G.I. still AWOL on SB 1070

by David Safier

Still nothing from the Goldwater Institute about SB 1070. I haven't seen a Daily Email or an acknowledgment of the law on its website. I don't follow G.I. tweets, so I may have missed something there, but somehow I doubt it.

Shouldn't G.I. have something to say about a law requiring everyone in Arizona to carry an I.D. or face arrest? I mean, really, if I'm out jogging in my neighborhood without my wallet, I could be in serious trouble if I have a "lawful encounter" with a police officer. And if I happen to be a 5th generation Arizonan of Hispanic descent and I'm out jogging with no I.D., my chances of having one of those "lawful encounters" goes up exponentially, as do my chances of being hauled off to jail.

This law is no mere slippery slope toward required state identification. If this law goes into effect, we'll be deep into "Show me your papers!" territory.

G.I. with its libertarian bent does not like the idea of required state I.D. But, while its lawyers will defend a tattoo parlor's right to set up shop in a trendy strip mall — I salute you on that one, G.I. — it doesn't peep when every Arizonan is required to carry I.D. or face possible arrest.

Eugene Robinson wrote another one of his fine columns today. Its focus is what he calls Arizona's "racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust" anti-immigrant law. In one paragraph, he wonders why the Tea Partiers aren't all over this issue.

Activists for Latino and immigrant rights — and supporters of sane governance — held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the Tea Party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim — and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state — would send the Tea Partyers into apoplexy. Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?

Robinson may be right about the Tea Partiers' endemic racism stopping them from seeing this as a threat to their personal freedoms. But with G.I., I don't think it has anything to do with racism. I think it's cowardice, pure and simple.

The highly paid staff at the $4 million-plus per year Goldwater Institute is terrified to touch this thing for fear of alienating its political and donor base. This isn't some small issue where G.I. can stake out an independent position. This bill is the cornerstone of the Republican election strategy in Arizona, and it may become a national touchstone as well.

Its importance, of course, is the very reason G.I. should state its position clearly instead of hiding behind the sofa until the 800 pound gorilla goes away.