Legalized Racial Profiling- do you feel safer?

[Tim]

1. Illegally entering this country is a criminal offense.
2. I wasn't necessarily trying compare apples to apples. I was simply illustrating that just because something might benefit the local economy does not make it right if it's illegal nor should it be tolerated.
3. I could care less about your stance on illegal immigration. I was simply responding to your whining about how it could affect the area negatively economically if all the illegals would be deported.

So let me see if I have this correct. If you had the power to just snap your fingers and every single person who is in this country illegally could be deported instantly, you would do it?
You wouldn't put any thought behind what that would mean to families, communities, the economy, public schools, businesses and everything else that would be negatively effected?

 

[Tim]

For everybody who says there's a better way (Tim and Ed), do you have any suggestions? I see a lot of criticism, but I'm not seeing any solutions. I'm not convinced that there is a way that's better than strictly enforcing the laws already on the books.

And as a side note, is the Justice Department's lawsuit the best way for the federal government to respond? It seems to me that this is being botched by the feds, not the state.

It's funny that you mention enforcing the laws already on the books. Because if that was the case, Arizona would not need this new law. Arizona has a law on the books that requires all businesses to run their employees through E-Verify to check their residency status. It doesn't matter if you only hire one person or ten thousand, it is a requirement. Yet of the tens of thousands of businesses in Arizona, less than 6% are in compliance with the law. This law that's already on the books would be extremely effective if enforced, because who can live in a area where you cannot get a job, any job? So instead of making a new law that won't have nearly the same teeth as the existing law, why didn't they just enforce the one that was already on the books? It doesn't sound like they are actually serious about the problem, but rather making a political statement.

And yes, my suggestions are probably more in line with yours than you think.
1. Seal the borders and coastlines to stop any further illegal immigration, without this measure, everything else will fail.
2. Provide a means of exit for anyone wanting to leave.
3. Work with employers to replace their illegal workforce
4. Set time-lines to get through the paperwork (who can get legal and stay, who must leave, etc)
5. Make sure any new illegal immigrants are deported right away, no delays, no paperwork.
6. Have an agency that actually follows up on expired student visa's and work visa's. If you are in this country and allow your visa to expire, you will be found and deported immediately.

I'm sure there would be more on my list

 

[dt3]

It's funny that you mention enforcing the laws already on the books. Because if that was the case, Arizona would not need this new law. Arizona has a law on the books that requires all businesses to run their employees through E-Verify to check their residency status. It doesn't matter if you only hire one person or ten thousand, it is a requirement. Yet of the tens of thousands of businesses in Arizona, less than 6% are in compliance with the law. This law that's already on the books would be extremely effective if enforced, because who can live in a area where you cannot get a job, any job? So instead of making a new law that won't have nearly the same teeth as the existing law, why didn't they just enforce the one that was already on the books? It doesn't sound like they are actually serious about the problem, but rather making a political statement.

I didn't know that, and you're right, that would make a lot more sense. But who's going to enforce it? It makes a lot more sense financially to have Troopers, who already have a car stopped for a legitimate legal reason, to check the paperwork. The new method has almost 0 enforcement cost up front, they can do it in the course of their regular duties. To enforce the law you brought up would either require pulling cops off the street or hire more, both of which are probably pretty unpopular.

And yes, my suggestions are probably more in line with yours than you think.
1. Seal the borders and coastlines to stop any further illegal immigration, without this measure, everything else will fail.
2. Provide a means of exit for anyone wanting to leave.
3. Work with employers to replace their illegal workforce
4. Set time-lines to get through the paperwork (who can get legal and stay, who must leave, etc)
5. Make sure any new illegal immigrants are deported right away, no delays, no paperwork.
6. Have an agency that actually follows up on expired student visa's and work visa's. If you are in this country and allow your visa to expire, you will be found and deported immediately.

I'm sure there would be more on my list

I agree, except step 6 (like retro pointed out) should be ICE or DHS or any of the other 3 letter domestic agencies. All of your points make sense, so why isn't it being done? Shouldn't the top priority of ANY sovereign country be to secure their border? Isn't that common sense???

 

[Tim]

I didn't know that, and you're right, that would make a lot more sense. But who's going to enforce it?

Here is link explaining the law a little better. And as far as enforcement, the 15 county attorneys are responsible for enforcing the law. But if a business knowingly hires an illegal immigrant, the first offense is to have their business license suspended. That's a big deal, because you cannot continue to operate your business without it's license. So it wouldn't take long to make a few examples and get everyone on board. I mean would you jeopardize your entire business for the sake of hiring a few illegals? I know I wouldn't take the chance.
You wouldn't need law enforcement to enforce or police this law. There are already agencies in place that make sure you have a business license and you are paying proper taxes and such. I mean why can't the social security administration keep tabs when the SS tax is paid? I think there are many agencies already in place that can oversee it... :dunno

Like I have said from day one in this debate. Arizona isn't actually trying to fix the problem... Hell, nobody in politics are trying to fix the problem. Because if the problem were solved, business would lose their cheap labor, politicians would no longer be able to point their finger and say, "they are the problem" and the media would loose good air time topics.

 

[Accountable]

In what way, Ed. Seems lots of people throw this hyperbole out but nobody wants to explain it. How is enforcing existing federal immigration law at the state level anything but reasonable? You can bet that Spain wouldn't sit around with their hands in their pockets if the EU failed to hold up their end of the stick in some way.

that just reminded me of Sarah Palin's "In what way, Charlie?"... :24:

But seriously, Spain has an immigration issue from Africa that is huge. Many illegals here in southern Spain, they literally just have to swim the 12km from Morocco after journeying 1,000s of miles across Africa. Generally they are tolerated, illegal immigration here is not a criminal offense, as it shouldn't be. There are immigration centres where illegals can go to for accommodation whilst the legal process is started if they so wish, or they can live on the black market, which many do.

You got lost in my analogy and never got around to answering my question. How is enforcing federal immigration law at the state level anything but reasonable?

The law does not permit racial profiling yet that's EXACTLY what this change in law will bring about. No matter how many times you type it. Though aim for 100, that might make it so.

I believe the Arizona State Troopers will do their job. Their job is now to find illegal immigrants. How do you think they'll do this? Um, racial profiling maybe? It's an easy cop, and the authorities LOVE and easy cop.

So you prejudicially believe that the typical Arizona State Trooper, the majority of whom are Hispanic, are prejudiced against Hispanics. In fact, you believe that these guys are so vehemently racist (despite being of the same race, mind) that they would risk their very livlihoods to harass anyone with brown skin, citizen or not. You have nothing whatsoever to base it on, but you define it as reasonable.

I'm surprised any of them survived the police academy, much less graduated. Morning roll call must be pure chaos, what with all of them trying to deport each other.

I mean untrue, of course, because the right-wing media that fuels this kind of crap is known to lie more often than the left-wing media that generally sticks to the statistics.

Ed, you know I love ya, but I think you're confusing what you wish to be true with what really is true. Unless you've got stats, of course.

The truth is they're not committing a crime wave upon society, they commit crimes well below the average. This is from my knowledge of UK immigration and how it's reported over there, and I doubt it's much different on the other side of the pond. The whole issue is a vote-winning scare monger tactic used to gain loyalty and votes for those "tough on immigration" by creating a new and mostly fictitious enemy. Come on, I'm very surprised you've fallen for this twaddle

It's not relevant whether they continue breaking laws once they get here illegally. They came here illegally. They remain here illegally. They don't need to commit more than the one crime to deserve deportation.

I've done lots of jobs I didn't want to do, Ed. Haven't you?

The last job I did I didn't want to was when I was 16 and working in a Supermarket.

Then you do understand that people will work a job they don't necessarily want to do. So for you (way over there) to try to justify allowing criminals to continue breaking our laws (over here) because our citizens probably wouldn't want to do certain jobs is a silly argument.

I can see you're typing it out again, but no matter how many times you type it, it won't make it so. Here's a good example of what will happen. In the UK, when the police got hold of portable speed cameras, they suddenly realised they could look like they were doing their job by putting masses of resources into busting speeding drivers, which are an easy target on British roads as the limits are so low. So, they catch X amount of speeders and put fewer resources into other areas. This generally means that drivers are discriminated against. So by making illegal immigration a criminal issue, and they're easy targets because of a difference in physical appearance, do you not see how this will lead to profiling? As I said, it's an easy cop.

and as I said:

The State of Arizona's citizens support the law. If they supported something as destructive and against their best interests as full socialism, I'd say God Bless 'em. It's their decision. My frustration comes from you & others continuing to harp endlessly that it's a racist law and/or promotes, even dictates, racial profiling when it clearly prohibits it. And then when I mention the federal law it gets ignored like so much smoke.

the law in itself isn't racist, you are totally correct there. But that's not what I said. Whether it permits racial profiling or not, it doesn't matter. that is what it will lead to.

You've got nothing but your own bigotry on which to base that opinion.

If you believe racial profiling is inevitable despite all the stopgaps place within this law, and that that alone is reason enough to eliminate the law, then shouldn't every law be eliminated for the same reason? After all, none of them go as far as this one to prohibit it.

 

[Accountable]

I vehemently disagree with a national ID card though.

Why? I understand being against this bio-whatchacallit crap Washington's trying to throw in, but why be against the card itself?

 

[Accountable]

All of your points make sense, so why isn't it being done? Shouldn't the top priority of ANY sovereign country be to secure their border? Isn't that common sense???

It is common sense. So why would Washington politicians fail time and time again to do what is so obviously their top priority, in the best interests of the nation, and common sense?

It must be that their job is not their top priority. Why would people continue re-electing politicians who obviously don't have the best interests of the nation foremost in their minds???

 

[satinbutterfly]

So let me see if I have this correct. If you had the power to just snap your fingers and every single person who is in this country illegally could be deported instantly, you would do it?
You wouldn't put any thought behind what that would mean to families, communities, the economy, public schools, businesses and everything else that would be negatively effected?

I believe if we make laws they should be enforced. If I speed I expect to get a speeding ticket which is the punishment for breaking the speed limit. If you come over here illegally you should fully expect to be deported.

I believe in that little thing called Personal Responsibility. Yes it may affect the people who've profited off of the illegals, but they should fully expect it won't last forever because eventually they get caught and the law is enforced.

The law is the law is the law. You don't like it... change the bloody law. Until then I believe the law should be enforced.

And just for the record I agree with the law. You wanna come and live in our great nation? That's great but at least start by doing it the right way.

 

[retro]

Why? I understand being against this bio-whatchacallit crap Washington's trying to throw in, but why be against the card itself?

Consolidation of more things to the government. It should be a state issue.

 

[retro]

It is common sense. So why would Washington politicians fail time and time again to do what is so obviously their top priority, in the best interests of the nation, and common sense?

It must be that their job is not their top priority. Why would people continue re-electing politicians who obviously don't have the best interests of the nation foremost in their minds???

Their top priority is shoving legislation down our throats that most of us don't want, and then promising not to do it again when election time rolls around again. They want to implement their agenda, and stay in office... though I think it's in the reverse order.

 

[edgray]

You got lost in my analogy and never got around to answering my question. How is enforcing federal immigration law at the state level anything but reasonable?

Because it's not the most sensible solution to the problem.

So you prejudicially believe that the typical Arizona State Trooper, the majority of whom are Hispanic, are prejudiced against Hispanics. In fact, you believe that these guys are so vehemently racist (despite being of the same race, mind) that they would risk their very livlihoods to harass anyone with brown skin, citizen or not. You have nothing whatsoever to base it on, but you define it as reasonable.

I'm surprised any of them survived the police academy, much less graduated. Morning roll call must be pure chaos, what with all of them trying to deport each other.

It's not just the police though, is it? The problem is this gives every single person with a slight bigotry (most people have them on some level) what is tantamount to legal recourse for that bigotry.

Show me a police force that has no racism or any kind of prejudice and I'll show you a pig that can fly. To the moon. In 25 minutes.

Ed, you know I love ya, but I think you're confusing what you wish to be true with what really is true. Unless you've got stats, of course.

It's not relevant whether they continue breaking laws once they get here illegally. They came here illegally. They remain here illegally. They don't need to commit more than the one crime to deserve deportation.

I posted a link to factcheck.org, that's a good starting point, also mediamatters.org too - they catch the right wing media lying through their retentive arses much more often than the left. You have to remember, the truth has a definite left-wing bias...

But about the whole legality thing - the point is it shouldn't be a criminal matter, deportation and immigration is, in most countries I'm aware of, a civil matter, not a criminal one. It needn't be that way.

Then you do understand that people will work a job they don't necessarily want to do. So for you (way over there) to try to justify allowing criminals to continue breaking our laws (over here) because our citizens probably wouldn't want to do certain jobs is a silly argument.

That's a tiny part of the argument, not a basis and it's just refuting the nonsense of immigrants "taking our jobs" which is just lazy people's excuses for being unemployed. Check the article I posted from factcheck - immigration actually creates employment, the complete opposite of what the people behind these kind of laws claim.

and as I said:You've got nothing but your own bigotry on which to base that opinion.

My bigotry against whom, exactly?

If you believe racial profiling is inevitable despite all the stopgaps place within this law, and that that alone is reason enough to eliminate the law, then shouldn't every law be eliminated for the same reason? After all, none of them go as far as this one to prohibit it.

Of course it's inevitable. How many crimes can solely be judged on the color of someone's skin? I'm thinking none. This is the only one I'm aware of. And that's why it should remain a civil issue, not a criminal one. It's going to make all Hispanics, legal or otherwise, a target for the filth. I'm sorry but it doesn't matter what laws are there in place. Do you think a legal Hispanic who might be harrassed for their papers etc is going to take the police to court? When have downtrodden minorities ever done something like that? The police will get away with doing whatever the hell they want, unless it becomes really serious like a shooting involved or something.

 

[Accountable]

Because it's not the most sensible solution to the problem

Do you stand by this? Our law enforcement officers should ignore any law they deem is not the "most sensible solution"?

But about the whole legality thing - the point is it shouldn't be a criminal matter, deportation and immigration is, in most countries I'm aware of, a civil matter, not a criminal one. It needn't be that way.

The people of Arizona feel differently. I'm sure it wouldn't be that way if the federal gov't would enforce the law as required.

That's a tiny part of the argument, not a basis and it's just refuting the nonsense of immigrants "taking our jobs" which is just lazy people's excuses for being unemployed. Check the article I posted from factcheck - immigration actually creates employment, the complete opposite of what the people behind these kind of laws claim.

The entire argument is irrelevant. They came into the country without permission. If you are in the United States without permission, the law requires that you be returned. It should be as simple as that, and it would be as simple as that if the federal gov't would enforce the law as required.

My bigotry against whom, exactly?

Not sure, exactly. Against all Americans? Against Southern Americans? Certainly not against only white Southerners because you believe Hispanics will compulsively harass other Hispanics simply because they're Hispanic. Maybe against all police? Or would it be only American police?

Of course it's inevitable. How many crimes can solely be judged on the color of someone's skin? I'm thinking none. This is the only one I'm aware of. And that's why it should remain a civil issue, not a criminal one. It's going to make all Hispanics, legal or otherwise, a target for the filth. I'm sorry but it doesn't matter what laws are there in place. Do you think a legal Hispanic who might be harrassed for their papers etc is going to take the police to court? When have downtrodden minorities ever done something like that? The police will get away with doing whatever the hell they want, unless it becomes really serious like a shooting involved or something.

Every syllable of this screams your ignorance of the situation, your bigotry, and your utter refusal to acknowledge facts staring you in the face. If you can't fathom those entrusted to enforce the law actually following the rules and doing what they're sworn to do, then this conversation is over. There's no point to it.

 

[Peter Parka]

. If you can't fathom those entrusted to enforce the law actually following the rules and doing what they're sworn to do, then this conversation is over. There's no point to it.

Yes, there's no such thing as police corruption, it's a complete myth.:sarcasm
:24::24::24::24::24::24::24:

 

[Accountable]

Yes, there's no such thing as police corruption, it's a complete myth.:sarcasm
:24::24::24::24::24::24:

I live for your entertainment.

 

[edgray]

Do you stand by this? Our law enforcement officers should ignore any law they deem is not the "most sensible solution"?

it wouldn't be the first time police officers have used their discretion. This is hardly a problem that's damaging society, they could well be focusing on better things, and I'm sure they'll be police that feel that way, too.

