Right-wing mark debate over AZ immigration law with racially charged rhetoric
Numerous right-wing media figures have rushed to defend Arizona's controversial new immigration law, often by employing racially charged rhetoric, imagery, and stereotypes. Many have also embraced racial profiling while promoting the legislation.
Right-wing media defend AZ law with racially charged rhetoric
The Washington Times dubs immigration protestors "the Tequila Party," filled with "[a]ngry, hateful, violent, extremist liberals." In an April 28 editorial, titled, "Angry, hateful, violent, extremists, liberals," The Washington Times said of those participating in recent protests of Arizona's immigration law: "Imagine a group of angry demonstrators toting swastika-festooned protest signs calling politicians Nazis, shouting obscenities and racial remarks and throwing rocks and bottles at police officers sent to keep order. ...This group of liberal rowdies has been dubbed the Tequila Party."
Drudge highlights Bloomberg article with unrelated image of what appear to be Latino gang members. The Drudge Report linked to a Bloomberg article, which reported that the Mexican government issued a travel warning for its citizens visiting Arizona, and illustrated it with the following image, which does not appear in the article:
Beck uses bag of "pot" and bottle of prescription pills to illustrate the "difference between legal and illegal immigration." On the April 26 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Beck said "let's define the discussion we're about to have" on immigration. Beck pointed out that "there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration" and as visual aides, used a bottle of prescription allergy medicine to represent legal immigration, and a bag of "pot" to represent illegal immigration.
Kilmeade: "Can you blame the people of Arizona for giving the cops this power? ... How many surgeons" do we "find in those tunnels by the border?" During an April 28 "fair and balanced" panel discussion on the law, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade asked leading questions and made many racially-charged remarks, including asking what is "wrong with" "giving police officers in Arizona the ability to go up to an individual -- if they have reasonable cause to think they're here in this country illegally?" He also referenced "the drugs that are coming across the border... the kidnapping that's happening there... the killing that happened to a rancher a month ago," and asked "Can you blame the people of Arizona for giving the cops this power?" After guest Richard Florida made the point that high-skilled immigrants "look at how we handle low-skilled people, they look at how we handle illegals," Kilmeade responded: "You know how many surgeons we find in those tunnels by the border?"
Buchanan: "Arizona acted because" the federal government failed to "protect the states from invasion" of "illegal aliens." In an April 26 WorldNetDaily column, Pat Buchanan wrote that "Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and refuses to enforce America's immigration laws." Buchanan warned that "[i]f Arizona does not get control of the border and stop the invasion, U.S. citizens will stop coming to Arizona and will begin to depart, as they are already fleeing California... What we are talking about here is the balkanization and breakup of a nation into ethnic enclaves."
Many others have embraced racial profiling
CNN's Cafferty dismisses concerns about AZ racial profiling: "Well, so what?" On the April 20 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN contributor Jack Cafferty claimed "virtually nothing has been done to secure this nation's borders, because Democrats want the Mexican vote and Republican donors want the illegal aliens to work for them. President Obama insists that his administration is committed to securing the borders and has taken unprecedented steps over the past 14 months. What a load." Cafferty expressed support for the Arizona law, saying "critics say that will lead to racial profiling. Well so what?" Cafferty's "question of the hour" was "What should be done about border security if almost 20 percent of illegal immigrants entering Arizona from Mexico have criminal records." Despite receiving "several thousand" responses to his question, Cafferty only read emails containing racially charged rhetoric.
Crowder: "You're not looking for a blond-haired, blue-eyed Swede most of the time." During the April 23 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox News contributor Steven Crowder said that there's racial profiling in the law and "I don't think there's really anything wrong as far as racial profiling, stopping people who are coming in illegally. I mean, you're not looking for a blond- haired, blue-eyed Swede most of the time." Crowder claimed "it's a brilliant move for Obama politically because he's promised all these entitlements and he wants to make sure this huge voting block knows that they're going to get some gimmes as well."
Gutfeld: Racial profiling a no-brainer. On the April 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld said of the law: "A lot of the critics are saying this is racial profiling. Duh! They're coming from another country. That's what you do. You have to look at them and see who they are before you know they're legal or illegal. I don't think that's a fair criticism."
Gallagher dismisses racial profiling concerns. On the April 23 edition of his Salem Radio program, radio host and Fox News contributor Mike Gallagher told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, "Sign it, baby, sign it" and that the Arizona legislature is his "new hero." After Wallace noted concerns about civil liberties, Gallagher said that "it's racial profiling, to be sure, cops know if there's a van full of dark-skinned men with lawnmowers packed into the back of a pick-up truck...that's what they're talking about."
Hume defends profiling: "Some people are going to have to endure inconvenience as opposed to everybody." On the April 19 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume appeared to dismiss concerns about racial profiling, stating: "If it's an effective law enforcement technique done in good faith, people may have to endure some inconvenience. What we're saying here is that some people are going to have endure inconvenience, as opposed to everybody having to endure it."
I do hope the spotlight continues to shine on Arizona and we'll see who gets caught up in this web of paranoia and confusion.
It is pretty reasonable. It certainly doesn't give an officer the right to stop Jose on the street because he is brown. Being brown is not reasonable suspicion. (It says exactly that.)
After reading the bill, I certainly don't think it was conceived by a bunch of racists, or a racisit constituency in AZ. I do think it will force the Obama administration, and he will come out as the good guy. Amateur politics by AZ republicans.
Not quite. Here is the applicable text:The way I read it, race cannot be the only factor. The police will have to add in some other bs reason if they want it to stick like "erratic behavior" or some other subjective unquantifiable reason.
We already rely on the police to make judgement calls, to make decisions based on reasonable suspicion. This is no different, this bill does not give cops the right to be racist.
What this bill does say, is that if you are driving a vehicle and you don't have a license, id card, or legal immigration paperwork, then there is reasonable suspicion you may not be legal. If you don't speak english when he asks for your license, registration, and proof insurance and you can't provide any of that, then there is certainly reasonable suspicion. (You shouldn't be driving anyway.)
I still don't agree with how immigration is being handled, but this is far from a racist, attempt to haress brown skinned poeple. Inflamatory remarks from the left have turned this bill into something it isn't.
I'd like to hear how you, and anyone else thinks we should handle immigration. It seems most people think it isn't being handled now, and it needs to be. So lets hear your ideas.
If Obama is serious about uniting this country I think he has a golden opportunity with immigration reform. It may be a heated debate, but I think he is skilled enough, and I think there is a reasonable enough solution out there to bring the right and the left to reconcile differences in a spirit of true American union.
I remember one family whose father was deported after being pulled over. The father, mother, and oldest child were all illegal residents. The two youngest children werer born in the U.S. making them legal residents. It was impossible to deport the whole family. Well, the father was the sole bread winner, his job paid the rent, the car payment, the doctor's bills, car payment, everything. When he was deported the mother didn't have the skills, or the money to provide for the family. They couldn't pay rent, pay for the car, or even food. They ended up using government assistance to get by. In this case deportation exacerbated the financial stress on the government. The father was back 2 months later.
The fact is our current system is broken, it doesn't work, and the federal government has been impotent on the issue. AZ passed this bill, and now the left is in an outrage, for perceived racism, I happen to think the real issue is a serperation of power issue though.
The AP reports.
Language is not a substitute for race. Its reasonable to assume citizens of the United States, and Naturalized citizens speak at least basic english.
If they don't speak at least basic english then you have reasonable suspicion.
It concerns me that people will be harassed by the police, but this bill doesn't give police officers additional lattitude to do so. It authorizes them to determine legal residence on the premise fo reasonable suspicion, something that has long been established. It has been abused in the past, and will be abused in the future, but like I've said before that has been addressed by the Supreme Court already, and I'm sure will be again.
Again though, I don't like this bill. i think it is treating the symptom rather than the disease. It will be overly expensive and extremely difficult to enforce. But racist cops will still be racist cops with or without this bill. You'd be hard pressed to pass legislation to change a person's character.
I hear you. But you say not being able to speak English may be reasonable suspicion, and for the sake of argument I will agree. But there has to be some conversation taking place, how is that initiated? For what reason?
Look, I am not coming at this from a race based angle at all. For me, it's civil rights. As far as I can see, a police officer has no reason to be reasonably suspicious of me based solely on my legal status. There is no legitimate way to determine that, no definable standard. If there is, I would like to hear it. It's way too vague and therefore troublesome for me.
Perhaps a list would be nice. Msybe we could hire an attorney to make one. Or maybe we could trust our law enforcement to act responsibly (as we have been doing for the last 200 years) and deal with the issue on a case by case issue. (as we have been doing for the last 200 years)
The precedent is already in place. It is established. Our current, albeit expensive, legal system is equipped to handle this legislation.
Right On, sorry to say you've been duped by the left. It has mistakenly, and erroneously turned this into a race issue. (Typical but effective tactic) Sorry friend but you have fallen victim to the mighty progressive movement.
But I cannot get past the infringement on basic civil rights to be free of government "harassment" if you will. Unless someone can demonstrate to me how a police officer can be reasonably suspicious of someone who is in this country illegally with some verifiable standard, then I am not convinced.
