Why aren’t libertarians and tea-partiers complaining about Arizona?

Any Arizona cop can now demand “your papers” from anyone with a suspiciously brown skin or suspiciously Latino accent. But the libertarians and tea-partiers don’t seem to have much of a problem with this huge extension of the power of the state over the individual. Steve Benen has it right: “It’s almost as if the right-wing crowd is only offended by government abuses when they’re imaginary.”

The new Arizona immigration law authorizes any police officer who has “reasonable suspicion” that someone might be in this country illegally to demand that the person show documents to prove his right to be here. In other words, “Your papers, please?”

Even Joe Scarborough finds this “un-American.” But apparently Lincoln Diaz-Balart is alone among Republican office-holders in having denounced the bill.

And where’s that “anti-big-government” movement we’ve been hearing so much about about? Nowhere, as far as I can tell. The Arizona “your-papers” law doesn’t seem to be on the list of Tea Party grievances. Jacob Sullum at Reason Hit & Run objects to the law, but a scan of the Volokh Conspiracy and Instapundit came up with only one nasty reference each to people criticizing “your-papers-please” and no criticism of the underlying statute. You might have thought that libertarians would be at least as appalled by this unprecedented extension of state power as they are over red-light cameras, but apparently not.

Steve Benen has it right: “It’s almost as if the right-wing crowd is only offended by government abuses when they’re imaginary.”

Update Marco Rubio (who needs Cuban votes) has decided for consistency with the principles of limited government on this point.  Jeb Bush, too. That makes three Republicans from Florida, zero from the rest of the country.

Second update And, weakly, Lindsey Graham, who says (1) the Arizona approach isn’t the best; (2) it’s understandable that Arizonans want to do something if Washington won’t fix it; and (3) Washington isn’t ready to fix it until at least 2012. (In fact, Graham threatens to filibuster his own energy/climate bill unless Harry Reid promises to take immigration off the table for this session of Congress.) So his position is that Arizona’s plan is a natural reaction to Congressional inaction, and that he wants inaction to continue for at least another two years. That’s way short of denouncing an outrageous expansion of state power with the sort of fury the wingers reserve for imaginary threats such as “socialism,”  gun confiscation, the Fairness Doctrine, and death panels.

Note that the harassment issue is only half the problem. The other half is that the law as written makes it impossible for those here illegally to complain if they’re crime victims, or to testify if they see crimes against others, without risking arrest and deportation. Creating a class of unprotected victims would be a nightmare for crime control.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

32 thoughts on “Why aren’t libertarians and tea-partiers complaining about Arizona?”

  1. I think I explained that in the "Projection' thread. Libertarians would like open borders, yes, but libertarians also want a low tax, low service "nightwatchman" state, without income transfers. A state where somebody can walk across the border, and then has to pay themselves for anything they get.

    The two go together. The open borders are madness without the lack of transfers. Libertarians want both, but the order you get them in matters, A LOT.

    You people, by contrast, want a social welfare state with extensive income transfers, and open borders, next to a third world country with an ongoing civil war. This is rather like taking the gate down in your gated community despite it being situated next to a slum with a Crips clubhouse 100 yards from the front gate. Good luck finding an open recliner by the pool that summer…

    I'd like to see a lot of immigration. I don't see why it should be deliberately managed to consist mostly of low skill English illiterates with a proven willingness to violate our laws, rather than the high skill, English literate, law abiding people who desperately want to come here from all over the world. Or rather, I do see why it's being managed that way, and it stinks.

  2. Brett,

    1) As a rule of thumb, any paragraph starting with "you people" is likely to be ill-advised. Needless to say, yours presents an absurd caricature.

    2) What do you think of the new AZ law?

  3. I am not sure that Steve Benen got it right. The right wing is only upset when government power has a direct impact on them.

  4. I would like to ask again the question I tried earlier on the “Projection” post, namely, why we do not hear more about the role of NAFTA in the immigration debates. If it is true that 2 million Mexican farmers were thrown off the soil due to their inability to compete with US corporate agribusiness, then should NAFTA not be part of the current discussion? My query was drowned out in the back and forth between Brett B. and others, but it seems to speak poorly of us if we only debate how harsh we should be with border enforcement, when our practices may have exacerbated the vast income gradient that occurs across our southern border.

