New at Reason
Brian Doherty, Reason's man in Los Angeles, digs through the rubble of the immigration riots.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Guy Montag | May 11, 2007, 12:44pm | #
The National Review has a differing account: Heads Roll in Los AngelesThe first scapegoats in the May Day melee walk the plank. Jack Dunphy includes a few details that were, er, missed by the witnesses mentioned in this reason article.
A relatively small number of protesters, some with their faces concealed by bandanas, pelted officers with frozen water bottles and soda cans, bottles filled with urine, rocks, sticks, and any number of other projectiles that could be heaved toward the police lines. There were even instances of protesters using slingshots to shoot heavy metal bolts at officers. Through it all, the hundreds of cops gathered near Alvarado and Seventh Streets, at the southeast corner of the park, stood their ground and showed uncommon restraint even as the debris was coming down around them and indeed striking and injuring some. What, these cops were asking, is it going to take before we do something about this?
Guy Montag | May 11, 2007, 1:00pm | #
Well, try this link for the National Review article.Warren | May 11, 2007, 1:02pm | #
In this day and age, I can't believe what was thrown at the cops is debatable. If this is true,A relatively small number of protesters, some with their faces concealed by bandanas, pelted officers with frozen water bottles and soda cans, bottles filled with urine, rocks, sticks, and any number of other projectiles that could be heaved toward the police lines. There were even instances of protesters using slingshots to shoot heavy metal bolts at officers.then where's the video? No video = never happened.
Guy Montag | May 11, 2007, 1:25pm | #
then where's the video? No video = never happened.I never thought I would be online with an OJ Juror!
... a group of people gathered in MacArthur Park, at ... a street march ...cuz someone left the cake out in the rain...
TLB | May 11, 2007, 1:57pm | #
Bailey says: "the lack of demonstrable harm caused by immigration as a national phenomenon"How odd. And, here I thought massive IllegalImmigration was an indicator of massive PoliticalCorruption. I was worried about the federal government trying to profit from IllegalActivity, but there's no harm in that! I was worried about a huge, UnassimilatedUnderclass creating EthnicBalkanization. I was worried about U.S. citizens having less rights than IllegalAliens or having things taken away from them to give to foreign citizens who are here illegally.
Boy, was I wrong! I should have just listened to the children:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7YrkpKNB7M
Let's call those kids the Ron Bailey Choir.
SugarFree | May 11, 2007, 1:58pm | #
Guy,Please don't summon the OJ Apology-Bot from the other day.
Anyway, the police over-reacted, as usual, to a small minority of protesters being jerks by beating and wounding anyone they could get their kevlared mitts on. The police provoke these situations by showing up at what would, more than likely, have been a peaceful march with a few anti-globalization puppeteers and a little "Racists Suck" placards thrown, in riot gear suitable for fighting rage zombies in 28 Days Later and are shocked, shocked I say, when people throw things at them. And LAPD is all about the overwhelming force. They respond to a bottle with a sock full of buckshot to the balls. They created this riot and then got their rocks off with a little brutality. Like I said, us usual.
shecky | May 11, 2007, 2:13pm | #
There always seemed a strange sort of wish fulfillment between crowds and cops. When cops go looking for a riot, they always seem to find one.BTW, excellent article, Mr Doherty.
Alan Vanneman | May 11, 2007, 2:31pm | #
GREAT ARTICLE!Really, if you don't show up ready for the zombie uprising, how are you going to be prepared when the zombie uprising starts?
SugarFree | May 11, 2007, 3:02pm | #
kwais,I didn't think of that! It be just like those damn wily zombies to come up with a diabolical plan like that!
(OT on zombies. I just finished World War Z by Max Brooks. It's superfantabulawesome. (That means I recommend it...)
Les | May 11, 2007, 3:50pm | #
Sugarfree,I agree with your response to Guy and your opinion of World War Z. And I hear they're working on a movie, which could be good. It seems Max is another successful production by Mel Brooks.
