« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Putting to bed that whole racial profiling deal

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  April 29th, 2010 at 12:02 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The absolutely worst argument I keep hearing against Arizona’s law banning illegal aliens, is that somehow it was going to be racist in its implementation. A bunch of ignorant folk seem to have this idea about those of us in the southwest who oppose illegal immigration, that we see brown-skinned folk and think illegal!

I’ve been dismissing this idea since I first ran into it, because we out here know specific traits that mark likely illegals from living in the far southwest. I’m a lifelong southern California resident, so while it’s not entirely the same here as it is in Arizona, the problem is pretty close. But it was only tonight as I sipped my Mexican Coke on the way home from picking up at the store some salsa chips and Jarritos fruit punch at the store, it occurred to me exactly what’s going on.

It just doesn’t occur to the Beltway folk just how impractical their vision of the law really is.

Per Wikipedia, take a look at the government-declared “hispanic” portions of the populations in DC, Maryland, and Virginia:

To the people out there, apparently they see these tiny minorities and think of police singling them out as illegal aliens, because in the greater beltway area that group stands out as a foreign element. Not so here in California and Arizona:

You really think that police would or could see a full quarter-to-third of the population and honestly think that just looking like them would cause a reasonable suspicion of illegal immigration status? Do you east coasters think that we, living in states where government-defined “minorities” are the majority (or quickly becoming so) of the population, stare at everyone who looks “hispanic” and suspect something?

That’s just not how life is out here. Those names, those accents, those complexions are all perfectly normal to have out here. People with Mexican and other latin American heritage don’t stand out! So yes, when we say that we have much better and reasonable ways to suspect illegals, we mean it.

Seriously. If the Arizona cops thought they had to stop one out of four people, the law would stop being enforced in a week. Just think, people, before you accuse.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • georgeinla

    It’s really just a projection of liberal racism, that when we say we’re going to get rid of illegal immigration, they think that means we want to target all brown people. There are far more legal resident and citizen brown people than there are illegal ones. It makes no sense.

  • fotophun

    Gee I am for immigration when it is legal
    this is how my grandparents came here from Mexico in the early 1900′s.
    they were hard working people, adding to this country and not taking.

    All come here wanting the better life for themselves and their children, my grandparents did not expect to have everything handed to them. They worked hard for what they had and assimilated not expecting everyone to bend to THEIR ways.

    My question is those living in San Fransisco or anywhere else in this country shaming Arizona..if you had people breaking into your homes day and night, drug lords running your towns, killing law abiding citizens WOULD YOU PUT UP WITH THIS????

    I heard one guy speak of this on a radio show and he lives 60 miles from the border!
    All I can say is do not point the finger until you have lived in another;s shoes

  • aesthete

    This bill is in no way racially motivated, nor does is it an attempt on the part of racists to foist on the general public a scheme to further their goals: a naturalized El Salvadorean immigrant helped craft the law, for crying out loud!

    I have my disagreements with SB 1070, but racism isn’t close to being a concern.

  • joayn

    I read today that 6% of the Hispanic population are illegals. So 6% will demand that the 94% of US citizens kiss their patooties. Yeah, makes sense to me! Will do asap.

    I just wish someone from our side (everyone from our side, actually) would turn it around and start beating this drum: “So, are you saying that the police officers in Arizona are incompetent and inclined to be racist, basically incapable of understanding the law and following the specific definitions of the law?” Because it all comes down to that really.

    It is the despicable contempt for the law and law enforcement that all of these pandering politicians, activists, etc. – the absolute elitism of every one of the anti-Arizona harpees who do not even realize how absolutely insulting they are being to police officers everywhere.

    This is the message the right should be sending. Turn it around on these skanks. Make them say it out loud. Make them say this law will not work because the police just can’t control themselves and their knuckle-dragging raaaacist tendencies.

  • spinoneone

    Here is a speech by former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm. It lays out clearly and cleanly the entire leftist/progressive/socialist agenda.

    American Suicide……..Very sobering

    Wherever you stand, please take the time to read this; it ought to scare
    the beejeebers out of you!

    We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant.

    Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington , DC , filled to capacity by many of America ‘s finest minds and leaders.

    A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book,
    ‘Mexifornia,’ explaining how immigration – both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California . He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

    Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America .

    The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States . He said, ‘If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America . It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.”

    ‘Here is how they do it,’ Lamm said:

    ‘First, to destroy America , turn America into a bilingual or
    multi-lingual and bicultural country… History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.’ Canada , Belgium , Malaysia , and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans and Muslims.’

