Sorry, we’ll have to disagree. I don’t accept the fact that because there may be a cop who will abuse this law, that makes the law itself invalid. The same cops who racially profile also investigate other laws. Should we eliminate any law that a bigoted cop might use to harass someone? Because that’s all of them. And your answer still doesn’t explain why this law specifically encourages abuse.
Don’t know. I know we shouldn’t establish legal policy because of an anecdote on a message board though.
That doesn’t answer the question. You’re offering an exception as a reason not to enforce an existing law. What do you suppose typically happened before if someone offered as an excuse, “My wallet was stolen”? Do you really believe they generally got a free pass? I don’t. They didn’t then, they won’t now.
This isn’t that tough. The question was, why would an officer ask if someone is a citizen. I offered a scenario–someone stopped for a traffic infraction who spoke broken English with a thick Swedish accent. That answers that question.
Your follow-up question was, is it fair to ask such a question, “interrupting someone’s business”? I answered, why not? They ask any questions they want currently, interrupting people’s business in doing so. Should we not ask if someone was drinking, based on the same premise–that this is an intrusion on their time? No. Cops get to ask questions so long as they don’t unduly prolong the traffic stop. They can ask if you kidnapped the Lindbergh baby, too. As long as they don’t subsequently detain you if you answer no.
This keeps getting asserted without support. “Reasonable suspicion” by definition means no racial harassment (unless the cop ignores the law). “Because he’s Mexican” is not reasonable suspicion. Unless you can point out the flaw in this logic, you’re just making an argument by assertion.
It’s not racial profiling. I don’t think it’s out of line to ask someone speaking broken English–whatever the accent or nationality–if he’s a citizen, in the course of a traffic stop, in a state that is as concerned with illegal aliens as Arizona is. A simple question, easily answered. If I were in Mexico and a cop asked me if I was a citizen, I wouldn’t wonder what prompted the question, and I wouldn’t be offended by it, even if I had recently procured citizenship. An Arizona cop could ask the same question of someone with a Swedish accent, or a French accent, or a whatever accent. Should a Swede take offense?
Isn’t it funny that after all that (in my case it almost always turned into a Terry stop too :mad:) the only thing the cop gives you is … your paperwork back?
No ticket, no written warning, no verbal warning, nothing.
Made it pretty clear to me that the reasonable suspicion for the stop was just, and only, the reasonable suspicion for the stop!
CMC fnord!
White guy, but since I drive a beater and look like a hippie/biker, my “White skin privilege” card has been indefinitely suspended.
I’m loath to pipe up at all, but I think the answer to the above is that the law mandates that police ask about citizen status. That is, it requires a change in the police’s default action.
Even those officers who act in good faith are not capable of putting English-speaking ability into an airtight cognitive category and assessing whether it alone, and not the person’s brown skin, provides a basis for questioning about citizenship. To think that people are capable of doing so just strikes me as a terribly naive view of race and ethnicity in American society.
The fact that the law will lead to officers questioning the citizenship of Hispanic people doesn’t make it unconstitutional. But I think fair debate about the wisdom of the law demands acknowledgment that the law is likely to lead to officers questioning the citizenship of, primarily, people with brown skin. Maybe people shouldn’t be offended at such questions in light of (what you view as) the greater good. But saying this effect is OK, or outweighed by other factors is not the same as denying that it will occur.
You’re surprised? Those efforts are simply the latest examples of the very familiar tradition we have here of defending bigotry, even to oneself, by denying it and claiming the true reasons are different. That’s also behind the common arguments conflating illegal immigration with drug-running - hey, it’s Mexicans crossing the border, right? Don’t they all know each other, just like Canadians do?
You especially should not be surprised to see Bricker defend beyond the point of silliness a position advanced by the Republican Party or any of its major components. Or, for that matter, to see a lawyer represent rhetoric as logic, or advocacy as analysis.
But stopping people disproportionately on the basis of race (which it inevitably will) has equal protection implications, does it not?
I think this is the crux of the matter for me. It’s one thing to argue that the benefits of the law outweigh the drawbacks, but to pretend that there will be no profiling in its application is simply cloud cuckoo land.
Since we moved to San Diego, my wife and i have been meaning to visit Arizona. Maybe we’ll take a drive out there sometime soon, and i can walk around talking loudly with my white skin and Australian accent, and see if any cops stop to ask me if i’m a lawful resident.
I hold no such belief. I ask that they do their best, but I assume they will be subject to human imperfections in this, as with all things.
But most illegal aliens in Arizona are brown-skinned people, correct? I don’t mean that to sound provocative. Why wouldn’t most people being questioned, detained, arrested–even if we use “foreign accent” alone, whatever it is, as the trigger–be of Mexican descent? Would that be surprising, even if we could magically ensure that cops would behave flawlessly, without a hint of bias?
Most legal immigrant residents are also brown skinned. And even if you attempt to ignore it, the majority of Hispanics are not amused by the attempts at minimizing the effects of the new law.
Specially when the new law has a provision that gives the worst proponents of the law the weapon of suing the authorities if they do not see results. Already the Pima County Sheriff and others stated that the law is “unnecessary” and that they won’t enforce it. So there are already big fat targets for the lawyers that helped write this law.
So, I still think that the coming lawsuits will dwarf the amount of loses the state will get in the effort to enforce this new law. Cutting their noses indeed.
Yes, potentially, if you could prove not just proportional effects but also intent to question people on the basis of race. It’s complicated, and I’m not familiar enough with the law to say much more than that confidently.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that racially discriminatory investigation is an equal protection violation: “Although Fourth Amendment principles regarding unreasonable seizures do not apply to consensual encounters, an officer does not have unfettered discretion to conduct an investigatory interview with a citizen. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides citizens a degree of protection independent of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. This protection becomes relevant even before a seizure occurs. . . . If law enforcement adopts a policy, employs a practice, or in a given situation takes steps to initiate an investigation of a citizen based solely upon that citizen’s race, without more, then a violation of the Equal Protection Clause has occurred.” United States v. Avery, 137 F.3d 343, 355 (6th Cir. 1997).
It would appear to me to follow that selecting people on the basis of their perceived race for questioning based on their immigration status would state an Equal Protection violation. I know some other Circuits have followed this decision, but I don’t think the Supreme Court has ruled on it.
Yes, but I’m not suggesting that anyone target brown-skinned people. I am suggesting that in Arizona, we should not be surprised that the majority of people who are prosecuted, detained, questioned, will be brown-skinned people. That’s not the same as saying that most brown-skinned people will be questioned or impacted. It simply acknowledges the obvious–most illegal aliens in Arizona are Mexicans.
Again, this is in response to the notion advanced here by some that brown-skinned people will be the primary targets of this enforcement. Uh, yeah. But not because they are brown-skinned.
I still think that the lawsuits that are coming (both against and in favor) will waste a lot of money, and the money lost will dwarf the amount of loses that the state is acquiring in the effort to enforce this law.
I am increasingly convinced the whole thing is a sham, there is enough crap built into it to assure that it gets thrown out. If nothing else, that bullshit about suing to police is a poison pill, the cherry atop a turd sundae. This is about appearing to be tough guys, appearing to be tough on “illegals” without any consequences befalling the worthy and the good, i.e., the small farmer who depends on these workers to bring in their crops, take their pittance, and go away. Small mom and pop outfits like Cargill, ADM…
They have no intention of driving out the “illegal” workers, because they damned sure don’t want to stand in front of the voters and say “Iceberg lettuce, same price per pound as a prime Porterhouse steak, and you’ve got me to thank for it!”
And to perform this *kabuki *of nut scratching and chest beating, they frighten vulnerable people, many of whom risked their very lives to earn money for their families. The guy they work for says “Fuck you, Pedro, I’m keeping the money, don’t like it, take it up with La Migra. Here, I’ll call 'em for you, you could be on the bus to Hermosillo in a couple hours…”
As even one conservative doper noticed in GD regarding a law against lead in toys coming from China (it really had unintended consequences but some outfits connected to the law proponents did benefit), when a law is passed one should check who is benefiting. And when one notices also that there are no efforts by the same crowd to “take the matter into their own hands” and also pass laws that could help with the eventual legalization of many immigrants…
Well, it does not take any effort to report that what the Arizona lawmakers are doing is not fooling many in the Hispanic community, but the Arizona lawmakers are very good at fooling many outside of it.
Come on, now. Asking about someone’s status does not equal “abuse”.
Some of those asked will be here illegally. And, yes, some of those asked will be citizens, how might be inconvenienced. It’s a large jump to get from there to being abused.
Cops have always been able to walk up to people and initiate a conversation. Always. This is called a “consensual encounter,” and is discussed at length in the Terry line of cases. As long as the person is free to disregard the inquiry and go about his business, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated.
This law certainly takes advantage of that fact, but this law doesn’t create that rule. The rule has existed for a long time.
Before I answer this question… have you read my other posts in this thread, and have you read the text of the law?
Because the short answer is… the law does not permit this action.
I can explain further, but since I have already laid out this process in both the GD thread and this one, the mere fact that you’re asking this question suggests to me you haven’t actually read what I’ve been writing.
But perhaps you have, and I was simply unclear. So – just for my own peace of mind-- have you read the posts I’ve already made on this subject?
If i get out there, you can be sure that a Dopefest would be on my list of things to do. It mightn’t happen for a little while though; most of this summer is already spoken for.
That’s very kind.