« Waiting to Exhale (apologies, Terry McMillan) | Main | "Iran and the Gulf Military Balance" CSIS »

25 June 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

ex-PFC Chuck

Would this have anything to do with the coming November presidential election?

Is the pope Catholic?


ex-PFC Chuck

Glad you appreciate my humor. pl


Fox News isn't entirely accurate saying "The ruling left in place, though, a central plank that required local law enforcement during routine stops to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally."

Although some early news reports said that the court upheld this “show me your papers” provision, that wasn’t quite right. The court determined that it didn’t have enough information about how the law worked in practice, especially considering the law explicitly commands the police not to engage in racial profiling. So the justices sent the dispute over this provision back to the lower courts for further fact finding. Nevertheless, the court specifically noted that if this law led to racial profiling, as I suspect it will be concluded, the law would be invalidated.




That's true but BHO nevertheless is impeding the enforcement of federal law by denying the cooperation of DHS to Arizona. pl


This is likely to stir up some strong feelings, but I can't help but think that a lot of this shenanigan can be avoided if we would create a high quality national ID that all law enforcement agencies can check with fairly minimal (credit card type) technology. It still puzzles me why there are such problems with creating a workable national ID here while every other country in the modern world seems to have them.


I thought you were going to stop watching Fox News, which would put this in the worst light?


Colonel, that's been in place all over the southwest since 2006 when the immigration issue blew up, since Bush. That was the REASON why Arizona took its state action in the first place. The Supreme Court today upheld that portion of the fed law that was signed into law in 1986 under Reagan, which specifically held that an illegal immigrant in this country looking for work was not committing a federal felony. The 1986 law said that it was the employer who had to be fined (10 Gs I think) and that the illegal immigrant should only receive a civil penalty.

The Twisted Genius

No politician wants a solution here. It's too fertile a field for demagoguery. For the federal government to pull back on 287(g) programs in Arizona and any other states with immigration laws similar to Arizona looks like flat out political warfare. Responding selectively to calls for checking immigration status and on the scene assistance could be due to budgetary limitations. Setting up an effective system to respond to police and employment checks may cost one billion dollars according to one estimate I saw. However, this particular selective response is more likely to be political vindictiveness.

Police in Arizona have to check immigration status of those they apprehend or pull over. I always figured that police did a database check on me whenever I'm pulled over for speeding or such. I'm not sure whether the police have to prove someone is not here legally through a database check or if the person apprehended must prove they are here legally. I'd hate to see the U.S. turn into some place where "Your papers are not in order." becomes a common phrase.

Arizona and other states can go after those who employ illegal aliens with a vengeance, but that's likely to alienate the republican business base and wealthy donors. Then again, if these are federal laws, the states hands are tied. It's all demagoguery.

If we were serious about illegal immigration, we would make it all but impossible for undocumented workers to make money here and we would secure our borders. We would reprogram resources and raise taxes to make it possible. I'd like to see a sizable chunk taken out of the DoD to create a border guard force. It would be like a Coast Guard for dry land... and beef up the Coast Guard, too. If we had an effective Border Guard and a much larger Coast Guard, there would be a smaller and leaner DoD less capable of being used by the politicians for future military adventurism.


Colonel (contd.)

Just to be clear. Arizona was trying to make being an illegal immigrant in this country looking for work a felony in contravention of the law passed by Congress in 1986. That. simply, is the issue. (So it would, therefore, logically follow that AZ's policemen could do a, b, or c to enforce the capture of a felon.) The Supreme Court struck down AZ's effort today. And the lower courts will decide subsequently whether the police engage in racial profiling when they only ask Latinos for papers...which is what they do. They don't ask me for papers when I get stopped for a traffic infraction in AZ.


This entire situation is madness. How does someone refuse to enforce the law of the land?

What happens when Sheriff Joe or Sheriff Babeu decides to simply end run around ICE and start sending buses full of illegals to the Border Patrol stations?

These are totally different agencies with institutional cultures that are night and day, so it will be fascinating.

The Twisted Genius

It looks like the Obama administration has planned to phase out the 287(g) programs at least as far back as February and replace that voluntary program with a mandatory nationwide implementation of the Secure Communities program. Secure Communities was started in the last days of the Bush administration, but Obama embraced it wholeheartedly. Under this program the FBI passes all fingerprints it receives from local police departments to ICE which checks for immigration status. Local police must hold those identified by this ICE check for pickup. Using this less expensive program, DHS has had record deportation numbers for the last two years.

Is this mandatory program being lifted for Arizona along with all 287(g) programs? Is Obama trying to have it both ways? He gains the Hispanic vote by dramatically opposing Brewer's anti-immigrant legislation while aggressively, but quietly, implementing a program resulting in more and more deportations.



"a workable national ID here while every other country in the modern world seems to have them."

Because that says "show me your papers." And Americans have a natural revulsion of the Nazi approach to citizenship; meaning: you ain't legit unless you can prove you belong here with a piece of paper. Americans view that as police state action. Generally.


MRW i know its tempting to believe youre a subject matter expert based off of listening to NPR but until 8 Albanians are packed into the truck of a Monte Carlo on a daily basis all over the state its not impossible to believe that yes, Mexicans are the primary drivers of illegal immigration. This is not rocket science.

Twisted, the deportation numbers are artificially inflated to make it appear that something is being done. How are they doing that? Theyre counting the number of so called 'voluntary returns', which is when the Border Patrol snatches someone by the border, they admit to being here illegally, and they get sent back home with no penalties. This is not the deportation of day laborers or illegals in inner cities. That is the real crux of the problem here -the refusal to do anything about illegals once they get past the border. I know northern liberals like MRW love 'vibrancy', but those of us who live near the border and have to deal with things like the drugs, crime, and general blight that accompany illegal aliens.

And making them legal isnt going to magically turn them into white middle class voters. One needs only look at California to see the fate of America if something isnt done.


That may be true at "gut" level, but, in practice, we demand ID's from people all the time, for all sorts of reasons--at airports, when we get pulled over, etc. Certainly, much of the debate over immigration matters is predicated on whether local law enforcement can ascertain the status of suspected illegals--and whether it is even practically possible, given the present state of regulations. In absence of a national ID, much abuse (from all sides) is inevitable. I only see pigheaded self-contradiction coming out of the resistance to a workable national ID.


There's not likely to be much change in illegal day laborers or other illegals until those hiring them start getting sent to jail for doing so.


The question to the answer is.. Is the Pope Catholic and German?

As they say, all is fair in love, war and politics. Excuse me while I go and bang my head on my desk for an hour or so....



In spite of being an instinctive libertarian I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that a natinal ID card has become a necessity that would subject all to the same onerous requirement. pl


A national ID would solve some of the arguments over voter ID laws.

The Twisted Genius


I don't doubt that the figures are manipulated to support the desired narrative. However, the increase in deportation numbers closely matches the increase in the number of deportations of convicted criminals. A lot of these may be petty crimes, but what the heck, they're not supposed to be here anyways. Fred's right. Make it tougher on those hiring illegals and we'll see more voluntary returns. Clamping down on drugs, crime (including hiring illegals) and the general presence of illegal aliens requires more funding of law enforcement. Unfortunately, Grover Norquist's crusade has made that difficult if not impossible.

I'm not sure what you mean by general blight. If you just mean an over abundance of swarthy poor people, you're out of luck. Being swarthy or poor are not crimes. If you're referring to loitering, littering, public urination and harassment/intimidation of others, then I agree with you. That can be addressed through more law enforcement. Arrest them, finger print them and get the prints into the ICE system for eventual (hopefully) deportation. Of course this costs money both at the local and federal level.

The Twisted Genius


After having lived in a world of ID cards and badges for a good chunk of my life, I still don't like them. You're probably right about a national ID card system being necessary, but I still don't like it.

When I showed up for processing into the MI civilian system and going to the Farm, I did not have a picture ID. I already turned in my active duty ID, did not yet have a reserve ID and my Connecticut drivers license was valid without photo. I didn't have a passport with me. My papers were not in order. I could not satisfactorily prove that I was a U.S. citizen. Luckily, MICECP leadership was more reasonable than by the book. I started training and was able to prove my citizenship later.


I am happy that in my country, procedurally, elections are well organised and go smoothly, if not boring except for the results themselves.

What is IMO adding to the dismaying brouhaha over the so ever elusive voter-fraud is, with the dazzling legal diversity, the political exploitation of the issue by the right and the according election tactics (voter suppression tactics and so forth) and dirty tricks (cultural heritage from the old Southern Democrats).

IMO the US right using these tactics now does the country a profound disservice by undermining trust in the electoral process - claiming to protect the 'integrity of the vote' while eagerly undermining it by asserting fraud, chasing for the few deciding votes. Anyone still remembering the Brooks Brothers Riot?


A national ID cart is not the solution to that problem.

Building on the reasoning in this quote: "Wenn es die Juden nicht gäbe, müsste man sie erfinden" - If there isn't voter fraud, then we'll just ave had to invent it!

The underlying idea is actually the same. Why all these voter ID laws? Voter fraud as a crime is scarce with strikingly few instances of it occurring in the US and very little prosecutions. Why is that so? Either the culprits are exceedingly clever as their elusiveness perhaps suggests, or the asserted phenomenon simply isn't a factor in elections.

Well, even though the the crime isn't a factor it has been the laws to address this elusive crime certainly are. They effect voter suppression by giving the opportunity to exclude votes by unwanted voter groups.


Will that be a $10 id or are there special options for those with more money (like the Nexus border passes)? Who's responsible for when they get stolen/lost etc? What's the penalty for not having it on you at all times? What's the expiration date? More importantly how do I get the contract. 300,000,000 id cards, even at $1 each I'll be rich.

mac n.

The answer to your last question is yes.


I don't like the idea of having to prove that I am what I say I am either. But, the reality is that we do have to do it far often than not, if we want to travel, drive, etc., and it occurred to me that if someone were to insist that I prove that I am a US citizen, I would have no obvious means of doing so on the fly (soc sec card and drivers' license don't "prove" citizenship; I didn't have a passport until couple of years ago, when I had to travel overseas; and my naturalization certificate from 20 years ago is a big cardboard thing that can't be carried around on one's person, certainly not in a wallet). A good national ID card would address this problem at once.



I am not interested in the elusive domestic fraudulent voter. The issue for me on voting is whether or not illegal aliens are voting as part of the strategy of Latino activist groups. Your country has national ID cards as does, I believe, every country in the EU. Such ID cards constitute an instant capability to check on citizenship and residence through electronic means. Eligibility to vote, elegibility to buy a firearm, outstanding warrants and writs, legal residence and many other issues can be resolved through such ID cards without any possibility of a claim of discrimination. How? Check everyone without exception who is involved in designated transactions. Is this offensive to American tradition including mine? Yes, but those of us who really value our freedom from government control lost that argument long, long, ago. The TEA Party clowns are just that. My hero, Lewis Black, describes them as a horde breaking out of their double wides dressed as Ben Franklin and demanding that the rich not be taxed. As Black says, the ability to elicit that kind of behavior is REAL leadership. pl

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad