It must feel wonderful to be defending the moral high ground once again, doesn’t it, Bricker?
Its unfortunate that the vast majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona are from south of the border and look brown.
I wonder if the same outrage of racial profiling would have taken place if the vast majority of illegal immigrants were from Greece.
There is not and would not be the same level of outrage, or any at all for that matter, over illegal immigration by people who “look like us” and speak English. IOW the bill would not have been written in the first place. You can’t ignore context and purpose.
LMAO! :rolleyes:
So you say. Its been my experience as a legal immigrant in Canada that there’s always resentment by the lower working class against** lower working class immigrants**, but the outrage hasn’t been voiced up till now in the political arena.
It seems to me that there is a growing political movement by conservatives in the US harnessing the frustrations of the working poor, particularly white who have been ignored in the past. It seems evident to me with the phenomenon of the tea party and all the bullshit they’ve been propagating. Its all really low brow, but who cares. They are pissed off and they aren’t going to be ignored any more.
I do acknowledge that. But your question about cocaine laws, which you asked specifically for the purpose of making an analogy regarding the likelihood of the law being struck down, was directed straight at me in response to my own observation about racial disparities.
I recognize that you are often very busy in these legal threads, fighting battles on multiple fronts, but too often you take someone’s moral or ethical or political argument and treat it as if it were a legal argument. It is perfectly possible to argue that a law is constitutional (or, more often in my case, that you aren’t qualified to say whether or not a law is constitutional), and to argue that it is still a bad law.
As for the law itself, and its consequences, we’ll just have to agree to disagree about whether or not it’s good policy and a good law.
Agreed, and I’m sorry I mistook you for one of the folks that had made the constitutional argument, or, indeed, simply “The courts should strike this law down for unspecified reasons,” comment. In explanation, if not defense, there were multiple people talking at me, in both the related GD thread and this one, and I’m afraid I lumped you in amongst the crowd. I apologize.
Fair enough. And for the record, if the actual enforcement of the law is done without legally sound guidelines and produces an excess of racially disparate problems, I will agree that we should reconsider it.
Although I’m not a lawyer and am willing to be disabused of this, I don’t think the above is generally true. Here’s why: as a hugely broad generality, it seems to me that many/most laws merely define what is and is not legal, but say little about enforcement. This law is different in that respect; specifically, it removes an officer’s discretion through its mandate. (And I note that giving such latitude to officers provides situational flexibility that can be good, bad, or anywhere in between…that’s a feature, not a bug.)
Furthermore, AIUI, this law also includes a bit that allows/encourages non-officers to report officers who are not satisfying the citizenship checking requirement – according to the non-officer’s standard. So not only is an officer’s discretion removed, but there’s a mechanism that enforces said removal…by subjecting the officer to the arbitrary (and possibly fluid) standards of undetermined non-officers.
Finally, when discussing “encouraging abuse”, I think there is a difference between enforcing newly enacted law and modifying already established enforcement procedures and techniques for existing law. A difference in kind, not just degree.
So no, I don’t think one can accurately claim that “the same could be said about just about any law”.
It’s not like cops really need this law to abuse people, after all. http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/immigration/bradley-stewart-wagner-anaheim/
You can trust them.
It’s obvious that it will. That’s its purpose. How about reconsidering it now, weasel? :dubious:
Not at all. It is absurd to expect that race and ethnicity should never be a consideration when deciding whether or not a person has legitimate business in a specific place. The police question many poor and working class whites seen hanging around lower class black neighborhoods on the assumption that they’re likely trying to buy drugs. And it’s a valid assumption, because they often are. As most illegal aliens are Hispanic, with more than half of them being Mexican, it is entirely legitimate in many situations to take race and ethnicity into account when deciding whether or not to check legal status. In some states, such as California and Georgia, the chances are better than even that they are. Apparently it’s never occurred to any of you people who are oh, so concerned about “racial profiling” that the problem wouldn’t exist in the first place if the federal government had simply done its job and kept illegal aliens out.
People are going to make assumptions and judgments based on race and ethnicity, even when they try very hard not to. It is ridiculous, even bizarre, to expect them never to do so. It is even more foolish to expect that the police never should.
Most of what lefties call “racial profiling” is just common sense, but of course lefties always insist that common sense must be discarded whenever it comes into conflict with political correctness.
And why would we object to it? Why shouldn’t we favor whites who speak English? If it’s all right for Hispanics to want America to be more brown, why should it be wrong for Anglos to want America to be more white? It is entirely natural to prefer people of your own race and culture over others. Why is it wrong for white Americans to do so?
Where do you get this weird idea that whites should just quietly step aside and cede power and land to non-whites?
It is absurd to represent the concern that way. Strawman. :rolleyes:
It not only will be “taken into account”, it will be the very basis of checking.
It would be “absurd to expect” that the borders could be absolutely sealed so as to absolutely prevent it, to use your “logical approach” from above. Nor is that a relevant point here.
We’re talking about the law, the Constitution, and the principles behind it, not human nature, which in this case is something to be fought.
Yet they, and we, somehow have to find ways to rise above that, don’t we?
What you dismiss as “political correctness” is better described as Constitutional principle and basic civilized behavior. If you find that inconvenient, that’s your own problem.
No answer is possible or even appropriate here, except to suggest that you might be more comfortable at Stormfront.
Well, that pretty much sums it up right there. Whenever reality conflicts with PCness, you’re going to toss out reality.
Talking to a leftie about racial issues (and immigration is a racial issue, however much we try to pretend that it isn’t) is like talking about sex with a repressed old maid.
As is talking to a conservative about the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Don’t insult all conservatives by including this disgusting racist in the term, please.
*Makes not to self to never, ever listen to anything this dumb fuck has to say.
You’re a real asshole, Polecat, and it’s no wonder you’re Lonesome.
And this is a perfect example of why this law is racist. I DO think you’re representative of its average supporter.
The interesting thing here is how Lonesome laid out his thoughts in a reasoned way (whether you agree with them or not) and asked a serious question and you guys won’t answer him. Instead you just wish to close down the discussion by yelling, “RACIST!”.
Why not show him where is thinking is wrong. Id =f it is SO wrong, it should be rather easy I would think.
His “reasoning” is based on racism, fool.
But then, your concept of reasoning is such that “Gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry because, um, something bad I can’t explain might happen, yeah that’s it” fits it, so consider the source. :rolleyes: