if only AZ were alone in this. they are merely at the vanguard of this disturbingly fascist, racist wave of intolerance that is seemingly engulfing scores of communities.
it's trite, but in times of economic hardship some people really do look to scapegoat their fears and anxieties on certain minorities.
if only AZ were alone in this. they are merely at the vanguard of this disturbingly fascist, racist wave of intolerance that is seemingly engulfing scores of communities.
it's trite, but in times of economic hardship some people really do look to scapegoat their fears and anxieties on certain minorities.
Historically speaking...not really. While economic tensions and racial tensions certainly can impact one another, it's not always the case that scapegoating is highest or most felt during times of economic downturns. The most fertile times for KKK recruitment, for example, were often in times of stable or growing economies and previous anti-immigration waves have tended to sweep through at some of the most robust economic eras in American history - look at Operation Wetback in 1955 or Prop 187 during the Clinton boom years.
What we're seeing right now is the culmination of longstanding anti-immigrant attitudes that have very little to do with any kind of actual economic rationale (though it provides a convenient smokescreen to deflect accusations of racism). The timing of it with the recession isn't completely coincidental - the bailout plan helped give the Tea Party political life which may in turn have forced moderate GOP politicians in AZ to take a hard turn right. But best believe AZ politicians have been wanting to pass something like this for years but it wasn't until now that the right political stars aligned to make it possible.
I don't know if AZ is at the vanguard of some wildfire of intolerance either; for at least the last 10 years, they've had some of the most reactionary anti-immigrant politics of any state in the U.S. Other state leaders may be trying to ride the wave by saying they'll pass similar legislation but I doubt many other states have the numbers in the state legislature or governor's office to make it a reality. (States with proposition systems, like CA, are a different story but these are in the minority and I really doubt even CA would remotely try to pass legislation like this through any means. The lessons of 187 are still fresh.
there will always be counter-examples and of course i'm not saying that racism exists only as a corollary of economics but i think it is basically a truism of human nature that when economic times are super rough that scape-goating is bound to occur.
i don;t know for a fact wheter AZ is at the actual vanguard of anti-latino racism but the law is racist, unconscionable and unconstitutional on its face and to me that makes them the current poster boy for this kind of racism. i mean, its not even hidden or covert any more, its all out there in the open..
there will always be counter-examples and of course i'm not saying that racism exists only as a corollary of economics but i think it is basically a truism of human nature that when economic times are super rough that scape-goating is bound to occur.
First, whether such a thing as a "truism of human nature" is, in fact, true, is open to philosophical debate but I'm not interested in arguing that point.
Second, I'm not offering "counter-examples." I'm talking about the history of anti-immigration movements in America and what I'm trying to say here is that it's rarely the case that economic recessions fuel them. Peep John Judis talking about this in 2008 for the New Republic: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19878
Arizona's law has to be understood in the context of the state's particular history rather than trying to apply sweeping generalizations about "human nature." What we're seeing right now is not the application of human nature; it's the culmination of years of concerted efforts made possible by the alignment of certain political stars. The current economy is but one small piece of that puzzle.
and what i'm saying is that the alignment of those stars at this moment has something to do with the economic conditions people are facing currently. i see the frustration people are feeling everyday and to think that doesn;t sometimes find its expression in racism is to completely discount the psychological aspect that is driving at least some of this.
and what i'm saying is that the alignment of those stars at this moment has something to do with the economic conditions people are facing currently. i see the frustration people are feeling everyday and to think that doesn;t sometimes find its expression in racism is to completely discount the psychological aspect that is driving at least some of this.
We agree on the basic point that the economy has a role to play here; I think where we diverge is the degree. My concern with trying to use the economy as a rationale is that it actually gives credence to what is, in my opinion, a smokescreen designed to deflect from the racist elements at play.
Most of the virulent anti-immigration eras in American history happened outside of recessions. That this current AZ shit happens to be timed with one is, in my opinion, a coincidence rather than some kind of causality. The recession makes it easier for AZ's politicians to claim, "hey, we're not being racist, our citizens are hurting out there!" but even in boom years, AZ's leaders and citizens had long been moving in this direction.
just pulled an overnite turnaround in phoenix for a lil project im working on. i was there from about 2am to 8am this morning and just got back into LA. it was my first time to phoenix and good god is that place scary. first off a good 1/3 of downtown seemed like law enforcement buildings. the whole downtown area seems wired up with cameras and it was like a ghost town. i didnt see a single person on the street the whole time i was there. i felt like i was in the middle of a zombie movie. i missed the rally there and im not sure if it even happened cuz there was literally a fleet of sheriff school buses parked a scooch off that jail thing ready to haul folks away. the capital courtyard thing is like an homage to the armed forces and when i walked up to some local news dude to ask him when everything is happening i swear the dude shit his pants he was so scared. im not that ugly goddamit. also did a quick drive-by of the tent city internment camp jail thingie on the outskirts of town. seriously, half that city must be employed by law enforcement.
anyways, i dont see what all the fuss is about. at least in phoenix. there aint nobody there but cops!!!
my question: what are the chances this draconian law is struck down by the courts as unconstitutional?
With the Roberts' court, it's hard to say. Not as much of a slam dunk as we might have seen in previous courts. That said, I think the Justice Dept. probably has a better case to make since I really don't understand how this decision does NOT lead to racial profiling.
So, you don't understand how the passage of a bill that explicitly prohibits racial profiling does not lead to racial profiling? work on it, hoe.
The bigotry of you cowards is quite astounding. It doesn't matter if you're a committed family man who went through the proper process to give your children a better life or a low down drug dealer who slunk across the border to sell his wares to the kids. You're just a 'brown person' not worth the trouble of distinguishing between for most on here.
Arizona Legislature Passes Bill Banning Ethnic Studies Programs
FOXNews.com
After making national headlines for a new law on illegal immigrants, the Arizona Legislature sent Gov. Jan Brewer a bill Thursday that would ban ethnic studies programs in the state that critics say currently advocate separatism and racial preferences.
* print * email * share * Check recommend (15)
Decrease Font A A A Increase Font
After making national headlines for a new law on illegal immigrants, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill Thursday that would ban ethnic studies programs in the state that critics say currently advocate separatism and racial preferences.
The bill, which passed 32-26 in the state House, had been approved by the Senate a day earlier. It now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer for her signature.
The new bill would make it illegal for a school district to teach any courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."
The bill stipulates that courses can continue to be taught for Native American pupils in compliance with federal law and does not prohibit English as a second language classes. It also does not prohibit the teaching of the Holocaust or other cases of genocide.
Schools that fail to abide by the law would have state funds withheld.
State Superintendent for Public Instruction Tom Horne called passage in the state House a victory for the principle that education should unite, not divide students of differing backgrounds.
"Traditionally, the American public school system has brought together students from different backgrounds and taught them to be Americans and to treat each other as individuals, and not on the basis of their ethnic backgrounds," Horne said. "This is consistent with the fundamental American value that we are all individuals, not exemplars of whatever ethnic groups we were born into. Ethnic studies programs teach the opposite, and are designed to promote ethnic chauvinism."
Horne began fighting in 2007 against the Tucson Unified School District's program, which he said defied Martin Luther King's call to judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Horne claimed the ethnic studies program encourages "ethnic chauvanism," promotes Latinos to rise up and create a new territory out of the southwestern region of the United States and tries to intimidate conservative teachers in the school system.
But opponents said the bill would prevent teachers from using an academically proven method of educating students about history. They also argued that the Legislature should not be involved in developing school curriculum.
Click here to read the bill.
Son mad that AZ stops schools from teaching kids to hate their country. Sorry, chump fool, but if you want your bullied son to be a fat ball of ugly hate you'll have to indoctrinate him on your own time and dime. WOOT
It doesn't matter if you're a committed family man who went through the proper process to give your children a better life or a low down drug dealer who slunk across the border to sell his wares to the kids. You're just a 'brown person' not worth the trouble of distinguishing between for most on here. [/b]
my question: what are the chances this draconian law is struck down by the courts as unconstitutional?
With the Roberts' court, it's hard to say. Not as much of a slam dunk as we might have seen in previous courts. That said, I think the Justice Dept. probably has a better case to make since I really don't understand how this decision does NOT lead to racial profiling.
So, you don't understand how the passage of a bill that explicitly prohibits racial profiling does not lead to racial profiling? work on it, hoe.
oh i get, because there is some lip-service provision that says race cannot be the only factor taken into account then i guess this law could never lead to racial profiling, undue harassment, or interference with basic fucking civil liberties like being able to walk down the street peacefully without being harassed and interrogated by law enforcement.
what is going to be the criteria on which the police will base their reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant: the type of clothes they wear, if they see someone standing in a home hardware parking lot or if there is a family of latinos in a minivan driving to soccer practice. in short, what does an illegal immigrant look like? the fact is that in arizona illegal immigrants are predominantly latino and this law is squarely targeted at them. so just being latino is not enough to be stopped but being latino in conjunction with another completely lawful factor (such as manner of dress, being in a home hardware parking lot, or in a minivan with 10 other latinos on their way to take the kids to soccer practice) could do it.
the purpose of the law, which is to stem the tide of illegal immigrants in the state may or may not be legitimate but this law is not rationally connected to achieving that goal and worst of all it completely overreaches and is disproportionate to the harm it intends to prevent.
i am semi-shocked that we live in an era where such an immoral law could be passed.
so just being latino is not enough to be stopped but being latino in conjunction with another completely lawful factor (such as [...] being in a [...] minivan with 10 other latinos on their way to take the kids to soccer practice) could do it.
10 people in a minivan would presumably be a seat belt violation.
The only reason this happened is because the Federal government has repeatedly, administration after administration, failed to draft a set of coherent, rational laws dealing with immigration.
Until they do, the door for this BS will remain open.
wow. not lovers. ok well heres the lil project im working on.
i think the dates have changed to june 5th. we purposely didnt get the artists yet but dudes are lining up. everyone we know is down so expect a big one!
1) Except for interstate commerce what other similar laws are the sole purview or the feds? We like to say that immigration law is the sole purview of the federal government. Thus the law is unconstitutional.
2) With out an injured party, how are we going to prove racial profiling in the courts? Even with an injured party it will be difficult to prove. The Montgomery AL NAACP looked for years for someone who was above repute to challenge segregated public transit in the courts, before Rosa Parks was arrested.
We know that this law can (will) be used to racial profile. It will be used to target people they want off the street. People cops consider riff-raff will be locked up until they can prove to the cops satisfaction that they are citizens. This is the way many laws are used. Here in Portland we have sit/lay laws that allow the police to lock up homeless people.
The point being, it seems to me, that proving, in court, that this law is unconstitutional or inherently racial profiling, will be as difficult as proving that loitering laws are racial profiling.
I don't know, there is some pretty damning evidence of it's unconstitutionality out there.
I think it boils down to this - there are a few overlying points of view that are for this law and variations within those groups:
1) Rascist (eg. middle age they took our jobs white guy of European descent who either acknowledges his racism or subverts it with the ole, well this is america for gosh sakes so learn our language and become a citizen. This is the same guy who, unless they are an athlete or a musician, doesn't trust a black guy doing anything for him)
2) Earnest yet misinformed (doesn't support the law with logic rooted in hate but then again doesn't have the facts right and is making assumptions based upon those facts [possibly Roc based upon his posts in this thread]. Believes that "illegals" are breaking the law and anyone breaking the law should have to pay the consequences of their unlawfulness)
For group 1 there is no arguing or discussing becasue their fear, hate or underlying white privilege guilt makes it impossible to have logical conversations or debates with them. Any time facts are presented to them they ignore anything which doesn't reinforce their own argument and aren't willing to reconsider.
For group 2 it seems they are having a hard time seeing the forest from the trees.
Roc continues to bring up the "breaking the law" aspect of illegality. yes in the strictest sense an "illegal" has broken the law but you can't, for instance, pull someone over becasue it looks like they are going to steal something in the next couple of hours, even if they look like a meth head. The constitution, in this realm strictly defines terry stops and in the very strict language of that case doesn't allow law enforcement to go farther than that. And even within the Terry case the police officer MUST have reasonable suspicion. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. That's that. Anything beyond that, unless we get a ruling and amendment to the 4th in regards to this sort of profiling is unconstitutional. As such, anyone trying to defend this law either falls, as far as i can see in one of these two categories. This law also seriously violates the 14th ammendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The sheriff of Pima county, regardless of his political leanings, knows it. he stated, and i'm paraphrasing seriously but the gist is the same: "This law doesn't give us anything we didn't already have, it just undermines everything we have been working for, in so much as we can't call ICE when we stop an illegal and now it's on us and our local system. And we can't handle this. And that's not to include the lawsuits that will be coming in from rascist organizations who think we aren't enforcing the law hard enough"
the IRONY of this whole thing is the right wing republicans who cherish the passing of this law are the same ones always siting the constitution about everything. Not this time huh buddies?
2) Earnest yet misinformed (doesn't support the law with logic rooted in hate but then again doesn't have the facts right and is making assumptions based upon those facts [possibly Roc based upon his posts in this thread]. Believes that "illegals" are breaking the law and anyone breaking the law should have to pay the consequences of their unlawfulness)
Roc continues to bring up the "breaking the law" aspect of illegality. yes in the strictest sense an "illegal" has broken the law but you can't, for instance, pull someone over becasue it looks like they are going to steal something in the next couple of hours, even if they look like a meth head. The constitution, in this realm strictly defines terry stops and in the very strict language of that case doesn't allow law enforcement to go farther than that.
Why do you think you have to come here and explain to people what I think or why I post certain things as you do above? Is it because you think the folks here are obviously not smart enough to figure it out themselves and need you to explain it to them?? Or because you have an amazing insight to what I "really" think and just need to share your telepathic gift?
White trash meth heads are profiled and pulled over every day by every police department in the U.S.
It's happened to me and the police ADMITTED I was profiled because of the way I look....and I'm very white......so yeah, they DO pull over what they perceive as criminals before they commit a crime....even if they "can't" as you put it.
And yes, I believe in legal immigration, the same legal immigration that allowed most Americans to become citizens. And no, I don't believe in allowing a certain segment of society to not have to follow these same immigration laws. ALL Americans should have to follow the same rules......after all, isn't that what we all want....equality.
I don't support profiling, whether it's done to me, or anyone else......but I don't want them to stop busting meth labs just because they can't profile meth heads. Enforcing a law, and profiling law breakers are two totally separate issues.
But I do believe in enforcing the laws that are on the books just as I believe in working towards changing any law that society feels is unjust.
If you think that enforcing a law by racial profiling is wrong, we agree.
If you think we should not have and enforce any immigration laws we disagree.
Now please stop trying to explain what I believe and why....your ESP sucks.
The following is not satire, but an actual headline run on MSNBC.
"Arizona Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant"
Are y'all against having immigration laws altogether or just the method that Arizona is using to enforce theirs.
I must have misinterpreted these posts as sarcasm.
Oh and please believe just becasue a law makes it on the books doesn't make it constitutional.
goddamn this bar tab is gonna be healthy
I posted a silly headline from MSNBC ....and asked if you believed in immigration law.....if that constitutes "continues to bring up breaking the law" then I admit my comprehension is lacking.
And no, I'm not a "tea bagger" nor have I ever supported their agenda...in writing or IRL.
my question: what are the chances this draconian law is struck down by the courts as unconstitutional?
With the Roberts' court, it's hard to say. Not as much of a slam dunk as we might have seen in previous courts. That said, I think the Justice Dept. probably has a better case to make since I really don't understand how this decision does NOT lead to racial profiling.
So, you don't understand how the passage of a bill that explicitly prohibits racial profiling does not lead to racial profiling? work on it, hoe.
oh i get, because there is some lip-service provision that says race cannot be the only factor taken into account then i guess this law could never lead to racial profiling, undue harassment, or interference with basic fucking civil liberties like being able to walk down the street peacefully without being harassed and interrogated by law enforcement.
what is going to be the criteria on which the police will base their reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant: the type of clothes they wear, if they see someone standing in a home hardware parking lot or if there is a family of latinos in a minivan driving to soccer practice. in short, what does an illegal immigrant look like? the fact is that in arizona illegal immigrants are predominantly latino and this law is squarely targeted at them. so just being latino is not enough to be stopped but being latino in conjunction with another completely lawful factor (such as manner of dress, being in a home hardware parking lot, or in a minivan with 10 other latinos on their way to take the kids to soccer practice) could do it.
the purpose of the law, which is to stem the tide of illegal immigrants in the state may or may not be legitimate but this law is not rationally connected to achieving that goal and worst of all it completely overreaches and is disproportionate to the harm it intends to prevent.
i am semi-shocked that we live in an era where such an immoral law could be passed.
Yet another fool who hasn't read the bill. The law doesn't enable officers to stop someone merely because they think they might be an illegal immigrant.
Look, I could accept people not reading the health care bill, it was thousands of pages long. This bill on the other hand is roughly three sides of A4 and can be read in two minutes.
In future i'd appreciate it if people prefaced their post with a statement of whether they've actually read the bill or not. It's tiresome to keep reading the exact same misstatements time and time again.
I don't know, there is some pretty damning evidence of it's unconstitutionality out there.
I think it boils down to this - there are a few overlying points of view that are for this law and variations within those groups:
1) Rascist (eg. middle age they took our jobs white guy of European descent who either acknowledges his racism or subverts it with the ole, well this is america for gosh sakes so learn our language and become a citizen. This is the same guy who, unless they are an athlete or a musician, doesn't trust a black guy doing anything for him)
2) Earnest yet misinformed (doesn't support the law with logic rooted in hate but then again doesn't have the facts right and is making assumptions based upon those facts [possibly Roc based upon his posts in this thread]. Believes that "illegals" are breaking the law and anyone breaking the law should have to pay the consequences of their unlawfulness)
For group 1 there is no arguing or discussing becasue their fear, hate or underlying white privilege guilt makes it impossible to have logical conversations or debates with them. Any time facts are presented to them they ignore anything which doesn't reinforce their own argument and aren't willing to reconsider.
For group 2 it seems they are having a hard time seeing the forest from the trees.
Roc continues to bring up the "breaking the law" aspect of illegality. yes in the strictest sense an "illegal" has broken the law but you can't, for instance, pull someone over becasue it looks like they are going to steal something in the next couple of hours, even if they look like a meth head. The constitution, in this realm strictly defines terry stops and in the very strict language of that case doesn't allow law enforcement to go farther than that. And even within the Terry case the police officer MUST have reasonable suspicion. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. That's that. Anything beyond that, unless we get a ruling and amendment to the 4th in regards to this sort of profiling is unconstitutional. As such, anyone trying to defend this law either falls, as far as i can see in one of these two categories. This law also seriously violates the 14th ammendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The sheriff of Pima county, regardless of his political leanings, knows it. he stated, and i'm paraphrasing seriously but the gist is the same: "This law doesn't give us anything we didn't already have, it just undermines everything we have been working for, in so much as we can't call ICE when we stop an illegal and now it's on us and our local system. And we can't handle this. And that's not to include the lawsuits that will be coming in from rascist organizations who think we aren't enforcing the law hard enough"
the IRONY of this whole thing is the right wing republicans who cherish the passing of this law are the same ones always siting the constitution about everything. Not this time huh buddies?
HEY DUNCAN COME DEPORT ME YOU FUCKING BITCH
Another who has obviously not read the bill. This thread is roughly 20 times longer than the bill in question. There is no excuse.
Ex-Girlfriend you keep saying no one has read the bill.
I understand what you mean; there's a mistaken belief that the police can pull you over for being brown. That's not (verbatim) in the bill. What is in the bill is that, if you are engaged in some "suspicious" or illegal or otherwise lightweight criminal behavior (e.g. speeding, having a busted headlight, jaywalking, open container) that if you are stopped by a police for said behavior, the burden is then on YOU to prove citizenship and without such proof you can be detained. Now, I think this will eventually lead to "Driving While Brown" stops but let's set that aside for the moment.
To me, the concept that a legal, naturalized citizen has to carry papers because they will have to prove their citizenship at a moment's notice, to avoid imprisonment or detention, is fucked. Could you speak to that? Perhaps we simply disagree. It's possible. But there are an awful lot of citizens that will be detained behind laws like this and I think it is a waste of police resources especially considering the financial cost once the lawsuits start flying (and they will). And I think this is a terribly slippery slope at the bottom of which is real fascism - Nazism. To what end? National ID cards? This seems at full odds with the espoused beliefs of the right.
Comments
if only AZ were alone in this. they are merely at the vanguard of this disturbingly fascist, racist wave of intolerance that is seemingly engulfing scores of communities.
it's trite, but in times of economic hardship some people really do look to scapegoat their fears and anxieties on certain minorities.
Historically speaking...not really. While economic tensions and racial tensions certainly can impact one another, it's not always the case that scapegoating is highest or most felt during times of economic downturns. The most fertile times for KKK recruitment, for example, were often in times of stable or growing economies and previous anti-immigration waves have tended to sweep through at some of the most robust economic eras in American history - look at Operation Wetback in 1955 or Prop 187 during the Clinton boom years.
What we're seeing right now is the culmination of longstanding anti-immigrant attitudes that have very little to do with any kind of actual economic rationale (though it provides a convenient smokescreen to deflect accusations of racism). The timing of it with the recession isn't completely coincidental - the bailout plan helped give the Tea Party political life which may in turn have forced moderate GOP politicians in AZ to take a hard turn right. But best believe AZ politicians have been wanting to pass something like this for years but it wasn't until now that the right political stars aligned to make it possible.
I don't know if AZ is at the vanguard of some wildfire of intolerance either; for at least the last 10 years, they've had some of the most reactionary anti-immigrant politics of any state in the U.S. Other state leaders may be trying to ride the wave by saying they'll pass similar legislation but I doubt many other states have the numbers in the state legislature or governor's office to make it a reality. (States with proposition systems, like CA, are a different story but these are in the minority and I really doubt even CA would remotely try to pass legislation like this through any means. The lessons of 187 are still fresh.
i don;t know for a fact wheter AZ is at the actual vanguard of anti-latino racism but the law is racist, unconscionable and unconstitutional on its face and to me that makes them the current poster boy for this kind of racism. i mean, its not even hidden or covert any more, its all out there in the open..
First, whether such a thing as a "truism of human nature" is, in fact, true, is open to philosophical debate but I'm not interested in arguing that point.
Second, I'm not offering "counter-examples." I'm talking about the history of anti-immigration movements in America and what I'm trying to say here is that it's rarely the case that economic recessions fuel them. Peep John Judis talking about this in 2008 for the New Republic: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19878
Arizona's law has to be understood in the context of the state's particular history rather than trying to apply sweeping generalizations about "human nature." What we're seeing right now is not the application of human nature; it's the culmination of years of concerted efforts made possible by the alignment of certain political stars. The current economy is but one small piece of that puzzle.
We agree on the basic point that the economy has a role to play here; I think where we diverge is the degree. My concern with trying to use the economy as a rationale is that it actually gives credence to what is, in my opinion, a smokescreen designed to deflect from the racist elements at play.
Most of the virulent anti-immigration eras in American history happened outside of recessions. That this current AZ shit happens to be timed with one is, in my opinion, a coincidence rather than some kind of causality. The recession makes it easier for AZ's politicians to claim, "hey, we're not being racist, our citizens are hurting out there!" but even in boom years, AZ's leaders and citizens had long been moving in this direction.
just pulled an overnite turnaround in phoenix for a lil project im working on. i was there from about 2am to 8am this morning and just got back into LA. it was my first time to phoenix and good god is that place scary. first off a good 1/3 of downtown seemed like law enforcement buildings. the whole downtown area seems wired up with cameras and it was like a ghost town. i didnt see a single person on the street the whole time i was there. i felt like i was in the middle of a zombie movie. i missed the rally there and im not sure if it even happened cuz there was literally a fleet of sheriff school buses parked a scooch off that jail thing ready to haul folks away. the capital courtyard thing is like an homage to the armed forces and when i walked up to some local news dude to ask him when everything is happening i swear the dude shit his pants he was so scared. im not that ugly goddamit. also did a quick drive-by of the tent city internment camp jail thingie on the outskirts of town. seriously, half that city must be employed by law enforcement.
anyways, i dont see what all the fuss is about. at least in phoenix. there aint nobody there but cops!!!
