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.
How many were uncounted because they were illegal? And that number is from 2011 so what is the percentage for 2013? I know that here in Pima county I have definitely seen an increase of Mexican license plates in the last few months.
There is also the breakdown in counties. I guess I should have said Maricopa county instead of Arizona. Maricopa's rate is also 30% but shows about half the amount of people in general as the state.
The census is supposed to count illegals also. Do they count every single one? Probably not but they do attempt to count them.
Maybe you should attempt to understand the words used. Injunctive relief isn't a conviction of anything. All the judge is saying is that the policies that MCSO has, need to be changed.
Now, if you go back to my first posting in this topic (//www.city-data.com/forum/29734740-post153.html) you should realize you posted exactly what I posted. The difference is you don't understand the wording used or what this case is even about.
There is no conviction in a civil case, of course. The plaintiffs prevailed. The plaintiffs got what they asked for: injunctive relief. In other words, MCSO is GUILTY AS CHARGED. You can gloss over it all your bigoted little heart desires, but the fact remains that Joe and Co. got taken to the woodshed by the judge for their unconstitutional treatment of Latino citizens and told they can't do it anymore. The victory is being celebrated throughout Aztlan as we write. Now go enroll in a reading comprehension class.
The census is supposed to count illegals also. Do they count every single one? Probably not but they do attempt to count them.
Unfortunately reality is different. I'm sure the intentions of the census people were good but not realistic. Many were still hesitant to "come out of the shadows" back when the census was taken. There is no way to know the true number that are here but I'll bet the farm that it's higher than we are led to believe.
Unfortunately reality is different. I'm sure the intentions of the census people were good but not realistic. Many were still hesitant to "come out of the shadows" back when the census was taken. There is no way to know the true number that are here but I'll bet the farm that it's higher than we are led to believe.
I'm not sure how your statement relates to what I said. I said they do not count them all. Since you believe that reality is different are you actually saying they do?
There is no conviction in a civil case, of course. The plaintiffs prevailed. The plaintiffs got what they asked for: injunctive relief. In other words, MCSO is GUILTY AS CHARGED. You can gloss over it all your bigoted little heart desires, but the fact remains that Joe and Co. got taken to the woodshed by the judge for their unconstitutional treatment of Latino citizens and told they can't do it anymore. The victory is being celebrated throughout Aztlan as we write. Now go enroll in a reading comprehension class.
You have no understanding of legalize. It was the LEAR policy that has been placed on injunctive relief and the operations for AHSS and AESL.
It is these policies that were at question and it is these policies that are now at the heart of the matter.
Again, the lawsuit was to put a stop to policies as used, nothing more. MCSO is/wasn't found guilty of anything. You can fantasize until you pop your cork, the fact remains your ignorance is nothing more than what it is.
Quote:
Thus, the MCSO’s LEAR policy that requires a deputy (1) to detain persons she or he believes only to be in the country without authorization, (2) to contact MCSO supervisors, and then (3) to await contact with ICE pending a determination how to proceed, results in an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
I'm not sure how your statement relates to what I said. I said they do not count them all. Since you believe that reality is different are you actually saying they do?
Of course not and you know it.
I guess I didn't understand your post then. Were you saying the number is higher and if so then why did you point out the 30% in the first place if even you don't seem to believe it? What was the actual point of that post then?
I guess I didn't understand your post then. Were you saying the number is higher and if so then why did you point out the 30% in the first place if even you don't seem to believe it? What was the actual point of that post then?
If a group is the majority of people then it would make sense they are asked for I.D. more often. That is not the case with Hispanics. Even taking into account that not every single illegal is counted it's nowhere near close enough to make Hispanic's a majority.
Yes, the vast majority of illegals are Hispanics but you can not target Hispanic's in general to find the illegal's. You can pull over people for cause but to show that you are not profiling you would have to show that you aren't stopping some in a much higher ratio than their population in general.
I do not know what the specific numbers are here, I'm just making the general argument against profiling. With profiling you are stopping one group over another even though you have no more of a reason to be stopping them as individuals than you do anyone else.
If a group is the majority of people then it would make sense they are asked for I.D. more often. That is not the case with Hispanics. Even taking into account that not every single illegal is counted it's nowhere near close enough to make Hispanic's a majority.
Yes, the vast majority of illegals are Hispanics but you can not target Hispanic's in general to find the illegal's. You can pull over people for cause but to show that you are not profiling you would have to show that you aren't stopping some in a much higher ratio than their population in general.
I do not know what the specific numbers are here, I'm just making the general argument against profiling. With profiling you are stopping one group over another even though you have no more of a reason to be stopping them as individuals than you do anyone else.
How do you know that Arpaio wasn't stopping cars that were old, delapitated and probably had safety violations on them? Isn't it more likely that Hispanics would be driving those rickety cars? I know that not all Hispanics are poor and drive these types of vehicles but illegals certainly would be moreso than any other group and as you said most illegals are Hispanics.
If a group is the majority of people then it would make sense they are asked for I.D. more often. That is not the case with Hispanics. Even taking into account that not every single illegal is counted it's nowhere near close enough to make Hispanic's a majority.
Yes, the vast majority of illegals are Hispanics but you can not target Hispanic's in general to find the illegal's. You can pull over people for cause but to show that you are not profiling you would have to show that you aren't stopping some in a much higher ratio than their population in general.
I do not know what the specific numbers are here, I'm just making the general argument against profiling. With profiling you are stopping one group over another even though you have no more of a reason to be stopping them as individuals than you do anyone else.
And this is where we disagree.
Who said the hispanics need to be a majority in terms of overall population. The fact that the majority of illegals are hispanic (as you agreed) IS enough to show cause to look closer at hispanic groups when looking for the illegals. In another state where the hispanic population is small (ex. South Dakota - hispanic pop of 2.9%) singling out them out would be construed as racial profiling.
We all have different views and I have to say it's been nice to actually have a discussion with someone who's opinion differs as opposed to the usual around here. I walked away from the forum 3 years ago because of it.
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.
Maybe you should attempt to understand the words used. Injunctive relief isn't a conviction of anything. All the judge is saying is that the policies that MCSO has, need to be changed.
