Ingraham advances myth that under AZ immigration law, "as amended, you cannot use race as a factor at all"
July 27, 2010 9:06 pm ET
From the July 27 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
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.
Now, rather than trusting the once adored first responders, leftys figure that cops will turn into what they thought deep down, all along....that the police will profile and hassle the downtrodden. Their job is to prevent crime, when things look out of place, they prevent illegal activity and in AZ, that includes doing the job the obama administration won't do, stopping ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS from doing ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, like being in this country ILLEGALLY!!!!
You make the point about the inability to use 'racial' profiling as a standard for 'reasonable suspicision'. In the SW, people of color are more the standard than anglos in the population, so race can't be used. Anglos stand out by race more than any other.
So the standard becomes what the AZ law intended, that suspicious activity is what is considered, not racial profiling. What are they doing? What is the time of the day? Where is the activity occurring? All questions that any police officer in any city would use to prevent crime. The law also allows the officer to ask for proper documentation following a criminal act or when confronting suspicious activities. Again, just like any other city with any other cop.
If we close the borders, provide illegals here already an opportunity to get work permits if they are desirable candidates, make certain to get working papers for those who just want to work and not necessarily gain immediate citizenship, then we have done real reform. Until then, AZ has recognized how illegal immigration is detrimental to the society and economy of the state, by enforcing what the obama administration hasn't done, make our borders safe.
That's still pretty disingenuous, since undocumented immigrants are more likely to be working or looking for same than committing any specific crimes.
The biggest change will be those that hang outside the Home Depot looking for day will have to be more careful. They usually run now if a police car drives nearby anyway.
Those that just want to work, shouldn't be given a quicker path to citizenship or preference for permanent residency. Reform should be about closing the border, identifying those here illegally, and providing opportunity to remain here with some type of work permit if they are desirables. If they want citizenship, make the process more accessible in their home countries.
I've never seen that happen in LA. Are undocumented workers in Arizona so much more obvious?
These guys are not generally criminals but they are here illegally. Why not find a way by making them accountable, prove that they are desirable for the country, let them work here without necessarily being made citizens? The keyword is 'legal' and from the getgo.
Anyway, I'd rather our overextended police concentrated on actual crimes than hassling poor schmucks looking for work.
Be sure to read the underlined part very carefully because you're being lied to about border security.
WASHINGTON, July 19, 2010 (Reuters) — U.S. National Guard troops will begin arriving along the border with Mexico on August 1 to bolster security as the Obama administration tries to stem the flow of illegal immigrants, weapons and narcotics, officials said on Monday.
About 300 Customs and Border Protection agents and officers also will be sent to the border region, along with additional helicopters and other surveillance equipment, they said.
"The border is more resourced and more secure than it's ever been but the work continues and the challenge remains," said Alan Bersin, commissioner of the Customs and Border Protection agency.
The Obama administration has pledged to send up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the area for a year and to seek $600 million for, among other things, 1,000 new border patrol agents and unmanned aerial detection systems.
Once again, your complete lack of information and understanding of anything at all except parroting the faux conservative talking points of your favorite, overpaid, dishonest, faux conservative entertainers is showing.
BTW, Are you aware that the police officers in Arizona, except for the glory seeking sheriff who is currently Fox's darling and Arpaio, whose county is the ONLY major county in Arizona with a increase in crime, are completely and totally against this law? In fact, the first lawsuit filed was filed by a police officer. This law will make their jobs more difficult.
Oh, and I posted an article here a few days ago which showed that there have been more deportations and more crackdowns on illegal employers under the Obama administration than under Bush. Our local authorities . . . I live in West Texas, remember? . . . have seen no increase at all in the number of illegal immigrants in this area. You're repeating false faux conservative talking points again.
You're not a conservative, phony boy. You're a follower.
oh yea. are you referring to that whole deal where W & CO. sort of forgot the armor on the vehicles? and cats were dumpster diving for steel plate? that kind of turn? or do you mean the kind when W showed up to dinner wtih that rubber turkey? or was it that whole...'you can actually stay longer than your contract says you will" thing?
As far as the 'lefty schtick' act, what would you call yourself...you know what I am proud of! Usually lefties hate to be called out accurately, socialist/progressives/liberals consider those terms to be epithets, especially when it's applied to their ideological beliefs!
I'm not helping you feel inferior, that's your work. But, I find here a number of folks, leftys, that never respond with honesty about what they believe or what the obama administration believes, again a socialistic/progressive ideology. So don't feel bad, stand up for yourself and your beliefs!
What if a policeman spots someone running down the street, say trying to catch a bus? Is that "suspicious activity"? Is it equally suspicious if the runner is an Asian? An African-American? An Anglo?
My take is that "suspicious activity" is a mighty vague term. I also feel that what may be considered "suspicious activity" for one group of folks, may not be considered "suspicious activity" for another group of folks. How do you define "suspicious activity"? Do you really feel it will be applied equally to all "colors of the rainbow" so to speak?
"But, I find here a number of folks, leftys, that never respond with honesty about what they believe or what the obama administration believes, again a socialistic/progressive ideology."
How is it possible to say one doesn't know what someone else believes and then label it at the same time?
No wonder you have an azzz-backwards understanding of all things.
You're 100% nutz. Seek help and do it quickly.
Phony boy isn't a conservative, he's an uninformed groupie.
Um, no, actually. The POLICE don't like this law, phony boy. The first lawsuit filed was by a POLICE officer. This law makes their job more difficult. If you truly supported the police, you would support their opinion that this is a bad law.
You're just repeating the BS you've heard your entertainer heroes spew.
how about, 'straight out and shoot a man in the back'?
that's a boy who's never been to the flats in oakland...
Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout!
Feelin' lefty luv for the men in blue!!!
The cops are caught in the middle here. Some law enforcement folks in Arizona do look foward to busting some latin chops. A small minority of this population.
Most are seeing demands that this be enforced. They can face some heavy penalties if someone decides that they're not enforcing it. On the other side is the potential of ending up in federal court as a defendent in a civil liberties case.
Rock and a hard place. The majority of them have my sympathy.
I'm up/usped with the cops but it's the 'shooting thang' thats I cants recolized as a conservative. Is daht a libtard thangie?
word
Are you intermittently dyslexic or just stupid and racist?
You don't support the police, the country or its Constitution. If you did, you would be against this law. But, then, you aren't a conservative, either. Just a groupie.
But the Arizona law isn't about that, now is it? And your attempt to inject the already twisted words and position of others on the heated emotional issue of terrorism is rather disingenuous.
That Arizona law is an all to vaguely worded excuse to give a select few the broadly worded authority to act upon suspicions that are aroused by completely subjective points of view. As the debate as continued a key thing has been missing from the arguments we hear from the right--they've haven't been able to offer concrete examples of what actions would or would not be in or out of bounds.
If you can offer reasonable grounds for a police officer to act upon their suspicions, well, wonderful. Thus far the people screaming loudest about the need for this law have not been able to do so.
But, these will prove to be moot points. The State of Arizona cannot grant itself Federal authority. And immigration is a Federal matter.
Oh, and as far as the idea that the Obama administration isn't doing anything on this matter, the hard numbers, namely the 400,000 that will be deported this year, 10% more than Bush did in 2008, 25% more than he did in 2007, say your ridiculously wrong.
The feds will still have their responsibility for incarceration and deportation of illegals that are discovered.
My insights into the respect for first responders is that when convenient, leftys assume that the police will act irresponsibly and with reckless abandon, rather than just doing the difficult job they have. I'm sure that when convenient, those from the left will love the first responders, soldiers once again in the future!
For the record, this particular lefty has a brother and sister-in-law who are local police officers. In the past when I've heard people make similar broad brush accusations against police officers in general, I've unleashed on them.
With that being said my brother, my sister-in-law, and a few other police officers I've known over the years would be the first to tell you that they work with bad cops. Not many, but it would be foolish to assume they aren't out there.
And that's the problem with the Arizona law as it is broadly worded. It's far too vague. It sanctions justification of suspicion without specific details on just what would and would not be going too far. Without those lines being drawn, the handful of police officers who should not be in uniform have the power to use just about anything they wish as "reasonable."
Think of it as being pulled over for speeding on a stretch of road that has no posted speed limit and being told by the officer that's stopped you that he just thought you were going to fast--with the additional threat of having to immediately show your birth certificate or go to jail.
You mean, like the majority of the police officers in Arizona who think that this is a very bad law? Like the police officer who filed the first lawsuit against it? Those "leftys"?
Stupid idea, especially coming from someone on the right where a common theme that is never followed by members of the Republican Party is personal responsibility.
What she really mean to say was,
"you can't use TacoBell as a factor at all"
Gee, one wonders why?
Is there anyone on Fox Propaganda who isn't just dumber than a box of hammers?