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?
By "last implicit question" I meant the last implicit question - i.e. "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 big fat yes is pretty obvious from both a legal perspective (what actually happens in the justice system today) and from a basic sociological perspective of current US society. Race/ethnicity has never been disconnected from US society's consideration of immigration. But that doesn't make laws like this one just or good.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. Allowing racial profiling is "a big fat yes to following the constitution," disallowing racial profiling is "a big fat yes to following the constitution" -- since either way, the law is in accord with the constitutions.
Get it yet, darkknight?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| 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.
There are numerous other scholars that disagree with those against the bill. It is not as simple as that. The bill is air tight. It is so carefully worded that to strike this down as unconstitutional, you would also need to go after all of the federal immigration laws. This will probably happen sooner or later, no doubt sped up by the passage of this bill.
The bill basically says they are going to fully cooperate and help the federal government where they legally can.
The governor has said that police are currently being trained on the law and the prohibition of racial profiling. You cannot blame the police for doing something they haven't done yet. If and when the police start racially profiling anyone and have LEGITIMATE proof, then I will question the Arizona Law. As long as they do not overstep the federal laws, I've no problem with it.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the law sets the stage for antagonism and harrassment of the legitimate Hispanic/Latino population. While there are certainly numerous individual problems with roots in illegal immigration- drug traffic, human rights concerns of the treatment of the immigrants on both sides of the border, labor issues- this is a scattershot approach that seems designed to appeal to the two least appealing constituencies: the ones that feel that any action, however ill considered, is better than no action at all, and those who approve of creating a hostile environment for Hispanic/Latino people regardless of whether their presence is legitimate or not.
A law that is passed by a majority that won't be negatively affected by it upon a minority that will deserves harsh scrutiny at best.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edit: to Geraine Sooooooooooooo... you were wrong about the racial profiling thing. Whether or not the bill can be struck down as unconstitutional has no bearing on whether or not it specifically allows racial profiling. And legal != right. I don't care if it's legal to do what this bill does - I know that it's wrong and I want no part of a place that has such laws.
Oh, and the bill does not basically say that they (the police?) are going to "fully cooperate and help the federal government where they legally can." It creates a number of new crimes, and expands the role and requirements of the police in Arizona with regards to immigration in a number of ways. Again, I'm kinda doubting that you've actually read the bill, given your apparent misunderstanding of the fairly clear language in it.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The bill basically says they are going to fully cooperate and help the federal government where they legally can.
Geraine, I would like to second the suggestion that you read the analysis Jhai linked to - in its entirety. This is addressed specifically.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not just artists boycotting. Cities and counties are boycotting. Including my own except for contracts already in place.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: 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?
I want the law to state that if you commit a crime and it is determined that you are in the country illegally, then you may be deported. Kind of like most countries around the world do, ie Canada.
quote: Also, nothing you quoted there contradicts or even addresses what I said, which was that the constitution does not mandate racial profiling.
and neither does the Arizona law.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Allowing racial profiling is "a big fat yes to following the constitution," disallowing racial profiling is "a big fat yes to following the constitution" -- since either way, the law is in accord with the constitutions.
So if the law is in accord with the constitutions, what's the problem?
quote: Get it yet, darkknight?
Yes, I get you just can't have a civil talk about things and have to be snarky to somehow prove something about yourself. Your comments would have been fine on their own, but you just have to add in a stupid line like "Get it yet, darkknight?". You can't just leave the stupid stuff like that out, can you? I'm not insulting you or anyone else but for some reason you have to keep antagonizing. It really isn't that hard. Jhai is posting some good points without resorting to "Get it yet" tactics to belittle the other person. Look, if you don't want people like me at Hatrack, just say so. There are plenty of other forums out there, and you can big the biggest fish in this particular little pond.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Allowing racial profiling is "a big fat yes to following the constitution," disallowing racial profiling is "a big fat yes to following the constitution" -- since either way, the law is in accord with the constitutions.
So if the law is in accord with the constitutions, what's the problem?
"Constitutional" does not necessarily mean just.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to point out that local police can and have been making up reasons to pull people over on a regular basis. Because after ten minutes parked on the side of the road there is no proof that you werent following that car too closely or that you werent swerving. I have had family members picked up by police while walking and held for twenty-four hours for a crime that never happened (fyi she was a long-time drug addict, thats why she didnt do anything about it) simply because they felt like it. In regards to the letter of the law... unless you ask very politely to see the text itself in the book they keep in the car and have given the cop reason to believe that you could successfully make a complaint stick, you get to abide by whatever the officer says is the law.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Achilles, One would hope that since the police are now being trained that racial profiling is frowned upon (I'll put it that way to please Jhai) some of that would stop.
And Dark Knight, it's useless to try and argue constitutionality with some people here. To them it is just some old document written by some men that had no idea how life would be for us in our day.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This law is a defacto mandate for everyone to carry documentation on their person proving that they are legal citizens/residents/vistors.
The only reason its tolerated at all is because the right wing white guys, who usually scream bloody murder anytime someone mentions a national ID law, are confident this law only applies to colored people.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not a criminal. I have complied with all the laws and regulations. I should not have to be subjected to such loathsome alternatives in order to use public transportation.
It might be different ... if I actually fit some kind of profile of an illegal immigrant ... But I do not fit any likely illegal immigrant profile, being grey-haired, of European appearance, with an American accent ...
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This law is a defacto mandate for everyone to carry documentation on their person proving that they are legal citizens/residents/vistors.
The only reason its tolerated at all is because the right wing white guys, who usually scream bloody murder anytime someone mentions a national ID law, are confident this law only applies to colored people.
I keep hoping somebody will come up with something that will convince me that this, which is my reaction as well, is wrong.
So far, I've got nothing.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Allowing racial profiling is "a big fat yes to following the constitution," disallowing racial profiling is "a big fat yes to following the constitution" -- since either way, the law is in accord with the constitutions.
So if the law is in accord with the constitutions, what's the problem?
Are you going to make the case that if something is not expressly disallowed by the federal and state constitutions, it is automatically a good law with no chance of severe sociopolitical ramifications?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Constitutional" does not necessarily mean just.
Very true which is why I believe the actions of the police should be watched carefully to make sure they do not start stopping people demanding to see their papers.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Achilles, One would hope that since the police are now being trained that racial profiling is frowned upon (I'll put it that way to please Jhai) some of that would stop.
So... your response is that police abuse of authority against minorities will decrease because they will recieve special training to help them understand racial profiling is wrong... and ofcourse they did not know that before hand, which is the real reason they have been persecuting people for not being white in Arizona... I'm just gonna drop out of this topic.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: To them it is just some old document written by some men that had no idea how life would be for us in our day.
What's your alternate supposition? That it is an old document written by some men who were psychic and would see an era filled with things like the internet?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are you going to make the case that if something is not expressly disallowed by the federal and state constitutions, it is automatically a good law with no chance of severe sociopolitical ramifications?
quote: This law is a defacto mandate for everyone to carry documentation on their person proving that they are legal citizens/residents/vistors.
The only reason its tolerated at all is because the right wing white guys, who usually scream bloody murder anytime someone mentions a national ID law, are confident this law only applies to colored people.
Is Mexican immigration law racist? How about Canadian?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are you going to make the case that if something is not expressly disallowed by the federal and state constitutions, it is automatically a good law with no chance of severe sociopolitical ramifications?
No.
Ok then, you've answered, yourself, the pointlessnes of your supposition. There can be problems even when laws are in accord with the constitution! So, it's the height of uselessness to ask "if it's in accord with the constitutions, what's the problem?'
Also:
quote:Yes, I get you just can't have a civil talk about things and have to be snarky to somehow prove something about yourself. Your comments would have been fine on their own, but you just have to add in a stupid line like "Get it yet, darkknight?". You can't just leave the stupid stuff like that out, can you? I'm not insulting you or anyone else but for some reason you have to keep antagonizing. It really isn't that hard. Jhai is posting some good points without resorting to "Get it yet" tactics to belittle the other person. Look, if you don't want people like me at Hatrack, just say so. There are plenty of other forums out there, and you can big the biggest fish in this particular little pond.