    Lamm went on:
    ‘Second, to destroy America , invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

    ‘Third, we could make the United States an ‘Hispanic Quebec ‘ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: ‘The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricy and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.’ Lamm said, ‘I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.’

    ‘Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.’

    ‘My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and businesses to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology…’ I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority group.’

    ‘My sixth plan for America ‘s downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precept. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia , threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. ‘E. Pluribus Unum’ — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the ‘pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we will ‘Balkanize’ America as surely as Kosovo.’
    ‘Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits. Make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culture, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘Victimology.’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America , it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.’

    In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, ‘Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book ‘Mexifornia.’ His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America . If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read that book.’

    There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’ American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America . Take note of California and other states. To date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell’s book ’1984.’ In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: ‘War is peace,’ ‘Freedom is slavery,’ and ‘Ignorance is strength..’
    Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don’t get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

    **********************************************************************

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    I actually wouldn’t mind this being challenged. I know it’s always risky with activist judges on the bench, but if this goes to the SCOTUS and common sense prevails, the White House will have helped the conservative cause.

    Unlike matters dealing with terrorism,, I wonder if Obama is sticking to his meme of the White House and Justice Dept. not necessarily having a joint purpose?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/28/AR2010042805838.html?hpid=topnews

  • Scope

    because we are well on our way to what Gov. Lamm talked about. It is very scary.

  • bk
  • bk
  • Scope

    and one, I am sure, I and many others haven’t thought of.

    For every 5 stops the police make in CA, because of the higher percentage of hispanics, the greater the chance of 2 or 3 stops will be of brown skinned people. In my state of VA, out of 5 police stops the chances of brown skinned people being in the mix decrease tremendously. Because of that phenomenon, when a brown skinned person, or black, is stopped in VA, it immediately becomes cause for calling profiling. And, as you have pointed out Neil, it is the northeastern people, with their majority support of Dems, that use the profiling rant, mostly for political purposes. The minorities are encourage to shout about how they are unfairly being singled out. When I include VA in the northeastern attitude, it is because over the last decade or so, many from the northeast, NY and NJ in particular moved to VA to escape higher taxes, more crime, and a faster pace. They brought their Liberal attitudes and policies with them, along with their kids, grandkids and relatives. It isn’t only in northern VA, it has filtered down through the state. It turned what was once a completely totally reliable red state into a purple state. As far as I know, VA doesn’t have any sanctuary cities, though in Norther VA anything is possible.

    I’d love to see a pie chart of the muslim population in VA. After all, VA is the home of the mosque started by Al Aryan, who has recruited and preached jihad against the infidels. It is alive and well, and fully operational.

  • Scope

    if he were a normal, non-prejudiced, Attorney General. If he tries to overturn the new AZ Immigration law, then he will also have to deal with the Federal Immigration law already on the books, and unchallenged since it’s passage. I understand that the AZ law is very similar. Holder had the Black Panther case dismissed, which he never had to answer for. He, and the O admin. are out of control, and believe they are above the law. They will use the AZ law, as a crisis too good to waste. They will make sure, that just suggesting that it is unconstitutional, will create havoc with the hispanics, and further their desire for a race war.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    It’s all talk. There will be no formal court challenge from the DOJ. There will definitely be many court challenges, but it won’t come from Holder. However, the administration will use this to continue to portray conservatives as racists and rally the leftist base.

    No surprise, but the MSM rarely says a word about the Constitutional questions in ObamaCare.I just wish some reporter would press Holder for a timeline, and ask: “When will you have gathered enough information to decide whether the DOJ will challenge the AZ law?”

  • Achance

    Most of the west is some shade of brown or yellow. First, and unlike the east, there are lots of American Indians and there has been a lot of intermarriage. There are lots of Asians and, likewise, there has been lots of intermarriage with both whites and American Indians/Alaska Natives. And then there are lots of Hispanics even in areas far from the southern border and there has been lots of intermarriage. While there are some largely black enclaves in the bigger cities, there has never been the segregation and ghettoization of Blacks in most of the west that was common in the east. While black-white intermarriage is not as common, it is not uncommon to see black-white couples and their offspring. There is a matinee mythology about the lily-white west but in reality, many of the cowboys of the second half of the 19th Century were black as was much of the US Cavalry during the Indian Wars and many of them stayed in the west. Likewise, there were many blacks on the crews of US trading and whaling vessels and there was considerable interbreeding and some intermarriage between blacks and coastal Indians and Alaska Natives. Race and ethnicity are far from a black and white issue in the west.

    When I visit my wife’s family near Modesto, CA, it is my halibut belly white skin that is conspicuous and I’m the one that might get pulled over for driving while white since I’m so obviously “out of place.”

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

    This guy likes government expansion, Neil — why doesn’t he just hire more police and border patrolmen to enforce federal laws?

    Why is he more concerned with providing rights to people of other nationality, but not protecting the citizens of his own country?

    The police have had to undergo training to avoid racial profiling when they upped watchfulness for terrorists. How should we assume police wouldn’t apply this same standard when it comes to discerning the “suspicious” behavior of illegals?

  • lynnbo

    Arizona had been patient, and no help came. Fellow Americans are suffering with an illegal overload. And our president and the democrates turn their back on them, make them the villians…….what ever happen to standing with a fellow American who needs our help, who is in trouble with intruders, whos life is in danger………….
    I live in a county in GA, Hall County, where latinos are the majority, we have fought gangs, crime, and they treat their women like slaves. Yet, we have given and given to them, helped them in every way possible. And this is how they pay us back by creating a class war ……

  • tankertodd

    When working in Albuquerque I remember one Hispanic co-worker pointing out that his family of Spanish descent had been in America longer than the east coast Northern European settlements. Eye-opening but given the make-up of New Mexico, not surprising as well.

    The Western States are inherently Hispanic in nature. It’s as if they somehow used to be Mexican and Spanish territory…I bet the legal Americans who are of that descent are for the AZ law as much, if not more so than whites. Why wouldn’t they be? Bullets from illegal aliens kill Hispanics the same as whites, and spill the same blood.

    And this all just shows how inherently ignorant the East Coast/Democratic politicos are. Listening to Alec Baldwin on Adam Carolla’s podcast found me in odd agreement with him that Americans are sick of the usual suspects and Ivy Leaguers running our government.

  • Raven

    Up here we don’t know the specific traits.
    And it’s very sad to realize you just looked at your waiter and your first thought wasn’t about the kind of service you were getting but whether he is legal or not. And then you look across the table at your buddy of any colour and realize he was thinking exactly the same thing.
    Makes you feel like slime.
    But that’s what this whole issue has caused.

  • Scope

    yet they called those asking for “repeal” of Obamacare insane. Rush was best on this- Obama talked about those wanting Obamacare repealed, and sarcastically said “Go for it.” Rush said of the Holder statement that he will look at challenging the AZ law- “Go for it.” Touche Rush.

  • archer52

    Stevens is right in that dealing with a dominant minority of Hispanics every day would reduce the urge to single them out for anything. However, here is the argument of the day for me.

    How many European visa violators are driving around Arizona right now? They are “illegal immigrants” too. What are the chances that at morning briefing is the sergeant going to say “Alright, the governor is telling us to thin the herd, so let’s go out and get those dastardly “German, French, Brit, Somali, Canadian, Asian, and Nordic violators!”

    The cops won’t even be looking in that direction, nor should they in reality. Their problem isn’t with “those” violators but with Hispanic, mostly Mexican and Guatemalans, who are running the border.

    But the law is a funny thing. I don’t remember any law that was written with racist intent, yet officers are being sued and found guilty for that offense. How does that happen? Because, as I have said many times, the law has nothing to do with fairness, justice or right and wrong.

    On the street the police have been given a power to try and reduce the illegal population. In Arizona, that illegal population is 99% Hispanic. By default the intent of the law is to target Hispanic illegals. Cutely written or not, that is the eight hundred pound gorilla sitting in the room. Worse, the law targets individuals criminally and refuses to target the businesses that HIRE them in the same manner. (Here is my link, there are many other posts explaining the problem with the bill as it applies to the street contact. If Neil wants to take the time to read them, feel free. )

    http://truthandcommonsense.com/2010/04/28/arizona-law-has-no-teeth-for-the-businesses-a-bunch-of-outs-fueled-by-political-connections-it-was-too-good-to-be-true/

    Unless I read this wrong or I’m looking at the wrong statute, it only provides for limited recourse, filtered by a political body, for any violations committed by the business. It does not even target the business owner, only the license of that particular business. How many business owners in Arizona are white? How many county DAs are white? That again, weakens your argument about it being racist neutral.

    Don’t get me wrong. I support Arizona doing something. I just wish they had balanced it out in such a way to make sure the law can stand the court scrutiny it will suffer.

