Immigration Advocates Rising Up in Anger Across the Nation Over New Arizona Law

[jclalor 12]

***

Quote

Quote

Law enforcment cannot (legally) stop you for just looking brown, they must first have reasonable cause that you committed a crime.

You clearly have no idea how naive a statement that is. Please see my post #33 above.

As I noted in the other AZ thread, I've worked in and around criminal justice in multiple jurisdictions for over 30 years. It's an open secret that drivers get stopped by police for "DWB" violations - "Driving While Black". Except in the southern border states, especially AZ now, it's "Driving While Brown".

As I stated, they cannot legally stop you for looking brown, they can make up a mulitude of reasons why they did stop you. My point was that to say, to state that the law lets you stop anyone who is brown, to check there papers is incorrect.
If I was a Hispanic citizen of Arizona I would try and get picked up, and have no proof of my legal status on me. If they then detained me I would sue the fuck out of them

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

I would try and get picked up, and have no proof of my legal status on me. If they then detained me I would sue the fuck out of them

Or you could just not be an ass and it wouldn't affect you?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

My point was that to say, to state that the law lets you stop anyone who is brown, to check there papers is incorrect.

No, it's not. Of course, the statute is not going to use the words "brown" or "Hispanic", but the practical effect of the law is to state exactly that; but instead of blatantly permitting racial profiling, the statute says the same thing, but just in code: "any person who the officer reasonably suspects may be an illegal immigrant" means just that.

Please see my post #43 - that is exactly the point being made in the lawsuit filed by a Hispanic Arizona police officer saying that the law effectively commands him to engage in racial profiling, because there's no way he can do what the law says without engaging in racial profiling.

The Arizona Legislature knew exactly what they were doing when they drafted the language of the statute: they were using "code" to command (or at least authorize) racial profiling, and they knew fully well that that's what they were doing. And that's the point of the officer's lawsuit: saying something "in code" is still saying it.

[Bolas 5]

"racial profiling" is such a BS thing becuase race is only part of the critieria.

If you know drug dealers and traffickers generally match a certain description and m.o. and they are observed breaking the law, it should not be illegal to stop them and if probable cause justifies, question and search.

If someone matches a general description of an illegal immigrant and they are observed breaking the law, they should be able to be questioned.

This doesn't mean one only concentrates on people that match that description but they should also not ignore their instincts.

Profiling really can't be stopped. Even if they start tracking who gets stopped and questioned strictly by race and not by ratio of stops to arrests or it's very easy to "fix" those numbers by simply stopping a few people that purposely don't meet those requirements.

Besides, in my experience, if they stop you for a something minor but are looking for something major (trespassing vs. robbery) (minor traffic violation vs. DUI) they'll usually just give you a verbal warning if you don't meet that criteria.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

"racial profiling" is such a BS thing becuase race is only part of the critieria.

If you know drug dealers and traffickers generally match a certain description and m.o. and they are observed breaking the law, it should not be illegal to stop them and if probable cause justifies, question and search.

If someone matches a general description of an illegal immigrant and they are observed breaking the law, they should be able to be questioned.

This doesn't mean one only concentrates on people that match that description but they should also not ignore their instincts.

Profiling really can't be stopped. Even if they start tracking who gets stopped and questioned strictly by race and not by ratio of stops to arrests or it's very easy to "fix" those numbers by simply stopping a few people that purposely don't meet those requirements.

Besides, in my experience, if they stop you for a something minor but are looking for something major (trespassing vs. robbery) (minor traffic violation vs. DUI) they'll usually just give you a verbal warning if you don't meet that criteria.

There ya' go! So far, I haven't been stopped and had my pick-up searched but my pick-up is a 'profile vehicle... it's a Dodge. Known for their 'compartments'.


Chuck

[Freefly710 0]

If purple people with horns are coming here illegally from Purplepeoplewithhornville and are causing a multitude of problems (the illegal ones, not the legal ones), and a purple person with horns is pulled over or stopped for a good reason (DUI, speeding, driving with no lights, disorderly conduct, etc.) , then the law enforcement officer should have every right to check the legal status of that person. Call it racial profiling if you want, but unless we check for the problem, than we can't solve the problem. When I was in Spain, I was checked twice for my papers. That is NOT harassment! When I was in France, I was taken aside and questioned and my ID was checked by two officers. GOOD FOR THOSE OFFICERS! They had every right to do what they did if they had ANY reason to think that I should not have been there, even though I was just minding my own business and did not do anything illegal. They had no reason to question me, aside from just a hunch. THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE!! It protects their country. Even under the Arizona laws, officers have less authority to question Latinos then those officers did in France. They were absolutely polite and professional, by the way.

I'm all for EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the US having to show proof of immigration/citizenship status at every interaction with local/state/federal authorities. "Interaction" in this sense being as described by a post earlier, i.e. being pulled over for speeding, checking in to a federal building, coming in and out of the country, etc.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

If purple people with horns are coming here illegally from Purplepeoplewithhornville and are causing a multitude of problems (the illegal ones, not the legal ones), and a purple person with horns is pulled over or stopped for a good reason (DUI, speeding, driving with no lights, disorderly conduct, etc.) .......,

You folks keep missing the point, over and over again, and repeating this tired talking point, over and over again.

OK, once again: The problem is not with checking those who were stopped for a legitimate reason. The problem is with stopping people for how they look and no other reason - truthfully in order to check them - even though a plausible premise for the stop may be invented by the LEO in order to "legitimize" the stop & check. That is the essence of what racial profiling is all about. I just discussed this in detail in post #100 above.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

If purple people with horns are coming here illegally from Purplepeoplewithhornville and are causing a multitude of problems (the illegal ones, not the legal ones), and a purple person with horns is pulled over or stopped for a good reason (DUI, speeding, driving with no lights, disorderly conduct, etc.) .......,

You folks keep missing the point, over and over again, and repeating this tired talking point, over and over again.

OK, once again: The problem is not with checking those who were stopped for a legitimate reason. The problem is with stopping people for how they look and no other reason - truthfully in order to check them - even though a plausible premise for the stop may be invented by the LEO in order to "legitimize" the stop & check. That is the essence of what racial profiling is all about. I just discussed this in detail in post #100 above.

right... and that can happen today with a multitude of laws already on the books.

Your complaint isn't with the law then, (especially since it was modified recently) but with what you believe will be the method of enforcement of that law by some officers with questionable judgement. (at least that's the way I see it)

--
Rob

[davjohns 1]

I agree with Rhaig's comment above. It is clear that the law does not say what opponents are claiming. So those who want to oppose it then start claiming the enforcement of it will be a problem. The opponents of immigration enforcement (that's what they now amount to) now claim that law enforcement officers are evil and will do what is unlawful to enforce this law.

Ridiculous and baseless.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[masterrig 1]

You not only make a good point but you make a lot of sense. Unfortunately, too many people find it intrusive and well... a real bother. We need to keep in mind, there is a real 'war' going on in Mexico with thousands of Mexicans being killed and it's spilling over into our country. The Mexican border, once a cultural bridge, is now a war zone inhabited by killers, smugglers, and drug dealers as bad as any town in Afghanistan. Rural people who live along this border live with the daily possibility of death and destruction. If the president thinks the community is bitter, he just might be right. They are on the front lines in a war to supply recreational drug users their daily toke or weekly snort. The smugglers are doing quite well. I hear of no shortages from celebrities and potheads. And, in truth, I would guess most ranchers are ambivalent about dope smokers and drug users. Unfortunately they are trying to ranch on the battlefield where the self-righteous, self-centered stoners, snorters, smokers, shooters and suppliers are fighting The Law.
People along our southwest border in the rural communities cling to their guns because we are not prey, we take responsibility for our own lives and livlihood.


Chuck

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Your complaint isn't with the law then, (especially since it was modified recently) but with what you believe will be the method of enforcement of that law by some officers with questionable judgement.

No, it's not. See my post #103 re: the Arizona police officer who filed suit to vacate this law.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I agree with Rhaig's comment above. It is clear that the law does not say what opponents are claiming.

Talking point - which completely ignores the point I made in post #103 (and is being made by the AZ police officer plaintiff)

Quote

The opponents of immigration enforcement (that's what they now amount to)

...that's just nonsense and ad hominem demonizing of the ideological opposition...

Quote

...now claim that law enforcement officers are evil ....

.... as is that. Are you going to call them "unpatriotic America-haters" next?
I'm disappointed.

[rhaig 0]

even though the law now forbids that race be a factor. You, and the officer in question in that post, still believe that it requires racial profiling.

I still say that the law is not a bad law, but it's opponents fear poor enforcement methods.

--
Rob

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

even though the law now forbids that race be a factor. You, and the officer in question in that post, still believe that it requires racial profiling.

I still say that the law is not a bad law, but it's opponents fear poor enforcement methods.

It's breathtaking simple: if a law gives a "wink and a nod" to not using racial profiling, but as a practical matter it is not capable of being enforced without racial profiling, then the net (and legal) effect, nonetheless, is that it requires racial profiling. This may be above middle school civics, but it's really not that complicated an analysis.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

If purple people with horns are coming here illegally from Purplepeoplewithhornville and are causing a multitude of problems (the illegal ones, not the legal ones), and a purple person with horns is pulled over or stopped for a good reason (DUI, speeding, driving with no lights, disorderly conduct, etc.) .......,

You folks keep missing the point, over and over again, and repeating this tired talking point, over and over again.

OK, once again: The problem is not with checking those who were stopped for a legitimate reason. The problem is with stopping people for how they look and no other reason - truthfully in order to check them - even though a plausible premise for the stop may be invented by the LEO in order to "legitimize" the stop & check. That is the essence of what racial profiling is all about. I just discussed this in detail in post #100 above.