  5. I love the straw man attack on open borders and free-loading criminal brown-skinned immigrants. What does the Arizona law do?

    Well, it establishes that:

    1) an Arizona LEO may, in a lawful contact with a person, may make reasonable efforts to inquire whether that person is being lawfully present in the United States.

    These reasonable efforts may be made, "as practicable," upon a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States.

    I can see three constitutional problems with this part of the statute, right now.

    1) Vagueness –

    "lawful presence" – are we constituting State law enforcement officers as field indictment tribunals who may construe and apply the meaning of United States immigration law? People go to law school and work their entire lives interpreting the immigration laws. There are so many categories of people who slide between clear enforcement categories – people who have overstayed visas, people who may be temporarily relocated individuals under an amnesty regime, TOURISTS. Definition of lawful presence under US law is sufficiently complicated that a state-based general purpose LEO should not have discretion or authority to make this threshold determination.

    2) Notice – while it may be plain on its face that a person who is illegally present in the United States knows that fact, it is not clear that by using the language "Reasonable Suspicion" that the Arizona legislature has prescribed indicia of unlawful presence such that a person would be on notice that an LEO would lawfully accost them and demand satisfactory ID. Practically speaking, this may amount to a law that, in effect, is applied through ad hoc categorization on the basis of national origin, which the Constitution forbids under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Why? What are the indicia of illegal status? Presumably the lack of ID? The initial request could never be made on the basis of race. National origin? Oy. In substance, this may amount to a state requirement for the personal possession of valid identification papers.

    Next. Lawful contact – this poses a problem with equal protection and access to the privileges of the state police power. Let's say there is a tomato grower with illegal field workers resident on the property, and the facilities provided to the illegal migrant workers are unsanitary and there is a public health threat. Because the law provides that as a matter of reasonable suspicion that LEO shall make the immigration status inquiry, this essentially denies the illegal migrants access to the impartially enforced health, safety, and welfare regulations of the state – another equal protection problem. Then, of course, the bit requiring state and municipal officials to communicate with LEO about immigration status before providing any state service, benefit, or license is probably also unconstitutional, because of the possibility that children of illegals would be denied access to public schools.

    More in a bit.

  6. At the same time that they've been dismissing arguments about the racial anxieties underlying the Tea Party movement, its libertarian organizers, e.g. Dick Armey, have been fighting a behind-the-scenes battle to keep anti-immigrant sentiment off the movement's agenda. They've now failed. A few principled libertarians — Radley Balko comes to mind — have done what M.A.R.K. is looking for, criticized the Arizona law on libertarian grounds. Joe Arpaio isn't their kind of guy.

    Some of the nuttier self-identified libertarians are actually just suffering from paranoid personality disorder. Their libertarianism is how they justify their disorder to themselves (& anyone who'll listen). They fear government because they fear generally. These people are over-represented among very heavily armed libertarians. It's natural that they'd also fear immigrants, and generally support police measures against them.

    Ed, I think some features of NAFTA are a second-order cause of immigration, but not a major one. It's not at all clear that if, in the present environment, NAFTA opened to revision the outcome would be beneficial to Mexico. More generally, our economic relations with Mexico are obviously very complicated, & they are ways they could be improved from the standpoint of immigration, but immigration is mostly something for which nobody is to be blamed. It's a large historical force to be accommodated & managed.

    One thing that distinguishes libertarians from others is that they stand on rights, even when their exercise doesn't lead to the best outcomes. So people should be free to use drugs & eat salt & get fat & drive their motorcycles w/o a helmet & fill their house with guns & ammo, even if it doesn't exactly lead to, whatzit, Aristotelian flourishing. They maintain an awkward relationship w/ externality, because the number of actions that may lead to some kind of negative externality is potentially unlimited, leading to potentially unlimited restrictions on freedom. For example, libertarians generally are opposed to government restrictions on the right to reproduce, even though that may obviously lead to further decisions & actions that impose costs on others. They don't generally want to make the exercise of rights conditional on what political decisions the community might make in the future that will or will not make the people who exercised the rights the beneficiaries of social provision, for the same reason. So-called paleolibertarians of distant memory tried to square libertarianism w/ a number of hateful preferences, including immigration restriction, & failed. It turns out that a libertarian who supports Joe Arpaio isn't a libertarian. He just calls himself that because the alternative, more apt description of him is unpalatable.

