You may have heard that Arizona has a draconian new immigration law that essentially legalizes racial profiling, and requires immigrants to carry their registration documents at all times…and by default, then, you better not be caught brown in Arizona without proof of citizenship, no matter what your legal status.
One of our local Republican districts has a poll on this issue. You will not believe the wording on it.
President Obama called the new Arizona bill banning illegal immigration “misguided”. Do you agree?
Sí, señor!
22%
No Way, José!
77%
They really need to add a cute little icon of the Frito Bandito to that, just to add a little more class. It’s especially funny because Minnesota is experiencing a growing influx of Hispanic workers, who are getting stuck with the essential but menial jobs of our agricultural economy. It seems like a bad idea for Republicans to be mocking a growing part of our electorate, but hey, if they want to shoot themselves in the voting booth, go ahead.
By the way, read it carefully. They are not asking if you approve of the immigration bill, they are asking if you approve of Obama’s dislike of the bill. If you think the bill is misguided, vote yes; if you think we need to crack down on the rising brown tide, vote no. I actually wonder if the current small vote for yes is the result of Republicans unable to puzzle out the question.
The Rethuglicans noticed. The poll has been reset, and the ridiculously stereotyped answers have been changed to a simple yes and no now. I guess we embarrassed them.
I just have to add that the Republican state rep from district 42 is appropriately named Jenifer Loon.
Can’t vote from work. The spam filter said no…
I wonder where the option for “Hey Mang, Pass me the Tequila! AI-YAI-YAI! *shoots two pistols in the air and does a little dance*” was. Maybe that was considered “Not insensitive enough”.
Still, Gotta love those republicans, they do our job of making them look like back-assward fools for us…Voluntarily!
56% Si! now.
Vote lodged and the word passed on! (And yes, that’s one really racist-assed poll. Especially since in Minnesota, Canadians likely make up a bigger share of the undocumented-worker population than do persons from Mexico or other Latin American nations — Canadians check in at #4 overall in terms of undocumented status in the US.)
‘Rising brown tide’, now there’s a mental image to savor.
Whenever a public official says something like this, a great big red-flag ought to go up, because somebody’s rights just went down the shitter.
It’s going to be entertaining watching their reaction when the first natural born citizen gets checked and can’t prove his citizenship.
My favorite today was when Meghan McCain showed up on Daily Beast and wrung her hands about how, while the law is admittedly problematic, the really unfair part is that now all us nasty liberals are being so MEAN to the poor white Arizonans and even MORE Hispanics will never vote GOP!
I was all like: Girl, are you for real?
Whew, it’s a good thing they finally got around to a bill “banning” something which was already “illegal”.
PZ@1-
And I just have to add that the Official State Bird of Minnesota is the Common Loon.
tsg #7:
It’s going to be entertaining watching their reaction when the first natural born citizen gets checked and can’t prove his citizenship.
Already happened: http://j.mp/ammTJf
I’d object to any bill banning illegal immigration. If it’s illegal already then there’s no point in banning it (making it really illegal?) and your lawmakers might want to do something useful instead.
How long before the governor is found to be employing an undocumented gardener?
This from the same group that cried horror… HORROR at the (completely invented) notion of requiring citizens to have proof of health insurance or face jail time.
Then again, that wasn’t specifically targeted at brown people or else it would have been fine.
Come on republicans… keep telling us how racism isn’t part of your party’s foundation.
Ironic that people that were probably painting a little Hitler mustaches on Obama posters a few weeks ago are backing this Nazi-esque law. “Show us your papers!”
Funny how so many republicans are violently against any laws requiring national IDs (they’re going to implant buzzing microchips in us all, doncha know, it’s a sign of the Beast) but they are okay with allowing the police to say “Show me your papers!” …as long as they’re only saying it to brown people.
Voted. 85 percent “Si” now.
As an Arizonan, I am ashamed. Pharyngulate away, please.
daveau #10
Is there an Uncommon Loon?
As poopyhead’s observed, one of the candidates is named Loon. I’ve been trying to work out, based strictly on what’s at that site, whether or not Loon is a loon. All I can say is she does not appear to be an out-and-out nutter, but does have strong ties with the construction industry. I’m sufficiently out-of-practice decoding USAian politico-speak to decipher anything else. She claims to be a small-government/balanced-budget type (which probably means Loon isn’t, especially as she cites the usual “cut waste” line without being very specific).
Feck. It would have been so apropos if she was a blatantly-obvious raving loony.
Arizona is the festering, suppurating asshole of the bible belt. I should know – I live there. This is the same state that just passed a law allowing any knuckle-dragging moron to carry a concealed firearm with no permit or training required. The same state where right-wing John McCain is in danger of losing his senate seat to lunatic-right J.D. Hayworth(less), a bloviating buffoon who was previously a US congressman nicknamed “Foghorn Leghorn” by his own repug colleagues, who admitted that he was the dumbest member of congress. Hayworthless is currently riding high in the polls by pandering to and riling up the birthers (or John Birthers as I call them), and throwing his considerable weight behind a state “birther bill” that would require any US presidential candidate to show his or her birth certificate to the Arizona secretary of state. In fact, Hayworthless has complained that the bill doesn’t go far enough, and has demanded that Barack Obama come to Arizona to prove that he isn’t an illegal immigrant from Kenya who committed identity theft. And of course Arizona is the state the fought tooth and nail for years against recognizing Martin Luther King Day, with McCain leading the charge.
The whole state is a foul, stinking cesspit of ignorant, bigoted lunatics. Arizona: just add water and you’ve got Mississippi.
C’mon, repugs. Be honest. Call your idiotic law what it is: No Latino Left Unhassled.
Ha-ha! Fun! My ex’s parents left Kenya in the 70s when her father was held overnight by the police in his hometown for the dual crime of being (partially) of Indian descent and not carrying his birth certificate. I guess Arizona is about to learn what happens to an economy when you boot out all the ‘foreigners’.
And people say Africa has nothing to teach us.
“Oh, Snowbird spread your wings and fly away…”
I am sort of amazed at how quickly we Pharyngulate polls around here. 20 minutes ago, 377 votes when I voted, and now, over 1,000. Well done people.
As a Virginian, I can feel the pain of Arizonians. It’s really scary when even in your wildest imaginings, you can’t remotely predict what the hell idiocy your state government is going to pull next.
Happened before in the US…
Hello, Stillmore, GA.
yup, this is a real bad law. Terrible implications for individual liberty. If I were an Hispanic Arizonan citizen, id be doubly pissed.
If the Feds would control the border, as is its duty, we wouldnt see Arizona going this route.
I would happily help Pharyngulate this poll, but the computers at my school block about 50 percent of all sites (I am very luck that scienceblogs has been spared…yes, this is what I do at school instead of study. I believe I have learned more from scienceblogs than I have in 12 years in the Arizona school system).
As an Arizonan, I find this bill appalling but not surprising. All I can say is that I am very glad that my Latino best friend is voluntarily returning to Mexico after graduation, which is less than a month away.
My mother is an immigrant who came here speaking no English (I think the category of the time was “displaced person”), but I have the privilege of not worrying much about this.
Not much, but that’s mostly because I have no plans to be anywhere near Arizona. That doesn’t mean none: while I’m not going to be grabbed for walking while brown (we’re definitely Pale People), the other thing this is, is another excuse for any cop who wants to harass women: do I risk going out without my wallet, and hope the random cop on the beat isn’t more interested in groping me than in preventing crime? (Not a new calculation, but another way they can throw me in jail if I dare to defend my right to my own body.)
Or, of course, any cop who reads me, not as respectable middle-aged white woman, but as queer or Jewish. There aren’t that many of us who don’t fall into any of those categories of people that someone who should never have been issued a badge might harass for a bribe or to get sick kicks, if he thinks he has an excuse or can get away with it. (“But Sarge, I was just making sure she had her ID, I had to pat her down and search her bag.”)
The site tagline reads:
What Democrat tax increases? You mean the tax cut that everybody south of $250k/year got? Oh, you must mean letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
That’s a funny kind of tax increase; cutting them for almost everyone and letting a temporary cut expire.
Here’s something I hadn’t thought of: The Implications That The Murder Of An Immigrant Good Samaritan Has For Arizona. Summary: the new law will make policing immigrant communities (which are a mix of citizens, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants) nearly impossible.
Voted. The yes vote is up to ~90% now. I only occasionally participate in poll Pharyngulation, but since I’m genetically ineligible for Boobquake, poking a finger in the eye of this particularly gratuitously racist bit Republican stink will have to stand as my good deed for the day.
Not that I’ve got any plans to travel to Arizona soon (though I am approaching snow-bird age), but where do Canadian tourists fall under this law? Although I travel with a passport, I don’t usually carry it when walking down the street — and anyways, it would just prove that I am, indeed, not a legal resident of AZ.
I guess it would come down to whether the white skin weighed more heavily in the cop’s mind than the beard and pony-tail. Not sure I like those odds.
I didn’t grow up here (in LA now), but what does happen when a cop asks you for ID and you don’t have one (you’re just walking around, not driving of course)?
Regarding driving, I’ve been a reverse-victim of racial profiling. I was somewhere in Orange County (probably the most conservative county in the LA area, and of course, white and rich) driving my ’96 Civic with a couple of friends and their parents, and a cop pulled us over at night.
Didn’t even ask for my license (which I didn’t have with me) and let us go, he just invented some strange excuse that I stepped over some line while turning, after looking at our faces and the two Asian looking older people in the back seat. We are latinos, BTW, just not native South Americans.
Even though there’s no such law here in CA, I wonder how much grief he would have given us if we were Teh Darkie.
Actually, thinking about it, my 96 Civic was the one racially profiled.
Yeah. I’m a 4th generation AZ native, and while this bill horrifies and embarrasses me, I am not at all surprised. AZ is run by old white men who are terrified of the brown people, or anyone who isn’t exactly like them. And I personally know too many cops to ever be able to believe that this bill won’t be used exclusively to harass people who aren’t white. It’s sickening.
Also, I find it rather ironic that there is a bill anywhere about illegal immigration, when, unless you’re Native American, we are all descended from illegal immigrants. That’s just my opinion, though.
As someone who ‘foreigners up’ the minute he encounters incident sunlight at less than 40° from vertical, I won’t be booking a trip to Arizona any time soon.
On the other hand, I foresee a market for a new type of sunscreen, its effectiveness measured not in SPF, but in APPF (Arizona Police Protection Factor).
Don’t be silly; in both Canada and the US, most anti-immigration right-wingers have well-defined concepts of legal and illegal immigration: one is what you, your parents, your grandparents, or any of your ancestors did; the other is what everyone showing up after you were born is doing.
The bill’s proponents are quick to point out that race or ethnicity alone does not constitute Reasonable Suspicion. In other news the phenomenon of “Driving While Black” apparently disappeared in 1968 without anyone noticing.
“Well, obviously he deserved it. Sure, maybe he wasn’t an illegal immigrant, but I’m sure he was doing something else that should’ve got him deported.”
This line of argument worked on terror suspects, why wouldn’t it work on illegal immigrants.
On the other hand, if the Republicans were serious about fighting illegal immigration, they’d be proposing getting tough with those who hire them (including much higher fines and jail time for repeat offenders). I’m pretty sure the idea that they flock to the States to collect welfare is 99.9% illusion (sort of like Reagan’s “Welfare Queens”).
That bill, like so many others like it, aren’t about getting tough on illegal immigration/crime/wahtever, but instead about providing the image of being tough on them.
If race does not constitute reasonable suspicion, what does? Let us seem them articulate something that is not related to the color of their skin.
