« The war is making you poor | Main | That ho got what she deserves »

05/25/2010

Comments

darthfurious

That'll teach her to live in Arizona. I don't want to sound mean and uncaring, but I am, so there it is.

inmyhumbleopinion

The truly bizarre part of all of this is the fact that white people in Arizona are only 58% of the population, and according to recent studies, the Hispanic birth rate far exceeds that of non-Hispanics. Which, if the Republicans do the math, means that in a few years' time, Hispanics will far outweigh the far-right whites in terms of voting power and I suspect they will have long memories where this bill is concerned.

I think these modern day fascists may regret their decision to pass this bill, given the numbers. The Jews in Nazi Germany were less than 1% of the population, and just didn't have the critical mass to enact any real political power. The Latino population in Arizona, not to mention the rest of the U.S., is a whole other matter, entirely.

Insanely short-sighted.

raalnan5

She was booed because what she said was simply not true. She, like many in Washington who have commented on the bill, has obviously not read the bill. It specifies the fact that it is not to be used for racial profiling. It also points out the fact that it is only to be used in situations where the person was stopped for some other reason. I think it insults intelligence to assume that just because you don't know what you are talking about, no one else does.

raalnan5

In Virginia, illegal immigrants are essentially "above the law". Having no mechanism to deal with people outside of their citizenship, we frequently let them walk. This causes a lot of problems for anyone who gets into an automobile accident with an illegal immigrant.

raalnan5

Also, do you REALLY want to spend some time talking the restriction of speech on college campuses? Seriously?

Laurie Essig

Actually the law says officers cannot "solely" consider race- it doesn't say what else in addition to race officers might consider- obviously a crime would be one issue, speeding, parking illegally, loitering, etc. Many reasoned legal scholars and AZ police officers oppose the law because of the racial profiling it will probably lead to. No one's insulting your intelligence, just asking everyone to think through the consequences of this law.

davidlosangeles

Hello raalnan5,

I dare say that you have missed the key point of the bill - what constitutes "reason to believe" that an individual is an illegal alien? That is the racial profiling bit of it. There are currently tens of thousands of illegal Irish immigrants in the US but what are the odds of them being asked to present papers if they were pulled over?

(Google the phrase "Legalize the Irish" if you like).

mercian

"I think it insults intelligence to assume that just because you don’t know what you are talking about, no one else does."

________________________________

I don't see why assuming that people "know" something - like you very clearly do in the first sentence of your first post here - is any worse than its opposite.

You managed to come up with a patterned reason that you applied solidly to an entire group without knowing a damned thing about why they were booing her individually, in addition to blithely maintaining the ridiculous narrative that the wording of the bill will prevent incidents based on race/ethnicity.

Guess what? That's BULLSHIT! YAY FOR BULLSHIT! YAY FOR AMURICAH! WE HAVE THE FREEDOM TO BE TOTALLY FULL OF SHIT!

ford

A law can state as its purpose whatever the legislators would like. The language of the preamble typically only clarifies the background and intended purpose of the law, while the conditional and mandatory language can mean something entirely different. Preambles frequently refer to increases funding for public works or for reducing the number of guns in our schools, but the laws contain riders with language reaching gambling, the environment, and taxes to bring in additional votes.

That said, there's nothing in the law, as I read it, preventing an officer from detaining an individual in a pretextual manner for loitering, jaywalking, or the "furtive movements" frequently cited in New York City. If a law is disproportionately discriminatory in its effect, even if the stated purpose is that it not be discriminatory, there's definitely a chance that the law was written with the intent to discriminate.

leonkelly

Laurie, You need treatment for hysteria.
If I have ever read the pot calling the kettle black, this is the prime example. The left dominates political discussions in most universities across America. Conservative speakers have been canceled or shouted down by intolerant audiences in more examples than can be chronicled. Now it happens to one lefty speaker and you invoke visions Hitler's nazi regime. What a hoot! Besides it was just students behaving badly. It wasn't a policy shift. Everybody that thinks differently than you do is not a crazed Glenn Beck Zombie. How would you like it if people accused you of acquiring all your beliefs by adhering to the teachings of Keith Olberman?

vcg3rd

Yes it does. Have you read it? http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

It is not "lawful contact" to stop someone based on race or ethnicity.

The section that refers to "solely based on race" regards the Attorney General, had you bothered to read it. If the complaint is based solely on race, she or she is compelled to throw it out. So, if law enforcement brings a charge, and it does not have as its basis an actual violation of law that gave the officer cause to ask for documentation, there will be no prosecution.

Soto calls it the "strictest" anti-immigration law. This also is not true. The Federal law on with it is based is more strict both in terms of penalty (felony) and potential for profiling.

Do you consider it reasoned debate to begin a piece with descriptions of Arizona as fascist regime complete with book burning and crematoriums?

It's laughable that the Obama administration and the Left can claim that those opposed to the health care bill are engaging is inflammatory mis-characterization when they talk about rationing, but Obama can argue that a person going out for ice cream will be harassed and you can compare them to the Nazis.

If we are to really bring all our critical thinking and knowledge to the table, it will begin with an honest description of what is in the actual law and it will be without such demagoguery.

Soto, nor you, made any intellectually honest effort to do that.

Jose F Martinez DiazdeRivera

The sad truth is that the racial profiling that people fear this law will bring already exists. In certain counties in NC there are roadblocks and raids on trailer parks and shopping centers. These activities are justified by the police (who collaborate with ICE) as to hide the fact that their main objective is to apprehend illegal immigrants.

A law like SB 1070 would remove any obstacle and these raids or roadblocks would become routine. The law would institutionalize and make legal practices of profiling that so far need to be justified differently.

Richard Nixon

@raanlan5:

I applaud your ability to ignore the subtext and inevitable results of SB1070. As Ms. Essig and davidlosangeles pointed out, the very crux of this bill will serve to mandate racial profiling, under the guise of so-called "probable cause." The law is directed at illegal immigrants. Think with me for a bit here, where do illegal immigrants come from? Sweden? Japan? I doubt very much that the Arizona police will check the citizenship status of a bunch of blonde kids running a stop sign, yet that would serve as justification for doing so for latino kids.

Even worse is the disregard for the 4th amendment. Because, you know, running a stop sign isn't actually probably cause to check citizenship.

bobshanbrom

Laurie, If you truly would like people "to think carefully about these issues, to bring all their critical thinking skills," you yourself could begin to talk about the massive impacts of illegal immigration on this country and ultimately upon the resources of the the Third World nations we pillage to support our ridiculous standard of living.
When I've spoken publicly about illegal immigration to progressives I find so-called progressives calling me a racist, shouting me down and walking out.
We've agreed upon the economics of this bantustan system and we've agreed that AZ1070 is not good law. Can we agree that Obama should enforce the law by fining/jailing illegal *employers,* the johns as well as the hookers?
The Left is entirely evading the issue of illegal immigration (and mass legal immigration), particularly its suppression of wages for American workers. A case in point why most Americans see us as irrelevant and, ironically, as elitist.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad