Racial Profiling and the Arizona SB 1070 Law: pros and cons analysis
87
Introduction
One of the biggest objections over the new Arizona law about "immigration" was "racial profiling". One of the provisions in the new law allows law enforcement officers to stop, detain, or arrest a suspect, if the officer can document "reasonable suspicion" of that person being an illegal alien. The objections claim that because it is not possible to tell who is an illegal immigrant or not, this is nothing but blatant racial profiling aimed at Latinos.
So what is racial profiling, and why are people so sensitive to it?
Racial Profiling -- good vs. bad
Amnesty International defines racial profiling as follows:
According to Professor David Harris of the University of Toledo College of Law, a leading expert on racial profiling, criminal profiles are a set of personal and behavioral characteristics associated with particular offenses that police use to predict who may commit crimes in the future, or identify what type of person may have committed a particular crime for which no credible suspect has been identified or eye-witness description provided. Criminal profiling becomes racial profiling when these characteristics include race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.
So in other words, profiling is a way to narrow down the number of suspects, and "racial profiling" is when such criteria includes race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.
That is not necessarily bad. The more characteristics you include, the narrower the field of suspects. However... There are actually two ways to use racial profiling: to narrow the field of suspects, or to concentrate investigation on a particular field. The former is legal, the latter is what we actually often refer to as "racial profiling". Just to clarify, let us name them "good racial profiling", and "bad racial profiling". What we do NOT want to happen is "bad racial profiling".
For example: let's say you got a report of a robbery, and uh... the suspect is described as "Latino". Thus, there is no point in looking at suspects who are white, black, or Asian. Right? That is perfectly legal, and helpful profiling. In this case, racial profiling narrowed the field of suspects. Other characteristics, if present, will narrow the field even more. That is "good racial profiling".
However, racial profiling can also be used in a bad way, what we describe as "bad racial profiling", where the law enforcement decide that a certain group, because of their propensity to commit crime, should have concentrated enforcement, just BECAUSE they are so. That barely makes sense, so here is an example: say... cops got the statistics from last year: uh... 78% of Latino drivers pulled over have drugs in their cars (I'm just making these numbers up!) So cops decided they will stop all Latino drivers that come across, as they are more likely to find drugs than if they stopped a random driver. THAT is bad racial profiling.
Bad Racial Profiling is Dangerous
'Bad' racial profiling is not simply discriminatory, but it also DELAYS justice, when the perpetrator do NOT fit the profile.Remember, profile is not 100% accurate. When the offender do not fit the profile, enforcement efforts are spent chasing down the wrong suspects.
The Beltway sniper case that occurred near Washington D.C. in 2002 is a great example of 'bad' racial profiling. Police didn't have many clues, so they relied on national profiles on a typical sniper... one white guy, gun collection, probably a van. The end result is completely different: two black guys, one rifle only, in a large modified sedan. Later checks showed that police stopped the dark Caprice several times,
but let it go each time, because it was not linked to any criminal activity, and
they really were looking for a white van or white box truck. At the end, they got lucky when they found the suspects asleep in the car.
Another example of 'bad racial profiling' was the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995. For days, even weeks, some police agencies were still chasing "Arab terrorists". The perpetrator turned out to be Timothy McVeigh, completely American, white.
Police agencies were under tremendous pressure to solve "big" crimes widely reported in the media, and often they have to at least "appear" to be doing something, even when there is simply not enough evidence to formulate a response. That is when many turn to "bad" racial profiling.
Is all racial profiling 'bad'?
Racial profiling is still profiling. It is how the profiling data is used that makes it "good" or "bad". Good racial profiling simplifies police work and narrows down the field of suspects. Bad racial profiling is racial discrimination and lazy police work. The problem is, how do you tell the two apart?
Police departments and other agencies across the country are getting hammered on racial profiling. Amnesty International, American Civil Liberties Union, etc. went after police departments and other agencies who engaged in "bad" racial profiling, and I *do* admire them for that. However, in doing so, they failed to distinguish between the 'good' racial profiling, and the 'bad' racial profiling. Thus, leading most Americans to believe that ALL racial profiling is BAD, and should be banned. This is simply unwise.
