Rommel Was an Illegal Immigrant in France

I have written on several occasions about how the data demonstrate pretty conclusively that immigrants are not driving a crime wave in Arizona (here and here).  The one exception to this may be well-armed quasi militaristic gangs raiding near the border.  These guys are certainly running rampant in Norther Mexico and conflicting reports have them making certain US border regions nearly unlivable.

OK, but how is this crime a justification for state laws that harass day laborers and companies that hire immigrants, while requiring law enforcement to check immigration status at traffic stops?  One could technically describe the German army in 1941 as illegal immigrants in France, but I don't think this euphemism would trick anyone into thinking that Arizona-style immigration laws would have saved France from Guderion, Rommel and company.

There is zero in SB1070 that will do one little thing to phase such gangs.  So how can people with a straight face use such crime as justification for the bill?


  1. Evil Red Scandi:

    People conflating the various groups and problems related with illegal border crossings drives me nuts. I wrote a piece on it, if anybody's interested:

  2. astonerii:

    When you have tens of thousands of illegals crossing the border and a government who does not have any desire to fix that problem, along with those tens of thousands of illegals the bad guys hide along with them. If you do not want to be seen, do you walk around out in the middle of a deserted highway waving your hands or do you try to look like the locals and blend into a large crowded street.

    If the number of people crossing the border is reduced significantly by the illegal day laborers and others then the gang related violent will have a much harder time hiding, the enforcement personnel will have fewer targets to investigate, and it is far more likely that the gang people will end up meeting with the justice they deserve.

    But that is not the point of the law. It is one small part of the reason why we do not want the illegals here. There are many other reasons to not want them here. I guess cheap illegal laborers for taking care of public parks is the only way you can stay in business. Have you ever thought about just adopting like 50 people from third world nations and putting them to work for yourself? It would be a family business and you would not have to meet minimum wage laws.

  3. John Moore:

    Do all Libertarians believe that laws should be flaunted and national sovereignty is an obsolete concept, like you clearly do?

    Most people (with the exception of trans-national progressives and a few libertarians) recognize the need for nation states, which clearly includes the requirement that those nation states manage their borders and treat their own citizens differently from those from elsewhere.

    And, most importantly, most people recognize that laws should be enforced.

  4. John Moore:

    On the crime subject... your statistics are hardly conclusive about the cause and effect relationship between illegal immigration and crime. As an engineer with lots of experience in analyzing trends, you have to know the folly of short term correlations in phenomena with generations long effects, not to mention correlations in such loose fields as sociology.

  5. Gil:

    Actually your war analogy does work - Mexicans have no business barging into the U.S. without permission. Heck, if the U.S. took the illegal immigrants as an act of war then maybe the Mexican government would stop turning a blind eye to their people flouting U.S. sovereignty.

  6. ADiff:

    Actually SB1070s pretty much an effective non-entity. It allows police officers two powers previously not available, 1) to hold a person for up to 24 hours or so on the pretext of suspicion of being an illegal resident (regardless protestations to the contrary police need not accept any documentation at face value and they may use the allowed period for any purpose, possibly even including actually investigating such status) and 2) allowing incarceration of those believed to be here illegally, although it's not quite clear what charges would be preferred, if any, or if ICE could, or would accept, such detainees. The law has a couple of significant technical flaws, these being its probably unenforceable requirement police take formal action on such suspicions and allowing private citizens to due for non-compliance. The former is foolish, since discretion will always be in the officer's hands, under any available pretext, in any event, and the requirement only makes law even more hypocritical than it already is (if that's still possible) by not formally allowing that discretion. The latter is an invitation to all manner of frivolous suits amounting to more-or-less harassment of LEO personnel, although I believe the largest beneficiaries of the provision opponents of the legislation who have avail to numerous expensive proceedings which could economically punish LEO for any enforcement. I leave it to reader's imaginations how such a policy could proceed, but I can think of several avenues for which such suits could be pursued that would cost government at all levels a great deal of time and money, and even in event such were lost, still leave those governments 'holding the bag' for uncollected (and collectible) court costs. In itself the law isn't really a big deal. Not only does it merely allow local LEOs to simply apply existing Federal law, actually at their own discretion for whatever reasons they see fit (and anyone actually believing LEO testimony however divergent from fact won't simply be accepted in court as a matter of fact has left the realm of real life reality). California already has essentially the same law on the books there, without the PC dictated (and probably very wise) language strictly disallowing resort to exceptional resort to racial, ethnic or linguistic distinctions (another hypocritical nicety, but one that pretty much unavoidable under the circumstances of the bill's promulgation)....which leads us to the real problem with SB1070: a lot of its supporters and advocates. While the law itself isn't really 'racist' or xenophobic, it's equally undeniable a lot of its supporters clearly are, and advocate it as a symbolic cudgel in their version of anti-Mexican (using the term here in the ethnic rather than nationalistic sense) or anti-Hispanic Kulturkampf. These are the same folks who rant about every immigrant having to learn English and this being a English speaking society and so forth, and clearly do want to discourage enlargement of the Hispanic ethnic community or its role in the larger society. If it had not been promoted as a hedge against 'Mexicanization' by many so clearly pursuing protection of an 'Anglo culture' but merely slipped in as a procedural action, then none of the huge hullabaloo probably would have resulted. But the political value of it as a symbolic bulwark against 'uncontrolled' extension of Hispanic ethnic influence in the larger society was too great for the politicians, and so the immigrant advocates (and associated libtard glommers onto any cause coming down the pipe) had to weigh in too. And so there we are. The sleaze-bags in the Statehouse and all the 'advocacy groups' get to make hay, while everyone else gets to take it on the chin, so to speak.

