Arizona Grows a Pair

[Pangloss]

A couple of weeks ago Los Angeles decided to boycott Arizona. What they apparently forgot is that the city gets 25% of its electricity from Arizona.

 

But Arizona didn't forget.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/19/arizona-official-threatens-cut-los-angeles-power-payback-boycott/

 

"I received your message; please receive mine. As a statewide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona's electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the 'resources and ties' we share with the city of Los Angeles," Pierce wrote.

 

"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation."

 

"I am confident that Arizona's utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands," Pierce wrote. "If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy."

 

Cute.

[Sisyphus]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Arizona's utilities would not be "happy" to stop selling LA a quarter of its electricity. But perhaps I just don't understand the business.

[bascule]

The boycott is being conducted by the city government, not the entire population of LA. I'm sure the electrical needs of the city government are relatively small compared to the city as a whole and if they truly wanted they could avoid receiving power generated in Arizona.

 

I think dicks may be a more appropriate description for Arizona that having balls

[ParanoiA]

Hell Yes!! It is absolutely about time.

 

In other terms, this is essentially how Arizona is being treated:

 

911 Operator: "911, what's your emergency?"

 

Arizona Resident: "uh, somebody just broke in my house"

 

911 Operator: "Oh, that's an undocumented resident."

 

Arizona Resident: "an undocumented...what?"

 

911 Operator: "sir, the person is likely starving at his house, and is merely seeking a better chance to care for himself"

 

Arizona Resident: "by eating our food, taking our things? sorry, but it's not his house."

 

911 Operator: "sir you have plenty of food and things, and you weren't born in that house either."

 

Arizona Resident: "I don't understand, you're not going to send an officer to remove this intruder?"

 

911 Operator: "Sir, we aware of the issue and are looking into it, if you could just please keep the racist comments to yourself"

 

Arizona Resident: "Racist comments? When?"

 

911 Operator: "We all know you mean "guests" when you say "intruder". You just don't like people visiting your house."

 

Arizona Resident: "No, I love visitors, I just don't like them breaking into my residence. For crying out loud, I guess I'll have to remove them myself."

 

911 Operator: "Sir we don't reward bigotry in our town, we will be banning your family from all town functions and convince everyone to disown you, until you change your attitude about house guests".

 

Arizona Resident: "Seriously?..."

[Pangloss]

rofl

[iNow]

The boycott is being conducted by the city government, not the entire population of LA. I'm sure the electrical needs of the city government are relatively small compared to the city as a whole and if they truly wanted they could avoid receiving power generated in Arizona.

I think they'd rather be mad at something stupid than acknowledge how deflating of their argument your point is, bascule.

[Pangloss]

Well if so then we have had a couple of good teachers for that behavior.

 

But I think the argument being deflated here is the concept of boycotting Arizona, and it's being deflated by the very side that thought it was a good idea in the first place. When they put up a boycott it sounded all rosy and fine, but when Arizona contemplates one of its own the very idea suddenly becomes flawed and ineffective. But okay, you win, left -- boycotts don't work. What's next up your sleeve?

[bascule]

Hell Yes!! It is absolutely about time.

 

In other terms, this is essentially how Arizona is being treated:

 

You support this legislation? I think you just lost a few libertarian points.

[ParanoiA]

You support this legislation? I think you just lost a few libertarian points.

 

Which legislation is that? The one we've spent pages and pages talking about the actual words in the law and how NONE of them say what certain media outlets stated it said? The one the AP has continued to misrepresent over and over again to create sensationalist headlines and manufacture contention by disinformation distribution? That law?

 

From Obama cabinet members, to media to common citizens, they're making glorious asses out of themselves as they protest phantom verbiage and phantom laws - all because they won't read it for themselves.

 

Yes, I'll shed all the libertarian points that relate to lies and dishonesty. I have no need for those.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What's next up your sleeve?

 

I'll take Victim Logic for 500, Alex.

[bascule]

Yes, I'll shed all the libertarian points that relate to lies and dishonesty. I have no need for those.

 

Guess you're siding with the totalitarians on this one

[ParanoiA]

Guess you're siding with the totalitarians on this one

 

Well I'm certainly not siding with those that can't even mount a counter argument. There is no "totalitarian" in the law. Where is it? Can you get something off of the ground here, or are you stuck without facts?

