By Nick Dial
Recently Arizona passed into law a new bill, 1070. This new bill has brought on an onslaught of controversy, rumors, myths, and nonstop attacks. The problem is, when you listen to the outlandish statements made by those who oppose this new law, it quickly becomes evident that they themselves either did not read the bill and have no understanding for how the law works in practice or they are simply ignoring the facts and dishonestly exploiting the issue for political gain.
Recently President Obama made the statement that if you “looked liked an illegal immigrant, and if you didn’t have your papers and you took your kids out for ice cream, you could be harassed,” (2010). This statement coming from a sitting president is shocking. My first question is this; tell me, Mr. President, what does an illegal alien look like? I wasn’t aware that in the United States illegal aliens were labeled as one race over another. Are there not illegal immigrants that may be Canadian, Asian, or European? The fact that now the President is insinuating the Latino race as the Poster Child for what an illegal immigrant looks like, should be troubling and offensive to all Latino people of this nation. In a debate where the word “racism” often gets thrown around, you must ask yourself, who are the ones really making race a focal point? It’s certainly not a law that only focuses on legal status. Nowhere in this bill does the law make any reference to race or skin color in any way.
President Obama’s statement also demonstrated that he either has no understanding of how law enforcement works, or he is choosing to ignore the facts and push misinformation to drive more hysteria in support for his political position on this issue. By stating that you may be “harassed” by simply going out in public is both false and inflammatory. To have the leader of our nation spread such misinformation on legislation when Obama himself was a sitting legislator displays gross negligence on his part as the representative of this nation.
To clear up some of the myths about this bill being spread by activists on the left, let’s take a look at the popular talking points being repeated.
Myth: Hispanics will be randomly stopped by police when they go out in public. Recently President Obama made the statement that if you “looked like an illegal immigrant, you didn’t have your papers and you took your kids out for ice cream, you could be harassed,” (Politcal punch, 2010).
Fact: This could not be any less true. A police officer must conduct themselves as they always have, and have probable cause for their stop. Citizenship status is not a primary infraction and therefore does not constitute probable cause for a stop. It is a secondary infraction. An officer may stop a car for a traffic violation, and then later find the driver has no legal status or identification. At this point an arrest may result after further investigation. This is no different than a drug charge. You don’t look at a car and say, “hey, they have drugs.” Once the vehicle is stopped, however, there may be other factors that indicate further probable cause to look for drugs, for example, an odor being emitted from the vehicle.
Myth: You will be questioned without just cause. “Republican governor Jan Brewer is deciding whether to sign the bill. “Reasonable suspicion” is not clearly defined. But it’s obvious that anyone who “looks” Latino, just like anyone who looked Jewish, could be stopped and required to produce documentation proving they are legally in the country.” (Valen, 2010).
Fact: Reasonable suspicion is very uniform in its application. If an officer pulls a vehicle over and the driver does not speak English, has no driver’s license, no state ID, no social security number to give, at this point there is ample reasonable suspicion for the officer to investigate further. The officer would then run a name and date of birth check to see if any DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) records show. If this comes back blank with no record, there is probable cause to detain the individual to investigate their legal status. The argument made by the above author claims there is no definition in the state law as to what “probable cause is.” This is unnecessary. This falls under federal law which is mandated by constitutional law, which in return trumps state law.
“When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears. It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when “the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)).” (Probable Cause, 2011).
Probable cause is clearly defined, and this argument holds no truth or merit in its current argued state.
Myth: you will now have to carry “papers” on you to prove citizenship.
“The legislation makes it a misdemeanor for foreign nationals to lack proper immigration paperwork in Arizona. But since it’s impossible to identify a foreign national by sight, it effectively mandates that all individuals in Arizona carry papers. That’s right: you, American citizen, can’t walk your dog or buy milk from the grocery store without having papers on you that confirm your legal residence. If you take your kids to the park and forget your documentation at home, you can be held in police custody until your information is verified, even if you’re a U.S. citizen.” (Menendez, 2010)
Fact: Legal immigrants are already required to carry their green card. In most states you must carry a form of ID and if an officer asks for your identification on a stop, you must give it to them. Arizona’s law is no different then what is already on the books. When you go to the DMV, you MUST provide vital records such as a birth certificate in order to obtain a valid driver’s license. If you are not a citizen, you still must have the proper paper work that shows you are in the nation legally before obtaining the license. The following are an example of some of the identification requirements provided by AZdot.gov, the Arizona State website for the vehicle Motor Division.
“Identification Requirements: You need two documents listed below-one must have a clear photo of you, or three documents listed below with no photo” (azdot.gov, 2011)
Examples of such identification include the following,
Primary: U.S. state or territory issued driver’s license, state issued birth certificate, U.S. passport, U.S. certificate of citizenship.
Secondary: U.S. Military ID, Social Security Card, Concealed Weapon Permit, Marriage Certificate.
As you can see, the documentation required by the state of Arizona to legally obtain a driver’s license already verifies one’s legal status and would not be accessible unless they were here in the country legally. When an officer stops an individual and must enquirer into legal status, whether or not that person holds a valid driver’s license with the state tells the officer most of what they need to know. Having a valid license takes the place of a birth certificate. The notion that you would have to carry such papers is false and not supported by fact, but rather emotional sentiment and misconception.
Myth: This law will lead to racial profiling.
“The practical effect of the law will likely result in officers engaging in racial profiling by questioning and detaining individuals based on their race and ethnicity. Even if you think that your State legislators are opposed to SB 1070, it is still beneficial for them to hear from constituents that a dangerous racial profiling law will not be tolerated” (ACTION ALERT: SAY NO TO RACIAL PROFILING: STOP THE SPREAD OF SB 1070!, 2010).
Fact: This is another empty claim with no logic attached. In fact, it’s a false logic based on ad populeum and sloganeering of racial profiling. Most police officers’ conduct themselves in a professional manner and are careful not to violate a person’s civil rights. The idea that somehow a new bill will cause racial profiling is an empty one. This statement is based on the assumption that officers who racially profile would only do so if it were “in the rules.” Racial profiling is illegal, and whether or not an officer participates in such acts is the choice of that individual. This law will no more encourage the officer who chooses to profile anymore then racial profiling being illegal will discourage it. This is like the empty argument stating that making guns illegal to carry will rid gun crime. If you’re a criminal, you don’t care about the law hence the title “criminal”, and will carry a weapon anyway regardless of what the law states. The same concept applies to the corrupt officer. Ethics come down to the individual, not what a law may or may not state. They will either profile, or they won’t; a bill won’t change that reality.
