From Fear to Fact: U.S. Citizen Arrested for 'Driving While Latino' in Arizona

Sounds to me like you're already experiencing the same quandary that "good Germans" did when confronted with whether they should help Jews, Gypsies, Poles or others deemed by law without rights.

Obviously, it discomfits you. But like most of those Germans, personal security, threatened by the state, had to take priority... or you could end up being treated the same.

It seems those who say that these laws all make Christian charity illegal... are right, after all.

The stakes are so high in all this that I cannot apologize for standing firm against it in the strongest way. I do not want to later stand in the same position of those who bore such guit later on because they did nothing, out of a fear of personal loss.

Oh, yes, I have worked and travelled in Arizona. I have been "pretext-stopped" on the highways and subjected to false traffic charges as an "excuse" - a very standard police procedure in Arizona. I can't imagine that the acceptance of such abuses and the inherent racism I have seen, with restraint removed as to any probable cause at all being needed, will not result in anything other than a whoelsale abuse of rights.

We can't say these probabilities don't exist, given facts and history. Sadly, our history is all too replete with the worst excesses caved into under the mildest of provocations, over and over.

Here I stand. Choose this day whom you will serve. You cannot serve two masters, else you will hate the one and love the other.

Driver's licenses are not legal evidence for proving lawful presence.

This is the whole argument as to why a national ID card, like the Soviets or the Nazis had, is so necessary now in America. We need a centrally standard bureaucracy to determine, as Sarah Palin, says, who "the REAL Americans are" and all must carry internal passports to travel.

Driver's licenses are not legal evidence for proving lawful presence.

This is the whole argument as to why a national ID card, like the Soviets or the Nazis had, is so necessary now in America. We need a centrally standard bureaucracy to determine, as Sarah Palin, says, who "the REAL Americans are" and all must carry internal passports to travel.

How about our own economic and advantageous trade policies that have roiled Latin American countries, forcing rural inhabitants off their land and without any source of income, forcing economic migration?

All the things occurring aren't happening in a vacuum and our own actions - or those of our own financial elites - have tremendous impact on events.

A CNN report showed that here in the USA, a quarter of all produce picked domestically is by those under 14 years old. Labor laws established in the 1930s exempted agriculture from all the protective laws established for every other kind of work. It is not illegal in these United States for a child as young as eight years old to work 14 hours a day in the fields. And as the report showed, they do - and they are the same "illegals" we love to hate - while we gorge ourselves in comfort on their labor. I think we justify our hatred of them by telling ourselves they are bad so that it will seem just that they are subjected to this and we can continue in our own comfort. You see, for many reason "they" make "us" uncomfortable.

We have this mindset in America - that it's OK for us to go anywhere in the world, without permission or control, whether to lord it over others economically or militarily - we reserve the right to only ourselves to kill whomever we choose - while we see ourselves as so pristine and pure compared to the "evil" "lawless" poor and hungry in our own hemisphere who simply seek to come here for just the same reasons our own ancestors did.

How about our own economic and advantageous trade policies that have roiled Latin American countries, forcing rural inhabitants off their land and without any source of income, forcing economic migration?

All the things occurring aren't happening in a vacuum and our own actions - or those of our own financial elites - have tremendous impact on events.

A CNN report showed that here in the USA, a quarter of all produce picked domestically is by those under 14 years old. Labor laws established in the 1930s exempted agriculture from all the protective laws established for every other kind of work. It is not illegal in these United States for a child as young as eight years old to work 14 hours a day in the fields. And as the report showed, they do - and they are the same "illegals" we love to hate - while we gorge ourselves in comfort on their labor. I think we justify our hatred of them by telling ourselves they are bad so that it will seem just that they are subjected to this and we can continue in our own comfort. You see, for many reason "they" make "us" uncomfortable.

We have this mindset in America - that it's OK for us to go anywhere in the world, without permission or control, whether to lord it over others economically or militarily - we reserve the right to only ourselves to kill whomever we choose - while we see ourselves as so pristine and pure compared to the "evil" "lawless" poor and hungry in our own hemisphere who simply seek to come here for just the same reasons our own ancestors did.

Are you referring to the passage where Paul tells Philemon to welcome Onesimus "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother" and to "welcome him as you would welcome me"?

The Code of Conduct is clearly for comments. Some commenters engage in name calling and character assassination toward contributors and toward other commenters.

Thank you for sharing this story. We must get beyond the politics of this -- and other issues -- to address the myriad of problems, whether it be free trade, the drug cartels in Mexico, corrupt L.A. politicians. Being a bleeding heart can take us just so far....thanks for reaching out in compassion.

I have to make a comment here, because I feel this news story wasn't thorough enough. Yes, it's a scary situation to be in, but I wonder why the driver was asked for ID in the first place? I also would like to point out that for a grown man who was born in Fresno, his accent is extremely thick and I think that might have been a cause for concern when the officials were questioning him. On the other hand, I think it's obvious the man in question's wife has been raised in the United States. I grew up with countless children who were born to immigrant parents, and even though the majority of them were fluent in the tongue of their parents' countries, and socialized with people of their cultural heritage, even to the point of going to special schools on the weekends, it was obvious that they grew up within the educational system and were active and engaged members of my community.
I would also like to say that as a traveler to AZ, it is extremely frustrating to be held up in a check point along the highway when I am within the United States. These check points are not permanent and can be set up wherever the officials choose to. It causes a delay for me but I tell myself that things are spinning out of control if they have to go to those measures. Nobody should be able to judge the people of AZ unless they have experienced the tragedies of illegal immigration firsthand, as "AZ MISH" has.

Perhaps someone at SOJO might look into how the Navajo Tribal police treat undocumented immigrants from Mexico. I have relatives who are undocumented immigrants from Mexico who live just on the northeast border of the Navajo Nation. When my relatives travel across the Navajo Nation they are in constant fear of being pulled over for being a Mexican on the Reservation. Being a Mexican on the Reservation results in immediate deportation to Mexico

Even leading conservative Republicans, such as Lindsay Graham, have stated that their reading of the law has led them to believe that it is unconstitutional.

As Noonan observed, citizens and fully documented citizens of Latino descent overwhelmingly despise this new law. The feds aren't comfortable enforcing a law that a huge number of voters despise, just to appease the worst instincts of a vociferous segment of Anglo voters, although they are loathe to not please them somewhat either.

Like Prohibition, laws that are polarizing and lack consensus, create huge problems to enforce for elected officials, and simply lead to more and more crime due to non-compliance and non-enforcement, open flouting of despised laws and a general disrespect, lack of trust in and fear of law enforcement.

The idea that a free society can exist, even under democracy, where the stated intent is to get a bare majority to force the minority to one's will by the application of dominance and force, is a highly mistaken one.

The problem is that immigration reform is impossible. The side that wants enforcement of removal - but not enforcement of protections in the law that are routinely ignored - clearly also does not like even legal immigration and wants to shut that off as well. So non-Anglo citizens and legal immigrants really can't realistically side in any numbers with anyone other than the undocumented - anti-immigrant activists want to make life difficult for every immigrant, when we judge by deeds of their legislation.

And this law in Arizona is no different. If it is not to be draconian to all - then it has to be draconian only to some, based on apparent national origin or "race." I find either unacceptable.

Good ends CANNOT be achieved by bad means.

It is highly doubtful any nativist skinheads - whose insensibilities make them supporters - will ever be subjected to it. We are, for better or worse, known by the company we keep. The best way not to be thought of in this way, is to repent of laws so hostile to traditional and constitutional American liberties - which are supposed to be in force for ALL people. Even those formerly ruled only 2/3 human, or whom the White House only several years ago ruled not "persons."

Even leading conservative Republicans, such as Lindsay Graham, have stated that their reading of the law has led them to believe that it is unconstitutional.

As Noonan observed, citizens and fully documented citizens of Latino descent overwhelmingly despise this new law. The feds aren't comfortable enforcing a law that a huge number of voters despise, just to appease the worst instincts of a vociferous segment of Anglo voters, although they are loathe to not please them somewhat either.

Like Prohibition, laws that are polarizing and lack consensus, create huge problems to enforce for elected officials, and simply lead to more and more crime due to non-compliance and non-enforcement, open flouting of despised laws and a general disrespect, lack of trust in and fear of law enforcement.

The idea that a free society can exist, even under democracy, where the stated intent is to get a bare majority to force the minority to one's will by the application of dominance and force, is a highly mistaken one.

The problem is that immigration reform is impossible. The side that wants enforcement of removal - but not enforcement of protections in the law that are routinely ignored - clearly also does not like even legal immigration and wants to shut that off as well. So non-Anglo citizens and legal immigrants really can't realistically side in any numbers with anyone other than the undocumented - anti-immigrant activists want to make life difficult for every immigrant, when we judge by deeds of their legislation.

And this law in Arizona is no different. If it is not to be draconian to all - then it has to be draconian only to some, based on apparent national origin or "race." I find either unacceptable.

Good ends CANNOT be achieved by bad means.

It is highly doubtful any nativist skinheads - whose insensibilities make them supporters - will ever be subjected to it. We are, for better or worse, known by the company we keep. The best way not to be thought of in this way, is to repent of laws so hostile to traditional and constitutional American liberties - which are supposed to be in force for ALL people. Even those formerly ruled only 2/3 human, or whom the White House only several years ago ruled not "persons."

We can debate about the new law. It doesn't seem like a fair or just one. However, I just heard a COPS officer speaking to a class of fifth graders about gangs that L.A. is out of control with gangs. Most of them are Latino. Apparently, the LA School District will now divide up school attendance areas not based on area lived or race, but by gang involvement. It's lovely to work with Latino families and children; it's my job. But we must also be cognizant of the "side effects" of open borders. At what cost to the system? I believe that Latinos are among the hardest working people in our country today. But they also come from countries that have different legal standards -- bribe the cop? --and have to learn how to work within our system. I've also read a book written by a Latino who travelled to Michoacan to write about immigration issues. He notes science has found Latinos indigenous culture can become addicted more easily to alcohol than other races. We need to tackle the problem holistically and not just continue to give it a certain spin ala Rush on the Right and Sojo on the Left.

Don't you think that the point was Paul addressing Philemon (the slave-holder) and challenging him to see the original and future vision of God, and the cosmic reality inaugurated by Jesus of Gal. 3:28? I'd say the message was: let's start thinking beyond our limited cultural norms to the vision of the kingdom. The fact that Ignatius of Antioch refers to Bishop Onesimus (many agree that this is the same Onesimus) would suggest that Philemon did take Paul's hint and emancipate him.

What the Navajos do, and what Mexico does, and even whether Ms. Harper as a contributor violated the Code of Conduct for commenters is totally irrelevant to the subject of Ms. Harper's current blog. Did, or did not, Arizona police arrest an Hispanic truck driver for not having citizenship papers, even before the AZ law took effect. If they did, it was an egregious violation of the trucker's rights. If they did not (and no one has suggested that in the comments, at least in those I have read, then there is a case against Ms. Harper and the Sojo blog.

Perhaps someone at SOJO might look into how the Navajo Tribal police treat undocumented immigrants from Mexico. I have relatives who are undocumented immigrants from Mexico who live just on the northeast border of the Navajo Nation. When my relatives travel across the Navajo Nation they are in constant fear of being pulled over for being a Mexican on the Reservation. Being a Mexican on the Reservation results in immediate deportation to Mexico

I'm curious, whether do you go to register as a hate group. I know it's picky but there is a distinct difference between a group that registers itself as a hate group (of course this does not exist) and one that someone else considers a hate group.

Sorry, what the Navajos do I guess just doesn't fit the narrative I guess selective outrage is the order of the day.

With regard to the truck driver, the story is incomplete at best.

1. Perhaps the truck driver worked for a Mexican trucking company and the agreement that allowed the trucking company to operate in the US required that its drivers present identity papers.

2. Perhaps the truck driver had been a victim of identity theft and the authorities were double checking the truck driver's identity.

Further, the video states that the truck driver was stopped at truck scales. Not randomly pulled over as Ms. Harper's post implies.

Lisa writes that, "Without federal standards, states are free to enact their own unjust immigration policies." The problem isn't a lack of federal standards, it's that the federal standards aren't being enforced. Many crimes are committed in Arizona such as drug smuggling, drug related murders, human smuggling, child abduction simply because it is a border state. The federal government has abdicated its responsibility to control the border so the people of Arizona have taken it into their hands to try and get a handle on things. It's definitely not an ideal law and from what I've read there are some areas in which it overreaches. A lot of it comes down to what "reasonable suspicion" means legally. These will be things for the courts and the AZ executive branch to work out. But I don't like the tone of this column...calling people "bottom dwellers," and comparing Arizona to Nazi Germany, South Africa and the slave-holding South. There are countries in the world today that require people who aren't citizens (including federal laws of our own) to carry "papers." Any of them could have been used as an example instead of Nazi Germany. We need to think clearly here and not get all hyped on emotion. Which leads to my second point...

While Abdon's situation certainly sounds bad, it took place before the new law has even gone into effect, so the officers who detained him weren't acting under authority from it. They were either acting under authority of current law or acting outside of the law. Let's not conflate things here.

Ms. Harper violates the "Comment Code of Conduct."

Ms. Harper identifies certain people as "bottom-dwellers."

Specifically, Ms. Harper violates that part of the code of conduct that says: "I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt."

Ms. Harper, why not go down to the border and pass out bottles of water to every immigrant who crosses? I heard about a woman in KC -- I think -- who gets up at 4:00 every morning to make pbj sandwiches for the local homeless. Why not do the same for those crossing the border?

I'm curious, whether do you go to register as a hate group. I know it's picky but there is a distinct difference between a group that registers itself as a hate group (of course this does not exist) and one that someone else considers a hate group.

And it does not correct injustice, to simply extend the same injustice to everyone, so that it is not "discriminatory."

Isn't it appropriate that those who seek to deprive others of basic constitutional rights, must require to accomplish that that they themselves no longer enjoy them either?

It is better to let 99 guilty go free, than imprison one innocent unjustly.

Oh, wait, now we have the 1% Cheney/Palin doctrine. We have to treat one percent possibility of guilt, 99% doubt of guilt, the same as certainty of guilt - because "the stakes are so high." The innocent are acceptable collateral damage in our fight for "freedom." I've been told that myself by authorities.

My wife is a brown-skinned immigrant from Mexico who is now a naturalized citizen. She plans to travel through Arizona this summer with her Mexican citizen mother. No marginalization at all.