EckerNet.Com

Since the Arizona immigration law, the response has been mostly positive, which isn\’t surprising considering the polls on the topic.  As usual, the open-borders crowd is trying to raise the body of Heinrich Himmler and prop him in front of a Border Patrol car, but beyond that the few complaints have been either been emotional (not logical) ranting or extreme distortion of fact.

Past couple of days, one \”attempt\” to make a real argument against the Arizona law has gotten some links….why I\’m not sure, since I\’m not even sure it qualifies as unpersuasive.  Basically it\’s arguments boil down to two different points.

1) Carrying documentation is hard and stuff
2) Federal immigration law is a slippery slope

Allow me to address both.

Carrying documentation is hard and stuff

The AZ law is apparently evil because before immigrants mostly had to worry about carrying their papers when they were likely to run into federal officers (border checkpoints, airports, etc).  Now they have to carry them all the time because they might run into law enforcement officials.

My response? Boo fricking hoo.

My somewhat more intelligent response?? It\’s a green card….you carry it in your wallet.  Problem solved.  I carry credit cards I haven\’t used in seven years just because I might need to one day.  Really this is no more burden than that.  It\’s a card, perhaps an ounce of weight.  Beyond that, it\’s a almost laughable burden for the privilege of being allowed to be here.

When I was on the radio last weekend, discussing this very immigration law, I had the privilege of several people calling in who were immigrants, one from Germany and the other I don\’t recall (if I was even told), and neither had any problem with having to carrying documentation, and according to their statements carried every day without trouble.

We ask people to carry a driver\’s license to drive and I don\’t hear anyone screaming about Nazis then…

Federal immigration law is a slippery slope

To be honest I\’m not sure if this is a real argument or something that was just tagged on the end as filler.  Apparently the argument is that asking someone to carry papers is a slippery slope and opens up to all sorts of abuse of freedom.

First of all, this \”slippery slope\” has been in place since 1940, and so far nothing has slid down it…which make me wondering how slippery or even \”slope-ish\” it could possibly be.  Again let me use the example of driver\’s license.  In order to drive, you need to have a license on you at all times to present if you should run into a law enforcement officer.  I must have missed the cries of Nazi and Facist on that.  And immigration isn\’t a right, it\’s a privilege, you get your rights after you become a US citizen….at which point you\’re not required to carry that documentation anymore.  So since this doesn\’t even apply to US Citizens, I\’m not sure how this is any sort of slippery slope….even less so than driver\’s licenses, which have hardly been the downfall of democracy.

In short, I welcome weak attempts like this at arguing against immigration enforcement.  As it demonstrates rather convincingly how weak the other side\’s argument really is.

[Crossposted at True North]