Myth: Most illegal immigrants only want to work; the real problem is drug crime. This bill does nothing to help fight the drug problem.
“SB 1070 did NOTHING useful to really deal with the real problem on our border. The real problem is those guys armed with AK 47s that were shooting at Pinal County deputies over by Interstate 8.We have a serious problem when drug cartel gunmen can get all the way to Interstate 8 to shoot at our deputies. Would there be a meaningful federal response if the gunmen were speaking Pashtun instead of Spanish? SB 1070 didn’t even come close to that problem” (Holub, 2010).
Fact: While this bill is not focused specifically at drugs, it does aid in the cartel drug problem in a large way. Illegal immigrants who come here to work depend on an economic system that caters to their illegal status. Their ability to find work, employment, earn an income and maintain a place to live is necessary for their survival. This bill makes it illegal for an undocumented alien to seek employment. It makes it unlawful for an employer to hire an illegal and unlawful to rent a home to an illegal. The end result of this will become a natural weeding- out process. The people, who are truly here to work, will leave on their own merit. They will have no other choice because you must be able to provide an income and shelter for families to live upon. They will either go back home or simply move to another state that is lax on immigration law. In 2008 E-verify for employment and immigration sweeps by Sheriff Joe Arpio made Arizona a more restricted place for illegal aliens to reside. Since 2008, an estimated 100,000 illegal aliens have left the state. The natural result of this will make law enforcement more effective when fighting drug and cartel crime, because people who are only in AZ to work will have to relocate, largely leaving behind the criminal elements. Illegal aliens who are here for malicious reasons, i.e. to traffic, push drugs, and run cartel errands will not need to relocate. They do not rely on legitimate work to provide an income. The lack of a general population of illegal aliens to blend in with may even result in cartels moving operations to cities and states that do not have such strict laws. Because the general population would move away, this leaves their operatives exposed for tracking and apprehension. It is much harder to blend in as just another landscaper looking for work when all the legitimate workers have moved away to other states where they can still obtain work. This will greatly aid both ICE and local law enforcement in combating cartel activity and tracking down operatives for such operations.
AZ Bill 1070 is in place simply to enable our local law enforcement with the power to enforce laws that often get neglected on the federal level. For example, one night I was driving my patrol car when I was almost T-boned. A vehicle had run a stop sign. I pulled the vehicle over and found a man who did not speak English and had no driver’s license or State ID on him. He had no DMV record, and was not a legal citizen. This man had an alcohol level of .218, and was extreme DUI. After processing, I contacted ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement). They told me they did not have the man power to send and could not pick the man up for detainment. Being local law enforcement, we had no authority to hold the man based on his citizenship and had to let him go. Do you think he showed up for court? Of course not, now this man was released back into the public and is once again a potential threat to public safety. Had the man became intoxicated again and killed someone in a fatal accident, people would have screamed at how the system failed, and the police failed to do their job. The reality was however, we did not have the tools in place to detain the man. This very situation happened in San Francisco in 2008 when an illegal alien, Edwin Ramos, gunned down a father and two sons. Edwin was found to have been arrested several times without being turned over to immigration.
“The Bologna family filed a lawsuit Tuesday alleging that the city’s sanctuary policy shielding illegal immigrants from questions about their citizenship status — even those charged with a crime — was to blame, KCBS San Francisco reported. “The city adopted and enforced a policy that was actually inconsistent with and prohibited by federal law,” Bologna family attorney Michael Kelly was quoted as saying” (Family Sues San Francisco Saying Sanctuary Law to Blame for Murder of Father, Two Sons, 2008).
If California had a law in place like Arizona’s recent passing of 1070, this horrible crime may have been prevented the first day they discovered his legal status.
The outcry against Arizona’s new law is not only silly, but is a complete demonstration of ignorance of the already existing laws of this nation. Before the passing of bill 1070 it was already illegal to be in Arizona illegally. The only difference was it was an offense and a felony on the federal level. Now, it is both a federal offense and state offense. It is nothing more than mirroring the federal law and providing our officers with the tools necessary to keep Arizonians safe. This is absolutely no different than many other laws already on the books. For example, it is a federal offense to rob a bank. However, it is also a state offense to rob a bank. If you rob a bank in any state, you will face both federal and local state charges for the crime. You can even be charged both locally and federally in two different court systems and no, this is not the same as double jeopardy. Just like it’s both a federal and state offense to rob a bank and is illegal, Arizona’s new immigration law has made being in Arizona illegally both a federal and state offense. The question can be asked, “What’s all the fuss about?” The real answer is simple… enforcement. Illegal aliens and their supporters have long lived comfortably in the United States relying on the complacency and lack of enforcement of the federal government to thrive. Now that a border state like Arizona has made a stand to enforce the law the federal government chooses to ignore, they have no more economic collusion that came with sanctuary policies. They are angry because in Arizona, the gravy train has made its final stop, and the tax payers have had enough. There will be no more free meals; no more living in comfort while law abiding immigrants patiently wait for their legal papers to enter this country the respectful and correct way. The message here is that we reward those who follow the rules, and tell people who cut the line and break the rules to get in the back. The first step has been taken and hopefully, many other states will soon follow suit.
References
Family Sues San Francisco Saying Sanctuary Law to Blame for Murder of Father, Two Sons. (2008, April 08). Retrieved September 22, 2011, from Foxnews.com: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513378,00.html
ACTION ALERT: SAY NO TO RACIAL PROFILING: STOP THE SPREAD OF SB 1070! (2010, May 11). Retrieved September 22, 2011, from CAIR California : http://ca.cair.com/losangeles/action_alert/action_alert_say_no_to_racial_profiling_stop_the_spread_of_sb_1070
Politcal punch. (2010, April 27). Retrieved September 22, 2011, from ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/04/president-obama-says-arizonas-poorlyconceived-immigration-law-could-mean-hispanicamericans-are-haras/
azdot.gov. (2011). Retrieved Septemeber 22, 2011, from Motor Vehicle Division.
Probable Cause. (2011, September). Retrieved Septmeber 22, 2011, from LectLaw.com: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p089.htm
Holub, H. (2010, May 23). SB 1070 does nothing to stop drug cartel gunmen. Retrieved Septemeber 22, 2011, from Tucsoncitizen.com:
Menendez, A. (2010, April 23). SB 1070: A Little Bit of History Repeating . Retrieved September 22, 2011, from Laprensa-Sandiego.org
Valen, C. (2010). probable Cause . Retrieved September 22, 2011, from ChristopherValen.com: http://christophervalen.com/blog/?p=259
Facebook postings from Dan:
“Daniel {blank – I will leave his last name private} found someone to actually review his thesis” –
Hmmmmmm, so you actually DON’T have your PhD yet. Maybe you should not claim to have a PhD and represent yourself as something that you aren’t Dan! You should be ashamed of yourself.
“Daniel {blank – I will leave his name private} needs anyone against SB1070 to join in on the debate at the following website to kick some sense into these right-wingers” and posts this website. Right-wingers and kicking some sense…..geez Dan. Maybe I’ll post the website to Facebook too and try and gather all my “right wing” family and friends to join the cause and ‘kick some sense’ into the left wing.
I’m not scared of you Nick. I have nothing to hide, nor am I guilty of anything. But it appears that you would rather ‘out’ me like this in an effort to intimidate me. First of all, I did not say I had a PhD. In fact, one who obtains a PhD attempts to write a “dissertation,” not a “thesis.”
I agree that we should get as many people involved in this debate as possible, to make your one-sided discussion forum at least appear to have a bipartisan effort to debate difficult legislation. Any American would agree with me on that point. But right now, you are acting childish. I will make it a life-long endeavor to write on this forum unless you decide to cut me off at some point. I’m sorry I differ with you on issues, but I am seriously interested in what makes you conservatives tick.
Thanks.
I think your confusing me with Joes post. I never said anything of this sort. I do however find it silly that your rallying people for the sole purpose of fronting contention. You may need help on what makes you tick.
Joe,
Daniel lost all creditability on this forum when he said that the Deputy who was shot here in AZ did so as a stunt to fan the flames of AZ bill 1070.
Anyone who actually would believe in such a far fetched scenario has some issues with reality vs paranoid political conspiracy. The fact hes asking people on Facebook to come join his silly cause to come on here and stir controversy shows where he really stands. He does not care about honest debate or open discussion. So far, he is only interested in exploiting and abusing another’s site to argue from emotional points of views. I have never seen someone contradict them self so much in one place.
He obviously is obsessed with posting on here to front those who differ with his world view. It would appear that you called the man out, and there is nothing more to say.
@Daniel you are more concerned about the social implications of SB1070? What about the social implications that illegal aliens bring to this country. They don’t even deserve the title of Immigrant. An illegal immigrant is someone that came into our country legally and let there green card or visa lapse and are here illegally now. They are called illegal aliens.
I’m sorry to inform you but police deal with social problems everyday. So once again you can read your books and feel like you are the scholar who knows the answers but has no social experience except making pointless posts on my website. Like I suggested and Joe has as well take some time off and go do some ride a longs in some different cities and I am sure you will be singing a different tune.
SB1070 is not about race, its not about Red vs. Blue, or politics, its about upholding the damn laws that my ancestors fought to protect. Yes its is a federal law right now which you can’t seem to understand. So Arizona passes a bill to enforce that which the Feds will not, and you have a problem with it. Its unfortunate that it has come to this level where our state has to pass a law that is already a law that cannot be in forced because we have no jurisdiction.
Europe has it right if you are in their country illegally you get deported. Sound familiar as that is the law here as well on the federal law.
Always remember, United we Stand but Divided we fall. Ah the fall pal is supporting people here illegally. Were going broke and you don’t want to do a damn thing about it.
I say build the fence, Help those that pay taxes and have kids here legally become citizens and get rid of those who are not interested in becoming citizens.
Del Mar
ddial – you suggested that I do “ride-alongs” along the fence, and embed myself within the problem. What will this do? I know the problem exists, what you don’t seem to undertand is that I am interested in the social conditions that perpetuate the behaviors that manifest as a result of flawed policies, inaction, or action. For instance, I credit Border patrol agents for what they do, but I question the results. It is ineffective – do you know how long our border is?- just including Arizona’s border with Mexico. If we stood every single American along every inch of our borders within the intercontinental United States, we still would not be covering the air, water, or underground access. So it is foolish to continue the cycle of complacency by thinking that building a useless fence is going to stop people from coming over to our country. It is this simple – you think we are being invaded, and I see these people as future citizens going through the same process that they have always gone through to become US citizens. You are scared because of terrorism, and I am not.
dialn – I only suggested that the deputy shot himself because that is what was being reported on Rush Limbaugh that day. Also – no one has talked about it since then, also no one has found the smoking gun, also the officer who had been shot did not yet identify the shooter of the seventeen people who had been rounded up immediately after several helicopters were dispatched to find the culprits = so yes, I have my reasons for being skeptical. I do not just believe everything people tell me just because I want to. I have a human right to question things, you apparently believe everything people tell you.
@Daniel
Hmm I see you don’t know what a ride a long is, It is when you ride a long with a police officer. Their is nothing by the fence to do a ride a long I was talking about cities hmm I don’t know Phoenix…Mesa? Hello? These people are not citizens so they don’t count to be in our social system.
So if SB1070 is flawed then so is the Federal Law correct?? Which one is it?
Sorry i don’t buy into the fence not working. I have fences right now in my backyard and why?? Am I worried about my neighbors sneaking into my yard to blow up my A/C unit?? Fence makes a better neighbor cause it keeps my stuff where it is suppose to be as well as theirs.
I am not scared because of Terrorism I am scared of our country is just not going broke but will implode. Illegal aliens only speed up the
process. Take a look at Greece and I feel with hyperinflation on its way we are not to far down the road to being next.
If we stood every single American along every inch of our borders within “the intercontinental United States, we still would not be covering the air, water, or underground access. ”
Just what the hell does that mean? Come on dude that is lame. Underground Access?? WTF, is Bugs Bunny make a wrong turn in Albuquerque again?? Sorry its a hell of a lot harder to stay here coming by boat or plane then by walking past a non existent fence.
Good fences make good neighbors. Seems the Great Wall of china worked wonders.
” you think we are being invaded, and I see these people as future citizens going through the same process that they have always gone through to become US citizens.”
No we are not being invaded we are being infiltrated. And sorry this is the illegal process that you appear to agree with.
One last thing if you don’t like the federal law or SB1070 then try to change the law.
Del Mar
Del Mar-
There are underground tunnels along the border and especially in Tijuana. This constitutes “underground”. You are not from Arizona, and are relatively new to border politics, I’m just guessing.
The borders are porous. Yes, drugs and illegals have been being smuggled in our harbours via water routes as well. You laugh, but a very successful drug smuggling operation went in by fishing boat in through San Francisco’s bay for years.
SB 1070 is flawed, because it subverted the Federal Law – the Federal Law overrides it. You mean to tell me that this state never instituted the Federal Law?? Why not?
If what you mean to tell me, that a “ride-along” constitutes riding in a police vehicle with you or another officer as you judgmentally suggest that everyone you point to is illegal, then I am not interested.
Oh, and look at this link, it is not exactly the same thing, but pretty darn close:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/11/philadelphia.cop.shot.self/index.html?hpt=T3
I’m just sayin. It’s foof for thought.
Daniel,
SB1070 is not “flawed” because of the federal law. Did you even read the article? I covered this issue. The Federal govt. and the state are separate justice systems, and states have sovereign authority. Ever heard of states rights? If there is a constitutional issue, then yes is the state cannot defy this this, however if the state chooses to pass a law more strict then federal law, or in Arizona’s case, pass a law that matches the federal law, then this is legal and not “flawed in any way. The fact we have states rights with separate justice systems has allows crimes to be charged on both a federal or state level.
Before the passing of bill 1070 it was already illegal to be in Arizona illegally. The only difference was it was an offense and a felony on the federal level. Now, it is both a federal offense and state offense. It is nothing more than mirroring the federal law and providing our officers with the tools necessary to keep Arizonians safe. This is absolutely no different than many other laws already on the books. For example, it is a federal offense to rob a bank. However, it is also a state offense to rob a bank. If you rob a bank in any state, you will face both federal and local state charges for the crime. You can even be charged both locally and federally in two different court systems and no, this is not the same a double jeopardy. Just like it’s both a federal and state offense to rob a bank and is illegal. Arizona’s new immigration law has made being in Arizona illegally both a federal and state offense.
remember Rodney King? the police officers who went on trial were acquitted on a state level, but he federal government stepped in and they were charged on a federal level for violation of civil rights. This is how our system works.
You asked the following question: “You mean to tell me that this state never instituted the Federal Law?? Why not?”
Daniel, this is because the state has NO authority to enforce federal law. We had to rely on federal law enforcement i.e. ICE, CUSTOMS, and IMMIGRATION. if they chose not to enforce or could not send the man power, there was nothing the state could do. The law was not broken on a state level, we had no jurisdiction.
You asked what a ride along would do, here is a story how a typical stop works, and why we needed the ability to enforce this law.
one night I was driving my patrol car when I was almost T-boned. A vehicle had run a stop sign. I pulled the vehicle over and found a man who did not speak English and had no Drivers license or State ID on him. He had no DMV record, and was not a legal citizen. This man had an alcohol level of .218, and was extreme DUI. After processing, I contacted ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement). They told me they did not have the man power to send and could not pick the man up for detainment. Being local law enforcement, we had no authority to hold the man based on his citizenship and had to let him go. Do you think he showed up for court? Of course not, now this man was released back into the public and is once again a potential threat to public safety. Had the man became intoxicated again and killed someone in a fatal accident, people would have screamed at how the system failed, and the police failed to do their job. The reality was. we did not have the tools in place to detain the man.
This very situation happened in San Francisco in 2008 when an illegal alien, Edwin Ramos, gunned down a father and two sons. Edwin was found to have been arrested several times without being turned over to immigration. If California had a law in place like Arizona’s recent passing of 1070, this horrible crime may have been prevented.
If you had been riding in the car with me, you would have seen there was no profiling. you would have seen the man was stopped for almost causing an accident, and that there was nothing we could do because ICE would not send anyone to pick him up. I understand you are not in law enforcement, so you may not fully know how this works, but this is what happens.
a large amount the cars we stop for violations, i.e. speeding, illegal turn, etc. are being driven by illegals with no ID, or drivers license. no insurance. before our options were very limited. Now, we have the means to deal with what could be a very bad situation for others. Would you like to have your car totaled by an illegal with no auto insurance and run off leaving you with the bill? We would have no way of knowing who they were.
For a long time, we were looking for a rapists who was illegal, and lack of documentation of who he was made it very difficult to track the person down.
riding with police will show you how this truly effects society. look into a person face who was just violated, or had their home broken into by illegals trafficking in the area, and explain to them why this law is “flawed”.
Pulling over a car for a traffic violation and finding out the driver has no documentation is not racist or profiling in any form.
OK, well. Now that you put it that way, I feel safer already.
Riding in a police car would be severely depressing, and it would bias my view of the world. I’m sure I would look at everyone as if they were criminals after a hard days work.
So since you advocate placing these people into our jails, what then? Maximum capacity – would you recommend building more supermax prisons to house these individuals? How will it be paid for? The boycott is hurting, and your buycott is a failure because it’s a bluff. I’m sorry, but I don’t see it working.
Dan, do you have any answers versus identifying how flawed the legislation is that was created through democracy (through the will of the people). I would like to hear your solutions.
I think the theory that I am going with on riding with the police is that it will give you an additional perspective, one that maybe you haven’t seen. Nick & I would offer to live with people who are impacted by social issues everyday to see their perspective, the only caveat to that is that WE ALREADY SEE THEIR SIDE through our occupation on a day to day basis. That’s all. Nothing more, nothing less.
By the way, I wasn’t trying to scare you by posting your FB posts. Just thought it was hypocritical you allowed yourself to be portrayed as having a PhD when in fact you don’t (my sincere apology for making that assumption – I thought you stated it in an ealrier post…I do need to be corrected). After it was mentioned you having a PhD, I would have figured you would have corrected that. Do you really teach or were you being rhetorical when you stated you would fail me for being closed minded?
even if he did teach, failing a student for being “closed minded” is academically dishonest. Professors are not there to pass jusdgment on what is and what is not “close minded”. They are there to teach the material in a non biased objective matter and grade the student on the quality of their work. i.e. structure, mechanics, etc. The problem with education today is that all too often professors are mixing their personal emotions and biased when grading the student earns. This is unethical and says more about the professor as a person then it ever will about the student their failing.
