So I happened by Breibart’s BigGovernment.com and what should I see? Yet another pseudo-Conservative attacking Arizona’s immigration law.
Gosh. What a huge surprise. I’m so stunned that another intellectual egghead has weighed in for a bunch of illegal aliens under the guise of “Conservatism.”
What follows is the post in question, with my comments following each section, where appropriate:
Criticisms of Arizona’s Immigration Law Comply with Conservative Principles
by Dr. Ronald L. Trowbridge
Some major aspects of Arizona’s immigration law are Keynesian and left wing, and criticisms of these aspects are quite consistent with conservative values. I focus here on three of those values: one, the sovereignty of freedom; two, the sovereignty of the individual over the collective; three, the opposition to big government power.
S. B. 1070, in some key ways, falls short of these three principles.
First Keynesian policies primarily focus on economics, and not national sovereignty. Second, Conservatism does not equate to being the antithesis of governmental power – which is a common liberal misconception (hence, my suspicion that this guy is actually a liberal).
Conservatives in the United States are essentially traditionalists, meaning that they hold the traditions and the principles by which this country was founded sacred. Thus, what the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution deemed appropriate, Conservatives strive to preserve. It is well documented that government was considered a necessary evil, but one that was relied upon to do specific things: maintain order, protect the nation, promote the general welfare, and to preserve the rights of the citizenry. I mean, some of this is explicitly written in the Constitution, for cripe’s sake.
So, I’d like Dr. Dimbulb here to explain to me how allowing a bunch of filthy illegal aliens to come flooding over our borders somehow does any of what I’ve described above.
One, the sovereignty of freedom: Often we are asked to choose between freedom and safety–and many understandably choose safety. But in S. B. 1070 precious little safety is provided in reality. If in enforcing this law there must be “lawful contact” with possible illegal immigrants and “the most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop,” very few of Arizona’s 500,000 illegal immigrants will be caught. But freedoms of many innocent people will be intruded upon. Of this, there is no doubt.
Speeding down a highway does not constitute a basic civil right. And I fail to see how allowing an illegal alien, who most likely does not have a valid state driver’s license, access to the freeways and roads that I paid tax dollars to establish and maintain somehow furthers my own individual rights. This is especially true when that filthy little illegal alien ends up crashing his car into that of a tax-paying citizen of the United States.
Two, the sovereignty of the individual over the collective: John Stuart Mill wisely observed the “tyranny of the prevailing opinion” throughout times in history. When, for example, the American majority approved the incarceration of Japanese-Americans during World War II, those minority individuals who opposed such incarceration were called unpatriotic Americans by the majority. Similarly, those in the minority who denounced the majority’s defense of the Salem witch trials were called blasphemous. And those who criticize S. B. 1070 are dismissed by many in overly harsh tones.
Let’s just ignore the fact that the Japanese who were detained during WWII were predominately American citizens, and the people causing all of the problems in Arizona are illegal immigrants.
I mean, seriously, what part of this don’t you quite get? Where did you get your doctorate? From a Cracker Jack box?
Three, the opposition to big government power: S. B. 1070 doesn’t codify abuse, but it does codify the power for government abuse–and that abuse will surely come. Ten years ago in Texas, as a relevant example, a federal judge cited a catalogue of “reasonable suspicions” that police offered in stopping and searching vehicles in South Texas,
–”The vehicle was suspiciously dirty and muddy, or the vehicle was suspiciously squeaky clean.”
–”The vehicle was suspiciously traveling fast or was traveling suspiciously slow (or even was traveling suspiciously at precisely the speed limit).”
–”The (old car, new car, big car, station wagon, camper, oilfield service truck, SUV, van) is the vehicle typically used for smuggling aliens or drugs.”
–”The driver would not make eye contact with the agent, or made eye contact too readily.”
–”The time of day (early morning, mid-morning, later afternoon, early evening, late evening, middle of the night) is when ‘they’ tend to smuggle contraband or aliens.”
–”The passengers were slumped suspiciously in their seats, presumably to avoid detection, or the passengers were sitting suspiciously ramrod erect.”
–”The vehicle was riding suspiciously low (overloaded) or suspiciously high (equipped with heavy-duty shocks and springs).”
First, being stopped by the authorities based in suspicion is not a violation of one’s civil rights. Period. If that’s the case, then we might as well just have every state eliminate their police force. Being detained, on the other hand, or having a search without the appropriate warrant is a violation of civil rights. Even in Texas – though I’m not a lawyer – the police cannot search your car without some direct evidence of illegality, without a warrant, or without consent. If you don’t want them searching your car, don’t put a crack pipe on the passenger-side seat, don’t offer consent, or tell them to go get a warrant. Simple.
Or even simpler: don’t do illegal stuff. Duh!
Living in a civil society comes with some inconveniences. Sorry.
Then again, if some dark-skinned guy talking with a heavy Mexican accent produces a New York driver’s license with the name Stosh Kowalski – call me crazy – I think that might qualify as reasonable suspicion.
Already in Arizona calls are coming into the police station such as: “Officer, there’s a bunch of Mexicans gathered together on the corner. Get over here quick to check their ID papers to see if they are illegal immigrants. They look suspicious.”
Actually, it’s more like, “HELP! They’re killing my wife and kids! HELP! They’ve taken over my house! HELP! They’ve got a gun pointed to my head!”
You know, like that.
But please, tell me more about how having a bunch of filthy illegal aliens flooding over out borders is good for our “individual rights.” I think the right to Life pretty much topped the list, don’t you?
When I worked for President Reagan at the United States Information Agency, I watched East German guards, then under the Soviet Bloc, demand identification papers from ordinary East Berlin citizens who innocently approached the American Embassy. Never, ever did I envision that American government officials would demand ID papers from a group standing in a parking lot, ostensibly guilty of nothing but being together and looking suspiciously “like Mexicans.”
I guess that whole “they’re in this country illegally” hasn’t quite gotten through to you yet, has it?
I also thing the difference here is that the people in East Germany were being harassed for wanting out. We’re harassing them form coming in uninvited. Or maybe you’d like it if I broke into your house, ate all of your Oreos, left a big steaming turd in your toilet, and didn’t flush?
You know, the Founding Fathers wrote extensively on the sovereignty of the United States. You might want to look that up some time.
S. B. 1070 will catch few illegal immigrants, it will challenge the sovereignty of freedom, it will place the sovereignty of the collective over that of the individual, and it will codify the power of big government abuse. Conservatives–hell, everyone–should rail against this well-intended but, in reality, bad law.
It’ll catch a lot of illegal aliens. That’s why everyone is so hopping mad that Arizona is actually enforcing the nation’s immigration laws (imagine that). Because that’s the dirty little secret here: all Arizona is doing is enforcing existing laws. End of discussion. Then again, not enforcing the laws and our national sovereignty has done such a SWELL job up to this point (rolls eyes).
Or maybe Dr. Whosits here doesn’t see where illegal aliens coming into this country, taking jobs away from American citizens, consuming taxpayer funded services, and not paying taxes into the system isn’t Constitutional. It CERTAINALLY isn’t what I’d want to define as part of a core set of Conservative principles.
But if you’re so concerned Ronald, why don’t you put your money where your mouth is: take in a couple of illegal immigrant families and support them on your own frickin’ dime, instead of offering up my tax dollars to do the same. Because us real Conservatives don’t pick the pockets of others in pursuit of our ideology. Part and parcel of Locke’s explanation of individual rights also detailed the protection of the private ownership of wealth. This is directly under assault by illegal aliens invading our country, taxing government services, and so on.
I believe that there’s something that one or more of the Founding Fathers mentioned about sponging off of the productive…