60% think AZ law "ok"... or not strong enough

[SMR 368]

Common sense? Wrapping prejudice up as common sense is not new, nor is it acceptable. It is not acceptable to target people because they look as though they belong to an ethnic or demographic group just because there is X% of undocumented/unauthorized migrants from that ethnic or demographic group. Being aware of the numbers is one thing, but using the numbers to promote prejudicial behaviour is quite another.

Let's try an example that has no racial context to try to break though.

In this hypothetical example, a traffic cop notices that out of 100 arrests he has made for driving under the influence, more than 75 drivers were driving a white car. He also notices that approximately 1/4 of the cars on the road are white. Using that information he decides to target drivers of white cars in order to make best use of his time, from now on he will only ever stop white cars. Is this applying the law in a fair and rational way? Can it be justified if it saves the department money?

You missed the point. The question asked in the poll was not, "Do you think this law will cause police to be more likely to stop Mexicans?" The question was, "Do you think that most people that will be affected by this law are of a certain ethnicity (the implication of course being Mexican)?"

To compare this to your white car example, let's say that most Americans are aware of a trend that a disproportionate number of white cars have drunk drivers (in the same way that most Americans know that a disproportionate number of illegals are Mexican). Then you ask, if we make a law to crack down on drunk driving, do you think this will affect a certain color of car more than others. Most people would consider their knowledge that white car drivers are disproportionately drunk and say yes. That doesn't mean they think that cops will be profiling white cars. They just acknowledge that if a disproportionate number of white car drivers are drunk, then a disproportionate number of drunk drivers caught will be driving white cars.

Just like if a disproportionate number of illegals are Mexican (which is the case), then a disproportionate number of illegals caught will also be Mexican. Think about it. If 90% of illegals are Mexican, you would expect 90% of people affected by this law to be Mexican. No profiling is required to arrive at this conclusion.

[sachinky 465]

There are people who accept the erosion of civil liberties as long as it doesn't affect them. Of course once it does affect them, its likely too late to do anything about it.

If these illegal immigrants were PhD holders or software engineers, then I bet you, more people would be outraged. The white, liberal elites are fine with the illegals doing menial jobs like that of a strawberry-picker or a janitor because it's certainly not something they want to do nor does it affect their own employment prospects. Yes, it's true, most people don't care as long as it doesn't affect them.

Is the law that requires you to have your D/L with you while you're driving also an erosion of your civil liberties?

[SMOKE 1,426]

1.Let me get this straight: Because you've read others make lazy cookie cutter arguments, it is your opinion that it is therefore OK to make lazy cookie-cutter arguments. What kind of standards are these?

2.At your job do you work just hard enough not to get fired?

3.Not that I really care, but I do wonder why you want me to be aware that you don't have time to respond to my "verbal diarrhea"; but can still find time to type out a multiple paragraph post.

4.If you think my taking a "swipe" at Christians (if that's what you believe it to be) is "classy", then why would you do the same thing to "the left". Isn't that a contradiction?

Again, what kind of standards are you trying to promote here?

5.Sure, why not.

1. again w/ the double standards...or do you just object when you identify w/ those targeted?

2. says the guy w/ big & little hearts across the screen. i work enough to live comfortably & keep the boss happy w/ my performance. you?

3. please link to 1 of those posts please.

4. i was being sarcastic & 'god-given territory' was a swipe at christians.

5. wow thats huge coming from a guy that spends 20 minute in the bathroom every morning deciding whether to stand or squat.

[Dan J 277]

If these illegal immigrants were PhD holders or software engineers, then I bet you, more people would be outraged. The white, liberal elites are fine with the illegals doing menial jobs like that of a strawberry-picker or a janitor because it's certainly not something they want to do nor does it affect their own employment prospects. Yes, it's true, most people don't care as long as it doesn't affect them.

Is the law that requires you to have your D/L with you while you're driving also an erosion of your civil liberties?

Driving is a privilege. Having your licence on you while driving is a requirement of that privilege. You can drive without a licence on private property, but that's not going to do you much good.

[sachinky 465]

I've also repeatedly been told that immigration too is a privilege, not a right. That I simply couldn't land up in the U.S. just because I married my USC husband.

[Peikko 1,575]

If these illegal immigrants were PhD holders or software engineers, then I bet you, more people would be outraged. The white, liberal elites are fine with the illegals doing menial jobs like that of a strawberry-picker or a janitor because it's certainly not something they want to do nor does it affect their own employment prospects. Yes, it's true, most people don't care as long as it doesn't affect them.

Is the law that requires you to have your D/L with you while you're driving also an erosion of your civil liberties?

Yes.

[Danno 1,228]

<<<

Is the law that requires you to have your D/L with you while you're driving also an erosion of your civil liberties?>>>

Yes.

Howz about the law which requires -conceal carry- persons to have their license on them?

[sachinky 465]

Yeah? So why aren't people getting their knickers in a twist protesting that law?

[Peikko 1,575]

<<<

Is the law that requires you to have your D/L with you while you're driving also an erosion of your civil liberties?>>>

Howz about the law which requires -conceal carry- persons to have their license on them?

That would be too. I am not saying that having to have a license for certain activities is wrong, I am saying that any requirement to have it on one at all times is wrong. There should be a window of opportunity to produce the necessary documentation and present this to the police if they require it. No one should have to produce evidence of identity at all times and in all places and be detained or otherwise fined for not carrying it around.

[Brad and Vika 129]

They should have only polled: Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, California, and Florida.

States that this is a big issue in....

If you live in the northwest or northeast, you hardly deal with the issues that is dealt with down here.

But there is the nagging fear that any day, hordes of Canadians will sneak over the border to avail themselves of all the expensive drugs and healthcare we have... no wait

[Danno 1,228]

That would be too. I am not saying that having to have a license for certain activities is wrong, I am saying that any requirement to have it on one at all times is wrong. There should be a window of opportunity to produce the necessary documentation and present this to the police if they require it. No one should have to produce evidence of identity at all times and in all places and be detained or otherwise fined for not carrying it around.

No I agree, I am not keen on the idea of requiring people at large to have I.D. but in this case there are circumstances which give cause that the person may be illegal, not just people at random.

Not only that but the Police will be required to explain what it was that gave them cause to believe the person might be illegal.

Nothing new here.

If the police believe I might be involved in a crime .... such as they find me behind wal-mart with an extension ladder at 2 am, they will not just let me waltz off without proving my identity.... though no crime has been committed.

Again, nothing new here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

1. again w/ the double standards...or do you just object when you identify w/ those targeted?

What double standards are you referring to - you're the one who seems to be saying that you set your standards by the lowest common denominator. I don't know why you'd want to do that, but it's your right to do it.

2. says the guy w/ big & little hearts across the screen. i work enough to live comfortably & keep the boss happy w/ my performance. you?

You felt it necessary to point out how you were so busy with work that you couldn't respond to my verbal "diarrhea", yet you seem to have no problem responding to everything I write, point by point. If you choose to share personal information, it's your business.

3. please link to 1 of those posts please.

You mean your preceding post? I know memories can be short, but wow

4. i was being sarcastic & 'god-given territory' was a swipe at christians.

How so?

5. wow thats huge coming from a guy that spends 20 minute in the bathroom every morning deciding whether to stand or squat.

You see, this is how disingenuous you are. Even when you get the answers you're looking for - it's never enough.

[The_Dude 1,142]

No I agree, I am not keen on the idea of requiring people at large to have I.D. but in this case there are circumstances which give cause that the person may be illegal, not just people at random.

Not only that but the Police will be required to explain what it was that gave them cause to believe the person might be illegal.

Nothing new here.

If the police believe I might be involved in a crime .... such as they find me behind wal-mart with an extension ladder at 2 am, they will not just let me waltz off without proving my identity.... though no crime has been committed.

Again, nothing new here.

It really is too easy for a police officer to come up with a reason to stop someone. Here's a scenario, there was a reported robbery by a male hispanic, wearing jeans and a t-shirt between the ages of 18-30. Now, officers can stop anyone who fits that profile and at least have an opening to ask them.

[Peikko 1,575]

It really is too easy for a police officer to come up with a reason to stop someone. Here's a scenario, there was a reported robbery by a male hispanic, wearing jeans and a t-shirt between the ages of 18-30. Now, officers can stop anyone who fits that profile and at least have an opening to ask them.

Bingo. It's not that I expect the police to be prejudiced, it's that they should not be put into a position where they are more or less required to employ prejudicial profiling as part and parcel of their day to day work. There is a reason why we have a different set of law enforcement officials for immigration issues and that reason hasn't suddenly and magically disappeared.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[SMOKE 1,426]

What double standards are you referring to - you're the one who seems to be saying that you set your standards by the lowest common denominator. I don't know why you'd want to do that, but it's your right to do it.

You felt it necessary to point out how you were so busy with work that you couldn't respond to my verbal "diarrhea", yet you seem to have no problem responding to everything I write, point by point. If you choose to share personal information, it's your business.

You mean your preceding post? I know memories can be short, but wow

How so?

You see, this is how disingenuous you are. Even when you get the answers you're looking for - it's never enough.

you getting pissy about things that are common place around here when 1 person does it, its fine. when someone else does it its not.- double standard

you said 'i thought you'd made progress..blah blah' i just told i've been to busy to get in the sandbox w/ you.

where are the 'paragraphs'? i numbered them you'd be clear which tangent i was answering.

my original post in this thread was not directed towards you, it was directed towards the left wing nutters (politics) that scream 'racism' at the drop of the hat. i was making fun of them for their catch all losing its effectiveness. if 'god-given territory'(religion) wasn't a swipe at christians, what was it?

i wasn't being disingenuous. i was making fun of you for taking 2+ years to answer a question.