Immigration Law

Remove all ads!

You think the average Hispanic thinking processes needed the endorsement to drive the point home that the law will probably subject them to an increased number of police checks?

 

Perhaps that is true of some of them, but I think this is a bit of a cop out. This was bound to get the Hispanic community in Arizona upset, and I really doubt that Paulina Rubio and Shakira were what pushed them over the edge.

 

Linda Ronstadt was a very vocal opponent and had huge crowds listen to her rants -- she was very unimpressive in the interviews I saw. She was great at inciting the crowds but really couldn't talk any of the points in the law. I doubt she read it and certainly did not take any time to attempt to understand it. I would say she had a fairly big impact.

Ragusa: I cannot fathom a more repulsive way for you to define a group than your comment "average hispanic thinking process" -- shame on you for stooping so low here. That any group "needed the endorsement to drive the point home that the law will probably subject them to an increased number of police checks" ... yes, absolutely. The "probably subject them to an increased number of police checks" is the focus of the argument and has not been substantiated yet.

I believe any group (regardless of race, religion, gender or gender preference) can be worked up into an irrational fear that they will be persecuted with sufficient media attention.

 

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If hispanics made up (let's say) 25% of the population and 100% of them opposed it, that would still leave an extra 5% opposition to distribute among whites, blacks, asians, etc. So if 80% of that Latino 25% oppose (meaning 20% of the entire population), it's not much of a stretch to think the other groups couldn't scratch up the remaining 10%. Even in a solidly Republican state like Arizona, there is still a significant number of whites who oppose the law. A clear minority, sure - but they are there.

Of course. But there's a big difference between a cop just being an authority-abusing a-hole, and a cop deliberately using a technicality (like pulling someone over for a minor infraction he would otherwise overlook) as an excuse to request something they are otherwise bound from requesting (i.e., a person's documentation), and using that to get what they see as a "nuisance" kicked out of the country.

Point is - I think you're just proving my point. You claimed earlier that cops can only check immigration status once they've already initiated a traffic stop for something illegal. Which is true. But the fact that you and I both have been stopped in traffic for "no good reason" (and this is how it's always been) just proves how easy the language of this law is to abuse. Police didn't have the right to randomly request documentation before, but they've always had the ability to pull people over for BS reasons. Now they can use the latter as a means to do the former.

EDIT: Look, BTA and T2,

I am not unsympathetic to your viewpoint on this. I don't think the people who support this law are all racists or have ill intent. Most Arizonans just want a solution to what they see as a major problem. I get that. I just think this law is the wrong approach. What I see is immense potential for abuse. You're right - time will tell. But I don't think a crystal ball is necessary to see all the problems that are bound to arise here. I hope my concerns are unfounded. And I don't find the argument dismissing the opposition as an irrational mob suckered by self-serving celebrities to be terribly persuasive. It is giving far too little credit to those opposed and provides a handy cover for avoiding consideration of the sound opposing arguments some put forth. The number of people persuaded by celebrities on political or social issues (who weren't already disposed to go in that direction anyway) is, in my opinion, pretty negligible and often overblown.

 

Huh? I was saying very sarcastically the opposite of what you understood: That Hispanic people are intelligent and well capable of understanding what the law will mean for them and that they are getting to that understanding with or without an endorsement. What I meant was to express my doubt that they need a celebrity to tell them what to think, or to do their thinking.

Already cops are noting a loss of trust between law enforcement and Hispanics:

---------- Added 0 hours, 9 minutes and 26 seconds later... ----------

Interesting you say that. This is FOX' Andrew Napolitano on that point:

​

 

And if they have left it at home or are away on foot without papers they'll get booked until their identity is confirmed.

 

The "good reason" depends on the cop. You and I might consider changing lanes without signaling a pretty dumb reason to be pulled over. But it can be done, and justifiably so. You can also be pulled over for "reckless driving" on an empty road with no other witnesses. All the cop has to do is find a legal reason to pull the car over, whether it's the tiniest moving violation or something as blatant as 12 guys packed into a rusty pickup on a well-known trafficking route. Once pulled over, you must show ID. Some illegals will be caught this way, sure. But a lot of innocent people will be needlessly harassed based on their appearance. Unless you are arguing that every cop should be fair to all and start pulling every driver over for changing lanes without signaling...but I think we both know that's never going to happen.

Either I messed up by saying "couldn't" when I meant "it's not much of a stretch to think the other groups could scratch up the remaining 10%" or you just didn't understand me. Either way, overwhelming Hispanic opposition in a state with 70% support is both factually accurate and mathematically reasonable. According to the Census, Arizona is 59% white, 30% Hispanic, and 11% everyone else. If, using a low estimate, 70% of Latinos are opposed (21% of the population), you'd only need about 13-15% white opposition (about 9% of the state population, which sounds about right). The other groups are probably somewhere in the middle, adding another 1-2% to the total opposed.

 

Oh I get that. I didn't think you were calling me one. I was just saying that, based on the math, I found that percentage rather easy to believe.

 

Does this law modify the identification requirement somehow? Though it's common for police to ask to see ID, all you're actually required to do is identify yourself. e.g., "I am John Smith." (Though if you're operating a motor vehicle, you do have to show an operator's license upon request.)

That may be somewhat archaic now, as providing ID has become the catch-all for identifying yourself, but I wasn't aware it had been formally changed anywhere.

 

Perhaps a certain brave soul would like to explain to me what "assuming what you're trying to prove" is supposed to mean, in reference to the above. Feel free to answer via PM.

 

Yet, at the same time, even legal immigrants and hispanic citizens often don't report abusive Coyotes (term for human trafficers through the desert) who rape, beat, enslave, and even murder their 'clients' and anyone who gets in their way.

The truth of the matter is that this 80% opposition to the law is a result of them not trusting the police, not a cause of it. If they did trust the police, after all, they'd trust them to enforce this law fairly.

I don't see why this would happen. If they're legal immigrants, they should have their papers with them at all times anyway. It's federal law already. If they mess something up in the paperwork, either they don't get legal entry, or the paperwork issue stays with the clerical people. An officer stopping a speeding car isn't going to know that Juan's immigration papers are being reviewed by a committee, or that he mis-spelled his street name when he submitted something for renewal three weeks ago. All they know is that he has his papers.

Again, explain to me why this is a risk, but them pulling the guy in because he 'matches the description of a suspect in another crime' isn't? I'm sure there are plenty of unsolved crimes where the description of the criminal is something like 'hispanic male, 5-2 to 5-11'.

See, now you and DR are pulling a bait and switch with his statistic. He cites a study to prove that immigrants oppose the law. That's fine. We start examining the mechanism for why they oppose the law, and you come in with this 'because they'd obviously oppose the law', which assumes exactly what the statistic is trying to prove (and being questioned on). Sorry, but that doesn't work. Pick one method or the other.

Umm, except that they already could ask for your documentation. Every time they pull you over, they ask for a driver's license and registration (and some places proof of insurance). Considering that my driver's license and voter-registration card is enough to prove to NASA, the US Air Force, and the FBI that I'm a legal citizen, it should be enough for the cops, too.

And my point, and I think theirs as well, is that the potential for abuse is already there, and always has been. Just by having police with any real authority, you have that potential, and history has proven it many times. I don't really see this law adding anything extra.

And thus he fears because he doesn't understand. Because, you know, you don't tell just by looking at them!!

Well, if you're driving without a license, you'll likely get booked until they verify your identity anyway. If you're away on foot, one has to ask what you were doing to get 'legal contact' with the police. Despite what Napolitano says, the police can't stop you just for looking away from them. I don't know, maybe if you're jay-walking. Just remember this: as far as I'm aware, for anything the police can legally stop you for, they can at least write a ticket for. For anything they can write a ticket for, they need to verify your identity.

 

They don't need jaywalking, or loitering. Even something as simple as looking away gives a cop who wants to check that 'reasonable cause' to start inquiring, even when he swears, just swears he saw that guy looking away. That's Napolitano's point. The standard set in the law is very low, I am not sure you're aware of that.

 

Explain to me how a cop has any legal right to detain you for simply 'looking away'. Now, I'm not saying that isn't enough to provoke a racist cop into faking something, but looking away from a cop isn't illegal and isn't suspicious activity, so it shouldn't meet any legal standards.

 

Read carefully: The cop, if he is in the mood, will take the lawful contact of human interaction as a pretext to establish that reasonable suspicion you got something to hide, and investigate, as in:

Hispanic + looks away/funny -> something to hide, probably his immigration status = Papers please.

In doing that, he will of course, not racially profile

The point is that the law will give the police the power to investigate people instead of crimes.

 

Except that that 'reasonable suspicion' would be thrown out in every court, and the officer would be charged with racial profiling (or sued for it, or whatever). Just like they would if that were done today, only the suspision was that they were carrying drugs instead of having entered the country illegally.

Wrong. They are given the power to investigate immigration crimes, not people.