    That said however, I do like one of its side effects. Already, the illegals in the state are planning to move away just to avoid the potential hassle. This is a perfect outcome. The illegals thin out, guaranteed a whole lot quicker than “one traffic stop at a time” method, and there is no direct civil rights violation because the law isn’t in effect yet.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Rarely do people come here so openly and express this kind of unabashed ‘race’ prejudice as you do, coming here and talking about how “white” people are going to enforce the laws unfairly just because they are “white.”

    You owe those people an apology for your baseless, bigoted claims.

  • Locked and Loaded

    It applies here. If all arms of the government had been serving American citizen taxpayers, this problem would not exist. Illegal aliens would not be enrolled in American public schools, employers would not be paying wages illegally, illegal aliens would not be receiving American entitlements… The list goes on and on.

    It is stll righteous to cut off all of these services to which illegal aliens are not entitled, and the return to sanity will begin. Americans will not lose their compassionate nature as they help the illegal aliens become repatriated to their home country, and I mean this with absolutely no sarcasm or indignation whatsoever.

    America should not be dragged down low before foreigners collectively aspire to create greatness in their own country.

  • Jonas Parker

    Valid observations, Neil. As an Arizona native and life-long resident they ring true to me. I have close family members/in-laws of Hispanic descent, and most of the folks I know here who are of Mexican/Spanish descent are in favor of this bill, because they understand both the problems caused by out-of-control illegal immigration, and also the points you make about perceptions in the southwest. Also of course because many police are Hispanic and won’t put up with racial shennanigans. So those of you not in the southwest should not think that the radicals down at our statehouse speak for the Hispanic community as a whole.

  • Jonas Parker

    (from American Thinker… Peter Wilson):

    The Arizona immigration law prompted Seth Minkoff of Somerville, a professor at UMass Boston, to write a letter to the Boston Globe, titled ?Illegal’ immigrants have moral claim on US citizenship rights:

    …some of us also feel that the fundamental aim of this law – enforcement of federal immigration regulations – is immoral.

    A great many undocumented immigrants come here from countries that the United States has systematically devastated for generations by overthrowing democracy (as in Guatemala), sponsoring dictatorship and state terror (Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Haiti), and invading and annexing territory (Mexico). Actions such as these have helped the United States to control a grossly outsized share of world resources.

    Until the US share of world resources is proportional to its population, so-called illegal immigrants will have a moral claim second to none on the rights of US citizenship. Arizona’s new law, like the federal laws it seeks to enforce, is an assault on people’s basic right to feed and clothe their families – in other words, on their right to access their fair share of the planet’s wealth, the patrimony of humanity.

    I have heard of open borders advocates, but I didn’t realize how radical the concept is. We owe reparations to Central America? How exactly did overthrowing democracy in Guatemala make us rich? Annexing territory? Settlers from England fought with settlers from Spain over territory in the southwest. We won. We even paid for some of it (see Gadsden Purchase).

    The planet’s wealth is the patrimony of humanity? In other words, private property is theft.

    “Until the US share of world resources is proportional to its population”? Does this mean that once we have redistributed American wealth on a global scale, making everyone equally poor, we can then limit immigration? The brilliance of the scheme is that at this point, there’s no reason to immigrate to the United States.

    Minkoff describes immigration laws as an “assault.” His dream of global redistribution is an assault on the generations of Americans whose hard work created our great wealth.

  • Jonas Parker

    (from American Thinker… Peter Wilson):

    The Arizona immigration law prompted Seth Minkoff of Somerville, a professor at UMass Boston, to write a letter to the Boston Globe, titled ?Illegal’ immigrants have moral claim on US citizenship rights:

    …some of us also feel that the fundamental aim of this law – enforcement of federal immigration regulations – is immoral.

    A great many undocumented immigrants come here from countries that the United States has systematically devastated for generations by overthrowing democracy (as in Guatemala), sponsoring dictatorship and state terror (Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Haiti), and invading and annexing territory (Mexico). Actions such as these have helped the United States to control a grossly outsized share of world resources.

    Until the US share of world resources is proportional to its population, so-called illegal immigrants will have a moral claim second to none on the rights of US citizenship. Arizona’s new law, like the federal laws it seeks to enforce, is an assault on people’s basic right to feed and clothe their families – in other words, on their right to access their fair share of the planet’s wealth, the patrimony of humanity.

    I have heard of open borders advocates, but I didn’t realize how radical the concept is. We owe reparations to Central America? How exactly did overthrowing democracy in Guatemala make us rich? Annexing territory? Settlers from England fought with settlers from Spain over territory in the southwest. We won. We even paid for some of it (see Gadsden Purchase).

    The planet’s wealth is the patrimony of humanity? In other words, private property is theft.

    “Until the US share of world resources is proportional to its population”? Does this mean that once we have redistributed American wealth on a global scale, making everyone equally poor, we can then limit immigration? The brilliance of the scheme is that at this point, there’s no reason to immigrate to the United States.

    Minkoff describes immigration laws as an “assault.” His dream of global redistribution is an assault on the generations of Americans whose hard work created our great wealth.

  • janis

    and the driver has a heavy foreign accent from, say, France, or Germany, or Russia, or China, that this person wouldn’t have to present proof of legal residence in America? Or how about someone with a strong Middle Eastern accent?

    You denigrate police officers by painting them all as brown-skin hating thugs. My bet, from knowing a bunch of them over the years, is that they are equal opportunity “haters”, with child-abusers/molesters at the top of the list, and then working their way down through meth users, etc. The ones I have spoken to about the illegal alien situation have a great deal of sympathy for the plight of Hispanics who are trying to live a better life here than in their home country. But they firmly believe that the laws of this country should be upheld. Besides, they are as subject to the problems caused by illegal immigrants staying here as the rest of us are.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    Q. What is the probability that you will be stopped and questioned by your friends from the 5-2 on the way home from the bodega?
    A. The probability is high.

    Q. Why is the probability high?
    A. Because of certain integumentary factors, their necessary first instinct will be to consider me someone from North Jersey who is here to conduct a commercial transaction, upon which both we and they frown, with our neighbors.

    Fresh in my mind because I was frisked just last week on one of my nightly jaunts, and was grateful that my blood sugar wasn’t so low that I couldn’t answer the rapid-fire questions about my intent and abode; after the boys were satisfied that I really had lived here 17 years, they apologized and I thanked them–in truth–for their service.

  • Locked and Loaded

    “How many European visa violators are driving around Arizona right now? They are ‘illegal immigrants’ too. What are the chances that at morning briefing is the sergeant going to say ?Alright, the governor is telling us to thin the herd, so let?s go out and get those dastardly ‘German, French, Brit, Somali, Canadian, Asian, and Nordic violators!’”

    I’m having trouble finding any evidence that illegal immigration throughout the USA is anything other than a problem very nearly exclusive to our southern border. Care to help?

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    I’m unable to listen to his show at work. I’m off today and tomorrow, however, so am looking forward to listening to the show.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    n/t

  • techsan

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp

    Richard D. Lamm was a Democrat who served as governor of Colorado for twelve years from 1975 to 1987. Of the above-quoted third person account regarding his speech on the perils of multiculturalism, he told us in mid-June 2005:

    “Yes, it is a speech I gave a year and a half ago in Washington D.C. It was a 5 minute speech, and I am amazed and gratified it has received so much coverage.”

    He also passed along to us the following “revised version” of his speech

    The text of the speech itself follows.

  • archer52

    A quick note then to Neil’s complaint.

    First, I actually sympathize with most Southern illegals and have said so many times. I am for a very aggressive monitored guest worker program and was a little embarrassed by GWB’s statements about workers here. That said, here are my quick answers to the above responses. 1. About traffic stops and contacts, please visit my site for a lesson on how they are actually done and the problems you can run into with them. And yes, if a driver provides his foreign drivers license (which in my area of the world was mostly Germans and French) we treat them the same way as we would anyone else. However, that is not the issue here. The issue is what the Lock and loaded stated. 2. To L&L you are correct and my point exactly. Remember racism is basically targeting a certain group for special treatment.. You could overtly target them or covertly target them. You could unintentionally target them, for example raising SAT entry score demands by a university disqualifies certain groups. (Have we not seen those lawsuits?)

    Just remember, this is not about right/wrong, justice/injustice, good/bad, this is about the law. And this is the approach I’m taking with it.

    To Neil-

    Neil your arguments work on paper. I don’t disagree. Where you make a mistake, and it is a mistake, is when the theory hits the street. That is where the law will get tripped up and the officers will get jammed up.

    As quick as you have responded, I wonder if you took the time to read many of my posts at my website, unless you have in the past. If you do read them and still disagree with my positions, then we disagree and we’ll see how this breaks out over the next couple of years.

    If you take the time to read them especially this one

    http://truthandcommonsense.com/2010/04/25/telling-the-story-of-blue-haired-club-footed-midgets-and-stopping-a-known-drug-dealers/

    you will find that I’m talking from experience. It isn’t that the police will want to appear or even act racist, they won’t. But their actions will be seen IN COURT as such, even when it wasn’t. I’ve actually been hit sideways by a defense attorney who in open court asked me if I was aware of the defendant being black and if that had something to do with the incident. Of course it didn’t. But it was argued that way. In this hyper-sensitive arena you will see nothing but this argument in upcoming cases.

