by Brian Brady
Commercial Real Estate Finance Expert
Structured Debt and Equity
Licensed Real Estate Broker in AL, CA, and FL
I’ll say it out loud; I like that Arizona Immigration Law. I was initially unclear about it but I read the text , alongside the text of the 4th Amendment. For me, it boiled down to what an “unreasonable search” is and what is “reasonable suspicion“. At the end of the day, I have to trust that the law enforcement officers will follow both the letter and the spirit of the law.
That’s not why I like this law so much. I support open borders. As far as I’m concerned, let anyone come into this country…only after we have abolished all the silly federal subsidies like health care, public education, and welfare for all. Until we do that, we have to ration those silly programs and the litmus test of citizenship seems a reasonable enough hurdle for that rationing.
I like it because a state had a problem, couldn’t get the Federal Government to enforce its laws, and decided to take matters into its own hands. This law was more powerful than nullification or secession because it asserted the state’s sovereignty, while being in full compliance with the Federal statute. It worked within the system and exposed the system for the folly that it is.
I like it because it is the Bunker Hill of the American Evolution. Notice I didn’t use an R in that word. I’m optimistic that reason will triumph over irrational thought in The American Evolution. There will be no violence nor bloodshed in the American Evolution but there will be a test of wills. I’m watching it unfold right now:
Arizona made a law. A few California cities and a Texas city decided to boycott Arizona, for enacting that law. No conventions, no trade, no money whatsover, from these “progressive” cities, for the “racists” in Arizona. Sadly, my city followed San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Austin in the boycott. Pretty stupid, huh? Well, California politicians live in a narcissistic bubble. The past California influence on the world’s economy has afforded them the luxury of doing what they want, in SPITE of local businesses.
…until today.
San Diegans are yelling “Psyche” to the Zonies because our government’s “censure” has consequences. A summer without Zonies, while appealing to the surfers, is NOT appealing to the businesses… you know, the ones who pay all the bills in San Diego. A chunk of Arizonans will summer in Flagstaff, Prescott or the Mogollan Rim rather than dump their dollars on our Southern California beaches. Do you blame them?
It could get worse. Imagine if Arizona Public Service (which owns Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station) told the City of Los Angeles to buy its electricity somewhere else. They could refuse to sell water to Los Angeles as well. Arizonans could push back and California, with its economic fragility, could get hit pretty darned hard without power or water. That doesn’t bode well for the incumbents come November.
This is all very sad but necessary. Words do have meaning and actions do have reactions. States and cities, which meddle in other states’ affairs, should suffer the consequences of that meddling. The Arizona economy, beaten down by this recession, has nowhere to go but up. Arizona’s immigration legislation really is a public safety measure. When gangland turf wars and human trafficking move from Arizona, to the more “friendly” cities in California, Arizona tourism will rebound and take market share from its westernmost cousins.
Moreover, the protesting California cities are hypocritical. The extolled “sanctuary city” of San Francisco is actually reporting immigrants to the Feds when they get fingerprinted…but you ain’t hearing about that on MSNBC. California, which has a higher risk of defaulting on its debt than Lebanon, would do well to cultivate its own garden rather than scream about what Arizona grows in its.
Yet, I still live in California. I moved here from Arizona and have no intention of leaving. I’ve always said that I’m optimistic about The Golden State and today, I have Arizona to thank for that optimism. All of this silly little posturing is kicking off the Great American Evolution. Immigration is the very small issue which will be the shout heard round the world.
Reason will triumph in the end.
PS: I’m gonna miss you Zonies, at the track, this summer but I’m hopeful that your absence will force new ownership. Either way, y’all can count me in next summer.
Alex Cortez says:
I won’t get into the politics of it all (that could go on for a while), but it’s funny how so many people (my wife included) are so quick to judge the Arizona law as being racist without knowing much about it. The ‘progressive’ states/cities are acting anything but. Good post.
May 15, 2010 — 2:50 am
Don Reedy says:
Bravo.
May 15, 2010 — 5:59 am
Jeff Brown says:
pligg — Wondering you think there will be consequences to CA’s responses to AZ’s new law? For instance, do you think both states’ real estate will be impacted one way or the other?
Don’t answer this question with a question, please. It’s a simple question, lookin’ for an answer in plain English. Much thanks.
May 15, 2010 — 10:44 am
Kelley Eling says:
Well, Brian, it certainly took you a long time to answer my question and now I can see why. Thank you for your thoughtful answer. I agree with you and support SB1070. Hopefully the Federal Government will start upholding their own laws and the “sanctuary” laws will be abolished.
BTW, I read the entire text of SB1070 and nowhere does it mention any specific group of people, other than “illegals”.
May 15, 2010 — 11:22 am
Julia says:
You are white, that’s why you have the luxury “to trust that the law enforcement officers will follow both the letter and the spirit of the law.”
May 15, 2010 — 11:37 am
Damon Chetson says:
What Julia said.
This law is pernicious. Of course the plain text of the law isn’t necessarily offensive, but if you know anything about 4th Amendment as it actually works in the real world and this law, then it becomes sort of obvious its effect on the real lived experiences of human beings living in Arizona.
May 15, 2010 — 12:46 pm
Greg Swann says:
> if you know anything about 4th Amendment as it actually works in the real world and this law, then it becomes sort of obvious its effect on the real lived experiences of human beings living in Arizona.
Stipulate the point. Then what?
The gradual nationalization (actually, national-socialization) of the health care business makes it stone obvious to everyone that, someday soon, every elderly person’s life will persist — or not — subject to the whims of a death panel. Meanwhile, every other business in the United States is being national-socialized, and the individual liberties of American citizens are being chipped away one by one.
Nothing will change in Arizona. The card-check law passed two years ago was far more consequential. But these public displays of affected dudgeon are meaningless. The world is in flames and busy-bodies everywhere are aghast that the Arizona State Legislature is playing with matches.
If the very publicly outraged opponents of this law actually cared about human liberty for everyone, not just for a pet identity group, they would have an enormous number of laws to protest against before they got to this one.
This nine-day media sensation was organized by professional propagandists, but it would be nothing without a vast horde of useful idiots, mooing along with the herd without even knowing they are being manipulated by experts.
My hat is off to Brian for taking this on. I’ve ignored it, both the law and the hysterical reaction to it, because it is completely inconsequential. Deck chairs on the Titanic. And that is the actual objective of the professional propagandists, to distract the American people from what is really happening to their liberties.
May 15, 2010 — 2:23 pm
Brian Brady says:
“What Julia said.”
That’s not why I like this law.
May 15, 2010 — 12:56 pm
Julia says:
“That’s not why I like this law.”
Sure, but if you ‘like the law’ you are tacitly supporting the fact that this WILL happen. Over and over again. Play a little game where you describe an illegal immigrant without using terms that refer to race, ethnicity, language or anything else that isn’t *in itself* perfectly legal to be or do. You can’t do it. So what are the police supposed to use to determine suspicion of being an illegal immigrant where no other criminal action exists?
If there is an *action* that someone is *doing,* well then stop them based on that illegal action. And then you don’t need the truly offensive parts of this legislation.
Don’t like a lack of enforcement at the federal level? Fine, criminalize immigration status at the state level but don’t give the police carte blanche to violate the civil rights of citizens. That’s what this law does and that overrides anything that anyone might ‘like’ about it.
I love my 4th amendment freedom as an American, but I don’t want it if that freedom doesn’t apply to everyone and you shouldn’t either.
May 15, 2010 — 1:42 pm
Jeff Brown says:
I suspect some folks who dislike this law are also the ones who think it’s racist for us to profile those who blew up the twin towers as 18-35 year old males from the Middle East. At some point we have to stop playin’ house, and start playin’ real life.
May 15, 2010 — 1:47 pm
Julia says:
Ummm, it IS racist to profile 18-35 yr old males from the Middle East as terrorists. When you make assumptions about someone based on their race or ethnicity rather than their words or actions that’s kind of a text-book definition of racism. If you want to do that, at least own it and admit that’s what it is.
I haven’t seen anyone advocating profiling for middle aged balding white guys since Joe Stack flew a plane into a government building.
May 15, 2010 — 2:02 pm
Greg Swann says:
> I haven’t seen anyone advocating profiling for middle aged balding white guys
That would be Janet Napolitano, Obama’s National Ineptitude Czar.
