Racism implies hate. There is no hate involved. They are simply acting on facts.
No, racism implies"discrimination especially on the basis of race." The reasoning behind it is irrelevant.
Modern connotations, however imply hate, and connotations are what people mean when they use the word.
As I side note, I loled at a recent headline which stated that the law “makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant”.
It’s impossible for a law to “hate” a race of people. It is possible however for a law to descriminate against a race of people, thereby meeting the literal definition of “racist.”
Where’d you read that “recent headline,” FOX news?
The law is racist, end of story.
Any law that discriminates against a group of people (in this case Hispanics) is racist. They are required, by law, to stop dark-skinned Latino-looking people and ask to see proof that they are legal. Imagine an American family of Latino decent walking down the street gets stopped for proof that they are American.
This law doesn’t apply to whites or blacks or Asians. It only applies to Latino-looking people. THAT’S why it is racist. It doesn’t mean there is hatred. It simply means it singles out one group of people. And, as already stated, the chances the person stopped is illegal are pretty low.
the entire problem is that people approach immigration as a criminal issue rather than a geopolitical one.
Heres that MSNBC blunder mentioned earlier. I really hate just about all American news programs. I have a small amount of respect for the BBC, but usually I just turn to “Google News” for news.
Approaching it as a geopolitical issue would force political and media elites to accept that the “Free Trade” was a mistake. Which will never happen.
What? No… it says they are required to stop and question people who appear suspicious and the cops have reason to believe are illegal immigrants.
Nowhere does this law discriminate against Hispanics. It is targeting Illegal Immigrants and, as I already showed, the cops may not use only race or color as evidence for suspicion.
acade365 your comment makes no sense. He said they are looking for illegal, and then you said “Exactly, they are looking for Hispanics”… Umm… What? No, they aren’t. As I just said, they are not stopping based on skin or race because that would be against this new law.
Seriously, this law is very clearly worded and created in such a way as to not be racist.
Note: I had a much better written post a few hours ago, but just as I went to post my internet died and I can’t remember any of my points so you’ll have to make due with a half-hearted post thrown together trying to remember those points.
Edit: Oh, I remembered one of my points:
Oh the sick and twisted hypocrisy. Calling me racist are you? I hope you realize this comment is pure stereotyping and racism.
I think you’re missing the point that even if the law doesn’t state to stop all Mexicans to check if they’re illegal immigrants, that’s exactly what the cops will do simply because there is no possible way of suspecting someone of illegal origins.
When an average American is asked “what race is an illegal immigrant usually a part of?” they will most likely say “Hispanic”. Don’t ask me for a source, thats a simple and sad fact of today.
To summarize, in case it wasn’t clear already:
The law, despite not wording it directly, is allowing police to stop hispanic looking people, which is racist because it is stereotyping hispanics as illegal immigrants, because today’s american idea of “illegal immigrant” is a mexican.
I don’t see how you can argue this point any further. Even if this law is fully constitutional because it doesn’t word “hispanics” directly, it shouldn’t be legal because it encourages this kind of racist behavior.
yeah US cops have time and time again proven emselves to be shitty racist assholes and the lawmakers should take this into account
What?
“if they have reasonable suspicion besides their race to believe they are illegal.”
You keep saying “They are targeting Hispanic people!” but again, the law clearly prohibits the actions you are claiming it is promoting.
it doesn’t prohibit it, on the contrary the website you cited says race can’t be the “only” factor in determining suspicion. Not that it can’t be a factor.
No no, you’ve got that backwards. What was claimed is that the majority of illegal immigrants (“group A”) are Hispanic (“trait A”), not that the majority of Hispanics (“trait A”) were illegal immigrants (“group A”). That’s like saying that the majority of animals are cats when that’s clearly not the case. Try again.
That question would be defined by your answer to my question: How does one figure out someone is an illegal?
The vagueness does not, in and of itself, make the law racist. But it does make it unconstitutional because it makes who the cops are allowed to question an open playing field for whatever reason they want to question them. It gives the cops carte blanche access, without a warrant or probable cause, to do a search of one’s person or property, in CLEAR violation of the Fourth Amendment. What makes it racist is what constitutes “reasonable suspicion”, which you, for some reason, REFUSE to answer. Can you tell me why?
Cause I don’t live in an area populated by very many (if any at all) illegal immigrants and I don’t really keep track of news about illegal immigrants so I don’t have the background knowledge to formulate what “reasonable suspicion” could actually be.
So, what you’re saying is “I don’t know but it’s not what you guys are saying”? :brow:
Pretty much. I don’t have specific examples but I don’t think it’s going to be blatant racism and abuse of constitution like you all claim it to be.
This little debate seems to have pretty much reached a point of just saying the same 2 things back at each other, so I think I’m done posting in here for now.
Oh hey let’s throw this completely subjective term here just to say this doesn’t go against the law.
Who’s to say what’s reasonably? Is it strictly defined in the bill? Then it has no place there.
You can’t give authorities the right to disrespect other people’s rights based on subjective terms. If a cop decides a guy is reasonably suspicious just because he has a mustache the cop is still covered by the law and can demand and search said person freely, that’s unconstitutional (from what I’ve read about American Law though, haven’t exactly studied it that much).