Nick, you’ll appreciate this link. It is a prime example of what problems exist within the current system. DAN, you on the other hand will most likely make exuses and propose BS “theories” as you call them on why things happened the way they did and probably find blame with the victim…….I am sure if something like this happened to someone you cared for you might just see the “other {dark ~ aaarrrrr ~ Republican ~ aarrrrr Conservative aarrrr arrrr} side. Please review it…..it is EXACTLY what Nick has been preaching. Dan, since you would like to debate I would like your opinion as well. Please copy and paste the following into your web browser…..
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcbs4denver.com%2Flocal%2Fkudlis.Francis.Hernandez.2.812896.html&rct=j&q=illegal+alien+aurora+accident+baskin+robins+court&ei=ETfqS4KmGoH58Abo9bznDg&usg=AFQjCNEjR7ecI0rWZ-CDok1hVjPECb2fXQ
Wow Joe. thanks for that article. while its nice to be validated in my position, sadly, this will most likely continue to go unnoticed.
I never once said that I was a PhD. This was assumed, never make assumptions. And never, like I pointed out before, never believe anything you hear, read, or see – QUESTION EVERYTHING. Whatever happened to the art of being skeptical?
“The student would be tested on the quality of their work. i.e. structure, mechanics, etc.” – One could fail a course in ethnic tolerance and diversity of opinion, which much of the posts on this blogosphere would be evidence enough for a below average grade for all of us, myself included. And yes, humility is respectable, even Hannity’s favorite President – Regan was a proponent of that.
The legislation in SB1070 is inherently flawed, because it targets Mexican minorities in Arizona. It gives agency to police to make implicit arrests based on their “reasonable suspicion” of another person. What is that??? If your goal is to really target terrorists and protect us from them coming across the Mexican border (why else would you be doing this SB1070???), then you should be worried about people who are already citizens here in this country, i.e. Faizal Shazad.
“Reasonable suspicion” would be an implicit interpretation made by an officer of one’s view of the Other person, if it be skin color, erratic driving behavior, lack of identification, inability to speak English, etc. It may seem like “another tool” for an officer, but I don’t expect an officer to understand the line of social theory has been crossed here, impeding and infringing on our inherent inalienable rights as Americans and aspiring Americans.
First of all, I agree with being pulled over for erratic driving behavior, and perhaps even being incarcerated for not having a driver’s license, but this law LEGITIMIZES authority for having “reasonable suspicion” of the OTHER because of racial of ethnic biases. This means that suddenly, we should entrust police to be free from biases in making these highly complex decisions in an instant. Perhaps officers should go through intense anthropology and ethnographic training prior to becoming an officer(?). I would make it a prerequisite before I trust someone to handle this sort of law, because even the most famous anthropologists have struggled with casting judgments on others and being free from bias and remaining “objective.”
For one, it is not law in this country that ENGLISH is the single universal language, and if you are a propoenent of English only movement, then there are problems with that in a diverse country.
This country is moving towards facism very rapidly, especially if SB1070 is implemented in other states, and shutting out our Mexican neighbors and alienating them and making them our enemies is NOT the answer.
Those are the social implications of this bill. But you all seem to accept this slow crawl towards facism. There is a reason why it has never been implemented in this country, and the feds consider it a toxic subject.
Daniel,
despite facts, sound logic, and pointing out the errors in your accusations, you continue to parrot the same old talking points that have already been proven false. You obviously are not here to learn of listen objectively.
So if a Hispanic police officer pulls over a car driven by a Hispanic and discovers that the driver has no licence, identification of any kind, can’t be found in any computer base for identification and doesen’t speak English, is that officer “racially profiling” if he then investigates the drivers legal status?
dialn-
despite sound logic, you are in denial, and continue to believe that you know everything and have all the answers to everything.
One morning all of you woke up to find out that Jan Brewer was going to sign SB1070 into law. Everyone quickly rushed to find out the controversy, and then some of us became horrified, and some of us became elated. That’s all that happened. Jan Brewer legitimized a carefully crafted law drafted by Kris Koch, and yet you and other goose-stepping followers think that you somehow had something to do with it becoming law.
Unbelievable.
Never fails, when some like you is shut down with facts, they always resort to insults.
Whatever you say Daniel. Can you please continue to come here and enlighten me with all your vast worldly knowledge?
Tell me, how long have you been serving along side law enforcement? Your very knowledgeable about the law. Are you a judge? a legislator? Perhaps you were chief of a police department? You seem to have overwhelming knowledge about how the process works, even more then all of us here who have worn a uniform. Of course, you didn’t know that a state cant enforce federal law, but I’m sure that was just a typo. Can I use you as a reference on my resume?
@ Daniel,
Careful what you say!
“and yet you and other goose-stepping followers think that you somehow had something to do with it becoming law.”
I will ban you if you drive down the road of personal attack on anyone. This can be interpreted as referring to those “goose-steppers” as Nazi’s.
I will give the benefit of the the doubt, that this was not the intention.
However this will not be permitted here, not on my watch and not on my site.
I appreciate you taking the time to comment with your opinions and input but once it begins to come to personal attacks it will get out of control and I will step in.
This warning is for everyone so lets keep it honest lets keep it clean.
Thanks,
The Web Admin!
Cowgirl-
I don’t think it would even be possible to investigate any further if there is no license presented, plus there would be no legal cause to do so, because there is sufficient evidence to cite the person. As of right now, that person would have to be cited for a violation and EXPECTED to appear in court and attempt to exonerate themselves, otherwise a warrant would be issued for their arrest. However, with SB1070, they would be taken into custody, and then incarcerated, and fill up our prisons. We were once a nation of presumed innocense until proven guilty, that seems to be slipping though. The terrorsits have created such a fervor in this country that they are making us spy on each other and even change our laws and approach to human behavior.
ddial-
When I see facism, I call it like I see it. This is a warning to anyone who practices it – be mindful of the larger picture here folks, and be careful of what the social implications might be for this legislation.
Right Daniel, expecting people to follow the rules that everyone else is held to is “fascism”. Do you always throw around words you don’t know the meaning to?
Let me help you. “a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism”.
Hmmm. Nope, nothing here fits the State of Arizona. Although, the current powers that be have taken GM dealers away from private owners, forced private banks to make loans, trying to take control of the internet, trying to control radio through the “fairness doctrine”, and wanting to control business through cap and trade, which is really nothing more then a massive tax.
