FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Immigration, Civil Liberties and the Drug War

Arizona’s horrid law empowering cops to demand that people show their “papers” when suspected of being in the country without government permission holds an important lesson for both so-called progressives and conservatives. It’s a lesson about a seemingly separate issue: drugs.

Concern about illegal immigrants along the Mexican border would undoubtedly diminish if the “war on drugs” ended. (It’s not really a war on drugs; it’s a war on manufacturers, merchants, and consumers of certain drugs.) Drug prohibition in Mexico and the United States has not made the drug trade disappear. It merely turned the trade over to violent gangs. That is how prohibition always works. By definition, black markets are illegal, which means people with grievances can’t sue or call the police. They take “justice” into their own hands. The ensuing violence inevitably injures and kills innocent bystanders. If the violence is perpetrated by Mexicans and spills over the border, or if it drives villagers to seek safety in United States, the affected American communities will be tempted to blame foreigners, particularly illegal aliens.

Ending prohibition would bring the drug trade into normal commerce and under the control of social mores similar to those that govern alcohol. Just as we don’t have turf wars and other violence surrounding the liquor and tobacco industries, we would not see it in a legal drug industry.

That in itself would defuse much of the animosity toward Hispanic immigrants.

Moreover, ending the black market would shrink drug profits, which are now used to buy sophisticated weapons for drug gangs.

Now let’s tie the drug issue back to progressives and conservatives.

Progressives portray themselves as sympathetic to immigrants, legal or otherwise, although there is a group that thinks the competition with American workers is unfair. Progressives also regard themselves as civil libertarians and therefore are not happy with the Arizona authoritarian law. (Aside: If they are upset with that law, why do most progressives give Barack Obama a pass on his Cheneyesque policies regarding enemy combatants, indefinite detention, and assassination?)

But if progressives are so concerned about civil liberties, why are they not attacking the war on drugs? Not only does prohibition violate the civil liberties (not to mention property rights) of every legal resident; it also foments hostility to and suspicion of illegals. That hostility in turn leads to policies that erode everyone’s civil liberties. It’s not only immigrants who will have to carry papers in Arizona. Anyone likely to be questioned (read: anyone with brown skin) will have to carry an ID if he wants to ensure he will not be detained.

What about conservatives? Years ago they might have been counted on to protest an ID requirement. Now they seem to have no problem with a state requirement that one produce papers on demand. Rush Limbaugh says that Democrats oppose the Arizona law because having to show an ID will make it hard for them to stuff the ballot box with illegal votes. Are we to infer that Limbaugh (who speaks for many conservatives) therefore favors empowering the police to demand an ID on the mere suspicion that someone is in America without government permission?

That’s not the only problem for conservatives. They repeatedly raise alarms about the threat to gun owners, but they stubbornly refuse to see the connection between the war on guns and the war on drugs. As noted, the black market spawns well-armed drug gangs. Police have complained that they are outgunned by these gangs. This in turn has fueled the anti-gun movement. Indeed, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that one way to combat the Mexican drug violence is to crack down on the flow of guns from the United States into Mexico. We know what such a policy would mean.

Progressives and conservatives, wake up! The war on drugs undermines civil liberties and the rights of peaceful gun owners, not to mention the freedom of Hispanics to move freely. If you mean it when you say you care about freedom, you will demand a halt to drug prohibition. Your own proclaimed values are at stake.

SHELDON RICHMAN is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) and editor of The Freeman magazine.

WORDS THAT STICK

 

More articles by:

Sheldon Richman, author of America’s Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited, keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society, and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com.  He is also the Executive Editor of The Libertarian Institute.

Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail