do with immigration as the war in Iraq had to do with 9/11.

Government does this all the time, they do something that makes you angry, in this case leaving the borders wide open and giving your tax dollars to the foreigners who arrive, and when you get angry enough to demand action, the government then "Responds to the will of the people" by granting itself greater authority. Problem, Reaction, Solution, a cruel joke that the people play on themselves over, and over, and over again, throughout the entire course of human history.

This is exactly what happened with Health Care, the government granted special privileges to the pharmaceutical, insurance, and other "big medicine" industries, and guaranteed them business through welfare programs and various regulations, which skyrocketed the cost of health care, until a majority of Americans were so fed up that they were willing to take any solution the government would offer, ignoring the fact that government caused the problem in the first place.

The public response to the new problem created by the government? Vote Republican! Which I'm sure will work out just fine, given that Republicans aren't in the habit of growing government or violating the Constitution. Except for Medicare Part D of course, the Republican trillion dollar health care entitlement, there is also that small matter of completely unnecessary wars costing us a trillion dollars or so and counting, that Department of Homeland security thing, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, secret watch lists, and skyrocketing debts, but I'm sure that won't be a problem, at least they will stop the queers from getting married right?

But I digress, the point here isn't a partisan Libertarian rant, only to point out that this perpetual circular logic is so pervasive that it boggles the mind when one really bothers to analyze it. Government creates problems, and then expands itself to solve the problem, thereby creating a new problem, and the cycle continues.

The immigration debate is no different, government caused this problem, and the answer? Remove the restrictions they are bound to by the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments!

Let's take a look at some of the text of this bill,

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY

21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS

23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,

24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE

25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

"Any Lawful Contact" is the problem here. It is lawful contact for a police officer to say hello to you, it is unconstitutional for that officer to then demand paperwork proving your citizenship under the 4th Amendment. This bill directly violates that.

And if not profiling by ethnicity or accent, how on earth do you find reasonable suspicion that someone is here illegally?

If you think that the police should be racially profiling, then just say it, but don't for one second pretend that you support this bill because you don't think it will not lead to unconstitutional searches and racial profiling, it just isn't rational or honest.

A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL

30 OFFENSE TO:

31 1. TRANSPORT OR MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS

32 STATE IN A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY

33 DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE

34 UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

35 2. CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD OR ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD

36 AN ALIEN FROM DETECTION IN ANY PLACE IN THIS STATE, INCLUDING ANY BUILDING OR

37 ANY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE

38 FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES

39 IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

If you have an illegal immigrant in your car, and have not made efforts to determine whether or not that person is here legally...

B. A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION THAT IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A

44 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT TO MANDATORY VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION OR

45 IMPOUNDMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 28-3511.

The police will take your car away.

AND

C. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1

2 MISDEMEANOR AND IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, EXCEPT

3 THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION THAT INVOLVES TEN OR MORE ILLEGAL ALIENS IS

4 A CLASS 6 FELONY AND THE PERSON IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND

5 DOLLARS FOR EACH ALIEN WHO IS INVOLVED.

You will be arrested and face up to one year in jail, and fined at least $1,000. Not because you knowingly harbored an immigrant, but because you "recklessly disregarded" whether he was or was not an illegal immigrant.

I recognize my views on immigration in general will vary with many whom I would hope to have the support of. But for the purposes of this bill it really doesn't matter if you want to militarize the border and have a federal immigration agent on every corner, this is about unreasonable search and seizure, this is about racial profiling, this is about liberty, and the Constitution. I frankly don't care about immigration, I believe in free markets and free trade, and that means a lax immigration policy. I want secure borders for sovereignty purposes, but people have a natural right to voluntarily enter into contracts to sell their labor, people have a natural right to travel. People who imply that illegal immigrants don't have rights, don't know what rights are, they are assuming that rights come from government, which they most certainly do not. And while I realize that some reading this may be a bit more enlightened than some others, I truly do not think for one second that the immigration debate would have 1/10th the momentum it does, if not for the racism factor.

For those who will go to Ron Paul on the issue, I highly doubt he would approve of the civil liberties violations in Arizona, and when Ron Paul ran for President as a Libertarian he said quote "As in our country's first 150 years, there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.".

The problem is not the immigration, the problem is the welfare state and labor regulations, people hire illegal immigrants because they are willing to work under conditions most Americans will not, and because illegal immigrants are unlikely to report the employer for violating labor regulations, repeal the minimum wage and labor regulations, and this problem disappears, repeal government handouts to all, and nobody will be lined up to get them, illegal or otherwise. The problem is the huge profit motive for crime that is designed by the drug and other vice laws in this country, our war on drugs is causing a civil war in Mexico, as drug cartels fight the government to get their product into this country, it's a trade war. If other countries set up trade embargo's around the US, we would strike back with military force, the drug cartels make so much money that they rival legitimate governments, and are doing exactly what a government would do in this situation. All of which is, at the federal level, unconstitutional. States do not have unlimited authority under the US Constitution, they are bound to the bill of rights, due process of law, and equal protection for all, by the 14th Amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It specifically differentiates between persons and citizens when it comes to equal protection and due process. The answer is not to go further from the constitution, the answer is to obey the constitution. This is like saying that since the unconstitutional federal reserve is such a disaster, we should hand over the authority to coin money and regulate the value thereof to the world bank, it is backwards thinking. I'm all for federalism, the 10th amendment, and states rights, but states enjoy the security and trade benefits of being in this union at the expense of guaranteeing certain civil liberties, and handing some authority over to the federal government.

Even if illegal immigrants didn't have rights, the thing at issue here more than anything is that you have to determine who is legal and who isn't before you can figure out who has rights and who doesn't. The right must be violated, before you know if the right exists, it is more circular logic. As I pointed out before, the process for "reasonable suspicion" comes after "any lawful contact". Someone made the point of being pulled over for a tail light, but when you are pulled over for a tail light, that is probable cause because it is illegal not to have working tail lights, and it is obvious that your tail light is out. Probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, and when you are pulled over for a tail light, it is the driver who has to produce identification, not the passengers in his car, which is changed by this law. It is lawful contact for a police officer to approach you on the street and say hello or ask what time it is, under this law, that same police officer can now demand that you produce identification.

We already have checkpoints on our highways, this was originally started to battle immigration, but the checkpoints were 100 miles inside the border, and did absolutely nothing about immigration. The immigration checkpoints were then used as precedent for sobriety checkpoints, the sobriety checkpoints were then used as precedent for equipment violation/registration checkpoints, and now the new term being used is "probable cause checkpoints" where the police are simply stopping people to determine if there is any reason for stopping them. Even at these checkpoints, technically, the police should only be asking the driver to produce paperwork, but under the Arizona law, everyone in the car will have to produce paperwork. With this new unconstitutional authority, you will have "immigration checkpoints" on whatever street or intersection the police see fit to put one on. But it will do next to nothing about immigration, it will just become another revenue source for the state as they write ticket after ticket for equipment violations and the like...

It also flips our entire legal system upside down. The burden of proof is on the state to prove if a crime was committed in a system like ours where presumption of innocence is supposed to be the norm. Under the Arizona law, people must prove that they did not break the law. This is repugnant not only to our written constitution, but the basic fundamentals of law. You better not lose your wallet in Arizona, because it is now a detain-able offense to not produce identification, under this law, you start at guilty and need to work your way back to innocent. And since there is going to be so much effort to avoid racial profiling (like anyone really believes that?) your being white and not having an accent will not protect you against this law.

The existing laws always gave the states the authority to turn illegal immigrants over to the federal government whenever they came into legitimate probable cause contact with law enforcement. Any state that is not deporting illegal immigrants who have been arrested for other crimes is simply failing to do so. It always was illegal to hire illegal immigrants, and it always was illegal to dodge taxes. The only thing this Arizona bill has done, is remove the probable cause requirement for police, and make everyone who associates with an illegal immigrant a criminal subject to seizure of property, fines, and imprisonment.

Popular outrage against this bill will be the perfect political cover for comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level. The current bipartisan proposal includes amnesty for illegal immigrants, and national ID with biometrics. This will mean everyone in America will have to be fingerprinted and have their fingerprints held in a federal database. Passports and many drivers licenses already have RFID tags in them, which will likely be extended to that national ID, which will mean every American being fixed with a radio tracking device that they must carry in their wallets at all times. The Republican Demagogue Glenn Beck has even proposed that the Arizona law be implemented federally. This in combination with the RFID and Biometric equipped National ID, checkpoints and traffic cameras, will no doubt lead to an authoritarian control grid nationwide.

This current debate is the epitome of the false left vs. right paradigm. During the health care debate, "Tea Partiers" were screaming about the constitution, but as soon as the focus turned to immigration, they are all willing to throw it away, Tea Party Patriots has a petition to support the Arizona Governor for signing this Police State bill into law, Tea Party Nation has also expressed support, and though I haven't seen anything official from Tea Party Express, you can be sure that those Neocon warmongers are all for this Orwellian nightmare law.

Likewise the American left was so concerned about George Bush and the Patriot Act and all his horrible totalitarian legislation, "signing statements", and unconstitutional wars, looking to the constitution to stop him, but were all too happy to have unlimited government under Barack Obama.

The Constitution cannot protect you, unless you protect the constitution. The Constitution either works or it doesn't my friends, it is not liberal, conservative, or libertarian, it is not just a good idea or a suggestion, it is the Supreme Law of the Land. It is not there as a matter of convenience for you to look to when your opposition is in power. It's the law, it provides for a Federal Government with a handful of enumerated powers, and no powers not specifically enumerated. It binds states to protecting civil liberties, freedom of speech and press and religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the right against self incrimination, trial by jury, counsel for defense, no cruel or unusual punishments. We should be able to agree on these things, and we must, if we hope to have any Constitution at all.

Unfortunately, experience is teaching me not to be hopeful. Too many people are willing to discard the Constitution when it becomes an obstacle to their own personal political agenda, and as long as that is the case, there will be no constitution in effect, government will operate without limits, behaving not as a Republic, but as a Democracy, and under this form of government, our utter destruction is inevitable.

Dangerous Times Indeed.

Author's Website: www.voteforcantwell.com

Author's Bio: Chris Cantwell is a Libertarian Candidate for the US House of Representatives in the First District of New York, he is also Director of Outreach for his local Libertarian Chapter, an At Large Committeeman for the NY Libertarian Party, a Campaign for Liberty Member, and an independent IT Consultant.

Back

April 29, 2010

www.opednews.com/articles/What-The-Arizona-Police-St-by-Chris-Cantwell-100429-913.html