Michael | May 11, 2007, 4:04pm | #
I think this article is disingenuous in its portrayal of the rioters and the police. Doherty downplays the violence committed by the rioters, but emphasizes that committed by the police.All of this is based on a false presumption that violence is only bad if committed by the police, but it's perfectly okay for the rioters to run amok. The case against police brutality is not that just the police have no right to capricously assault people, but that NO ONE has the right to capricously assault anyone. The rioters do not posses any special right to engage in violence and that violence is not magically justified when directed towards police officers. This appears to be the mindset. The police are assumed to be a pack of evil ogres, which supposedly justifies anything that is done to them. It is simply assumed that the police are wrong, while the saintly rioters are presumed to be struggling nobly against "oppression." If a cop sneezes at them he's a vicious thug, but in the face of the most mindless violence the rioters can only be considered "misguided," although I'm sure we'll be reminded that they're just fighting for their sincere beliefs.
All of which is pure hokum. The fact is the rioters were in the wrong and the police were justified in responding to the rioters' violence. Asserting that the police started it merely by being there (and therefore "had it coming") is roughly equivalent to saying that any woman in a short skirt who gets raped "had it coming." It's a trite and hollow excuse. Opposing police brutality does NOT mean that anyone who attacks a cop is automatically a hero.
SugarFree | May 11, 2007, 4:07pm | #
Les,Max is on par with Young Frankenstein in my book.
It has a lot of moments that would work well on film. Especially the disastrous initial military response in New Jersey and the permafrost camps that turned into hundreds of Donner Parties.
But, I think the post-panic take that would really work on film is The Walking Dead by Robert Kirkman. Tight cast of characters and a nice plot. Hell, it really make a great HBO miniseries, but the zombie audience might not be there.
SugarFree | May 11, 2007, 4:17pm | #
Michael,But we'll really never know will we? Do cops provoke a violent response by expecting one? How about just letting a few beat cops in regular uniform police the protests and call in the goon squad if they are assaulted? Then we would know if the protesters were targeting them for being police as opposed to being heavily armored shock troops.
The police were beating on television reporters who weren't even out in the streets (the Telemundo guy who names escapes me.) That act alone negates any good faith argument on their part. I don't think the protesters are noble, hell I don't even agree with most of what they believe, but the LAPD over-reacted and escalated the violence. Sure, take down people assaulting officers, but if you want random night sticking just because the cops feel they have been disrespected, then you are the one making excuses for violence.
Les | May 11, 2007, 4:43pm | #
All of this is based on a false presumption that violence is only bad if committed by the police, but it's perfectly okay for the rioters to run amok.Where is that presumed? All that's presumed is that it's not okay for police to attack people who aren't attacking them. What's wrong with that notion?
SugarFree | May 11, 2007, 4:49pm | #
Les,Uh, I forgot to mention it's a comic book, but six trades have already come out.
voltaire | May 11, 2007, 4:53pm | #
"This appears to be the mindset."Welcome to the world of "Reason".
Bob | May 11, 2007, 5:16pm | #
Bailey says: "the lack of demonstrable harm caused by immigration as a national phenomenon"Agreed, but as most of the open borders crowd does, you have conflated illegal and legal immigration. IMHO, illegals by their initial entry have shown nothing but contempt for the rule of law and should therefore not be welcomed.
I would agree that legal immigration from South and Central America should be increased about tenfold, but immigrants could only apply in person from their home country. Further, anyone caught illegally in the US after a certain date would never be allowed legal entry, and persons caught in the US illegally more than once after that date should be Federal felons.
Guy Montag | May 11, 2007, 5:44pm | #
Agreed, but as most of the open borders crowd does, you have conflated illegal and legal immigration.Ahem, here at Reason one is either pro-immigration or racist.
MikeP | May 11, 2007, 6:19pm | #
Just out of curiosity, Bob...If you found yourself in a waystation along the Underground Railroad, would you "agree that" slaves should be unilaterally freed but nonetheless turn fugitive slaves over to the authorities? Or would you "show nothing but contempt for the rule of law" and help them to freedom?
shecky | May 11, 2007, 6:35pm | #
you have conflated illegal and legal immigration.Immigration is immigration. The labor market, largely responsible for illegal immigration knows no difference.
If one is opposed to illegal immigration, then advocate making it legal. Not criminalizing it more harshly.
rumdummy | May 11, 2007, 8:54pm | #
SugarFree-Anyway, the police over-reacted, as usual, to a small minority of protesters being jerks by beating and wounding anyone they could get their kevlared mitts on.
I'll quote Larry Niven--
1)"Never throw shit at an armed man."
1a)"Never stand next to someone throwing shit at an armed man. You wouldn't think anyone needs to be told this. Does anyone remember the Dem. National Convention in 1968?"- from Niven's Laws
Mark | May 11, 2007, 10:08pm | #
Speak harsh to some one, they remember for a day....Spit at some one, they remember it for a life time.There are devils in every group of people. They become emboldened in a large crowd.
Every Saint can be a sinner.
Neu Mejican | May 12, 2007, 12:08pm | #
I like the Niven's LawsNotice numbers 10 & 17...
Anarchy is the least stable of political structures.
No technique works if it isn't used.
J Golden Rockwell | May 12, 2007, 5:37pm | #
Bob wrote:IMHO, illegals by their initial entry have shown nothing but contempt for the rule of law
I disagree. They have weighed the law against their needs, and found the law wanting. In the same way, your ancestors weighed the risks of leaving their homeland for the New World, and found that their needs outweighed the risks.
It wasn't a matter of "contempt" in either case, for the law, the risks or for the people who were already here and didn't want the newcomers.
Why is it that no matter the problem, the solution is always to take away as much liberty from as many people as possible? Immingration, "climate change", health care, roads, police, and so on...? What even marketing genius developed this concept and sold it so well to the world?
John Rohan | May 15, 2007, 4:01am | #
The article states:Fear is definitely a part of the immigration debate in America—given the lack of demonstrable harm caused by immigration as a national phenomenon, the recent spate of “get tougher” immigration law proposals on the state level are probably rooted more in ancient primate psychology or sheer partisan calculation than on reasonable fear.
Well, I think my fear of the Duka brothers (the accused Fort Dix terrorists), who lived in the US illegally for 23 years, is reasonable. I think my fear of immigrants dying in the desert or eaten by sharks (as dozens of Haitians were last week) while trying to enter the US is reasonable. I think my fear of despicable human traffickers or drug traffickers profiting off an out-of-control border is reasonable. I think my fear of population explosion, environmental degradation, and dwindling sources of water in the southwest is reasonable. But hey, I'm probably just some ignorant bigot.
http://shieldofachilles.blogspot.com
Xenophun | May 15, 2007, 7:09am | #
Doherty's take on illegal immigration seems to be, it's no problem let's just look the other way. The problem is it's against the law. Do we really want government, at any level, to get into the habit of ignoring the rule of law? Who get's to decide which laws get ignored? Politicians? Public Support? If there is so much support for unfettered immigration then why not do this the right way and repeal the law?MikeP | May 15, 2007, 7:42am | #
Doherty's take on illegal immigration is that free migration in general is not a problem: It shouldn't be illegal.Yes, of course he would prefer it if immigration law were changed to permit general immigration. In the meantime, those who believe in free immigration have to debate the point in the presence of bad immigration law and, therefore, illegal immigrants.
There are two main reasons to discuss illegal immigrants. The first is that, by demonstrating that even illegal immigrants are a positive for the US economy and society, you pose a powerful argument for the good of free immigration in general. How much more of a positive it would be were it legal!
But the second reason is the fundamental truth that those who are oppressed by bad law should not be. If you are against slavery, you would want to try to free slaves. If you are against drug laws, you would want to argue the case of harmless drug users. And if you are against general immigration restrictions, you would want to make the case that the immigrants should not be punished and have their lives overturned due to badly informed law.