Racial profiling an exception for immigration enforcement (birth, illegal aliens, law)
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.
While many people believe racial profiling is unconstitutional, Gabriel Chin, a legal scholar and law professor at University of California Davis, said the U.S. and the Arizona constitutions have made exceptions for immigration enforcement.
According to Chin, both constitutions state that race can be taken into account to decide if “there’s reasonable suspicion to stop somebody on the grounds that they are undocumented.”
“The way the Supreme Court has put it is that apparent Mexican ancestry is a factor that can be considered to determining whether somebody has unlawfully crossed into the United States,” Chin said.
The federal court ruling stated that Subsection 2B of SB 1070 did not conflict with any federal laws. The question of whether it can be applied without racial profiling or whether racial profiling is illegal in these circumstances has yet to be determined by the courts.
and then
Quote:
The general idea that discrimination on the basis of race is unconstitutional is what leads most to believe that racial profiling is against the law, Chin said. But SB 1070 states “you can’t take it into account except to the extent permitted by the U.S. or Arizona constitution,” he said.
Chin is arguing United States v. Brignoni-Ponce for his Federal example, which was based on a Border Patrol stop close to the Mexican border (in 1973), and came out quite differently (the exact opposite) than what he portrays. It was a 9-0 SCOTUS decision that the stop was a violation of the 4th Amendment. This same topic has been posted in the last couple years (Chin has championed it since at least 2010), and it has been drop-kicked for the junk it is before.
I even surprised you have brought it up again, you must have thought some of us were asleep...
I even surprised you have brought it up again, you must have thought some of us were asleep...
that race can be taken into account to decide if “there’s reasonable suspicion to stop somebody on the grounds that they are undocumented.” and then The question of whether it can be applied without racial profiling or whether racial profiling is illegal in these circumstanceshas yet to be determined by the courts. and finally The general idea that discrimination on the basis of race is unconstitutional is what leads most to believe that racial profiling is against the law, you can’t take it into account except to the extent permitted by the U.S. or Arizona constitution. All said by Chin.
Asleep....NO. Failing to understand what was shown...PRICELESS!
that race can be taken into account to decide if “there’s reasonable suspicion to stop somebody on the grounds that they are undocumented.” and then The question of whether it can be applied without racial profiling or whether racial profiling is illegal in these circumstanceshas yet to be determined by the courts. and finally The general idea that discrimination on the basis of race is unconstitutional is what leads most to believe that racial profiling is against the law, you can’t take it into account except to the extent permitted by the U.S. or Arizona constitution. All said by Chin.
Asleep....NO. Failing to understand what was shown...PRICELESS!
Read United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (where Felix Humberto Brignoni-Ponce had two illegal aliens he was smuggling in the vehicle, and had a strong predilection for that offense) again, it was a unanimous SCOTUS decision, upholding a circuit court ruling, over 35 years ago. The Arizona Constitution doesn't even come into the matter (it cannot contest the U.S. Constitution). Chin has been shot down before with this same regurgitated material in the last couple years, there isn't anything new he is adding now.
Read United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (where Felix Humberto Brignoni-Ponce had two illegal aliens he was smuggling in the vehicle, and had a strong predilection for that offense) again, it was a unanimous SCOTUS decision, upholding a circuit court ruling, over 35 years ago. The Arizona Constitution doesn't even come into the matter (it cannot contest the U.S. Constitution). Chin has been shot down before with this same regurgitated material in the last couple years, there isn't anything new he is adding now.
Why are we even having to discuss this again?...
Because Liquid Reigns wants to see Mexicans only asked for papers.
I seriously doubt that. Why would you make such a claim? Based on what?
Do you question every post of mine just for fun?
Why else would they post this? knowing this poster's history it is not a "FYI" post.
Quote:
“The way the Supreme Court has put it is that apparent Mexican ancestry is a factor that can be considered to determining whether somebody has unlawfully crossed into the United States,” Chin said.
The federal court ruling stated that Subsection 2B of SB 1070 did not conflict with any federal laws. The question of whether it can be applied without racial profiling or whether racial profiling is illegal in these circumstances has yet to be determined by the courts.
Read United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (where Felix Humberto Brignoni-Ponce had two illegal aliens he was smuggling in the vehicle, and had a strong predilection for that offense) again, it was a unanimous SCOTUS decision, upholding a circuit court ruling, over 35 years ago. The Arizona Constitution doesn't even come into the matter (it cannot contest the U.S. Constitution). Chin has been shot down before with this same regurgitated material in the last couple years, there isn't anything new he is adding now.
Why are we even having to discuss this again?...
"We" are not, "you" are making an issue out of something that I have only shown, as in the AZ case, that it has yet to be determined, which counters all the "papers please" crap that's claimed. Race alone is taken into account in many instances of law, allowed by the US Constitution and not just the AZ Constitution, but many other states as well, which is what Chin is saying, however, in this case (AZ's sb1070), it is yet to be determined if it is allowable or not. You seem to be only arguing Chins first remarks vs taking into account the entirety of the articles interview with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach50
Because Liquid Reigns wants to see Mexicans only asked for papers.
When you can intellectually come up with an argument to the OP in its context, then we can have a discussion, until then your inept claims are at best .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach50
Do you support racial profiling?
Do I support racial profiling? Depends on the circumstance, I'm not going to point to a black man when a white man does the crime. So yes, racial profiling does have a place in law. You seem to confuse criminal profiling with racial profiling.
No need to go to Brignoni-Ponce, I prefer the 2005 usage, for which Chin is absolutely correct.
Quote:
"a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case found that “an officer did not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status during the execution of a search warrant,” and the rule applied in this case as well.
Inquiring about a person’s name, date and place of birth, or immigration status does not constitute unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, she said.
Lisi said the trooper had a right to inquire about immigration status after all but four of the occupants of the van“had failed to provide any identification and Chabot’s suspicions reasonably escalated.”
She said that under two Supreme Court decisions,“It is permissible for officers to inquire into the immigration status of individuals without triggering the Fourth Amendment or requiring independent reasonable suspicion.”
The men in the van said they were going to work in Westerly, and immigration was contacted only after learning that most people in the van lacked documentation."
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 10-02-2012 at 12:11 PM..
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.
and then The question of whether it can be applied without racial profiling or whether racial profiling is illegal in these circumstances has yet to be determined by the courts. and finally The general idea that discrimination on the basis of race is unconstitutional is what leads most to believe that racial profiling is against the law, you can’t take it into account except to the extent permitted by the U.S. or Arizona constitution. All said by Chin.
