The 14th Amendment is Going to Cage Us All
Posted by Ross Kenyon on May 12, 2010 in Feature Articles • 9 commentsWith all of the hullabaloo about Arizona these days over SB1070 and racial profiling, one should not be surprised when the government humbly capitulates to the will of the people, vows not to discriminate, and instead begins asking everyone for their papers in the form of national biometric identification cards. My experiences as a part of the Arizonan coalition against this bill have been especially interesting and have seen Americans divided and conquered by the political elite once again.
I go to school at Arizona State University in Tempe, which is a few miles east of central Phoenix. A sizable handful of libertarians including myself have been very active in the protests against SB1070 at the state capitol and elsewhere. In my observations, there have been very few non-Latinos who care enough about the bill’s passing to show up in protest. By virtue of our being present, us mostly white libertarians were racially profiled and asked many sincere questions by Latino individuals regarding who we were and why we cared about the bill’s passing, as we would not be directly impacted or negatively profiled.
We outlined the nonaggression principle for those we spoke to and summarized the idea that as long as one is being peaceful one should be left alone. We stated that it doesn’t matter what color, ethnicity, region of origin, or any other secondary characteristic one possesses, but that purely by being nonaggressive, individuals should be free to make choices for themselves on where to live and who to voluntarily associate with. We handed out thousands of fliers on this message and generally received a very pleasant welcome.
It was not all lovely and earnest welcoming though. I flew my Free State Project Gadsden flag and occasionally donned a Guy Fawkes mask, which created a mixture of genuine intrigue and warrantless scorn. Many people assumed I was there in support of SB1070 because protestors who supported restrictive immigration policies showed up with Gadsden flags earlier in the week to demonstrate before loud crowds with megaphones scared them off to the indictment of “white supremacist!”
One lady called me a teabagger, and one gentleman told me to go fuck myself. I kindly alerted him that I was there in opposition to the bill, to which he replied, “Oh, let me grab a flier then!”
This really bummed me out. Any individual who flies a Gadsden flag against peaceful immigration and freedom of movement is so terribly confused that it breaks my heart. It is the equivalent of flying a black flag for statism. What else could “Don’t Tread on Me” mean besides “I want to be left in peace?” The deradicalization of this flag as symbolized by its vulgar use in the Tea Party Movement (when not flown by principled libertarians who sporadically pepper the Tea Parties) means another radical symbol has been moderated; another element in the language of revolution has come to stand for blasé reformism and some vague idea of what a ‘just’ government should be.
Personal Gadsden-flying experience aside, the great bulk of the rhetoric opposing this bill at the rallies and through the media has come to focus on racialized enforcement of the law and racial profiling. Despite reassurances from SB1070 sponsor and state senator from Mesa Russell Pearce that “Illegal is not a race, it is a crime,” law enforcement is given quite a long reach to determine what is reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegally. This will realistically mean that day laborers soliciting their agorist services, individuals speaking Spanish in public in an English speaking country, and eating at Filiberto’s could be construed as reasonable suspicion of undocumented immigration status. Brown individuals in Arizona have already been detained and arrested for not having proof of their citizenship while ‘in’ the country. My friend was asked for his documents while out drinking at Tempe’s local hot spot Mill Avenue by a cop on a Segway in a goofy but intimidating display of force.
This racialized enforcement will be short-lived however. By focusing on the racial profiling aspects of this bill, activists neglect to address the fact that in its benevolent spirit of fairness the state will agree to treat us all as equals under the 14th Amendment and will soon be arbitrarily asking for the documents of all citizens. Yes, the old familiar libertarian fear of “Papers, please,” will soon be coming to Arizona.
Obsessing over racial profiling is a good way to scare up support. A solid chunk of Americans instinctively recoil from what is presented as a racist policy and oppose it on those words alone, but this is but one small nibble of the immigration chimichanga. This focus obscures larger menaces that loom ahead.
I am far from the first to note that the state created an immigration problem through the welfare state. When Arizona utilized its 10th Amendment rights to enforce immigration restrictions to protect their racket from becoming overburdened, the country at large responded in outrage. Democrats in full Hegelian majesty are now swooping in to save the country and undocumented immigrants through biometric national ID cards and equal enforcement of mandatory identification statutes in accordance with the 14th Amendment. The ability to remain anonymous in what is still a relatively open society is drying up. Aw, shucks. Look at the feds protecting our privacy and well-being. Their concern is really quite touching.
This being primarily a racial issue illustrates the ways in which the debate has been framed to exclude from public discourse the sovereign nature of the individual, the downfall of welfare statism, and the irrationality of closed border policies. Without tackling these core problems, repealing SB1070 will be just another example of politics as rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.
If you are an activist regarding this issue, please join me in attempting to steer the debate away from the focus on racialized enforcement and to rally people against closed border policies and statist invasions of privacy. Otherwise the 14th Amendment is going to back us straight up against the fence of the equal opportunity cattle yard.
C4SS Research Assistant Ross Kenyon serves on the Executive Board of Alumni For Liberty, on the Board of Directors of the Association of Libertarian Feminists, and is an essayist with the ALLiance of the Libertarian Left. He is interested in questions of culture, being, language, and community.
“My friend was asked for his documents while out drinking at Tempe’s local hot spot Mill Avenue by a cop on a Segway in a goofy but intimidating display of force.”
I would be interested in learning more about this particular incident. It seems irregular that Tempe police are now hassling people on Mill Ave. I am also annoyed by the implicit request of “do you have identification?” as if a person’s word is not vouch enough. (I rarely carry identification as I don’t need it.)
A little off the main topic, but isn't the "Free State Project" inherently statist? That's my reading of their Mission Statement, anyway. They call for a smaller government, but still government, nonetheless.
Not necessarily, cmadler. I'm not involved with it, but it's my understanding that it's coalition-style—i.e., open to minarchists and anarchists alike. Whether that's the best idea, I can't say with certainty; but it's not inherently statist. See Free Keene, which seems to be the anarchist enclave of the project at large.
Ross, thank you for joining those soon to be first affected by the recent immigration legislation and understanding that legislation like this has more than just the potential to affect those with brown skin.
The "macro" issue of immigration legislation like SB1070 has always been more than racialized enforcement and more rooted in economic border politics. However I don't think you're going to get far with the concern of statist invasions of privacy. I just don't see it highlighting the correct framing that we need steering the immigration discussion. I see the value in it bring other people with other framing to the table in opposition to this legislation but I'm also afraid of the other values your organization brings with it.
For one your talk of nonaggression omits your relation to property and all the violence that comes with drawing lines in the land (what is the difference between a countries border and a line that says this is your land) and circles around resources?
We cannot afford for any living thing in this world to pretend they are free from their society, or land base, no matter how peaceful they pretend their independence is. You cannot pretend your actions do not affect those around you. As long as you live in a living breathing world sustainability will never grant you that freedom. I'm sorry but you're going to have to be a "slave" to your land base, and be forced by the tyrannical oppression of nature to live within the means of your land base with respect to those living around you.
So then because the immigration situation is based beyond racial issues and rooted in economics – like Mexicans and Latin Americans being economically driven off their land, priced out of their own markets, and bleed dry from interest payments, so much that they forced to leave their homes and cross the US border, I don't think framing the issue with your flyers in a way that calls on privacy issues but still highlights libertarian economic policies messes very well.
I recognize that the economic policies responsible for Mexico and Latin Americas situation is a mess of Neoliberal, Libertarian, and Washington Consensus ideas enforced by politicians, IMF, WTO, NAFTA and certain corporations, and that your breed of libertarianism may not be directly related to any of the actions put on by these political bodies. However I don't believe the debate, the people, or the land benefits from any kind of libertarianism.
But again thanks for coming out in support to the opposition of Immigration legislation like SB1070. I'm happy to work with you in opposition to legislation like this however I believe the two movements have radically different end goals.
I feel like libertarians ultimately want an end to government, while I (i wouldn't feel right speaking for a movement) want a government to recognize their economic role in Mexico's and Latin Americans situation maybe grant people amnesty as economic refugees and then conduct future economic relationships with respect to the people involved and especially the land.
From the Free State Project mission statement: "The success of the Project would likely entail reductions in taxation and regulation, reforms at all levels of government to expand individual rights and free markets, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world. " (emphasis added) That's a pretty clearly statist mission statement.
I wasn't doubting the mission statement, cmadler; I was saying that the effective "on the ground" result was coalition-based, and allows for both anarchist and minarchist views.
See takes on this phenomenon from George Donnelly, James S (of Anti-State), and from the horse's mouth.
“The Free State Project has no political platform or membership dues”, Sorens stated. “We have participants who identify as conservative, classical liberal, libertarian, anarchist, voluntaryist, you name it. The things we care about are: Do you want more liberty and less government? Are you willing to work toward it? Are you going to be a good, neighborly person in your community? If so, the Free State Project may be just what you’re looking for.”
Again, I'm not saying it's the right way to go (or that it's not); I'm simply saying that it's inclusionary.
It is correct to insist on privacy. If police can stop anyone to ask for proof of status, then all of us, citizen or not, white or brown, must carry papers and answer snoopy questions – not because there is any reason that we have done anything nasty like rape, murder, or theft, but merely to "prove" that we have a right to be left alone.
That's not the society I want to live in. If you feel a mad urge to get felt up and prodded by men in uniforms, there are brothels which cater to that sort of perversion. The rest of us should not be pulled into this farce.
WRT the FSP. The Statement of Intent:
"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."
Certainly that would (and does) include those who believe in no government. As pointed out Keene is a hotspot for agorists / voluntarists / anarchists.
The one regret I have about this piece is not being more clear about what I meant by the welfare state.
I do not only mean a state that gives material aid to the poor and/or one that provides socialized services. I am also referring to the equally important feature of being able to petition the state in order to advance one's interests at the expense of others through the state's coercion.
Protectionist and xenophobic (probably redundant) market actors in America are certainly included in what I mean by the welfare state, and not merely those who benefit from socialized services while being full or partial free riders.