James Bovard on Tea Party Inconsistencies

[sirs]

"Must fit template?" asks the man who is trying fit me into one. "Must fit template?" asks the man who thinks new laws expanding the scope of law enforcement is not bigger government because, well, because he says it just isn't. "Must fit template?" asks the man who will tell me incorrect things about what supposedly I think, while he is refusing to ask me any questions about what my thoughts actually are. Hm. I dunno, Sirs, must you fit everything into a template?

Prince, are you seriously trying to make the case that any new law passed by any local government equates to a necessary growth in government??  While something like Obamacare would necessitate a huge influx in government workers & bureacracy, not every law equates to a need for a greater amount of feet on the ground.  They recently passed a law here in CA that makes it illegal to drive while holding your cellphone to your ear.  You think that equates to bigger government?  No, it equates to the same government/police agencies, same # of folks, having to add one more item for them to be aware of.  Same government, no bigger.  The law enfocrement in AZ isn't getting any bigger, they're simply going to be doing what the Fed should be doing.  No bigger, just 1 more added responsibility to look out for

But see, you have your mind made up that this new law in AZ = "bigger government", and if anyone supports enforcing existing law...presto, they must support bigger government.  Sure looks like a template to me.  You wish to clarify why I shouldn't make such a conclusion based on how your trying to trash mine and the tea party's view of limited government??

[Amianthus]

It's a new law requiring, in effect, everyone to carry identification and produce it whenever so demanded by law enforcement. So yeah, it is more government.

I actually went and read the law and it does not make this a requirement. What it does is require police officers who have a reasonable suspicion that a person they detain is not in the US legally to notify ICE and turn them over to immigration officers before releasing them. They still have to detain the person legally for some other cause - ie, suspicion of illegal immigration status is not a primary cause.

It's more government however you look at it, though.

[Universe Prince]

Prince, are you seriously trying to make the case that any new law passed by any local government equates to a necessary growth in government??

No. Just that this new law in this case is an expansion of government.

No bigger, just 1 more added responsibility to look out for

Not bigger, just larger. Okay.

But see, you have your mind made up that this new law in AZ = "bigger government", and if anyone supports enforcing existing law...presto, they must support bigger government. Sure looks like a template to me.

So if one considers a situation and uses reason to arrive at a different conclusion than the one you reach, the other person is using a template? I think you're confused.

You wish to clarify why I shouldn't make such a conclusion based on how your trying to trash mine and the tea party's view of limited government??

Sure, I can do that. The reason you shouldn't make such an assumption is because it is uninformed and narrow. You have, apparently, assumed I'm just making some sort of knee-jerk reaction to a new law in Arizona. You didn't ask me about it. You just made the assumption. And this notion you have, that because my opinion is that the Tea Party folks seem happy with big government when it suits them I must therefore not be thinking and reasoning about the matter, i.e. just forcing something to fit a "template", is just silly nonsense. Your "must fit template" reiteration seems to have become your own template.

[Universe Prince]

I actually went and read the law and it does not make this a requirement. What it does is require police officers who have a reasonable suspicion that a person they detain is not in the US legally to notify ICE and turn them over to immigration officers before releasing them. They still have to detain the person legally for some other cause - ie, suspicion of illegal immigration status is not a primary cause.

As I understand it, the effect of the law is that everyone, especially immigrants, have to carry and produce on demand identification to show they are legally allowed in Arizona. Thus my explanation.

It's more government however you look at it, though.

I think so.

[sirs]

Prince, are you seriously trying to make the case that any new law passed by any local government equates to a necessary growth in government??

No. Just that this new law in this case is an expansion of government.

In your opinion perhaps.  Flawed as it is.  I see the same # of cops, performing the same duties, except they now have more authority, granted to them by the Fed, to better enforce EXISTING Federal Immigration law

But see, you have your mind made up that this new law in AZ = "bigger government", and if anyone supports enforcing existing law...presto, they must support bigger government. Sure looks like a template to me.

So if one considers a situation and uses reason to arrive at a different conclusion than the one you reach, the other person is using a template? I think you're confused.

Naaa, that wouldn't be me, in this case, considering the flawed reasoning your using to come to the idea that Tea Party folk, or myself for that matter "support big government"

You wish to clarify why I shouldn't make such a conclusion based on how your trying to trash mine and the tea party's view of limited government??

Sure, I can do that. The reason you shouldn't make such an assumption is because it is uninformed and narrow. You have, apparently, assumed I'm just making some sort of knee-jerk reaction to a new law in Arizona. You didn't ask me about it. You just made the assumption. And this notion you have, that because my opinion is that the Tea Party folks seem happy with big government when it suits them I must therefore not be thinking and reasoning about the matter, i.e. just forcing something to fit a "template", is just silly nonsense. Your "must fit template" reiteration seems to have become your own template.

It's only applied to a position that is firmly fixed and unable to dare I see, see reason.  You insist, despite all other evidence to the contrary, that this 1 shred of a state merely doing what it's already been authorized to do by the Fed, in the whole scheme of everything government, this one area that folks support enforcing exising law equates to support of "big government".  You see why its so easy to apply the term template?  It can't possibly be that in this 1 fraction of Government function, folks support the notion of upholding the rule of law, while they can substantlively critize the vast plethora of onnerous overbearing regulatory laws and spending.  No, it has to be that Tea Partiers and folks like myslef actually want "big government"       

[sirs]

I actually went and read the law and it does not make this a requirement. What it does is require police officers who have a reasonable suspicion that a person they detain is not in the US legally to notify ICE and turn them over to immigration officers before releasing them. They still have to detain the person legally for some other cause - ie, suspicion of illegal immigration status is not a primary cause.

As I understand it, the effect of the law is that everyone, especially immigrants, have to carry and produce on demand identification to show they are legally allowed in Arizona. Thus my explanation.

ONLY if they have already been pulled over or stopped for some infraction or possible crime.  If the officer then suspects they're in the country illegally, based on their on site investigation of that particular event, then they can act on it.  The FIRST thing an officer asks me for is my ID, and I have no look what-so-ever of being hispanic.  Read the law Prince.  There is no racial profiling.

[Universe Prince]

You insist, despite all other evidence to the contrary

What other evidence?

In your opinion perhaps.  Flawed as it is.  I see the same # of cops, performing the same duties, except they now have more authority, granted to them by the Fed, to better enforce EXISTING Federal Immigration law

[...]

You see why its so easy to apply the term template?

To your argument? Yes.

It can't possibly be that in this 1 fraction of Government function, folks support the notion of upholding the rule of law, while they can substantlively critize the vast plethora of onnerous overbearing regulatory laws and spending.  No, it has to be that Tea Partiers and folks like myslef actually want "big government"

Says the man who still assumes my comments about the Tea Party are all about immigration and apparently thinks I oppose the rule of law. Yeah, you're so (not at all) being reasonable.

[Universe Prince]

ONLY if they have already been pulled over or stopped for some infraction or possible crime.  If the officer then suspects they're in the country illegally, based on their on site investigation of that particular event, then they can act on it.  The FIRST thing an officer asks me for is my ID, and I have no look what-so-ever of being hispanic.  Read the law Prince.  There is no racial profiling.

I never said a word about racial profiling. Sheesh.

[sirs]

You insist, despite all other evidence to the contrary

What other evidence?

That of the consistent condemnation, of not just this President, but the prior 2 President's insidious and irresponsible signing of spending bills, after spending bills.  Pork, after pork, after pork.  Consistent criticism of ever expanding extraconstitutional government.  THAT evidence.  You again, find one minute area that is at best arguably more government, and presto....its support of big government.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  There's the concept of context, that appears to be missing in the Libertarian dictionary

In your opinion perhaps.  Flawed as it is.  I see the same # of cops, performing the same duties, except they now have more authority, granted to them by the Fed, to better enforce EXISTING Federal Immigration law
[...]
You see why its so easy to apply the term template?

To your argument? Yes.

translated; I know you are, but what am I        

It can't possibly be that in this 1 fraction of Government function, folks support the notion of upholding the rule of law, while they can substantively criticize the vast plethora of onnerous overbearing regulatory laws and spending.  No, it has to be that Tea Partiers and folks like myself actually want "big government"

Says the man who still assumes my comments about the Tea Party are all about immigration and apparently thinks I oppose the rule of law. Yeah, you're so (not at all) being reasonable.

Hey, your words about the tea party supporting bigger government, not mine.  No assumption required.  Care to quantify what else makes the Tea Party folk big time supporters of big government, outside of support in enforcing existing immigration law?  We're all eyes

[Universe Prince]

That of the consistent condemnation, of not just this President, but the prior 2 President's insidious and irresponsible signing of spending bills, after spending bills.  Pork, after pork, after pork.  Consistent criticism of ever expanding extraconstitutional government.  THAT evidence.  You again, find one minute area that is at best arguably more government, and presto....its support of big government.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  There's the concept of context, that appears to be missing in the Libertarian dictionary

Pork? You think pork spending is bigger government? You say "consistent condemnation" of things "insidious and irresponsible", yet supporting Bush was not supporting bigger government? "Consistent criticism of ever expanding extraconstitutional government." Really? Warrantless wiretaps? Do you support use of them or not? The "Patriot Act", support or not? I'm not asking you to speak on behalf of the Tea Party, just yourself.

Hey, your words about the tea party supporting bigger government, not mine.  No assumption required.

Hello? Mr. "concept of context"? Why don't you try applying it?

Care to quantify what else makes the Tea Party folk big time supporters of big government, outside of support in enforcing existing immigration law?

I think you mean out side of supporting a brand new immigration law.

Anyway, congratulations for finally asking a question about my other objections. Took you long enough. Well, for one, despite that "insidious and irresponsible" work Bush did, he still seems to be largely uncriticized at Tea Party conventions. I'm not saying they have to go on about it, but it would be nice to see them distance themselves from the Republicans with maybe a bit of "we should have done this sooner because Bush and other Republican politicians are big government men too." Maybe some criticism over the expansion of powers the government claimed by passing the "Patriot Act". Seen any of that? Seen any news from the Tea Party rallies that they want to scale back any of that? I haven't. There is more to limited government than a merely a government without Obamacare. How about Tea Party rallies where the GOP health care plans are denounced for the fact they too would meddle in and highly regulate the health insurance industry? I haven't seen it. Glenn Beck gave a nice speech at CPAC that explained why the Republicans were just as bad as the Democrats, but that isn't a message coming out of the Tea Party rallies.

Yeah, I am sure I do have a different notion than you of what "limited government" means. However, your argument that I'm somehow against the rule of law because I want government more limited than you do is nothing if not a template. The whole range of your argument against my position is nothing but template. You have the the whole "if you don't agree with me then you must want lawlessness" bit down pat.

I've tried, up to now, to avoid talking to this directly, but what the heck. Yeah, strictly limiting immigration is bigger government. So yes, if you support it, support the laws and the infrastructure and bureaucracy that goes with it, you are supporting bigger government. If you support politicians who routinely grow the size of government, even if you think they grow it less than someone else would, you're still supporting bigger government. This may be truth you don't want to hear, but too damn bad.

[sirs]

See, there's your problem.....the flaw in your ointment.  This is not "new immigration law", near as much as it's simply giving more authority to local law enforcement to enforce EXISTING IMMIGRATION LAW

As for the rest is your up is down debate effort here, pulling the same stuff you consistently complain that others do to you, I'm tired of it.  You wish to turn my arguement upside down some more, be my guest.  I'll deal with what specifics I feel are necessary, when & if you manage to actually provide a substantive rebutt vs claiming something I haven't

[Universe Prince]

See, there's your problem.....the flaw in your ointment.  This is not "new immigration law",

It is a new law. You quote me, but you omit the article "a". Which is important, because did not say "I think you mean out side of supporting brand new immigration law." I said, "I think you mean out side of supporting a brand new immigration law." The difference matters. All your protestations that I'm distorting what you say are hypocritical. And wrong.

near as much as it's simply giving more authority to local law enforcement to enforce EXISTING IMMIGRATION LAW

Yes, more authority. To government. I'm guessing you still don't see it.

As for the rest is your up is down debate effort here, pulling the same stuff you consistently complain that others do to you, I'm tired of it.

You may be, but it is entirely in your head. I have not claimed you meant something you did not say. I have not argued anything is something it is not. The only one doing those things in this conversation is you.  You have continually attempted to say that a new law isn't a new law. I've done what I can to address that, but you keep trying to deny it.

[sirs]

Prince the part you're not seeing, or more likely refusing to see, is that AZ is simply doing with the FED is supposed to do, but isn't.  IIRC correctly, ever since the Southern border of CA put up some barriers and walls, illegal immigrants have been gushing into AZ, with its easier to access border.  AZ now leads the nation in apparent kidnappings, and has I believe even more "sanctuary towns" then even CA, where illegal immigrants can largely run drug running, kidnappings, and gang activity, as long as they don't get caught doing any of those. 

Now, AZ has always had laws to stop people for infractions, and if suspician warrants such, determine the immigration status of an individual, and this "new" law simply gives the SAME # law enforcement (read NOT more), the support of the state in enforcing EXISTING immigration law. (read NOT new immigration law)

I tell yas, it really is interesting watching the near hysterics some folks are having at AZ daring to do something about ILLEGAL immigration.  Gads, how dare they enforce the law.  Those nazis

[Universe Prince]

Prince the part you're not seeing, or more likely refusing to see, is that AZ is simply doing with the FED is supposed to do, but isn't.

That's your opinion.

AZ now leads the nation in apparent kidnappings, and has I believe even more "sanctuary towns" then even CA, where illegal immigrants can largely run drug running, kidnappings, and gang activity, as long as they don't get caught doing any of those.

Got a source for that?

Now, AZ has always had laws to stop people for infractions, and if suspician warrants such, determine the immigration status of an individual, and this "new" law simply gives the SAME # law enforcement (read NOT more), the support of the state in enforcing EXISTING immigration law. (read NOT new immigration law)

Except that it is a new law, no quotation marks needed. You keep trying to deny that this new law is a new law. I don't know why.

I tell yas, it really is interesting watching the near hysterics some folks are having at AZ daring to do something about ILLEGAL immigration.  Gads, how dare they enforce the law.  Those nazis

Ah, yes, the old, "if they disagree strongly then they must be in hysterics" bit. And it's interesting that the only one here to mention Nazis in this matter is Sirs.

[sirs]

Prince the part you're not seeing, or more likely refusing to see, is that AZ is simply doing with the FED is supposed to do, but isn't.

That's your opinion.

No, it's not.  Read the law.  You want it to simply be an opinion, so you can beat up on it with the nonsense of "supporting bigger government".  The fact is, this law simply supports local law enforcment to enforce EXISTING Federal immigration law, by the state.  A measure that was already passed by Clinton, some 14years ago.

No more, no less

I tell yas, it really is interesting watching the near hysterics some folks are having at AZ daring to do something about ILLEGAL immigration.  Gads, how dare they enforce the law.  Those nazis

Ah, yes, the old, "if they disagree strongly then they must be in hysterics" bit. And it's interesting that the only one here to mention Nazis in this matter is Sirs.

I'll kindly turn Prince's attention the the wave of protests, by pro-illegal immgration folks, like Cardinal Mahoney, Rev Sharpton, and a myriad of other politicians, pundits, & protesters

Now, AZ has always had laws to stop people for infractions, and if suspician warrants such, determine the immigration status of an individual, and this "new" law simply gives the SAME # law enforcement (read NOT more), the support of the state in enforcing EXISTING immigration law. (read NOT new immigration law)

Except that it is a new law, no quotation marks needed. You keep trying to deny that this new law is a new law. I don't know why.

LOL...1 LAST time...a new law that simply gives local law enfocement the support of the state in enforcing EXISTING Federal immigration law.  Neither NEW IMMIGRATION law nor AZ STATE Immigration law

Done