Martyr issues, much? I ask because I genuinely wonder! You have shown very serious and consistent issues with reading comprehension, both to me and others in the past; it greatly increases the need for very simple requests and queries to help others determine where you are along the issue and to what extent you have figured out (or misapprehended) other people's positions.
If you want to feel antagonized upon or belittled, that's your choice. I do, in fact, belittle poor reading and argumentative comprehension, so it's not entirely an unfair claim.
But in this case "get it yet?" is me asking whether or not you get it. It's not "I hate you, gtfo."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: This law is a defacto mandate for everyone to carry documentation on their person proving that they are legal citizens/residents/vistors.
The only reason its tolerated at all is because the right wing white guys, who usually scream bloody murder anytime someone mentions a national ID law, are confident this law only applies to colored people.
Is Mexican immigration law racist? How about Canadian?
Rabbit's point doesn't show that the law is racist, it shows that its supporters are racist.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This law is a defacto mandate for everyone to carry documentation on their person proving that they are legal citizens/residents/vistors.
The only reason its tolerated at all is because the right wing white guys, who usually scream bloody murder anytime someone mentions a national ID law, are confident this law only applies to colored people.
And just like that you make yourself look like an idiot. You preach that racial profiling is wrong, then profile right white guys at anti national ID. Well played.
I wonder if it has ever ocurred to you that there are plenty of immigrants here in the US that came here legally, paid thousands of dollars to do so, and do not think it is fair that someone just hops the border and comes here without consequence? I've paid over $5000 for my wife so far for her to get everything in order, and she came here legally. My wife is white. She has an accent. She has to carry her green card wherever she goes. Its the law!
My wife as been pulled over twice here in Las Vegas they ask to see her drivers license. There must be something in their system that flags her because they ask to see her green card as well. She doesn't have an issue with this at all, because she has nothing to worry about. She is here legally.
I guess the police are racially profiling my wife. I mean, a 6'1, 150 pound white woman is obviously here illegally.
Honestly what is next? When you get pulled over the police should not ask for any identification for fear of being accused of racial profiling? Maybe they should just take your word for it that you are driving your car legally.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And just like that you make yourself look like an idiot. You preach that racial profiling is wrong, then profile right white guys at anti national ID.
?????
Is it racial profiling to say that liberal black people mostly support Obama?
Anyway, one might want to draw a distinction between stereotyping a racial or political group in an internet forum post, and basing selective law enforcement on a stereotype.
For example, I will agree that the terrorist threat against the United States comes mostly from Middle Eastern people. But I would resist codifying that assumption into the law, or into law enforcement practices.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: And just like that you make yourself look like an idiot. You preach that racial profiling is wrong, then profile right white guys at anti national ID. Well played.
What?
Disagreeing with a law that empowers and encourages racial profiling in practice is different than noting the observable tendencies of a given demographic (i.e., 'supporters of this law'). It can be done without any hypocrisy or internal contradiction.
Besides, your supposition only strictly makes sense if 'supporters of the az law' is itself a race to profile, and it's really not, soooooo
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: How about Canadian?
Huh? What about it? We don't have a mandate to carry identification at all times. In fact, in most cases, the police cannot ask for identification. Ex:
quote:The driver of a motor vehicle has to produce identification on demand by a police officer, under provincial laws. Otherwise, there is no general right of the police to demand I.D. from someone who is just going about his or her business on the street.
http://www.bastionlaw.ca/-rights.asp
On the other hand, China does, so that might be a more appropriate comparison. Like so:
quote:Here’s the point of comparison between the impending Arizona situation and China: it’s no fun knowing — as citizen and foreigner alike know in China, and as Hispanic-looking people in Arizona soon will — that you can be asked to show proof of your legality at an official’s whim. But if it’s sobering to think that the closest analogy to a new U.S. legal situation is daily life in Communist China, we should also look on the bright side. With some notable and serious exceptions, I typically did not see Chinese police asking for papers on a whim. Usually something had to happen first. Maybe soon the Chinese State Security apparatus can travel to Arizona and give lectures to local police and sheriffs. They can explain how to avoid going crazy with a new power that so invites abuse. “Civil Liberties: Learning from China” can be the name of the course.
quote: Ok then, you've answered, yourself, the pointlessnes of your supposition. There can be problems even when laws are in accord with the constitution! So, it's the height of uselessness to ask "if it's in accord with the constitutions, what's the problem?'
I answered the question: "Are you going to make the case that if something is not expressly disallowed by the federal and state constitutions, it is automatically a good law with no chance of severe sociopolitical ramifications?" No. I am not making that case as that 'case' is much too ambiguous (ie strawman) to be answered any other way than a simple No. You berate me for reading comprehension yet you should easily be able to see what is very wrong with your question and why in asking it the particular way you did with absolutes and ambiguities that there is no way to answer such a broad question with something other than no.
quote: Martyr issues, much? I ask because I genuinely wonder!
No you don't.
quote: You have shown very serious and consistent issues with reading comprehension, both to me and others in the past; it greatly increases the need for very simple requests and queries to help others determine where you are along the issue and to what extent you have figured out (or misapprehended) other people's positions.
AKA What I Say Is Smart, and since you don't agree with me, you are stupid.
quote: If you want to feel antagonized upon or belittled, that's your choice.
And your definite intent as evidenced by...
quote: I do, in fact, belittle poor reading and argumentative comprehension, so it's not entirely an unfair claim.
So we have established that you choose deliberately to belittle and antagonize people who do not see, or really agree with, your point of view.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Huh? What about it? We don't have a mandate to carry identification at all times. In fact, in most cases, the police cannot ask for identification.
You might want to check up on getting caught committing a crime without proper ID.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:AKA What I Say Is Smart, and since you don't agree with me, you are stupid.
This is, in and of itself, a perfect example of your reading comprehension issues. If you can take what I actually said and insist on conflating it into this, you massively evidence my original point about requiring to take extra steps with you to make sure that what has actually been said by others is not being hallucinated into entirely different statements in your head.
quote:So we have established that you choose deliberately to belittle and antagonize people who do not see, or really agree with, your point of view.
And here again:
I belittle poor reading and argumentative comprehension'
DOES NOT
in this (or any universe) mean:
'I belittle people who do not agree with my point of view'
It is so unambiguously a fictional retranslation of my words that it is very much so indefensible.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, Arizona law is the same as Canadian law, not Chinese law. Police cannot stop you and ask for ID if you are simply going about your business. It's the assumption of many that the police (of course there is corruption in the police departments, just like there is in Canada too) are lying racists and will be stopping Hispanics without cause to deport them.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine- when those officers pulled over your wife, was she speeding? running a red light? maybe not signalling or in some other way doing something unsafe? Was it a random alcohol stop or a blockade of some sort? Or was she driving and pulled over at random, for the purpose of asking for her citizenship?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Mucus, Arizona law is the same as Canadian law, not Chinese law. Police cannot stop you and ask for ID if you are simply going about your business. It's the assumption of many that the police (of course there is corruption in the police departments, just like there is in Canada too) are lying racists and will be stopping Hispanics without cause to deport them.
That's cause some of us have lived in Arizona.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is, in and of itself, a perfect example of your reading comprehension issues.
No, it's an example of your kind of responses and how you twist things such as your question:
quote: Are you going to make the case that if something is not expressly disallowed by the federal and state constitutions, it is automatically a good law with no chance of severe sociopolitical ramifications?
You had to know that question was much too ambigious yet you were using it to make your point crystal clear. But you already knew that particular question was not specific enough to pertain to the issue at hand.
Let's look at what you said exactly here...
quote: You have shown very serious and consistent issues with reading comprehension, both to me and others in the past
Very serious and consistent issues with reading comprehension? That implies a much lower level of comprehension, which could also be called being stupid. You have not shown how I have a very serious reading comprehension problem. You simply insist that I do, and that I do consistently. Because I do not agree with your side of the arguement does not mean I don't understand, or comprehend, the point you are trying to make. I understand Malanthrop's posts yet I rarely would agree with even a small part of them.
quote: I belittle poor reading and argumentative comprehension'
So you do belittle poor reading and argumentative comprehension, not very nice. The comprehension part of the arguement is your specific point of view. Is it possible that someone can comprehend your arguements and believe your arguements are incorrect?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's cause some of us have lived in Arizona.