I am an older white woman, I spent much of this winter near the Arizona/Mexico border. The border patrol always waived me by. I shoulda been a coyote.
“Rising brown tide.” I had to chuckle at that one. It does serve to be reminded from time to time, especially when faced with this kind of xenophobic ignorance, that America remains one of the few places that’s still very welcoming to newcomers. We have 13 million _illegal_ immigrants. That’s more than the entire population of Geece. Meanwhile, xenophobia (which is still the news-worthy exception here in America), becomes increasingly nasty in Europe. Watch the UK PM debates to see what I mean. They talk about immigrants and immigration in terms that would probably be a little gauche in America.
Thing is people come to this country illegally to get jobs. So to cut down on illegal immigration you have to go after the businesses who hire illegally. But that’s SOCIALISM! That means businesses have to pay a fair living wage to make a profit and that’s anti-capitalism!
Check the records, Clinton prosecuted more businesses for hiring illegal aliens than Bush in EVERY YEAR of his administration.
It’s disgraceful; I can no longer say these things only happen in California. :(
These morons seem to be oblivious to the fact that the USA is a diverse nation. Note that the morons also said “non citizen”, so if you’re a legitimate temporary or permanent resident, watch out. Not to mention, I don’t know anyone at all who carries proof of citizenship while at home. I’ve been overseas for so long my passport is my only ID, but guess what: local law enforcement officials (especially the dolts at the borders, of all people) don’t know what a US passport looks like and don’t accept it as ID. This is just a paltry excuse to harass any non-whitie and whities that look different. So I guess an Arab whitie would be a target but one from Serbia wouldn’t be. I’m betting they harass the indigenous Americans as well.
Sí, 93%, 2500 votes
PZ, the racists are gonna get fussy with you for fucking with their racist shit.
@moggie #9: It’s much worse than banning something which is already illegal. They are ordering the police to harass people – this is just like WW2 and the detention and incarceration of anyone who looked Japanese – including many people of Chinese descent (and probably others too). It didn’t matter if they were naturalized or how patriotic they were, they were going to be imprisoned in war camps and all their possessions stolen. To this day we still don’t hear about the American Japanese infantry in the war – the people who went to war on our side to prove that they don’t support the Axis. Speaking of stolen possessions – any bets the cops have a field day with “forfeited assets” on this one?
So, when do the police in Arizona, of Hispanic origin, start hauling over “Whitey” and demanding papers? They should start with the Governor and do that on a weekly basis. “Just doing my job, Maam.”. She really looks
like a NaziSwedish, IMO.Is there an Uncommon Loon?
Michelle Bachman.
As poopyhead’s observed, one of the candidates is named Loon. I’ve been trying to work out, based strictly on what’s at that site, whether or not Loon is a loon.
The last sane Republican in Minnesota was Arne Carlson. He left the party. Anyone that remains is a loon.
What would this country look like if all illegal aliens and their descendants were suddenly to be transported back to their respective countries of origin? (I know, there would be pieces of individuals delivered to different countries…) Honestly, these clowns lack in imagination and a sense of history as well as in compassion. “Si, señor”?
I’m waiting for the day some dummkopf cop arrests someone like Bill Richardson for not having his birth certificate with him.
I’m confused. Isn’t this the plot of ‘Born in East LA’?
Wow, that was easy:
* Sí, señor! 94%
* No Way, José! 5%
I love the oh-so-subtle implication that only a Mexican (and therefore an illegal) would vote “Yes” in this poll.
I guess we just have to add a section at the inscription on the Statue of Liberty saying “not valid in Arizona”.
Rob Jase
Newfie: So, when do the police in Arizona, of Hispanic origin, start hauling over “Whitey” and demanding papers?
Hmm, how about never?
You don’t really know how racism works, do ya? Black cops in general don’t harass white “civilians” — but harass black “civilians”. It’s about the institution and not the individuals.
It’s about what you can get away with and against whom — harass whitey, and it’ll end up on TV, with lawyers and your bosses involved. Harass someone brown — even kinda wealthy — and it’ll disappear except on the blog of some disgruntled atheist whining about racism, the 4th amendment and equality before the law.
Look at the story of Peter Watts. What surprises people is that here’s a nice middle-aged white guy who got treated like a Mexican. It was all over the blogs — as if this wasn’t a normal, day in and day out thing with the cops, border patrol, etc, for other folks.
That’s what racism is — the one white guy beaten at the border is equal to thousands of brown guys.
Hey, at least they got the spelling (tilde and diacritic) mostly right. Better than your average racist!
FWIW:
¡Sí, señor!
I am 30 and living in Phoenix. I try to stay on top of things but I did not see this one coming. It has generated a lot of national media coverage and locally there are a lot of frightened people. The men and women my age, whether they are democrat, reublican, independant, tea bagger…can’t believe this passed. I am not hispanic, but like everyone here I know lots of hispanic people. This law is forcing them to close off…and it makes no sense. It is written and approved by rich old white men and women, who will be the least affected. For fuck sake…they play golf all year!! They don’t associate with hispanics other than to mumble under their breath something about “them” not speaking English while they shop at Costco!!! It is enfuriating here. Is it possible that we could have an influx of reasonable people come here for a while? We need help!
That’s what racism is — the one white guy beaten at the border is equal to thousands of brown guys.
That’s what white privilege is. Just like not having equal callback rates to black and Latino job applicants unless the white candidate has a drug conviction (and the black and Latino don’t):
http://asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Oct09ASRFeature.pdf
The system isn’t racism, it’s white supremacy.
Sounds to me like this is really not about (Hispanic) illegal immigrants, but really about intimidating (Hispanic) LEGAL immigrants as well as (Hispanic) US-born citizens. The message is pure intimidation, telling all brown people to “Get out.” I imagine the Rethugs are hoping this law might scare them enough not to go to the voting booth as well.
Its Jim Crow all over again.
95% and climbing.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
BTW, I wouldn’t even FLY over places like Arizona, Texas, Miss. and Alabama.
It is written and approved by rich old white men and women, who will be the least affected. For fuck sake…they play golf all year!! They don’t associate with hispanics other than to mumble under their breath something about “them” not speaking English while they shop at Costco!!! It is enfuriating here. Is it possible that we could have an influx of reasonable people come here for a while? We need help!
I have some relatives that moved from Iowa to Arizona and whom this describes perfectly.
Despite all this bullshit happening, I’m happy they’re closer to you than me.
Minnesota (or, indeed, any northern US state) should now have a law that requires police to stop anyone who looks Canadian and ask for their papers…
Why doesn’t the poll add up to 100%? I keep getting 94%-yes and 5%-no.
@ No More Mr. Nice Guy #20
Do you need a best friend? If so then I would like to throw my name in for consideration. This was AWESOME!!!
Well, crap. I’m totally fucked.
Seriously though, I don’t know about the Midwest, but here in the beautiful Northeast, that shit wouldn’t fly. Oh yes, we get politicians that decry the horrors of illegal immigration, but they’re too wussy to do anything about it.
On top of being extremely racist and disrespectful in its language, this is an obviously double-barrelled question. A lot of people would tend to agree with a need to ban illegal immigration, but what if that only means supporting the horrendously draconian tactics of one right wing dipshit, Sheriff Arpaio? Seriously?
Instead of pharyngulating it, I say someone should outright bomb it.
@20 Somebody here in Wyoming introduced a bill like that (concealed carry with neither permit nor training), and it didn’t even make it out of committee! All the gun owners I know were wondering how in the world that would be a good thing. Wyoming is not exactly politically sane, but Arizona is doing a pretty good job of making it look like paradise!
My sister-in-law is a fairly dark brown. Her ancestors were born in Texas when Texas was still part of Mexico. She was born and lives in the same place, but now it’s Texas.
My brother is a red-headed white Canadian. He never took out US citizenship. (I doubt he ever will, the way things are going.)
She gets hassled all the time, not by the police, yet at least, but by storekeepers, church members, officials of all sorts, etc. My brother never gets a second glance. He gets very angry.
hmmm, Looks like the poll was refreshed.
The answers aren’t in Spanish anymore, they just say yes or no.
4 votes total now. 50/50. Hmmm…
President Obama called the new Arizona bill banning illegal immigration “misguided”. Do you agree?
Yes
90%
No
10%
haha and they switched places for “yes” and “no”.
Whether or not I technically qualify as mebbe an intermittently reasonable person*, regrettably, I have to pass.
I occasionally visit your fine state. Was there about two weeks ago, will be there again in about a month…
And I really have to say: it really is pretty. But it also really is way too fucking hot. I swear: the only other place I encounter places like that in my life is on a meat thermometer. On the rare occasions when I cook past medium rare…
Anyway, I’m alternately offended and vaguely bemused by this law. My first reaction (with all due respect, and with reference to my previously mentioned general dislike of being roasted alive) is something like: ‘What… There are people who actually want to move to Arizona?’…
Okay. Cheap shot. But my next is, It occurs to me as a non-citizen, probably I’m now going to be expected to carry my passport everywhere or some damned thing… In theory. But then, seein’ as folk are also almost certainly right that this law is mostly going to be applied against persons with rather more than less melanin on display, and seein’ as I’m about as white as you can get without actually being an albino, I’m probably pretty safe…
But my colleagues, many of them are quite brown. And quite bright. And rather than doing menial work, are busily building the sort of silicon gizmos you and me and a lot of the rest of the world use to a) communicate, b) calculate, c) earn a living… While I have to suspect the authors of this law are more the kind of people who couldn’t get their DVD player to stop flashing 12:00 even with tech support’s help… Seriously, I sometimes think the guys I work with are pleasantly surprised and alternately amazed there are whites in the world like me still competent actually to make something more useful and concrete than a ruinously destructive financial bubble or a really fantastically stupid law like this one… And they keep looking at me sideways expecting me to stop, some day, mebbe start speaking in increasingly vapid marketing-ese, the way so many white folk in high-tech seem eventually to do. As if it is perhaps their opinion that getting their hands dirty with actually building something useful would be a bad thing, somehow…
My point, and I do have one: I think the US would rather miss the brown folk, if idiot whites like the morons who penned this law get too far with stupidity like this. ‘Cos the brown folk aren’t just the ones cleaning the pool. They’re also an awful lot of those, from what I’ve seen, who actually know how to do things worth doing.
(*/Reports vary, but generally, I’m told, this can be counted upon at best up to about the second martini.)
Well, they refreshed the poll (not surprising), but at least they got rid of the horrifically racist response options.
hmmm, Looks like the poll was refreshed.
The answers aren’t in Spanish anymore, they just say yes or no.
4 votes total now. 50/50. Hmmm…
Crackers get uneasy when other folks notice they’re crackers.
Awww …. the vote isn’t going the way they expected!
Must be a bot huh? I know, why don’t we just chuck away all those thousands of votes against what we expected peeps would say and start again…
I must also say I live in Arizona and am whole heartedly ashamed and against this.
I guess the creator’s thought that the answers in Spanish were confusing people since it wasn’t going the way of the gestapo. Anyway..if you voted earlier you will have to revote since they changed it to English and didn’t keep the responses from earlier.
That they switched the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ positions indicates that maybe they do think its a bot.
Current Poll Numbers:
Yes: 94%
No: 5%
I’ve voted twice now, so there must be some kind of refresh/timeout thing that allows multiple visits to the page.
Maybe we can achieve the magic 99% Yes.
And now, after having actually READ the thread, I realize how stupid that comment was.
Apologies.
Interesting that they also flipped the order so that “No” was the 1st choice.
Anyway “Yes” had 95% of 220 votes at this time.
