posted
I should think it logically follows that if Rage Against The Machine is part of the boycott that One Day As A Lion would also be a part. Heck, Audio Slave would also be a logical participator.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not a fan of Arizona's, law, but for me it's a gigantic at the people boycotting the state.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right! How dare people object to states taking on federal powers! And less than white-looking Americans should be happy to be dragged to jail even if they have proper ID on them if they don't look American enough.
Every Hispanic-looking person in Arizona will now have to be prepared to prove their innocence at all times, which, I dunno, doesn't sound terribly American to me.
I don't know that boycotting the state would make the slightest bit of of difference to the law, but if I wasn't clearly white I sure as hell wouldn't go near the place just because I wouldn't want to take the chance some bored cop might decide to deport me.
The only way this would not be open to discriminatory abuse would be if all Americans were required to carry citizenship papers on them at all times, and that idea never seems to fly very far.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're right! How dare people object to states taking on federal powers!
How about a trade -- the federal government stops taking on state powers, and the states will stop taking on federal powers. Deal?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Adding: While I don't like Arizona's law, I'm also aware of the major problems Arizona has with illegal immigration. I don't have an answer. I just don't think this is it.
Oddly enough, I kinda liked Bush Jr.'s immigration bill -- about the only thing in his administration I liked -- but naturally that was the one that was completely shot down.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm boycotting the state. My husband has been pulled over more than once for "driving while brown" in Indiana and rural Virginia, and the two of us have been hassled by the police for being in an interracial marriage. Given those experiences, I've no interest in going to a state where he could easily be thrown in jail for failing to carry his "official papers" documenting his legal status at all times, and then charged a fee to pay for his jail time before we can show positive proof of his right to be in the US.
That's besides a number of other troubling factors I see in the law (a great legal analysis is available here) - things that would make me protest the law, but not actually boycott the state as a whole. Actually, I think that most of our immigration laws are morally wrong, and am thus opposed to most laws that strengthen the status quo of immigration law & enforcement. We hire (likely) illegal immigrants without a qualm for under-the-table work around our house.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Surprisingly, it was actually my SO who nixed the notion of going to the Grand Canyon after my conference in SLC mostly due to the immigration law although obviously we've been watching much of the coverage together.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Arizonians by and large are trying to respond to a situation the federal government has proven inept at handling. It's no different than the federal government stepping in because the state's are not handling a particular situation.
I don't particularly like AZ's response, but they are between a rock and a hard place, and nobody has given them an out.
I think a more effective boycott would be for Hispanic people to have organized no shows at places where they work. I'd need more demographic information, but I am reasonably certain it would send a shock to the Arizonian economy. Of course the current unemployment rate might dull that shock somewhat.
Again having said I disagree with the bill, polls are showing more than 50% of American support the bill. I find it fascinating that I am out of touch with so many people on this matter. I'd like to understand the mind of the opposition a bit better.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those in favor say Arizona is just making that which already was a crime into a state crime. The problem is that they chose to take steps which are most likely racist. They are creating two requirements- one for the white folk and one for the brown folks (regarding carrying around proof of citizenship). Unless white citizens are asked for these documents at equivalent rates, which would probably outrage most of the supporters (I can just see someone claiming I am a citizen, born and raise and my parents were citizens, how dare they ask me to prove it), the law is unfair. Also, it turns the head on the whole innocent until proven guilty. I may be a US citizen, but if I can't prove it, I can be arrested and detained. Since when is that acceptable in America? That is why most people I know are outraged over the law. It isn't about open borders or the state enforcing immigration laws, it is about the tactics the state is using to enforce them.
It also is a dang stupid move on Arizona's part. The state can't even pay for kindergarten right now, so they go and do a blockhead move that forces companies to boycott them. My sister works for a big international company in their immigration department. With so many people who would be visiting on visas, they decided that Arizona was simply too risky at this time for their meetings. They do not want to see their employees harassed and so they will go somewhere else for their business meetings. Scheduling in a different state isn't really that big a hassle for them, but potentially dealing with a crazy cop arresting their employees for no good reason is a big deal. Are these companies (who are not boycotting, they are just making a business decision) overreacting? We won't really know for a few months, but no one really wants to be the one to find out what Arizona is going to do.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think Arizonians by and large are trying to respond to a situation the federal government has proven inept at handling. It's no different than the federal government stepping in because the state's are not handling a particular situation.
Other than the fact that the Constitution allows one and explicitly bars the other, that is.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I'm not a fan of Arizona's, law, but for me it's a gigantic at the people boycotting the state.
Agreed.
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: While I don't like Arizona's law, I'm also aware of the major problems Arizona has with illegal immigration. I don't have an answer. I just don't think this is it.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think Arizonians by and large are trying to respond to a situation the federal government has proven inept at handling. It's no different than the federal government stepping in because the state's are not handling a particular situation.
Other than the fact that the Constitution allows one and explicitly bars the other, that is.
We're just going to end up debating the merits of The Necessary and Proper Clause vs the 10th Amendment.
Founding fathers fell on both sides of the issue from the very beginning.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again having said I disagree with the bill, polls are showing more than 50% of American support the bill. I find it fascinating that I am out of touch with so many people on this matter. I'd like to understand the mind of the opposition a bit better.
It's possible that many Americans simply haven't considered the implications of the law in terms of racial profiling, and just know it as "the anti illegal immigrant law."
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the people I have heard, sinflower is right on. Every defense I have heard seems to be, we are just doing what the federal government has failed to do. Most also seem to think that complaints mean that you believe in open borders.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As with regards to the statement that unless white people are asked at the same rate for their papers then the law is racist/unfair, do we really have to ignore reality to preserve political correctness. If you're an illegal immigrant in America, you're most likely gonna be hispanic; that's not a knock on hispanics, it's a reflection of geographic reality; Arizona is BORDERING Mexico, not Kosovo, not Nigeria, not China, so logically the ethnic makeup of illegal immigrants is going to fall primarily into one group.
On the other hand, there is also the fact that tons of hispanic people are also citizens and as American as I am, and it sucks to get wrongfully harassed, though I wonder how much trouble it is to produce your driver's license for a police officer (or does that not count as enough proof of your citizenship?). I don't have any real personal experience with cop-harassment so I don't know how extensive that kind of a thing would be (btw, I'm pretty sure plenty of Arizona's police force are hispanic themselves).
I admit to a lot of ignorance on different factors of this issue, particularly as to what it's like to be a hispanic citizen in America, but now I lean more and more towards supporting the bill just because I think a lot of the condemnations of it and Arizona are so ridiculous.
Hopefully the bill will lead to the federal government itself confronting the issue and actually doing something meaningful.
Posts: 132 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, with reports coming through the news that terrorists related to groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia are using the Mexican/American border as a crossing point to enter the United States to do harm, why wouldn't EVERY minority be up for grabs as far as this goes? It's an incredibly short hop to move from concerns about illegal immigration to national security. And now everyone but white people are up for grabs.
In general I don't like this law for most of the reasons stated here. It's an open door to racial profiling, and I think it imposes an unfair double standard. I understand AZ's frustration with the issue. Part of me would almost be happy if AZ really could conduct a mass deportation of all illegals, so they could see just how much of a mess it would create in the labor market. Anyway, I agree that there is a problem, but there has to be a better solution than this.
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:I think a more effective boycott would be for Hispanic people to have organized no shows at places where they work.
You know what that would get reported as? "Hispanics too lazy to show up for work."
I really don't think that's true. If it really was a mass protest, and every Hispanic person in the state, or even just the illegal immigrants, had a sick-out day, and showed the meaningful impact that they have collectively on the economy there, and the integral role they play in the day to day operation of things, it wouldn't be reported as "lazy Hispanics." Even if I think on any regular day the Media might be that stupid, this isn't the case, since it's already a hot button issue, and such a protest would be viewed through that lens.
As far as boycotting the state goes, it doesn't really apply to me since I don't plan to do anything involving AZ, but I don't really have a problem with it one way or the other. I have a problem with the law. If other people have a problem with the law and want to choose to not spend their money there, that's their choice. A boycott is one of the most basic acts of protest. I don't think it will work, so I don't give them points for effectiveness, but I don't begrudge them their right to choose not to lend support to an apparatus they currently have a problem with.
quote:From daventor: Hopefully the bill will lead to the federal government itself confronting the issue and actually doing something meaningful.
This is what I also hope happens. I'm going to give Arizona's government the benefit of the doubt and say that this bill was a desperate act to take control of a situation that the Federal government has let spin out of control because of partisan bickering and a lack of will to take on a tough issue for fear of political backlash. It was perhaps a well-intentioned fix for a serious problem, but it was executed quite poorly. Hopefully this will prove to Congress that the border states aren't content to wait forever, and it's time to make the hard choices. A compromise needs to be reached, but I suspect that the political calendar makes a solution somewhat unlikely for another couple years.
Democrats will push ahead of midterms, but Republicans will filibuster. After the midterms, Republicans will come out invigorated and with bigger numbers, but numbers that even will mean even more gridlock. Given the rhetoric both sides are using, though one more than the other in this case, it will be difficult to come to a compromise that doesn't look like a full-on giveaway. Too much time has passed with too many voices framing this as a binary issue. Anti or pro immigration. Anti or pro amnesty. Anti or pro Hispanic. Etc. A real compromise that had both sides giving and taking would require both of them to sign onto evils they've been vilifying for years now, which is exactly why I don't think it will happen. This, by the way, is exactly the sort of thing that Obama has decried in the past, and one of the fundamental problems with the state of political discourse in America where gridlock is concerned.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I may be a US citizen, but if I can't prove it, I can be arrested and detained.
This, for me, is the crux of it. Plenty of high schoolers are running around with ID that claims they're 21. Is a driver's license going to cut it? Or are we talking about needing birth certificates and visa documents? What's going to constitute proof, anyway?
But then, I'm still of the crazy idea that if we want to stop illegal immigration from Mexico, we need to improve the economies of the countries just south of Mexico. From what I understand, illegals move into Mexico and take the jobs so the poor in Mexico are under pressure to move here and find the jobs their illegals took in Mexico. Stop illegals from moving into Mexico, stop a lot of illegals from needing to move here to feed their families and move them out of the garbage heap shanties.
If you let your neighbors live in squalor, I'm not sure how much moral ground I think you have to complain about them going through your garbage.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would it be fair to adopt the same rules Mexico has for immigration? How about instead of boycotting Arizona, those bands and artists can go to the border and live there for 60 days to bring awareness to the plight of people crossing the border?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but my understanding of the way this was being enforced was that a request for identification (and then subsequent citizenship documents if suspicion is aroused) would only be occurring in the event that someone is stopped for another offense (i.e. a traffic stop).
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. But that offense can include city ordinances, which gives police a wide range of things to stop people on. And it still means, in practical terms, that one race now has requirements -- always carry your papers in case you accidentally jaywalk or miss a garbage can with your gum wrapper -- that other races do not.
MPH: "How about all of them?"
Nope, I need to hear which powers you're disputing. Some may be better served with state control, some with federal. But a blanket assurance from you (or the government) either way is meaningless.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not race. Community. Ethnicity. My sister has a dark complexion. Baltic genes. She could get stopped there as well.
People have to stop this insanity about "racial profiling". If a witness sees a white guy commit a crime, cops will be looking for a white guy. It isn't racist to use your brains. If there's a problem with illegal immigration, then of course you need to check the IDs of people who fit the description.
God, this is political correctness run amok.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: always carry your papers in case you accidentally jaywalk or miss a garbage can with your gum wrapper -- that other races do not.
Isn't this true for all races? If you are stopped for jaywalking and given a ticket, don't they ask you for identification? If you cannot provide any identification then I believe it varies from state to state but I think they can detain you. If you are here on a visa, don't you need to carry your passport at all times according to federal law?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: God, this is political correctness run amok.
No it isn't. This could get ugly very quickly unless it is watched carefully. Stopping every 'dark skinned' person is wrong. After a violation of the law is committed, checking people's identification to make sure they are who they say they are, that there are no outstanding warrants, or other legal issues is right.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The American Society of Environmental Historians recently went through a big hullabaloo over moving their conference site from Phoenix to somewhere else as a result of the immigration bill. They decided not to (as breaking the hotel contract would leave the Society in financial ruin) but quite a few people are still likely going to boycott.
The debate on the listserv was really very articulate. Well educated people who write for a living arguing a contentious issue in a civilized manner is always a welcome site.
A good amount of historians involved in the discussion advocated keeping the conference in Phoenix, but reorganizing it to have a social justice focus, with specific panels addressing the immigration issue and the like. Some even talked about going out into parks and giving history lessons with the aim of educating the masses. I personally like that idea. Seems like artists could do the same type of thing.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The true problem with this law is that they are targeting innocent citizens due to the color of thier skin, not a nationality or any other level of division. It doesnt matter if you are from Mexico, Paraguay, Cuba, Guam or Puerto Rico because. Here legally or illegally, or even natural born to natural born parents, because if you are brown the police now have the right to persecute you jail you and possibly fine you. Its just more nationalist/racist bullying and the fact that many seemingly rational people I know are in support of it worries me.
The problem is not the people, its the reason they come here. Mexico purposly allows such poor conditions and wrongs to be done to northern Mexico knowing that people will always look for better ways to support thier families, but they oddly patriotic and retain themsevles as Mexicans thus widening the gap between American citizens and the people who wash thier cars. For instance language is truely the biggest hurdle when living in a foriegn country, but much of southern Mexico speaks english even teaching it to school children while northern Mexico remains monolingual and suffer for it when they cant find a job and seek employment in the U.S.
I have lived my entire life in Arizona, raised primarily in Phoenix. Think back to when you were in the fifth grade, about your best friend who lived in the same neighborhood as you and spoke with the same manner as you. Now consider your friend being detained and fined for being detained because his I.D. was in his wifes purse when he was asked about his citizenship status. Thats what Im looking at right here, everyday. The real people who have done nothing wrong and were already hassled by the police for not being white and now have to face the reality that they are targeted for being brown openly with no room to complain or fight back.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: A good amount of historians involved in the discussion advocated keeping the conference in Phoenix, but reorganizing it to have a social justice focus, with specific panels addressing the immigration issue and the like. Some even talked about going out into parks and giving history lessons with the aim of educating the masses. I personally like that idea. Seems like artists could do the same type of thing.
I'll go back to what I said before...why not hold these talks right on the border where people are crossing? Why not have some high profile artists, like Michael Moore, live there for 60 or 90 days?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
People who cross alone often die in the desert, most have a coyote as thier guide and would never be allowed to get near any organization other than one providing free water. It wouldnt be such a bad idea to take cameras and go count all the remains of women and children who starved out there. Y'know, show off just how tough the immigration laws are around here.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: ... Its just more nationalist/racist bullying and the fact that many seemingly rational people I know are in support of it worries me.
*shrug* 9/11 got racial profiling, extraordinary rendition, and warrant-less wiretapping going. Pearl Harbour, the Japanese detention camps.
I don't think it takes much of a push to get seemingly rational people to embrace policies that mainly affect "other" people as a group.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa- 45% of illegal immigrants legally crossed the border and are overstays. Lots of white folk there. So, yeah, if a cop has a 55% probability of Mexican, 45% of the perp being something else and he is profiling Mexicans, I am going to object. The odds aren't enough in favor to justify it. Also, every 9/11 bomber was here on a visa, with several people there as overstays.
The story linked by Chris states that the police are not interpreting a driver's license as sufficient proof. As far as not carrying ID, lots of people who go out jogging don't carry ID. They aren't driving so why should they? There are people who don't have driver's licenses (most of these people have state issued ID). You are supposed to keep your birth certificate in a safe secure location, not on you. When traveling, you are told to put your passport in the hotel safe.
If I was planning a business meeting with lots of internationals, I would pick a different state. One less thing to worry about.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The story linked by Chris states that the police are not interpreting a driver's license as sufficient proof. As far as not carrying ID, lots of people who go out jogging don't carry ID. They aren't driving so why should they? There are people who don't have driver's licenses (most of these people have state issued ID). You are supposed to keep your birth certificate in a safe secure location, not on you. When traveling, you are told to put your passport in the hotel safe.
From the law itself:
quote:A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following: 1. A valid Arizona driver license. 2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license. 3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification. 4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
Because your immigration status is checked prior to obtaining an Arizona driver license by the DMV, a driver license is considered acceptable proof of your right to be in the country. However, not all states do an immigration check first so unless the police memorize which states do and which states don't, out-of-state driver licenses are not going to be valid. And of course, there's the consideration you bring up pf situations when you're out walking on the street without any form of ID, or international tourists who may not be always carrying their passports - like my in-laws, who always keep their passports in a safe place in the house.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In regards to whether a driver's license is suffient, I noticed that the Governor of Arizona said that driver's license's would not be sufficent to prove citizenship.
posted
Actually, is there a separate clause for passports or something? Passports (or more specifically, tourists who have passports but don't need visas to enter the States (I'm not even 100% sure if a visa counts under 4, but I'm guessing it does)) don't seem to be covered by any of 1 through 4 unless I'm reading 4 wrong.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A visa would count under #4, since it's issued by the federal US government. You're right that there isn't an explicit clause for passports of citizens of nations that are not required to get visas. Guess that sucks for all those tourists.
Hume, it's a shame that the governor doesn't know her own laws better. To be fair, it's not the initial SB 1070 that has that clause - it's HB 2162(b), which amends SB 1070.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing to consider is reasonable suspicion for police is not what most people would consider reasonable. The newspaper in Texas recently looked into what policeman listed as suspicion for pulling over potential human traffickers (I am not in favor of human trafficking, just using it as an example). The list included: the car was driving too fast, the vehicle was driving too slow, the vehicle was suspiciously driving the exact speed limit. The vehicle was driving low (as though heavy). The vehicle was driving heavy (perhaps efforts were made to compensate the extra weight). The vehicle was (fill in the blank) car brand, a model often used for trafficking (from the list, just about every brand of car is often used in trafficking). The car was (fill in the blank) color, which is known to be used in trafficking. The car was dirty. The car was clean, as though freshly washed. Basically, any detail about your car is reasonable suspicion you are trafficking. And the courts have held up that all these things are reasonable. So, yeah, at least in Texas, tell a cop he just needs reasonable suspicion for something, and he will do it.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it is a shame that the governor apparently doesn't know what the law says; however, it is more than that. If she is interpreting the law in that way, then, as the head of Arizona's executive branch, the police are highly likely to enforce the law accordig to her interpretation.
Granted the judical branch would almost certainly rule against her interpretation if it ever went to court, but that means little in the meantime.
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Achilles, why would your friend be worried about being pulled over because of the color of his skin? The bill specifically prohibits racial profiling. The bill may actually HELP the friend. Have you read the bill? Its only 16 pages.
A drivers license, government, state, or local ID are all valid forms of identification. If you have one of those it won't go any further than that. If you are actually arrested then immigration status must be determined.
It is utterly irresponsible for the President to say that people have to worry about going to buy their kids ice cream for fear of being asked for their papers. Unless buying ice cream is against the law in Arizona, I think they are okay.
The bill also specifies that it allows law enforcement to act to the extent that federal law allows. It also prohibits racial profiling due to race, color or national origin.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine- the problem is, we already have a case where the driver's license was not sufficient and a governor who is stating that a driver's license is not enough. Also, you can be pulled over for any crime- jaywalking, flipping the bird at someone, whatever. If a cop decides he wants to ask you for proof of citizenship, he can find an excuse (see my earlier post about reasons Texas policeman pull someone over for trafficking suspicion). Based on AZ stellar rep, most of us don't really trust them not to find all sorts of petty excuses, which the law allows. Furthermore, honestly, how many white people do you think are going to be asked to produce proof of citizenship when pulled over for the same crime?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:A drivers license, government, state, or local ID are all valid forms of identification. If you have one of those it won't go any further than that.
This has already demonstrably proved false. People have already been pulled over and then had police detain them and demand them to provide their birth certificate, without regard to the presence of a legal commercial driver's licence.
The first thing you got to do when trying to make the case that something is okay because it 'won't go any further than X' is to check and make sure that there's not already evidence that X is a line that has been documentably crossed. :/
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Furthermore, honestly, how many white people do you think are going to be asked to produce proof of citizenship when pulled over for the same crime?"
Statistically, I'd imagine it's pretty low. Then again, statistically speaking, what percentage of illegal immigrants in Arizona are white?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Achilles, why would your friend be worried about being pulled over because of the color of his skin? The bill specifically prohibits racial profiling. The bill may actually HELP the friend. Have you read the bill? Its only 16 pages.
Have you read the bill? It specifically allows racial profiling to be a consideration. From the legal analysis I linked to above:
quote:What is racial profiling? We define racial profiling as using race as a factor in an investigation, stop, or arrest, other than where there is a description of a particular suspect's race. This is a common way to define racial profiling, though not the only way. But we think this definition accurately and usefully identifies when race is, or is not, a critical factor in the exercise of police powers. Defining racial profiling in this way does not answer the question of when the use of race in deciding whether to stop, search, examine or arrest a person is legal or illegal.
Does SB 1070 authorize racial profiling? Yes, the literal text authorizes racial profiling. But the interpretation and application of SB 1070 with regard to race remain uncertain. Although public officials have stated that the legislation prohibits racial profiling and that profiling is not otherwise legal, these statements are not consistent with the text of the statute or with existing law. The law says that law enforcement officers "may not consider race, color or national origin . . . except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." Decisions by both the United States Supreme Court and the Arizona Supreme Court have identified "ethnic factors" as a relevant consideration in enforcement of immigration laws, and have further determined that the U.S. Constitution allows race to be considered in immigration enforcement. ... As we will discuss, an equally important question is whether race would influence law enforcement, even if the statute had stated that race may not be a factor in decisions to stop or request information, and even if the statute is interpreted to forbid racial profiling despite its current language. The unavoidable issue is whether race so pervades the underlying determination of immigration status that it will inevitably infect law enforcement decision making, either explicitly or implicitly.
The authors - all legal scholars at various universities in Arizona - basically answer that last implicit question with a big fat "Yes" later on in the paper.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The authors - all legal scholars at various universities in Arizona - basically answer that last implicit question with a big fat "Yes" later on in the paper.
A big fat yes to following the United States and Arizona Constitutions. So we need to change the US and all states Constitutions because they allow racial profiling? Or we need to change the US and AZ Constitutions to say that racial profiling is allowed in 49 other states but not this one?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a strange question that is. The constitution does not mandate profiling by virtue of not expressly condemning it. In fact, between various clauses of the constitution (including but not limited to the equal protection clause) the Constitution is fairly against the act of profiling in practice, since it represents unequal representation by the law.
In fact, I believe your question counts as both a red herring and a false dilemma in addition to being tenuous in terms of constitutional application. An impressive feat, but not really productive in terms of making a case for the AZ law. Or racial profiling.
I'm glad to know that you are expressly for racial profiling, though. Have you read "In Defense of Internment?" If you have, I'd like to know your opinion of that idea.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The constitution does not mandate profiling by virtue of not expressly condemning it. In fact, between various clauses of the constitution (including but not limited to the equal protection clause) the Constitution is fairly against the act of profiling in practice, since it represents unequal representation by the law.
quote: The law says that law enforcement officers "may not consider race, color or national origin . . . except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." Decisions by both the United States Supreme Court and the Arizona Supreme Court have identified "ethnic factors" as a relevant consideration in enforcement of immigration laws, and have further determined that the U.S. Constitution allows race to be considered in immigration enforcement.
quote: In fact, I believe your question counts as both a red herring and a false dilemma in addition to being tenuous in terms of constitutional application. An impressive feat, but not really productive in terms of making a case for the AZ law. Or racial profiling.
quote: Decisions by both the United States Supreme Court and the Arizona Supreme Court have identified "ethnic factors" as a relevant consideration in enforcement of immigration laws, and have further determined that the U.S. Constitution allows race to be considered in immigration enforcement. ...
quote: I'm glad to know that you are expressly for racial profiling, though.
You don't know that, nor have I said that.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Then do you want the law to expressly forbid racial profiling, or do you prefer that the police be allowed to profile based on race?
Also, nothing you quoted there contradicts or even addresses what I said, which was that the constitution does not mandate racial profiling. You don't have to change the constitutions to do anything you're suggesting in terms of changing the law.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
at the people boycotting the state.