Do you really believe, with everyone being so 'sensitive' and so many people just looking for a cop to screw-up, that there will be such a massive abuse of the law by police officers? Also, have you read the entire entire law... all of what, 17 pages??


Chuck

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Do you really believe, with everyone being so 'sensitive' and so many people just looking for a cop to screw-up, that there will be such a massive abuse of the law by police officers?

I think cops will be very, very careful, and a bit less clumsy, about having a credible pretense for stopping a spi... er... person of interest.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Do you really believe, with everyone being so 'sensitive' and so many people just looking for a cop to screw-up, that there will be such a massive abuse of the law by police officers?

I think cops will be very, very careful, and a bit less clumsy, about having a credible pretense for stopping a spi... er... person of interest.

I'm curious too... have you by any chance read the new law? All what... 17 pages ?
Cops have been dealing with 'profiling' for some time now and I feel cionfident, they'll know how to handle it. Also, I'm sure, each licensed police officer will, if they haven't already, recieve a copy of the law and will be 'briefed' on it.


Chuck

[Andy9o8 2]

I've read most of it, albeit not every word. I've also read the latest revision enacted a day or 2 ago in response to the criticism. I still analyze it as I do in the above posts.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

I've read most of it, albeit not every word. I've also read the latest revision enacted a day or 2 ago in response to the criticism. I still analyze it as I do in the above posts.

I haven't seen a copy of it... though, I would like to. Would you know if it's posted anywhere? I see it as a response to the murder of the rancher in Arizona and that The State of Arizona realizes a 'real' problem and they are trying to do something about it.


Chuck

[chutem 0]

Is there any method of identifying Illegals that you would find acceptable?

James

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

even though the law now forbids that race be a factor. You, and the officer in question in that post, still believe that it requires racial profiling.

I still say that the law is not a bad law, but it's opponents fear poor enforcement methods.

It's breathtaking simple: if a law gives a "wink and a nod" to not using racial profiling, but as a practical matter it is not capable of being enforced without racial profiling, then the net (and legal) effect, nonetheless, is that it requires racial profiling. This may be above middle school civics, but it's really not that complicated an analysis.

I don't understand what the opposition to this is. If they are pulled over or stopped for breaking another law, other than "suspected illegal immigrant", where is the profiling?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

even though the law now forbids that race be a factor. You, and the officer in question in that post, still believe that it requires racial profiling.

I still say that the law is not a bad law, but it's opponents fear poor enforcement methods.

It's breathtaking simple: if a law gives a "wink and a nod" to not using racial profiling, but as a practical matter it is not capable of being enforced without racial profiling, then the net (and legal) effect, nonetheless, is that it requires racial profiling. This may be above middle school civics, but it's really not that complicated an analysis.

I don't understand what the opposition to this is. If they are pulled over or stopped for breaking another law, other than "suspected illegal immigrant", where is the profiling?

What really gets me is, the entire Hispanic community, both legal and illegal, the Mexican government and many citizens in this country, are all in an uproar over the new Arizona law. My point is, anyone of us wouldn't dare go into Mexico or any other country without proper papers. Yet, we are supposed to sit-back and just let anyone and everyone enter this country illegally or be accused of 'racial profiling'. I just don't understand that. When I read where illegals are saying they 'belong here' well, they can go through the process of becoming a U.S. citizen or they can stay in their country. When illegal aliens get in an uproar because we are going to penalize employers of illegals (that law has been on our books for many years) that's nuts. Not only are illegals here but they are trying to dictate to us how they should be treated. I support Arizona's actions and it's about time someone really tried to do something about the problem. If anything, it will certainly bring attention to the problems on our Southwest border.


Chuck

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

If I was a Hispanic citizen of Arizona I would try and get picked up, and have no proof of my legal status on me. If they then detained me I would sue the fuck out of them

My thoughts exactly.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

even though the law now forbids that race be a factor. You, and the officer in question in that post, still believe that it requires racial profiling.

I still say that the law is not a bad law, but it's opponents fear poor enforcement methods.

It's breathtaking simple: if a law gives a "wink and a nod" to not using racial profiling, but as a practical matter it is not capable of being enforced without racial profiling, then the net (and legal) effect, nonetheless, is that it requires racial profiling. This may be above middle school civics, but it's really not that complicated an analysis.

I don't understand what the opposition to this is. If they are pulled over or stopped for breaking another law, other than "suspected illegal immigrant", where is the profiling?

Sighh. OK, for the fifteenth time now. The racial profiling is not where they're stopped for actually doing something wrong, it's where the real reason they're stopped is because they have a certain "look" (i.e., poor Hispanic), and the cops invent an after-the-fact pretext for having stopped them in order to keep it "legal". It's a tried-and-true police technique that has existed as long as there have been police. Read all my posts in this and the other "AZ immigrant law" thread, in which I explain this in detail. I can only keep typing the same explanation so many times. At some point people either get it or they don't.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Is there any method of identifying Illegals that you would find acceptable?

Yes. If they're polite and well-behaved, and bathe with reasonable frequency, I'd find them to be acceptable.