t count or are never measured. Acknowledging such distinctions would undermine the lumping-and-resenting enterprise, I suppose.

Note to self, take advice back from Seb, to whom I offered it recently: Don’t bite hooks.

Well, we do sometimes. In some cases, we prefer those with expertise (eg we prefer a doctor's opinion over a parent's, usually, when treating a child)

Or an impartial jury over the victim (or the victim's family). Though the notion that a murder victim's family "deserves" capital punishment as "justice" for their loss has been allowed to pollute this principle.

Are there now two people named "Marty" posting? What is going on here:

"The knee jerk reaction, in this case, is from the liberals who offer no solution, just a criticism of the one being put in place. "

Well, Marty, they just announced their solution to control things by having everyone use biometrics to sign in at work everyday. So they are offering some solutions, even if they are even nore draconian than the Arizona law.

Posted by: Marty | April 30, 2010 at 12:14 PM

"Well, Marty, they just announced their solution to control things by having everyone use biometrics to sign in at work everyday. So they are offering some solutions, even if they are even nore draconian than the Arizona law."

I hadn't noted the proposal and I am not sure how I feel about it. It seems very difficult to implement across the mass of small businesses.

Or if the implementation only requires me to have my work bob in case the INS shows up then perhaps it is a universal implementation of the Arizona policy that is more elegant and less racially charged.

The fact that the ACLU doesn't like it concerns me though, it means I have to evaluate whether they don't like it because it really impedes my rights or because objecting supports their overall right wing agenda.

Posted by: Marty | April 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM

I was talking to myself, I comented and then saw Erics next post.

anecdotes are not an apt way to craft policy.

Couldn't agree more.

Especially in a state where people's different experience frequently comes via relocating from Whitesville, Minnesota for the weather, then hunkering into exurban subdivisions and screaming "Oh my God, there are people speaking Spanish living in the city! Why won't the government do something?"

Not to beat this poor dead horse further into the ground, but my sister and brother in law have been living in AZ, year-round, for a little over thirty years now. They live in Phoenix, not greater Phoenix or an exurb of Phoenix. They're not ninnies with an exaggerated sense of entitlement, they're just folks who live in Phoenix.

And it might be that a bunch of white yahoos stole my brother in law's truck and abandoned it in the Mexican desert, but all in all it's probably more likely that it was somebody else's ride home.

Not that that is a decisive data point regarding the policy, it just is what it is, and it's not necessary to refute it in order to make the point that the law sucks.

My point with the anecdote about the truck wasn't intended to support the law in AZ. It was simply to point out that people in some places experience illegal immigration differently than people in other places.

I think the law in AZ is crap. I think when it starts costing folks there money, either through loss of tourism or the cost of lawsuits, they'll figure out that it's crap. It shouldn't require that for that to be obvious, but people are dense, and sometimes things need to be pounded into their heads before the light bulb goes on.

The law in AZ is crap. The fact that Arizonans feel hard put by illegal immigration is not an excuse for hassling brown people, which is what is going to happen if the law is implemented.

And yeah, the fact that my brother in law's truck was stolen would place him pretty low on my personal list of folks whose opinions should determine what the policy should be. For obvious reasons. And for the record, I haven't talked to him about it, but my guess is that he doesn't support the law.

They're not ninnies with an exaggerated sense of entitlement, they're just folks who live in Phoenix.

Oh, certainly. Sorry if there seemed to be an implication that your family members fit the category. I was just painting the type that I saw engaging in most of the fevered talk in Arizona. And I was also trying, however clumsily, to point out that the presence of a Hispanic undocumented worker population is less distinctive than many Arizonans might think. The Midwest, for instance, has been impacted as well, and often without the cushion of an established Latino culture.

" I was just painting the type that I saw engaging in most of the fevered talk in Arizona."
" compared to some loser in AZ who pretends that all crime is committed by brown people, right?"

and then

"What they have is fear. Sometimes that fear is rational, many times it is not."

Yes they are afraid, and now, after a decade they are getting angry that nothing is being done. And they resent the constant accusation that to perceive this as a problem makes you stupid, a bigot or both.

What I object to is the complete lack of empathy and obvious disdain for what I perceive are honest, hard working people who live in fear, in America.

There is a reason they are afraid beyond political demagoguery. The politicians may prey on that fear, but it exists in the absence of those politicians. I believe that, in the absence of empathy, one is not qualified to appropriately assess the situation.

No matter how many forests one might see, or years of policy studies or statistical studies one might have, if you don't empathize with the people who are living in fear you won't address their problem.

Their problem is the one that this law addresses, granted poorly, but it is a part of the problem that needs to be addressed.

What I object to is the complete lack of empathy and obvious disdain for what I perceive are honest, hard working people who live in fear, in America.

That's funny; that's exactly what I object to about this Arizona legislation and its supporters.

I guess that when you really do have lack of empathy and complete disdain for honest hard working people living in fear, you aren't actually capable of perceiving those people as humans.

The sky plane caught fire over Los Gatos caynon
A fireball of lightning, it shook all our hills
Who are these good people all scattered like dry leaves
The radio said they were just deportees

And they resent the constant accusation that to perceive this as a problem makes you stupid, a bigot or both.

Who made that accusation? Anyone here?

What I object to is the complete lack of empathy and obvious disdain for what I perceive are honest, hard working people who live in fear, in America.

Examples here?

"Examples here?"

Eric,

I quoted two of them.

And Jes, there are two sides to this story, discounting one is equally as bad as discounting the other. But you only see one side, which makes my point.

Oh, and if Marty tries to claim - again - that I just don't "get" this through lack of experience:

Racist bigotry towards "immigrants" exists in the UK, largely as the province of tabloid newspapers (though they and the BNP/National Front manage to get others on board) is something I'm quite familiar with, as I'm familiar with the culture of fear this engenders. (See Daily Mail Watch - immigration.)

I don't blame people who give in to the culture of fear when this is all they're ever fed by their news sources and politicians who kowtow to the tabloids, but I do blame politicians who base policy on this kind of fearfilled rumor-monging that's so profitable to faux-news and so damaging to anyone who is, or who "looks like" an immigrant.

Marty's complete lack of empathy for hard-working, honest people living in fear because they are immigrants in a country hostile to them, is something that either lends itself to use by active bigots, or is born of bigotry. But his whining that it's us who aren't being "empathic" towards the real white Americans who are suffering here, is pure BNP-speak.

Eric,

I quoted two of them.

I was asking for myself and JanieM, whose empathy claim was the subject.

Eric, No, it wasn't aimed at "Eric and JanieM". I pointed out the examples in this thread.

Their problem is the one that this law addresses, granted poorly, but it is a part of the problem that needs to be addressed.

It's the "granted poorly" part that's the rub.

Everybody's afraid of something. Most people are afraid of a number of things. Some of them are rational, some aren't.

And even when they're rational, the actions you take to address your fears have to make sense.

I appreciate that you are sticking up for people who you feel are being unfairly maligned.

There are also the folks who are going to have the crap harrassed out of them, many or most of whom have done nothing to deserve that treatment.

Under this law, police are expected to presumptively challenge people to produce, on the spot, proof that they are citizens of this country, if they have a "reasonable" suspicion that they are illegal immigrants.

Let's speak plainly. The thing that will warrant such a "reasonable" suspicion is that those folks will be, or will appear to be, Hispanic.

So, to assuage some folks' fears, other folks are going to be harrassed by the police, on the basis of their physical appearance.

At that point, I kind of lose sympathy for the first set of folks' fears. Because they are willing to let other folks take a load of crap so they can be more comfortable.

Thanks, Eric.

I too am still wondering what I have written that opens me to the charge of hypocrisy. What I have written, mind you, not what other people have written, because other people don't speak for me, only I speak for me, and only my double standard (if there is one) can make me a hypocrite.

Alternatively, someone who thinks they see a double standard in my (or anyone's) thought trains might, before leaping to the hypocrisy charge, give some examples and then ask if there's some reason I feel one situation isn't the same as the other.

*****

I had a friend in the Boston area whose car was stolen a number of years ago. It was found many months later in a parking garage, beat to sh!t, with the tools of a tire-stealing operation in the trunk. No immigrants (illegal or otherwise) involved.

I bring up this story as a variation on Russell's in order to point out something that I don't see coming through in this discussion or know much about, and that's this: it seems to me that there are really two big problems here, illegal immigration and drug crime. They are not the same thing, but they are being conflated in the discussion of the new law and of everything the (white?) legal citizens of Arizona are experiencing. (How many Hispanic legal residents of Arizona support this law, I wonder?)

Unfortunately I have an appointment to get to, so I can't try to say this more clearly right now.

To be strictly totally honest, I don't remember if the police ever found the people who had stolen my friend's car. In any case, the Mexican border was not nearby.

Eric, No, it wasn't aimed at "Eric and JanieM". I pointed out the examples in this thread.

OK, because I'm still trying to make sense of the JanieM comment you made upthread, and your further comments on empathy that seemed a response for clarification.

You claim that people who are knee-jerk quick to label people bigots who want tougher laws on illegal immigration lack empathy and thus, even if they study the subject, because they are removed from it, they cannot properly assess it.

But JanieM was not so knee-jerk. Not at all. So, again, I'm not sure why you labeled her a hypocrite.

I'm not sure why so many seem to think of themselves so deserving based on who their parents are and/or where they managed to be born. I mean, what did you do to earn your American citizenship, kemosabe? 'Cause near as I can tell, it was entirely luck for most of the people complaining about these issues.

The fact is, while Mexico is not a poor country as compared to other countries worldwide (such as, e.g., most of the countries in Africa), it is pretty damn poor when compared to the United States. It also happens to share a very long and for the most part sparsely populated border with the United States. The combination of the two means that there will be huge and largely unchangeable incentives for Mexicans (and others who can manage it) to come to the United States, legally or illegally, absent truly drastic measures (such as the United States deciding to self-immolate its economy, or spending several hundred billion dollars building a border fence topped every 100 meters by guards with orders to shoot to kill anyone who attempts to cross the fence, in a sort of reverse East Berlin strategy).

It seems to me that the preferred solution of the people who support Arizona's law is "find them, round them up, and ship them back home," as if this has costs only for those rounded up and that it is somehow a "solution." The incentives are just too great, both for people wishing to come to the United States and those who will hire them once they're here. But since supporters of such a law won't countenance any kind of solution that might involve letting people who crossed the border illegally stay here with some sort of status (it seems instead they must be punished for some reason) such that they have an incentive to enter the legal work, we get the current system of a shadow underclass whose lives may be uprooted at any moment.

"compared to some loser in AZ who pretends that all crime is committed by brown people, right?"

and then

"What they have is fear. Sometimes that fear is rational, many times it is not."

Just to be clear, my statements here were based on my conversations with people from AZ, including this one">http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/04/27/states-rights-2/#comment-1724067">one at Balloon Juice, which culminates in this beautiful statement:

No, I provided links to the stories, idiot. I didn’t have to provide statistics, I provided journalistic proof.

Yes they are afraid, and now, after a decade they are getting angry that nothing is being done. And they resent the constant accusation that to perceive this as a problem makes you stupid, a bigot or both.

First of all Marty, who exactly are they, and when did they nominate you as their speaker? I don't think you have any right to represent people who don't even know you. Do you?

Secondly, isn't it strange that they are getting angry when illegal immigration has declined significantly in the last few years and crime rates in many parts of AZ have been static or declining?

What I object to is the complete lack of empathy and obvious disdain for what I perceive are honest, hard working people who live in fear, in America.

I am one of the honest hard working people who live in fear in America. Do you understand that? Most people are honest and hard working and almost everyone lives in fear. People who are adults however, learn to deal with their fear in constructive ways rather than just by lashing out at minority groups.

There is a reason they are afraid beyond political demagoguery. The politicians may prey on that fear, but it exists in the absence of those politicians. I believe that, in the absence of empathy, one is not qualified to appropriately assess the situation.

No. This is completely wrong. Even with no empathy, I am perfectly capable of assessing the situation by looking at crime statistics. That allows me to assess the real, not imaginary, threat that people in AZ face. If their fear significantly exceeds that threat, then I can objectively say they're overreacting. Or using their fear as an excuse to justify doing things they always wanted to do. You know, like people who only grope women in bars after they've drunk a lot but then insist on getting completely smashed every night of the week....

No matter how many forests one might see, or years of policy studies or statistical studies one might have, if you don't empathize with the people who are living in fear you won't address their problem.

See, this is completely absurd. If I empathize, nothing will change. Because their fear is not based on lack of empathy. These people are not afraid BECAUSE people outside their state don't empathize with them. That's nutty. They're afraid for a whole host of reasons, ranging from a disintegrating economy, to long term economic insecurity, to not being able to pay for their kids to go to college to being afraid of death to worrying about terrorists. None of those problems are solved by me being more empathic. None.

I can't believe that we have a conservative now insisting that we must ignore data and statistics and focus on improving the self-esteem of Arizonans before we can consider asking them to repeal their racist law. What other problems can be solved with empathy?

Their problem is the one that this law addresses, granted poorly, but it is a part of the problem that needs to be addressed.

A number of sheriffs in AZ disagree with you. They claim that this law will make their jobs more difficult. Why should we trust your assessment over professional law enforcement officers in Arizona?

"your further comments on empathy that seemed a response for clarification."

My further comments were not meant as additional clarification for my comment about Janie. It was in response to the subsequent comments I quoted.

I have no need to or dessire to "clarify" my comment about Janie. She disagreed, I don't need to answer beyond that we disgree.

Marty,

You have no "need" to do anything on this blog other than stick to the posting rules, which you seem to have managed at all times if my memory serves correct.

I was merely asking because it was a fairly serious charge, and it went without anything resembling a satisfactory answer.

And you usually take the time to provide one - whether we agree on the substance or not, there is usually that courtesy.

As always, the decision is yours.

Turbulence: I can't believe that we have a conservative now insisting that we must ignore data and statistics and focus on improving the self-esteem of [white] Arizonans before we can consider asking them to repeal their racist law.

You can't? With the additional clarifying word [inserted], it makes perfect sense to me. This is what conservatives do.

"I was merely asking because it was a fairly serious charge, and it went without anything resembling a satisfactory answer."

Eric,

I would attempt that answer, but, over time, I have come to the conclusion that in these instances I can have the conversation with myself just as easily:

Me: POINT ABOUT THE ACTUAL SITUATION

Janie(and or Jes): The only way anyone could have that point of view is if they were Choose one:racist, homophobic,sexist, etc)

Me:Not so, because of A(and/or)B

Janie(and or Jes): see above

I apologize if you felt hit by that brush, it wasn't intended but, I am not going to respond to the argument that white people don't count because they are, well, white people.

I guess I wouldn't argue that Jes doesn't do what you say, Marty (though I might agree with her when she does, at least sometimes). But where did JanieM make the kind of argument you're describing? I don't see that anywhere, at least not on this thread.

Other than to note it, I am speechless at the hypocrisy in this statement.

I have no need to or dessire to "clarify" my comment about Janie. She disagreed, I don't need to answer beyond that we disgree.

I am not going to respond to the argument that white people don't count because they are, well, white people.

Janie didn't say anything about white people, or any other color people.

Janie pointed out that being close to a problem might make your point of view less, rather than more, reasonable and/or measured.

It was a pretty reasonable counter to your comment. And it contained not one ounce of ad hominem anything, toward you or anyone else for that matter.

Calling someone's comments breathtakingly hypocritical isn't "disagreeing" with them, it's making a comment about the person.

Seems to me you're asking for more respect than you're giving.

Marty,

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with russell and HSH.

I've had many an unproductive back and forth with jes where I feel like she is arguing with a caricature, or a stereotype, rather than me, a person.

I can accept that charge with respect to her. Hell, I've made it myself on occasion.

But JanieM?

I'd like to see evidence of that - which you didn't actually provide I would note.

I've had many an unproductive back and forth with jes where I feel like she is arguing with a caricature, or a stereotype, rather than me, a person.

This seems to me to be an apt description of Marty; it is precisely what he has done with me in this thread, both in the hypocrisy comment and again this afternoon:

Janie(and or Jes): The only way anyone could have that point of view is if they were Choose one:racist, homophobic,sexist, etc)

Jes and I are both gay women and our names begin with “J,” what more do you want? (Okay, we also do both also disagree with Marty a lot, I will happily concede that.)

I challenge Marty to find one comment in the past two years and four months of my participation here where I said anything remotely resembling what he attributes to me in the comment quoted above. Anything. And not just a comment where Marty thinks that’s what I said, but a comment where other people also agree that that’s what I said. Because it starts to seem like Marty is not reading and writing the same English language that the rest of us are reading and writing, in much the same way that it seems like he’s not interacting with the same commenters that the rest of us are interacting with.

As to Jes, I have immense respect for her, and she drives me crazy at times. I assume, or hope, the same is true in reverse. That is, I hope she has some respect for me, and I assume I drive her crazy at times. I almost always agree with her about issues, but we are very different in our style and approach, to a point where it’s really a stretch to try to imagine that someone can’t tell us apart. But it’s not a surprise that this is the justification Marty offers for calling me a hypocrite, because without conflating me with someone else, I don’t think there’s any basis for the hypocrisy charge outside his own imagination. As I tried to say earlier, in the English language I’m familiar with, to call someone a hypocrite requires that you base it on what that person has said, not on some conglomeration of things a bunch of people have said.

Out here in the bloggy world outside Marty’s head, http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2010/01/let-the-cool-goddess-rust-away.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e20120a7bba492970b#comment-6a00d834515c2369e20120a7bba492970b>this is the nearest I can remember to writing something that Marty might have mistaken for what he attributes to me (and Jes) above.

But what that, or any of my comments along the same lines, has to do with my original comment in this thread, which was an abstract generalization countering an abstract generalization on Marty’s part, only Marty could possibly say.

I’m no saint. I’m angry and frustrated and (at least in imagination) snarky as hell at times. I can be touchy, self-centered, and self-righteous; my failings are legion. But this is the first time in sixty years that anyone has suggested that hypocrisy is one of them. Besides making me angry (don’t bite hooks indeed), it’s just sloppy. If you’re going to take up everyone’s time with this sh!t, at least pay attention, for crying out loud.

Thanks to hsh, Russell, and Eric for the support. Back now to our regularly scheduled non-meta programming.

Marty: And Jes, there are two sides to this story

That's amazing, Marty, because you appeared to think there was just one. Since you do realise there are two sides, why such disdain and lack of empathy for those hard-working, honest people whom you argue should be harassed by the police (Papiere, bitte?) just because of the color of their skin or the language they speak?

If you think empathy is important for white Arizonians, why do you think it's so unimportant for Hispanic Arizonians?

I am not going to respond to the argument that white people don't count because they are, well, white people.

Breathtaking, coming from someone whose sole point is that Hispanic people don't count because they are Hispanic people.

Oh, and you know, Marty?

When a culture of fear develops, such that you start blaming all crime on those people that don't look like us, laws designed for the sole purpose of harassing those people, that don't look like us will not actually do a thing to end the culture of fear. They won't make you less afraid. They are not intended to make you less afraid.

They are intended to feed your fear. To make you think your fears are real, because your lawgivers are treating them seriously. You will not become less afraid because there are laws to treat your Hispanic neighbors more harshly than you, laws to keep the illegal immigrants more severely in your place.

You will become more afraid. You're meant to become more afraid. You're caught in a ratcheting screw that will compress you and tear you into the shape that the people who profit by your fear want you to have.

...and it's unlikely to do anything for your crime rate, either.

When a culture of fear develops, such that you start blaming all crime on those people that don't look like us

Speaking strictly for myself (and, as a consequence, not at all for Marty) I think that the interesting part of this issue is not the not-looking-like-us part, but rather the lawbreaking part.

Which makes them sorta not like us, so maybe there's no win here.

Either enforce the law, or do away with it. If you don't want to constrain immigration, don't have laws on the books that constrain immigration.

Speaking strictly for myself (and, as a consequence, not at all for Marty) I think that the interesting part of this issue is not the not-looking-like-us part, but rather the lawbreaking part.

Slarti, if people are worried about violent crime, focusing limited police resources on eliminating all crime is generally ineffective. I mean, tripling the number of highway patrol officers to catch speeders would also be ineffective at reducing the violent crime rate, yes?
Especially since illegal immigrants are less likely to engage in violent crime than legal residents and citizens.

