Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Op-Eds

News Opinion Op-Eds

Your papers, please: Arizona, immigration and the welfare state

With the Supreme Court taking up Arizona's "show me your papers" immigration law, we're once again thrust into a useful debate over the role of the government and the obligations of the citizen -- and non-citizen. Rather than come at it from the usual angle, I thought I'd try something different.

If there were one thing I could impress upon people about the nature of the state, it's that governments by their very nature want to make their citizens "legible."

I borrow that word from James C. Scott, whose book "Seeing Like a State" left a lasting impression on me. Mr. Scott studied why the state has always seen "people who move around" to be the enemy. Around the world, according to Mr. Scott, states have historically seen nomadic peoples, herdsmen, slash-and-burn hill people, Gypsies, hunter-gatherers, vagrants, runaway slaves and serfs as problems to be solved. States have tried to make these people stay in one place.

But as Mr. Scott examined "sedentarization" (making mobile people settle down), he realized this practice was simply part of a more fundamental drive of the state: to make the whole population legible to the state. The premodern state was "blind" to its subjects. But the modern state was determined first to see them, and then organize them. This is why so many rulers pushed for the universal usage of last names starting around 1600 (aristocrats had been using family or clan names for centuries already). The same goes with the push for more accurate addresses, the standardization of weights and measures, and of course the use of censuses and surveys. It's much easier to collect taxes, conscript soldiers, fight crime and put down rebellions if you know who people are and where they live.

Perhaps the most obvious means of making the populace legible is the identity card or internal passport. The history of the identity card is a fascinating and shockingly complex one. For instance, did you know that identity cards were seen as a war on bigamy in many countries?

Opponents of the Arizona immigration law like to conjure scenes from Nazi Germany, with the Gestapo asking, "Ihre papiere, bitte" ("Your papers, please"). And it's indisputably true that police states, from Nazi Germany to the Soviet Union to Castro's Cuba and the North Korea of the Kims, have a deep relationship with the identity card for obvious reasons. But German officials were saying "Ihre papiere, bitte" long before anyone heard of the Nazis.

The United Kingdom has debated the merits of identity cards several times over the generations. During World War I, Britain's National Registration was hugely controversial because it was seen as too "Prussian." A generation earlier, the Prussians, under Otto von Bismarck, had famously created the first modern administrative state, which included the precursor to America's Social Security system and what today might be called "jobs programs." The Prussians also pioneered the public school system in order to make the people more legible to the state -- imposing common language, political indoctrination and the like.

A system of reliable ID was necessary for conscription and internal security -- government's top concerns -- but it was also necessary to properly allocate the benefits and jobs the state doled out in order to buy popular support, and to enforce school attendance.

And this brings me to our current debate over Arizona's immigration laws. Opponents like to conjure the police-state association of "Ihre papiere, bitte." I think that's wildly exaggerated (and so do several Supreme Court justices, apparently). But as someone who's against a national ID card, I'm sympathetic to the concern nonetheless. The Constitution lists three federal crimes -- treason, piracy and counterfeiting -- but today we have more than 4,500 federal crimes, all because the government in Washington wants to make the American people more legible. I don't want to make that easier with a national ID card.

But what I wish liberal opponents would understand is that in a society where the government "gives" so much to its citizens, it's inevitable that the state will pursue ways to more clearly demarcate the lines between the citizen and the non-citizen.

Most (but by no means all) conservatives I know would have few problems with large-scale immigration if we didn't have a welfare state that bequeaths so many benefits on citizens and non-citizens alike. I myself am a huge fan of legal immigration. But if you try to see things like a state for a second, it's simply unsustainable to have a libertarian immigration policy and a liberal welfare state. Ultimately, if you don't want cops asking for your papers, you need to get rid of one or the other.

Jonah Goldberg is the author of the forthcoming book "The Tyranny of Clichés." His email is JonahsColumn@aol.com. Twitter: @JonahNRO.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Ignorance on immigration

    Ignorance on immigration

    Republicans have written to your newspaper claiming that President Barack Obama, former Gov. Martin O'Malley and other Democratic elected officials are trying to "give voting rights to millions of undocumented immigrants who came here illegally and don't belong in this country in the first place"...

  • Immigration takes center stage

    Immigration takes center stage

    In calling for an immigration policy that includes a path to citizenship and expanded legal protections against deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton has presented her potential Republican rivals in 2016 with...

  • No amnesty for undocumented immigrants

    No amnesty for undocumented immigrants

    President Obama wants to write his own laws on immigration and amnesty ("Immigrants, advocates must wait for deportation relief," Feb. 17).

  • Who do the Democrats think they're fooling?

    Who do the Democrats think they're fooling?

    I am disappointed but not surprised by the furor over whether to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security ("Congress OKs deal to avoid shutdown at Homeland Security," Feb. 27).

  • Executive orders are a bipartisan pastime

    Executive orders are a bipartisan pastime

    House Speaker John Boehner has made it clear that he intends to block the Obama administration's executive order shielding millions of undocumented immigrants from the threat of immediate deportation ("Congress scrambles to avoid Homeland Security shutdown," Feb. 26).

  • Democrats side with foreigners

    Democrats side with foreigners

    Democrats are telling Republicans to put the American people first and pass a clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill because Democratic senators will not accept anything other than a clean bill ("Congress OKs deal to avoid shutdown at Homeland Security," Feb. 27). Republicans say they...

  • Don't send $1B to Central America

    Don't send $1B to Central America

    The Obama administration has a plan to pour $1 billion of U.S. taxpayer money into Central America "to try to slow the flow of unaccompanied minors and other migrants without documentation" to the U.S. ("Democrats press Kerry on $1B Latin aid request," Feb. 25). Just wondering, wouldn't $1 billion...

  • GOP must stick to its guns on immigration, Homeland Security budget

    GOP must stick to its guns on immigration, Homeland Security budget

    Some thoughts on your editorial regarding the U.S. Department of Homeland Security budget while basking in climate cooling ("No time to make America less safe," Feb. 16). First, why is it OK for the Democrats to filibuster and not pay a price when the GOP would be blasted for the same technique?

Comments
Loading

84°