Immigration Law

So I guess you are saying that white people would have to prove that they don't belong to a gang, but other people, like hispanics, would not? That's still racist.

 

I presume the ordinance wouldn't mandate checking all Caucasians? ... the point being, if you crack down on gang crime you look for gang activities and check people in gang colours, or with those freaky tattoos i.e. with your example of white supremacists - while you would look for Caucasians, you would look Skinheads in jackboots and with Nazi insignia and that sort of thing.

The point in Arizona is that, presumably poverty aside, there are no external signs indicating the legality of a person, which is why in the case of Arizona the law will end up subjecting all Hispanics to checks. I can't see how SB 1070 can be implemented without racial profiling. It can thus be argued that the law is discriminatory or racist. Anyway, and that was a more general point to NOG, that is what I meant with effect beyond language.

NOG,
despite my resolution not to do that, anyway:

I told you already: Immigration law is not simply just securing the borders and cracking down on those without a legal right to be in country but about providing people with a means of immigrating to this country and seeking citizenship. Federal immigration officials have to balance between that.

If the official policy is balancing interests (and in that I explicitly include limited resources and fiscal means), and that results in less than full enforcement, suing to ensure full enforcement of course does interfere with official policy. That is blatantly obvious.

 

Ok, so I guess this is the big difference. You can't see how it could be enforced without racial profiling, while I can. Based on that, you assume that it can't be enforced without racial profiling and want to see it banned without giving it a chance. I, on the other hand, want to see an attempt made to actually do the work.

Immigration law is about providing a legal means of immigrating to this country and seeking citizenship. Looking the other way while people break the law isn't a legal method. It's extra-legal. And, as I've said before, if people want that portion of immigration reformed, they should protest for that, not against the rest of the law.

 

You're one gullible person, what shall I say more.

Did it ever occur to you that politicians and even prosecutors have an extent of leeway as far as application and enforcement of the law is concerned?

I'll tell you something shocking: Only because something is law, it doesn't necessarily mean it must be enforced, or that enforcement is in the public interest or mandatory. There is no reflex that compels police or administrations to enforcement of all law.

For instance, the Bush administration, foolishly I think, deliberately chose to not enforce environmental and financial regulation. They did so legally. Try to get used to the idea that there is a difference between immigration violations and ordinary crimes. IMO American law sucks at properly distinguishing between crimes and violations of administrative law, to its detriment. And even when we speak about crimes - enforcement isn't necessarily mandatory: Think about the police deliberately not enforcing some of the more idiotic crimes (like sodomy, oral sex, adultery and the like) still 'on the book' in some places in the US --- doing everybody a favour. Alas ...

 

It seems to me the alleys have been getting more nasty lately with an abundance of personal attacks....

 

What's that supposed to mean, huh? I don't see any of that. Why do you have to be such a jerk?

 

I think it's gotten much better than it used to be -- WAY better. But feel free to disagree....

 

All of what has been said has been mostly well and good. But to me the bottom line is that the Mexican border is far too porous and that it is a huge problem. Big problems take big solutions, and what I see is that any effort made to address this problem is likely to bring cries of "racist" from some quarters. Just because someone thinks it's racist doesn't make it so.

I don't see a problem if under circumstances like this a cop can ask you to prove you're either:

A: A citizen or

B: In the country legally.

In this case, of course the people they would be likely to ask such questions to would be HIspanics, because those are the ones coming over the border illegally. In California, they'd likely ask more Asians because of the boat smuggling that occurs. You can call it "profiling" and try to dress it up as the first step to a toatalitarian state, but to me it's just not that big a bogeyman, it's a common sense response to a major issue.

 

I'd rep you Aldeth if hadn't already done so a few days ago....

 

I'm not gullible. I'm advocating a close watch on anyone enforcing this law. You're just paranoid.

That's a good point, and it overall sticks in my craw. I guess that adds some weight to your preemption arguement, though still the Constitution says that all courts shall recognize Federal laws. I can see a court extending that to Federal enforcement policy, though.

Still, it's not racism. That's the accusation that really bugs me, as you may have noticed.

 

This is the really odd part, at least for me, of the Az immigration law:

Did they suspect that some cops would not like what's going on here? They were probably right, that most good cops would not.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237950/page/1

 

Again, Chandos, you have to assume racism is already present to find any racism in this law. And, for the record, if someone makes repeat complaints that are completely bogus, the police can find the phone the calls are being made from and start asking questions. I don't know what criminal charges may result, but I'd bet the harrassed family could at least sue for harrassment-by-proxy or something.

And also again, most of this could happen without the law, so there's little difference.

 

Context matters.

NOG,
I eventually recalled one graphic example for a racist law that contains no racist language. In Nazi Germany the kosher butchering of animals was prohibited as cruel in the world's first animal protection law. It mandated the stunning of animals before butchering them. That in itself is not a racist law. Indeed, what is wrong about preventing cruelty against animals?

What was making it racist is the context of vilification - the Nazis had consistently portrayed Jews as bloodthirsty, cruel and brutal, and took the bloody practice of kosher butchering, and the asserted suffering of the animal, as their model case. The law was meant to underline that assertion. They also made propaganda movies to that end. Something rather close is to be seen in this video (graphic).

​

If the comments on the youtube page are any indication the effect is just as intended.

 

That's true, but I don't see the same happening here. Illegal immigration has been illegal, well, since the US was founded I'd guess. Hispanics are associated with illegal immigration in the southern US because the vast majority of illegal immigrants in the southern US are hispanic. While kosher slaughter was only performed by Jews for Jews, this law actually applies to all illegal immigrants (and while most are hispanic, not all are).

Again, you can only find racism in this law if you assume it was there to begin with. And, again, if racism was there to begin with, the problem isn't this law.

 

Yes, and there are certainly some cops who will find it there.

 

Context still matters.

Chandos,
it's not the cops. It's absolutely sufficient to look at the lawmaker, sheriff and professor who authored that piece of legislation. All have, to put it mildly, strong anti-immigration (of Hispanics) views, suggesting that their attitudes, as manifested in past behaviour, are reflected in that law.

NOG,
IMO it is a little disingenuous to say that this is all speculation because one can't look into their heads, and since the language of the law isn't overtly racist, one is thus merely assuming racism - for which there really is no basis. That's what I call naive.

You don't give the wolf the benefit of the doubt when sheep have been targeted, only because he looks really similar to a German Shepard, and says that those sheep targeted were all illegal sheep, and being an illegal sheep is against the law. So when that wolf then does his job with gusto, that's not because he has an appetite, but because he is such an awfully law abiding wolf.

The problem that I see is that for some, including you, the origin of the law and the motives behind it don't count because they feel that cracking down on illegal immigration and securing the border is a good idea. Point taken, but please keep in mind that it is no accident that SB 1070 and the anti-ethnic-study law come up in Arizona's election season.

The practical effect of SB 1070 has been to draw Governor Brewer to the right. There has always been the Damocles sword over her political career that Arpaio runs for office, and he beat her in the polls. She signed the bill, written by a guy who worked for Arpaio, and Arpaio withdraws his non-denial candidacy. Curious, isn't it?

And then there is the author of the anti-ethnic-studies bill, Horne. He is running for Arizona Attorney General against Andrew Thomas, an Arpaio aide, who has what American press calls 'strong anti-immigration' credentials. The law gives Horne an easy way to score points in that race. It is Horne's answer to Thomas' immigration record.

Which is all a freaking accident. Thinking of it, Arizona appears to be a place where I'd like to play lottery.

And that isn't even touching the material issues of those two laws. The politics around them alone should discredit them as cheap shot posturing. I feel tempted to say that this is classic identity politics, but that would imply that this is about race, which you insist one can only assume in the absence of compelling evidence ... like testimony under oath and written in blood.

 

This is what you get on the practical side of this law:

Of course they knew he was more than likely a citizen. You think that happens to many white boys in AZ? Of course not. If it did, the law would be gone today.

 

I read something interesting and telling about Sheriff Arpaio, and believe that he is now pandering to the base in his district, which is not saying nice things about Maricopa County. Taken from this portrait of Joe Arpaio by GQ magazine:

Side note on Patrick Haab: After Arpaio arrested him, local district attorney Andrew Thomas dropped all charges against him. Thomas is the guy with the 'anti-immigration credentials' running against Tom Horne (who issued the anti-ethnic-studies law). I think that bit sheds some light at Arizona politics, and in that way it supports your point, Chandos.