So why not fight that specific battle? You should easily be able to name the names of all the racist cops in Arizona and have hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits filed against them in a very short amount of time. I'm sure the ACLU would love to take on this challenge and it would expose, and eventually remove, the racist police. To be clear, I'm saying police but I mean all officials, like code enforcement, parking authorities, housing inspectors, judges, and so on. In Philadelphia a reporter did some investigating reporting and uncovered corrupt police officers shaking down businesses for money. No reason why this can't be done in Arizona.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I wonder if it has ever ocurred to you that there are plenty of immigrants here in the US that came here legally, paid thousands of dollars to do so, and do not think it is fair that someone just hops the border and comes here without consequence? I've paid over $5000 for my wife so far for her to get everything in order, and she came here legally. My wife is white. She has an accent. She has to carry her green card wherever she goes. Its the law!
I haven't read through to the bottom yet, but I just want to say that if you've paid $5000 in legal fees and visa fees for your wife to get a green card, you've been severely ripped off. We've gone through the same process (with one of the best family immigration attorneys in SF) and only paid about $2,500 - $3000.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I do not believe all, or even most police officers would abuse the law or racially profile. I do believe that enough will, with full justification provided by this law. As mentioned in the court papers of one of the officers challenging the law:
quote:The court documents further assert that, "in [Escobar's] experience as a Law Enforcement Officer, skin color and/or physical features does not provide any race neutral criteria or basis to suspect or identify who is lawfully in the United States." Thus, the provision of the bill requiring police to request identification from anybody they happen to come across who they have "reasonable suspicion" to believe is illegally in the country is nonsensical; it simply pushes law enforcement to use racial profiling as the only means they can think of to guess at undocumented status of any given person.
quote:Achilles, One would hope that since the police are now being trained that racial profiling is frowned upon (I'll put it that way to please Jhai) some of that would stop.
This is dangerously naive. You really think that any person's ingrained racial biases are just going to go away because of training? I'm sorry, but this brand of naivety and trust in the moral character of the police is something that only a person privileged by being white (and male, although that applies less to this case) in this country could maintain for long.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jha- immigration law in the US is crazy. Costs are dependent on what country you are immigrating from (which is partially connected to how much those countries charge US citizens for immigration). It also can be highly specific regarding details of your case, what jurisdiction you are in, your educational status etc. Anyone person's experience in immigration is unlikely to match up with anyone else's.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If only 5%, or even 1% of the police force applies the law in a racist way, that still destroys the credibility and trust police need to operate.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's cause some of us have lived in Arizona.
So why not fight that specific battle? You should easily be able to name the names of all the racist cops in Arizona and have hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits filed against them in a very short amount of time. I'm sure the ACLU would love to take on this challenge and it would expose, and eventually remove, the racist police. To be clear, I'm saying police but I mean all officials, like code enforcement, parking authorities, housing inspectors, judges, and so on. In Philadelphia a reporter did some investigating reporting and uncovered corrupt police officers shaking down businesses for money. No reason why this can't be done in Arizona.
Have you ever heard of the phrase "driving while black/brown"? It's not some conspiracy theory that racial minorities in the US have - you are systematically treated differently by the justice system depending on your skin tone throughout this country. Not by every police officer, obviously, and the bias isn't equal in every region of the US, but to believe that it doesn't exist is a huge example of white privilege(as much as I generally hate this term, it's apt here).
If you hang out with minorities long enough, and you observe their interactions with others in society, it doesn't take long to notice implicit and explicit racism occurring, both with private citizens and authorities.
For example, my husband and I travel a lot - and I've never been seriously checked while going through airport security. He (a brown South Asian) has been pulled aside and checked at least three or four times on our last ten or so domestic flights. Is this racial profiling that adversely affects minorities? Yes. Is it wrong? Not entirely, IMO - I think, given the low cost to minorities, the optionality of taking a flight, and the high cost of potential terrorism, ethnicity should probably be included as one factor of many, including things like behavior in determining who gets the serious check in the security line.
So, just to make it clear, I don't have a knee-jerk reaction to racial profiling in all cases. But this Arizona law imposes much higher costs to the general non-white public - just for being in the public, to boot - at relatively little gain (compared to keeping a plane from being hijacked).