In fairness to them, their assumption that a bot was being used is a somewhat valid one. I haven’t been using one myself, but that’s purely because I was feeling too lazy to set one up. It wouldn’t come as a great surprise if a bot WAS in use by someone, particularly as I don’t know how many hits their polls usually get.
Hmmm. I just went to add my little bit of Pharyngulation, to find that there have been only 55 votes cast in total. Have they reset it?
It’s still way up in the ‘agree with Obama’ direction though.
Wow, another reset and another flip of “yes” and “no”. With only 13 votes, “yes” is still winning.
Ah – I’ve just gone back and the total votes is 2. And it’s neck and neck!
And they’ve now closed the poll, but it doesn’t matter. We still came out well ahead, at least in percentage terms.
Now they are simply continually resetting it.
1 vote — no.
Ha! Now they only have 15 votes. I guess they are refreshing the poll every half hour or so.
Pathetic.
Looks like they have reset it a few times. Now “Yes” is the first choice, it let me vote again, but the results well 85% yes out of 56 votes and it now says “Closed”.
babies
It’s closed with 7 votes now!
ROFLMAO!!! I just tuned in, the poll was overwhelmingly “yes”, then suddenly it was marked “closed” with 7 votes. Oh, and the final verdict was 85% “No”. Morons. :-D
Gee, now it says 7 total votes
reset again, they added 6 ‘no’ votes and closed it, but not before a single ‘yes’ went through.
This is funnier than simple pharyngulation
And they’ve now closed the poll, but it doesn’t matter. We still came out well ahead, at least in percentage terms.
Nope, it is now at 7 total votes 85% No, 14% yes.
Has anyone seen any of their other polls?
Talk about biased and loaded questions.
Utter morons.
http://www.twiigs.com/user/sd42webmaster?s=all
Too funny! It’s like they think that no one notices on the internet. EVERYONE notices on the internet.
And not only do they come here for the jobs, if you’re a meatpacking facility you advertise in newspapers in Mexico, then send down vans to get them and bring them across illegally. But noooo, can’t crack down on the companies.
“The Rethuglicans noticed. The poll has been reset, and the ridiculously stereotyped answers have been changed to a simple yes and no now. I guess we embarrassed them.”
OMG they reset it yet ONCE AGAIN. Got 6 people to quickly vote for their preconceived outcome and then closed it. I have a screen shot of the old poll from the Twiigs site. Check it out here
I’m guessing they hate having so many people seeing how racist they truly are.
Well, vote on ’em all!
“Talk about biased and loaded questions…”
What?! From Republicans? Nooooo.
Carlie: But noooo, can’t crack down on the companies.
Well, that would defeat the purpose of the hysteria, wouldn’t it? Isn’t the point to keep the folks we do bring in frightened and easily disposed of? Like they do in Italy with Africans?
Yep, talk about loaded questions.
Oh yea. Some of them sure need some more love.
Sorry friends if I am being honest I don’t really understand what all the fuss is over Arizona’s new immigration law? Maybe I just haven’t wrapped by head around the bigger issue yet-I am not sure? I literally was shocked by all the outcry because in my mind it seems completely logical to say that police can arrest anyone who has done something illegal-isn’t that the police’s job?
I live in Phoenix, AZ and illegal immigration is a huge issue in our state-especially in the education field where I work. I understand the issue with racial profiling, but I don’t understand why everyone is getting their panties in a twist over a law that will allow police officers to arrest illegal immigrants? That is like getting upset that police are allowed to arrest drug dealers. Not that I am saying someone who comes here illegally is the same as a drug dealer-I am saying you can be arrested for any crime you commit-that is what a crime is-doing something illegal.
Did I miss something here? I feel like I am taking crazy pills! Why would police not be allowed to arrest someone who is illegal? Doesn’t the word illegal mean exactly that-illegal? If you are doing something illegal then you are a criminal and hence can and should be arrested! If I criminally speed and get arrested for it I won’t be crying that it’s a hate crime, or a racial issue. If I break the law then I have the “right” to be arrested for it-end of story! Stop your boohoo-in! My husband and in-laws immigrated to this country legally and it took years and lots of money. They are completely offended by the people who come here illegally and yet demand citizen rights. Mexico sucks we agree, but come here legally like our law allows!
Sorry but my liberal and skeptical panties are completely untwisted in regards to this new law…go Boobquake by the way!
BTW I didn’t realize I linked to my FB page and that you all will undoubtedly be barred from viewing the picture. Here it is on Twitpic. I apologize for the brain fart.
If I criminally speed and get arrested for it I won’t be crying that it’s a hate crime, or a racial issue.
Wow you’re an idiot. I can’t even give you “ignorance due to privilege” — you’re just incredibly stupid.
I’ve been stopped for going 1 mile over the speed-limit. Ain’t no question why I was stopped and then searched — that’s perfectly normal, ain’t it?
Love all your exclamation marks. Really strengthens your arguments. ‘Specially the “I’m married to a spic, so it’s cool that I speak for the brown peoplez.”
Genius.
I literally was shocked by all the outcry because in my mind it seems completely logical to say that police can arrest anyone who has done something illegal-isn’t that the police’s job?
Let me guess, you trust cops, right?
It allows the police to stop anyone under the suspicion they might be illegal. I wonder why Latinos might be a little upset. AFter all, it’s not like this nation is crazy racist with a history of police abuse and targeting of communities of color. Invitation to racial profiling? Nah, we can trust the cops…..
I can not decide which is funnier. The fact that they had to close their poll. Or the fact they had to reset their poll because it gave an answer that they did not want. Or when they redid their poll, they only cast 7 votes.
If you’re going to fake a poll, and least give it the air of authority. They could have easily said something like 142 for and 3192 against. That would have shown that the care enough about what the public thought to at least put in the effort in deceiving us. This half-assed cheating is like a big fuck you to the public.
As for the immigration bill they should make it fair. Unless you carry two forms of government ID, and have your birth certificate in triplicate, and have the phone numbers on hand for at least four fellow Americans that can voucher for your citizenship, you should be arrested and shipped back to Mexico or Canada.
Greg Palast has an interpretation that makes more sense to me than anything I’ve heard so far. This law is not just about mindless racism. It’s another attempt at purging democratic-leaning minorities from the voter roles. If your skin is the wrong color and don’t have all the right documentation, and/or don’t want to come under scrutiny, you’ll likely stay home.
http://www.truthout.org/behind-the-arizona-immigration-law-gop-game-to-swipe-the-november-election58877
They’ve now closed the poll. Cowardly little craps.
hoisum1983 #103
And yet, you did say that. Just because you say something and then say you didn’t, doesn’t mean you didn’t say it. ¿Comprende, señor?
Well where did they immigrate from, and are they brown and poor? You think all these “illegals” could happily go to their US Embassy and apply for a work Visa just as easy? Does that give them the right to come here and work? Maybe, maybe not. But what the hell happened with compassion? All I hear from anti-“illegals” is how their pocket is affected (and I find even those economic arguments spurious). You send them home, I guarantee that you have ruined whole lives. In fact, it very well be a harsher punishment than a drug dealer might get.
Oh, I’m sorry. Should have been señora. My bad.
“You see, you honor, we’ve had some anonymous tips about some Canadian students overstaying their visas and they fit the description: white, brown hair, brown eyes, medium height, medium build…”
That would be brilliant
Those who are sad that the GOP poll is closed can take some solace by hitting this Daily News poll:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/04/22/2010-04-22_white_house_dismisses_crazy_internet_conspiracies_as_arizona_house_passes_birthe.html
By the way same quote,
This shit bothers me so much. I am also a legal immigrant. I have spent a lot of money. I would like all the “illegals” here to become citizens. But, that’s not an argument either way because I or your husband say so. Doesn’t matter what those “offended” legal immigrants think, it just says they’re dicks.
This is not like them “illegals” getting a TV far cheaper than you bought it for. If they could pay to become “legals”, be sure they would. It’s a stupid argument anyway.
“Criminals”? Fucking disingenuous. You and I and everyone know that they are as harmful or harmless as anyone else.
hoisum1983 (@103):
I second what Jeff said:
And if they stop you for any other reason, it requires them to ask for proof of citizenship upon “reasonable cause” to think you might be illegal. And for all the bloviating from Arizona officials, what, other than visible ethnicity or an ethnic-sounding name, could possibly constitute such reasonable cause in the context of a routine traffic stop? In practice, they’re going to have to demand papers from everyone brown, or everyone whose name sounds Hispanic… because the law forbids any discretion in enforcement, and allows any yahoo who happens to be a citizen of Arizona to sue the cops if s/he doesn’t think they’re being aggressive enough.
BTW, if you can’t produce proof of citizenship when asked, you go straight to jail, regardless of your actual status. Now, quick: Do you have proof of citizenship on your person right now? Driver’s license only counts if your state requires proof of citizenship for issuance (not all states do; how sure are you about yours?). Do you have a passport? If your name is Lopez or Garcia or Gonzalez, you might want to think about carrying it next time you visit Arizona.
I don’t know if you’re taking crazy pills, but you might want to cut back on your dosage of ign’ant:
illegal ≠ criminal
IANAL, but AFAIK, being an illegal/undocumented alien is generally a civil offense at the federal level, meaning that, even though “illegal,” undocumented aliens are usually not “criminals.” The Arizona law criminalizes, at the state level, what is a civil offense at the federal level. It also, if I understand correctly, makes it a misdemeanor not to be able to prove your status on demand even if you’re legal.
Speeding isn’t a criminal offense in most cases, either, unless it’s aggravated by some other factor (e.g., extremely excessive speed, gross recklessness, intoxication…). As long as you don’t have outstanding warrants and don’t do something stupid (like refusing to sign the ticket), you won’t get arrested for speeding… unless you’re in Arizona and your name is something like Sotomayor.
My hope is that some 8th-generation citizen who happens to have a good tan and a Hispanic name gets jacked up on this, and has the cojones to take it all the way to the SCOTUS. Even the Roberts/Alito court couldn’t possibly sanction this travesty. I hope they let the Wise Latina write the majority opinion!
Oh for the love of FSM… I live in that district. It really pains me to be reminded that I’m surrounded by stupid people.
I should write them a letter stating that their poll was highly distasteful, and I will thusly not be voting for them next election. (Wasn’t going to vote for them anyways, but they don’t know that. :D)
BD: Even the Roberts/Alito court couldn’t possibly sanction this travesty. I hope they let the Wise Latina write the majority opinion!
Well, that’s one of the saving graces of having political hacks forming SCOTUS. They value “comity” — aka, non-embarrasment at cocktail parties — above all else. It’s what determines your status in oligarchies — not embarrassing your friends.
And it sure would be embarrassing to face Sotomayor at events after they find that she’s liable to be deported if she goes jogging without her driver’s license. She is likely to make those events uncomfortable — which means Alito et. al. couldn’t be invited to the parties without activating all kinds of diplomatic games. Best to treat them all as persona non-grata.
Bonus points for siding with yahoos who’ll try to arrest the president if he’s not carrying his id with him as well!
Carrying registration papers would be such a hassle. Maybe we could get some kind of an armband for all the brownish people to wear, you know, as a simple matter of convenience. Then, since all naturally born U.S. citizens are white, Republicans, all you have to do is arrest all the brown people without armbands.
Keep on messing their polls up —
http://www.twiigs.com/user/sd42webmaster?s=all
Lots of kneejerk reactions from people making assumptions about the bill and why Arizona stopped waiting for federal changes. How about reading it instead?
They’ve reset it again and voting is closed. Somebody wanted the truth, but couldn’t handle the truth.
the poll is still up, but only on their main poll-page: http://www.twiigs.com/user/sd42webmaster?s=all
you’ll note that the poll is shown twice: one is the old closed one, one is new and ripe for pharyngulating
Voted at Jadehawk’s link. Hope I pissed them off. What idjits…
TimKO: Lots of kneejerk reactions from people making assumptions about the bill
And some just plain simple jerks making asses of themselves.
Many of the “kneejerks” have read it — and can perfectly well do an analysis from the history of such laws in the US, the backers of the law, and the history of the application of such laws.
I know what y’all claim is the purpose of the law and how it will be applied. Only shifty spics need worry.
Grow the hell up. Drop the juvenile defense mechanisms.
Looking at the other polls on Jadehawk’s link, you can see some hilariously ‘objective’ phrasing:
Will Republicans succeed in repealing Obamacare?
* Yes. Americans don’t want socialized medicine.
85%
* No. Who cares what people want?
14%
No room in there for the truth…
For several minutes the poll on the SD42 home page was the new, open poll, but once enough “Yes” votes were tallied they switched it back to the closed poll with 25 votes total (with “No” winning 68% – 32%).
I’m guessing they are practicing their techniques for polling places on election day.
Woha!?
Somebody is trying to wrestle with the interwebs??
:D
May I offer an alternative? At the East Valley Tribune: What is your reaction to the immigration bill signed into law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer?
In favor: It’s about time something is being done to stop illegal immigration.
67% (666)
Opposed: The bill has the potential to violate civil rights and lead to racial profiling.
12% (122)
Something needs to be done to curb illegal immigration, but this bill is not the answer.
17% (170)
This is a federal issue, not a state issue. Let Washington deal with it.
3% (32)
Total votes: 990
When I clicked on the poll link above, I wound up on a site for the Minn. Repub Party [ http://www.sd42gop.com/ ]. WTF???
Disgusting site. Methinks PZ has been hacked.
If you do go to http://www.twiigs.com/user/sd42webmaster?s=all to vote, be careful. They have now changed the wording to “Do you disagree?” rather than “Do you agree?”
Republicans are the party for the rich and power (even more so than the Democrats). They can’t win by telling the people that their policies will screw them over. So, they play to their fears. Especially to the irrational fear of minorities that are actually being oppressed. The lastest scape goats have been “illegals” (aka, Latinos) and gays. They try to get people scared that that brown guy will get your job and then you will be forced to gay marry him. With these “immigration reforms” and the ridiculous opposition to Sotomayor the Republicans may have had short term gain, but in the long run it’s a diaster. By two to one Latinos voted for Obama. There’s a reason why 90%+ of African Americans vote Democrat and it looks like Latinos will go the same way.
Yea I noticed that. They keep trying to trick people up. So they can get the poll response they desire. Losers!
You’re an idiot. What part of “Let’s Hack a Republican Poll” don’t you understand?
You ass. You assume we didn’t read it because we don’t agree with you or this asinine bill? I’ve read it, I comprehend it and I even live in Arizona. I am disgusted by such a bill since it allows the police to racially profile and ask for papers just because you look like an illegal immigrant. Guess what asswipe? That means people with dark skin color are going to be stopped for no good fucking reason. Who cares about the illegal whites and Asians? They don’t look like the dirty mud people who are stealing our jobs so let them be. (snark) It’s racist bullshit and others on this thread have explained it better than me. Why don’t you try reading for comprehension and researching something instead of just towing the party line and living in your delusions? Fucktard.
GAH! These people are sooo fucked up. I am moving if I ever get the chance too.
Check out the insanity:
What do you think of a Senator who sells their vote to pass Obamacare?
They are national heroes
3%
They should be voted out of office
17%
They should be sent to Guantanamo
79%
Created on Dec 21, 2009
Rest assured. Canadian and European illegal immigrants will not be affected by this new law.
They opened it again. 15 votes so far.
Update: the wording of the question has been changed–yet again:
“Does President Obama beleive in open borders and unlimited immigration?”
And, look they misspelled a word.
Actually, the wording of the poll keeps changing.
Haha, the wording of the question has been changed again. I love the variety of choices.
“Do you beleive in protecting our nation’s borders?
Yes. That is why I support the Arizona immigration law.
No. I don’t think we should have any immigration laws.”
They keep changing the wording.
Does you beleive in open borders and unlimited immigration?
* Yes. That is why I support the Arizona immigration law. 66%
* No. I don’t think we should have any immigration laws. 33%
“Does you beleive”? PFFFFT. But they fixed it:
Do you beleive in protecting our nation’s borders?
* Yes. That is why I support the Arizona immigration law. 11%
* No. I don’t think we should have any immigration laws. 88%
holy fuck, this is the poll that just keeps on giving :-D
Now it’s “No. I support uncontrolled illegal immigration.”
Ha! Douchebaggery documented. Internet FTW. Good job folks.
I’m currently among the 14/15 voters who had to choose uncontrolled illegal activity over a terrible and possibly unconstitutional law. Boo hoo.
I think they reset it a second (third? fourth?) time BTW since Ricardo said it was at 15 an hour ago. And… refresh, it hit 31. Heh.
Redefined, once again. It won’t be long until they write the answer as “No. I support crimes committed by illegal immigrants.“
And yet something tells me these idiots were hom skoold…
This is hilarious. I voted “No. I support uncontrolled illegal immigration.” and kept watching the numbers which ended up being around 44 votes with 97% voting the same as I did. But then it reset and I voted and watched again as it reached 44 votes at 95% voting “No. I support uncontrolled illegal immigration.”…. once again it was reset and I have voted once more.
The game is afoot…
Reset again. Now it’s at 8. (Refresh) 12. You know, somebody could sit here with a camcorder and record themselves hitting refresh to catch these idiots resetting the poll when they don’t like the results. Probably not worth it though — “morons caught being morons” isn’t much of a headline.
Blimey…and we’re ‘Old Europe’? You’ve got some mahtee fahn ‘old’ bigots over in your part of the world…
Interesting how they don’t even pretend to be honest: they just keep resetting the poll! Presumably they’ll ensure that they mention that fact when quoting from it.
I find this stuff really scary. Like proper wake up at night scary. Where is it all going? The US is tipping herself down a toilet of ignorance. You just could not get away with any of this stuff here (the UK – but read almost anywhere in ‘old’ Europe), not the graffiti-ing Obama (that would be a hate crime), not the proposed law (that would be socially unacceptable) – and particularly, not the public racism: that would see your social circle reduced to a very small number of quite strange people, who were mostly well known to the clinic and the police.
I have now seen 3 resets in 30 minutes… wow.
Also, the wording is now… “No. I don’t care about being part of a free society.”
HAha and if you vote “no”, the results show two different “yes” answers!
And now the only options are yes. Gotta love ignorance :D
Both answers are “Yes” now. Well, they beat us. All they had to do was cheat outright.
As of now the poll is as follows:
Do you believe in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws?
Yes. An orderly immigration policy is essential to maintaining a free society.
Yes. And that is why I support Arizona’s immigration law.
Meh, you’re right Mike. I just had voted no right when they changed to two “yes” answers. Racists are no fun.
I think an orderly immigration policy would be nicer than Arizona’s immigration law, which to me it seems chaotically infringes on people’s right to not be racially profiled, and therefore treated fairly under the law.
Hey, this is the best yet:
I’m really thankful to them for giving me the freedom to vote either yes or yes!
See?
I need to get this on Failblog or something.
LOL! They’re taking irrelevant internet polls to a whole new level.
Failblog it, you say?
http://cheezburger.com/View/3462281472
I wonder if the governor of AZ carries proof of citizenship everywhere. I think someone should file a lawsuit if the cops fail to check her ID. *smirk*
Even a yes/no choice seems too risky now. The poll now reads:
“Do you believe in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws?
* Yes. An orderly immigration policy is essential to maintaining a free society.
* Yes. And that is why I support Arizona’s immigration law.”
That’s the right wing take on democracy – you can vote anyway you like, as long as it’s their way!
That is just amazing! two Yes-answers!, you just cant go wrong. I guess people got all confused about the Right answer with all those alternatives on offer.
Bedtime for Democracy!
First of all, a “hate crime” is a violent crime directed against a person because of his or her race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or another comparable factor. “Hate crimes” are not the same thing as “hate speech”, and I wish people would stop confusing the two.
Hate speech laws are those which criminalise certain kinds of speech because the content of that speech is racist, homophobic, bigoted, etc., and likely to “incite hatred”. They are completely wrong, and a violation of the fundamental principle of freedom of expression. Hate speech laws in the United States would, quite rightly, be held unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Sadly, in the UK and much of Europe, we don’t have comparably strong protection for free speech. (The European Court of Human Rights tends to be pathetically weak on these matters, and it doesn’t have power to strike down national laws on its own authority in any case.)
Secondly, there are no shortage of racists in Britain, and Europe as a whole. The racist BNP has members in the European Parliament, and local councillors, and the only reason they are kept out of the Westminster Parliament is because (rightly or wrongly) we have a rather unrepresentative electoral system. Across Europe, radical right-wing movements – the Front National in France, Lega Nord in Italy, the Freedom Party in Austria, the Law and Justice Party in Poland, and so on – hold seats in the legislature and elected offices at the national level.
I wish people over here would stop contributing to Americans’ stereotypical views of “Europe”. Many conservative Americans seem to think of “Europe” as the seventh circle of hell, and keep ranting about how it’s all been taken over by pagan depravity and vice. Conversely, many liberal Americans seem to see Europe as a secular liberal paradise where people are free, no one is ever poor or hungry or lacks adequate healthcare, and there is no racism or bigotry. Both views are entirely false. Europe is not a homogenous mass; it consists of a number of different countries with different cultures, societies and economies. Some parts tend to be liberal, others conservative. And while there are some respects in which most European countries have better political systems than the US, there are also plenty of illiberal and authoritarian measures in European nations which would be unconstitutional in the US.
Walton: apologies there – I wasn’t trying to make a legal point, more an observational real world, type point. I’m not a lawyer – so I don’t know the difference between a hate crime and a hate speech crime. Right or wrong though, it is clear to me though that in the UK it would be impossible – even for the BNP – to run that poll. And I’m happy about that. Likewise, the things that are said routinely on Fox news (‘How are we going to stop that Bitch’ about Hillary, etc) are way beyind anything we would tolerate in the mainstream.
So you wish that certain stereotypes of Europe and the US were challenged and stopped. Fair enough.
Well I wish that there was a bit more honesty about where much of the mainstream US has got to. My issue is about what the mainstream has become. The tendancy towards hard right in the UK is not good. The long history of it in the mainstream in France (and Italy and Spain and…) is shameful. But even there, such polls would not be tolerated, nor would public discourse on the level that is allowed in the US. And that is tragic.
But don’t for a second read/suggest that those who wnat to point this out think the US is all bad and Europe is all good. I leave that kind of simplicity for the right wing.
Let’s not forget that the kind of racial profiling by the police that is being proposed in Arizona is already widespread in most of the European Union as this research shows !
In this area, the EU is actually much worse than the US.
Jon Stewart is on the case. It’s the front page of tds.com, the clip doesn’t have its own page yet but it’s there. Or you can watch the full ep. Sorry you dirty foreigners, you probably can’t.
Has anybody seen that now they have changed the answers to “Yes” and “Yes”?
They need to just give up, already. They’re turning it into something that’s going to be on every news show, comedy show, and blog tomorrow. If they had left it alone, no one would have ever cared.
See comments #150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 160, 161…
Failblog attempt up, readable compared to the previous one: http://cheezburger.com/View/3462559232
It’s almost as if they don’t have an honest interest in learning the opinions of others, but would rather sit in an echo chamber where they’re told what they want to hear.
