When Conservatives Turn Against Private Property and Private Contracts

Update:  Yes, I am aware that it is ILLEGAL as many people have informed me in all caps.  Here is my response, and a thought problem for those posing that issue to me.

Apparently, our Arizona legislature is about to past a tough new anti-immigrant bill, to make sure that no one can work for us or be on our property without the government's permission.  Why is it that Conservatives who are nominally supportive of private property and private contracts disavow these rights when Mexicans are involved?

First, to the issue of property:

A bill empowering police to arrest illegal immigrants and charge them with trespassing for simply being in the state of Arizona, is likely just weeks away from becoming the toughest law of its kind anywhere in the country....

"When you come to America you must have a permission slip, period," said state Sen. Russell Pearce, the Mesa Republican who sponsored the bill. "You can't break into my country, just like you can't break into my house."

So aren't they essentially using a socialist view of property here?   This means that a person can be found to be trespassing on my property, even if he has my permission, if he doesn't have permission of certain members of the government.   It means that the government has more say over who can and can't be present on property than does the private owner.  This is horrendous precedent that Conservatives will someday come to lament.

As for contracts:

The measure allows police to detain people on the suspicion that they are illegal immigrants, outlaws citizens from employing day laborers, and makes it illegal for anyone to transport an illegal immigrant, even a family member, anywhere in the state.

Oops, so much for my ability to hire and fire at will.  And doesn't it make one all warm and fuzzy to think that having brown skin is officially going to be sufficient probable cause for Sheriff Joe to haul your ass into custody?  Because I am not exaggerating, Arpaio will haul in thousands on mere suspicion of being an illegal immigrant.  He already hauls in hundreds without this law.  What's next, checkpoints with state troopers telling us that "ve vant to see your papers" like we were living in occupied France?  Because the bill essentially requires that people present in Arizona be able to prove they are a citizen at all times.  Do I need to carry my passport when I am jogging?

I know a few paranoiacs here have managed to convince even relatively smart people outside this state that we are somehow in the midst of an invasion.  I live here, and no such thing is true.  We have a large Hispanic population that makes the state more interesting, and the limited number of problems immigrants cause for infrastructure here are no worse than the issues any major city faces.  I operate business all over the state, including right down at the border, and there is simply nothing awful going on here to justify this kind of paranoia.

Postscript:  Just to be clear, I believe I have the right to hire anyone I please, and to lease an apartment to anyone I please.  I don't think that people who happen to be born in another country should have to get a license from the state to be able to contract with me in these ways.  Both Democrats and Republicans are awful about this -- they rail against some modest state intrusion in their lives and then support an even bigger one.

  • David W.

    I think you are mischaracterising the issue as of private property and contracts:

    1. The law (and I agree it is draconian and reprehensible) simply empowers police to arrest illegal migrants for being in a geographical area they do not have permission to be in - how is that an issue of private property? Would an electric company not allowing non-employees to loiter around on its property be by the same principle an issue of private property?

    2. Again making it unlawful to use illegal migrants (again very draconian) is simply enforcing all ready existing regulation regarding migration laws. If you are not supposed to be here – you are not supposed to be working here either. The issue is not that of private contracts.

    We may agree that these laws are unprincipled but I would disagree with you that these are an issue of property rights and contractual freedom. The prior existing issue is the status of an illegal migrant – if his status was not illegal in the first place – both these laws would be unconstitutional without even considering the issue of property rights and the freedom to enter into contracts.

  • agesilaus

    How is this any different from the state being able to prosecute someone who broke in the back door on your private business and who carried off your private property. The prosecution would be in the name of the People of Arizona not in your name. Perhaps you object to that too and would prefer private administration of justice, feuds I suppose.

  • Dave

    The libertarian ivory tower defense of legal and illegal immigration gets really old. If property rights were secured from the tyranny of the majority, then I would completely in favor of virtually umlimitted immigration. On planet earth, a vast majority of immigrants to this country represent a permanant voting bloc of people who do not respect my property rights.

  • IgotBupkis

    Sorry, Warren, the notion that our borders should be completely open to any and all is a bit on the extreme side, so I can't side with you on this one. Not only for Dave's but, hey, what, you're going to allow Abdul, the American citizen who also happens to be a Wahabbist to argue that they can't arrest and deport Wassid, a known terrorist and criminal, who has as yet committed no crime on U.S. soil, because he's got a job with Abdul?

    There's a process for getting into this country. Anyone who is here without having followed that process is ALREADY a criminal by US Law as well as international conventions regarding borders, immigration, and citizenry. You want to change that process, well, get together with others and do so, but I think you're going to be on the side of pretty much only illegals and libtards, which sorta says a lot about that proposition, I think.

    I'm not in favor of being radical about enforcing immigration restrictions, as I think they do take on a lot of jobs Americans are simply not interested in doing, but some enforcement IS called for by any light, and current enforcement is almost certainly far too lax. If Arizona's laws are too tough, let 'em go to Texas instead.

  • http://anotherviewonclimate.wordpress.com/ Greg

    Now wouldn't it be interesting if someone in the Gov were to set up a crossing station for the illegals, with the intent of making them legal.

    They line up, get fingerprinted and photographed (just like for a driver's license,) a quick check for anything communicable or other "issues," and they get a "right to work in Arizona" pass. The pass is in card form and is also registered in a government database, just in case the pass "disappears."

    This way they can work legally and for legal wages, pay into the system, be able to have legal protections, etc. They can earn legally and are no longer in the "not really slave labor" class. Employers no longer have to be concerned with creative employee records or worry about the possible raids.

    Forging these IDs would become a major "you really don't want to do that" offense.

  • Gil

    Yeah, yeah. Strictly speaking landownership is held by the government. This is public equivalent of the monarchs who were the actual private landowners but their lands were seized (stolen?) by the forerunners of the today's governments. Thus on a larger level anti-immigration is consistent with Libertarianism.

  • http://stopthebreathing.blogtownhall.com/ astonerii

    You really got a racist tendency going on in your mind. Illegal is illegal is illegal whether you are from south of the border, north of the border, crossed the Pacific Ocean or the Atlantic Ocean or if the person was really ambitious and crossed the Arctic Ocean. Does not matter if your skin is light brown, pink, dark brown, slightly yellowish, somewhat reddish or any shade between ultraviolet and infrared. Illegal is illegal is illegal.

    Any time someone makes a peep about doing something positive to help stem the flow of illegal aliens into this country and help usher them towards the border you go all crazy about how it is some racist conspiracy that is aimed completely at one single group of people who happen to be the ones that cross the only international border your state happens to have. Yes, it will disproportionately effect people who appear to be from countries south of the border, simply because they disproportionately happen to be the largest race of people who happen to be illegally residing in your state. Some states it is people from Asia that are the disproportionately large population of illegal aliens residing in that state. Other Places it could be people from Africa, in other places Europe and in some places it might be Canadians! Many are people were originally invited into the United States for specified periods and for specific reasons so some illegals are those who overstayed a visa or took a job on a student visa or some other reason. Illegal, is illegal, is illegal and they all need to be brought to what ever justice is required.

    I for one would personally appreciate to be governed by those who actually uphold the laws, restrict immigration to this country in a way that forces immigrants to assimilate into our culture instead of allowing them to immigrate in such numbers that they overwhelm us and force us to assimilate to them. Considering that for 200 year our country has far surpassed any other country in almost every single positive way, I can say that allowing them to change our culture is wholly for the worse for us. Since our leaders failed to accomplish this, I feel it is completely justifiable that Americans start to close the open gates and sending the ingrates back to what ever culture they came from. I am appalled by the fact that I have to press 1 for English; that when I buy a product that I have to pay extra for the obligatory information packets written in English and Spanish; that when I got into a store I have talk to people who understand half of what I say and take the other half and twist to mean the opposite of what I say.

    I like your blog, but you cannot possibly love your country when you would be just as happy if it was taken over by an unarmed group of immigrants who do not have any idea what it means to be an American other than the fact that they can come here and have a better life living off the productivity of those who built and are still building this great nation.

  • me

    Each Indepence day, I hurl a teabag into the nearby harbor, shouting "No taxation without represenation" at the top of my lungs. I haven't been arrested yet, but that's all this has going for it...

    The thing to realize is that the US is a relatively young democracy, with political actors more concerned with obtaining, exercising and exploiting power relationships than fair play or any semblance thereof.

    Make your peace with it and do the best under the circumstances, otherwise you'll be upset more times than it can possibly be worth.

  • mahtso

    “….We have a large Hispanic population that makes the state more interesting, and the limited number of problems immigrants cause for infrastructure here are no worse than the issues any major city faces.

    The first part of the statement is completely true and one of the great things about Arizona. The second part of the statement may be true, but only if the word “infrastructure” is given a narrow definition.

    The number of kidnappings in Arizona is very high because the illegal immigrants are the subject of so many kidnappings at the hands of the coyotes. I’ll type it again: the Arizona Republic has reported that the trade in smuggling illegal immigrants is a $1.7 to $1.8 billion per year enterprise. And it is a violent industry.

    “I operate business all over the state, including right down at the border, and there is simply nothing awful going on here to justify this kind of paranoia.”

    If the $1.7 billion in crime isn’t awful enough, news accounts show that others along the border do see something else that is awful: the Tohono O'odham Nation and ranchers along the border report ecological, cultural and economic damage due to the passage of illegal aliens. There was video, from who I don’t recall, showing the tons of garbage and other refuse left by these people.

  • David W.

    Re: your postscript – Yes you have the right to hire anyone and the right to lease your apartment to anyone. There is no law stopping you from hiring someone who has a criminal history. The law is not taking your right to do that. If you want to knowingly lease your apartment to someone you know who has a higher chance of being remanded for being as illegal – it’s your choice – but again it has nothing to do away with taking away your property rights or contractual freedom.

  • Michael

    I feel that the so called Conservatives are guilty of creating the environment that drives illegals to come here for work. They are quire content to go along with regulations and taxes that makes hiring an American unaffordable.

    Yes, Mexico has it problems but US conservative policy keeps the country unstable as it does for much of the Americas. But Congressional district votes are more important than the killing we cause in the Americas.

  • JinTX

    To the writer - sorry - your argument is weak. Very watery. Our nation has borders, and protecting our sovereignty IS actually one thing the feds SHOULD be doing.

    To Michael - Exactly how has US "Conservative" policy kep MEXICO unstable? Conservative taxes and regulations? Are you SERIOUS? Furthermore - can you explain how WE are causing killing in the Americas? I get so damned sick of the "Blame America First" argumments.

    Are you aware of the laws in Mexico which prevent foreign investors from owning companies in Mexico within the "Restricted Zone"? Or the state of their education? How about a government that willfully exports their citizens to a neighboring country to draw revenue?

  • http://evilredscandi.blogspot.com Evil Red Scandi

    I'd agree that our immigration system is stupid six ways from Sunday, but I'm not convinced that law enforcement shouldn't be able to fetch criminals from private property provided that they're reasonably damned certain that they're criminals. I'm not sure your wonderful Sheriff Joe is capable of living up to that critical little bit and I think the law is absurd overkill, but I don't think the basic principle of your argument holds water.

  • http://evilredscandi.blogspot.com Evil Red Scandi

    To clarify, it sounds like you're trying to make your private property completely sovereign. While that does sound like an attractive proposition in many respects (cool - I could have a nuclear deterrent for my home protection), it effectively makes law enforcement next to impossible. One could set up "criminal havens" right in the middle of downtown Phoenix (assuming they don't already) where wanted criminals stand in the windows and thumb their noses at the police. It'd make for some great television, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want it in my community.

  • Smack MacDougal

    Your viewpoint could be valid only under the Constitution minus the 14th Amendment and without the applied Collectivism of income taxation redistributed to collectivists in these forms: Medicaid, Medicare, Social(ist) Security, farmer subsidy, corporate subsidy, and the like.

    If you were to end collectivism and citizenship, then you could have open borders as the Founders intended.

    You cannot have it both ways though. You cannot have open borders, hence no illegals, and then dole out collectivist spoils upon new entrants, their aging relatives and the like.

    In short, you have not thought your position through because you do not get design and the subsequent outcomes from design.

  • IgotBupkis

    > Forging these IDs would become a major “you really don’t want to do that” offense.

    Yeah, 'cause they might, like, throw you out of the country before letting you back in ten minutes later...

    We do have the system you describe, Greg. It's called a "Green Card". You could possibly argue in favor of increasing the number of Green cards, but that's not what you're looking for, you're looking for a free pass at the border. Because, after all, we know the Mexican policing system is so great that any "criminal background checks" one might do which can be cleared off in a few hours are going to be fully accurate... right?

    > The thing to realize is that the US is a relatively young democracy

    LOL, me: The thing to realize is that the US, while as "a nation" is comparatively "young", the US Federal Government is currently the oldest government of a major nation on the face of the earth which has not been through a major change since 1789. Yes, that's true. The closest other national government is that of Great Britain, which has gone from a pure monarchy to a parliamentary figurehead monarchy in that time. France, Russia, China? One or more major and radically restructuring revolutions. Any South American nation? Didn't exist, PLUS "ditto". Germany, Italy? Did not exist in their present form. Keep going. I cite that any nation which has an older government than that of the USA is hardly a significant actor on the world stage. It's easy to be "stable" when you're not significant to the world's events.

    Further, you are in error -- As a democracy, we are also the oldest one currently around by far. The Founders did more than revolutionize the nation, they revolutionized the perception of government as a whole, and whence from its power derived, when they created the USA. They were the first democracy of the modern era, and, at 220+ years, one of the oldest in known human history.

    The Founders did something not just "right", but amazingly right. We fiddle endlessly with its strictures, structures, and natural power balances with impunity when we should be treading lightly and with great concern.

    > with political actors more concerned with obtaining, exercising and exploiting power relationships than fair play or any semblance thereof.

    Which was the weakness to Democracy that the Founders knew from the start, and attempted to place all manner of obstacles to such actors. This is not an artifact of our Democracy's age, but an artifact of ALL GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEMS. The foxes always want to get free run of the henhouse, and they are rat-shrewd in figuring out ways to do so. It is up to the sheepdogs to prevent them. Our sheepdogs have been asleep far too much of late. It's about time we kicked 'em in the ass and got busy fixing the fox holes in the coop.

    > but US conservative policy keeps the country unstable as it does for much of the Americas.

    Oh, yes, it's all America's fault. It has nothing to do with the rampant corruption endemic to Mexico that prevents Rule of Law and Respect for Property Rights, the known measures of a rationally functional economy.

    Corruption isn't an institutional thing, it's an individual thing. As long as officials keep taking bribes, you're going to have corruption. The trick is figuring out how to get rid of the corrupt ones.

    It's just another thing, like "black economics", which depends largely on the promotion of the Leftist Victimhood Meme. The LVM is responsible for more human evil and misery than all the corporate wrongs in the 400+ year history of the institution of "corporations".

  • IgotBupkis

    > If you were to end collectivism and citizenship, then you could have open borders as the Founders intended.

    Just because the Founders did not set up substantial restrictions on borders did not mean that they didn't grasp the fundamental need or right of a nation to protect its borders from undesirable actions by foreign nationals, including flooding the nation with people who have no interest in becoming Americans, but only in sharing of the bounty its systems have created -- either directly, through work, or indirectly, through government benefits.

    America did well for a long time by encouraging unrestricted immigration, yes. But it also had rules and procedures, many of them not formal, for socializing the immigrants and making their children, if not them, into Americans, rather than "x-hyphenated-Americans". One could be proud of one's heritage and still self-identify as an "American". The casual acceptance of different nationalities side by side in the military during WWII showed that America was truly a polyglot culture. People were Americans first. Where their parents came from was a distant second. We can say this far less now thanks to "multiculti". In some cases, you can't say it at all.

    This "x-hyphenated-Americans" result is a direct outgrowth of the multiculti cancer, which says assimilation isn't needed or desired. It encourages idiotic groups like La Raza to claim that Mexico properly "owns" California (after all, the Hispanics in Mexico rightfully and properly gained possession of Mexico from the indigenous people... right?) because the deal which sold Cali to the USA was much, much less just than that created by the Conquistadors... mmm-hmmmm.

    Unrestricted immigration was fine as long as the people who came here wanted to be Americans. This is not the case any longer in many instances, and almost certainly in the case of many illegals. There are illegals here whom I would happily recognize as "Americans", but they are those who show a clear understanding of America, of the importance of personal responsibility and individuality involved in the American Idea, and demonstrate none of the sense of entitlement that many illegals (and even some, if not many, US Citizens) have.

    =====================================================================
    Analogy:

    Do you want to have sex with a gorgeous (by your definition) woman? (feel free to reverse genders in this as needed for personal sexual preferences)

    Yeah, you and a hundred million other guys...

    The USA is a rich and gorgeous woman to the "impoverished men" of the world. ALL of whom would happily come here and partake of what we have. And it would be very nice if everyone could do so. Unfortunately, for that to happen it would ruin the USA no differently than a spectacularly obscene mass gang shagging of such a woman.

    So the woman gets to pick and choose her suitors. Likewise -- the USA gets to -- indeed, must -- pick and choose HER suitors.

    'Nuff said.

    .

  • bob sykes

    The law will be struck down in the federal courts. A similar law forbidding renting to illegal aliens was recently struck down as an intrusion on the right of the federal government to enforce its own law.

  • Michael

    @JinTX

    I'm not big on the blame America first view, but social conservatives push for a war on drug and it's fought on the supply side while demand is ignored. 6000 to 7000 people are killed in Mexico each year with some connection to the drug trade. The drug cartels don't have a problem killing anyone they think might stand between them and getting their drugs to America.

    America needs to accept that there is always going to be people that use drugs. We should decriminalize drugs and demilitarize our police and focus our resources on helping people that want to quite using.

    I doubt it's going to happen since the war is big business.

  • me

    @IgotBupkis - spot on, thank you for calling me on this. I'll have to come up with a better explanation for the relative lack of regard for individual rights in the US compared to other democracies.

  • ADiff

    However much it corresponds with a great deal of public sentiment, Arizona's current 'War on Immigration' is very destructive to the state's economy, and costs a great deal in lost jobs, lost business formation, lost consumer demand, and increased input prices.

    Whatever it's emotional benefits, so broadly curtailing immigration is on balance economically negative.

  • mahtso

    I was unaware that there is a "War on Immigration." There is a concerted effort to stop illegal immigration. Is that what you mean?

    "Increased input prices" -- does that mean a fair wage? I am more than willing to pay more for produce or what ever else I use that is being produced with the labor of illegal immigrants. (Big Bad Sheriff Arpaio just arrested 21 suspected illegal immigrants working in 4 McDonalds; the owner of those restaurants reportedly lives in a mansion.)

  • Michael

    Wouldn't that be McMansion?

    I'd like to see the link to the article.

  • Ron H.

    Why do so many seem to have missed the point? I don't believe this post is so much about illegal immigration itself, as it is about Orwellian legislation aimed at controlling illegal immigration. Isn't anyone else disturbed by the following?

    "The measure allows police to detain people on the suspicion that they are illegal immigrants"

    That means police can detain you, or me, or ANYONE who's looks they don't like. In AZ, this will likely affect mostly people with brown skin, but that certainly isn't a limiting factor. ANYONE could be stopped and asked to "show us your papers". As Coyote asks, "Do I need to carry my passport when I jog?"

    Equally troubling is the following:

    "A bill empowering police to arrest illegal immigrants and charge them with trespassing for simply being in the state of Arizona"

    Does this mean that police can come onto my private property, and ask someone who is there WITH MY PERMISSION, to show their papers? AND if they can't provide proper ID, can then be arrested for trespassing without my filing a complaint?

    This isn't the kind of law we want in America. Even if it helped control illegal immigration, the cost would be too high.

  • Dr. T

    Issues of constitutionality would be avoided by changing the proposed law to one that allows police to arrest illegal immigrants who are on public property (which would include locally mandated sidewalks, public roads, public lands, public schools, etc.). Police would not be able to arrest illegal immigrants who on your property by invitation, but an arrest could be made as soon as the illegal immigrants stepped onto a sidewalk or drove on a road.

    This type of policy should have been followed since the very first time we regulated immigration. If we did not plan to enforce immigration restrictions, then we never should have created them. I'd be happy to see all restrictions on immigration disappear, with the caveat that non-citizens are not eligible for government entitlements, benefits, or representation (that is, their numbers cannot be included when apportioning representatives).

  • me

    The more interesting question to me is - could police conduct a search of my private property if they feel that there might be persons they suspect to be illegal immigrants? "Sir, we saw a very tanned looking person enter your apartment five minutes ago. Please step aside while we rip your belongings apart, and your civil rights a new one."

    @Dr T - excellent point about the law and enforcement. I am convinced that unenforced laws end up creating functional anarchism.

  • http://stopthebreathing.blogtownhall.com/ astonerii

    Dr. T:

    You propose to get rid of the immigration restriction, then claim anyone who does immigrate cannot be counted on the census, or partake in government entitlements and benefits. How would you propose to enforce this? The census does not take any information that can verify the citizenship status and I doubt many Americans are looking forward to having some personal ID number attached to the census form. Most government entitlements and benefits do not verify citizenship right now. These non citizens will use the Health Care Industry and cause a strain of at least demand and likely a drain on monetary resources as they will not pay for care.

    No, Our border needs to be secured to keep other cultures from over running our very successful culture of personal freedom, personal responsibility and personal productivity. Our culture is already in significant decline due to culturally destructive multiculturalism pushed by the progressive liberal socialists. Our language is being attacked by multilingual requirements. Our personal responsibility culture is under attack by the socialist entitlement syndrome driving the health care deform efforts. Our personal freedom is under attack in order to provide for all the entitlements. Finally destroying our productivity because the progressive method of funding said entitlements is progressive taxes and regressive subsidization. Making more money through hard work and creativity begins to get you less overall.

  • Ron H.

    @DR. T

    What you suggest would be an improvement, as it addresses the private property issue.

    "Police would not be able to arrest illegal immigrants who on your property by invitation, but an arrest could be made as soon as the illegal immigrants stepped onto a sidewalk or drove on a road."

    But, part of the problem remains. How do the police determine the person they are looking at is an illegal immigrant? can a person still be detained for no reason other that to determine citizenship?

    Trespassing on public property? That's a strange idea. Various vagrancy laws have been tried, in attempts to deal with "undesirables" in public; but trespassing? I wonder what the status of people who live in other states would be?

    You're right that there shouldn't be laws that aren't enforced.

    @me

    "could police conduct a search of my private property if they feel that there might be persons they suspect to be illegal immigrants?"

    Now, that IS a scary thought. I would like to think not.

    I think we have little to worry about, as this legislation isn't likely to survive court challenges. Immigration is a federal matter, and not within state authority.

  • Michael

    This could be then new trend in conservative law enforcement. Arresting people because a crime might occur. Check out what Dallas is up to.

  • http://http//www.tinyvital.com/blog John Moore

    Warren, on this issue you do not live in the real world. I agree with other posters that we need to protect our national sovereignty, and that means keeping out people who do not have permission to come in. There are literally billions of people who would love to come here, and we do not have the ability to absorb them. It's as simple as that. Reality trumps extreme libertarian ideology in this case.

    As to the immigrants themselves (mostly Mexican in AZ). The first generation of Mexican immigrants tend to be the sort of folks we'd like to have a citizens (except for their lawbreaking coming here). The many I have met have mostly been hard working, supporting a family (or town) back home, and nice folks. BUT... the 2nd generation has a high level of social problems, and the 3rd generation is even more dysfunctional. Whatever the cause, we are developing a permanent Hispanic inner city dependent and crime ridden population, where your property rights are a joke unless you outgun them (you can probably out-shoot them, but there are lots of them), and even your right to life is subject to the whim of some gang banger.

    Until we can solve this problem (and it is NOT caused by the illegality of the immigrants - check out the history of Phoenix' 9th Street Gang - multiple generations old), we have to crack down - even though some of this sounds too draconian.

    What you are seeing is the population reacting to the foolish policies and their consequences caused by the alliance of the left and, in this case, extreme libertarians.

  • Dr. T

    astonerii:

    "Dr. T:

    You propose to get rid of the immigration restriction, then claim anyone who does immigrate cannot be counted on the census, or partake in government entitlements and benefits. How would you propose to enforce this? The census does not take any information that can verify the citizenship status and I doubt many Americans are looking forward to having some personal ID number attached to the census form. Most government entitlements and benefits do not verify citizenship right now. These non citizens will use the Health Care Industry and cause a strain of at least demand and likely a drain on monetary resources as they will not pay for care."

    I proposed removal of immigration restrictions. I did not propose open borders. Immigrants would need to be registered and identified. They would have to pay taxes. They would not have the same rights as citizens. Our census process and our entitlement eligibility rules ALWAYS should have distinguished among citizens, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants. This should be fixed regardless of changes to immigration policy.

  • http:www.uscivilflags.org Kevin

    The argument seems a little thin. Arizona as a border state has it's hands full with illegal immigration. Let's get real here. It is fairly easy to tell the difference between an illegal Mexican and an English speaking American. With all of the laws to complain about as for the infringement on property rights, this one seems relatively harmless. Let's talk about forcing me into commerce for a product I do not want need or could possibly derive any benefit from