The people of Arizona feel differently. I'm sure it wouldn't be that way if the federal gov't would enforce the law as required.

All of them?

The entire argument is irrelevant. They came into the country without permission. If you are in the United States without permission, the law requires that you be returned. It should be as simple as that, and it would be as simple as that if the federal gov't would enforce the law as required.

Coming into a country without permission normally doesn't make you a criminal. And really, if you think about it, it shouldn't. When I lived in Canada I over stayed my welcome, visa-wise. I didn't get arrested, I didn't get charged or anything. In fact, very little fuss was made as I wasn't doing anyone any harm.

The argument is very relevant. The whole push for this kind of law is the whole "they're taking our jobs" thing, which a) isn't true b) is just an acceptable face of racism. You get that everywhere, not just in the US. The is the first instance I've heard of of the nation's law being used to enforce that racism. The whole thing is just shooting yourselves in the foot to pander to scare-mongering.

Not sure, exactly. Against all Americans? Against Southern Americans? Certainly not against only white Southerners because you believe Hispanics will compulsively harass other Hispanics simply because they're Hispanic. Maybe against all police? Or would it be only American police?

Well you should know I have no bigotry against Americans. And nothing against southern Americans either. Against police? Most definitely. And not just American ones either. The only decent police I've ever come across were in Canada.

Every syllable of this screams your ignorance of the situation, your bigotry, and your utter refusal to acknowledge facts staring you in the face. If you can't fathom those entrusted to enforce the law actually following the rules and doing what they're sworn to do, then this conversation is over. There's no point to it.

No it really doesn't. Nor does it scream of this bigotry you seem to think I have. I'm sorry, but the police in any country hardly have a glowing record for what they do.

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm currently in Phoenix and had an interesting conversation with a limo driver of foreign decent (white European) who brought the subject up. He told me that he lives in a good neaborhood in a rural area and recently he was heading home after work at night. Approaching a dark intersection he flashed his high beams and suddenly he had not one but three police cars pull him over. He was told that he was pulled over because they thought he was drunk because he used his high beams at the intersection. He took a breathilizer and came up negative, but the police told them they wanted him to come to the station house anyway, and not to worry because he would not be arrested. He refused and told them he was going to call his lawyer. After some conversation among themselves, they let him go home. His take on this occurrence is that the city of Phoenix is short of cash and plan on laying off a lot of police. Consequently the police are trying to justify their existence.

While this story is completely unverifiable, I think it illustrates the problem of asking police to act based on their suspicions. While I understand that judgment is required for most jobs, and is an important aspect of police work, policies for detaining people must be clearly defined, and even then it can be abused. If it happened as he described it is a good illustration of how police can manufacture "cause" to pull you over and ask for identity papers. This is where I have misgivings.

 

[Accountable]

http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/4288487/stopping-illegal-immigration/?playlist_id=86856

At about 2:20 into this video they toss up a rumor that Phoenix is against the law and are planning to bring in everybody they can, to cause a bottleneck.

 

[Minor Axis]

Lawsuit Pits Security Against Civil Liberties

Should 'security' trump your civil rights?

WASHINGTON — Abdullah al-Kidd was arrested at a Dulles Airport ticket counter in March 2003, led away in handcuffs and sent to three different jails across the country. He says he was strip searched and subjected to humiliating conditions. After two weeks, he was released and never charged with a crime.
Al-Kidd, a U.S. citizen who is African-American and Muslim, later sued then-attorney general John Ashcroft and other officials for violating his rights. In a case now before the Supreme Court, he claims his arrest wrongly flowed from aggressive Justice Department policies after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Al-Kidd says the material-witness policy, which led to his "punitive, excessive and unlawful" 16-day detention, violated the Fourth Amendment rule that a person not be arrested without probable cause of wrongdoing.
"The Fourth Amendment does not permit locking up people just to investigate them," says Georgetown University law professor David Cole, who has tracked terrorism cases. "We are not seeing the kind of aggressive, systematic use of the material-witness statute as we did in the wake of Sept. 11, but what's at stake is … the next time (the government) wants to … use it for purposes never intended."