May 15, 2010 — 2:40 pm
Jeff Brown says:
And some don’t see the humor in political correctness. 🙂
May 15, 2010 — 2:05 pm
Arn Cenedella says:
Brian
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and the idiot politicians who rule in the Bay Area and CA want to boycott Arizona for the new law.
From where I sit, the Bay Area and CA have enough problems like BILLION DOLLAR deficits and 9.5% sales tax rates, and failing schools that would anyone in CA to criticize Arizona shows an unbelieveable amount of hubris.
I saqw a poll that said nearly 67% of all American favor the new law.
Despite what the libs will say, this is NOT racist – it is a matter of fair play and equal treatment for all.
My grandparents on both sides of my family immigrated to the US in the early 1900s. They followed ALL THE RULES. So my question is, why shouldn’t today’s immigrants follow the rules to?
Many things have gotten totally backwards in this country. Time for a change. Time for some common sense.
Trust me, the idiot politicians in CA can’t take care of their own state much less tell AZ what to do!
May 15, 2010 — 2:38 pm
Brian Brady says:
“Sure, but if you ‘like the law’ you are tacitly supporting the fact that this WILL happen. Over and over again.”
The law is perfectly written; that’s why I like it so much. Your protest, Julia (and Damon) is with the enforcement of this law. The text of the Arizona law is more restrictive in enforcement than the Federal immigration statute so as to prevent race as probable cause.
The only way this happens “over and over again” is to have bad cops on the street. That’s not a problem with the law, it’s a problem with law enforcement.
Arizona’s law does two things:
1- Demonstrates that social services’ rationing is mandatory in a society that steals from one group of people to buy votes from another.
2- Proactively exercises a state’s sovereignty. That’s the real reason I like this law.
“I’ve ignored it, both the law and the hysterical reaction to it, because it is completely inconsequential”
It’s a start, Greg. Any time we can demonstrate the folly that is collectivism, on a large stage, it’s a good day.
I know how to solve the illegal immigration problem, in design and enforcement:
1- Abolish the gov’t-sponsored, cradle-to-grave, social services. Illegal immigrants will run rather than walk home.
2- Encourage property owners to protect their property. Both the Federal and States Governments lack the resources (and will) to do the task which we delegated them. In short, they have failed at that task.
Julia, I imagine the next page from the playbook is to express outrage at my callousness for not wanting to “educate, clothe, and feed the children”. I’ll save you some time and outrage by telling to you that government has failed at those tasks while the free market (and churches) can do a much better job to meet those needs.
May 15, 2010 — 3:05 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Hey Brian — Wanna stop illegal immigration by say, around 4:03 Wednesday afternoon?
New Law: $10,000/day fine for employing illegal alien. Half the fine shall be awarded to citizen who reported the federal crime.
But then, we’d hafta be serious, right?
May 15, 2010 — 3:10 pm
Joe says:
Julia wrote:
You are white, that’s why you have the luxury “to trust that the law enforcement officers will follow both the letter and the spirit of the law.”
This one kills me. I guess being white means we are naive?
Funny thing is, many Hispanics are opposed to illegal immigration and support policies that curb the activity. Go ahead, Google, “hispanics against illegal immigration” and you will see what I mean.
May 15, 2010 — 3:32 pm
Sean Purcell says:
It’s a start, Greg. Any time we can demonstrate the folly that is collectivism, on a large stage, it’s a good day.
I know how to solve the illegal immigration problem, in design and enforcement:
1- Abolish the gov’t-sponsored, cradle-to-grave, social services. Illegal immigrants will run rather than walk home.
This is where I get lost Brian. I agree the only real answer is to abolish all gov’t transfer of wealth. (Although I don’t know that illegals would run home. I imagine they’d cross the border to work if the value trade was better than in their homeland. At the end of each day they’d cross back to be home with their family.)
But how do you “demonstrate the folly of collectivism” with more collectivism? To question a person’s “legal” status pre-supposes a superior right to be. In other words, if one is to question my legal status, one must (and you must and I must) assume that my right to exist, is subject to the declarations of the party questioning me. Does it really improve if the hand holding the gun is local and not federal?
