Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

[Renae]

"It doesn't mean that if the law for whatever reason happened to go into effect, that six months from now, a year from now, we might not look at the impact the law has had ... and see whether or not there has been that racial profiling impact," Holder said. "If that was the case, we would have the tools and we would bring suit on that basis."

Holder, reacting to the firestorm of criticism from Republicans and border-state lawmakers, said the Justice Department decided to file the suit because Arizona's immigration law is "inconsistent" with federal policy and the U.S. Constitution. He said there's nothing to stop local jurisdictions and states from helping the government enforce immigration law, but described Arizona's law as contradictory to what the federal government is trying to accomplish.

FOXNews.com - Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

So they realize they'll probably lose the first suit and are laying the groundwork for the 2nd.

 

[Deuce]

FOXNews.com - Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

So they realize they'll probably lose the first suit and are laying the groundwork for the 2nd.

They realize the possibility of losing the first suit, yes, and intend to monitor the situation to see whether racial profiling occurs. Seems like it would be fairly easy to track the cases where the citizenship-checking is done to see whether it is applied disproportionately to hispanics.

So, thanks for the news, I guess?

 

[MaggieD]

I am soooo sick and tired of this "racial profiling argument." It's nothing more than a red herring designed to distract us from the main issue. It's why we search little old ladies' shoes at the airports. If one is to enforce immigration laws in any way, shape or form, we're going to have to profile....as we do in allll law enforcement activities. Ridiculous.

I was hoping he'd go on to say they were temporarily dropping the lawsuit. The Administration looks like total idiots and against the very principles they're charged to support. This is a huge $$ burden on Arizona -- defending against, what I think, is a frivilous lawsuit.

 

[Renae]

They realize the possibility of losing the first suit, yes, and intend to monitor the situation to see whether racial profiling occurs. Seems like it would be fairly easy to track the cases where the citizenship-checking is done to see whether it is applied disproportionately to hispanics.

So, thanks for the news, I guess?

Of course more latino's will be questioned... what a dumb statement.

 

[kaya'08]

Sue the state for being patriotic, you guys make Uncle Sam proud im sure.

 

[Deuce]

Of course more latino's will be questioned... what a dumb statement.

So you admit that race will be a factor in determining the "reasonable suspicion" of being illegal? Despite the law supposedly ruling that out?

 

[MaggieD]

@ Deuce -- How else would you suggest ICE or any other enforcement agency determine "reasonable suspicion?" Please answer this question. How else?

 

[Deuce]

@ Deuce -- How else would you suggest ICE or any other enforcement agency determine "reasonable suspicion?" Please answer this question. How else?

Well, if you write a law that says you can't use racial profiling, and tell all of your officers that racial profiling is not ok, I'd imagine something other than racial profiling.

 

[texmaster]

Well, if you write a law that says you can't use racial profiling, and tell all of your officers that racial profiling is not ok, I'd imagine something other than racial profiling.

Who is telling officers that racial profiling is ok?

 

[Deuce]

Who is telling officers that racial profiling is ok?

You missed an important word. I bolded for you.

 

[MaggieD]

Here's what the Department of Justice has to say about racial profiling:

There are circumstances in which law enforcement activities relating to particular identified criminal incidents, schemes or enterprises may involve consideration of personal identifying characteristics of potential suspects, including age, sex, ethnicity or race. Common sense dictates that when a victim describes the assailant as being of a particular race, authorities may properly limit their search for suspects to persons of that race. Similarly, in conducting an ongoing investigation into a specific criminal organization whose membership has been identified as being overwhelmingly of one ethnicity, law enforcement should not be expected to disregard such facts in pursuing investigative leads into the organization's activities.

Civil Rights Division Home Page

I'm glad this came up. I hadn't researched it before. I wonder how the Obama Administration expects to win their suit in light of the above information....?

@ Deuce -- how come you didn't answer my question?

 

[Deuce]

Here's what the Department of Justice has to say about racial profiling:

Civil Rights Division Home Page

I'm glad this came up. I hadn't researched it before. I wonder how the Obama Administration expects to win their suit in light of the above information....?

@ Deuce -- how come you didn't answer my question?

You should ask ICE about that. I'm not in law enforcement. If I had to guess, I'd say they probably work off of people with fake/stolen SSNs, or are unable to provide a SSN, lack a driver's license/other form of ID, don't file a tax return despite appearing to have income, or whatever.

All I know is the AZ law specifically says that race can't be the sole determinant for "reasonable suspcion" and the training videos they're giving to their officers regarding the law say racial profiling is not ok. Should AZ not follow their own rules?

 

[texmaster]

You missed an important word. I bolded for you.

Yup I did. My apologies.

But are you against deportation of illegals?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The Feds are going to file their bogus "racial profiling" suit when they have a statistical sample showing that the cops are asking proportionately more Hispanics for their ID than white people.

Which, duh, will be shown by the first week, since the Invaders are predominately Hispanic.

What else would expect from a Justice Department run by racists?

Certainly not honesty.

 

[Deuce]

Yup I did. My apologies.

But are you against deportation of illegals?

No. Not at all. They break the law, law says send 'em home.
My personal gripe with the AZ law is the strong possibility of legal residents/citizens being detained because they failed to carry their birth certificate or passport with them. Say I'm jaywalking, and a cop stops me and gives me a ticket. Lawful contact. Then he suspects I'm not a citizen, let's say because I have an accent or I mention that I was born in somewhereElseIstan. I'm a legal citizen and have been all my life, but now he has to detain me until my citizenship can be verified. Even my driver's license wont necessarily clear me. (the AZ law only says that AZ licenses are considered valid evidence of legal status, if I remember right) Or maybe say I don't have my wallet on me, because I was just out for a stroll.

Legal citizens detained for not having proper paperwork on them. It bothers me. Trading liberty for security and all that.

 

[texmaster]

No. Not at all. They break the law, law says send 'em home.
My personal gripe with the AZ law is the strong possibility of legal residents/citizens being detained because they failed to carry their birth certificate or passport with them. Say I'm jaywalking, and a cop stops me and gives me a ticket. Lawful contact. Then he suspects I'm not a citizen, let's say because I have an accent or I mention that I was born in somewhereElseIstan. I'm a legal citizen and have been all my life, but now he has to detain me until my citizenship can be verified. Even my driver's license wont necessarily clear me. (the AZ law only says that AZ licenses are considered valid evidence of legal status, if I remember right) Or maybe say I don't have my wallet on me, because I was just out for a stroll.

Legal citizens detained for not having proper paperwork on them. It bothers me. Trading liberty for security and all that.

If you have valid ID he can't go anywhere beyond that. Driver's license is considered valid. He can't explore beyond that. Thats also part of the law.

 

[Deuce]

If you have valid ID he can't go anywhere beyond that. Driver's license is considered valid. He can't explore beyond that. Thats also part of the law.

As I understand it, an Arizona driver's license ends the investigation. How about a Minnesota license?

Edit: Read the bill again. If the ID I'm showing him requires proof of citizenship, then it is considered good enough. However, not all states require citizenship to be proven to get a driver's license, are the officers going to memorize the list? How about other types of ID? Chances are the officer wont immediately know. Also, what if I don't have my wallet on me? Walking down the street does not require such a thing.

 

[texmaster]

As I understand it, an Arizona driver's license ends the investigation. How about a Minnesota license?

I'm sure its any state driver's license.

Under SB1070, however, Arizona police will have the right to stop anyone on "reasonable suspicion" that they may be an illegal immigrant and can arrest them if they are not carrying a valid driver's license or identity papers.

Arizona Illegal-Immigrant Law Draws Strong Opposition - TIME

 

[Deuce]

I'm sure its any state driver's license.

Under SB1070, however, Arizona police will have the right to stop anyone on "reasonable suspicion" that they may be an illegal immigrant and can arrest them if they are not carrying a valid driver's license or identity papers.

Arizona Illegal-Immigrant Law Draws Strong Opposition - TIME

Nope! (see edit)

Get-out-of-detainment cards:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
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.

Some driver's licenses aren't covered, and even the ones that are covered are dependent upon the officer's memory of whether that particular form of ID requires proof of legal presence.

Switching "reasonable suspicion" to "probable cause" and "lawful contact" to "lawful detainment" would end any issue I have with the law. The federal vs. state jurisdiction pissing match is above my pay grade and outside of anything I'm interested in.

 

[texmaster]

Nope! (see edit)

Get-out-of-detainment cards:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
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.

Some driver's licenses aren't covered, and even the ones that are covered are dependent upon the officer's memory of whether that particular form of ID requires proof of legal presence.

Switching "reasonable suspicion" to "probable cause" and "lawful contact" to "lawful detainment" would end any issue I have with the law. The federal vs. state jurisdiction pissing match is above my pay grade and outside of anything I'm interested in.

Actually after reading the actual law you are incorrect.

1. The person's driving privilege is canceled, suspended or revoked
5 for any reason or the person has not ever been issued a driver license or
6 permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having
7 a driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction.l

So clearly the driver's license can be from any state. It would have been rediculus to limit to to Az driver's licenses only.

and again,

1. The peace officer determines that the vehicle is currently
22 registered and that the driver or the vehicle is in compliance with the
23 financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.
24 2. The spouse of the driver is with the driver at the time of the
25 arrest.
26 3. The peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the spouse
27 of the driver:
28 (a) Has a valid driver license.

And again no mention of limiting it to Arizona only.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

 

[jujuman13]

I am soooo sick and tired of this "racial profiling argument." It's nothing more than a red herring designed to distract us from the main issue. It's why we search little old ladies' shoes at the airports. If one is to enforce immigration laws in any way, shape or form, we're going to have to profile....as we do in allll law enforcement activities. Ridiculous.

I was hoping he'd go on to say they were temporarily dropping the lawsuit. The Administration looks like total idiots and against the very principles they're charged to support. This is a huge $$ burden on Arizona -- defending against, what I think, is a frivilous lawsuit.

The Administration looks like total idiots very likely because that is exactly what they are.
With regards to the costs, unfortunately whoever wins, the Taxpayer loses.
But if Az wins will they be able to recover their costs from the Federal administration?

 

[Deuce]

Both of those appear to be from the section dealing with impounding a vehicle, not detaining a person. Which page did they come from?

edit: Although this may all be moot, because the bill seems to have been amended? We might both be looking at an outdated version.

EDIT AGAIN:
Here's what we SHOULD be looking at, Tex.

http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB2162.PDF

Edit Yet Again:
Yeah, Tex, that language you're referring to is definitely in the impounding a vehicle section, not the detainment section.

 

[mike2810]

So you admit that race will be a factor in determining the "reasonable suspicion" of being illegal? Despite the law supposedly ruling that out?

Have you looked at the vids of people crossing into the US from Mexico illegally? How would you describe them?
age, dress, height, weight, hair color, eye color
would then not describe the color of the skin also, hence race or ethnicity .

Are you saying that anytime a murder suspect, bank robber, rapist is described which included race/ethnicity would be racial profiling?
To use only race/ethnicity would be racial profling, imo. To include other descriptions and race is not. If you think it is then, I guess the best LE could say is they are human of a certain height,weight,etc.

Lets get serious. IMO, racial profiling is the pro illegal stance to hender LE in stopping the influx of illegals.

 

[Renae]

So you admit that race will be a factor in determining the "reasonable suspicion" of being illegal? Despite the law supposedly ruling that out?

What are you babbling about? Does Arizona have a problem with Polish, Russian or European Illegal Immigration or with Latino Illegals?

In Dueces Progressive Lefty mind, it doesn't matter that pretty much every illegal in Az is... Hispanic, no no, if the police ask more non-whites then whites it's RACIAL PROFILING MAN!!!

I swear, the term Common Sense means nothing to you does it?

 

[texmaster]

Both of those appear to be from the section dealing with impounding a vehicle, not detaining a person. Which page did they come from?

edit: Although this may all be moot, because the bill seems to have been amended? We might both be looking at an outdated version.

EDIT AGAIN:
Here's what we SHOULD be looking at, Tex.

http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB2162.PDF

Edit Yet Again:
Yeah, Tex, that language you're referring to is definitely in the impounding a vehicle section, not the detainment section.

Read the page Deuce.

IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED
44 STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
45 GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

Thats it. Its over. Its any government issued ID. Lets stop the pretence ok? Its not just an Arizona ID.