Another poll that needs a good pharyngulating:
What is your view on human origins?
http://technology-science.newsvine.com/_question/2009/09/30/3337005-whats-your-view-on-human-origins
Surprisingly, it’s already going in the right direction, did someone else post this and I missed it?
Marian: A-yep —
http://lafiga.firedoglake.com/2010/04/27/minnesota-gop-fail/
@negentropyeater #167
Yes, I saw those, after I had posted. I don’t know how I managed to miss them, because they had been up for hours before I posted, but I swear there were only about 125 comments when I went to post mine. I do read before I post, I swear….
MarianLibrarian,
no worries :-)
It does demonstrate just how fragile their world view is. Or should I say “national view” since their world view is basically nothing but a slight variation on the old maps that say “There be monsters” beyond the edge of what they they are familiar with.
They simply can’t tolerate the idea that their view is not the majority view. As long as their fair and balanced polls clearly indicated that their views were the same as the vast majority of American’s, they could sleep at night. Any possible indication that their viewpoint was not what the vast majority of American’s agreed with could not be tolerated.
I’m sure whoever was manipulating the poll is serenely justifying the manipulation as well. In their mind they most likely decided that, since no majority anywhere could possibly disagree, then the poll was obviously being manipulated by a single evil person. Probably the Antichrist. Probably in Golden
Valley Minnesota.
One can think that the AZ law is racist and draconian — as I do — and still recognize that action like it (dating back at least to CA’s ill-fated Proposition 187) is perfectly rational. Whether one favors closed borders, open borders, something in between or something else, we ought all to be able to agree that immigration is a national issue that demands a national solution. The President says as much. The federal government has jurisdiction over the border. Federal law decrees that every child is entitled to attend public school, regardless of immigration status. And every person, illegal or not, must be cared for in hospital emergency rooms.
The federal government has manifestly failed to institute a national policy of substance that can work and doesn’t even support or enforce the “policies” it does have. Even worse, the costs of this federal failure fall predominantly upon the citizens of the four states that border Mexico, to the tune of billions of dollars a year. The NYT reports that the cost educating illegals in AZ is $2 billion annually. The cost of imprisoning criminals who are illegal in CA is around $1 billion per year and the cost of educating illegals in CA is at least $4 billion a year (per the LA Times). These bills are almost all paid at the state and local levels. Yet fundamental fairness ought to demand that whatever federal policy (or lack thereof) is employed and the consequences thereof ought to be paid for at the national level. It’s simply not right for the federal government to dither while four states (predominantly) pay the fare. Actions like that taken by AZ — foolish and wrong though they are — are perfectly undersandable under the circumstances.
@Robocop: The federal government has manifestly failed to institute a national policy of substance that can work and doesn’t even support or enforce the “policies” it does have.
Or the federal government has instituted an effective policy to protect the interests of those who control it. Large scale immigration to produce cheap labor which has few legal protections (and is completely un-unionizable), while simultaneously hiding this policy from most of the electorate.
It’s an elegant solution to an important business problem. Actions like that taken by AZ are not a reaction against this policy, but are part of this policy.
You don’t think that everyone that runs this country is a complete imbecile unable to do any sociological or economic analysis whatsoever, do you?
176: Or the federal government has instituted an effective policy to protect the interests of those who control it.
Either way, the results are radically unfair to border states.
You don’t think that everyone that runs this country is a complete imbecile unable to do any sociological or economic analysis whatsoever, do you?
When presented with a choice between incompetent and subtle conspiracy with broad and immense impact, my default is incompetent, especially when the government is involved.
@Robocop: When presented with a choice between incompetent and subtle conspiracy with broad and immense impact, my default is incompetent, especially when the government is involved.
There is no “default”. There is no distinction — the incompetence enables conspiracies, the conspiracies enable incompetents. The “conspiracy” is a network of relationships larger than the individuals. Hanlon’s razor is incredibly stupid and ignorant — an excuse to be blind by failing to distinguish the intentions of some individuals from the systematic behavior of the system, and to ignorantly apply the principles of “simple” physical systems to recursive, informational systems. It’s just plain silly pseudo-rationalism.
Or to put it more succintly, it’s a false dichotomy. You’ll never find one without the other.
Either way, the results are radically unfair to border states.
What do you mean by “border states”? The folks who run the border states are the ones who most benefit. How many folks have nannies in Indiana vs. New Mexico? How much does a lawn guy cost in Wisconsin vs. Arizona? How many retirees would you get if the price of elderly care-givers came up to the costs in states with lower percentages of illegal immigrants?
How many of the banks in the border states massively profit from laundering drug money, and how is that business benefited by immigration distractions? How does El Paso support itself?
What the hell. That site design is straight out of 1994. That’s painful to look at. It’s good to know that someone still uses frontpage.
178: There is no “default”. There is no distinction — the incompetence enables conspiracies, the conspiracies enable incompetents.
I know, being paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you, but I haven’t seen any black helicopters recently. Maybe that’s because of stealth capability, but I’m skeptical.
Or to put it more succintly, it’s a false dichotomy. You’ll never find one without the other.
No incompetence without conspiracy? Have you ever taught undergraduates? Run a business? Coached sports? Worked on Capitol Hill? I’ve done all those things and seen monumental incompetence at every level. Conspiracies? Not so much.
The folks who run the border states are the ones who most benefit.
I pay decidedly less than I otherwise would for my housekeeper (legal), pool service (legal) and for gardening service (claimed legal, but I doubt it) as a result of current immigration “policy.” But I don’t know a taxpayer who thinks the benefits outweigh the costs. Maybe the elite leaders of your conspiracy (Dick Cheney? President Obama? Arnold?) think the game is worth the candle, but I don’t. California (where I live) is hemorrhaging money at the state and local levels. I’m more than ready to acknowledge that there are powerful political motivations for politicians of all ideological stripes to avoid dealing with immigration. But I’m far from convinced that their motivations are economic, though I’d surely consider any evidence that it is.
robocop: No incompetence without conspiracy? Have you ever taught undergraduates? Run a business? Coached sports? Worked on Capitol Hill? I’ve done all those things and seen monumental incompetence at every level. Conspiracies? Not so much.
Well, I haven’t been on Capitol Hill — but for the rest, they’re rife with conspiracy. I’ve seen kickbacks, embezzlement, cheating…
All conspiracies. And all have tried to use the cover of incompetence. I mean really — you’ve taught undergraduates and haven’t realized that a significant percentage of the kids are cheating in collusion? It’s hard to catch precisely because a lot of the kids are incompetent in so many things — how do you distinguish cheating from a bad source from just plain being stupid?
You’ve run a business and haven’t seen “conspiracies” to embezzle, kickbacks between vendors and employees, etc? How do you distinguish from a bad choice in vendors from a kickback? Business is mostly about varying forms of conspiracy — conspiring against opponents, partners, internally and externally, employees and bosses — it’s politics and politics is about building social networks and concealing them from your opponents.
If you haven’t seen conspiracies, either you’ve been in a particularly obtuse environment, or you just haven’t been watching. Remember, Hanlon’s Razor is self-affirming, it’s the inverse of the Conspiracy Theorist who doesn’t merely withhold judgment in the face of the lack of evidence, but interprets that lack of evidence as evidence of conspiracy; Hanlon interprets lack of evidence for conspiracy as evidence of the lack of conspiracy. Big mistake outside of hard-science fields where you can assume a certain sort of nominal “omniscience”, where you can assume a level of control (that your “subjects” aren’t out to trick you).
But I don’t know a taxpayer who thinks the benefits outweigh the costs.
‘Cept very few of the “influential taxpayers” actually push for policies that would work — not targeting supply, but demand. Very few want to combine strong enforcement against employers while significantly improving the infrastructure in the source countries.
The taxpayers can “think” they think whatever they want. But the evidence of policies — and the fact that enforcement against employers actually went down with the putatively anti-immigrant administration of Shrub — leads me to believe that what they think and what they “think” they think is quite distinct.
You’re right that there are incentive besides the purely economic for avoiding immigration reform — but I tend to think that the voting booth is pretty well managed. The fact is that both parties, in fact, propose pro-low-cost-labor policies, with some little scapegoating to “manage” the voters.
That suggests that influential folks — folks from the GS’s in the world to influential agribusinesses know exactly where their buns are buttered, and no one at the DC cocktail parties every discusses actually doing something significant about it.
I have been directly involved with racism on both sides of the fence. For many years I was an Identity Christian. Now, I am very anti-racist; I hate hate – thats fucking oxymoronic right? :P ! This many times has put me in harms way. Many of the people I hung around with seemed to have an unmentioned motto, “Die to get in, kill to get out”(AB ya I know dont digress). But, you get the point. It has brought more than one fight my way, the fact I climbed and fight on the other side of the fence.
I do not want a cookie, blowjob or trophy – its not why I mention the above. Well, a BJ and cookie does sound nice. I felt the above intro relevant, to those who choose to believe it, to hit home my point. I fight against all forms of racism despite the fact it has put me in danger and has brought old friends to my door. That is my point.
Initially when I heard of the bill I was disgusted dispite the fact I recognize there is a serious immigration problem. However, I heard the sponsor of the bill speak to Mike Smerconish who is a self promoted fence walker: http://www.smerconish.com/
I understand the sponsor of the bill must do everything they can to justify their bill. I understand he is republican. I understand out right lies, distortions of the truth and spewing shit are common and often acceptable in the political arena. However, Mike is usually not one to tolerate it – in my opinion. After hearing the arguments and discussion on Mike’s show and considering the fact I openly hate hate I think PZ is going a little over the top. Per the sponsor this bill does not support racial profiling like I initially thought and does not make many dramatic changes as I initially thought.
Check out Mike’s page possibly the interview is still available. Email or call Mike I bet he responds.
I have nothing more to comment about this in public but as always am open to discuss it in private. I just thought the Smerk interview is worth your time, trouble, effort & energy to seek out rather than rush an opinion?
Tony
hello_tnt@hotmail.com
Kill to get in die to get out. I messed up the unmentioned motto. Obviously I never killed anyone and obviously I am not afraid I am going to be killed. Despite the face I messed up the motto in the above post the fact still remains my current position of jump’n the fence has been directly responsible for some fights, shouting matches and other forms of tension.
181: Well, I haven’t been on Capitol Hill — but for the rest, they’re rife with conspiracy. I’ve seen kickbacks, embezzlement, cheating…
I think my concept of “conspiracy” in this context is narrower than you would have it. I’ve seen all those things, unfortunately, but don’t attribute them to any kind of conspiracy other than in a trivial sense — multiple people were sometimes involved.
[I]t’s politics and politics is about building social networks and concealing them from your opponents.
I think politics is more fundamentally concerned with acquiring and maintaining power. For professional politicians, that means getting elected and re-elected. And that’s why immigration is so vexing politically.
Some folks are predisposed to help people in need, so they tend to look sympathetically upon immigrants both in terms of providing government services and in terms of offering opportunity. Some are relatively open to a multicultural, multiracial society. However, since open immigration requires a huge social safety net structure, it can be opposed on more or less “honorable” grounds in that the costs of a truly global and viable social safety net would be enormous. Of course, the idjit racists simply want to keep “them” out. On the other hand, small business owners surely like cheap labor (and those inclined toward the union movement oppose it) while more sophisticated racists like having a permanent underclass that can neither vote nor, in practice, unionize. You see this last “coalition” as controlling, it appears, and I simply don’t see evidence of that (Bush policies and the number of Goldman alumni advising President Obama notwithstanding). I don’t see those factors as part of any conspiracy — grand or otherwise — in any meaningful sense.