In logical terms, this is called "fallacy of composition". The argument is
1) bad racial profiling is bad,
2) bad racial profiling is racial profiling
therefore
3) racial profiling (all types) is bad
It simply does not make sense. It's "throwing the baby out with the bath water", so to speak.
What needs to be done is figure out how to tell the two types of racial profiling apart, and figure out how to stop the bad kind, instead of banning EVERYTHING.
Arizona law: good, bad, or too early to tell?
What many do NOT realize is that many Hispanics supported the bill in Arizona legislature. Steve Montenegro, a member of AZ legislature, originally from El Salvador, voted for the bill. He said the opponents have distorted the intent of the bill, and any one who is already here legally has NOTHING to worry. He also said that because the Feds did not do their part in controlling illegal immigration, Arizona have to do something about the problem.(reported by CBS news). Thus, not all see it as racial profiling.
Before this law, Arizona does NOT require police to question people about their immigration status. Indeed, many agencies simply prohibit officers from asking, because they fear that asking for such information would discourage illegal immigrants from reporting crimes, or cooperate in investigation of crimes. By eliminating race from the question completely, the police hoped to still catch bad guys, albeit with a bit of handicap.
So is the new Arizona law good racial profiling, bad racial profiling, or not racial profiling at all? It depends on what do the officers consider to be "reasonable suspicion" of being in the US illegally. Governor Brewer is requesting her staff to come up with a set of guidelines on what constitutes "reasonable" for this law. Thus, there is no answer yet. We will have to wait until what those guidelines are, and how the laws are implemented.
Conclusion
Racial profiling is a part of offender profiling, and it can be used, or abused, by law enforcement. It is the abuse that people worry about. However, that is not a reason to ban the use of such a useful technique. Guns can be used by criminals, yet guns are not banned outright (I know, a bit of oversimplification).
Arizona's law thus far shows no sign of actual racial profiling, because racial profiling is in the IMPLEMENTATION, not the law. Depending the actual implementation, it can be good, or bad. As the law have NOT been implemented yet, and guidelines have yet to be established, one should take a wait-and-see attitude before denouncing the law even before it has a chance to be implemented.
My other SB1070 Hubs
- Analysis of Federal Court Decision on AZ SB1070
On July 28th, 2010, Judge Susan Bolton has ruled that certain parts of SB1070 (as amended by HB2162, collectively known as - SB1070 and Double Jeopardy
On my other SB1070 hubs, a reader, Don, brought up an interesting line of thought. Because Arizona's SB1070 proscribed additional penalties for unauthorized / illegal immigrants/aliens, it subjected them to... - Immigration Dilemma: should ALL native-born be citizens automatically?
Immigration reform idea: a new class of immigrant? Should there be "provisional residency"? Should native-born children of illegal immigrants be made permanent resident first, citizen later? - Why Court Challenges to Arizona SB1070 will fail
Do you know why court challenges to Arizona's SB1070 are doomed? That's right, ACLU and others will lose. The AZ laws have been carefully written to defeat challenges. Find out why. - Arizona Senate Bill 1070: what is it really?
The national controversy about the new Arizona law, SB 1070, which modifies the immigration enforcements of Arizona law, is all over the place. Do you know what it really says and what are the complaints about?
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (5)
- Funny (2)
- Awesome (2)
- Beautiful (2)
- Interesting (1)
Because they believe in celebrity soundbytes, instead of studying subject and making up their own mind instead of getting someone else's "meme". You have to remember, even President Obama may not have completely studied the laws in question, as he spoke some... bull**** at that Iowa town meeting.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks
That is where he said Latinos taking a kid out to get ice cream can be harassed by police. That simply cannot happen as the law was written. In fact, Governor Brewer added a few things to it on April 30th to make SURE it doesn't happen.
You have to remember, even the President is a politician, and politicians say things people WANT to hear.
Your article was very good. I agree with most of it. I have been racially profiled and it sucks beyond words. I was so pissed, my wife and kids were upset while we are sitting on the side of the road having my car ripped through by police officers. Then after they found nothing they left my car and all our stuff in shambles. The officer said he stopped my because I was driving a rental car headed to PHX and many black people run drugs using rental cars. I was so pissed I wanted to hit the officer. It was me, my wife, my 15 year old and my 3 year daughter in the car. This is an example of bad racial profiling.
The Fact is that the AZ law opens the door for racial profiling. We all know that the Latinos will be the target. Citizens will have to go through what I went through for no reason. This is wrong and violates my rights as a lawbiding cictizen.
As for Obama's remarks he was right. Unless you can explain what lawful contact is or reasonable suspicion then what he said is correct. If you are in the store and a police officer has reasonable suspicion you are illegal then he can initiate lawful contact just buy talking to you. He can say Hi how are you doing? Can I see your papers. The law does not stipulate what perpetrates the lawful contact. This is the problem.
Also I have issues with a Senator that supports Neo-Nazi organizations writing any law for the Citizens of Arizona. His intentions would not be for the betterment of all Arizonians but for White Arizonians. His laws would be scewed racially. Senator Pierce is a supporter of the NATIONAL SOCIALIST MOVEMENT WHICH IS A NEO-NAZI ORGANIZATION. There are pics and video of him at these rallies. Look up Senator Pierce and JT Ready(ex Arizona law maker by the way)and you will understand why his law has cause such an uproar.
Sorry to hear that. "Bad Racial Profiling" is discrimination, simple as that. It may be backed up by 'statistics', but it is still not right.
"Reasonable suspicion" and "lawful contact" actually IS a clearly defined standard. The officer must have clearly defined reasons, that can be repeated in court, to initiate a stop. If you lounge around an area where day laborers congregate, and you look like someone who wants to work, Hispanic, AND you're jumping up at any pickup or van that stops by, I would call that "reasonable suspicion". But just walking to an ice cream truck? No reasonable suspicion there.
Can it be abused? Absolutely. Should it be stopped just because it can be abused? I don't think so.
Furthermore, the criteria on what constitutes reasonable suspicion for illegal immigrant has not yet been developed, and will not be implemented until sometime in JULY 2010, I believe.
As for NSM support of the bill... NSM is anti-immigration, and they will gladly support ANY bill that is perceived to be anti-immigration. That does NOT necessarily mean that the bill is NOT worth supporting just because NSM supports it.
To kschang -
First, very good article, analysis, and replies to the comments made. You're absolutely right that WAY too many people parrot others instead of analyzing the law.
Second, I just posted a version of my comment below on another of your articles ("Arizona Senate Bill 1070: what is it really?"). I'm posting it here as well to be sure you see it.
I wanted to let you know your SB1070 source link in that article goes to the WRONG VERSION OF THE BILL. Even some of the your argument refering to he amemded bill (in your "What is it really" article) is attached to the wrong original language. The bill that was originally signed into law (before the amendments) is the "House Engrossed" version of SB1070, not the "Senate Engrossed" version. Your link goes to the "Senate Engrossed" version. This a mistake MANY people are making. Among other differences, only the "House Engrossed" version contains the language in section 11-1051 forbidding the use of race, color or national origin "solely" as a criteria for implementing the requirements of the law ("solely" later removed). Section 11-1051 also contained the much talked about phraze "lawful contact" which was also amended to say "lawful stop, detention, arrest."
The following is a State of Arizona web page that displays the originally signed "House Engrossed" version of the bill:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm
And this next link goes to a State of Arizona web page showing the signed version of HB2162 (the "Conference Engrossed" version) which is the signed, final version of amendments to SB1070 (section 11-1051 is almost half way down):
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm
On the State of Arizona Office of the Governor web page, there are also now links to PDF copies of both bills with signatures:
I have worked in law enforcement most of my adult life, and I support this bill whole heatedly- although I am not a resident of Arizona. I find it comical to see Obama decrying this law when it basically mirrors existing FEDERAL immigration law. The difference being that Obama is simply want to enforce it.
What people don't seem to want to admit is that a police officer must first have made a contact with a person based on legitimate probable cause, only then can he take steps to determine the immigration status of the individual. Suspecting someone is illegal is not grounds to initiate a contact, it must be pursuant to a legitimate stop or contact that was initiated for a articulated law enforcement reason, period.
Masses of people are reacting to Arizona's law based on what mainstream media and public figures with power are telling them it says. Some don't want to hear the truth, but many others who don’t have the resources or can’t read the law for themselves are saying things like, “the law is wrong because it only includes Latino immigrants and not people from other countries.” Of course it doesn’t address any specific ethnicity, but masses of people don’t know that. Instead they're being told the law allows police to single out and harass people who have an accent or brown skin. Virtually every elected official and lawyer knows that "reasonable suspicion" can be and has been fairly used by law enforcement for decades and has been upheld by our courts. But that's not what people are being told. Elected officials and public figures who know better are at best missing opportunities to correct misstatements and lies about Arizona’s law, and at worst are promoting misinformation because it supports their own agendas. Virtually no one in the mainstream press has the integrity to challenge even outright lies about the law because the truth isn't what they'd like it to be.
I get your point, racial profiling is good, but then the use of it makes it bad, I agree. The US Census Bureau, used alo ethnicity and other data like age, sex to have a profile of the population, but then here in this case if the police use it as to narrow down suspect without first getting evidence, then it prolong the investigation process, GOOD HUB, Maita
This is probably splitting hair, buy my point is ... what the "media" and politicians call 'racial profiling' is actually NOT profiling at all. It's a perversion of profiling. It's a pre-emptive strike, or wagon before the horse. In a way, it's like the "pre-cog" in the movie Minority Report. Can a person be guilty even BEFORE he had committed the crime? Which is why I have to invent a term "bad racial profiling" as opposed to "good" racial profiling. Bad racial profiling pre-determined the person to be guilty by association (being in a racial group) and worthy of investigation, instead of the normal process: identify suspect (or suspect behavior), THEN investigate.
Most police departments are scared s**tless whenever the r-word was mentioned. They bend over backwards trying to offend politicians and such who enjoy wielding the r-word as a club, esp. when the ACLU gets involved.
There is no doubt that some law enforcement agencies do use the perveted version of profiling, but again, just because the tool CAN be abused should not cause it to be banned.
hubbers
Arizona SB 1070 immigration law don't take effect until June 29th, that should be sufficient notice to the public to either leave the state or go back to Mexico.
We are a nation of the Rule of Law, so they say. How difficult is it to understand that if you enter our country without permission, you are breaking the law of the us.
Why our government don't incarcerate the law breakers is a mystery to me. The present scheme is to catch the illegals and send them back to the border ( catch and release ). It is apparent that catch and release has not stopped the flow of illegal aliens.
When will our government be held accountable to enforcing the law of the land?
Mr. Ewall, US *does* have a need for immigrants, even illegal immigrants. They came looking for a better life, which is what this country was founded upon. US does share the blame by a) leaving the border so open, b) offer better opportunities here. The aging US population implies that in 20 years, we may be INVITING new immigrants instead of trying to keep them out. At least one futurist predicted so.
As for leaving... it's estimated that a significant number of illegal immigrants have went back across the border since the economic downturn and nation-wide unemployment. We now have college grads and middle-aged folks competing for summer jobs at an AMUSEMENT PARK (Great America in Santa Clara) with teenagers. One can only imagine what sort of job market there is for day laborers.
Yes, illegal immigrants broke the law, but a law not enforced sufficiently is almost as lousy as not having one. It's a "paper tiger", so to speak.
I believe that we should offer illegal immigrants a way to "go straight", by adopting a new type of resident: provisional resident. Basically, they should spend a few years to demonstrate they CAN be productive citizens, and eventually gain permanent residency, then a chance at citizenship. This idea is in my other hub:
I was profiled at Stewart airport by TSA. I didn't realize it at the time. TSA agent asked me to remove my scarf on my head. I said, "It's just cloth." I was wondering why I had to remove a scarf to go though a metal detector. I did what I was told. It wasn't until three days later when I googled profiling that TSA agents were asking that to see if I would balk at removing my 'head dress' in an effort to see if I was Muslim.
If I would've balked at the inane request, I would have been given 'special attention' and probably would've missed my flight based on prejudice and ignorance.
Now MI5 has given a warning about bombs implanted in body cavities. So now -- what? Profiling based on Hollywood enhanced breasts?
It's ridiculous - British security bases their profiling on behavior - not just on looks. As a nation of immigrants - to kow-tow to racial profiling is not the way to go to secure our nation's borders. Not because it's wrong, because it's ineffective and wasteful.
Did I miss something? I seem to remember it was Muslims who perpetrated 9-11 and who have continued to commit terrorist acts today. US citizen or not the ONE thread they all have in common is a shared belief system.
At that point i move from the realm of racial profiling and in to the realm of common sense.
@Ptosis -- TSA has a thankless job: they need to have 100% accuracy (whereas the terrorists just need that 1 in whatever). TSA is in the PREVENTION business, not clean-up. Police is in the clean-up business, bring the right people to justice AFTER they commit the crime. Very different circumstances, at least in my opinion. It is when the police started to act in pre-emptive / prevention mode, that they run into trouble. That is not police's "purpose".
@Superkev -- you are in danger of painting too broad a brushstroke. As explained before, the extremists may have a religion in common, but they are the LUNATIC FRINGE of that religion. The VAST MAJORITY of Muslims are peaceful and are horrified at the atrocity of 9/11. It's like denouncing the entire pro-life movement due to one guy: Eric Rudolph. Perhaps they are all Christians... Heh?
What I believe about the bill is that the intention is for the police to be able to question, detain and arrest illegal aliens who they suspect of committing a crime other than entering the U.S. illegally. Also, when I've been stopped because my headlight is burned out, I have to show my driver's license, which is my ID. I'm American born, white, blond, middle-aged, and a woman. But I still have to show ID. That's the way it is, for everyone, everywhere in America.
kschang
Two wrongs don't make a right, it' all about breaking our immigration laws. We are a nation of the rule of law. Today our government by not enforcing the law is a contrbutor of breaking the law.
ARIZONA ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BILL 1070
The governor of Arizona on 4/23/10 signed into law a immigration bill that had president Obama and some members of congress arguing that the bill is unconstitutional.
The law is similar to the immigration law of 1986 passed by congress. We are a nation of the rule of law ,that's what our elected officials tell us.
There is something wrong in Washington.
The Arizona governor has sent letters to Washington requesting help on closing the inflow of illegals.The state of Arizona is going to enforce the law simply because our politicians in Washington have neglected to enforce the nations laws.
On 3/23/10 president Obama signed the healthcare reform bill into law even when the polls showed that 60% OF THE PEOPLE WERE AGAINST THE LEGISLATION
ON 4/23/10 the governor of Arizona signed the immigration bill into law because 70% of the people wanted the bill to be passed
Obama and Washington don't care if the people are against certain legislation and they come out and condemn the Arizona governor.
Wake up America to what our government thinks about the will of the people.
When you distinguish between good and bad racial profiling, I am not sure this distinction really makes sense. You say that if an eyewitness reports that, say, the robbery was committed by a Latino person, then it is ok for the police to narrow down the set of suspects and look for Latinos only. That would be good racial profiling. Bad racial profiling, instead, would occur when police officers look for Latinos because statistics say that Latinos in the area are more likely to commit robbery.
My idea is that, if profiling is good, it is good in both cases, and if profiling is bad it is bad in both. My basic argument is this. If profiling is inaccurate, it is inaccurate in both cases. If profiling unfairly subjects member of a certain racial group, it will do that equally in both cases. So, I see no difference between what you call good and bad racial profiling.
I try to challenge the distinction in my new hub:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Racial-profiling-Some-ambi
I refer to a couple of academic articles that challenge the distinction as well. I will be very interested in knowing what you think and how you would respond. I might be wrong!
Well, I believe I made my premise quite clear... There is nothing wrong with using "race" as a criteria. After all, it is a part of what we are, a defining characteristic. It is when it is used as pre-emptive strike, i.e. cast suspicion even BEFORE commission of crime, that would be considered abuse of profiling. In fact, ANY sort of pre-emptive enforcement is a problem, esp. if it is aimed at a particular SEGMENT of population.