    Now to your complaint about the “white” DA issue. I’m arguing from the point of the people who are going to attack the law. I don’t care frankly one way or the other. But I’ve seen this before. If the statute is written the way I read the copy I saw, and again I could be off base, then the penalties are lopsided for basically the same type of offense.

    It appears, and I reading it again, that it is a criminal offense to be illegal, transport illegals, pick up illegals for day labor, concealing illegals, etc. If you are a business employing illegals it seems you are subject to a very politically controlled investigation, (note who controls the complaint filing and forwarding and final investigations outlined in section 23-212 and 23-212.01 AND the many opportunities to avoid the charges) which has an potential violation result of a temporary loss of a license.

    Here is a nice link for you to look at. I just found it. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html

    Note the number of businesses, now note the number of minority owned businesses. See anything just a tad hinky from this set of facts? How about you doing a pie chart on the number and percentages of businesses in Arizona owned by “whites” and owned by “minorities”? Then overlay that chart onto the chart you can create based on the number of criminal charges and who might be caught up in them vs. civil complaints and who might be caught up in those? Whether it was the intent of the designers of the law or not, it exists.

    Neil work with me for a second. You and I are ACLU lawyers studying this law. What is the glaring inequity staring us in the face? We want to kick it out on its head, what is going to be the first argument made? Forget racism or profiling, that will come later in the street contacts. (Again, I suggest your read my posts which were vetted by one of my police trainers) But look at the balance. Criminal, criminal, criminal, criminal, criminal, lose your license for thirty days-maybe.

    If it is applied as written on the street it will sound like Mexican goes to jail, Mexican transporting goes to jail, Mexican hiding other Mexicans go to jail, Unknown person picking up Mexican for day labor goes to jail, business owner who employs the same Mexican gets investigated by AG who sends complaint to local DA who then decides if they want to investigate after giving business opportunity to prove they tried to comply with the end result of the business maybe getting a suspended business license, even after repeated offenses. I don’t read where he goes to jail at all. Am I wrong?

    Then ask yourself, even if I’m close to accurate here, why in the world was it designed that way? If all of the first actions are criminal why aren’t the last? Who benefits, who is getting protected and why?

    These will be all the arguments you will see coming up as soon as it hits the books. I really don’t care one way of the other, except for the fact I wish they had balanced it out. Had they made employing illegals, without a serious attempt to verify their status, a crime, even a small misdemeanor, two things would have happened. First the business owners would be vetting their employees immediately. Nobody wants to go do jail or get fined for something like that. Second, the illegals would be forced to relocate or demand some kind of documented guest worker program so they can stay.

    If you add cutting off state programs including such things as public school education, healthcare and other state aid, the illegals would go home. (By the way, does anyone know if Arizona is doing that or has done that?)

    Why walk/drive/hike a thousand miles north to starve? Another side effect would be the vastly reduced supply of “mules” for the drug traffickers to have access to.

    Or, you could suspend the business owner’s license for thirty days…or not.

    Just my opinion gained from a long time dealing with these kinds of issues.

  • blooch

    C’mon, SoFiMil…the only timelines this administraion gives out are troop withdrawal timelines to our enemies in war.

  • Achance

    will argue this and a lot of it is win-win for the left. In the big Blue cities, they can vote the illegals anyway, so they don’t need amnesty and such. They really don’t want it because if they got it, too many Hispanics would go all middle class on them and start voting Republican. They just want to use the issue and the “race” card.

    Even criminal cases will get attacked by saying the officer lacked probable cause because he was motivated by the fact that the alleged perp was Hispanic. Sure, the Wright Line and McDonnell Douglas analysis SHOULD keep bad things from happening but some bad things will happen and some bad guys will go free because a judge or a jury will believe that the only reason the officer stopped the perp was because he was driving while being Brown.

    Likewise, every charge is going to be attacked because the alleged perp is Brown and the DA is white. This goes on in the employment world every day! Practically every employee charged with some sort of misconduct immediately starts screaming discrimination. The employer usually wins, but the charge is on the front page in screaming headlines and the win is two years later on page 86. Politicians really, really don’t like that sort of thing so before long, they stop letting supervisors supervise. Once this starts in law enforcement, or worsens, since some of it is already there, even Republican mayors and governors are going to start telling the cops to back off on enforcing the law against Brown people. Just the way it works.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    He’s not being cynical about lefty judges. He’s saying it’s the truth.

  • JSobieski

    nt

  • JSobieski

    and that defense attorneys raise the issue of race whenever they can use it to their advantage.

    The alternative however is to give up.

    The language of the bill is constitutional on its face. The left will be left with arguing disparate impact, something they argue now in the terms of the criminal activities of blacks.

    I don’t see this bill opening any new legal headaches, just expanding the old headaches.

    The bill does address cutting off state programs as you suggest.

  • Leopard1996

    If it was a blue state that there was no other way to spend anymore money to support an illegal population and that population didn’t do anything to them, I am sure their measures would be raised to the levels of draconian. But since this is Arizona, a “conservative southern state” it must be racism and bigotry that is the prime motivator for the execution of this bill. Actually fighting this battle the liberals feel will give them enough of a base to possibly win over more of those southwestern states.

  • Nick Haynes

    Listen, I sympathize with the broader purpose behind this law. My take has always been to expand legal immigration and crack down hard on illegal immigration.

    But the Arizona statute is a great example of horrible drafting of legislation. It’s far too broadly written. The primary mechanism to cure the problem isn’t going to be rounding up immigrants. All that does is clear the basement of water by the ounce, when it’s pouring in by the gallon. You stop it by turning off the spigot–putting the pressure on businesses not to hire illegal aliens, either through an increased migrant-worker program, through incentives to help business owners who wouldn’t be able to make ends meet but for the illegal immigrant population, or by just a straight-up crackdown on the businesses that hire illegal immigrants. If there are no jobs available for the illegal immigrant population, there will be very little reason to come here illegally in the first place.

    Instead, the Arizona legislature has drafted a bill that is sure to get overturned. Number one, it allows the police not even to momentarily detain, but to arrest anyone they suspect is illegally in the country. I’ve never seen a bill that allows you to arrest someone if you, without provocation, notice, etc., think they have done something else. Number two, it provides the public a way to bring actions against local governments for non-compliance, but indemnifies any officer or agency that arrests a person without reasonable suspicion. I could probably go on, but finals are calling my name.

    But one last thought. Let’s assume that, out of all the police officers in the country, 99.9% of them will never have one thought pass through their head while on duty. Since I can’t find the statistics on the number of police officers employed in Arizona, we’ll take the 795,240 estimated state and local law enforcement officers (Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 883,600 total, with 90% being non-federal), and multiply that by about 2.1%, which is the percentage of U.S. citizens that live in Arizona. That leaves us with about 17,085 law enforcement officers. (Probably plus or minus some, but work with me here) Assuming that only 0.1% of them will ever act in a racially motivated way sans a clearly drafted statute, and assuming this only happens once a month, that still leaves the state of Arizona with 204-216 incidents a year of a person being harassed for no other reason other than ethnicity.

    There are several ways they could’ve drafted this better. But when Tom Tancredo–a man who strikes me as a closet bigot–says that this law is ridiculous and goes too far, that should be cause for concern. I’ve studied enough law to know that statutes far more reasonable and less vague in terms of what constitutes a crime have been struck down. And even if it wasn’t going to be struck down, there is a good chance that this law will be abused, more than once, on an innocent person.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    than New York. And go to Cincinnati and drive a ’92 Corolla and wear a red mullet. And hell, hillbillies are citizens. They don’t ask for papers, just proof of muffler. If you want ethnicism go there.
    Be careful, pal.
    A stop is a stop. Neil is not only correct, he’s 120% correct.

  • aesthete

    This law is a perfect example of government’s propensity to pass laws with one intention, while getting a drastically different result.

    Are you concerned about illegals spending taxpayer money? Say no more: the state of AZ will spend copious amounts of taxpayer funds on defending from lawsuits, administration and counsel to prevent same, and other expenses directly related to this bill.

    Are you worried about the crime that illegals commit? Don’t worry: not only will this law not help with deporting illegals to any large extent, it will alse discourage illegals from reporting crime, create a wall between hispanics and the police, and make it more difficult for the police to do their jobs.

    On top of that, there are Constitutional quandaries that have at least some validity.

  • itrytobenice

    And well illustrated as well.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    If the ID requirement is extended to voting then the Dems will have a slightly harder time with fraud etc…

    Also was thinking it is about defining reality “because” the O said it’s so and the MSM loves him still etc…

    Or is it about destroying the whole concept of law and order so that the leftists can bring “humble the country” later on in a big way?

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    But, but…TOTUS said, “I don’t know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right.”

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/08/obama_i_dont_know_how_passing_health_care_will_play_politically_but_its_the_right_thing_to_do.html

    Go for it, Mr. President.

    Earlier today??The president noted that lawmakers may lack the “appetite” to take on immigration while many of them are up for re-election and while another big legislative issue ? climate change ? is already on their plate. I don’t want us to do something just for the sake of politics that doesn’t solve the problem.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100429/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_immigration_politics

  • usadying

    is because Lindsay Graham hopped off the crap and tax bus. So they will give up one progressive goal in order to get “bipartisan” agreement on the cap and trade debacle. It’s time for Graham to get kicked off the Senate bus.

  • hickorystick

    don’t back up your argument. Blacks in Arizona are 1/3 less prevalent than on average in the US. Black businesses in Arizona are proportional with that. The American Indian businesses are in proportion to their groups size as well, which is larger than US avg.. The stats of 5% of businesses nationwide are black owned, is an average. The proportion of black people in Arizona is below average, as is Asian. Indian pops are above average.
    I would agree that the economic system is skewed to benefit certain people, and am not unsympathetic. The issue at hand isn’t how to make the courts better, or cops less subject to critisism. It’s the drug running, drop houses, kidnapping, and underworld criminality.. The Federal system applies it’s laws at it’s own whim. Raising the legal system to primal importance, is unsympathetic to the people in Arizona who are suffering actual loss.

  • hickorystick

    It is well worth reading, and is overall a good article. But read the comments from the construction worker as well. Archer, as a police officer you are part of a union, a protected class, as it is work gaurenteed by government. You speak of this stuff because you are economically secure, and don’t suffer the downsides of a bad economy. If you go to court, your wages are paid. Your benefits are gaurenteed because we have socialistic people in positions of power.
    Many of your solutions I agree with, but number 9 reveals you come from an elitist position. That carpenter pays your wages. The construction business benefits from reduced costs by using illegal, and dumps the social costs on the government and taxpayer. You, as a Union menber, don’t pay for the healthcare costs of illegals, because of special breaks written in by politicians. The carpenter who goes out and buys insurance from the free-market, has 20% of the payment re-distributed to those who can’t, or won’t pay for insurance themselves. You won’t start paying your full citizens share until about 2019.

  • hickorystick

    AK-47′s into a fully automatic version, for a terrorist training camp down in you neck of the Oregon Territory. He worked alongside a Muslim quite nicely. But that doesn’t fit into the socially acceptable conceptions coming out of eastern Universities or Roll Call rooms. Let the West burn, there is plenty of profit to be made from the stereotyped thinking and social norms from our eastern rulers.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    VB

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    They may not see much of this in Oregon outside Portland, but if they have an accent, the protocol is to ask for status (papers); either a visa or green card. Many (a lot) of the Mexicans coming up are illiterate, so a dead giveaway they’ve been in the country less than a few weeks. The biggest un-searched for illegals in the country are the Irish, but they stay close to Boston and New York. Russians are everywhere now, as the Albanians if there’s a whore house in town.

    What guys like Archer think is profiling is in fact “showcasing” for only the illegal latinos stand at a particular place and wait for a guy to drive up in a pickup and say that he needs 5, 10,20, to pick fruit. Sorry, that’s not profiling.

  • hickorystick

    through the commerce clause, the small clinics and hospitals would be crushed by the burden of illegals coming in for freebies. But Archer probably lives in a big eastern city, and can afford to have high morals. Why not, someone else is paying for it, and he never has to see what’s done.

  • hickorystick

    HS

  • archer52

    http://truthandcommonsense.com/2010/05/01/the-police-finally-have-their-say-in-arizona-just-as-i-figured-rubberroad-blowout/

    In response to your impression and verbalization of my alleged racial biases.

    Hope you find it informative.

  • lineholder

    How much of the racial profiling issue is a “divide and conquer” tactic? If conservatives in this country succeed in joining forces, then there is a lot we can accomplish and achieve. If we are divided, we sell ourselves and our country short. Does this factor into the situation in any way?

  • MF

    When you enter the restaurant (or for that matter, any business you choose), simply ask the manager on duty if all employees are pre-screened using E-Verify. If they answer yes, you can sit down with full confidence that all service members are US citizens, and not even entertain thoughts like above. If they answer no, you simply tell the manager that you do not do business with companies that do not use E-Verify, thank them for their time, turn around and walk away. No further engagement necessary. That action speaks volumes to companies, when they realize their failure to use E-Verify has cost them business.