Fox & Friends agree: Racial profiling not possible in AZ law because "everybody...here looks Hispanic"
July 23, 2010 6:42 am ET
From the July 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
~
Beetledoocy
Beetledoocy
BTW, is this girl coked up...?
Contrary to appearances on Fox, we are not all idiots. Honest.
Cugagcumu, AMEN!
#2 - Even if everyone there did all look alike, that would not mean there could be no profiling... it would mean EVERYONE could be profiled.
This is true. What is also true is that in the making of this argument our Fox and Foolish Friends have offered support to something we've been saying all alone--that this is a law specifically targeted at Hispanics. That skin color alone will be a cause for suspicion. That the Arizona legislators have passed a law that calls for racial profiling.
And now there's proof that it's so obvious even a Fox & Friends host can see that.
Ahhh, the continued mis-information and un-informed of the liberals. The law FORBIDS racial profiling. Try reading the law before commenting on it. Or, continue doing what all other liberals do ... believe only what you are told to believe and say only what you are told to say. You're a good sheeple.
mid-- that this is a law specifically targeted at Hispanics.
What a coincidence that you would believe that. The law is being enacted because of the dangers posed by illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants (in Arizona) are approximately 95% hispanic (probably higher). And you come to the conclusion that the law was enacted to provide whitey another avenue to harass people of color?
BTW; The law is being enacted because the feds refuse to enforce the exact same law. It is exactly the same as CURRENT Federal law. Why aren't you out there whining about the Federal law? I'll tell you why; because you're a hypocrite! Typical liberal
Reasonable suspicion means that the officer has reason to believe, based upon general evidence, that the person HAS committed a crime [at the scene of a crime] or is contemplating committing a crime [outside the back door of a business which is closed at 2 a.m. in the morning]. Please tell me what kind of general evidence that a police officer may rely upon which would show that a person has committed the crime of entering the country illegally or is contemplating committing that crime? There is none other than the general profile of the targeted group. Hispanic appearing folks who speak Spanish. As a blue-eyed, fair skinned blonde, in all probability, I will never be asked to show my "papers" in Arizona. My dark-skinned, dark-eyed Hispanic appearing first cousin [no Hispanic blood at all] would. Both of us have the same heritage . . . our fathers' forefathers fought for our independence from England. The Arizona law, based upon the way it is written, creates extra requirements for Hispanic appearing AMERICAN CITIZENS. That's not constitutional.
Try a little critical, independent thought.
Well said, as a Grandson of a Mexican I look dark, Can I prove on demand besides my Driver License that I was Born here? Is that enough anymore... Not the License but being BORN here.
I will not be going to AZ ever again, Sad. I grew up in the early 80's climbing the rocks in Sedona. Zion And Brice were favorite vacation spots.. EVERY year, They will no longer get my Money.
Yes you would. You should not lie like that. If you get pulled over (as in the exact scenario that you gave), you WILL be asked for your drivers license AND insurance AND registration. If you're a passenger in that car, you WILL be asked for ID. Blue-eyed, blondies are criminals too. They won't stop looking for white crooks just because the liberal hysteria wishes them to.
bintx-- The Arizona law, based upon the way it is written, creates extra requirements for Hispanic appearing AMERICAN CITIZENS.
And what is that? You have to show your DL when pulled over or questioned at the scene of a crime, they do too. How is that an extra requirement? Does this law say hispanic/Americans must carry MORE ID than everyone else? You claim that to be true, but I have not seen that written in the law. Please provide the quote from that part of the law that YOU claim to be fact.
I understand you won't be able to produce that quote or prove that claim, so your liberal hysteria is based on a lie.
That is a lie. Simply more fear-mongering from the liberals. Arizona requires: birth certificate or military ID or passport to get a license if you've moved from another state AND have a valid license from that state. Arizona requires a VALID driver license from the country you're from ... if you're from another country, but require you to get an Arizona license if you become a resident of Arizona. Are illegals considered residents?
So your lie is that no one will be required to carry "extra" ID and a valid American driver license IS enough evidence for American citizenship. Since each state requires some form of federal ID to get a driver license.
Stop lying to make your liberally tainted point about a legal law. If you can make a viable argument against the Arizona law WITHOUT lying, I would be very interested in hearing it. But, since liberals only use fear-mongering and miss-information I don't think you'll be able to come up with a viable argument against the law.
Here is what FactCheck says...
One day, friedbergboy, you may be able to carry an intelligent conversation on this subject. Obviously, today isn't that day.
And mind you, my previous post merely pointed out the obvious contradictions that were within the points being offered by the Fox & Friends hosts. I leveled no charge of hypocrisy against them. Only stupidity.
Still, I'm glad you mentioned the Federal laws, because, as it has been pointed out many, many times, immigration issues are the jurisdiction of Federal authorities. It's my belief that when push comes to shove the Arizona law will be struck down because it does, in fact, overstep the authority their state has.
But, I understand; these are issues and you really hate discussing actual issues. You'd rather insert skewed emotional heat into any and all discussion on this issue (such as your "This law is being enacted because of the dangers posed by illegal immigrants," line. Ooo. Be afraid).
All of that notwithstanding, may I encourage you to purchase a dictionary and keep it by your computer when you feel the urge to post. If you're going to use certain words it would help your arguments a good deal if you understood those words.
That is from lines 32-36 of page 1 of the text of the law. Does it say the police may NOT use race or nation of origin as an implementing requirement of enforcing the law? So, while you have a sudden fear of the words "reasonable suspicion", can you find comfort in the FACT that racial profiling is strictly illegal within the wording of the law? Your fears that rampant illegal activities will occur as soon as the law against those activities takes effect are simply liberal fear-mongering and miss-information given to you by those who have no intelligence.
If you wish to be a good sheeple, then you can continue as you have been doing.
No, you're creating your own argument and ignoring what I wrote (su-prize, su-prize, su-prize!). Normally, terms used in legislation such as 'reasonable suspicion' are defined.. some bills are very heavy on definitions, and light on actual wording, especially when they're revising previous law (e.g. c. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 8, to read:)
Does it hurt to pull all that out of your arse? Where do I talk anywhere about 'rampant illegal activities'? I've lived here and watched Joe Arpaio push the boundaries of what he can and can't do.. Except for the frightened white folks retired to Phoenix, everyone in the state thinks he's a nutbag.
Ditto.
What a joke!
Also, by the way, Hispanics make up about 30% of Arizona's population. That's big, but it's still firmly in the place of "minority." Outside of the big cities, I think a lot of people are going to be harassed just for being Hispanic.
Raygun started this BS when he pulled the INS from the cities and put them on the boarder and once the people got past them on the boarder they were home free because even if arrested for being here illegal they were released because INS didnt have the time or men to come get them and take them back to mexico. so for the last 25 or so years it has gotten out of control.
Of course when Rep. Joe Wilson yelled "You lie." in response to Pres. Obama's assertion "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." Well, Floyd was all for that - even though the proposed legislation had language that specifically excluded persons here illegally.
The same double-standard exists for so many of the myths the right-wing tries to use to discredit legislation offered by the Dems. In Rep. Wilson's case, his stated concern was that the legislation had no 'teeth' - no prescribed way of determining who was or was not here illegally. That may be a reasonable concern, but a very deceptive way of framing discussion of the matter.
I won't call Floyd a fool, and this post is not an attack against Floyd, but rather a call for all our acquaintances here to post - not bumper-sticker slogans or over-broad generalizations - but reasoned arguments that are internally consistent and free of logical fallacies.
Then answer the same question using Arizona law and racial profiling as the key elements: Is the wording in the Arizona law precise enough to exclude racial profiling? Why/why not?
Both laws have wording that forbids the element of the law that left/right wing-nuts are whining about. If you believe one is sufficient and the other is not, then you are hypocritical in your belief that laws will be followed. If you think the right's fears that federal money will be used for elective abortions is unfounded and un-reasonable, then the fears of the liberal are just as unfounded and un-reasonable concerning racial profiling.
