About | Archive | Blog | Featured Content | Films | Library | Links

New "Tool" for Police is New Weapon Against the People

Libertarian and Green Parties Stand in Opposition to the Creeping Police State in Arizona



Poli-Tea
Third Party Opposition to the Two-Party System
April 28, 2010

So long as the fourth amendment continues to be blatantly disregarded by the ruling political class, law enforcement officials and the public at large, no one in the United States is safe from the abuses of power and authority that result from the non-symmetrical relations of power inherent in all interactions between the people and the police, the individual and the government. Arguing in favor of Arizona's new immigration enforcement regime, supporters of the measure return to two main talking points: the new law is a "good tool" for law enforcement, and the new law "takes the handcuffs off of law enforcement" allowing them to "do their jobs." The sponsor of the State Senate bill, Russel Pearce, brought the two memes together in an interview with Greta Van Susteren, stating:

Enough is enough! We're a nation of laws. This doesn't change any -- all I've done, very simple, is I removed the handcuffs. Now, I've been in law enforcement most of my life, have two boys in law enforcement. I believe handcuffs are a great tool when they're on the right people. We're going to take them off law enforcement.

Of course, the apologists of the surveillance society and national security police state are always keen to obscure the real nature of their proposals. Every such new "tool" in the hands of law enforcement is, first and foremost, one more weapon that will be wielded against the people of the United States by the agents of their government. It is a tool of harassment and intimidation. Consider, for the sake of comparison, the uses to which the taser has been put by police since this new "tool" was put into the hands of law enforcement.

The Green Party and Libertarian Party have come out strongly against the new law. In a statement on its website, the Arizona Green Party decried the creation of an "apartheid state" in the American southwest:

The Green Party-US stands firmly for social justice for all those living in this country, regardless of their immigration status. Above all, policy and law must be humane. Anything less would be inconsistent with our Green Values, and with our nation's values. . . . The signing of Senate Bill 1070 has created an apartheid state here in Arizona. The Arizona Green Party (AZGP) will organize with others to help overturn this legislation.

Similarly, the Libertarian Party has taken a strong stance against the new law and the creeping police state. On Monday, the Executive Director of the LNC, Wes Benedict, warned against what we might call a "blame immigrants first" mentality. Numerous Libertarian Party officials and candidates for elected office in Arizona have also come out strongly against the law. At IPR on Sunday, I relayed a statement from an Arizona Libertarian candidate for nomination for governor, Bruce Olson, applauding the law in no uncertain terms, which quickly provoked staunchly critical comments from other Libertarians. Among them was Barry Hess, who is also seeking the Libertarian nomination for governor in the state. Hess wrote:

Bruce displays the thought process I see all the time in disgruntled Republicans. He makes it clear that he has no interest in forwarding the libertarian philosophy, but decided to ’sign up’ for easier ballot access.

I have since contacted two Libertarian candidates for US House in the Grand Canyon State, Nick Coons and Joe Cobb, to inquire as to their positions on the new law. Coons is running for Congress in Arizona’s 5th Congressional District. Queried via email, Mr. Coons writes that he "adamantly opposes" the new law, and that it “doesn’t address the problem, which is the lack of a reasonable legal immigration process." He concludes:

As a Libertarian, I adamantly oppose SB1070. Like most legislation, it doesn’t actually solve the problem and it causes a whole new set of problems that we’ll soon have to deal with.

I relayed Coons's response in full at Independent Political Report. Joe Cobb is the Libertarian candidate for US House in Arizona's 4th Congressional District and the Treasurer for the State Party. Contacted via email, Cobb states: "the recent law criminalizing Federally-undocumented residency in Arizona . . . is contrary to the prior rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, which held such State laws as invalid." Cobb previously addressed this issue in his run for Congress in 2008, and holds that illegal immigration is effectively a "victimless crime". Cobb has written that the immigration issue is the very reason he is running for office:

I am running for Congress this year to change America’s immigration laws. Our congressman, Ed Pastor, has not done anything I can detect to solve this problem, which centrally affects Arizona’s 4th Congressional District.

We need to repeal the immigration quota system for workers who want to come to Arizona to get jobs and produce more services, more goods, and more prosperity for all of us.

The only thing “illegal” about “illegal immigration” is that it violates the racist quota system. Read my essay, “Surely, this is a victimless crime!

Cobb notes parenthetically: "Actually, it is not a crime – not even a misdemeanor! It is a civil violation of Federal immigration laws."

Related Content

Immigration Policy

Judge Napolitano on the New Arizona Immigration Law
Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News Channel, 04.27.2010

Immigration: What's the Problem?
D. Gaking, Catholic Libertarian, 05.01.2010

Misguided Fears of Crime Fuel Arizona Immigration Law
Daniel Griswold, Cato Institute, 04.27.2010

Sponsors

Your Ad Here

IndyTruth
Education for Freedom

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the stories on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in its efforts to advance the understanding of public policy, world events, human rights, economics, and health. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE: IndyTruth does not make legal copyright claims to its original content, on the principle that readers should be able to freely spread information for educational purposes. If you repost anything, please respect our hard work by crediting the author and linking to the original source.