While the details of this single encounter are hazy, this set of government behaviors defines the nature of immigration enforcement, and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has a well-known habit of deporting United States citizens. (President Obama is outraged by the Arizona law, but someone might mention to the president that ICE works for him and does the same things every single day. But whatever -- theater is theater.)
In every regard, the immigration enforcement law signed by the governor of Arizona this month creates a list of government practices that have long been decried on the political right as well as on the left. It makes citizens subject to the demand to produce federal papers for armed agents of the state, allows for warrantless arrests on thin suspicion, and makes local police into agents of the central government. And some on the right are making exactly this case: William Norman Grigg, a former staff editor at the John Birch Society, wrote a few days ago that the new law would have the effect of"turning Arizona into an authentic police state."
Meanwhile, the Arizona Tea Party...
...strongly supports the law, announcing proudly that it's among those"leading the fight for defending our borders." So they're for limited government, and they're for being forced to show your birth certificate and Social Security card to the federalized local police. Got it.
The evidence is piling up for a view of the Tea Party as a historically familiar advocate of white man's liberty, heirs to a revolution that fought abolitionism and British tyranny at the same time. Add their apparently unwavering support for the violence of empire, and I'm increasingly inclined to regard the Tea Party as the Paxton Boys plus time. I'm reluctant to reach that conclusion, but it's hard to avoid. We need a political movement that has the discipline and the desire to fight against the rapid growth and increasing concentration of political and economic power, but this isn't it. I would love to be proven wrong. Note that this conclusion still doesn't fit the prevailing media narrative, which raises fears about anti-government violence growing from the Tea Party movement. The proper fear -- anyway, the proper thing to notice in the world of reality -- is that the Tea Party is fiercely supportive of government violence.
Still, another recent political development looks more promising. In a recent discussion here, commenters expressed concern over promises from the Oath Keepers, a group of police and military officials, to withhold their obedience if ordered to violate the constitutional rights of citizens.
But the most inspiring response to the new law in Arizona is precisely that some local law enforcement officials are refusing to enforce it (and suing to overturn it). I can't tell yet if any Oath Keepers are among that group of Arizona cops, but I know this: the disobedience of the state's agents is the most reliable check on state brutality. Government isn't a magic box; it's a group of human beings who need to get other human beings to enact their declarations.
If you're horrified by the Oath Keepers, one question: are you horrified this week by the announcement from the Pima County sheriff that he won't enforce Arizona's immigration enforcement law?
Re: Question
I'm suggesting that given your own self-knowledge, you might think about being kinder to others doing the same thing.
Re: Question
Re: Question
"...in a poorly reported encounter for which we don't have some critical details...While the details of this single encounter are hazy...The evidence is piling up...I'm increasingly inclined to regard... I'm reluctant to reach that conclusion...another recent political development looks more promising... I can't tell yet..."
I've hung qualifiers all over this post to say that this is what appears to be true to me, based on the available evidence at the time I posted, and you've discovered that the post is my attempt to impose my preconceptions on people. I've said very clearly what I know, what I'm guessing, what I'm hoping, and so on. I wrote, "I can't tell yet." Your comment doesn't reflect that.
The same is true for my other posts on this topic, and I'll go back through them and show you if you feel the need. I've said in comments several times that I wasn't clear about the nature of the Tea Party, and thought they would turn out to be a right-wing authoritarian group rather than the libertarian group they're pretending to be. You're inventing my certitude, and then decrying your invention.
Finally, to the extent that I am imposing my preconceptions on people -- who doesn't? You're the cold eye of a camera, free of an accumulative mind? As I said to another commenter very recently, we all arrive with preconceptions. I'm confident that I've made mine clear, and that I've shown what I know and what I believe.
Re: Question
I suspect that no one should impose their preconceptions on other people, yes.
Re: Question
Re: Question
http://www.resistnet.com/group/oathkeepersofamerica
...has comments like this:
Comment by Chaplain John S. Woods on May 2, 2010 at 11:10pm
God bless the Governor of Arizona! She has more courage than most and not afraid to defend what is right. I pray we have more like her elected in November!
Jesus Is Victory!
Comment by Maryanne Dattoli on May 2, 2010 at 12:56am
Calling all patriots. Come one, Come all. Sign the petition to support Arizona's illegal immigration stand. Thank you & God bless
GO to web site for jan brewer and support her on immigration
www.janbrewer.com/
Not racist! Not prejudiced! Just no longer silent!
----
An earlier comment warned that La Raza was mobilizing the SEIU to prevent the governor of Arizona from signing the immigration enforcement law. Other comments discuss the usurpation of the presidency by a Kenyan who has never produced his birth certificate.
It's official: they're idiots.
I had hopes that the Tea Party and the Oath Keepers would form a real counterweight to the metastasizing concentration of power around a clientelist political center. They're not that. At all.
But neither are they the dangerous and potentially anti-government radicals that news coverage has made them. They're just ordinary Republicans: statist, authoritarian, spewing a rhetoric of limited government that they don't actually believe at all. It's pathetic and depressing.
Re: Question
Since the Arizona law requires American citizens to prove that they're American citizens and gives the Arizona police the power to stop them and demand identification, I would say that #2 certainly applies.
Let me quote Chris Bray here:
"[The Arizona law] makes citizens subject to the demand to produce federal papers for armed agents of the state, allows for warrantless arrests on thin suspicion, and makes local police into agents of the central government. "
Re: Question
Re: Question
Absence of evidence isn't evidence, and I'm looking for/waiting for an answer.
As to your last sentence: sure. At the same time, that you don't know what their position is on a law that seems directly in their purview suggests that (like those who see the tea party as violent) you're allowing your own perceptions of what you _think_ they are to fill in the gaps of what you actually _know_ about them.
As to what they think of the Arizona law, I'll give you some choice quotes from the Oath Keepers forum. I can't give direct links, as one has to be a member to read the forum.
In response to an article about an Arizona police officer who filed suit against the new law, one response included the following:
Another response included:
To be fair, there were several responses that displayed more ambiguity, including:
In a discussion about Dupnik (the Sheriff in AZ refusing to enforce the law) there was some discussion about whether it was constitutional, but people largely did not agree, including this comment:
Re: Question
Absence of evidence isn't evidence, and I'm looking for/waiting for an answer.
Re: Question
Saw it as I hit "submit." Drives me crazy.
Re: Question
Tempest in a teapot
Well, so what? With apologies to the tea party, this is a "tempest in a teapot."
Where is the unconstitutionality? For over 50 years it has been well-settled Federal law that resident aliens carry their green cards with them at all times. Why would it suddenly become "unreasonable" and thus unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment when in the due process of an investigation or an arrest or any other appropriate reason involving law enforcement at any level to be asked a question as to citizenship and asked to produce evidence of it or of lawful residency? Just about every commercial or government form one ever fills out for any reason at any level asks for info on citizenship and a lot more personal info besides.
The controversial crux of the Arizona law is in the first few paragraphs, i.e:
(a) no agency of the state or its subdivisions shall adopt any policy which limits or prevents enforcement of federal immigration laws and
(b) that in any contact by a law enforcement official where REASONABLE suspicion exists that a person is an alien unlawfully present, a REASONABLE attempt shall be made to determine the immigration status of said person under U.S. code, and
(c) if the officer has PROBABLE CAUSE to believe the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S. he may make an arrest without a warrant, and
(d) officials of the state shall not be restricted or prohibited from communication with federal agencies relative to the immigration status of any individual.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me, particularly in view of the violence and siege conditions along the Arizona border.
However, Florida has a more politically-correct way of handling the illegal immigration problem but at greater personal difficulty for everybody. On January 1st this year that State made every applicant for a new drivers license or those having existing licenses coming up for renewal, to appear in person with a certified birth certificate, their original Social Security Card, and at least two documents showing residency. That way, within six years from now (license is good for 6 years) presumably everyone having a drivers license in Florida will presumably have proof of citizenship or lawful alien residency. To check for illegal aliens, all the cops will have to do is make a traffic stop. With no restrictions on talking to ICE, that should take care of the bulk of the population. So far this little scheme has sailed right under the radar of the civil libertarians, who haven't raised a peep..
.
Re: Question
Ah, good. Then you can tell me whether they would act against the state of Arizona in the case of the new immigration law being declared unconstitutional?
Re: Question
There's an immense amount of subjective slippage in there, depending on how they interpret "the American people" in individual circumstances.
Re: Question
Easy.
Re: Question
the arizona law...
Re: Question
Re: Question
c.f. Nuremberg
Re: Question
If Birmingham firefighters had refused direct orders to use fire hoses against black protestors, would you have supported them?
I guess I wouldn't, but not because they were disobeying orders -- the substance of the order matters more than the fact of the order. I'm saying that the question about the obedience of the 82nd Airborne evaporates if state and local police disobey their own orders.
The memoirs of civil rights organizers -- Daisy Bates, Robert F. Williams -- are full of moments in which they either see police officers actively supporting violent white supremacist mobs, or police officers carefully looking away at just the right moment. No obedience, no Jim Crow, no role for the 82nd Airborne. To ask about the 82nd Airborne is to start the narrative in the third act.
Re: Question
Just to clarify that you're answering my question (which is not whether you'd stay out of Arizona): you're comfortable with military officers making that decision and refusing to obey the President?
My answer was that you've drawn your example narrowly enough to omit most of the history of the thing you want to discuss. Post-Civil War White supremacy was built on a century of obedience; police violence and formal racial hostility built segregation and repression. No obedience, no Jim Crow.
So, taking all of that as read into the record, I'll ask you again: if the 82nd Airborne refused Eisenhower's order to desegregate Little Rock High School, would you have supported them?
Re: Question
Re: Law and Order
Not enough, I grant you, by any stretch of the imagination. But it's not, as you say, an entirely political problem: the institutions which are involved have a high degree of sucessful self-replication, both through selection and acculturation indoctrination, which makes them independently resistant to certain kinds of change even granting the existence of political and social pressures.
a nice quiet beach community
Although, obviously, if the local opposition is a genuine stand on principle, that's just as good.
Re: a nice quiet beach community
Law and Order
I was just teaching the end of the Cold War in my World History courses last week, and, though I don't think my students noticed, I actually had a bit of a hard time getting through it. The turning point in East Germany was the decision by the Berlin Wall border guards not to follow their standing orders about the prevention of crossings through the use of force; the turning point in the Soviet Union was the decision by the military not to fire on crowds of their own people (echoing the fall of the Tsar eighty years earlier!); the non-turning point in China was the decision by the PLA to destroy a peaceful protest movement by killing thousands of students and workers who wanted a more open and fair socialist system. I always get a little sentimental talking about that, about the way in which common humanity (which seems in short supply, historically) brought down systems of abusive power.
Re: Law and Order
It looks to me like the federal government is managed by a closed system -- it runs the way it's running, and is at the very least highly resistant to change from the outside. Voters were disgusted by the insanity of Republican rule, so they threw the Republicans out and adopted Democratic rule. And now they're disgusted by Democratic rule, so...
I would love to be wrong, but I can't see any solution at all in politics. The solution starts with a guy on a tarmac saying, "No, I won't put this person on an airplane to be tortured overseas."
Question
My concern in that thread was rather that military and police officers would refuse to enforce the constitutional rights of citizens, not the other way around.
If you're horrified by the Oath Keepers, one question: are you horrified this week by the announcement from the Pima County sheriff that he won't enforce Arizona's immigration enforcement law?
Yes.
If the Arizona law was declared unconstitutional, and Arizona refused to comply, would you be comfortable with Oath Keepers in the military declaring a hands-off policy toward the state whatever the Supreme Court said?
(In the other thread, I don't believe you ever answered my question about the 82nd Airborne: if they had refused Eisenhower's orders to go to Little Rock and enforce desegregation would that have been a good thing?)
Re: Question
Yes. I'd stay out of Arizona, and the people who want to live under that sort of government can make that choice. Many other people would also stay away, and the state would pay a cost for political idiocy.
So instead we're going to get the federal government -- proud owner-operator of the Border Patrol -- absurdly going to court and arguing against practices that are a daily event all along the border. You can't do that kind of thing -- uh, in a state uniform.
"(In the other thread, I don't believe you ever answered my question about the 82nd Airborne: if they had refused Eisenhower's orders to go to Little Rock and enforce desegregation would that have been a good thing?)"
My answer was that you've drawn your example narrowly enough to omit most of the history of the thing you want to discuss. Post-Civil War White supremacy was built on a century of obedience; police violence and formal racial hostility built segregation and repression. No obedience, no Jim Crow.
Re: Question
You haven't answered the above.
the substance of the order matters more than the fact of the order.
Of course it does; that's been one of my main points all along. You've presented the Oath Keepers as an unqualified good, simply because of their pledge to disobey unconstitutional orders. Anytime someone has suggested that what they define as unconstitutional might be important to consider, you've either waved it away or ignored it. By doing that, you ignore the most important question: what, exactly, are they going to disobey?
No obedience, no Jim Crow, no role for the 82nd Airborne
Sure, I understood that the first time you mentioned it. As it was then, that point remains irrelevant to my question.
Re: Question
Uh, you're the one telling me that they won't enforce unconstitutional laws, including warrantless searches (#2 in their list), so I'd like to know how the Oath Keepers feel about the Arizona immigration law and if they will honor their own beliefs and refuse to enforce it?