And what you are doing is what the left does all the time, parse and slice words and their meanings with express vagueness so as not to be pinned down. "Reasonable suspicion". It's time those supporting this law stop dancing around those words and say exactly what they mean.
So far, I haven't heard it.
I'm telling you there is clear procedure for why a police officer can and cannot detain a person. This law does not change that.
MMFA is just vainly offering things like this because the Dems want to profit from illegal activity.
P.S. For just a partial list of those who've lied about the AZ law and with a detailed explanation of what they've lied about, I've got around 20 posts on my Arizona page.
No American citizen should ever feel compelled to have to carry multiple forms of identification with them at all times solely because of their physical appearance. That's what this law will require of them. It's un-American.
Just wish you all would actually read SB 1070 before you rip on it.
Did you know that the 2/3 of Hispanics in AZ are actually FOR this bill?
When it happens to me, I do what I'm asked to do, and SHOW MY IDENTIFICATION. I show my ID for a LOT of things.
You are all being lied to by the media.
Look, I am not even coming at this from a racial standpoint at all. I am coming at it from a civil rights stance. Unless there is some definable standard for "reasonable suspicion", I cannot support it. And I cannot see one for just determining the legal status of one individual.
There are three ways you can come into contact with police. Conversational, Detention (under reasonable suspicion) and Arrest (requires probable cause). If the police engage you conversationally and you exibhit suspicious behavior - (or any other numerous bs reasons) however that law enforcement officer determines that to be - they can then argue reasonable suspicion that you are here illegally and ask you for ID according to the statute. The courts have ruled you only legally need to provide authorities your name verbally (without written documentation) if you are not operating a vehicle or some other licensed privilege or applying for state aide, etc.
"The heart of the Fourth Amendment,... is a severe requirement of specific justification for any intrusion upon protected personal security, coupled with a highly developed system of judicial controls to enforce upon agents of the State the commands of the Constitution."
He goes on to explain in more detail how the courts should handle future cases, and how "agents of the State" should be constrained. Terry vs. Ohio demostrates the responsibility policemen have to act in good faith and the Judicial checks in place to deal with what is and isn't 'reasonable suspicion.'
"specific justification for any(Emphasis Added) intrusion upon protected personal security, coupled with a highly developed system of judicial controls"
You are correct he later spoke specifically about this case and perceived danger. But he made it cleaer that strict judicial controls are the ONLY way to control reasonable suspicion.
Police officers are able to pat down people who they are questioning based on "reasonable suspicion", as a matter of safety and security to the LEO. It is not a strictly analogous situation to determining
whether someone is lawfully present - which presumably does not under normal circumstances pose a potential or direct threat to the LEO using any reasonable explanation.
You have confused this statement with his later diction of pat down and arrest procedure based on potential violence against the police officer. I'm not claiming that the specific situtation was analogous, I'm using the case to address the broader picture, and restate Justice Warrens explanation that jurisprudence, judicial contraints are the only way to effectively determine reasonable cause.
When I was a teenager, I was either a passenger or driver in several stops for different reasons ranging from rolling stops, speeding and headlight being out. Despite not ever smoking marijuana in my life (along with my friends at the time who were athletes and never smoked it), on all three occasions, the officer claimed he smelled something "funny" in the car and gave me a weird look. I asked him what he was talking about and he claimed he smelled marijuana. It was complete bs. He asked me (and on some occasions my friends) if he could search the cars. I did not know much about the law back then, so I just consented. The LEO's never found anything after detaining us for up to an hour on one occasion, but I figure they were just fishing - likely profiling teenagers for drug use based merely on a routine traffic stop and some phantom unquantifiable "smell". I am convinced had I refused - which was my right, it would have been much worse for all of us. When people show so much trust towards the government, I am reminded of this experience. Not me.
He explains the litmus test to be used.
I'll post some other examples in a minute.
(I'm not a lawyer, so cases aren't always at the front of my memory.)
1070 doesn't change that.
"Where history provides no conclusive answer, this Court has analyzed a search or seizure in light of traditional reasonableness standards “by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes
upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.”
1070 is subject to the constitution by its own reasoning, therefore it is subject to this ruling. This ruling gives a specific legal itmus test as to the reasonableness of search and seizure practices. Being brown does not qualify, nor does 1070 say being brown is reasonable.
"...TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION."
The key term here is "solely". Even in the most blatant examples of racial profiling, race operates in conjunction with other attributes, qualities and behavior. (i.e. "What is someone of race X doing in that neighborhood, driving that car, wearing those clothes, behaving that way, speaking about that subject? How suspicious.")
