The issue isn't whether to stop illegal immigration; the issue is racism. The new Arizona law legalizes racist discrimination by the police, under the cover of immigration. It orders police to harrass people after targeting them based entirely upon their racial looks. That's racial profiling and the courts say that violates our constitution. They say there must be probable cause based on behavior, not on skin color, no matter the fake justification for racism like immigration. Using immigration as an excuse to give racists free reign is no different from saying that some black prison escapees are on the loose, so now police can forever pull aside and bother every black person.
it specifically forbids the behavior you're describing. What's your solution to stop the drug trade coming across the border, the illegal immigration, and the violence in southern AZ?
Agreed. And as my own thought the reason legal people of color from Arizona will move is because there comes a time where the hassle of relocating is less of a burden than the hassle of being profiled and harassed many, many times. The idea they had when they created this law was a sound one - fix illegal immigration, but they went about it so, so wrong.
let's also get one thing straight...states are not allowed to enact or enforce laws that violate the constitution. Therefore, the law in AZ cannot do as you describe.
That was a pleasure to read. In college my professors kept trying to get me to write papaers that not only regurgiated facts I researched but to also add my own thoughts about what it all meant. I never really got what they were getting at (too much partying and not enough caring). Finally I got the idea of giving my own thoughtss . . . basically predicting where all this is leading (kind of like predicting a score). Anyways I appreciated that you took it to the next step and gave a possible outcome to all this. Logic sounds good to me (but don't let get to your head, Cyndi Lauper sounds logical to me) . . . would almost be fun to watch if it happens, but this is our country and hate to see any state get hit hard. So here is to hoping you are wrong.
Bullshit. The new law simply allows the police to enforce an already existing law which forbids illegal entry into this country. The fact is, the same people who are screaming about this new law have been more than happy to sit by and watch the civil rights of Arizona citizens be violated by a flood of illegal immigration. The rights of legal residents apparently don't matter as much to them as the supposed rights of illegal aliens. It does nothing of the kind. It allows police to ask people for proof of citizenship. If they can supply that proof, they go on their merry way. Who should they pull over--white people??
Like I said, the issue isn't immigration, it's the hidden agenda behind your method of enforcing immigration. Your vague defense of the Arizona law would justify any method, such as another new law that would allow the police to kill every Hispanic they see. Your defense is--"The new law simply allows the police to enforce an already existing law which forbids illegal entry into this country." That statement doesn't quantify any limits upon police power or judgement The issue isn't immigration. It's the method of enforcement. Your method is extreme. Here's what I propose. Arrest all those Republicans who make this happen. When Mexicans come to the US they have heard from their relatives already here about plentiful jobs, which they lack in Mexico. Who hires the illegals? Is it liberals who own the small businesses? Nope, Republicans own almost all small businesses. So I propose a new Arizona law--the police can harrass anyone who looks like a Republican. A certain percentage of these ruffians own small businesses, and many of them survive only by hiring cheap illegal labor. If the Republicans try to run, the police should tase them or shoot them, as they would a Mexican under the present law. If anyone criticizes my idea, I'll say, "The new law simply allows the police to enforce an already existing law which forbids illegal entry into this country." Since the Federal government won't do it, it's up to the states to harrass Republicans.
It is my position that this is supposed to be a free country. It was free to immigration through the late 1800s when the first immigration law was passed - the Chinese Exclusion Act. If you don't see acts like that and the Anti-Asian Immigration Act as racist, feel free to explain that. My position is that California, Texas, and Arizona were originally part of Mexico and always have had Mexican migrants. That we won a war against Mexico and took that land within our borders doesn't affect the reality on the ground. That borders are rather arbitrary lines in the sand, but within those borders Persons and Citizens deserve the Liberty and protections of that Liberty that our government is supposed to promise. That this nation is by definition a nation of immigrants (e.g. Washington, Jefferson, the Puritans, et al). That we have nothing to fear from immigrants. Something for you to consider: Chinese Exclusion Acts / Immigration Exclusion Act (1882) - prohibited citizenship for Chinese immigrants Immigration Act of 1917: Exclusion of Asian Indians (1917) Immigrant Act of 1924: Exclusion of Japanese Tydings-McDuffie Act (1934): Exclusion of Filipinos Immigrant Act (1965): eliminated immigration quotas, establishing new criteria for immigrants. (This would be the start of immigration law as we basically argue it now)
Why not use another way to enforce the law that doesn't involve racial profiling? If this law said that when someone is pulled over, or stopped for a violation, and is suspected of being an illegal (which still opens up a lot of racial issues), I would not be 100% against it. According to the news, many cops in Arizona said that it is simply impossible to enforce this without the threat of legal action. Why not go after the reason that Illegals come here? Jobs. Make it much harder for companies to hire illegal workers with much harsher fines and prison time and surprise inspections or whatever. I heard on the news, even before the bill becomes law, that at a checkpoint in Arizona, a non white driver was stopped after 4 cars with blond hair/blue eyes people went through with no problem. He was asked questions that he felt were in a degrading tone about why he was here, how long, all this stuff that he felt was in a ridiculous, accusing tone. Turns out he was a NATIVE AMERICAN. He is contemplating legal action now I believe. That is what you will be getting, but on a much larger scale with this law, IMO. Racial profiling. There is a better way to get this done, IMO.
The law specifically forbids people from jaywalking, yet people do it all the time, and in huge numbers. Like I said, it's just writing on a piece of paper. Where the rubber meets the road is a very different story.
So there'd be a problem if the Seattle police just started exclusively ticketing jaywalkers who were male? Or Asian? or older than 50? Because they're "targeted" it's wrong? And not b/c they're jaywalking?
There are two issues you raise. One is the profiling (male/asian/older than 50). The other is whether the law should be enforced in the first place (it shouldn't and almost always isn't - for good reason).
So he's "contemplating" legal action because he was asked questions in a degrading tone? For God's sakes, that's pathetic. Sounds like he's trying to make some easy money, like a lot of people these days.