So, you don't understand how the passage of a bill that explicitly prohibits racial profiling does not lead to racial profiling? work on it, hoe.
Son mad that AZ stops schools from teaching kids to hate their country. Sorry, chump fool, but if you want your bullied son to be a fat ball of ugly hate you'll have to indoctrinate him on your own time and dime. WOOT
ban
oh i get, because there is some lip-service provision that says race cannot be the only factor taken into account then i guess this law could never lead to racial profiling, undue harassment, or interference with basic fucking civil liberties like being able to walk down the street peacefully without being harassed and interrogated by law enforcement.
what is going to be the criteria on which the police will base their reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant: the type of clothes they wear, if they see someone standing in a home hardware parking lot or if there is a family of latinos in a minivan driving to soccer practice. in short, what does an illegal immigrant look like? the fact is that in arizona illegal immigrants are predominantly latino and this law is squarely targeted at them. so just being latino is not enough to be stopped but being latino in conjunction with another completely lawful factor (such as manner of dress, being in a home hardware parking lot, or in a minivan with 10 other latinos on their way to take the kids to soccer practice) could do it.
the purpose of the law, which is to stem the tide of illegal immigrants in the state may or may not be legitimate but this law is not rationally connected to achieving that goal and worst of all it completely overreaches and is disproportionate to the harm it intends to prevent.
i am semi-shocked that we live in an era where such an immoral law could be passed.
Until they do, the door for this BS will remain open.
i think the dates have changed to june 5th. we purposely didnt get the artists yet but dudes are lining up. everyone we know is down so expect a big one!
That said a few questions.
1) Except for interstate commerce what other similar laws are the sole purview or the feds?
We like to say that immigration law is the sole purview of the federal government. Thus the law is unconstitutional.
2) With out an injured party, how are we going to prove racial profiling in the courts?
Even with an injured party it will be difficult to prove.
The Montgomery AL NAACP looked for years for someone who was above repute to challenge segregated public transit in the courts, before Rosa Parks was arrested.
We know that this law can (will) be used to racial profile. It will be used to target people they want off the street. People cops consider riff-raff will be locked up until they can prove to the cops satisfaction that they are citizens. This is the way many laws are used. Here in Portland we have sit/lay laws that allow the police to lock up homeless people.
The point being, it seems to me, that proving, in court, that this law is unconstitutional or inherently racial profiling, will be as difficult as proving that loitering laws are racial profiling.
I think it boils down to this - there are a few overlying points of view that are for this law and variations within those groups:
1) Rascist (eg. middle age they took our jobs white guy of European descent who either acknowledges his racism or subverts it with the ole, well this is america for gosh sakes so learn our language and become a citizen. This is the same guy who, unless they are an athlete or a musician, doesn't trust a black guy doing anything for him)
2) Earnest yet misinformed (doesn't support the law with logic rooted in hate but then again doesn't have the facts right and is making assumptions based upon those facts [possibly Roc based upon his posts in this thread]. Believes that "illegals" are breaking the law and anyone breaking the law should have to pay the consequences of their unlawfulness)
For group 1 there is no arguing or discussing becasue their fear, hate or underlying white privilege guilt makes it impossible to have logical conversations or debates with them. Any time facts are presented to them they ignore anything which doesn't reinforce their own argument and aren't willing to reconsider.
For group 2 it seems they are having a hard time seeing the forest from the trees.
Roc continues to bring up the "breaking the law" aspect of illegality. yes in the strictest sense an "illegal" has broken the law but you can't, for instance, pull someone over becasue it looks like they are going to steal something in the next couple of hours, even if they look like a meth head. The constitution, in this realm strictly defines terry stops and in the very strict language of that case doesn't allow law enforcement to go farther than that. And even within the Terry case the police officer MUST have reasonable suspicion. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. That's that. Anything beyond that, unless we get a ruling and amendment to the 4th in regards to this sort of profiling is unconstitutional. As such, anyone trying to defend this law either falls, as far as i can see in one of these two categories. This law also seriously violates the 14th ammendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The sheriff of Pima county, regardless of his political leanings, knows it. he stated, and i'm paraphrasing seriously but the gist is the same: "This law doesn't give us anything we didn't already have, it just undermines everything we have been working for, in so much as we can't call ICE when we stop an illegal and now it's on us and our local system. And we can't handle this. And that's not to include the lawsuits that will be coming in from rascist organizations who think we aren't enforcing the law hard enough"
the IRONY of this whole thing is the right wing republicans who cherish the passing of this law are the same ones always siting the constitution about everything. Not this time huh buddies?