  7. Jess:

    Godwin's law again.
    Warren's had a few nice reads, but this seals the deal. I'm tossing this one off the roll.
    Oh, and my family & I won't be staying @ any of the campgrounds, either (we have in the past).
    That's freedom.


    PS - don't forget the word "illegal" in these discussions as Warren seems to have done.

  8. BlogDog:

    Just one small note - It's "faze," not "phase" in that usage.

  9. Evil Red Scandi:

    I don't speak for Warren and I've been known to be "heretical" on some libertarian ideas, but I'm pretty sure that nobody's advocating anarchy. I live pretty darned close to the border, and I'm very familiar with what goes on there. I'm married to a legal immigrant, I've dealt with the legal immigration process for her family, and I'm not terribly happy about people that flaunt the rules (if for no other reason than we've jumped through the hoops). SB1070 makes it possible for police to detain her for pretty much no reason (a standard normal law enforcement interaction has more holes than a Sierpinski triangle), and they even have extra incentive because she's white. Harrassing some white immigrants gives them political cover for all of the legal citizens and residents of Mexican descent that will undoubtedly be targeted (especially if you know how things work in Arizona).

    But the simple fact of the matter is that SB1070, even if aggressively enforced, won't make much of a dent - and one could make some strong arguments that it will make the overall situation worse by mis-allocating law enforcement and prosecutorial resources and by making it even more difficult for illegals to report crime. I don't think most people realize the insane number of illegals there are in this country and how much infrastructure there is supporting them. We're talking about millions of people - more than enough to fill a very large city. There is no way you're going to "law-enforce" them out. Even if laws like SB1070 were enforced with flawless precision and every cop and prosecutor in every city devoted every last picosecond of their professional and personal time to getting rid of illegals for 10 years, you might deport 2% of them. That was water under the bridge 20 years ago. I understand people aren't happy about it. I'm not happy about it. But passing stupid laws in a fit of pique based on wishful thinking and non-existent mathematical skills isn't the right approach.

    SB1070 isn't a meaningful solution to the problem, it's a temper tantrum. And I don't support those. Until people are willing to look objectively at the underlying causes of illegal border crossings (not just people trying to live here - it's the smugglers that create most of the problems and nearly all of the violence) and address those, it's all just pissing into the wind.

  10. Che is dead:

    ... which leads us to the real problem with SB1070: a lot of its supporters and advocates. While the law itself isn’t really ‘racist’ or xenophobic, it’s equally undeniable a lot of its supporters clearly are ...

    Funny, the "same folks who rant about every immigrant having to learn English and this being a English speaking society and so forth seem to have absolutely no problem with a legal immigration policy that accepts more immigrants - without regard to race or ethnicity - than all the other nations of the world combined. These "racists and xenophobes" comprise the majority of a nation whose openness and generosity toward immigrants is unrivaled in the history of the world. Learning English, by the way, is an essential step to full participation in our society. It combats political and cultural ghettoization, preventing exploitation of immigrant communities by power seeking dirtbags who seek to cultivate a sense of victimization and ethnic chauvinism in order to secure political power for themselves. Which leads us to the real problem with illegal-supporting morons, like you, who are incapable of making an intelligent argument and so must resort to attempts to smear and discredit your opponents. Your attack on "Anglo culture" and your belief that it must either retreat in the presence of "Mexicanization" simply reveal your own bigotry. Why not take your racist, bigoted ass across the border where you can give full expression to your anti-American, anti-Anglo hatred?

  11. Evil Red Scandi:

    Put succinctly, you could take things to an absurd extreme (and for the frigtards, no, I'm not actually advocating this) - if you dispensed with the judicial process and just shot all of the illegals here, you'd have an logistical nightmare just disposing of the bodies.

    The Republican notion that illegal border crossings will be solved through law enforcement is right up there with the Republican notion that eliminating waste will do anything meaningful about government debt. Both are merely symptoms of massive systemic problems. Until those problems are addressed, fighting the symptoms is just a Sisyphian task.

  12. Evil Red Scandi:

    "….which leads us to the real problem with SB1070: a lot of its supporters and advocates. While the law itself isn’t really ‘racist’ or xenophobic, it’s equally undeniable a lot of its supporters clearly are...

    Even if this were true, which I doubt, it's not a helpful accusation to make. There are plenty of reasons to dislike SB1070 based on objective standards and facts without resorting to insulting and inflammatory rhetoric. Screaming racism at people that disagree with you just makes them dig in their heels, and makes you look like an ass. As much as I disagree with them, the Republicans get far too much of this crap already.

  13. Scott M:

    Absolute bunk. I'll attack your reason from the simplest point of view possible. The Germans invaded France and removed both the French government and French sovereignty. In one fell swoop, the Germans, through successful use of arms, both invaded France and removed any immigration laws the French might have had in favor of their own. It is logically impossible for a conqueror to be an "illegal" immigrant by current local law because the conqueror brings their own with them.

    This doesn't even begin to describe the fact that the analogy is completely inappropriate to begin with.

  14. ADiff:

    Oh really Mr. Che Is Dead?

    So you have "no problem with a legal immigration policy that accepts more immigrants – without regard to race or ethnicity – than all the other nations of the world combined"? Excuse me if I don't believe you. Just for the sake of argument let's say the U.S. changed its current policies (that arbitrarily discriminate against high demand markets, like Mexico, in favor of low demand markets, like say, New Zealand for example) and adjusted the (again, arbitrary) constraint on total quantity demanded for immigrants of 140,000 per year. Let assume we set the total permitted to something like 500,000, a number perhaps a bit high, but not out of line with employment demand prior to the current recession, and then simply allotted this on a largely 'first come, first served' basis. We'd likely see about 90% of that quota filled from Latin America. The total volume of immigrants wouldn't have materially changed from the combined total of legal and illegal immigration recent, but now they'd all be legal. Actually it would be better to do away with any arbitrary limits and tie the quantity directly to demand, in which case quantity supplied and demanded would fluctuate over time with market conditions. I rather suspect you will object to half a million Hispanics immigrating to the United States as strenuously even if legal. Perhaps I could be wrong, but I doubt it. No doubt some other objection would be fabricated in imaginations of those feeling so, illegality not available. But they are all illusions. The market alone will dictate migrations of peoples over time, however temporarily barriers may be effective (but usually are not even then). Arizona I think a special case, as it was at its inception as part of the United States a bi-ethnic and bilingual society. The early territory spoke almost equally and formally recognized sufficiency of both English and Spanish. I think it rather a loss that ethnic chauvinism dictated abandoning this early bilingual character, but at that time racism was accepted and respected and viewed as natural and rational. It's expression in social order was accepted simply as a matter of course. At that time that may have sufficed (however wasteful I view it). The foolish simplicity of that view has taken decades to recognize, as well as the real immediate and long-lasting costs. Gradually many of us come to recognize the confusion of culture with nationality, ethnicity and with language. And let's be perfectly clear: culture is what counts, and nationality, ethnicity and language may act to some extent as barriers and bounds to culture, it is not actually at all related to any of these and is not dictated by them. Culture is something more fundamental, and it is culture on which a society rests, not on nationality, ethnicity or language. Western Enlightenment culture is the same for Irishmen as for Costa Ricans and is the same in Spanish or Arabic as in English.

    At any rate unless we understand the centrality of culture and its transcendence of nationality, ethnicity and language long-term change will prevail, and we will not. In Arizona we should move toward making both Spanish and English official languages, and educate our children so that in a generation everyone speaks both as a matter of course. Embracing diversity will be essential to our continued prosperity. But culture can not and should not be compromised. Those who do not understand the distinction are, in my view, doomed by inability to adapt to changing circumstances over time that no laws, no barriers and no ideology can ultimately stymie.

    In summary, Mr. Dead, I think your confusion effectively anti-American, dangerous to the values of our Western Enlightenment Culture and its centuries of continuous social and material progress, and very probably a long-term threat to the national security of the United States of America.

    I have no idea, Mr. Dead, where you would, or should, take your "ass" to (nor do I care), but it's in all our interests for folks like you, who are actually trying to be well intentioned, to figure out how to stop being part of the problem and figure out how to part of the solution, while enough folks will still listen to you for your voice to matter.

  15. ADiff:

    On a personal note:

    Although it might be easier to just say "methinks thou doth protest too much", why should Mr. Dead or other commentators assume they are among the "lot of [SB1070] supporters clearly" expressing ethnic xenophobia or racial prejudice? I did not say "all". I did not "most". And I certainly did not say "you", however much some infer such.

    But simply peruse a few public discussions of the law in informal settings then come back and tell me my characterization of many SB1070 supporters is even contestable, much less untrue!

  16. ParatrooperJj:

    There is no requirement in the law to check immigration status at a traffic stop.

  17. John Moore:

    Evil Red Scandi writes:

    "I’m married to a legal immigrant, I’ve dealt with the legal immigration process for her family, and I’m not terribly happy about people that flaunt the rules (if for no other reason than we’ve jumped through the hoops). SB1070 makes it possible for police to detain her for pretty much no reason"

    Not if she carries the papers she ALREADY REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW!

  18. Evil Red Scandi:

    @ John Moore:

    Not if she carries the papers she ALREADY REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW!

    She's a citizen. Do you propose that citizens always require proof of citizenship with them everywhere they go? Like the Soviet Union did? Seriously?

    Has it even occurred to stupid fucks like you that when some of us worry about harassment, we're talking about citizens? Some of us know and / or remember what happens to people in totalitarian regimes, and people like you that support them are pretty much the most evil things on earth.

  19. John Moore:

    Evil Red Scandi - you said "legal immigrant" - you did not say naturalized citizen. And yes, I am aware that some paranoids are more concerned about inconvenience to citizens than to protecting our nation.

    As for totalitarian regimes, I am well familiar with them. Apparently you aren't, since you think carrying ID is a defining characteristic of totalitarianism, even though most non-totalitarian countries require it.

    Your inference that "people like me" favor totalitarian regimes is simply idiotic. Did you ever consider what characterizes folks who say "people like you?" Bigotry.

    BTW, it is pretty rare for citizens to go out without documentation - if you drive a car, you have to have a license, for example. So pardon me if I don't cry a river about the harassment.

    Has it occurred to you that some of us (myself included - Vietnam Vet) have put up with a lot more than harassment in order to protect our nation, and that it makes us a bit less sympathetic to whiners like you?

  20. tomw:

    How about we just use Mexican immigration law as our baseline. First offense, go to jail, second, go to jail longer, and forever remove yourself from possible legal immigration.
    This is being drawn up to the same level as the 'flotilla' in the Med, where a blockade inspection team was attacked by passengers on a ship they were inspecting under maritime law. Yet that was turned into an Israeli attack on innocents.

    There is a lot of brouhaha and bloviating about 1070, but the people that seem to be making the most noise have not even taken the time to read the bill.
    Fourth Estate strikes again. Phooey.

    If you cannot take the effort to learn the language of the nation you so desire to inhabit, stay home. If you do not learn the native tongue, you often place a limitation on your possible job opportunities. A bad choice IMO.