So, your argument is, “I know this law will be enforced in a racist manner.”
“How?”
“Because that’s what’s happened before!”
Doesn’t seem to leave any room for the claim that lessons from th past will be incorporated into this law’s guidelines to avoid those pitfalls, does it?
We may continue to be assured that an Hispanic-American driving his Lexus to his job at the bank will continue to enjoy his civil rights without undue suspicion. The most distinguishing characteristic of illegal inhabitants is that they are grubby. Of course, no civic minded American believes that simply being brown is probable cause, but brown and grubby? Well, different story there…
So, by this logic, you’d be ok with a poll tax, as long as the districts it was imposed in pinky swore that they were just trying to defer the costs of holding an election?
I see no reason to do just ONE thing. I’d focus on three: 1) lock down the border, 2) go after employers in a serious way, 3) make things much less hospitable than they are now for illegals.
Not only has it happened before, it’s happening right now. If police haven’t incorporated past pitfalls into their current policies why should I be so optimistic that they’ll do it after this law?
Since the hiring of people standing around outside Home Depots and the like has also now been made a misdemeanor, I expect this practice is going to go by the wayside, or at least go more underground.
Indeed, it was Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s deputies’ violation of the civil rights of Hispanic U.S. citizens that caused the DoJ to tell the Sheriff’s department that they were no longer permitted to pursue any investigation into the immigration status of those who deputies came into contact with. This law looks like the state running and end run around that directive of the federal government to continue to try to prosecute a violation of federal law within state jurisdiction, civil rights issues be damned.
The thing is, how do you establish if someone is legally existing in their country of citizenship? After all, someone driving a car should (in theory) have a licence to do so, but many of them don’t.
Same with being in a country- in theory everyone who is there should have the proper paperwork (eg birth certificate, permanent residence visa, or passport showing tourist entry stamp). But many of them- particularly in the Southern US- do not. And let’s face it, most of the illegal immigrants in Arizona are probably not Irish backpackers who met a local girl and decided to overstay their Tourist visa by several years.
The thing is, you either have to turn a blind eye to it and assume that everyone in the area is there legally (and whilst that’s a very nice idea, practically it just doesn’t work that way), or you have to profile.
And since it’s a well-known fact that most US illegal immigrants are not white, that does unfortunately mean that Hispanic, Asian, Subcontinental, and Middle Eastern people are going to be prone to a higher degree of hassle. I don’t think that’s right, and I don’t for a moment condone it, but I cannot think of another way someone’s residency can be established without asking to see their papers.
It’s one thing to demand such papers for the purposes of, say, employment or welfare or government services (drivers license issuance etc) but to be singled out for questioning by police officers several times in the same day as you walk down the street minding your own business is a completely different matter.
Maybe one can’t understand the difference until one experiences it oneself?
You don’t, unless it’s necessary. Apply for a passport, you have to show proof of identity and citizenship. Apply for government services limited to citizens/legal residents only, you have to show proof. Just living and going about day to day activities there’s no justifiable reason to demand a proof of citizenship from anyone. It’s a non-issue.
No. But I’d be open to hearing arguments about the issue. I would not think the issue was foreclosed for all time based on the negative applications of the past. And of course I’d be interested in how the drafters dealt with the pesky little problem of the 24th Amendment.
No one’s asking you to be optimistic. The past behavior is certainly evidence to be considered. It’s not conclusive evidence, though. You’re welcome, in other words, to be pessimistic – just not utterly closed-minded.
Again, that’s the fault of the bill’s creators. I would not necessarily oppose the bill if it contained clear guidelines on what constitutes reasonable suspicion of undocumented status, and more importantly what forms of identification establish legal residency.
It doesn’t do that. It’s almost as though the bill is set up to become a test case - or to hassle tanned people.
What law established Terry standards?
If people are concerned about undocumented workers possibly fleeing the scene of automobile accidents before this law they can be assured not one will stick around now.
And this is relevant to the legality of the measure… how?
Is it your opinion that judicial establishment of such standards is preferable to their enshrinement in statute before the fact?
Oh I am so sorry. I got my threads mixed up. Thank you svery much for moderating.
Not that it matters, but it looks like we have a potential test case.
Trucking is interstate commerce, generally. Any thoughts on how this might affect things, considering? Cops, stopping interstate commerce, to perform immigration checks.
Their residency status is none of your business. How about that?
It depends.
In our current climate, I’d say the preference is for the law to lay out general standards, and judicial decision to refine them to comport with the ever-changing, living Constitution.