HEY DUNCAN COME DEPORT ME YOU FUCKING BITCH
Me too.
"it's whats in our souls"
yeah dude, come look into my eyes and tell me if i'm american or not. READ MY SOUL CONGRESSMAN DUNCAN HUNTER!
Why do you think you have to come here and explain to people what I think or why I post certain things as you do above? Is it because you think the folks here are obviously not smart enough to figure it out themselves and need you to explain it to them?? Or because you have an amazing insight to what I "really" think and just need to share your telepathic gift?
White trash meth heads are profiled and pulled over every day by every police department in the U.S.
It's happened to me and the police ADMITTED I was profiled because of the way I look....and I'm very white......so yeah, they DO pull over what they perceive as criminals before they commit a crime....even if they "can't" as you put it.
And yes, I believe in legal immigration, the same legal immigration that allowed most Americans to become citizens. And no, I don't believe in allowing a certain segment of society to not have to follow these same immigration laws. ALL Americans should have to follow the same rules......after all, isn't that what we all want....equality.
I don't support profiling, whether it's done to me, or anyone else......but I don't want them to stop busting meth labs just because they can't profile meth heads. Enforcing a law, and profiling law breakers are two totally separate issues.
But I do believe in enforcing the laws that are on the books just as I believe in working towards changing any law that society feels is unjust.
If you think that enforcing a law by racial profiling is wrong, we agree.
If you think we should not have and enforce any immigration laws we disagree.
Now please stop trying to explain what I believe and why....your ESP sucks.
I must have misinterpreted these posts as sarcasm.
Oh and please believe just becasue a law makes it on the books doesn't make it constitutional.
goddamn this bar tab is gonna be healthy
ROFL
I posted a silly headline from MSNBC ....and asked if you believed in immigration law.....if that constitutes "continues to bring up breaking the law" then I admit my comprehension is lacking.
And no, I'm not a "tea bagger" nor have I ever supported their agenda...in writing or IRL.
Now it's time for me to start drinking.
Leave Roc alone. He more than anyone knows what it is like to be racially profiled.
Yet another fool who hasn't read the bill. The law doesn't enable officers to stop someone merely because they think they might be an illegal immigrant.
Look, I could accept people not reading the health care bill, it was thousands of pages long. This bill on the other hand is roughly three sides of A4 and can be read in two minutes.
In future i'd appreciate it if people prefaced their post with a statement of whether they've actually read the bill or not. It's tiresome to keep reading the exact same misstatements time and time again.
Another who has obviously not read the bill. This thread is roughly 20 times longer than the bill in question. There is no excuse.
I understand what you mean; there's a mistaken belief that the police can pull you over for being brown. That's not (verbatim) in the bill. What is in the bill is that, if you are engaged in some "suspicious" or illegal or otherwise lightweight criminal behavior (e.g. speeding, having a busted headlight, jaywalking, open container) that if you are stopped by a police for said behavior, the burden is then on YOU to prove citizenship and without such proof you can be detained. Now, I think this will eventually lead to "Driving While Brown" stops but let's set that aside for the moment.
To me, the concept that a legal, naturalized citizen has to carry papers because they will have to prove their citizenship at a moment's notice, to avoid imprisonment or detention, is fucked. Could you speak to that? Perhaps we simply disagree. It's possible. But there are an awful lot of citizens that will be detained behind laws like this and I think it is a waste of police resources especially considering the financial cost once the lawsuits start flying (and they will). And I think this is a terribly slippery slope at the bottom of which is real fascism - Nazism. To what end? National ID cards? This seems at full odds with the espoused beliefs of the right.