 

No need for you to wonder how people manage to maintain the same view despite contrary evidence. You do understand this, first hand.

 

 

In terms of the OP, I can only hope the Grand Canyon is being boycotted enough that I can enjoy our vacation there in two weeks. Might be nice, actually. I'll be sure to report any mistreatment I witness in Arizona.

Edited May 19, 2010 by ParanoiA

[bascule]

There is no "totalitarian" in the law. Where is it?

 

How about the part where you have to produce documentation of your immigration status if you are suspected of being an illegal alien?

[ParanoiA]

How about the part where you have to produce documentation of your immigration status if you are suspected of being an illegal alien?

 

You mean, after detaining them for violation, or reasonable suspicion, of another crime? I have no issue with it. To have an issue with it, is to have an issue with identifying any suspect for any crime. It's part of the process of due process.

 

Arizona police cannot stop you and demand paperwork on sole suspicion of being an illegal alien. The law does not provide for this at all. And that was what my initial objection was based on. And my objection will make a quick return if that part of the law was to actually exist or be added.

 

The subject of paperwork and documents certainly gets muddied, and I think it should be no different than you or I being stopped by the police in our jogging outfit for suspected rape. They are going to identify us, whether we left our wallet home or not. No, we're not required to carry docs, but we will eventually have to prove who we are, with some kind of document.

 

I will say that I'm prepared to talk about alternatives to the proverbial Green Card, since I strongly believe in the right to anonymity. That only gets trumped by reasonable, respectful law enforcement inquiry. For right now though, the federal law requires legal immigrants to carry, so Arizona is not doing anything remotely new.

 

The federal government has less restriction than Arizona law enforcement. The feds can just suspect illegal immigration activity alone, and act on it. Arizona has to produce reasonable suspicion of some other crime before they can suspect anything about immigration.

 

There is no issue here. Phantom enemies for the liberals to fight.

[bascule]

You mean, after detaining them for violation, or reasonable suspicion, of another crime? I have no issue with it. To have an issue with it, is to have an issue with identifying any suspect for any crime. It's part of the process of due process.

 

Or "probable cause" they're an illegal immigrant, which can include, among other things, racial profiling.

 

The larger libertarian/totalitarian issue here is making citizens forcibly carry documentation of their citizenship on their person. Apparently you don't care about that one. I do. I'm also strongly opposed to any kind of law which forces any citizen to carry ID on them at all times.

[ParanoiA]

Or "probable cause" they're an illegal immigrant, which can include, among other things, racial profiling.

 

No. They cannot. Please read through the other thread, we've already been through this. CharonY provided an updated version of the actual law - with new verbiage about this specific part and you clearly need to read it. You're dead wrong here.

 

The larger libertarian/totalitarian issue here is making citizens forcibly carry documentation of their citizenship on their person. Apparently you don't care about that one. I do. I'm also strongly opposed to any kind of law which forces any citizen to carry ID on them at all times.

 

Then how about you acknowledge the federal law that disagrees with you? Democrats are in power, have been in power, and have had plenty of time to remove that and they haven't. Immigrants are still required to carry documentation with them at all times. That's before the Arizona law.

 

So..again...how long are you going to fight phantom enemies and start moving forces to the actual battle front? Your federal government is the problem here. Seriously, they are. It's their freaking job to secure the borders and protect the citizenry - that's basic government 101. And they won't do it. And they won't protect exploited immigrant workers nor innocent American citizens on their property.

 

See, this is part of the problem with the federal government taking on so many responsibilities and expanding into every facet of our lives. They can no longer manage the really super duper basic stuff. Actually, I think they forgot all about it...

[bascule]

Your federal government is the problem here. Seriously, they are. It's their freaking job to secure the borders and protect the citizenry - that's basic government 101

 

I do not feel underprotected by the US government, and I strongly oppose more totalitarian restrictions on legitimate citizens in the name of stopping illegal immigration. I value personal liberties over "border security". But maybe that's just me... I'd gladly live at a higher risk of terrorist attack if it means I didn't have to take my shoes going through airport security.

 

Clearly your opinions differ... but hey, if you want to trade freedom for safety, that's your thing. You're not nearly the libertarian I thought you were, though.

 

Phantom enemies for the liberals to fight.

 

This isn't a liberal/conservative issue, it's a totalitarian/libertarian one, and these are legitimate concerns which should be raised by any libertarian. I'm sorry I haven't waded through the hundreds of posts in the other thread to get all the answers.

[padren]

ParanoiA, can you clarify something for me?

 

As of right now, immigrants are required to have identification as per federal law, but if an individual has no id and are not identified as a citizen or not, there is no evidence of any failure in compliance, and they cannot be detained for this. They could just as easily be a citizen executing their protected rights to privacy.

 

Should the individual be later identified as not having citizenship, they could be charged then, but that's a whole other story. That's how it works on the Federal level as far as I can tell.

 

Now, when it comes to this law in Arizona, suspicion becomes a reason to detain them yes? I don't think the issue has anything to do with whether the requirement to carry papers is enforced as per the Federal laws already in place, but it's effect on those who don't have to legally carry papers (recent citizens easily mistaken for non-citizens) being defacto forced to because without them, because suddenly the suspicion has teeth sharp enough to cut citizens and non-citizens alike.

 

Are you saying this is not how it works?

[Pangloss]

This isn't a liberal/conservative issue, it's a totalitarian/libertarian one, and these are legitimate concerns which should be raised by any libertarian. I'm sorry I haven't waded through the hundreds of posts in the other thread to get all the answers.

 

I think for a great many people it very much is a liberal/conservative issue.

 

I think for a great many special interest groups it very much is a liberal/conservative issue as well. What I mean by that is that many special interest groups take up the banner of immigration reform (for one side or the other) even though it rests outside of their normal, "special interest" purview -- gun control advocates ally with border security groups, labor unions ally with immigrant rights groups, etc.

[iNow]

In other terms, this is essentially how Arizona is being treated:

 

I find it worth noting that intruders generally break in to take things and leave, whereas immigrants (illegal or otherwise) would generally prefer to come and stay and become a member of the community. Intruders aren't generally there to become a part of your family, nor are borders of nations equivalent to locked doors in homes on personal property.

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Well if so then we have had a couple of good teachers for that behavior.

This coming from Mr. Two-Wrongs-Don't-Make-a-Right. Classic.

 

I think for a great many people it very much is a liberal/conservative issue.

But that doesn't mean that it is. The least we can do is to be mature enough amongst each other to acknowledge that this is, in fact, more about libertarianism and totalitarianism, and that the liberal/conservative label doesn't apply so well to this issue (no matter how much we may wish it so).

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I don't think the issue has anything to do with whether the requirement to carry papers is enforced as per the Federal laws already in place, but it's effect on those who don't have to legally carry papers (recent citizens easily mistaken for non-citizens) being defacto forced to because without them, because suddenly the suspicion has teeth sharp enough to cut citizens and non-citizens alike.

And that's my problem with this bill, as well.

 

I may generally have liberal tendencies, but I also value my liberties, and this law cuts into them... even if I'm being detained for other valid reasons, I still have a right not to share documentation about my person... even if I have brown skin.

Edited May 20, 2010 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

But that doesn't mean that it is. The least we can do is to be mature enough amongst each other to acknowledge that this is, in fact, more about libertarianism and totalitarianism, and that the liberal/conservative label doesn't apply so well to this issue (no matter how much we may wish it so).

 

And just because you say it's totalitarianism doesn't mean that it is.

 

I guess I just see maturity on this issue as the ability to see that telling people it's one thing when you really feel it's another is not the best way to engender their empathy over the long term.

 

In my opinion your "it's a totalitarianism" stance is a false dichotomy. It's actually quite possible for a society to... mature... in its view of security, as our UK friends have discovered with domestic surveillance, discovering new lines that can be drawn to protect both privacy and security without falling all the way to the bottom of that oh-so-slippery slope.

[bascule]

I think for a great many people it very much is a liberal/conservative issue.

 

Granted there are liberal and conservative issues surrounding immigration policy, but at the heart of the Arizona law is the idea that it can be a crime in and of itself to be out and about with the wrong paperwork. Regarding the specific legislation surrounding green cards, the mandatory carry policy makes immigrant American citizens inherently second class, and I really oppose that.

 

Specifically regarding Arizona's policy, and the federal law, it would seem that the mandatory carry policy for green cards was rarely enforced and that your typical immigrant citizen could happily go about their day-to-day lives and generally get away with not carrying a green card. That is no longer the case in Arizona. If Arizona is pointing out the stupidity of the federal law, and you want to pin that on the federal law, I guess, go ahead. I think the federal law needs changed. But then again, we live our daily lives within a plethora of outdated, unenforced laws, because people generally recognize they are dumb. Even post-9/11, I don't think the mandatory carry policy for green cards was much enforced. In every encounter I've ever had with police on foot, and even in the overwhelming majority involving alcohol, I have not been asked to present ID and I strongly respect that. I certainly recognize the need to present ID in cases involving alcohol or driving. But never have I been asked to present any form of ID or "proof of citizenship" (and for the record I've never been arrested or charged with a crime beyond minor traffic infractions)

 

To Arizona's credit right now there is relatively little offensive case precedent. It's just people mad at the tone of the law. We'll see what actually happens. If you're a primarily Spanish-speaking Hispanic American citizen, and you throw a house party with a bunch of primarily Spanish-speaking Hispanic American citizens in Arizona, and it gets a little bit too loud and your neighbors call the cops, can they ask you all to present proof of citizenship when they respond to the noise complaint?

 

As a libertarian, I'd hope not. Sadly, I'd think ParanoiA, who until today I actually thought of as a true libertarian, might disagree.

[ParanoiA]

I do not feel underprotected by the US government' date=' and I strongly oppose more totalitarian restrictions on legitimate citizens in the name of stopping illegal immigration. I value personal liberties over "border security". But maybe that's just me... I'd gladly live at a higher risk of terrorist attack if it means I didn't have to take my shoes going through airport security.

 

Clearly your opinions differ... but hey, if you want to trade freedom for safety, that's your thing. You're not nearly the libertarian I thought you were, though.[/quote']

 

You live in Colorado. Of course you feel secure and have no issues with immigration. Try living in a border town where illegal drug and human smugglers terrorize your community.

 

And you are in no position to lecture on trading liberty for security, you're 100% guilty of exactly that. I don't sign on to it.

 

And you can toss all the libertarian digs you want, but you have YET to demonstrate, with a single fact, that the law does anything you say it does. It's tough standing up for what's right, bascule. But it doesn't matter that Arizona's law isn't popular, it matters that what they're saying about it is an out and out lie. Come on, stand up for truth man. Don't buckle just because someone challenged your "liberal-ness", make them prove their words instead of selling emotion.

 

Emotion is always used where reason isn't fooled.

 

This isn't a liberal/conservative issue, it's a totalitarian/libertarian one, and these are legitimate concerns which should be raised by any libertarian. I'm sorry I haven't waded through the hundreds of posts in the other thread to get all the answers.

 

I'm sorry too. Hopefully you'll wade through them and learn more about the issue. You'll notice in the very beginning of that thread, that I too, believed the AP reports on the law and proceeded to Godwin the shit out of the thread, with iNow and others.

 

Then I read the law. I was shocked at how nothing was in there that the AP and protesters said was in there. I still don't know what they're reading.

 

Further, I do believe this says more about those protesting this law than the lawmakers and supporters. Because the lawmakers and supporters are aimed at illegal immigrants, but protesters have decided to drop the word "illegal" and have decided it's about immigration in general - to imagine how people live life immersed in racism; paranoid at every turn that someone is out to get them, is just pathetically sad.

 

Now' date=' when it comes to this law in Arizona, suspicion becomes a reason to detain them yes? I don't think the issue has anything to do with whether the requirement to carry papers is enforced as per the Federal laws already in place, but it's effect on those who don't have to legally carry papers (recent citizens easily mistaken for non-citizens) being defacto forced to because without them, because suddenly the suspicion has teeth sharp enough to cut citizens and non-citizens alike.

 

Are you saying this is not how it works?[/quote']

 

Correct, I'm saying that is not how it works. In fact, your argument is similar to my original one. How do you know I'm an immigrant in order to know I should carry papers? Just because I'm white doesn't mean I'm not an immigrant. I couldn't imagine how they'd stop anybody and demand immigrant documentation when they have no way of knowing who is or isn't an immigrant in order to then demand documentation.

 

And that's partly why the law doesn't allow it. Here's the updated verbiage, per CharonY's link.

 

 

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

 

A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

 

B. For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373

 

©. A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

 

1. A valid Arizona driver license.

 

2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

 

3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

 

4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

 

C. If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation that is imposed, the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection shall be immediately notified.

 

It addresses all concerns, and specifically spells out racial profiling as not allowed. It clearly demands a violation of some other law before any illegal immigration suspicion can begin. And it's part of the due process of identification anyway. The person is already having to share documents right on the spot in cooperation with law enforcement to identify themselves due to being suspected of a crime - that's already happening before any of Arizona's new law is initiated.

 

Arizona's law doesn't create any new rationale for pulling people over and asking for their papers. It's not there. Instead, Arizona's law is simply adding the immigration status check to the due process phase of processing a suspected criminal. To have an issue with this, is to have an issue with forcing suspects to identify themselves at all. To have an issue with this is to have an issue with policing citizens in general.

 

At what point is a citizen required to share documents to prove who they are?

 

 

 

Now, I've already expressed my discontent about carrying papers at all. I don't believe any citizen should have to carry identification, in addition no citizen should have to give private information to anyone, including the government (like income taxes, thank you very much) without due process. It's the due process initiation that begins the legitimate query for identification, immigration status, and etc. That's the proper negotiation for a system of laws in a free society. That's what the Arizona law does. It's just that simple.

 

The only part of the Arizona law that bothers me, though again I'm listening to the AP as I haven't actually read this...is that they have mirrored the federal government in requiring the documentation to be carried with them, rather than simply providing for a length of reasonable time for the citizen to provide documentation. That bothers me, because while it doesn't enable the government to randomly demand "your papers", it does try to resemble it, and I'm not comfortable with that. All in all though, it's consistent with federal law, so I'm not about to aim guns at Arizona while letting the federal government off the hook.

Edited May 20, 2010 by ParanoiA

[jryan]

On the list of cities with the highest kidnapping rates Mexico City is #1.

 

Care to guess what city is #2?

 

Bogotá, Columbia? No.

 

Calcutta, India? Nope.

 

It's Phoenix, Arizona.

[ParanoiA]

The only problem with that argument jryan, is that it seems to carry the premise that if things are bad enough, canceling the constitution is justified. It doesn't really matter how bad things are in Arizona, it matters how we deal with them. This law is good because it deals with those problems in Arizona fairly and constitutionally.

 

I think if you try to use the drama of the horror of Arizona's issues, you will unwittingly give the impression that things are so bad that we just don't have time for civil rights and constitutional protection.

 

The constitution is most needed during times of struggle.

 

Thanks for the stat though.

[jryan]

The only problem with that argument jryan, is that it seems to carry the premise that if things are bad enough, canceling the constitution is justified. It doesn't really matter how bad things are in Arizona, it matters how we deal with them. This law is good because it deals with those problems in Arizona fairly and constitutionally.

 

I think if you try to use the drama of the horror of Arizona's issues, you will unwittingly give the impression that things are so bad that we just don't have time for civil rights and constitutional protection.

 

The constitution is most needed during times of struggle.

 

Thanks for the stat though.

 

Your argument is perfectly fine but is moot in practical application.

 

In reality, Phoenix is suffering due to the Federal Government's refusal to uphold it's own constitutional duties to the people of Arizona, and the whole country for that matter.

 

But you and I agree on this issue, so I assume you got my point.

 

Back to the issue at hand:

 

Once Arizona get's it's act in gear maybe San Diego can take over as #2 kidnapping city in the world. I mean, if the LA mayor is right, and illegals are a net gain for his city and his state then he should be overjoyed to accept all of AZ's illegals with open arms, right?

 

It's funny that Californian politicians have publicly sent an invite to AZ illegals to go settle in California... since they're so lucrative and all...

Edited May 20, 2010 by jryan