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Jhai- immigration law in the US is crazy. Costs are dependent on what country you are immigrating from (which is partially connected to how much those countries charge US citizens for immigration). It also can be highly specific regarding details of your case, what jurisdiction you are in, your educational status etc. Anyone person's experience in immigration is unlikely to match up with anyone else's.
This is true for much US immigration law, but not for non-citizens marrying citizens. The process there is relatively straight-forward, and relatively cheap - and it's the same process & cost no matter what country a person is from. At most, you can increase the costs by first getting a "fiancée visa" (to bring your fiancée to the US) then applying for parole (to leave the country in an emergency & not have it derail your paperwork) & the right to work while the application for the green card post-marriage goes through. That increases costs some, but not up to $5,000. Lawyer fees could get you that high (lawyers are not required, but I personally recommend them), but only if you're getting ripped off, since there are plenty of excellent lawyers out there for a set fee.
The time for the application to process, however, is likely country-dependent. There's only anecdotal evidence out there, but what there is suggests that, for instance, a Pakistani will have a longer time (for the background check) then an Indian would.
I truly believe that if more US citizens learned about the immigration process through family or friends' experiences, our laws would change quickly. It's a largely dehumanizing and absurd experience - stupid health checks, silly questionnaires ("Have you ever committed an act of genocide?"), waiting months or years while your spouse hangs in immigration limbo, an inability to travel (for at least a couple of months) if family gets ill abroad (which happened with us - and it was horrible), expensive, etc, etc.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Very serious and consistent issues with reading comprehension? That implies a much lower level of comprehension, which could also be called being stupid. You have not shown how I have a very serious reading comprehension problem.
I just caught you in two flat-out examples. Like, you demonstrated it for me promptly after the accusation.
You don't seem to UNDERSTAND what it is that you're doing, and you tend to start doing it more and more rashly as a disagreement goes on, but that you don't recognize that you twist and completely misunderstand other people's words to an indefensible degree doesn't help your case, it just leaves you unable to personally improve the habit.
here, you claim that I merely 'insist' that you have reading comprehension problems. This comes literally in response to a post where I demonstrated it. That is more than insisting. It is producing examples of it. You can disagree that this is what it shows, but that's different than seeming to miss entirely the fact that there is more going on here than mere insistence. It's yet another point, demonstrated, where you do this thing you do that causes you to get 'talked down to' -- because I realize I have to walk you carefully through any points of serious contention and work hard to correct you at the points where you frequently go astray through wanton mistranslation and personal supposition.
Need I demonstrate any more? There's times in the past where you have responded nonsequitorially to the things that I have said in blatant fashion due to very VERY poor comprehension.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: You might want to check up on getting caught committing a crime without proper ID.
Thats irrelevant and a red herring. If you're actually convicted of a crime, then in all three jurisdictions you're pretty much hooped if you're not authorized to be in the country. What we're talking about here is when there is only reasonable suspicion of a crime.
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Mucus, Arizona law is the same as Canadian law, not Chinese law. Police cannot stop you and ask for ID if you are simply going about your business.
Sure they can, if they reasonably suspect you of the crime of being an illegal immigrant.
In Jhai's legal brief
quote:However, for decades federal law has required non-citizens to carry immigration documents issued to them. 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e). Also, SB 1070 makes possession of acceptable identification evidence of citizenship, A.R.S. § 11-1051(B), so it is prudent for everyone to carry identification so status can be proven on the street rather than waiting in jail while records are checked.
Meanwhile, in Canada, both foreign passports and PR cards aren't required to be on your person at all times. Ex:
quote:... the PR card is not a mandatory document within Canada...
So even if you look like an illegal immigrant to a police officer, there's no requirement for the police to check, and no requirement for the non-citizen to show ID.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It isn't racist to use your brains.
Heh. It is if your brains are racist.
See for all their blather about "common sense," racists have no notion of what is not only wrong, but harmful about the way they think.
It's sad that you can be so sensitive to antisemitism, and so deeply boneheaded about other ethnic groups. I guess your ancestors suffered those 4,000 plus years so that you could be raised one relatively secure and comfortable generation away from "**** it, arrest the brown people." There's something pathetic about that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
