Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I would say that legally endorsed racial profiling definitely violates that.
The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person's immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…"
Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.
What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."
Where do any of those cases give local cops the authority to demand papers from Hispanic citizens based solely on their skin color or manner of speaking? That is what I am primarily arguing.
Thanks for the opinion but let's have a court decide how carefully crafted the law is.
I would assert that checking citizenship is not a search. Racial profiling for the purposes of checking citizenship does not violate equal protection. It would make for an interesting Supreme Court decision.
We are idiots for not racial profiling. We are concerned about illegal aliens. The VAST majority of whom come from latin america and Mexico. We should be checking the citizenship of hispanics (all the races that that entails).
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens not illegals of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
no one is going to be denied equal protection because of this law.
I would say that legally endorsed racial profiling definitely violates that.
IF that is what the law said you would be right, problem with your argument is that the law does NOT say it is legalising racial profiling. Your interpretation is telling you that, not the actual words in tha law.
But you really don't have to profile. This is a tool once reasonable suspicion is established.
And for those crying about what responsible suspicion is, look at cops who search cars. They do it after they establish reasonable suspicion, the manners of a person, the way they act, how they answer questions, their mood, all of those things establish reasonable suspicion and it has zero to do with racial profiling.
If you are German and only speak German have no id and get very nervous when being questioned and I'm a police officer, I'm going to suspect you aren't here legally too. I'm not judging you on your race but your actions and demeanor, both taught at the police academy. It really is insulting for those pro illegal anti immigration law folks to assume police don't know how to establish reasonable suspicion when they do it every day on the job.
People against this are either claiming their race trumps this countries' right to establish law which is no different than the KKK or they rely on a "what if" argument where they come up with a theory of how it could break the law but can't prove it is written to break the law.
The article I quoted said they, Arizona's now Governor, conducted a 2 year investigation but, found no illegals falsely registering to vote or voting. Another Right wing lie bites the dust. :mrgreen:
Did you read the article, I could find nothing but one mans opinion there, no facts, gross misrepresentation of what the law states.
Why bring gender in to this? 0_o : Is it because that I myself am a female that is going against this bill, because I think it is Fascism at it finest. My dad who is a Conservative also think it is Fascism.
You don't get the point to being with Scarecrow most people are not rough with the police, if they haven't had trouble with them in the first place... That is what my father has noticed as he is in the field a lot doing his job as the fire marshal/cop.
Russia did the same thing during the fascist state they had, so in way it is fascism.
The entire debate comes down to this section of the bill....
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.
What is "reasonable suspicion"? That they have brown skin? That they speak with an accent? There could be a thousand different interpretations of what is reasonable in suspecting someone is an illegal.
It's the vagueness of those words that make this a poorly written bill. It leaves it to law enforcement to decide what a reasonable suspicion is and that is why the bill could be used to target legal Hispanics.
Indeed.
I carry my passport with me everywhere even though I'm not required to, and my driver's license. I have no issue making sure authorities know who I am - whether I'm committing a crime or not.
Thanks for the opinion but let's have a court decide how carefully crafted the law is.
Well then you must be the quintessential well prepared and documented criminal if you “have no issue making sure authorities know who I am - whether I'm committing a crime or not “. Congratulations - :rofl
*clicky*
“… [N]o law can really be enforced without the help of the community, that's why I was so happy to see this picture posted on the internet showing one helpful Arizonans answer: I am Mexican, pull me over. That saves a lot of guesswork. (And fun prank on neighbor)” — Stephen Colbert†
From a political standpoint, I think the Republican party has just committed suicide in Arizona.
Look what happened in California 20 years ago. It was Democratic, but Republicans were making inroads, mostly due to Hispanic support. Then Republicans attempted to pass a similar law to Arizona's, one that would ban undocumented immigrants to services, which included even treatment at hospitals. Since then, Hispanics have been solidly in the Democrats' pockets.
In Arizona, John Kyl won his Senate seat with 41% of the Latino vote. You can expect this vote to evaporate overnight. Not only that, but Arizona is a state where white people will be a minority by 2015. Put it all together, and you will realize that the Republican party is now in it's death throes in Arizona.
You all know how I feel about illegal immigration. I am for sending them back, ALL OF THEM. However, I am not for violating the Constitution in doing so. People are screaming "Then how can address the problem of illegal immigration?". Easy as hell. You charge employers who hire them with felonies, and throw them in jail. That will kill illegal immigration quickly. If they don't have a way to make a living here, they will return to where they came from. Duh!! So why isn't Arizona doing this? I will tell you the reason - Most employers are white, that's why.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon slammed the law as racist and hateful.
"As was clear during the [Arizona] legislative process, there is a negative political environment for migrant communities and for all Mexican visitors," the Mexican Foreign Relations Ministry said in its alert, posted in Spanish and English on the ministry's website.
After reading the bill and the Arizona governor's Executive Order, "Establishing Law Enforcement Training for Immigration Laws", I do not see how this is violating the Constitution. It is clearly backing up current federal laws. There definitely is a need for something like this. Additionally, the borders need to be secured to slow down illegal immigration [but, of course, still continue legal immigration].
Her Executive Order:
http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/EO_201009.pdf
After reading the bill and the Arizona governor's Executive Order, "Establishing Law Enforcement Training for Immigration Laws", I do not see how this is violating the Constitution. It is clearly backing up current federal laws. There definitely is a need for something like this. Additionally, the borders need to be secured to slow down illegal immigration [but, of course, still continue legal immigration].
Her Executive Order:
http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/EO_201009.pdf
This is also contained in the law, that I'm posting especially for those of you who are comparing Arizona to Nazi Germany:
A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.So if a person has any of the preceding, they are assumed to be in the country legally. Guess what folks, everyone in Arizona has to produce one of those forms of ID when questioned by the police, no matter what color your skin is.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
Sorry, but I'm just not seeing the Nazi thing here?
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?