Is the pope protestant? [color=black]No, really, is he?
What? I just don’t see how this law is racist…
Neither of these are present in the law. They are looking for illegal immigrants, no matter who they are. Just because illegal immigrants happen to be non-Americans doesn’t mean the law is racist.
Also quote from a site describing the new law:
I would again like to point out the law specifically says “reasonable attempt” and “reasonable suspicion”. As well as how that second sentence says that race is not allowed to be the only reason.
It’s not like this law does anything to even hurt people. A cop sees you do something suspicious, you take 5 minutes to show identification that proves you aren’t illegal, and you move on. Oh dear, how terrible. The only people this law would severely “harm” are the illegal immigrants which is the entire point.
Love the stereotyping. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m trying to make an actual argument by quoting facts about US law and constitutional rights.
dino you’re misunderstanding something. when you say a cop can stop people and “request that they identify themselves” it’s not the same thing as requiring proof of identity, which you’re not legally obligated to provide. That’s the difference between AZ and the rest of the country. In the USA, if you say you’re a citizen, a cop needs to accept that as true unless he has a warrant. In AZ, a cop can stop you, ask for your papers, and if you’re not carrying ID (there’s no law that says you have to) you can be arrested and possibly deported. Of course this will never happen to a White person, because a cop wouldn’t suspect they had immigrated from Mexico. Therefore, the AZ law is targeted at a race - Hispanics - who’s skin color determines the “reasonable suspicion” that they have illegally entered the country. American citizens who are hispanic are going to be subject to discrimination because of this law, based on their race, therefore the law is racist and un-American.
Where in this law does it say people who are questioned are required to comply? I just see stuff about the police making a “reasonable attempt” which is extremely vague.
You keep saying they are subject to “discrimination”. Again, what harmful discrimination is occurring? They are asking a simple question to show a simple paper that wouldn’t be hard to carry around. It takes 5 seconds to show your ID.
Again, it says that race cannot I repeat cannot be the only reason for suspicion.
So, they’ll just invent a non-racial reason, or say they’r enforcing some vague law that no one follows (such as a barking dog).
It is racial since, and let me put this in all caps for emphasis because I really want you to read it:
THE ONLY DETERMINING FACTOR YOU CAN HAVE TO SUGGEST THAT SOMEONE IS HERE ILLEGALLY WITHOUT OTHER EVIDENCE IS THEIR SKIN COLOR.
Since they’re using race as a determining factor, even though they’ll just say it’s for another reason (“I noticed you have a broken tail-light, here’s the order to get it fixed. By the way, I think you’re here illegally; can I see your immigration papers?”).
Now, what do I mean by “other evidence” in my all-caps sentence? Well, if you have evidence that a particular person is here illegally, then you can get a warrant for that particular person and then AND ONLY THEN can you ask to see their papers.
Now, if you’ll please, can you cite the law that states that anyone from the government can ask to see your immigration status if they have no evidence (just “reasonable suspicion” is not enough) that you’re here illegally? You said you cited it but I can’t find it.
Thank you.
You sue the cop for not following the law and thus breaking constitutional rights. Any competent court of law would take the side of the immigrant in this situation. The situation you mentioned is not “reasonable suspicion” which is required by the law.
I didn’t have a specific law to state (I might be able to find one from special digging), but I do know there are Superme Court cases that set up precedents about it and here’s a blurb from a site explaining it (for about the 3rd time):
Thus if enough “reasonable suspicion” is found as stated in the law, the police have the right to detain the person and question it. If the suspicion is about being an illegal immigrant, the cop is allowed to question it.
And again going back to the first part, since the suspicion was not sufficient suspicion for illegal immigration, cops cannot enforce this right to question anyone.
Although, if a cop asks for your permission and you permit them, that gives them the right to do an investigation since you permitted them to even though it is not a part of the “Terry Stop”.
This is the key phrase that’s the problem in this law, since it is left vague and virtually undefined what constitutes a “reasonable suspicion” in this case. Reasonable suspicion is legally defined as “a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences”. Reasonable suspicion would be the following example:
A 6’2" white male wearing a blue baseball cap, driving a white 1997 Chevy Impala with a cracked front windshield robbed a bank. The police officer has a right to pull over any white male driving a white 1997 Chevy Impala with cracked windshield and question them and search their vehicle because they have reasonable suspicion that this person was involved in that particular crime. The car, what he’s wearing (and, yes, even his race) are “specific and articulable facts” and constitute a reasonable suspicion.
Since it is impossible to divine whether someone here is illegally without specific and articulable facts or inferences against the person in question, illegal immigration cannot be used as “reasonable suspicion”. If one has specific and articulable facts or inferences, then one can just take them into custody based on those specific and articulable facts or inferences.
THAT is where the law goes beyond the Federal Law and that, Dino, is where it becomes unconstitutional.
You can’t just point to a person and say, “There, I have reasonable suspicion that he’s here illegally.” The question becomes, “Based on what?”
What’s your point? It’s a defining characteristic, I’m not seeing the problem.
And it’s unconstitutional because it’s vague and doesn’t properly define itself?.. Uh, I thought all legislation was more or less like that. If they were to define some specific examples of what would be reasonable suspicion would it be constitutional?
What I’m saying is that there can be no reasonable suspicion that someone is here illegally without already having specific facts about THAT PERSON SPECIFICALLY. There are specific facts about the bank robber based on the senses alone. There are none for illegal immigration based upon the senses alone.
Now, if you have knowledge that a 6 foot tall Mexican wearing a black button down shirt, a cowboy hat, driving a red Mustang, and a scar from his right cheek to his chin was in the country illegally (these facts already known prior to the stop), then you have the right ALREADY UNDER EXISTING LAW to stop them. But, no, this law goes BEYOND the existing law and allows for undefined causes.
Take a look at this story:
https://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/may/04/traffic-stop-leads-to-teens-drug-arrest/
The cop pulled this person over for a broken tail light. That’s a legal stop. Then the cop smelled marijuana from the vehicle. That creates reasonable suspicion to search the vehicle and is still perfectly fine under the law and the Constitution.
What ‘reasonable suspicion’ can there be for being reasonably suspicious of being in the country illegally? By what measure does one use? (This would be the second time I asked this question, by the way.)
these fucking sheltered white kids. they’ll find anything to say that racial profiling is “justified” no matter how much they have to delude themselves and twist the facts to reach that conclusion.
they cant understand because they’ve been sheltered from the reality of racism their whole lives.
Racism exists. However, just because it exists doesn’t mean every law has to be vetted for every possibility of discrimination. In fact, because of people like you, the New York police cannot properly cut down on crime, because 55% of the people they arrest are already black, and any more would be “discrimination” even though its predicted they cause 68% of crimes.
Basically, when 80% of illegal immigrants are hispanics, it not racist to check if a hispanic is illegal.
lol wut
Even if 100% of illegal immigrants are Hispanic, it would be racist to check Hispanics at large simply because they’re Hispanic. Remember: 100% of cats are animals, but that doesn’t mean that all animals are cats.
Also, can I see some evidence that the New York police are not allowed to have a greater than 55% arrest rate for blacks?
What? That would make perfect sense. If you had enough physical evidence to prove, without a doubt, that every single Hispanic looking person in the state of Arizona was an illegal immigrant that would be enough evidence to go after them…
And to talk about your post before this one, I would like to ask something again: You’ve reached a point where your argument for 2 or 3 posts has been entirely “It’s vague”. If the law were not vague, would the law be constitutional? In my opinion, the vagueness in itself does not make the law racist, just poorly written, since the vague comment is intended to remove the racist factor.
Oh and Ballsopt, shut up. Both of your comments now have been unintelligent stereotypes in an attempt to debunk my argument without any actual evidence. Unless you have something intelligent and constructive to say, don’t even bother saying it.
It IS racist. This guy is american: https://www.levelblue.com/Headshots/Danny%2BTrejo%2BHeadshot%2BA-BW.jpg
But under this law, he would be forced to prove he’s not an illegal inmmigrant solely because of his skin tone. how is this NOT racist?
Aside from the racial issues here the law is unconstitutional because states have no power to pass immigration laws, it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.
He said “Even if 100% of illegal immigrants are Hispanic,” not “Even if 100% of Hispanics are illegal immigrants.” Big difference.
If all illegal immigrants are Hispanic, but only 30% of Hispanics in a given area are illegal immigrants, you’ll be bothering 70% of Hispanics for absolutely nothing.
But that is not racist. You are not discriminating against them because you don’t like Hispanics or because you consider them inferior. You are stopping them because you are looking for illegals.
They are not passing an immigration law, they are passing a law enforcing existing legislation. They are not controlling how people immigrate or who immigrates.
Gosh darned double post.
and THAT is racist. stopping someone based solely on skin color or ethnicity is racist.