One person now constitutes a boycott?
Oooooh!
A Vanity Fair blog, quoting the New York Daily News, quoting two anonymous Twitter users.
What next? YouTube comments?
Who is more likely to trip the “probable cause” for arrest until citizenship can be established? A mestizo natural born American citizen with a strong Hispanic accent, or a white Canadian with a Newfoundland accent?
If you say equal probability then you’re either be a fool or a lier.
No, the number probably will not change appreciably, or directly. But it will empower the worst of them and burden the best of them. Which I said, but apparently it escaped your notice. But that’s a very cogent answer if somebody says this will increase the number of bad cops, so keep it on tap, for when the appropriate occasion arises…
What will change is the frequency of “bad behavior” by cops (who, being human, don’t fit easily into “good” and “bad” categories). More people will get harassed now, and that will happen on the basis of appearance. To deny it is silly - that’s the *purpose *of this law. To claim, as Bricker incredibly does, that the innocent have “nothing to worry about” is virtually insane.
Its pretty much always the innocent who have the most to worry about.
Neither. Nothing you have said about either person is sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause.
Any person arrested for being mestizo with a strong Hispanic accent will have his case dismissed regardless of what the citizenship information reveals, since the arrest would be illegal.
I will grant that the Canadian is much less likely to attract consensual attention from police investigating this law, though.
Good you admit appearing Hispanic (and I used the term mestizo because that’s generally how Hispanics are thought of even though even the dutch can be Hispanic) gets you more attention from law enforcement under this.
Are you okay with racial profiling, then?
Do you believe that to be a just arrangement?
How can we be equal under the law if who your parents are determines how much scrutiny you receive?
Do you posit cops looking for any flimsy excuse to pull over a Driving While Hispanic (DWH) to check their papers is fair to Hispanics? If not why is it acceptable?
Now then I used quotes on “probable cause” because it’s pretty obvious to me, and an entire shortbus- including the glue eater- that “probable cause” can be easily manufactured, or magnified form such small things.
For example around here hanging anything from your rear view mirror is illegal, that law is never enforced unless the cops are just looking for an excuse to pull you over. Put up one of those tacky pine-fresh air freshners on your rear view mirror as many are apt to do, and no one bothers you. However add on a promedical mariuana sticker and suddenly you’re getting pulled over “because the pine tree can’t be hanging from the rear view mirror, and do you mind if I look around?”.
Now you claim that the look around is consensual, but fuck getting pulled over isn’t if the real instigator is your race. Token-smoken-Hippie isn’t a protected class, but race and ethnicity sure the fuck are.
Do you think it’s right and just that this law means DWH folks will get scrutinized all the more on the road? That they’ll be pulled over for any possible excuse (or even made up ones) just to check their papers?
This law promotes bigotry and racial profiling.
That has nothiing to do with this law, though. It’s true everywhere. As long as the rule is that police may approach anyone, at any time, for any reason, then those concerns will exist.
And, yes, I’m OK with it, because the key feature of a consensual encounter is that the person approached is free to disregard police inquiries and go about his business.
You know I am Hispanic, right?
And I have no problem with the police pulling me over if they observe a violation. I certainly have a problem if they make something up, but that’s why we have things like dashboard cameras; it sharply reduces the opportnities for police to create offenses where no exist.
Nonsense.
A simple cure: don’t hang anything from your rear-view mirror, or accept the risk that you’ll be pulled over. Still, there’s nothing about an air freshener that gives rise to probable cause for being in the country illegally, so I don’t see what the problem is.
Your outrage seems to be: Hispanics don’t have the right to drive around with air fresheners. Correct. No one does.
I certainly oppose made-up excuses. If that happens, I’ll be the first to demand retributive action.
Has it happened? When? Where?
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/03/joe_arpaio_on_false_mcdonalds.php
One nice thing about round ups (if you are Arpaio and his goons that is), is that it is very rare for dashboard cameras to be around to keep the cops in check.
Just so we’re clear. By “it” you mean racial profiling?
Tell me do you find Hispanics potentially being pulled over or arrested for things white people be allowed to go free for okay?
Yes and very naive too.
But that’s the thing. It’s only a violation if want to investigate you for something and need an excuse. Would you be okay with a law that when applied meant only white people can hang stuff from their view mirror? How about being either speeding or creating obstruction unless you match the posted exactly?
