We Have Adopted a Socialist Definition of Property in Arizona

Arizona used to be a state that defended private property rights.  But in a single bill,  SB1070, we have thrown out private property in favor of community property.   We have officially established the principle that the state can tell us who can and can't be on our private property.

A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

Trespassing used to mean presence on property without the owner's permission.  Now the owner's permission is irrelevant, and trespassing is redefined as being present on private property without the government's permission.  The state takes this new definition so seriously that no parole may be given for people who violate the law.

Conservatives gave up on the sanctity of contracts in this context years ago, making it illegal to hire the person of one's choice for a job if that person does not have the proper licenses and paperwork from the government.

Remember, Conservatives traditionally are not anti-authoritarians anti-big-government, they are just in favor of use and expansion of government authority in other contexts than those favored by Liberals.

  • DrTorch

    Aiding and abetting a criminal has always been a criminal offense.

    Taking things to your logical extreme, then each piece of private land is it's own autonomous government.

    I think it's safe to say that the founding fathers never envisioned such a definition of private property. Surely you have rights to your property, and on your property, but there were always limits.

    But, thinking through the logic of your case, you simply have spiralled down into each piece of property now engaged in either international conflicts or agreements. If a bigger, stronger gov't takes your land, dem's da rasberries.

    Staying with an ethic that you favor, I'd say that as you choose that path of isolationism, you're likely to end up in an area of restricted trade. If you aren't self-sufficient (including water, food, power, sewer, etc) then you're in a bind, b/c a gov't does have the right to restrict trade w/ enemy states.

    I always figured there may be some large ranches that could survive autonomously. But the average suburban home, or even farm, is out of luck. And that's _with_ the ethical system you propose. A system, I'll point out, that has not been built from first principles.

    You can discuss and debate the limits of gov't, but even within your system, the results aren't really any different.

  • sethstorm


    Conservatives gave up on the sanctity of contracts in this context years ago, making it illegal to hire the person of one’s choice for a job if that person does not have the proper licenses and paperwork from the government.

    That's not so much a question of contracts as it is ensuring they are indeed eligible for work.

    You just want to get them on a disposably cheap wage.

  • Dewey

    "That’s not so much a question of contracts as it is ensuring they are indeed eligible for work."

    The notion of 'eligibility for work' is about as ridiculous as 'eligibility to sell one's car'. So in that sense, yes, I might want a deal on a car that someone wants to sell, even if the government thinks that cars, at minimum, are worth $10K to the selling party. It's not desperation to want to sell a car at $8K, and it's not desperation to want to work for $4/hr. It's not callous to take the deal, in either case.

    (Yes the labor contract has a few tricky spots in it, but in terms of the labor contract, the analogy goes through).

  • sethstorm


    It’s not desperation to want to sell a car at $8K, and it’s not desperation to want to work for $4/hr.

    For cars, it's the record-keeping against car theft that makes it necessary. Selling a stolen car has the problems related to "adverse possession".

    For $4/hr, the likely applicants face a Hobson's choice in terms of work. Another point is that the wage gives the business has a lower incentive to ensure safety and a larger one to remove critics.

  • http://herdgadfly.blogspot.com/ gadfly

    Contracts that involve illegal activities are unenforceable and it is my understanding that Arizona law now classifies the hiring of illegal aliens as a felony.

    The Arizona law does nothing more than the Federal law that it mimics, except that it provides an enforcement mechanism. Mostly, the enforcement is mild. Being caught in AZ without proper documentation is merely a misdemeanor, which will get violators a ride to the border.

    Only liberals screaming "racism" and libertarians defending "individual freedoms" are upset. Illegals in the US are living in a shadow world, playing duck and hide with aurhorities, peeking out from behind covered windows, working for too-low wages and paying too much rent. For the good of everyone involved, this idiocy must be tackled head-on and when the dust settles, perhaps we can all live the American dream.

  • Joe

    So if I don't have my drivers license or my passport on me at all times, I'll get a ride to the border? I have to prove that I'm a legal citizen now? or maybe I don't have to since I'm white ...

    The cops don't have the right to demand I prove my citizenship without probable cause. And even then they don't have the right to demand I prove it _on the spot_. If that means they can't enforce immigration, that's their problem. That's the price we pay to live as citizens of a free society. And what a low price it is.

  • TakeFive

    I think this trespass on private property notion is a stab at the idea of "sanctuary". A suprising number of people still believe a church is lawfully protected sanctury from immigration enforcement.