Yep, its looking like Arizona doesn’t match that at all.
You said “I don’t think it would even be possible to investigate any further if there is no license presented, plus there would be no legal cause to do so, because there is sufficient evidence to cite the person.”
Once again, you demonstrate that you know nothing of the law or how a legal stop works.
When you stop a car and get a license from someone, you check them for warrants. We also check to see if there are any issues with their license. To do this, the person MUST be in the DMV record data base. To be in the DMV record data base, you MUST be a legal citizen. If you have no record, and running your name, date of birth, or social security number brings up no information, chances are, you are ILLEGAL! You would not have anything on file. At this point the officer would have to investigate further. This is how we find out what someones immigration status is. It has NOTHING to do with such information popping up on a screen, or asking for “papers” The fact the data base would have zero record of you says it all, or, we may have an arrest record that already confirms their not a citizen.
You really should learn the facts behind law and how it is applied into the field before you attempt to explain to anyone things you nothing of.
ddial -
You have it all wrong, I believe Cowgirl stated “and discovers that the driver has no licence” then you will not be able to produce a license from “someone, and check for warrants” – then look through the DMV, all of which is moot, if no one can present a license. Damn man, read through these posts first a little bit more carefully.
Yah sure, you can suggest that one is here illegally if they are unable to present the required information – I get that.
I don’t know where you get the term “facism” from, but the most widely accepted term comes from Paxton’s essential definition of the term:
“Fascism is a system of political authority and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy, and purity of communities in which liberal democracy stands accused of producing division and decline.”
Elsewhere, he refines this further as
“a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”
Which pretty much summarizes the social phenomenon taking place in your home state right now.
Dan, thanks for answering my earlier post about what solutions YOU would have to offer ~ NOT!! Reading through your post makes me want to vomit because you operate under this fricking fantasy utopia view of the world we live in. You are sadly ignorant to certain realities. I am pretty much done with this interaction because you really don’t get any of this – as much as you want to claim you do and blah blah blah. Eventually you might understand some of it once you are PERSONALLY impacted by certain ramifications of not acting and not coming to the table with realistic, attainable, and verifiable solutions. Continue to live in the fantasy world you’re in. Maybe one day reality will catch up to you. Good stuff you’re smoking I must say….keep smoking it and falling back on your “education” to get you through life. I am sure there are lots of government grants to help you sustain a comfortable lifestyle. You have not been open to one thing since you started to post. I guess my original summation based upon your continued posts seems to best fit – but hey, I won’t say it again…..not nice to say not nice things about people. Would love to actually discuss some of these things in person over a beer, but am afraid you would continue your steel curtain of closed mindedness.
Joe-
You want solutions? It is not SB1070. The solution is to provide Mexicans a pathway to citizenship by incorporating them into our American way of life by exposing Americans to more Spanish, and encouraging them to learn our ways by speaking to them in their native tongue if necessary. Learning a new language will open up your mind to others and other cultures, you should try it. Allow them to work here, and pay taxes here – if that means taking their share out of their paychecks, if that means enforcing small businesses to follow the law and fill out I-9 forms and not pay people under the table. If we don’t, then I’m sad to say that America is doomed, and I am not afraid to say it. Terrorists have called our bluff and are making us change into our own worst enemy, and we can’t deal with it, because the way our capitalist free market democratic system was set up – it was set up in such a way to be a country to aspire to be, to be a role model for others. Now that capitalism has fallen (because banks will continue to expect to be bailed out – so we are actually socialist), and that there is no economic model out there to follow now, our hegemony has come to an end. The American dream is fading. And we are now quickly becoming a fascist country where we are willing to restrict our individual rights and place cameras above every intersection, and even look at people with different skin color or people who do not have National ID cards (licenses) as being evil people who are worth less than dirt. Wake up folks – you are causing this decline (read Emanuel Wallerstein).
Dan – “This was assumed, never make assumptions.” ” Learning a new language will open up your mind to others and other cultures, you should try it.”
Dan, Dan, Dan…Nice assumption on the fact that I am not bi-lingual. Bailing out the banks….Thanks President Obama and your administration.
I do however commend you on actually articulating several solutions – of which some might work. Thank you.
An THANK YOU for being awake and being an expert of on the decline of America.
Have a nice sleep being secure in your home. I am off to work to help PROTECT the Civil Rights of my fellow American brothers & sisters. “You’re welcome”
If you are indeed an officer of the law, I find it particularly disconcerting to know that these posts can get you riled up and under your skin the way that I have apparently been able to do. I’m living in your head rent-free.
I’m not a police officer so must concede to the fact that I’m not savy on police procedures, so let me rephrase my post.
A Hispanic police officer pulls over a car driven by a Hispanic driver. Upon investigation he determines that there is probable cause to believe the driver is an illegal alien. Would this count as racial profiling?
Short answer is no.
But… (this is where Hannity would cut me off) this does not mean that racial profiling would not happen at all in other situations.
SB 1070 basically gives police officers (regardless of their particular ethnic background) free license to act upon “reasonable suspicion,” which is yet to be clarified exactly what that means. It could:
a) be implicit racial profiling
b) acting on impulse based on experience of dealing with such matters (which is seen as racial profiling to many extreme liberals)
c) routine police behavior
Giving police officers the benefit of the doubt – let’s say ALL police officers are good, and that they will follow the protocal out whether racial profiling is at play or not – besides the point: no one has addressed what to do with the illegals. Who will pay for them, and how long will they stay in our jails, before we deport them anyways? Isn’t it cheaper to simply ship them back to Mexico like we do now? Why spare the three meal a day expense?
The system is broken and conservatives would like to break it more.
And Joe…
C’mon now, tell the truth, are you really bi-lingual?
Also, confusing President Obama with George W. Bush for bailing out the big banks is a common misrepresentation amongst conservatives. They clearly distory historic fact and twist it to suit their agenda, which is to paint Obama as an evil socialist, when it was BUSH who told us the sky was falling and wanted 750 billion dollars of our tax-paying dollars. Do NOT ever confuse this fact again. In fact, I think it was actually an attempt to get Mccain elected, which clearly backfired, and I am still laughing today about that!
Here is evidence of Goerge W. Bush’s polite request for a 700 billion dollar bail-out from us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfZBdKroP7g
Just in case anyone was actually inclined to believe the twist Joe wanted to spin it.
Well, here is a better video of Bush’s request for 700 billion dollars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_WgxYn3l2w&feature=related
Just for extra assurance. I want to make sure that every American citizen knows exactly who screwed up the economy and when and what he did to correct it. But some people want to think that it was President Obama.
C’Mon Dan, tell the truth, are you really an anthropologist or just a left winger shacked up with 9 other liberals?
Yes, Dan, I have 17 years of real police experience and am currently a police sergeant. Really have a Master’s Degree…….and really have bonafide experience in our current state of affairs with ACTUAL people (unlike YOU living in THEORY MODE) in real fluid situations where sometimes quick decisions have to be made based upon sound judgment and knowledge of the constitution/policies & procedures and being able to APPLY that knowledge to come to safe resolutions……living in the REAL world, doing a REAL job (unlike you). Duuuude, please get a grip. Have a nice night……
I admit, I have not been on this webpage in a long time… however it was another joy to see It is such an important topic and ignored by so many, even professionals. I thank you to help making people more aware of possible issues.
Great stuff as usual…
You are doing nothing bu tproving my point Joe. The moment I started disagreeing with you and others on this forum, you threw up a wall, and cannot accept the fact that others are allowed to disagree with you.
Yes, this ALARMS me that you are a police officer and you think this way. It should be disconcerting for many Americans that police officers DO NOT think objectively. Point proven.
I am glad Daniel has posted what he has, it has helped us understand how paranoid and delusional some people are. JOE (?) Thank you for your service to our state. I appreciate your article, it is good for those of us who are actually educating ourselves on this bill to get your perspective. I believe people like Daniel are only out to try and stir the pot and mislead people. The facts are the facts and if people will read the bill, they will see it is actually fairly simple and straight forward.
This has been a long time coming. Our broken state and threat of officers, fire and teachers losing jobs…yet spending $810 million dollars a year on services for illegals simply isn’t right. America has to take care of Americans FIRST, then we can try and help others.
Well Daniel,
Read my article on TASERS, it can be found under my column or under articles by author.
http://circlethewagons.net/2010/01/06/taser-an-officers-perspective-and-a-jolt-of-reality/
Read that article and tell me police officers don’t think objectively. I as an officer have been very open, objective, and critical with many points on that issue, as it has many controversies surrounding it.
listen to my radio interview on Fox news with Terry Gilberg. I actually debate a fellow officer on some key points with the TASER. You can find the interview under videos and media, or under my bio which is at the top of the page, “get dialed in with Nick Dial”.
You cannot label a group of people by profession. Wouldn’t that be paralleling racism by grouping people by their skin color? Don’t be a hypocrite.
Thanks Chris. I appreciate the comments.
Dan, you really should look at the article Nick is talking about. He takes an unpopular stance on use of Taser. Although I disagree with some of his points, I can certainly respect them because his points are made on a reasonable, articulable level – unlike the way you present your “facts” on this blog — hostile, unreasonable, closed minded, the list goes on. I can certainly respect Nick’s viewpoint but respectfully disagree with some of it. See, that’s how easy it was…..I don’t agree with Nick but that’s O.K. Hmmm, pretty mature, adult style interaction.
Would you like me to start rattling off examples of me being and thinking objectively Dan? Like with REAL LIFE EXAMPLES in the field? Because I can certainly recite a laundry list that has occurred this work week where discretion was utilized IN THE FAVOR of people who could have gotten arrested or otherwise charged; but the totality of circumstances and officer discretion was used? See Dan, people like you throw out the crap you do and really have no idea what you’re talking about. You give other liberal minded people a bad name. People who CAN see both sides of the fence and recognize the differences. Unfortunately for you (and those who listen to your BS) you spew out about seeing both sides of the topic but really aren’t interested in anything but your opinion and your agenda. Now that you’ve spoken I can truly identify the type of person you are, because I have dealt with you on several occasions. Nothing makes you happy except for those people who go along with you all the way. Not once when I have recognized some of your points you’ve made have you acknowledged that I could see that things might work that you’ve suggested; yet you continue on saying that I am closed minded and not objective. Hmmmmmm, YOU on the otherhand little man, have NOT ONCE agreed with any points that you didn’t make….so whatever……..I digress, you are an idiot.
Hi Joe,
I respect the polite way you disagreed with me. yes, the TASER is a very controversial issue, even among officers. Half the officers I know agree my positions, and applaud me, the other half do not. I do fund that many officers that do not agree however are emotionally responding out of fear that TASERS are going to be banned, and feel I am anti-TASER. Im not anti-TASER, I think their great tools, I just a personally have witnessed WAY too much misuse though, and felt is should be addressed.
to get a good feel for my positions,
I would encourage to listen to my interview here. The interview does a pretty good job with me being able to explain my self.
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/PHOENIX-AZ/KFYI-AM/10.24.09%208p.mp3
thanks
Nick
Nick, I couldn’t agree more. There are instances where the Taser is used outside of policy and procedure and more importantly outside the realm of common sense and good judgment. But, just like bad cops out there (yes Dan, I am condeding there are bad cops amongst us) these officers using the tool outside its intended purpose should be dealt with accordingly, up to and including termination and/or criminal charges. Hopefully, the occurrences of “bad” usage decrease as more attention is brought to the subject and officers are properly trained. Not just trained in the use of Taser but thoroughly trained in utilizing proper de-escaltion and communication skills. As you know, 99% of the time the most important tool in our tool belt is our mouth and how we communicate with people. Our agency is huge on training and very big on constitutional rights and the protection thereof.
Dan ~ NEWSFLASH!!! NEWSFLASH!!!
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_15074265
Oh…that’s right, don’t believe what you read….I’m sure these numbers just can’t be true….or can they?!?
LOL, yes our mouth.
In the academy, we called it verbal Judo. i would agree with that 100%. I believe it 8/10 times, things can be deescalated with verbal tact.
great link Joe, im going to put that up on the main page.
What I am witnessing is similar to what we call a “citation circle” where everyone is patting each of their buddies backs. Laughable.
Let me tell you what you don’t know: humans harbor implicit biases, and you proved my point yet again.
Ever since you and others on this posting have disagreed with me, you see me as the devil reincarnate. You are conservatives, I am a liberal. Since the intial moment you have been able to establish this point, you are and always will be – against me. How can this country ever move forward and not look like one totalitarian regime over another if we can’t discuss the issues using sound logic? Your biases affect your behaviors. Your biases affect your worldviews. Since I am the only one who seems to understand this, I can logically deduce that I am not bigoted, nor do I have tunnel vision.
I was a redneck, I was in the US Navy, I hunted when I got home, I lived in rural areas and worked as an electrician. I know the conservative values and not saying the wrong thing at the wrong time in front of women. You don’t know me. I grew up as a racist, uttering the “N” word constantly around my family and my circle of friends. I knew that my behaviors grew out of ignorance, and I have since been able to overcome those behavoirs. I am trying to tell all of you how engrained we can become in our behavrios, but how easily misled we can also become as a result.
Do not believe everything you hear, or everything you see. Humans are fallible, and we can become blind to our own learned behaviors and develop tunnel-vision. If you find yourself listening to AM550 or watching Fox News all day long, then you might be suffering from tunnel vision. If you watch MSNBC all day, then you might be suffering from tunnel vision. Practice looking in the mirror and asking yourselves the same questions about yourself before you criticize others. I have already been to your side, and I’m glad I have moved beyond it.
I would rather live in a country wheere diversity of opinion is accepted. It appears you would rather live in a country where everyone thinks one way. This should raise a red flag.
“Since the intial moment you have been able to establish this point, you are and always will be – against me.”
How can you say I will always be against when i agreed with you on my other article about using hydrogen? I agreed with you on that.
Dan, “since {you are} the only one who seems to understand this, {you} can logically deduce that {you are} not bigoted, nor do {you} have tunnel vision”. Your grade for this statement = “F” Failure. Because if you are as smart as you believe you are, you would also understand that human behavior can dictate bigotry and tunnel vision depending on the environment and extreme variance.
Could you please cite an example where you agreed with “our” “other side”. You have not once. Not once Dan. You are calling the kettle black. You are as guilty as anyone else. But once again, can not see through it either. I could give you my story of growing up in a mid-west Indiana small town where prejudice runs abound and was fortunately brought up in Colorado where there is a higher tolerance for differences, but what’s it going to matter? You’ll say whatever you’ll say so it really doesn’t matter.
Thanks though for your insight….I can appreciate that (not being fececious{sp?}).
Wonderful to read!
The only time I cited a possible instance of agreement was when I said Kyle and Mccain’s plan to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq and focus military on the border was a good idea, besides that – what I meant was I used to be a conservative, I used to be a redneck. However, I grew out of that state of mind and that mental trap, and was able to climb out of that tunnel and wisen up to become more accepting to other cultures and other people. Through anthropology, I’ve been able to see that people operate in different cultural systems with very real language barriers. It is Sapir and Whorf who suggeste language determines behavior, but in my article located at http://danieldybowski.webs.com/apps/blog/, I suggest that it is also culture that constrains our worldview and places limitations on what it is we are to believe or fall into the trap of believing.
The best way to combat prejudice, is to broaden your scope of view of Others. Once you do, will learn that a Canadian becoming a US citizen has certain advantages over a Mexican becoming one, because of a real cultural and language barrier. You cannot paint everyone with a broad brush and suggest that everyone will be able to stay in their own countries and learn these complex things, and then receive a letter in the mail someday to say that they are a citizen of the US. It doesn’t and never will work that way. This legislation specifically targets Mexicans because of their very real language and cultural barriers. There should be a better way for them to become citizens. But in your mind, you quickly revert to this insecure belief that they are secretly trying to take over our system by flooding into our country, where – oh no, we have to lear THEIR language. Take a class, broaden your worldview for heavens sake. If this is about convenience for you, and how you wouldn’t like to see other languages at an ATM machine, then YOU are the problem.
Daniel,
you’re talking none sense. Lets cut the crap. First you say people need to broaden their horizon and yet you refuse the idea of riding with police officers to see a side of the real world you have never been exposed to. that is closed minded and foolish. You sound like a politician who opposes or supports a bill, but in reality haven’t even read the bill to know whats in it!
You’re talking in circles is getting pretty old, so lets cut to the chase. Answer these following questions. If you can prove an answer with FACT, show us all, and we’ll say your right. If you cannot, then everything you are claiming is nothing more then speculation and assumption on your part.
Until you answer these questions fully and honestly, this debate will go nowhere.
1. Show us a single piece of SB1070 that addresses race in any way. There is nothing in the bill that references skin color, race, or nationality in any shape or form. If you can prove otherwise show us. Otherwise, you are running your mouth backed by NO fact at all, merely speculation. Speculation is not fact.
2. Tell us what an illegal alien looks like. You keep saying the bill targets Hispanics, but this is not fact. Again, An illegal alien can be German, British, Canadian, French, or any other “white” ethnicity. If any one of these nationalities or races were stopped here when they were illegal, they would be just as guilty of violating the law as any other race, Hispanic or not. This is FACT, not speculation. Unless you can prove this wrong through FACTUAL information from the bill, again, you are speaking from speculation and provide references or factual data to back it up.
You claim that an officer will profile b/c of this bill. this is a false logic. If an officer wants to profile, they can do so regardless of what the law may or may not say. The bill says this is forbidden, and is illegal. Before SB 1070, if an officer wanted to profile, only they as an individual knows why they stopped a car or whether or not they are practicing in profiling. A bill can never change this fact. The officer either is or is not an honest person.
This is like saying criminals will be encouraged to rob a bank if guns are legal. um….. criminals don’t care about law, they will rob a bank with a gun regardless because their CRIMINALS. Gun are illegal in the Uk and yet they have a high percentage of shooting and drive by shooting with gang violence. Same goes for a dishonest officer, they will do whatever they want regardless of any law on the books b/c they are morally a dishonest person. There will be bad apples in the group, this has always been a fact of life.
In ending, again Answer the two points I listed. They are fair, factual, and logical points. If you choose to skate around them and not address them directly, this debate is over because you are choosing to ignore factual data to push an ideology that has no substance to it. opinion and speculation are not fact Daniel.
Unless you can show anyone here where the bill targets, race, nationality, creed, skin color, or any other factor not dealing directly with a law that applies to ALL peoples across the board equally, you are wrong, and only indulging in emotional assumption. Here is your chance, now prove us wrong with FACTS and direct quotes from any law in AZ that targets people like you claim it does.
If you can do this, we will applaud you and say you are right.