Maybe the officer believes “you’re driving kind of funny” even though you’re driving fine. Or your car "matches the description " of something or maybe you “do”.
The problem is harassing good decent folk Because they happen to be Hispanic.
Yet it’s only a problem if the cops want an excuse. Why is that? If it effectively works out that the law is only enforced to it’s fullest against one race what do you call that?
See post above. I welcome you to our side.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has signed a bill targeting a school district’s ethnic studies program.
While I could see prohibiting classes that fall into the third category,* if there ever are such ethnic studies classes (or if such classes haven’t been the de facto default for much of American history), I see no reason to condemn any of those that could be described by the first two.
- Absent any manufactured resentment for grandstanding purposes.
I would be fascinated to know what clear cut standards and objective criteria might be applied in the enforcement of this law.
This inclines me even more to think that the authors of these travesties hadn’t any intention of seeing these laws enforced, its like they either deliberately sabotaged any possibility of passing Constitutional muster or have never been within a hundred yards of a high school civics textbook.
Either stupid or malicious, no way to tell which. The Republican Uncertainty Principle.
I don’t have nearly as much of an issue with this as I do with the empowerment of police/immigration thing.
I do. My takeaway from the accumulation of these types of measures (as well as the prospect that at least 10 other states are now feeling emboldened to enact anti-immigrant laws) is suddenly somebody is now recoiling from the fact that minorities and people of non-white enthicities have ways of seeking equal footing in America’s story, and Arizona is trying to encode such phobias, insecurities and fears into law.
Can you truly state that you think American history has been taught in a way that acknowledged all of its contributors over time? And can you also state that the existence of such classes and course of studies hurts or necessarily disparages anyone? Can I ask you if you think there might a certain subtext to the need for such laws? (Not that you said anything anything I just typed in your post.)
Besides, why can’t one be bothered by both (this law as well as 1070), even if not equally?
I live in Tucson and my kids go to the school district all this controversy is about. The issue is that in several local high schools they have ‘La Raza’ classes which are said to teach racist anti-Anglo things. But it totally depends on who you ask, some say they just teach pride in Latino identity, and others say they teach completely offensive things. For example, in a recorded speech a teacher said, “Republicans hate Latinos.”
Then last year a teacher wrote an article in the local paper that said he was associated with a La Raza class and "The basic theme of the curriculum was that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites.
In this narrative, whites are able to maintain their influence only if minorities are held down. Thus, social, political and economic events in America must be understood through this lens.
This biased and sole paradigm justified teaching that our community police officers are an extension of the white power structure and that they are the strongmen used “to keep minorities in their ghettos.”
It justified telling the class that there are fewer Mexican-Americans in Tucson Magnet High School’s advanced placement courses because their “white teachers” do not believe they are capable and do not want them to get ahead.
It justified teaching that the Southwestern United States was taken from Mexicans because of the insatiable greed of the Yankee who acquired his values from the corrupted ethos of Western civilization.
It was taught that the Southwest is “Atzlan,” the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, and still rightfully belongs to their descendants - to all people of indigenous Mexican heritage…"
You can read the rest of it here http://www.alipac.us/article3210.html (not where it was originally published, but it’s the same article I read in the paper)
deleted.
So … this abuse happened because of the new law, did it?
I mean, you’re offering this incident as a direct answer to my question:
In this case, we see that the deputies were acting pursuant to a warrant, not simply picking people from the street at random:
So your beef was that deputies would make up reasonable suspicion. You posted this in response to my question asking if that had happened… and yet a little probing reveals that they had a freakin’ warrant, signed by a judge. And that it happened before the new law even went into effect.
So – the only one making up stuff here is you.
“They accused us of censorship. Naturally, this was untrue and we couldn’t let them say it.”
I think history texts are getting better. The best ones acknowledge, praise and include people of all walks of life and ethnicity that are historically or culturally relevant or otherwise influential.
From PaloVerde’s description, and from what I’ve read, many of these classes are quite exclusionary, which is not what we should be teaching any of our children in any of our schools, ever. If they are going to teach a class from a specific ethnic point of view, it needs to be taught from a neutral perspective and be open to all students to take.
Really I think that college is a better place for classes like that rather than high schools, anyway.