  7. Relative to the general public, the Tea Party is very authoritarian on social issues. Their commitment to small government on spending issues is tepid at best. They certainly don't support military reductions. Calling them a libertarian movement is ridiculous.
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/14/us/

    Libertarians, I suspect, have affiliation issues to overcome. They've been involved with the Republican party as somewhat hostile supporters for a long time. Now that the Republican Party has become the party of big government, libertarians who have spent decades working with them are going to have trouble adapting. They're going to continue to be a little soft on Republicans and a little too harsh towards Democrats for some time.

  8. I looked at Radley Balko's blog. He didn't say much about the AZ law, but what he said was tart and to the point. http://www.theagitator.com/2010/04/22/afternoon-l

    I think that Mark is being a bit harsh on libertarians. However, in his defense, there aren't many of them. Most people who use the word are just garden-variety wingnuts with some pretensions to social respectability. And, by the way Brett Bellmore, you didn't answer Warren Terra's question. What do you think of the AZ law? (And, by the way, do you consider Fabrice Tourre a "high skill, English literate, law abiding" person?)

  9. David C thinks that the teabaggers are authoritarian on social issues, but I am not so sure. I have been to only one Tea Party rally, where I saw plenty of people worried about gun rights and taxes, but I saw no one who gave a damn about gay marriage or abortion.

    I suspect that K is correct in thinking that NAFTA is not a major component of the immigration issue, and that the economic relations between the USA and Mexico are complex. But people who can make a living at home have less incentive to migrate.

    Where the Tea Party is grossly out of touch with reality is its support for an aggressive military posture around the world. No such thing as a small government world-wide empire.

  10. But David C: The Republican Party has been expanding Big Government for decades. They talk about small government while expanding it exponentially. What they don't do is pay the bill. The bill is saved up for when the free market ponzi scheme crashes and the voters throw the lying rascals out and put Democrats in charge. Then is when the GOP gets all worked up and demands indignantly that something be done about the runaway deficits and debt that they ran up.

    If the Libertarians haven't been upset with the GOP for the last thirty years they really have not been paying attention or (what I believe) they really are not the purists they claim to be but are just using the ideology as a front for their support of policies that rape the population economically to the benefit of "the haves and the have mores".

  11. @Ed Whitney:

    I agree with your observation, but not necessarily your conclusion. You observed a dearth of American Taliban among the Teabaggers. This comports with everything I know about them. But that doesn't mean that they're not authoritarian; it only means that they are not authoritarian about gender issues.

    Rudy Giuliani isn't that bad on gender, but he's about as authoritarian as anybody can be in American politics. I don't think that Rudy is all that much of a Teabagger, but he is pretty good evidence that authoritarianism isn't only about gender.

    Teabaggers are simply Republicans minus their Taliban wing. There is a lot of ressentiment in this group, and ressentiment is always looking for a man on horseback who shares their values.

  12. Lindsay Graham has criticized the AZ law.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/27/scarborough-a

    A few others may follow. More will fall back on uneasy, foot-shifting evasiveness, which is as telling. However much national immigration reform does or doesn't spilt the Republican caucus, many won't feel able to endorse the AZ law (& its inevitable reproduction elsewhere) — to defend it, it's not enough just to take a very cold view of undocumented immigrants —, which would be required to keep the issue off the national agenda. Whatever the immediate sequencing vis-a-vis energy/climate, there's going to be a lot of pressure to bring something to the Senate by midsummer.

    (I'd quibble w/ Amanda Terkel's characterization in the linked item of McCain's position, which isn't just non-committal. Rather, he's wildly inconsistent from one minute to the next.)

  13. The bottom line is that the teabaggers are get upset over what Dick Armey–and the rest of the astroturf lobby–tells them to get upset about. Astroturfers aren't upset about AZ's 'papers please' law because it will make illegal laborers even easier to abuse and even more profitable to use.

  14. If the Tea Party members don't quickly get on the record condemning this intrusive law, the transparency of their innate racism will be showing for all to see! -Kevo

  15. Ed, going by the poll I linked to, on the issue of immigration, they're only slightly more authoritarian than the already very authoritarian general public, but they're much more gung ho about it. They're less open towards gays. Unfortunately, the poll didn't ask about drugs, criminal sentencing, police oversight, or prostitution, but I suspect they'd be authoritarian on those issues too. But you are right about their love of guns.

    Fred, the Republican Party was isolationist (against military expansion) and heavily in favor of strong Medicare cuts in the 1990s. Reagan did a lot to reduce the number of regulations being created every year by the government. The shift towards more free market policies among the Democrats didn't begin until the 1990s with Bill Clinton's Third Way movement and the creation of the Center for American Progress. This has been an ongoing process over several decades, but it's only recently with the rise of the neocons and now the increase of seniors who love Medicare in the party that the shift has become so distinct.

  16. There's some merit to the argument that the rightwing rebellion against Bush's immigration reform proposal was the most important precursor of the Tea Party movement. The latter's initial focus on economic concerns was a response to the immediate pressure of the economic crisis & to the Obama administration's (unavoidable) decision to address the crisis first, as well as the movement's early libertarian-oriented organizers' hard work, now overtaken by events, to keep social issues off the top of its agenda. But for the atmosphere of economic crisis — in a world in which Obama had started by addressing immigration — the movement's early profile would have been different. The accidents of early sequencing have now become less important.

    Curmudgeon, what share of US corporate profits do you think are earned by firms that depend to any significant degree on undocumented labor? How strong to you think, say, the lawn care industry's lobby is in Washington? Stronger than anti-immigration lobby (which also routinely evokes the specter of a concert of big business & undocumented workers)?

  17. Brett, that's an interesting position. I've wondered why more libertarians aren't for more open borders, as it would seem that's exactly what a free market would demand. So you would like to see open borders, but not when we have all the "goodies" (like schools, health services, etc.)? I guess I can see that argument, but I'm not sure how Mexican "moochers" are any different than American moochers.

    The main problem with this, as I see it, is that it assumes immigration to be a huge drain on the economy – yet there seems to be little consensus on what economic damage immigration really has. While it certainly has costs, it has plenty of benefits as well – both for immigrants and the US. And if you really look at US expenditures, how much is really ending up in immigrant pockets? Defense, medicare and social security aren't. Some state budgets are likely spending more on schools, but I haven't seen any good numbers on what that really looks like.

    Lastly, and I know this is going to sound cheap – and it kind of is. But there is also no denying that there is a nativist, ethnocentric element in all this. It's impossible to properly quantify, of course, as human psychology is too complicated. But it must account for something. And I can't help but think it is fair to ask how much it plays a role in Kleiman's original question of why we don't see libertarians more concerned about the risks to liberty involved with the state toughening up on immigration. I refuse to believe the answer is zero. We all know white people too well. The question is simply how much?

  18. Eli, you're right there's an open empirical question here. But even if there weren't, are these kinds of concerns usually all it takes to get libertarians to shut up? Say I want to prohibit some practice, & libertarians passionately defend their right to it. If I manage to get a law passed that throws a public-benefit bone to whoever engages in it, is that usually all I have to do to get libertarians to defect? Or do they usually say the appropriate response is to continue to defend the right, while fighting to eliminate the public benefit? If the right of gun ownership were contingently connected with some sort of welfare-state expenditure, would libertarians abandon gun rights, or seek to undo the contingent connection? Do they stand on rights or not?

  19. Reality to Kleiman: If you actually took a look at the reality of what the law says, you would see that reality is not that "The new Arizona immigration law authorizes any police officer who has “reasonable suspicion” that someone might be in this country illegally to demand that the person show documents to prove his right to be here. In other words, “Your papers, please?”, as you state. This is unreality, a fascist dream world of your own feverish imagination. Reality is that a police officer can not under the new law just randomly demand to see identification. Only in the context of already established law enforcement action will he or she be able to ask for identification. Identification, by the way, that is already required by federal law to be carried by legal immigrants. The reality is that a state is reduced to enforcing federal laws because of the disinterest of the feds.

  20. "If the right of gun ownership were contingently connected with some sort of welfare-state expenditure, would libertarians abandon gun rights, or seek to undo the contingent connection? Do they stand on rights or not?"

    Suppose I thought, as I do, that the inner cities would actually be better off with less overt law enforcement, and more guns in the hands of the generally law abiding. Does this imply that I think it would be a good idea for the police to pull out of D.C., on the premise that some unknown time down the road D.C.'s residents might be permitted to arm themselves? No. They'd actually be worse off, disarmed AND unprotected.

    It's all about the order these things happen in, path dependence. And, of course, whether you actually believe for one second you'd get the other half of the inter-dependent policies.

    Jacob's problem is that he's hung up on a 'papers, please' issue we actually lost a long time ago, to the extent that he's willing to forgo any gain that asking for papers might provide, in the illusory hope that he might someday again not have to provide them.

    In any event, as I say, it's unrealistic to think you can sustain a social-welfare state dependent on massive income transfers, next to a third world country, and have open borders. I'll agree to the open borders, AFTER you agree to get rid of the social welfare state with massive income transfers. Deal?

  21. Cumudgeon says:

    "The bottom line is that the teabaggers are get upset over what Dick Armey–and the rest of the astroturf lobby–tells them to get upset about. "

    A point in favor of that is that we don't see thousands of teabaggers rallying to rein in Wall St, even after they broke the economy. It's almosts like they didn't come, because no astroturfing organization

    arranged a rally…………

  22. bobopapal says:

    "Reality is that a police officer can not under the new law just randomly demand to see identification.

    Only in the context of already established law enforcement action will he or she be able to ask for identification."

    Meaning, whenever that police officer wants to. Are you so stupid as to assume that the police can't come up with an excuse to stop somebody?

    "Identification, by the way, that is already required by federal law to be carried by legal immigrants. "

    Do you have proof of US citizenship or legal immigrant status on your person right now? Who here does?

  23. Only in the context of already established law enforcement action will he or she be able to ask for identification. Identification, by the way, that is already required by federal law to be carried by legal immigrants.

    If, for example, a Hispanic American citizen gets mugged on his way through Arizona, and the wallet containing his driver’s license and Social Security card gets stolen, and he calls the police to report the crime, he runs the risk of being detained and treated as an illegal alien until someone can rustle up proof of his citizenship.

  24. "This is unreality, a fascist dream world of your own feverish imagination. Reality is that a police officer can not under the new law just randomly demand to see identification."

    Meanwhile, back on Earth: http://bit.ly/9xDMjz

    "PHOENIX – A Valley man says he was pulled over Wednesday morning and questioned when he arrived at a weigh station for his commercial vehicle along Val Vista and the 202 freeway.

    Abdon, who did not want to use his last name, says he provided several key pieces of information but what he provided apparently was not what was needed.

    He tells 3TV, “I don’t think it’s correct, if I have to take my birth certificate with me all the time.”

    3TV caught up with Abdon after he was released from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in central Phoenix. He and his wife, Jackie, are still upset about what happened to him.

    Jackie tells 3TV, “It’s still something awful to be targeted. I can’t even imagine what he felt, people watching like he was some type of criminal.”

    Abdon was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed.

    An agent called his wife and she had to leave work to drive home and grab other documents like his birth certificate.

    Jackie explains, “I have his social security card as well and mine. He’s legit. It’s the first time it’s ever happened.”

    Both were born in the United States and say they are now both infuriated that keeping important documents safely at home is no longer an option."

  25. Too bad the people who most need to wake up would never understand the reference of "Papiere, bitte?".

    Let alone "Einbürgerungsurkunde, bitte."

    The new Arizona police uniform is a black leather trench coat? http://tinyurl.com/mtvsok

  26. I'm a little surprised that a birth certificate is being accepted as evidence of citizenship, since it has no current photo on it.

    Oh, and just a nit for New York Math Teacher: in the obvious cases, someone who is not currently a legal resident of the US will be aware of that fact. But there are situations involving people who have entered the US legally at some point, where it may take years of litigation to determine their current status. And also situations (at least according to the then-resident-alien lawyer who was complaining to me about it) where someone may be lawfully residing in the US, but cannot leave US soil and lawfully return.

  27. Interesting that Brett Bellmore starts trolling this thread with an obvious red-herring. Please stop feeding the trolls.

  28. "Lindsay Graham has criticized the AZ law.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/27/scarborough-a

    Let's not mince words here. Graham's SOLE complaint about the AZ law is that it makes Republicans look bad, and he believes it will be electorally negative on average. He appears not to give a damn about the evilness of its content, and certainly has zero interest in actually, you know, doing something constructive about it.

  29. @Barry:

    Legal permanent residents are required to carry their permanent resident card with them, if they are 16 or older. So yes, someone here has proof of residency they carry with them.

    I guess not many citizens have proof of citizenship they carry around. Nor do many temporary visa holders carry proof of status (some will have passports, but will they carry them in AZ?). These are the groups that will be adversely affected by this new law.

    Citizens will the ones most subject to hassles from this law…

  30. "“Lindsay Graham has criticized the AZ law."

    Indeed, and has provoked a certain hilarity among Republicans given some of his recent language on the subject of immigration 'reform':

    "It is impossible for me and any other serious Democrat to get this body to move forward until we prove to the American people we can secure our borders," Mr. Graham told Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who was testifying at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing."

  31. K has a great vocabulary even if s/he doesn't really get it regarding Libertarians.

    K's response ASSumes a great deal of things such as the obvious assumption that Americans have ANY liability for others, which, in a Republic they DON'T. The LIE he accepts obviously is that America is a Democracy when he obviously has never read the Declaration of Independence or Constitution as the word DEMOCRACY is nowhere in it.

    This statement: For example, libertarians generally are opposed to government restrictions on the right to reproduce, even though that may obviously lead to further decisions & actions that impose costs on others."

    Is WRONG from the start. ALL Libertarians are universally opposed to ANY government restrictions on ANYTHING! So it sounds like K is FOR limiting the right to reproduce which probably tells you something about him. With government tax refunds based on quotas of how many kids you can claim on your tax forms and welfare programs (none of which are constitutionally LEGAL) breeding to make others pay to raise your kids and net you tax refunds sounds feesible and is part of why it is so rampant now in America with its communistic social-net welfare state programs. The Welfare state is also why America is bringing in so many low-income skill-lacking laborers looking for free schools, free births, free welfare, free ANYTHING all from the stupid Americans who've been feeding the Big Government monster all these years.

    K's statement HERE shows he has no understanding of Constitutional rights. GROUPS, i.e. communities, have no rights!! Rights in AMERICA are solely based on INDIVIDUAL rights. GROUPS do not enjoy those.

    "They don’t generally want to make the exercise of rights conditional on what political decisions the community might make in the future that will or will not make the people who exercised the rights the beneficiaries of social provision, for the same reason."

    Also whoever the IDIOT was who claimed Dick Armey was a Libertarian doesn't have a CLUE! He’s nothing but a damn Neo-con who has denied a Libertarian proposal I personally made on KERA TV in front of a studio audience.

    Brett Bellmore was correct about everything but since most Americans have grown to accept the socialist state we live in and now defend it so fanatically it is predictable the sheeple would do so here.

    Perhaps Mark Kleiman should try reading more since he missed Pat Dixon's article about Arizona here. http://www.austinpost.org/content/a-modest-propos
    Of course he reads EVERY Libertarian meetup group and blog right? Yeah I don't think so or he'd have seen the dozens of dialogues I have about the issue. His is just grasping at things he WANTS to believe. In the absense of the welfare state ALL Libertarians would be united on the issue but alas we DO live in one and until we can get rid of it the poor will always flock to "freebies". I'm SURE that ALL Dems and Reps are in PERFECT alignment on EVERY issue of too.

    .

Comments are closed.