My answer to your first question is yes, the language of Public Law No. 111-148 does not change the language of the Hyde amendment, ie; use of federal funding is prohibited for all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the pregnant woman is in danger.
Similarly, the AZ law has language that prohibits racial profiling. I'm sure that this will be demonstrated when the police have lawful contact with anyone they will try to verify that persons citizenship status. Anyone. If not then they (LEO's) have used some critia to determine who does or does not have their citizenship status verified. That critia could be benign, ie; "This guy is OK, we checked him out last week." or not so benign, ie; the officer has been influenced to 'look the other way.' Another example, more to the point, of one of those 'not so benign' critia would be, to put it bluntly; "That gal looks like a Mexican, let's check her out."
I'm sure you are aware, but for the sake of completeness: Lawful contact includes arrest, detention (without arrest,) traffic stops, investigation of nuisance complaints etc. It also includes 'paperwork' - taking witness or complaint(victim) statements and 'courtesy' contact, eg; "I haven't heard from grandma in a few weeks, could you check on her?" or checking on the welfare of the occupant of that stalled car.
My concerns for both (actually all) laws are: are they just (as in justice), are they prudent and serve the common good without unfairly burdening the public at large. All laws (or their enforcement) are inherently flawed, consequently defense attorneys use loopholes and procedural errors to get cases overturned.
My specific concerns for the AZ law are not hypocritical, but are:
It's gonna cost AZ a LOT of money. The state and local governments will not only have to defend themselves not only from harassment and wrongful arrest lawsuits, but will also have to pay for additional enforcement activites - a system to do the checks, paperwork, warehousing of undocumented aliens, etc. To be honest, I don't care if AZ spends itself into a big hole because I know that they won't get federal dollars to do so, however, I really don't think the taxpayers in AZ want to be subjected to this burden.
It's a jurisdiction thing. Just as local or state law enforcement doesn't prosecute counterfeiting (although they might arrest you for passing bad bills,) it is the federal governments responsibility. (Secret Service, actually.) Why couldn't Gov. Bobby Jindal enter a treaty with the Dutch to build berms? Why can't Gov. Jan Brewer enter a treaty with Mexico to stem the tide of it's citizens crossing illegally? (What this is all about in all honesty.)
Because the federal government reserves some rights to itself, as ratifed and adopted by most of the states. The last big dust-up over who was entitled to do what was the Civil War.
I hope that we're not headed in that direction, and, thanks to reasonable discussions like you and I are having, I think maybe we're not headed that way as a nation. I still have concerns when I perceive that Limbaugh, Beck, et al, are framing any argument as 'us vs them' - I feel that is totally un-Americian; in a 'United' States, I feel it should be more 'us with them.'
Thanks again for your response, and your forebearance in ploughing through my lengthy post. I'm looking forward to your reply.
Well, if the lawyers from the left give the law a chance and not immediately bombard the court system the day it becomes law, we may be able to reduce some of that cost. However, since lawyers from the left are already lining up down the street, it isn't likely there'll be any cost saving in that department.
okl-- Because the federal government reserves some rights to itself, as ratifed and adopted by most of the states.
Yes, but does that give the federal government the right to ignore the requests from the state to get help. Or, if it does, then the state should reserve the right to enforce a national law on it's own. Especially if they can show a safety concern, to the legal citizens of Arizona, hangs in the balance of that enforcement.
Yeah, I appreciate a decent conversation too. Thanks.
On the same note - Glenn Beck is worried about communism/socialism. Glenn Beck believes those philosophies are un-American and are terrible. Glenn Beck then goes to claim there is a huge Hispanic communist movement. Sounds a lot like Mr. Beck is claiming that Hispanics are terrible for the nation. Racist schmuck.
I take it you support the Arizona law? Because if you don't because of the speculation that racial profiling will occur, then you may be talking about yourself and those who think like you. Welcome to the liberal circus.