To Walk Alone

I’ve been pondering the Arizona law and I’ve identified the part of it that bothers me the most, even over and above the inevitable racial profiling problem and the predictable identity-theft issue with requiring everyone to carry all their identifying documents with them at all times.  Simply put, I think that when one has the right to do something or be somewhere, one has the corollary right to do so without harassment and without being constantly forced to prove the legitimacy of one’s actions.  It is difficult to imagine how one could achieve life, liberty, or happiness otherwise.

An interesting concept I learned about as a freshman in college is the flaneur, a French term referring to the unseen observer.  The flaneur and its feminine equivalent, the flaneuse, wandered through the urban landscapes of Paris anonymously, accompanied by no one, going nowhere in particular.  We liked the idea and used to flaneuse around campus in groups of two or three (bending the rules slightly) until we knew it so intimately that we could no longer lose ourselves.

Conservatives and especially libertarians should appreciate this.  There can be joy in anonymity.  If one wants to be in a publicly accessible place, one should be able to be there without needing to prove either identity or purpose, especially not to the government.  The government should stay out of peoples’ lives, right?

Time-wise, the intrusion may be insignificant, but challenges to the legitimacy of one’s rights are always unduly frustrating.  I work at a museum, but I hardly ever visit the galleries, because the guards always harass me.  Although my badge is plainly visible, they want to scrutinize it, as though I might have stolen someone else’s badge, and then they want an account of what I’m doing in the gallery, even though my badge grants me free admission and I don’t need a conservation-related reason for being there.  I find that being accosted this way completely overshadows the pleasure of the gallery; indeed, even if no one stops me, I’m still antsy and defensive because I’m constantly expecting it.  If I’m allowed to be in the galleries, I should be allowed to be in the galleries, no questions asked.

If I feel this way in a museum, which charges admission and is therefore available to a relatively select part of the population, how much more does it apply in public places, and particularly in the city, the flaneur‘s home territory.  In the city, everyone is a stranger.  Everyone has the right to anonymity–to walking alone with no ID, no destination, and no explanation for oneself because there is no need for one.

Arizona’s entire population has given up this right, and that is the part of the law that disturbs me the most.

—-

Image from this lovely Flickr gallery.

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

3 responses to “To Walk Alone

  1. bryce1618

    I thought that part of the law included law enforcement only being able to ask for papers as part of a legitimate search?

    From HB 2162;

    FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. (lines 20-26, p. 1)

    So, this would mean one could only be asked for papers as long is fulfilled these criterion;

    1) lawful contact made
    2) by a law enforcement official or agency
    3) with reasonable suspicion of the person being an illegal alien
    4) a reasonable attempt may be made to determine their legality

    These are well-defined legal terms. A police officer then couldn’t just walk up to just any random person and demand to see their papers.

    • Doad

      In other words, the law’s fairness depends on your naivete.

      This amended law just means that if you look at all Mexican (or Canadian, or Belgian?) that you’ll have to carry your papers with you, even if you’re a 4th-generation citizen. So you’re right, it’s only created a police state for half the population, and those are the best kind of police state (mainly if you’re not in the wrong half).

      Good ol’ Italian-Americans like myself, whose families came over when there were no quotas (as the Founders intended) have nothing to worry about if we get pulled over for speeding (as we Californians are wont to do in Arizona). 🙂

    • katz

      Doad is all over this, but the problem is not the stop’s legitimacy (after all, pretty much by definition, once it’s legalized, it’s legitimate). The problem is that the criteria are conditional, and the conditions cannot be controlled by the person. You can’t control whether or not there’s a law enforcement agent around, and you certainly can’t control whether or not you look reasonably suspicious to that particular law enforcement agent on that particular day when he is in that particular mood. You could be stopped for jaywalking or honking or turning without signaling or leaving your gas cap off or any number of other pretenses. Thus, from the citizen’s perspective–or, in practice, the perspective of a particular subset of the population–it’s a matter of always having to be able to prove the legitimacy of your presence.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s