    But really, how could you construct an argument where someone is trespassing in the USA, yet not trespassing on private land. Private land is really just a subset of the greater USA.

    As far as conservatives giving up on the sanctity of contracts, that's nothing compared to the date-rape contract law got when the liberals took over GM.

  • sethstorm


    As far as conservatives giving up on the sanctity of contracts, that’s nothing compared to the date-rape contract law got when the liberals took over GM.

    They'll break them if it means they score political points.

  • TakeFive

    Joe wrote:

    "So if I don’t have my drivers license or my passport on me at all times, I’ll get a ride to the border? I have to prove that I’m a legal citizen now? or maybe I don’t have to since I’m white …"
    .
    Well, not as the law is written:
    .
    "A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
    PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)."
    .

  • jkoerner

    It seems like this provision allows the police to go on private property anytime they want without a warrant as long as they see someone they "suspect" is in the country illegally. Since being on your property is illegal if they are illegal, then wouldn't a cop have probable cause if he saw a brown guy in my backyard? Through my window? The guy might be illegal, he looks mexican, so now the cop can come into my house because he suspects he is witnessing a crime (the potential illegal being present)?

    I agree that this is too much power in the hands of the police.

  • mahtso

    “….then wouldn’t a cop have probable cause if he saw a brown guy in my backyard? Through my window? The guy might be illegal, he looks Mexican [sic]….”

    I don’t know anyone who thinks that your example would provide probable cause. I’d like to know if you, jkoerner, think that being Hispanic creates a reasonable suspicion that a person is not in the county legally.

  • Joe

    TakeFive, as far as I can tell, as long as the suspect is not driving, then there is no practicable means of determining their immigration status.

    A cop can demand your name but they cannot demand you show identification unless you are participating in some other regulated activity under which your identity is required to be proven, such as driving.

  • jkoerner

    mahtso,

    I would say it does not create a reasonable suspicion, but with the past enforcement in Phoenix, it is appears that being brown was enough to get pulled over by Arpaio's cops while enforcing federal immigration law. I see no reason to assume that these cops will change the way they operate in applying state law.

  • Douglas2

    The way I read your post, you are arguing that if you want to have someone on your property, and the (small s) state finds it undesirable to have that non-citizen person in the country at all, your will should trump the law of the government?

  • Blackadder

    The way I read your post, you are arguing that if you want to have someone on your property, and the (small s) state finds it undesirable to have that non-citizen person in the country at all, your will should trump the law of the government?

    I believe the argument is that if someone is on my property with my permission, then he's not trespassing. He might be guilty of some other offense, but to say that he's guilty of trespassing is positively Orwellian.

  • zero wolf

    hmmm. that's quite an interesting little puddle of synchronicity, there. in pretty much the same week, the state of arizona "allows" it's citizens to carry handguns and single-fire small-arms - none of which are any real bother to a large group of trained, uniformed men operating under a paramilitary structure - and then, while everybody's feeling good about 'freedom' and all, they change the definition of...you know..."private property". that thing considered by most scholars to be the very fundamental *basis* of liberty.

    "giving" the proles pennies with one hand, and taking away their dollar bills with the other. waiting just long enough before they take until the headlines proclaim the wonderfulness of their magnanimous "give". how very odd. or am i just being cynical?

  • http://www.azecon.blogspot.com Scott

    Again, you're taking from the senate version of the bill rather than from the house modified version that actually passed both houses. In the passed version of the bill this section was changed to read:

    A. In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).

    This section basically makes it a violation of state law if you violate the same federal law.

    The trespass piece is gone.

  • anon

    Maybe it's time to move to another state?

  • morganovich

    blackadder has is precisely correct.

    "trespassing" implies "without permission".

    if i invite you in, you are not trespassing. this does not mean you are not guilty of being in the country illegally nor does being on my property shield you from arrest for such, but it does mean you were not trespassing.

    i'm curious how one would even prosecute this. generally, you have to press charges for trespassing. would the state press the charges against my wishes? that seems preposterous.

  • Gil

    Dang! DrTorch wrote what I was going to - apparently some think they can give sanctuary to criminals on their private property or that their private property is a higher authority such they can't be touched whilst on their private property. By such logic you could argue someone could kidnap someone else and lock them in their basement and the law can't do a thing because the private owner is a sovereign higher than law enforcement.

  • http://www.mbts-mbtshoes.com mbts-mbtshoes

    blackadder has is precisely correct.

  • ParatrooperJJ

    Fisrt, we haven't had private property for a long time. You rent it from the government in the form of property taxes. Second, if your property is within 100 miles from the border, immigtation agents can already come on to it without a warrant to search for illegals already.

  • http://www.azecon.blogspot.com Scott

    Allow me to reiterate - THERE IS NO TRESPASSING PROVISION in the bill as passed.

  • Gil

    Why is that so suprising ParatrooperJJ? Parliamentary (democratic or republican) government came about as a derivative of Monarchism - in other words a transition from private landownership to public landownership. Libertarians apparently take the "people are the masters and government are the servants" as if to mean private landholders are sovereign landowners and merely 'hire' the government as a security firm.

  • Che is dead

    What complete gibberish this post is. We have officially established the principle that the state can tell us who can and can’t be on our private property. The state has always denied you the right to harbor criminals.

    You seemed to have absolutely no problem with the "officially established principle" that the state can confiscate one's earnings in order to provide public goods to non-citizens. Where do you and your pseudo-libertarian friends get off demanding that I pay for the support of those you choose to allow on your private property? Get your fucking hand out of my pocket. This law is a defense of my private property!

    Remember, Conservatives traditionally are not anti-authoritarians anti-big-government, they are just in favor of use and expansion of government authority in other contexts than those favored by Liberals.

    And just how are you any different? You would have the government declare and defend your "right" to harbor criminals. You would have those criminals supported by the sweat of your neighbors, perhaps as a means of reducing the costs to your business and enriching yourself.

    America is not an accident, it has been built up over generations of blood, sweat and sacrifice. And the "American Dream" is only possible because of that effort. You do not have the right to issue visas, or to pass out American citizenship like party favors, and you never have. And if you think that your argument is going to result in an upsurge in "libertarian" support, you're dreaming.

  • Henry Bowman

    Coyote,

    You mention SB1070, but do not state whether the bill actually passed. What's the story?

  • Henry Bowman

    Conservatives gave up on the sanctity of contracts in this context years ago, making it illegal to hire the person of one’s choice for a job if that person does not have the proper licenses and paperwork from the government.

    This statement is incorrect, in my view. The sanctity of contracts, which is explicitly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, of course only refers to contracts that are legally entered into. If you contract to murder someone else, the contract isn't legal, nor should it be.

    Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1934 (Home Building & Loan v. Blaisdell), basically said that we are free to ignore the explicit statements in the U.S. Constitution -- one of the horrible decisions that occurred in the 1930s, discussed in some detail by Robert Levy in The Dirty Dozen.

  • http://www.azecon.blogspot.com Scott

    Henry, The history of the bill may be found at

    http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070o.asp

    The house modified version of 1070 passed the house on 4/13. The senate concurred on 4/19 and it was sent to the governor who signed it on 4/23.

    Note that it is the house passed version that made it into law. (Not the senate passed version that is linked in the original post by Warren.)

  • IgotBupkis

    > The cops don’t have the right to demand I prove my citizenship without probable cause.

    1) If you've committed any crime suitable for arrest, you have given them "probable cause" to demand you prove your identity. And yes, they don't have to release you until you do prove your identity or until they are satisfied that you're not a problem, whichever comes first.

    2) In re: 1, it has been a truism for literally decades now that, no matter where you are, no matter what you are doing, there is an ordinance under which you can be booked. Booked, not put in prison.

    Q.E.D, at all times, they pretty much have the capacity to demand you prove your identity, which, sorry, includes citizenship rather inherently.

    You can rail about the above, but this issue has nothing to do specifically with immigration.

    It's been in their powers all along for at least several decades, if not far, far longer.

    I believe that it became codified into laws and "appearing" when we actually started taking the exact law into account a lot more, starting around the 50s. Prior to that this stuff still occurred, it just happened "off the books".

    When you had beat cops and so forth, people usually knew who the good guys and the bad guys were, and hence who were "the usual suspects".

    Short of the general anarchy of the classic Wild, Wild West there was never anything matching the modern libertarian ideal in "civilized" places for most of the life of this nation. And, in the early parts, when it did happen to exist, there were still other means -- duels, for example -- for dealing with issues outside of the lawful forms.

  • me

    Property rights in the states are amazingly weak... eminent domain, anyone?