May 15, 2010 — 6:11 pm
Sean Purcell says:
@Julia
When you make assumptions about someone based on their race or ethnicity rather than their words or actions that’s kind of a text-book definition of racism.
This type of thinking must get tiresome in the face of 10,000 years of evolution. Of all the survival skills we have inherited, the most powerful and oldest must be that of associative learning. This allows us to make broad, life saving decisions based on observations of smaller subsets. I.e.: everytime someone from the village eats that berry, they get sick. I will not eat that berry – not here in the village and not 100 miles away. I’ve learned without ever being sick myself not to trust a berry that looks similar. If a large majority of people performing an activity dangerous to me share a similarity, I will naturally learn that similarity and associate it with the dangerous activity. You might have learned this yourself in kindergarten, only then we worded it differently: “One bad apple spoils the whole bunch.”
The vast majority of terrorist activities directed toward America(ns) are enacted by the described subset. The vast majority of aliens in AZ are not blond haired, blue eyed Swedes – they are hispanic. Associative Learning teaches me to be wary of 18-35 year old males from the Middle East when boarding a plane. All your wishing will not overcome such a powerful and useful tool of survival, nor should it.
May 15, 2010 — 6:30 pm
Brian Brady says:
“But how do you “demonstrate the folly of collectivism” with more collectivism?”
Is is more collectivism or protectionism? I’m trying to illustrate that the product of transfer of wealth has to be rationed and enforced with violence. I think I know where you’re heading and I’m not willing to concede that a completely voluntary society, as you and Greg might define it is the answer. I’m not willing to rule it out, either.
“I imagine they’d cross the border to work if the value trade was better than in their homeland.”
This is a problem, perhaps THE problem with my open borders idea. Not all countries play by the same set of rules. This is why I can’t necessarily levy the entire blame on the American businesses which hire illegal aliens (which is why I didn’t second your motion of the $10,000 fine, Jeff).
When government imposes taxes, regulations, and laws upon domestic businesses (which is a transfer of wealth) and doesn’t apply a countermeasure of tariffs on imported products, domestic businesses are at a competitive disadvantage. It is natural that they will seek to minimize labor costs to remain competitive.
The big question is do we restrict labor or trade to solve that inequity? Maybe we completely abandon all gov’t interference on economic activity.
May 15, 2010 — 7:22 pm
Jim Klein says:
Brian, I’d ask you to ponder your last comment in order that you might see the problems with Pragmatism. These sorts of quagmires–trying to “level the playing field”–are inevitable when particular ends are considered outside of wider principles. Also inevitable, owing to the hierarchy of all cognitive action, are rotten results even when the particular ends seem so reasonable.
This is what got us into this mess. Not every politician is an idiot, and many of them sought to produce “better results” by arguing for this or that action, based on the results that could be anticipated. Besides the obvious problem of unintended consequences, there’s the far greater problem of engaging means which by themselves are in violation of higher principles than whatever ends were intended by the means.
And unfortunately (or is it fortunately?), this is /always/ the case when the means involve coercive action against a volitional being. It is treating a thing as it is not, and that can /never/ move a person forward. This is what Gregg has been saying for an awfully long time, and he is right. It will never happen that we can coerce the “right” set of rules upon others. Indeed, you should see that the current situation is built of precisely this mistake…the belief that globalization of the rules (oh, and maybe a few taxes!) will somehow take us to Utopia. I’m sure you see the folly in that, and I’m just asking that you understand that you’re basically thinking along those same lines, in a fundamental manner.
This doesn’t address your opening essay. I have nothing to add about which agents with which guns stop which people from doing what, where.
If you want tomorrow’s dawn to be different than yesterdays, then you’d better dig up another Sun!
May 15, 2010 — 8:14 pm
Sean Purcell says:
The big question is do we restrict labor or trade to solve that inequity?
No. And neither do we forget that to restrict labor is to restrict trade.
Maybe we completely abandon all gov’t interference on economic activity.
While I know you well enough to know that you also see that as the one and only answer; let’s pretend someone, somewhere doesn’t:
If a large, corrupt association of people (let’s call them, oh… the government), is allowed to impose themselves on my freedom through taxes, regulations and laws, the answer is not giving them more power to “balance the scales” through tariffs and boycotts. At the very least the answer is to do nothing and allow myself and other free market individuals decide for ourselves where best to live, work, buy and sell. Even with all the theft by government, I may decide I benefit most by staying. Or, I may believe it better to set up shop across the border and benefit from selling my labor and products to a large, huddled market of sheep willing to cede effective control of their freedom to a corrupt association in return for promises of nanny-state security (which, unsurprisingly, ends up looking like even greater control over freedom). In either case, the answer to finding yourself with a man’s boot on your throat, is not to have him place his other boot on your crotch in order to create “balance.”
May 15, 2010 — 8:20 pm
Brian Brady says:
“I’m sure you see the folly in that, and I’m just asking that you understand that you’re basically thinking along those same lines, in a fundamental manner.”
I know I am and it’s bugging me, Jim. Comments encouraged.
“While I know you well enough to know that you also see that as the one and only answer”
I didn’t two hours ago, Sean but you watched me come to what I believe is the only solution. Ayn Rand once said that there should be separation of State and Economics akin to the separation of Church and State. Let’s just say I’m have a (temporary) crisis of faith tonight.
May 15, 2010 — 10:03 pm
Joe says:
I have another thought on this. The Arizona bill was signed into law almost a month ago. I’ve yet to hear of one, not even one, human rights violation! If the law is a bad one and will violate civil liberties, don’t ya think there would be at least one case among the millions of Hispanics in Arizona? I concur with most of the folks here in that the law is just (a good one), as the folks enforcing the law will respect the rights of Hispanics. I’m waiting for one human rights violation, as we all know there are bad police officers out there, but to date, there has not been one reported incidence of the Arizona law violating someone’s rights (even among the ‘bad’ cops).
Btw, this Arizona Republic article is an interesting read: Tide Is Turning In Favor Of The Arizona Immigration Law Apparently, folks are coming to realize the law is a good one, and trust the Arizona police to exercise discretion. And again, the Arizona police (and Border Patrol) have done their job faithfully.
May 15, 2010 — 10:05 pm
Missy Caulk says:
Been waiting on someone to post of this from my blogging friends that live there or (use to live there)
My thought all along is that States have a right to inact laws for their states. If you read the law, which was written with a challenge in mind…nothing wrong with it.
Smoke and mirrors to those who haven’t taken the time to read, the lame stream media.
May 16, 2010 — 4:42 am
Kelley Eling says:
Here is the actual text of SB 1070:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
I think all those debating it should read it.
May 16, 2010 — 10:37 am
Greg Swann says:
May 16, 2010 — 11:41 am
Don Reedy says:
My father used to refuse to debate issues with me when I came home from college on breaks. This ticked me off, as I wanted to show him how intelligent, worldly, and astute my observations had become from hanging out in the hallowed halls of intellect. He refused, I presume, because he was not as well read, and was simply a WWII vet who had rolled up his sleeves, raised a family, loved us all, and honestly believed that what the NY Yankees were doing clearly outweighed any concerns I might want to raise about capitalism, social misdeeds or philosophical matters.
We were both wrong.
That’s at the heart of this discussion, or lack thereof. In these many comments are the seeds of discussion of our understanding of ultimate justice, our views on the indignation of governments and the personal rights of their citizens, the very issue of citizenship, obfuscation with regard to the facts of the discussion, references to bigotry, honest reflection, purposeful harm versus purposing to do right, and the stated purpose of Brian’s post, that being that he likes the law because it likely effects a change within our current set of rules that otherwise seemed unlikely to occur.
I think that the Holder cartoon speaks to how we should scale back our anxiety and fervor, since it appears factual to me that our nation, our political system, our very value system, is now operated by the fox in the hen house. There’s no way to get rid of this fox, since once you’ve established a dole (rather a free lunch) that’s so easy to get there’s no reason for the fox to change. There’s no way to convince the chickens that they should start fighting back, and that they should reflect on the chapters of history that show capitulation always results in the worst possible outcome.
We’ve become, as a group, incapable of doing what Brian has done. Think. Speak. Listen. Reason. Contemplate. Speak. Redo.
I have reasonable suspicion to believe this is true, and I think I and the citizens of Arizona have the right to codify those beliefs.
And sorry, Brian, but my thoughts are not evolutionary. They are sadly become revolutionary in today’s politically incorrect environment we call the good old USA. Wish it were otherwise……..
May 16, 2010 — 12:38 pm
Louis Cammarosano says:
“1- Abolish the gov’t-sponsored, cradle-to-grave, social services. Illegal immigrants will run rather than walk home.”
Brian that assumes that illegal immigrants come to the US to receive social services.
Perhaps many illegal immigrants come to the US for economic opportunity, not social services.
In your hypothetical if free social services and governmental subsidies (medicare, SS, mortgage guarantees via Freddie and Fannie)were elimiated along with excessive taxation and runaway deficits, immigrants, illegal or other wise would flock to the US for opportunity, not benefits. And we all might be better off as a result.
May 16, 2010 — 6:07 pm
Cheryl Johnson says:
“We’ve become, as a group, incapable of doing what Brian has done. Think. Speak. Listen. Reason. Contemplate. Speak. Redo.”
One start to reversing this unfortunate trend might be to send a link to Brian’s post here to all your local politicians and media outlets. Send the link with a courteous, non-argumentative memo inviting the recipient to read, consider and possibly even join the discussion.
May 17, 2010 — 4:27 am
Cheryl Johnson says:
Question: Has anyone published a neutral, unbiased side-by-side, line-by-line comparison of the U.S. Federal law to the Arizona law? If so, could someone please post a link?
May 17, 2010 — 6:51 am
Brian Brady says:
“immigrants, illegal or other wise would flock to the US for opportunity, not benefits. And we all might be better off as a result.”
I don’t disagree with that. We’d also have to stop paying for our competitor nations’ defense, disguised as strategic assets.
@Don- Thank you for the kind words. I initially opposed this bill and then combed through it, after it became law, and didn’t hate what I read. We (California) are making a huge mistake with this “boycott”. We run the risk of alienating a very friendly neighbor and wrecking our economy…more.
May 17, 2010 — 7:14 am
Greg Swann says:
This letter is just thug versus thug. But it’s funny…
May 18, 2010 — 12:57 pm
Susan says:
Thank you, thank you Brian for this post. The Arizona Immigration Law is good, fair and makes perfect sense.
We have to start somewhere, its out of control.
May 17, 2010 — 7:47 pm
Brian Brady says:
“This letter is just thug versus thug. But it’s funny…”
The next one will be one from the CAP. It may be thuggery but California politicians really need to be knocked down a peg. I’ll restate that I’ve never been more optimistic about the Golden State’s renewal and I have AZ to thank.
May 18, 2010 — 4:38 pm
Cheryl Johnson says:
2Brian – KNX News Radio in L A has an interview with the letter’s author, Gary Pierce, this am:
http://www.knx1070.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4669180
May 19, 2010 — 7:09 am
Teri Lussier says:
Racism deals with beliefs of superiority of one race over another. This law is nothing of the sort. Discriminatory? Potentially.
I’ve been pondering this law for a bit and believe I’ve finally come to an opinion (yeah, big deal everyone’s got one).
I like the AZ law for one simple reason: This is an AZ problem, an AZ bed of their own making and I for one am very happy to not have to bailout AZ. Thanks Gov. Brewer, you have made a bold attempt to do the right thing in cleaning up after yourselves.
May 22, 2010 — 7:23 pm
Joe says:
I started a thread over at Squidoo regarding the Arizona law issue. At present, there are close to 100 comments and 1400 views of the thread. On that forum, conservatives are in the minority, so I’m kinda taking a beating. If you visit the thread you’ll see I’m firmly on the side of the Arizona law, as we need to do something to stop the insanity. Regardless of what side a person is on, this video (part 1), and this video (part 2) will have an impact on your stand. Both videos are a must see regarding controlling our illegal immigration problem. In one of the videos, the video places as many as 20% of those crossing the border illegally are from Arab countries and are known to have terrorist ties. I’m thinking of 9/11 right about now. I wonder if we had tougher immigration laws we would have a couple more buildings standing with thousands more good folks working inside them.
May 23, 2010 — 11:20 am