Glen- You are viewing reality through your own terministic screen, as do all of us.
We seem to be using a different definition of "complexity". Mine is in line with the Stacey diagram of agreement/certainty or the Cynefin Framework of Snowden that deals with cause and effect. Perhaps therein lies the difficulty, and why I see something you do not, and vice-versa. In spite of that, we can probably both agree that the situation in Arizona is now out of any attractor well and unsustainable in it's present form. Unless a suitable attractor is found and amplified, Arizona will devolve further into chaos. The federal government has proven completely incapable of providing that suitable attractor well, hence the Arizona law, which both of us agree to be unsatisfactory, but for partially similar, and partially differing, reasons. That seems to describe a Complex Adaptive System-an attempt to adapt to a novel, and untenable, change in the system. Why do you feel I do not see logic in describing it as such?? You seem to be critical because I do not condemn the bill in the way you feel I should. Ok, that's fine. We differ on the weight and validity we place on our observations. You see the police itching to trample on the rights of brown people, and I do not. But what does that have to do with looking at the complex system into which the bill was introduced?? It doesn't change the fact that a suitable attractor needs to be found to bring the system into stability. Russ #3 Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ [email protected] www.emergenthealth.net
<<inline: PastedGraphic-3.tiff>>
On May 10, 2010, at 2:16 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote: > Russell Gonnering wrote circa 10-05-09 07:39 AM: >> Reading the text of the bill: >> http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf >> I see no statute that entitles a "show me your papers" demand unless it is >> in >> the course of investigation of a crime. The straw man argument that police >> in >> Arizona (many of whom are Hispanic themselves) will harass people because >> they >> don't like the way they look BECAUSE of this bill does not seem logical. > > The trick is that you have to _look_ for the logic others use. This > often requires listening with empathy. The logic is there. Just > because _you_ don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. ;-) Now, > whether it's _valid_ or sound is another matter. But it is logical, as > is your position. > > Here's an excellent post on the subject: > > http://www.papersplease.org/wp/2010/04/28/new-arizona-immigration-law-and-id-demands/ > > If you read the comments, you'll see the following: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > # Checkpoint USA Says: > April 30th, 2010 at 12:06 am > > Microsoft Bob said: > > “Arizona is one of a few states with a “Stop and Identify” law: > > http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS > > This new law establishes criminal penalties. So if the officer suspects > you are violating this law, they can use the stop-and-identify statue to > require you to produce ID (see Hiibel). > > I believe if you refused to provide any ID you would simply be detained > under the stop and identify statue that has been on the books for 5+ years. > > Thus it is technically correct there is no “papers please” in this law, > but the effect of this law with others already on the books still leads > to that situation for all practical purposes, as far as I can tell.” > > I’ll be writing about this in more detail on my blog but the Arizona > Legislature has effectively shot itself in the foot with this one. > > In Hiibel v Nevada, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in pertinent part that > stop and identify statutes based upon reasonable suspicion were only > Constitutional when the individual being compelled to provide his name > doesn’t have a reasonable belief that his name will be used to > incriminate himself or assist in his prosecution: > > “In this case petitioner’s refusal to disclose his name was not based on > any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to > incriminate him, or that it “would furnish a link in the chain of > evidence needed to prosecute” him” > > With the advent of this new Arizona law designed to identify aliens so > as to prosecute them for not carrying their immigration papers, seeking > employment in violation of the law or trespassing, a person’s name will > indeed be used to incriminate or furnish a link in the chain of evidence > necessary to prosecute. As such, the Hiibel ruling doesn’t apply and the > stop and identify statute must be ruled unconstitutional in such > circumstances. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> The Arizona bill provides for a fascinating study in emergence to anyone >> interested in complexity theory in the sociologic context. > > So, if we're to believe this post, it is precisely that laws (and the > systems they govern) are _complex_ that constitutes the logic you don't > see. The LEOs already have the legal right to detain anyone who refuses > to show ID when asked. This new law, despite the modifications made > later, just puts more _focus_ on brown people. > > Now, it's true that IF (big if) the subject has her legal chops, has > read the law with wisdom, has had long conversations like the one we're > having now, or has some lawyer friends, THEN she can refuse to show ID > when the LEO demands it. She'll be detained; but even if she's here > illegally, the application of that law in that circumstance will be > deemed unconstitutional. And IF (another big if) she has the finances > or gets the attention of the ACLU, then she can pursue it all the way to > the supreme court or whatever path it takes through the courts. > > But how many subjects of this law... we _reasonably_ suppose are here > illegally... have the time, money, and privilege to gain this intimate > understanding of the law and law enforcement? My guess is pretty close > to zero. So, who's the _REAL_ target of this law? > > The poor and uneducated. They are the effective target. > > This law is a perfect example of treating the symptoms and not the cause. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
