Let the Round-ups Begin

Arizona's new immigration law has granted the police even more draconian power, essentially legalizing the detention of anyone simply thought to be an illegal immigrant. That is, if your melanin count happens to be higher than that of your average WASP, watch out.

Our friend Aretae asked an interesting question yesterday, pointing out that the new AZ law will lay the foundation for a significant expansion of state authority over everyone, not mere illegals.

Funny to read comments around the blogoshere from folks reacting to this putrid law. The vast majority approaches it from the left-right paradigm -- where "illegals" either do or do not have the right to live and work peaceably in the United States -- but all the while implying that the government has a right to rule on the issue in the first place.

Eliminate (i.e., privatize) public property and abolish citizenship requirements and watch the "illegal immigration" issue disappear literally overnight. Until we do that anything else is just window dressing, where the bigots amongst us duke it out to determine whose side can use the state most effectively to impose its will on the other.

UPDATE: Arizona sheriff Clarence Dupnik has gone on record saying he will instruct his officers to ignore this new law.

"We are not immigration officials," Dupnick vowed Thursday. "We fight crime. The state put us in this position."

Of course, Dupnik's opposition could be motivated by purely pragmatic reasons if not moral ones -- "Our jails would be filled in a day" -- but better to come down on the side of liberty for the wrong reasons than contribute to its erosion for reasons you believe to be right.

Comments

[Redman]

Does a private citizen have a reasonable expectation for the state to protect their private property? And if the state refuses to provide that protection, what recourse does the citizen have? And does the individual expectation for that protection evaporate when considered for the voting public? 70% of the Arizona public want/desire property rights protected; this law seems to be a response to that desire. Is that misguided? Just asking.

[trevor]

I for one operate from the presumption that the state has no desire to protect any property other than its own. (When's the last time the police tracked down something that was stolen from a private citizen?)

Voting for a law that enables a third party to initiate violence and threats of violence by pointing its guns at people who have harmed no one is inherently evil.

[Cal Bittersmore]

@ Redman: I would say that any "reasonable assumption" of state protection of private property (or any other issue, for that matter) would be well-supported with historical evidence. That is to say that to assume that your rights will be defended without evidence to support the assumption would be unreasonable. Thus, I would say that private citizens should have no reasonable expectation of state protection, barring some sort of political connection that might otherwise ensure it.

I, for one, have been beaten, burgled, and robbed at gun-point (in this context I mean by private sector thugs), in addition to a suffering a multitude of other aggressions against my person and property, all while living under the "protection" of the state's enforcement caste. Nothing ever came of any of it, despite me dutifully filing reports of these acts to the po-po. Come to think of it, the only thing government pigs have ever protected me from is myself, usually through the standard procedure of levying a heavy fine in the hopes that I learn my lesson (put on my seat belt or whatever). So I'm not betting on the boys in blue being around to actually protect me from anything. But I digress.

Absent the state actually living up to its only legitimate purpose, your clear and natural recourse would be to defend your rights and property yourself. While the vigilante approach is typically frowned upon by law enforcement (who is probably just upset about you horning in on their racket), it would be morally acceptable provided your actions be guided by a sound moral foundation and implemented with due caution and respect for the rights of the aggressor. And let's face it, when the letter of the law is so clearly immoral, one should be forgiven for deferring to a higher authority, whether that be some deity or another, or just your good conscience.

The next best option (probably a better option, now that I think about it) would be to privatize security services, thereby opening the field to the natural governance of market forces.

One question for you (Redman) though: could you rephrase the third question in your first comment? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, and I'd like to take a crack at it, just for grins.

[Redman]

By "harming no one" do you exclude those that have harmed the dead rancher(s), the border guards, the private property owners, etc., right? We are discussing Arizona, are we not? What,then, would be an appropriate response when violence is directed at you?

I guess it has to do with degree; on this, it seems, we must agree to disagree.

[Cal Bittersmore]

I think we would all agree that those who harmed any person or property on their way in or while they were here would be guilty of a legitimate offense, and therefore subject to an appropriate legal response. That goes for immigrants, both legal and illegal, as well as naturally-born citizens. Likewise would anyone who is facing bodily harm or loss of property, whether it be at the hands of any of those same parties, be in their right to defend against such. I believe that Trevor's objection is on the grounds that innocent people, perhaps American citizens of Mexican ancestry, are likely to be caught up in the rather wide net that this law seems to cast.

So let me go back to my uncertainty regarding the expectation of the "voting public" to the protection of their property rights by the state. I believe you are implying that by a majority vote in favor of the law in question, those who supported the law should have the expectation that the law would be enforced. Under my understanding of democracy, I would say yes, those folks could expect the law to be enforced, were it not for the observable inconsistency of state goons when it comes to actually doing their jobs.

[Redman]

It is for these kinds of exchanges and insights that I regularly visit this site; it gives meat on which to chew. Thanks to both of you for your ideas, opinions and beliefs. On one thing I think we do agree: the consistent inconsistency of the state, be it federal or local.