Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All the regulars on here know I support the Arizona law but I am concerned with what I am seeing out there in the real world.
I see three factions out there:
Those that are anti illegal immigration and support Arizona.
Those that are anti illegal immigration but feel the law is racist and/or unconstitutional.
Those that support the Dream Act, the Pathway to Freedom or Amnesty and feel the law is racist and/or unconstitutional.
Here's where the dual effect comes in.
The law certainly brought attention to the illegal situation. Many communities and states are looking to follow Arizona in some way to get control of this situation. Many citizens are now more aware of how serious the problem is and the majority of the country is now if favor of doing something about the illegal situation.
The law also brought out the bleeding hearts. All the celebs boycotting Arizona. Boycotts are popping up everywhere. In fact, google the word boycott and the first thing that pops up is boycott BP and the second is boycott Arizona. Many challenges to the law will be made including one possibly from the federal government.
It seems to me that the second one is the one that gets the most press. I believe because of the "R" word. The law profiles in many people's opinion and therefore is racist. And that is what gets many people upset. It also seems the law is causing a division in the anti illegal side.
Anyway, that's my take and I am interested if anyone else is seeing this nationally or where they live.
Well there have definitely been a great deal many rallies in the streets in light of SB1070 passing, both for and against the law. So while I personally haven't really observed any sort of division, there are obviously very many people who hold conflicting opinions of the law, and of course it's caused and will continue to cause division on some scale or another. I don't think we'll see a Civil War come of this, but illegal immigration is arguably one of the most divisive issues in this country today.
As for myself, I recognize that there are several problems with unchecked illegal immigration that have to be dealt with. I will say that I don't believe that all undocumented immigrants are evil people coming here to get fat off welfare, although sadly, many are. The single biggest problem I have with SB1070 is that I do believe it is legalized racial profiling. This new ordinance allows law enforcement officials to stop anywhere they might have reasonable suspicion to be an undocumented individual, and ask them for papers. Honestly, deep down, do you really believe they're going to be stopping a visibly White man driving a Lexus and listening to Taylor Swift?
As for myself, I recognize that there are several problems with unchecked illegal immigration that have to be dealt with. I will say that I don't believe that all undocumented immigrants are evil people coming here to get fat off welfare, although sadly, many are. The single biggest problem I have with SB1070 is that I do believe it is legalized racial profiling. This new ordinance allows law enforcement officials to stop anywhere they might have reasonable suspicion to be an undocumented individual, and ask them for papers. Honestly, deep down, do you really believe they're going to be stopping a visibly White man driving a Lexus and listening to Taylor Swift?
The people writing the law could be very crafty about it - they can say one thing in the law, but expect people's prejudices to allow another thing to happen. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a lawyer of the legal arm of FAIR drafted the law. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...cial-profiling The SPLC accuses FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA as all being part of a racist conspiracy by John Tanton. Tanton has not sued FAIR for defamation. The people writing the law (not necessarily the people who are supporting the law - just the people who wrote it) probably intended to have a de facto racial profiling occur while stating in the law that racial profiling can't occur.
I think what might nail the law, though, is the federal government not wanting its role/powers usurped by the state. Even if the state is trying to enforce the same thing the feds are enforcing, the feds may not want the state trying to do its job. No matter how poorly the feds are perceived to be doing their immigration job, they cannot be upstaged or usurped by the state.
The people writing the law could be very crafty about it - they can say one thing in the law, but expect people's prejudices to allow another thing to happen. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a lawyer of the legal arm of FAIR drafted the law. Arizona Immigration Law Violates Constitution, Guarantees Racial Profiling | Southern Poverty Law Center The SPLC accuses FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA as all being part of a racist conspiracy by John Tanton. Tanton has not sued FAIR for defamation. The people writing the law (not necessarily the people who are supporting the law - just the people who wrote it) probably intended to have a de facto racial profiling occur while stating in the law that racial profiling can't occur.
I think what might nail the law, though, is the federal government not wanting its role/powers usurped by the state. Even if the state is trying to enforce the same thing the feds are enforcing, the feds may not want the state trying to do its job. No matter how poorly the feds are perceived to be doing their immigration job, they cannot be upstaged or usurped by the state.
That's exactly my interpretation of it. But I will re-read it, just in case there's anything I missed.
1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.
The people writing the law could be very crafty about it - they can say one thing in the law, but expect people's prejudices to allow another thing to happen. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a lawyer of the legal arm of FAIR drafted the law. Arizona Immigration Law Violates Constitution, Guarantees Racial Profiling | Southern Poverty Law Center The SPLC accuses FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA as all being part of a racist conspiracy by John Tanton. Tanton has not sued FAIR for defamation. The people writing the law (not necessarily the people who are supporting the law - just the people who wrote it) probably intended to have a de facto racial profiling occur while stating in the law that racial profiling can't occur.
I think what might nail the law, though, is the federal government not wanting its role/powers usurped by the state. Even if the state is trying to enforce the same thing the feds are enforcing, the feds may not want the state trying to do its job. No matter how poorly the feds are perceived to be doing their immigration job, they cannot be upstaged or usurped by the state.
You know how law is very technical, and since the law explicitely states that race may not be the sole factor in determining who gets checked for immigration status, therefore the law is legal and not racist because it says so right there. So the burden will have to rest on the individual officer making the arrest, not the state. You can't go around decrying a law as racist because it MIGHT have de facto racial profiling. That's like saying we should put everyone in jail right now because they might commit a crime in the future
When this law comes before a court...racial profiling will not even be considered. the first and most important challange to this law will be if Arizona has the right as a State to write it's own version of major Immigration Law.
Not until someone is arrested[if the law makes it out of the courts] and claims harm in being racially profiled, will the courts hear that arguement.
I don't believe it has divided the Pro-law side at all. If anything most that didn't know how bad the problem has become now do.
Profiling; as with any law there are certain aspects of profiling. If a LEO gets a call about graffiti and shows up to a park full of people are they going to watch the senior couple or the young men on skate boards and flatbills? There is no way to get around a certain % of profiling.
States have already "written" their own laws that bypass the Constitution to certain degrees. I cannot own a concealed weapon and open carry is just about to be challanged. Both of these were "protected" under the 2nd. We'll see how this rides out but I like the odds. Other States must too as they are writing their own laws for relief as the Feds are sitting on their hands.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