And in any event, this neatly ignores the facts that (1) Arizona is not seeing some massive violent crime boom and (2) the number of illegal immigrants there is declining. If people's fears are disconnected from the reality of illegal immigration, then changes to immigration will not alleviate them.


Either enforce the law, or do away with it. If you don't want to constrain immigration, don't have laws on the books that constrain immigration.

I'm sorry, are you seriously suggesting that the federal government refuses to enforce immigration laws? If you are, can you please specify exactly what you think the federal government should do?

I don't think maximal government enforcement of all laws at all times and in all places makes sense. I really don't think people should have to prove their legal residency in the US when buying coffee from Starbucks or a bandaid at the local pharmacy. Do you? This is a radical idea, but maybe we could use a cost-benefit criteria to decide how and where to enforce various laws?

This op-ed was interesting to me, but I don't have the chops to say whether or not it's total BS. Anyone more lawyerly than I want to take a shot at it? Here's an excerpt to get the juices flowing:

(...)The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:

It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.(...)

I mean, tripling the number of highway patrol officers to catch speeders would also be ineffective at reducing the violent crime rate, yes?

Sure. But it'd be very effective in reducing speeding.

I'm not sure where this fixation on violent crime is coming from, Turb, but it's not coming from me.

I'm sorry, are you seriously suggesting that the federal government refuses to enforce immigration laws?

Refuses isn't my wording, so: no, I'm not seriously (or otherwise) suggesting that. I'd guess they simply don't have the resources. In any event, state/local authorities would be more useful for enforcement, IMO, once the illegals have dispersed and settled.

I really don't think people should have to prove their legal residency in the US when buying coffee from Starbucks or a bandaid at the local pharmacy. Do you?

This is another set of notions that didn't come from me, seriously or otherwise.

This is a radical idea, but maybe we could use a cost-benefit criteria to decide how and where to enforce various laws?

Sure. We could have done that with illegal drugs to good effect, but those laws are still on the books. And of course a realistic cost of not enforcing the law would have to be estimated.

Here's an excerpt to get the juices flowing:

To me, the crappy part of the law is not the requirement that aliens carry some kind of documentation. Although that does lead to a kind of circular problem, where someone can say they don't need to carry the docs, because they are a citizen, but they can't prove they're a citizen without some kind of documentation.

The crappy part is the part where state and local police officers are required to ascertain the immigration status in any lawful contact with anyone, if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is illegal.

In his article, Kovach cites the law's provision that officers may not solely consider "race, skin color, or national origin" in evaluating "reasonable suspicion", but the full text of the section he cites is this:

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, 31 CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY 32 CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF 33 THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR 34 ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.

So, some careful editing on his part in his NYT piece.

I'm not sure state and local police should be in the business of enforcing immigration policy. That's one issue.

But the big, obvious issue for me is that, as a plain matter of fact, a lot of brown folks are going be required to prove they are citizens of the US whenever they have any kind of encounter with any law enforcement agency. Whether they're at fault or not, whether they've done anything wrong or not, whether they are citizens or legal residents or not.

Brown people will have to prove they live here. White people will not.

Call me Cassandra, but regardless of what Kovach says in the NYT, that is how it is going to play out.

Slarti, you must forgive me, but I have no idea what your 7:50 comment was about then. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Perhaps everyone else immediately understood what you were trying to say. Or perhaps I'm a good representative of the whole group. You might want to consider clarifying your point.

You might want to consider clarifying your point.

I don't have much of a point other than that the desire to achieve some satisfactory level of enforcement of immigration laws is not necessarily motivated by fear-of-the-other.

I don't have much of a point other than that the desire to achieve some satisfactory level of enforcement of immigration laws is not necessarily motivated by fear-of-the-other.

Ah, I see. The problem here is that people in AZ, including the governor, have been quite clear about the fact that they passed the law in question because they were concerned about violence and safety. The fact that you, some random guy that doesn't live in AZ, think there might be other reasons is nice, but irrelevant. As long as the governor and other political actors are saying that violent crime is the driving force behind the law, then we have to consider whether or not that makes sense, and once we discover that it doesn't, we have to consider what alternative reasons might compel AZ to enact an ineffective law that disproportionately affects brown folk.

Although that does lead to a kind of circular problem, where someone can say they don't need to carry the docs, because they are a citizen, but they can't prove they're a citizen without some kind of documentation.

Yes. Though that paradox has been present anyhow because of the Federal law.

And this: if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is illegal.

I’d like to have someone name one thing -- some quality, characteristic, or behavior -- that would be viable grounds for having a “reasonable suspicion” that someone is here illegally rather than legally. Accent? Skin color? Walking in a funny way? Dressing differently from everyone else?

I haven't seen one suggestion about what the police are supposed to be "reading" from people on the street, or people they stop for some reason other than immigration suspicious, to make them sort us out into the one category or the other. So it’s hard to escape the conclusion that other people have drawn: it’s not white people the police will be asking for documents.

Related, and repeated: If this law is so good for the people of Arizona in general, do Hispanic Arizonans like it too? If not, who is it supposed to be benefiting, and why?

If not, who is it supposed to be benefiting, and why?

I'd say mostly the very criminals they say the law is supposed to be going after. If I'm here illegally, but otherwise not causing trouble, I'm going to be less likely to complain to the cops about, well, just about anything, including crimes I've witnessed or been the victim of. Even if I'm here legally but am not sure that I can prove it in the short term, I'd likely feel the same way. Criminals who are criminals for reasons other than illegal immigration will have a good time of it in hispanic neighborhoods, I expect.

Well, maybe not "supposed to," but you know what I'm saying.

once we discover that it doesn't

I must have missed where this was determined. Share, please?

I must have missed where this was determined. Share, please?

Determined with certainty? Not until it's implemented. But you can check out my 1:04 PM to see if it makes sense to you, even though I'm not Turbulence.

Sorry for not italicizing the quote. I'm usually a stickler for that sort of thing.

you can check out my 1:04 PM to see if it makes sense to you

Sure it makes sense. But it's more of a thought experiment than a representation of reality.

Well, sure. The entire discussion of the practical effects of the new AZ law is more a thought experiment than a representation of reality, since it hasn't been implemented yet. But that's all we have in the absence of working crystal balls or alternate universes in which to test things. So, when you say it makes sense, does that mean you agree that it is likely that criminals in hispanic neighborhoods will benefit from the chilling effects of this law on cooperation with police in those neighborhoods? (And isn't that the sort of judgment we exercise all the time in deciding on future courses of action, even if we can't determine what will happen?)

I must have missed where this was determined. Share, please?

We've determined that this law can't be intended as a response to a torrent of horrific violence because there is no torrent. Federal crime statistics show that violent crime rates are stable or trending downward. And the number of illegal immigrants has been declining.

We've determined that this law can't be intended as a response to a torrent of horrific violence because there is no torrent. Federal crime statistics show that violent crime rates are stable or trending downward. And the number of illegal immigrants has been declining.

None of this means that violent crime done by illegal immigrants can't be on the rise. Neither does it mean that it must be on the rise.

If your claim is that violent crime done by illegals is not on the rise, you have not supplied the data that substantiates this claim.

None of this means that violent crime done by illegal immigrants can't be on the rise. Neither does it mean that it must be on the rise.

Um, OK. I suppose if we assume that somehow the illegal immigrant population has suddenly become significantly more involved in violent crime AND at the same time, the non-illegal immigrant population has become much less involved in violent crime, that might be consistent with the data. But these are some really major assumptions for which no evidence exists. So I don't find them very credible.

If your claim is that violent crime done by illegals is not on the rise, you have not supplied the data that substantiates this claim.

Well, there's this and this.

But hey, I'm not the one arguing for laws that will in practice discriminate against brown people. How about this: why don't the advocates of such laws come forward and make their case with statistics. I've seen lots of arguments on behalf the recently passed AZ law, but none of them have included statistics. Can you point to any? I mean, if this law is sound public policy based on data and statistics, that should be really easy, right?

But these are some really major assumptions for which no evidence exists.

They're not my assumptions. I'm just asking for the data you're basing your assertions on.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/Suns-will-wear-Los-Suns-unis-to-honor-Phoenix-?urn=nba,238682>:)

Why not "Los Sols?"

I was wondering that too, hsh.

Maybe there's some trademark/licensing kind of issue....? Not sure what the legal term/phenomenon would be, but $-related, no doubt, if that is the reason.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad