Posted on 04/24/2010 8:08:12 AM PDT by VU4G10
The Arizona legislature has now passed the toughest measure against illegal immigration in the country, authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
Logical fallacy
Informal
Vagueness
Slippery Slope
Alias:
•Argument of the Beard
•Fallacy of the Beard
Quote…
…[I]f once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination. Once begin upon this downward path, you never know where you are to stop. Many a man has dated his ruin from some murder or other that perhaps he thought little of at the time.
…Unquote
Source: Thomas De Quincey, “Second Paper on Murder”
Exposition:
There are two types of fallacy referred to as “slippery slopes”:
1.Causal Version:
Type:
Non Causa Pro Causa
Form:
If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.
Example:
If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public school, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools, and the next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers. Soon you may set Catholic against Protestant and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the minds of men. If you can do one you can do the other. Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding. Always it is feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers, tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lectures, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After [a]while, your honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth century when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind.
Source: Clarence Darrow, The Scopes Trial, Day 2
Analysis
This type is based upon the claim that a controversial type of action will lead inevitably to some admittedly bad type of action. It is the slide from A to Z via the intermediate steps B through Y that is the “slope”, and the smallness of each step that makes it “slippery”.
This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A and Z, and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections between adjacent steps. If there are many intervening steps, and the causal connections between them are weak, or even unknown, then the resulting argument will be very weak, if not downright fallacious.
Yeah, I can see a lot of potential for abuse of police power here. However, I am not sure how else AZ could have made this law and still have it accomplish anything towards getting hold of these illegals and getting rid of them.
Don’t make generalizations pertaining to where an individual lives. This is the behavior of Liberals.
But, to your point, Waco, Ruby Ridge etc., these were operations carried out by Federal agents. These are the LAST people I want to see stopping an individual because he looks “Mexican” (substitute the word JEW) and demanding his identity papers...
I DON’T want THIS administration to have this kind of power. They may say they are against this legislation, but you know damn well that they are licking their chops over the potential power it enables
You should know that this is the Obama-ites main argument against this bill: that only the federal government has the right to enforce immigration laws. So I ask again. What about states’ rights? Not being snarky (this time), but genuinely curious.
I don’t know specifically how they are different. It is my understanding that the Arizona act reflects the substance of federal immigration law.
And I don’t know how the feds can argue “preemption”—when federal law and state law conflict, federal law preempts state law—if Arizona’s statute mirrors the laws a. Congress passed and b. the executive branch and the attorney general are ignoring.
Holder, Zero & Co. are `between a rock and a hard place’ but I’m sure several of their best and brightest are working on some piece of jurisprudential genius that will explain that the Constitution is a `living, breathing instrument’ and some animals are more equal than others, and so forth and so on.
Well, as a current resident of South Carolina - (The YOU LIE State) I would hope that the intent of this would be that the States are doing what the Feds SHOULD have been doing all along - enforcing the law. I am seeing this across the country - States stepping up to the plate and saying, FINE, if you aren’t going to enforce the law, we will. The Feds are NOT enforcing the law. The Feds hands are tied by years of Liberal legislation that makes them no more effective than a frowning Nanny. And, the responsibility of the individual is also a necessary component of resolving this problem - DON’T hire an illegal. No money = no food. Go back home...
BUT, I have an inherent distrust of “Law Enforcement Agents”...
Arizona should institute a “catch and release” program for any freshly caught illegal immigrants under the new AZ bill.
Catch’em in Arizona.
Release them in Washington DC.
” Brewer definitely did the right thing by signing the bill but the lions-share of the credit for this bill goes to Russell Pearce who authored the bill, and the rest of the Arizona state congress for passing it.
By the way, Russell Pearce is one of those racists that has half-hispanic grandchildren. /sarc”
Thanks for the Post!
It looks like it so far.
I have an inherent distrust of “Law Enforcement Agents”...
Me too. But if Joe Citizen saw my handgun “printing” and told a cop, if Officer Wiggum asked me nice (hand on butt of his own gun would be OK) I would slowly (!) pull out my carry permit.
Problem is, I look a solid citizen. I doubt that police go up to many gang-bangers asking them if they have a permit.
The 4th Amendment doesn’t preclude searches incident to arrest or with probable cause. The problem is as you point out: when does it become `du papiel, bitte’?
Sonora and BC are practically war zones. I give the cops down there the benefit of the doubt.
Read the bloody law. There is no authorization to stop and check people because of their looks. The check comes when they are lawfully contacted for another reason. If we did adequate border security, we wouldn’t have to do border security farther inland. As they move and bring their problems to other states, those states will be looking to pass similar legislation. Don’t forget, illegals always have the option to GO HOME. In fact the US tax payers will pay for the ride!
As the old public defender says, limit yourself to one felony at a time and I can probably get you off.
The cars usually ended up on the hook, down to the impound lot.
I have seen this in action myself.
Back in the early 80’s, a number of Polish workers were employed at my company. One day, Federal Agents showed up and escorted an individual from the plant. Apparently, he had over stayed his visa. He was taken from the factory, driven to Boston’s Logan Airport and put on a plane back to Poland. He was NOT allowed to return to his apartment to collect his belongings. He was NOT allowed to contact relevant individuals as to his situation - car, plane, gone. As simple as that.
This is the LAW. We need to return to those days.
BUT, NOT apply the law because someone LOOKS like an ILLEGAL...
“...authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.
A LEO can “suspect” an individual of being here illegally for ANY number of reasons. Maybe he doesn’t LOOK like a Mexican, but what if he is speaking Spanish? Or, as in Germany, 60 years ago, maybe he was speaking Yiddish. Or, Hebrew...
Actually, I do fervently HOPE, that all 50 States adopt this legislation to mitigate the problem of illegal immigration. The Federal Government is NOT doing the job. I DO fear the power that this gives to ANY government agency vis-a-vis “suspicions”...
I think that has been because even liberal Dems will vote for Maverick Juan (Media, AZ) because they have no Democrat to support. IIRC, he ran unopposed on the (D) side last time.
But even these (D) voters do not like the effects of illegal immigration in the state, and did not support Juan's last attempt at “shamnesty”...
of course he won’t like it.....represents/is one of the 23%
It’s their home. They would know best and they should be permitted to have their legislature take the actions they deem necessary to protect their home and way of life. Good for `Zona.
That's funny; you don't read Jewish.
"Du" is nominative. You want the possessive, "Ihr", as in "Ihre Papiere, bitte."
“I approve” Ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.