In the example you cited, if police is looking for Latino suspect for, uh... evading arrest, that is what I call a "good" racial profiling, as it is specific, and it is for a specific crime. However, if the police is looking for Latinos just because Latinos were "known" to be drug smugglers, that is bad racial profiling.
I'll leave you feedback on your article, so you can see the difference. You may not agree, but that's why we have intelligent discussions. :)
You seem to be against proactive profiling or, more precisely, a proactive use of profiling, right? I am willing to agree, if we are talking about race only.
But what if the profile is quite sophisticated, including race, age, habits, nationality, behavioural traits, and what not? Would you then find legitimate the use of a very detailed profile for proactive purposes?
(I also left another comment to your comment on my hub on racial profile. I would like our conversation to be less sparse...but I guess hubpages does not have a system to do that.)
Pro-active profiling is fundamentally unsound, because it basically prejudged you based on your group association.
If a group (doesn't matter what the group is, or what criteria defined them) has an 80% chance of committing a serious crime... is it then, for the public good, legal to lock them all up?
Or are we getting closer and closer to "Minority Report", where someone can be arrested BEFORE a crime was even committed?
I dont know why everyone (mainly Hispanics) have a problem with this... I am MEXICAN & PUERTO RICAN AMERICAN!!! I have many illegals in my family here and I still am for the NEW BILL! I am first and foremost an AMERICAN. We as Americans go to other countries legally (considering we arent criminals) then people who want to enter our country should do so as well....
We are not asking that all hispanics or anyone of any racial group be locked up. Only that they abide by the same laws everyone else does. I don't understand why no one is considering why it is called "illegal" immigration. If you want to come to America, WONDERFUL! Do it legally!!!
Everyone is hung up on the "presumption" business, which is ALREADY ILLEGAL based on the House Amendment to the SB1710. While I have no opinion about Governor Brewer, I believe she spoke the truth when she quipped that the Feds got relief from a Federal Court to NOT do their job.
Wow is it really that difficult for everyone to accept the fact it is not because you are Mexican, it is because you are a Criminal! You are breaking our laws period, why does this even deserve a discussion? If I broke into your house I would go to jail because I would be a criminal! I am not allowed to go anywhere without a state issued ID or license so why is it racial profiling for a cop to ask an alien, because he is a criminal and wants to hide that fact so they all start screaming, racial media bytes! If you are convicted of a crime you lose certain rights for a time, as a legal citizen, law-abiding or criminal we have less rights than these so-called miniority groups, why is that? If you break our laws shut up and fix it, either go to jail or run home, but please stop acting like racist terrorists whining about rights you do not legally have in this country!
@reed3915 -- the problem is... not all Latinos are illegal, and there are plenty of illegal immigrants who are NOT Latino. Not all illegals are the ones complaining. In fact, it is the LEGAL residents that worry about being harassed.
Well put Kschang, and many, many Latinos also want the same thing immigrate the same way they did go through the process. I have never heard anyone turned down through the process unless they were criminals in own country or they refused to assimilate into our society language, laws, citizenship is not guaranteed just because you filled out the papers you must learn our language follow our laws and know our history a bit. Latinos as you said are not the only ethnicity that are illegals there are people from every country who want to be here and bypass our processes to stay here. But, the largest group are Mexicans. In my area there is only small amount of Asian people here illegally. My biggest problem is not with those who came originally on a visa either school or work it is with the ones who creeped in like a criminal that they are, they cannot open their mouths and protest anything because they are criminals. We cannot allow this to continue and I myself will do my part and turn rat on anyone smuggling people and sick as it is some Americans are just as guilty of smuggling as Mexican nationals are, it is a lucrative, non-taxed way to make money, but still illegal and I want it stopped. Maybe politicians should stop talking and work for once, walk the border, walk the streets, they would see the effects from this invasion of criminals, ask the police about the crimes against Americans from these desperate criminals. Don't even get me started on the illegals living in the hills behind schools and what they have done to children in this area. It does go both ways, Americans preying on illegals, and illegals preying on Americans. I feel it all should not be happening if the border was secure and they only had one way in. There is no reason after 9/11 for it to be open, we cannot even fly in side this country without enormous scrutiny and surveillance, yet the border is still open.
hubbers
ON 4/23/10 the Governor Brewer of Arizona signed the immigration bill ( SB 1070 )into law because 70% of the people wanted the bill to be passed. The bill on July 29th became law. On the streets of Phoenix activist and protesters marched in condemnation of the contents of Arizona SB1070.A ruling by a federal judge delayed enforcement of 3 sections of the law. The state of Arizona filed an appeal to the judge's ruling. The 9th federal circuit court will hear the appeal in December, meantime other parts of the law are in effect.
Today 8/23/10, the protesters have not returned to Phoenix and things have quieted down considerously. It's business as usual in Phoenix and other cities. The police are finding illegals and are enforcing the laws without prejudice.
9th Circuit is a bit early, folks... First appeal is being heard TODAY. The main point of contention seem to be whether the state can enforce Federal laws if Feds don't enforce it.
I am against all racial profiling.
Never judge a book by it's cover.
You mean "bad" racial profiling. Profiling is a valid technique and racial profiling just mean profiling that includes racial characteristics. "Profiling" gotten such a bad rap that even FBI changed "profiling" to "behavior analysis". :D
come down racims people because that land was the mexican land.................. you happy because is your now ...................
Now, now, before that it was Spanish land, and before it was the native's land. What's your point?
We racially profile all the time, whether we mean to or not.
Immigration law in the United States has always evolved because of race or ethnicity. Throughout history, immigration laws have been for everyone from the American Indians to the Italians, Chinese and Germans. At one time immigration law determined how many of a particular ethnicity could enter the country.
According to the Constitution, States have very limited authority over immigration. The Congress has complete authority over the immigration laws that serve the country. The President, as you know, does not legislate, but enforces.
According to CIA statistics, Arizona is attempting to enact laws when immigration has decreased, the crime rate has gone down and deportation is at an all-time high.
Nice info,thanks for sharing.
I want to know what to do when my husband is constantly being pulled over. He is Mexican and is a courier. He drives the same route every day, and almost every time a cop is sitting and waiting for speeders or whatever OR when they pass him the opposite way, they pull out or turn around and follow him and wait for him to do something they don't like - and possibly even make stuff up. Crossed over the white line, didn't turn a turn signal on, didn't stop at stop sign long enough, etc. He is on the verge of losing his job because of all the tickets. Not to mention being able to afford the fines. Some of the speeding tickets have not helped (nature of the job on occasion), but because he is an independent contractor and not like a UPS or FED EX driver, there isn't the ignorance to the speeding. Is there anything that can be done about this??!!
@Joelle -- Your husband needs to have a consultation with ACLU as the police seem to be hassling him or profiling him. I'm not a lawyer so I can't give you any advice. I'd recommend keeping a video / audio recorder in the car and record the encounter, and possibly have a friend follow and record the incident from afar. ACLU and other Latino rights groups may be willing to take up the case if your hubby can prove he's not THAT bad of a driver until he started on this job or something (is it always the same cop?)
Thank You for responding. No it is not always the same cop. At this point I don't know what to do. They have suspended his license so if he gets caught driving, they could haul him off to jail - which is what one of the cops told hime. He had someone else doing his job today with my husbands car, and he called and told my husband that he was followed by a cop and then the cop pulled him over and asked if he was my husband. We don't know the whole story because this guy that was driving for him is kind of a story teller. We are going to attempt to get a work permit. So far they don't give a work permit to someone with too many points, but will give one to someone who has been in trouble with DUI, Drugs and long list of other things. Thank you for the suggestions. I have told him he needs to keep a log, but the audio video sounds better.
@Joelle -- can your husband get a motorcycle's license instead? (Just wondering)
I am mexican and im proud of it wooohooo
Don't you mean Mexican-American? :)
Kalman42 2 years ago
You make a lot of sense. Why do so many people have such a hard time understanding this?