Many bloggers have suggested that the Arizona Immigration Bill entails racial profiling, and many immigration restrictionists have bent over backwards to argue it does not entail racial profiling. Frankly, I do not care if it does entail such profiling. As most of you know, the Latin etymology of ‘nation’ implies link by blood; the traditional understanding of a nation, one rooted in the extended metaphor of the family, implies that compatriots are supposed to look alike and that you should question the status of those who do not resemble you. Thus, in the traditional understanding of a nation – you know, the type that has existed for the last 3,000 years – there would be nothing wrong with ethnic profiling. Only under the modern, left-wing propositional state would anyone find fault with a type of “profiling” that has existed since the beginning of human civilization. The tendency toward this profiling (which is probably sociobiological) of in-group vs. out-group is completely normal by historical standards. It seems rather utopian for conservatives to oppose it.
On a related note, I find it confusing that proponents of localism – both at this site and elsewhere – would find fault with this legislation. Localities will differ from each other on how they want to govern themselves. It is quite natural for localities to want to police who can and cannot be there. To seek to overturn local initiatives by an appeal to an abstract position of individual liberty, one could rob a locality of the basic function of self-preservation. One might end up usurping localism in the name of (Enlightenment) abstract principles. This self-destructive ennui in the face of a workable solution, unfortunately today endemic to the West, must be extirpated.