The taxpayers can “think” they think whatever they want. But the evidence of policies — and the fact that enforcement against employers actually went down with the putatively anti-immigrant administration of Shrub — leads me to believe that what they think and what they “think” they think is quite distinct.
The problem with your hypothesis is that it’s always deemed true irrespective of whether it’s supported. If there’s evidence, it supports your hypothesis. If there’s no evidence, you’re quick to extol how good the conspiracy is. In my view, our most fundamental political failing is that all sides want to make decisions, build policies, and enact programs based upon ideology and what they presume to be true, with little concern before the fact (and even less after) with what can and does actually work. At the risk of sounding like Jimmy Stewart, I think most Americans want to do the right thing most of the time, but the system “conspires” to make it exceedingly difficult to do so.
More to the point, perhaps, is that immigration isn’t really a major problem for most people and most states. That illegal immigration costs CA $5-10 billion per year doesn’t have much of an impact upon MN. If the DC cocktail party circuit isn’t talking about immigration generally, I suspect that it has less to do with conspiracy and more to do with its not having much of an impact on their daily lives (for example, they don’t see money-starved schools struggling to educate their students, half of whom may be illegal). Most people seem to think it’s somebody else’s problem.
And that’s a big problem.
Hey PZ. I like a lot of your writings, but I think you’re way off on this one.
You say this new Arizona law “requires immigrants to carry their registration documents at all times.” This is a gross inaccuracy. The new law references existing FEDERAL law 8 USC Section 1304(e). It is this long standing federal law which states every alien, eighteen or over, shall at all times carry a certificate of alien registration. This is not a concept established in the new Arizona law.
You also claim the Arizona law “essentially legalizes racial profiling”. The governor clear stated when she signed the bill “I will not tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona. Because I feel so strongly on this subject, I worked for weeks with legislators to amend SB 1070, to strengthen its civil rights protections. That effort led to new language in the bill, language prohibiting law enforcement officers from ‘solely, considering race, color, or national origin in implementing the requirements of this section…’”
And then your statement about Republicans “mocking a growing part of our electorate” is just illogical. Illegal aliens don’t get to vote. Of course you’re probably referring to the US citizens of Hispanic origin that you believe are going to be unnecessarily hassled due to the new law, and not the illegal aliens themselves. But if you are, isn’t that racial profiling on your part?
You also reference Minnesota’s growing Hispanic workers “getting stuck with the essential but menial jobs of our agricultural economy”? Here’s an idea: hire legal citizens to do those menial jobs, Hispanic or not. Pay them like a legal citizen, as well as let them earn healthcare and retirement benefits. Sure the price of our food will go up. But isn’t it worth it to avoid having a subculture of black market labor that promotes poverty.
To make a super obvious point, the best way to stop illegal immigration is to reform legal immigration. But until that happens, illegal immigration is a crime.
Which is, of course, completely missing the point… no surprise. It’s not the requirement of aliens to carry proof of citizenship that’s the problem, it’s the requirement of local police officials to detain and inspect any and all persons with “reasonable suspicion”… which dovetails nicely to your next point
Those are very nice words which mean precisely bupkus in reality, and anyone not looking to defend this bill at any cost can see right through it. The bill requires officers to check citizenship on all persons for whom there is reasonable suspicion. Interestingly, when asked, the governor was unable (read: unwilling) to define “reasonable suspicion”. And lacking any real definition or criteria for “reasonable suspicion”, the effect of the law, intended or not, will be racial profiling… it’s a stretch to think otherwise even for a second.
The governor would only say that “extensive training” will be set up to train officers on what constitutes “reasonable suspicion”… which will be great once someone defines what exactly that is, if not “he looks Mexican”.
Stop with the apologetics. This bill is not only unconstitutional, it is unnecessary. If the Governor or DA would actually enforce existing laws that employers are supposed to follow, much of this problem could be addressed, without resorting to a friggin police state.
@Robocop: I think my concept of “conspiracy” in this context is narrower than you would have it. I’ve seen all those things, unfortunately, but don’t attribute them to any kind of conspiracy other than in a trivial sense — multiple people were sometimes involved.
You’re projecting. Conspiracy: an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act; an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot; a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose.
A “Grand” conspiracy is, insane. A conspiracy is just what everyone does all the time — at least other than the very best of us. Plotting in secret to gain an advantage, particularly one which would be disadvantage by being in public (and thereby already signaling that it’s illegitimate to some extent).
The problem with your hypothesis is that it’s always deemed true irrespective of whether it’s supported. If there’s evidence, it supports your hypothesis. If there’s no evidence, you’re quick to extol how good the conspiracy is
That’s what I mean by “projecting”. No — if you can show me an administration that is strongly (and not merely as show) commercial hiring of illegals, then I’ll believe that they actually intend to limit illegal immigration.
The facts are that they haven’t for the past 30 years. There are no such administrations, despite the fact that some of the coalitions that have formed them have claimed to be for immigration control.
We haven’t had a government interested in immigration control since the ’60s, as a simple matter of fact, by simple analysis of policies in action.
This dismissing of conspiracy by conflating conspiracies with “grand conspiracies” and particularly in this case my explicit distinction between lack of evidence and evidence of lack is disappointing. In a very limited cases, you can go from lack of evidence to evidence of lack — in complex systems, however, there is no logical link — lack of evidence does not imply evidence of lack, nor is it evidence against lack. It is just ignorance.
The evidence of groups of people acting in their “self-interest” while claiming otherwise is indisputable. It happens every day — from the banal such as collusive cheating (which is a conspiracy whether you poo-poo it in order to simply kill analysis or not) to the level of intricate intelligence programs such as assassinations covered as terrorist attacks.
None of them are “grand” — since no one has that sort of control and predictive ability, and conspiracies naturally splinter (they are naturally unstable due to the very fact of their partial secrecy). When we lack evidence, such as consistent behavior or documents, we withhold judgment — we say we don’t know, rather than being a conspiracy theorist or an anti-conspiracy theorist (I hold both in disdain).
In terms of illegal immigration, we have plenty of evidence — the national chamber of commerce suggests exactly the policy line that both administrations follow, which is to not choke the supply of cheap labor. Of course, no politician can outright say that in public, any more than Obama can repeat his “bitter people clinging to guns and religion” statement — but, fuck it, we know he (and many of us) think that.
It’s not even terribly secret! There’s all kinds of policy papers if you bother to google. It’s like claiming that the tobacco industry really didn’t want to addict people, because a couple of PR flacks say they didn’t! That’s not being “rational” — that’s just delusional.
Maybe we need another word for “conspiracy” since so many people react knee-jerk to the word, as if it was dirty. The problem is, anyone who’s involved in any conspiracy is automatically interested in turning any word that describes what they do into a verboten word — and the rest of us are interested in pretending it doesn’t happen, in deluding ourselves, so we can go on with our happy quiet lives.
If you have three people in a room, you have three conspiracies already (A< ->B, B< ->C, C< ->D) — all the damn word means is that people work together to con each other.
Celtic_Evolution, you said I missed the point. I think you missed my point. PZ’s story above has errors in it. We could go back and forth for days on opinions of treatment of illegal immigrants. My point is that it doesn’t help the call to arms if PZ is giving erroneous information in his pleading. For example, PZ said the Arizona law requires immigrants to carry registration documents, but it does not.
That was my main point anyway.
Well, that and defending the bill as not essentially legalizing racial profiling… or did you forget that part?
Police in Arizona are now compelled under law to perform citizenship checks on all person’s under “resonable suspicion”, which in Arizona can only lead to racial profiling… it’s immoral and unconstitutional and is an indicator of some really bad trends… and you think the important thing is to point out to PZ that he was wrong about the law requiring aliens to carry proof of citizenship? Cause there’s already a federal law that requires it? Congrats. You’ve made your point…
I didn’t forget, just trying to be brief. Is this the compelling part of the law you are referring to?
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
I’m just curious, in your opinion, “reasonable when practicable” is defined as “compelled under law to perform citizenship checks”?
MikeZ: It is this long standing federal law which states every alien, eighteen or over, shall at all times carry a certificate of alien registration. This is not a concept established in the new Arizona law.
Why can’t people figure out the difference between the putative content of law, and what law really is and means? It’s boggling.
In practice, the federal law doesn’t mean that you must carry your documents at all times — you’re not going to run into the border patrol walking your dog, or running down to the convenience store. It only nominally requires that, but the real meaning of a law is in terms of the context of it’s enforcement.
The Arizona law changes that. Now the requirement is a real requirement — it can be enforced at any moment. Your local sheriff can show up at your door and demand your papers.
That’s what a law means — how in practice it is enforced. And this law completely changes enforcement. No one goes around carrying their green card if they don’t live near the border — you’re afraid of losing it and ending up in real trouble. I don’t grab my driver’s license to walk to the local convenience store — but in Arizona, I should now. But you, probably, don’t need to!
And this is always the structure of right-wing propaganda — to confute the letter of the law with the actual law. Literacy laws were equal since everyone was “equally burdened by a literacy test”; miscegenation laws weren’t racist since it “banned whites from marrying blacks as much as it bans blacks from marrying whites” (and yes, that was actually what was found throughout the judicial system).
Life ain’t a technical issues. Tasers ain’t technical, and elbows to the head don’t require parsing.
187: You’re projecting. Conspiracy: an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act; an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot; a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose.
I get that. But for the idea to make sense in context, the conspiracy needs the ability to accomplish its goal (or at least make meaningful progress towards it) and needs to be part of something bigger. Four dopes in sheets who burn a cross on someone’s lawn is a heinous, illegal conspiracy, surely. But it’s another thing entirely when they act as part of and on behalf of the national KKK.
A conspiracy is just what everyone does all the time — at least other than the very best of us.
Then we meant different things.
[I]f you can show me an administration that is strongly (and not merely as show) commercial hiring of illegals, then I’ll believe that they actually intend to limit illegal immigration.
It appears that something was dropped here, but I think I understand you. I agree that there haven’t been any meaningful attempts to limit illegal immigration. But I think the primary motivations for that failure have been political rather than economic. To pick an easy example, I think Democrats are far more interested in Hispanic votes than in keeping cheap labor available when they refuse to deal with immigration. For the most part, Republicans have been too (AZ being an obvious exception). My original point was (and remains) that state and local costs due to the federal government’s failures make some response (and AZ’s response was a very poor one, in my view) by states entirely rational and all but inevitable because the costs have gotten so high.
In terms of illegal immigration, we have plenty of evidence — the national chamber of commerce suggests exactly the policy line that both administrations follow, which is to not choke the supply of cheap labor.
I think that’s far too broad a swipe at what is, in effect, a predominantly local and regional problem. Does the average resident of Morris, MN give a hoot about illegal immigration?
191: Why can’t people figure out the difference between the putative content of law, and what law really is and means?
That’s an excellent point. I learned that lesson as a young lawyer being assigned pro bono defense cases. I’d sit in court waiting for my case to be called and watch every cop testify in every instance about the search consent being granted, the pot being in plain view, etc. It was a real eye-opener.
[Y]ou’re not going to run into the border patrol walking your dog, or running down to the convenience store.
Actually, we go through border patrol checkpoints (as much as 50 or so miles from the border) quite routinely here in SoCal.
P.S. I think and expect the Left to be as repressive as the Right.
Thanks for your clarification Frog. Here is what I have read from the federal and state laws in question. Maybe you can further clarify what they mean. Is this the part of the federal law 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) that “doesn’t mean that you must carry your documents at all times”?
And this must be the part of the Arizona law that changes that.
Actually, after looking at it again, I just don’t see how the Arizona law is the one that’s the “real requirement”. But then it does go on for about 10 pages to talk about how it is unlawful to smuggle human beings for profit, and that employers shall not knowingly employ unauthorized aliens. It seems like they have some pretty good points there.
I don’t think the technicalities of the call to arms should be discarded so easily. If you are not going to base your movement on the facts, then how can anyone have respect for said movement.
miker42 (@190):
Because there’s another section of the law that forbids any policy of enforcement that is anything short of the fullest extent of the law (i.e., any discretion on the part of the cops or prosecutors is specifically forbidden) and there’s yet another section that allows any citizen to sue law enforcement if they believe the law is being laxly enforced. Combine these factors, and it suddenly becomes “reasonable” and “practical” for the cops to demand proof from any brown person they come into legitimate contact with… because if they don’t, it’s their ass in the dock.
As as for the existing federal law that requires aliens to carry proof, that’s all well and good… but this law requires anyone who might be mistaken for an alien to carry proof of citizenship, regardless of thier actual status… and makes it a criminal offense not to have it.
If you were a natural-born American citizen of Hispanic descent, would you normally think to carry a passport within the U.S.? In practical effect, even if not in the strict letter, that’s what this law would require of you. It’s astonishing to me that anyone would defend this: Even if you hate all immigrants (and if you do, shame on you), this law is corrosive to the rights of all citizens, and antithetical to our deepest principles as a nation.
I think that’s far too broad a swipe at what is, in effect, a predominantly local and regional problem. Does the average resident of Morris, MN give a hoot about illegal immigration?
The question is who sets the narrative. What and when do things become a “national discussion” and how much does that drive national and local legislation?
The average teabagger in Morris does care about illegal immigration — even if he only knows two hispanics and they’re his kids’ doctors. Why? Because that’s part of a narrative he’s been sold by the astroturfing lobbyists who fund and run the teabaggers. Why would they make this part of the conversation? Because they want to preempt discussions about NAFTA, hiring practices, etc.
To pick an easy example, I think Democrats are far more interested in Hispanic votes than in keeping cheap labor available when they refuse to deal with immigration.
Well, which matters more, votes or money? They are interested in Hispanic votes — they’re jumping for joy at the Republican misstep in Arizona — but I think they’re primarily driven by funding, and that money sure as hell doesn’t come from Hispanics.
Why? Well, we can see the vast number of Obama campaign promises he’s backtracked on. Now obviously, he thought that those promises gained him votes, so why would he backtrack? Because now he’s in “funding collection” phase. When the campaign start again, we’ll see the promises come back with some excuse about Republican intransigence — but the policies reflect the money, while campaign promises reflect the voters.
So, in this case the Dems get a two-fer, while the Republicans are caught between policy & campaign, which explains the ineffective but xenophobic actions. If they win an election and actually go after employers, I’ll consider that a decisive political change — at the level of the switch in the 20s in immigration policy (the logic is very similar).
My original point was (and remains) that state and local costs due to the federal government’s failures make some response (and AZ’s response was a very poor one, in my view) by states entirely rational and all but inevitable because the costs have gotten so high
And my point is that you’re taking too broad of a swipe. There are social distinctions of class, ethnicity, industry, etc, that need to be included. Some people take the costs, others profit; and those some can be quite specific. That within Arizona, some of the supporters of this bill want extensive immigration — they want to distract the anger over the issue by scapegoating their employees. They may prefer no response at all, but this is a fairly good compromise giving them an advantage in negotiations with their employees; now, they don’t need to threaten to call ICE if they get uppity, but their cousin Sheriff Roscoe can pick up any trouble-makers right away.
196: Well, which matters more, votes or money?
I think we can agree that this is the crucial question and further agree that it’s not strictly either/or.
They are interested in Hispanic votes — they’re jumping for joy at the Republican misstep in Arizona — but I think they’re primarily driven by funding, and that money sure as hell doesn’t come from Hispanics.
You may be right but I’m unconvinced. I think the President’s backtracking has been predicated upon priorities, a mistaken belief that bi-partisanship was possible, an estimation of how much “change” was do-able, a managing of expectations, and a political judgment that the base would support him despite a bit of backtracking while the “middles” were worth some compromise. Indeed, if money controlled as much as you assume, no healthcare bill would have passed. But I could be wrong.
They may prefer no response at all, but this is a fairly good compromise giving them an advantage in negotiations with their employees; now, they don’t need to threaten to call ICE if they get uppity, but their cousin Sheriff Roscoe can pick up any trouble-makers right away.
That some think so I don’t doubt. But I don’t think it’s anything like a crucial driver.
One addition….
It almost pains me to say it, but I’m not as cynical as you. When I was young, I believed generally in the good will of almost everyone. But real life hit me over the head. Then I became disillusioned and trusted nobody. But I met people with whom I profoundly disagreed who were exceedingly well-intentioned. Today, my view is more nuanced. I generally think most politicians hold their essential ideologies honestly but are too readily corrupted by the exegencies and realities of politics. Thus I think Obama’s backtracking was predictable, but not for the reasons you posit.
@Robocopy: You may be right but I’m unconvinced. I think the President’s backtracking has been predicated upon priorities, a mistaken belief that bi-partisanship was possible, an estimation of how much “change” was do-able, a managing of expectations, and a political judgment that the base would support him despite a bit of backtracking while the “middles” were worth some compromise.
I think were still caught at the either/or. It’s two different levels of analysis. The “funding” question is a meta-question — which priorities gain attention, how much bi-partisanship is imaginable, what “change” is do-able and “political judgment”.
There’s folks who get your ear, and thereby can influence your “rational” processes. That is driven to a huge amount by funding. It’s a bit less in the Presidency than in Congress — but that’s such a clear example, where lobbyists write white papers that staffers then use to form their own reports that then lead to legislation.
They can honestly claim no quid pro quo in a strict sense. But in practice, it’s equivalent to a quid pro quo, since your “rational” purposes are constrained and directed by your funders. For the executive branch, it’s a bit subtler but it’s a huge driving force.
Gulliverian flapping — you can say anything you want, as long as your folks decide to flap your lips when you’re saying it.
Bill (@195)
Thanks Bill. I would love to see your supporting evidence for your conclusions. I couldn’t find it in the new Arizona law. I did find this:
I’m no lawyer, but it sounds like we have a couple of lawyers here. I read this as the officer is protected by the law unless he’s being a dick. If I’m wrong, please set me straight.
I think you are getting your information from this section, though I think you misinterpret it:
Again set me straight if I am interpreting this wrong. I think it says people may sue a government official who adopts or implements policy. Neither of which is done by the police officer. His job is to enforce the policy, and this section does not apply to the police officer in the field. Therefore I don’t think it is reasonable to conclude this law somehow coerces police to go Rambo on the public to avoid prosecution themselves. Overall it appears to say the state law will not be weaker than the federal law, and if anyone tries to make it weaker, they face prosecution.
His job is to enforce the policy, and this section does not apply to the police officer in the field.
it says “ANY OFFICIAL” which would seem to include individual officers. “THAT ADOPTS A POLICY”. If you see a police officer letting possible illegals just walk on by without verifying their immigration status, how do you know it isn’t a policy?
The policy is public record. It’s the law, and you can easily read it by following PZ’s link above. I believe the mystery surrounding the policy comes from either not reading it, or misunderstanding the terms.
Still not being a lawyer, it appears to me the law makes a distinction between adopting, implementing, and enforcing policy. Any lawyer can probably tell me if that is accurate.
SteveM — I just don’t see suing individuals in something like this working in practice.
Even if the law “technically” allowed it, they have no resources to justify suing them, it would be next to impossible to show that they have a “policy”, judges would hate it and try to find a way to stop it….
We live in the real world. In the real world, words like these mean if you can show that a department is refusing to prosecute illegals, then you can sue that department. Of course, what the burden of evidence is won’t be clear until several suits have been adjudicated — that’s the kind of stuff that judges make up as they go along… “What does policy mean” and so forth, probably in the Arizona supreme court — whether statistical evidence is sufficient or whether they need to have a big sign declaring themselves to be a sanctuary city.
The judges will try to interpret as narrowly as possible — moving towards the big stupid sign.
The important question for these kind of things, though, is the climate it sets. How much do cops, departments and counties feel they can get away with. You can legally make a literacy test as legally ineffective as you want — but if it acts as an intimidation factor, and allows the “poll testers” to act in a much more intimidating manner, it’s irrelevant what the courts find years down the road.
That’s why the fine legal parsing is all besides the point. The Soviet constitution had all kinds of fine guarantees!
Because I’ve seen comments wondering why anyone could defend this law, I thought I would take a stab at it with an analogy.
I ride a motorcycle, a Honda RC51. For those who don’t know, that’s a pretty fast sport bike. I spent 6 years commuting on this bike to work, 5 days a week, rain or shine. I averaged 1 speeding ticket per year at no more than 10 mph over the speed limit. For the last two years I’ve been driving a pickup on the same roads and at the same speeds. So far, no tickets.
Am I vehicular-ly profiled on the bike? Yes, of course I am. Anybody with a right arm can go fast in a straight line on a bike, and you know what, many do. When I see some young punk doing wheelies on the freeway I shake my head. The fact is young kids go fast on bikes because it is super easy and exciting. They also cause more than their share of problems ranging from property damage, to their own death, and worse, the death of others. Those people are the reason I get tickets on my bike. It’s not a conspiracy concocted by the police. Statistically when I am on my bike I am part of a group who is more likely “up to something” than when I am in the truck. It is for the better good of me, my family, you and your family, that a group most likely to cause problems draws more attention by the police on public roads.
So, it would surprise me if the legal Hispanic community is not shaking their heads at the illegal Hispanic community. It is the illegal group that draws attention to them. It’s not the fault of the state that people are entering the state illegally.
I can tell you, if fatalities from wheelie riding bikers rose to the point I was at risk of being arrested just for riding my bike without proof I haven’t been doing wheelies on the freeway, I would be moved to action against the guys doing the wheelies. It would be illogical to attack the police for enforcing policy meant for the protection of the public.
Illegal immigration is a drain on state and federal resources, and worse, it relegates the illegal immigrant himself to a lifestyle where he is “stuck with essential menial jobs”. So I respond with equal wonder at the other side of my argument. Why do people support a policy that is so harmful to quality of life, costs the legal public for the privilege of condemning them to servitude, and points fingers at the state for trying to solve the problem?
So “illegals” are punk kids with bikes that cause accidents. And “legals” are responsible adults who drive pickup trucks. Yeah, good analogy.
How do “illegals” cause more trouble than legals (of any ethnicity), exactly? You think legal Latinos should resent “illegal” Latinos for “drawing attention to them”? So people who think all Latinos are the same can be forgiven because “illegals” just make all of them look bad?
This sounds a bit like the tactic Republicans tried in the last elections trying to pit black people and gays against each other with Prop 8.
You guys have all those numbers about how much “illegals” cost, but how much do they pay in taxes? Where are those numbers? Even if it’s still short, why isn’t just legalizing them and making them pay money (taxes or fines) better than making them suffer? Simply, whitey doesn’t like brownie.
Andyo,
Actually, I think it’s a good
analogyallegory. You have it backwards.You should’ve written So punk kids with bikes that cause accidents are “illegals”. And responsible adults who drive pickup trucks are “legals”, if you wanted to truly paraphrase miker42.
He’s equating “illegals” with punk kids who give all bike riders (including all those decent ones with pickup trucks) a bad name. All those “illegals” give the “legal” Latinos a bad name. You see the problem there? It’s the “illegals'” fault that the Latinos as a whole aren’t liked by “certain” people. And more so, legal Latinos should resent “illegals” for it!
Again, republicans trying to pit blacks vs gays when Prop 8 passed here in CA comes to mind.
Yes, Andyo, I think you are stating my point, except for your hate speech at the end of both your posts.
I want to use a different rephrasing.
Lots of punk kids acting illegally on motorcycles drawing the attention of police,
Draws the attention of police to me when I look like them.
And the cause of this police attention is the “lots of punk kids”.
AS
Lots of illegal aliens drawing the attention of police,
Draws the attention of police to me when I look like them.
And the cause of this police attention is the illegal aliens.
The Arizona law is an attempt to take action at the cause of a problem. I’m not saying it’s the best solution. I would prefer something that addresses the reasons why people flee their own country.
Andyo, you can check out this report by the Center for Immigration Studies if you really want answers to those questions about the effects of illegal immigrants on the US. http://www.cis.org/node/54
199: The “funding” question is a meta-question — which priorities gain attention, how much bi-partisanship is imaginable, what “change” is do-able and “political judgment”.
I agree.
There’s folks who get your ear, and thereby can influence your “rational” processes. That is driven to a huge amount by funding. It’s a bit less in the Presidency than in Congress — but that’s such a clear example, where lobbyists write white papers that staffers then use to form their own reports that then lead to legislation.
I agree here too. It relates directly to my point about ideology being the driver.
miker: So, it would surprise me if the legal Hispanic community is not shaking their heads at the illegal Hispanic community. It is the illegal group that draws attention to them. It’s not the fault of the state that people are entering the state illegally.
And you don’t see the inherent racism of this? That somehow I have to pay the price because people who have the same skintone and eye shape of other people? Not because I do anything — but purely for existing? That you get to hassle me because there are people from the region of some of my ancestors who you have an issue with?
So, do I get to pass laws to suppress white racism by searching the home of everyone who “might” be a white supremacist, using race as part of that profiling?
Wow, white privilege is just amazing — it’s a delusion of amazing proportions. An amazing combination of narcissism, stupidity, ignorance and outright willful delusion.
miker: Yes, Andyo, I think you are stating my point, except for your hate speech at the end of both your posts.
This is just a classic example of the racist right winger, trying to play the victim card.
You know, the only folks who feel sympathy for your historic oppression are other fools like you? That it don’t sell to the rest of us?
Fool. Learn at least some working propaganda techniques.
Yup, the point of my criticism went above your head, mike. The fact that “illegals” make “legal” Latinos look bad is not the fault of the “illegals”, it’s the fault of who’s doing the looking.
And “hate speech”? Nigga, please.
Frog: And you don’t see the inherent racism of this? That somehow I have to pay the price because people who have the same skintone and eye shape of other people? Not because I do anything — but purely for existing?
I can see where those who are predisposed to see racism would fear this gives free license for police to be racist. It is unfair that people who look like you and me commit crimes. But who do you blame, and how do you expect law enforcement to enforce the law?
I think it comes down to how we identify a crime is being committed. If I am speeding we have a clear metric for identifying my illegal behavior. If I am living in the US illegally, how do you identify my illegal behavior? Most of the Arizona law does this by making employers responsible for employing legal citizens. It also does this by giving law enforcement the right to check for legal citizenship when they have probable cause not based solely on race, color, or national origin.
To not act against illegal immigration and let the situation stay as it is, drains $10.4 billion a year from our legal taxpayers. (According to the 2004 CIS report)
So who do you blame? Who do you get mad at? The police for doing their job as defined by the state? The state for attempting to identify people breaking the law? Or the individuals actually breaking the law?
I blame the people breaking the law.
Frog: So, do I get to pass laws to suppress white racism by searching the home of everyone who “might” be a white supremacist, using race as part of that profiling?
That is not equivalent to what the Arizona law does, but, yes, if you think you can make a case for using racial profiling to stop racism, and said racism is a threat to my community, then I will let the police search my house for the better good of my community. It’s a small price to pay for the safety of my family.
I pay a similar price today when I get on a plane, as do you. I look like someone who could cause a problem, a passenger. And when I used to have my hair down to my waist, I was usually one of the people picked out “randomly” for a search. And when I’m on my bike and I am picked out of a crowd and given a ticket because I look like other people who cause problems, I react by talking civilly with the officer, paying my fine, and giving advice to young riders to the effect of “you’ll live longer by starting slow and working up to your potential, not fast and working down to it.”
My advice to illegal immigrants would be to focus on getting a college education and come back here legally.
Andyo: it’s the fault of who’s doing the looking.
The people doing the “looking” are people tasked with a job. What is your practical advice for a police officer to find the person he is responsible for arresting? It sounds to me like you would have him eat donuts and ignore the situation.
miker42:
I may be mistaken, because IAN(and have never claimed to be)AL, but to me those two sections you quoted add up to saying that individual cops are protected from legal action if they do enforce the law aggressively (i.e., can’t be personally sued for violations of civil rights), but either they or their agencies (and in practical terms, I’m not sure if it matters which) can be sued if the don’t enforce aggressively. If you were writing a statute with the surreptitious intent to legalize harassment, you could hardly do better than this.
Even if you think it’s unlikely anyone will actually be sued for letting Juan or Juanita slip away, there’s an obvious message behind this law. If you consider it as an implementation of social policy, the policy being implemented is clearly: Fuck the brown people… and if some of the brown people who get fucked are “technically” legal, what the fuck do we care? It astounds me that anyone defends this law as anything other than full-frontal xenophobia.
Is there a single provision of this bill that simlutaneously…
If so, nobody yet has been able to explain it to me.
As for your magnanamous willingness (expressed @214 and elsewhere) to have your own civil rights routinely trashed in service of what you perceive to be the common good… well, that’s mighty generous of you, but some of us are a little more protective of our rights, and would thank you not to give them away on our behalf.
Bill: to me those two sections you quoted add up to saying that individual cops are protected from legal action if they do enforce the law aggressively (i.e., can’t be personally sued for violations of civil rights)
The portion of the law that says “EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.” Is what makes the officer personally responsible for his actions. Here is one definition of bad faith.
Therefore an officer is not protected when he violates a person’s civil rights.
miker42 (@217):
Why do you assume that the sort of enforcement I (or anyone with a real concern for civil liberties) consider a violation of civil rights would necessarily be “bad faith” in this context.
The definition you provide uses descriptors like fraudulent and malicious, and notes that “[b]ad faith is not the same as prior judgment [aka prejudice] or Negligence.” You’re probably relying on the final paragraph of that definition…
…but what I’m concerned with is the legally mandated nonselective (i.e., without leave to apply reasonable discretion) enforcement of a law that is, itself, arguably discriminatory.
A cop who rousted someone s/he knew to be legal would arguably be acting in bad faith… but a cop who rousts pretty much every Hispanic-looking person s/he sees is arguably doing exactly what the legislature told him/her to do… and how can that be bad faith?
Oh, BTW… didn’t you earlier argue that terms like government official didn’t include individual cops? Which is it?
Again, I ask: What is is you think is good about this law? Instead of textual close-readings, why don’t you tell me about some part — any part — of this law that might do some actual good, without trampling on the rights of innocent people, in a way that isn’t already covered by existing law?
Bill (@217)
You keep making similar statements without backing it up. Where are you getting this from? The law says an officer who enforces this law in “bad faith” is not protected under the law himself. I’ve read multiple sources concerning the legal definition of “bad faith”, and it boils down to “dishonesty of purpose” and “lack of fairness and honesty”. How do you justify glossing over this phrase in the law like it has no meaning at all?
I hesitate to spend any more time on this argument without hearing some evidence for your basic premise.
Except to say I can’t tell you if this law overlaps some other law. The law states that race, color, and national origin are not sole reasons for enforcement. As far as any part of the law doing any good, I think the part that prohibits the smuggling of humans is nice.
As far as this goes:
You could at least take the time to scroll up to see if you misunderstood something, which you did. I believe you are referring to the part of the law that applies to government officials who adopt and implement policy. I supposed that police don’t do either. They are government officials who enforce policy.
miker: I can see where those who are predisposed to see racism would fear this gives free license for police to be racist. It is unfair that people who look like you and me commit crimes. But who do you blame, and how do you expect law enforcement to enforce the law?
miker42 (@219):
The relevant sections of the law have been previously quoted in this thread, and in any case I think your real argument about my interpretation of the law rather than (as you IMHO disingenuously suggest) the existence of the relevant language. Do you actually deny that one section of the law expressly forbids any policy that provides for less than the fullest enforcement available in every case? You may quarrel with my interpretation of that language as disallowing prudent discretion on the part of prosecutors and cops, that doesn’t mean the section isn’t there.
Likewise, there is clear language — which you have quoted — that provides for lawsuits against officials who, in the judgment of the plaintiff, fail to enforce the law fully. Here again, you may quarrel with my reading of what “government officials” includes, but the language is there.
As for…
I’m not glossing over anything. I’m asserting that the law itself is de facto discriminatory, and therefore a police officer acting in good faith (i.e., properly enforcing the law as written) will often be committing de facto violations of people’s civil rights. Why would the indemnification clause even be needed, if not to protect people acting in good faith under the law?
A cop enforcing the law as written is not displaying “dishonesty of purpose”; the only “lack of fairness and honesty” here is in the statute. The bad-faith exception requires the cops to follow the law’s intent; nothing I’ve seen in the language looks like a conscientious objectors exception, which might allow a cop to not enforce in order to avoid violating civil rights. On the contrary, at every turn, the language of this statute seems calculated to ensure it’s fully enforced in every case, specifically without exception.
Ah, but you will insist that…
…and therefore, it’s not discriminatory. The problem with that is that to date nobody has been able to articulate any mechanism for actually enforcing the key provisions of this statue without relying on “race, color, and national origin”… without relying, in fact, upon subjective perception of “race, color, and national origin.” The best case you can make for this law not being racist also makes it fundamentally unenforceable. If it is enforced, though, it will inevitably be enforced using racial profiling; there’s simply no other way a cop could have “reasonable cause” to suspect someone pulled over for an unrelated traffic stop (or similar legitimate purpose) of being an illegal alien.
And human trafficking wasn’t already illegal? This is not the only forum in which I’ve argued this question, and it turns out that the only even halfway valid arguments in favor of this statute all relate to specific things it covers that are already covered under federal law. But that also amounts to an argument that the law is, at best, redundant and unnecessary. In fact, though, the zeal to criminalize (at the state level) things that are already illegal hints at the real social purpose of this law, which is to gratuitously poke the brown people of Arizona in the eye (and, it seems clear to me, the authors of this law don’t much care whether those brown people are here legally or not).
My tweak about your apparent self contradiction regarding whether cops are “government officials” was really a tangential aside to my main argument, but since you bring it up, you previously said…
…after which several people persuasively argued that you were splitting hairs; that enforcement is an included part of implementation, and thus “government officials” in this usage includes individual cops. Whether you buy that or not, I think it would take some pretty convoluted (which is to say, invalid) logic to claim that “government officials” does not include cops in the indemnification clause, but does include them in the bad-faith exception.
And with that, it’s still true that neither you nor anybody else has been able to articulate any nondiscriminatory, nonredundant social good that this law can conceiveably produce.
Even conservatives are running from this legislative abortion in droves… although, to be fair, that may just be a case of them being to craven to stick up for what they believe (however odious) in the face of bad publicity.
The same site is now running a poll that asks if Elena Kagan should be confirmed for the Supreme Court. Since she seems to be a rational and moderate judge, it’s currently running 97% No.
Don’t forget to copy the link location and approach it from another Web page.