Immigration and Animal Welfare

Realizing this post may result in a fiery storm of comments, I still wanted to share the following thought, simply to ‘spark’ deeper thought.

I find it interesting that when Arizona passed its immigration law, a group of people strongly supported it and another group strongly opposed it, based on the states’ rights argument. Now, California has passed an animal welfare law (Prop 2) and the group previously supporting Arizona’s rights is now supporting Federal language to overturn, while the group against Arizona’s legislation is now supporting California’s right to enforce Prop 2. Ironic?

To be clear, I supported Arizona’s right to pass immigration legislation and while I disagree with Prop 2, I also support California’s right to enforce it. Without the ability to enforce it, California’s farmers will be at a significant disadvantage and likely be forced out of business due to unfair competition.

I am curious if anyone else has noticed the irony of these two situations.

PS Let’s keep the comments civil 🙂

Reference Links:

Midnight Egg amendment

Arizona SB1070

California Proposition 2


  1. July 20, 2012 at 10:37 AM

    The right of the state to question and detain any person because they look like they might not be a citizen has a lot of dangers and potential for the abuse of citizens and others.

    • July 22, 2012 at 5:53 AM

      That could be a potential, but take a look at what is actually happening. An incident in Van Horn, Texas several weeks ago is the perfect illustration of what is going on.

      The town was having a street dance, with sheriff vehicles being used as roadblocks to detour traffic on at both ends of the dance. A guy got into his pickup, pulls out and hits the sheriff’s vehicle. Guy was drunk, but also an “undocumented worker” from a local farm.

      Between the current administration’s policy that local and state law enforcement not being allowed to hold illegal aliens and Border Patrol’s policy of not helping state and local law enforcement, the guy was released.

      The whole point of Arizona’s law was to allow them to enforce the immigration laws the federal government is is ignoring. Apparently the federal government feels that U.S.A. citizens are driving drunk and people here illegally from another country, with no insurance, are perfectly fine, even after running into a parked law enforcement vehicle with it’s lights flashing…

      • July 24, 2012 at 10:50 AM

        Van Horn is a very well integrated community, which is to say that they regulate themselves in a way which promotes the most social and economic harmony that they can maintain. While the drunk-driving accident might sound like a big deal to us, the local constabulary must have felt that it was a small deal and that releasing the inebriated worker was in the best interest of the community. That might sound like poor judgment from an outsider’s POV, because Texas at the small town level takes their own case-by-case approach to DUIs.

        So BobKinford, I was wondering if you can offer some online documentation to the public record which might have been filed in Van Horn. It would be interesting to read the local authority’s take on the particulars of that accident, and why they choose to dispense with the matter in the way that they did. It may be that the person-in-question is so highly valued by his employer and community that common sense ruled the day in ways not visible to either yourself or myself. The discussion may take us back to the heart-of-the-matter in Common Sense Agriculture.

        It is particularly true in agricultural communities that farm owners sustainability relies upon there ability to hire, retain, and be supportive of undocumented workers. This fact of life cannot be altered by a state government who decides to rush in and run the lives of the local people, but rather, it is the wisdom of the state government in Texas not to intervene in the wisdom of local folks until such time as they violate state law in the process. Score one for Texas, even if they do execute a lot of people who later turn out to have been innocent. Just because Arizona has chosen to supplant federal law doesn’t necessarily make their model work in other places, even if it might do some sort of good inside Arizona.

  2. July 24, 2012 at 8:30 AM

    It seems that opinions on these issues are formed out of convenience, not out of conviction. The bigger picture here is that our federal government has failed us and had not enacted reforms to our immigration laws that are sensible and for the common good. While we may be divided in our opinions about states rights, it is up to our leaders at the federal level to do just that, lead. Here they have continuously failed with partisan positions and confirmed a system that is broken and punishes those who are caught in the middle.

    • July 24, 2012 at 10:31 AM

      While we may divided about our opinions on states rights, the states do not automagically acquire the right to govern immigration.

    • July 24, 2012 at 6:56 PM

      Online documentation? Van Horn is a “very well integrated community?” Let me get up off the floor and catch my breath Rich…. Don’t know where you are at, but it is far away from Van Horn.

      As far as online documentation, these things barely get reported by the local papers, In fact we have had people from Van Horn go to Mexico, get killed by the cartels (shot point blank in the back of the head) and the local papers report they “passed away” without giving the cause of death.

      The simple fact is the guy was drunk when he ran into the sheriff’s pickup, had no driver’s license, admitted that he was from Mexico without documentation. The Sheriff called Border Patrol (big BP station right here in town) and was told they could not give assistance. Under the current rules given in the Supreme Court, local law enforcement cannot hold illegal aliens because that is the jurisdiction of the federal government.

      There are also LEGAL ways employers can hire people from Mexico. Of course they are required to pay them $9.68 and hour.

      • July 24, 2012 at 7:47 PM

        Hi Bob,
        Would it be fair to say that the damage to the sheriff’s vehicle was relatively light, or that the sheriff’s department may have been persuaded by the man’s employer to accept compensation rather to prosecute for DUI or driving to endanger? Sounds like a lot of places in Texas.

  3. July 24, 2012 at 11:23 AM

    I vaguely catch on to the irony of different interpretations in the “State’s Rights” to view animals rights through one lens, and the “general rights of anyone not to be harassed because someone thinks you look mexican” through another lens.

    You might find consistency between the sentiments behind the irony:

    a) against what many people consider to be the torture of animals for the sake of more profitable farming practices. It’s also painful to see small farmers in a more difficult operating position, which I’m sure that everyone understands, even more of them voted in favor of the bill than those who voted against.


    b) in favor of the rights of residents not to be harassed, incarcerated, and deported for the absence of documentation upon demand. There are plenty of cases of U.S. citizens being wounded, kidnapped, tortured, injured, and dumped tied-up in Mexico simply because vigilantes have become empowered to take the federal laws into their own hands when a state tells them they can act in that way and not be prosecuted by the state government. These self-appointed so-called men-of-god forget that the feds will catch up with them sooner or later.

    The irony which you see, while palpable, is not so important as understanding the difference between these very much opposite exercises in the state’s rights. While the Supreme Court may take one view on the Arizona law today, it may take a new perspective through the painful experiences that the exercise of that law at the local level will teach to us. Think about the farmer in Arizona whose business depends on her/his being able to retain undocumented labor, who at the same time must cope with his neighbors whose interests and whose biases are very different from her/his own.

    The Arizona immigration law, if it can be called that, is not so far removed from the barbarity of the law in Florida that they call the “Stand Your Ground” law, that has attempted to let off the hook a man who verbally abused a teenager, and picked a fight with him so that he could shoot him dead on the spot. The state of Florida just said “too bad about that” until the U.S. Justice Department ruled that they must investigate what took place much more carefully.

    This is where the implementation of the Arizona immigration management bill is headed. I’m very uncomfortable with how I see events unfolding. How many of us will be surprised when public repercussions spin out-of-control in Arizona as individuals implement their own prerogatives and attempt to make citizen’s arrests like the fool in Stanford, Florida did? It is an invitation for all hell to break loose.

    • July 25, 2012 at 7:47 AM

      Rich, Border Patrol has orders NOT to assist state and local law enforcement down here. State and local law enforcement has been told they CANNOT hold illegal aliens. That is the case here, the Sheriff’s hands were tied. If he would have held the guy, he would have been in trouble from the feds.

      You obviously have no real grasp on the situation down here because it is not being reported. A year and a half ago a young man refused to run drugs for one of the cartels. They gave him a time limit until they would kill both him and his pregnant wife. A week after they killed him, the decapitated his wife, then cut out her unborn baby, beheaded it then placed it in a gallon jar in the steps of the Fort Hancock elementary school as a warning. It never made it past the Hudspeth County Herald which does not have an online presence.

      It is also obvious that you have not heard the latest orders to Border patrol from Homeland Security in the event they are fired upon..Hide until you can make a full retreat.”

      Of course when you look at the company in charge of most of Homeland Security, that makes perfect sense.

      • July 25, 2012 at 10:13 AM

        Never heard of G4S. Sounds like there’s a large gap between Border Patrol per its’ historical reputation and the current practices. I wasn’t aware that they were under the authority of Homeland Security. When did that start?

        Is it fear that keeps more people from publicizing the extent of the problem?

        How does Homeland Security override the policies and practices of the Justice Department?

        In California, practically all DUIs are an automatic incarceration until an initial hearing is set, without inspection of what the offenders’ documentation status might be. Lack of documents doesn’t stop California from detaining and incarcerating anyone who has been arrested and charged of a crime.

        • July 25, 2012 at 12:01 PM

          There is a big gap between what Border Patrol now is and what it was.Homeland Security has been placed in charge of Border Patrol earlier this year. Homeland Security is that in name only. Listen to the media, and it sounds like we have drones flying the border. I have times I work within a mile or the Rio Grande River,, and other times I’m 60 miles as the crow flies from it. I have never seen a drone anywhere near the river, but they are 50 and 60 miles from the border.

          It is the media that keeps it from being publicized.Post this kind of thing happening on FB and it gets pulled as being “offensive.” Main stream media just does not report it Your guess is as good as mine on that, but there are a lot of things they don’t report correctly. The fires in Nebraska has supposedly burned 50,000 acres according to the media. Talk to people in the area, and they claim it is well over 100,000 acres

          When they stop you anywhere for DUI (or anything else) the first thing they do is ask for your DL , registration, and proof of insurance. This guy had NOTHING, and admitted he was here illegally. I think you need to spend some time driving around and going through the BP checkpoints. I’ve been behind cars from Mexico that wave their green cards as they go through, then they want to play 60 questions with US Citizens when they are only supposed to ask whether or not you are a USA citizen.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: