It is now a state crime as well. On May 5, 9:12 am, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > entering the USA illegally is a federal crime > > Let The Trail Of Tears II begin!!! > > On May 4, 4:28 pm, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Immigration, Civil Liberties, and the Drug WarbySheldon Richman, May 4, 2010 > > Arizona’s horrid law empowering cops to demand that people show their > > “papers” when suspected of being in the country without government > > permission holds an important lesson for both so-called progressives and > > conservatives. It’s a lesson about a seemingly separate issue: drugs. > > Concern about illegal immigrants along the Mexican border would undoubtedly > > diminish if the “war on drugs” ended. (It’s not really a war on drugs; it’s > > a war on manufacturers, merchants, and consumers of certain drugs.) Drug > > prohibition in Mexico and the United States has not made the drug trade > > disappear. It merely turned the trade over to violent gangs. That is how > > prohibition always works. By definition, black markets are illegal, which > > means people with grievances can’t sue or call the police. They take > > “justice” into their own hands. The ensuing violence inevitably injures and > > kills innocent bystanders. If the violence is perpetrated by Mexicans and > > spills over the border, or if it drives villagers to seek safety in United > > States, the affected American communities will be tempted to blame > > foreigners, particularly illegal aliens. > > Ending prohibition would bring the drug trade into normal commerce and > > under the control of social mores similar to those that govern alcohol. > > Just as we don’t have turf wars and other violence surrounding the liquor > > and tobacco industries, we would not see it in a legal drug industry. > > That in itself would defuse much of the animosity toward Hispanic > > immigrants. > > Moreover, ending the black market would shrink drug profits, which are now > > used to buy sophisticated weapons for drug gangs. > > Now let’s tie the drug issue back to progressives and conservatives. > > Progressives portray themselves as sympathetic to immigrants, legal or > > otherwise, although there is a group that thinks the competition with > > American workers is unfair. Progressives also regard themselves as civil > > libertarians and therefore are not happy with the Arizona authoritarian > > law. (Aside: If they are upset with that law, why do most progressives give > > Barack Obama a pass on his Cheneyesque policies regarding enemy combatants, > > indefinite detention, and assassination?) > > But if progressives are so concerned about civil liberties, why are they > > not attacking the war on drugs? Not only does prohibition violate the civil > > liberties (not to mention property rights) of every legal resident; it also > > foments hostility to and suspicion of illegals. That hostility in turn > > leads to policies that erode everyone’s civil liberties. It’s not only > > immigrants who will have to carry papers in Arizona. Anyone likely to be > > questioned (read: anyone with brown skin) will have to carry an ID if he > > wants to ensure he will not be detained. > > What about conservatives? Years ago they might have been counted on to > > protest an ID requirement. Now they seem to have no problem with a state > > requirement that one produce papers on demand. Rush Limbaugh says that > > Democrats oppose the Arizona law because having to show an ID will make it > > hard for them to stuff the ballot box with illegal votes. Are we to infer > > that Limbaugh (who speaks for many conservatives) therefore favors > > empowering the police to demand an ID on the mere suspicion that someone is > > in America without government permission? > > That’s not the only problem for conservatives. They repeatedly raise alarms > > about the threat to gun owners, but they stubbornly refuse to see the > > connection between the war on guns and the war on drugs. As noted, the > > black market spawns well-armed drug gangs. Police have complained that they > > are outgunned by these gangs. This in turn has fueled the anti-gun > > movement. Indeed, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that one way to > > combat the Mexican drug violence is to crack down on the flow of guns from > > the United States into Mexico. We know what such a policy would mean. > > Progressives and conservatives, wake up! The war on drugs undermines civil > > liberties and the rights of peaceful gun owners, not to mention the freedom > > of Hispanics to move freely. If you mean it when you say you care about > > freedom, you will demand a halt to drug prohibition. Your own proclaimed > > values are at stake.http://www.fff.org/comment/com1005b.asp > > > -- > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