This bill in no way makes racial profiling illegal, as you claim. On the contrary, the bill invites it.
The real key to the legislation is that the officer may demand identification based on ANY sort of contact, even the most casual. It's already been shown that a driver's license won't have to be accepted as proof.
This means that citizens and legal immigrants will all have to carry around multiple forms of ID and will then still have to hope that the officer will accept them at face value. However, in real life, not all citizens will have to do so. Common sense tells us that white citizens are highly unlikely to be challenged. We all know what the citizens who will be challenged will look like.
There's even worse stuff in the bill. If residents don't think that the officers are being aggressive enough in enforcing the law, there are provisions that allow them to take action against the officers. They will be under pressure to challenge someone, anyone to prove their status. Again, what do you think the people they're most likely to challenge will look like?
Really? Where has it been shown?
Misinformation at its worst and once again projection on your part.
We saw it just last week. An American born Latino truck driver was challenged at a weigh station. He presented his commercial driver's license and told them his SS#. He was handcuffed and brought to the immigration office. His wife had to leave work, find his SS card and his birth certificate and bring them to him to get him released.
There was a presumption of guilt. Do you honestly believe it would have happened had the driver been white? I don't think you're THAT naive.
The laws that currently exist provide no less protection against unreasonable detention than does the new law. They couldn't prevent this from happening and the new AZ law makes it even more likely to occur.
Some have already been behaving that way and are under Federal investigation for civil rights violations.
There will be training for the officers. Will there be a instance of abuse? I'm sure. Does that mean the should scrap the whole law? No.
You are trying to make it sound (on purpose) that this will turn into a police state mentality. That just isn't based in fact. If you drive around the SWest US as you claim to have done, then you will find immigration checkpoints all over the area. I was never waived through and I'm as fair haired and blue eyed as they come. This is already SOP and has been for over twenty years. All this law is doing is helping ICE do their jobs better. Another spoke in the wheel.
If an officer asks me for my ID I will gladly show him and THANK him for a job well done.
I don't think I've claimed to have driven around the SW US. I lived in Phoenix for three years, but I moved back to Minnesota 20 years ago. Even when I lived there, I can't say I traveled a lot. Still, I don't recall any of the immigration checkpoints to which you refer when I was there. However, I do recognize that my personal experience was limited enough to not mean much.
If I'm asked for my ID, I'll likely provide it, also. However, the fact is that if I'm not under suspicion of some specific violation, I can refuse and there is nothing the police can do about it. Under the new law, that won't be the case. The lower standard will allow the police to detain me under a very generalized suspicion, not suspicion of a specific violation. Still, I am of clear European descent, so I feel confident that I won't be likely to face such a demand. My sister-in-law and my niece, on the other hand, face a much higher probability of facing such a challenge.
US citizens and legal immigrants of latino descent will be the focus of challenges. It's unavoidable.
The law, as written, creates the standards and this law changes them from what they were before. If it didn't, it's supporters wouldn't have any reason to believe it's necessary.
Nobody is saying he was stopped BECAUSE of this new law. We are saying that his case was WRONG, he had ID with him, and was still taken into custody by ICE until his wife could produce his birth certificate showing him to be a natural born US citizen.
This law creates a de facto requirement that people carry that bit of documentation to prevent being detained and I have no doubt it will be overturned with it's first legal challenge.
Wrong the 4th amendment already does that therefore these law does not have to specify that.
They already do this every day its part of there job. Reasonable suspicion is required in every stop they make no matter what it is for.
"Reasonable suspicion" is a lower standard than "probable cause," which has been the standard in the past. Also, in the past, an officer had to have a reason to exercise his "reasonable suspicion," some actions taken by the "suspect." Under the new law, the officer may act on that suspicion even under the most casual sort of contact. In the past it could only be exercised when contact was of a more official nature.
Because of provisions in the law, the police will actually be under pressure to demand ID. Surely you can see that ethnicity will be a primary factor in who they choose to challenge, even if it's not stated. Police have probably already discussed with each other a variety of factors that they believe would qualify as "reasonable suspicion" that could be applied to most instances. That isn't a suggestion of ill motives on the part of police; it's a recognition that they'll be under extra pressure to act on the new law and they're trying to protect themselves. However, they'll want some of their challenges to uncover actual illegal aliens, so ethnicity WILL be a primary factor even if it's not stated.
Therefore, citizens and legal immigrants WILL be challenged and forced to provide ID when they haven't provided "probable cause" to be under suspicion of anything. And, if they don't carry what the police consider adequate ID, they will face harassment and detention that I, as a white person, would not. It's unavoidable under this law.
Regardless of the intent, the result will be legal latinos facing either detention or a requirement of carrying more forms of ID than would required of a white person. That's reality.
As i explained earlier Terry vs. Ohio explicitly defines reasonable suspicion. Since this country operates on jurisprudence, that supreme court case ruling is nationally applicable. Even in AZ.
A police officer very well may cite erractic behavior, but he better have a good reason why that erractic behavior led to the search and/or seizure of that person. If he only cites sweating it will never stand up in court, the fourth ammendment will have been violated,(according to Terry vs. Ohio) the police officer may be fired, and the victim will be exonerated.
Please try again.
I am well aware that policemen will be fired for misapplying this shoddy legislation. I do not see that as the same sort of vindication of the law that you do.
Poproxx77 is right about this (however much it pains me to admit it), because according to cnn, the bill will not take effect until 90 days after the legislative session ends - although I doubt this law will ever be allowed to be enforced.As I have said before, police are already doing immigration enforcement. This law will only serve to give the state more power in these circumstances and increase the occurrences of situations like the one you have cited.
A Driver's License is not proof. Charge cards or gym ID or whatever, even with photos, are not proof.
I was born here, but the only two documents I have that are proof of that are my Birth Certificate (which I never carry) and my Passport, which I only carry when I'm, well, passing through ports.
Do you carry your Passport everywhere?
I'd like your source for your '2/3 of Hispanics' statistic.
As far as racial profiling goes, have you never heard of 'driving while black'? African-Americans are pulled over on pretext and...
This bill does not give police the power to ask anyone for 'their papers.' Have you read the fourth ammendment? This law does not make race, nationality, or color reasonable cause. It specifically states that only under the current law, persuant the fourth amendment do police officers have the right to search, or detain a person.
Immigrants and visitors should expect to carry the proper documention at all times. Just like when you visit Turkey, or France, or Germany, Or bolivia, or Canada, or yes, even MEXICO. Get pulled over in Mexico without the right documentation and you have one of two options, go to jail or bribe the officer.
Law enforcement has been operating under the same wording found in the constitution for over 200 years, and all of a sudden because the left has a problem with it? More spin and twist from the left, I am afraid its going to work. Woe be the uneducated.
This is PURE PROJECTION on YOUR part. P77 linked the bill. This isn't the race baiting thing the left is trying in vain to make it. There will be training. You of course assume the worst. Every American has to carry a form of ID if they operate a motor vehicle. Every American has to have a form of ID to travel abroad. You don't have to carry any form of ID if you don't want to, but if you plan on being a functioning member of society then you must have some form of ID. This isn't breaking new ground here.
What is to become of someone who is charged with say, jaywalking (tough to disprove - a police officer's word against the offender's); and is then unable to produce ID??
Easy you can ask for, ssn date of birth, name address. If the person cannot provide this information a reasonable suspicion exists that the person is trying to hide their identity and can be detained until identity is established. If the person gives this info freely and it matches the suspect right age, race, height, weight ect. (after being ran through dispatch)then no reasonable suspicion would exist and the persons would be free to go.
as is the cast with running a red light, speeding, failure to use turn signal ect not sure what your point is here.
]
But there is something in the decision even more interesting than that. In fact, I recommend reading the whole thing. The majority decision upheld the lower courts argument thatWiki has a pretty good article on Stop and Identify Laws. You might want to check it out:You can also take a look at Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada which was upheld by the SCOTUS, but did not clearly establish whether states could require written identification as opposed to verbal identification upon request under detention (reasonable suspicion) standards.
In Brown vs. Texas, the SCOTUS ruled that you do not have to give identification to the police at all if the grounds for reasonable suspicion are not reasonably sufficient to support detention.
In Carey v Nevada Gaming Control Board the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decidedThe strictest law I can find to make your case comes from Oliver v. Woods which upholds the Utah statute: Utah Code Ann. § 77- 7-15 which states:But of course, no mention of written identification and the address and explanation part of the law was never asked of the plaintiff in the case, so those aspects of the law were not subject to judicial review.
I admit, I have not checked out all of the caselaw exhaustively to verify wikipedia's claim that the issue has not been decided as of yet, but I think I have left you ample places to start your own investigation to refute my claim. Happy hunting!
As for your jaywalking scenario, why don't you go out and give it a try? I'm guessing you'll be hard pressed to find a Barny Fife willing to waste his time and yours on that!
Which would be a valid argument had this not happened just a week ago.
Now, was the trucker new in the system? Was this the first time through this checkpoint? Was he carrying HAZMAT? Did he just look like an illegal immigrant? The link doesn't really clarify that for us.
I feel the slant of the story, so forgive me if I'm just a tad suspicious of the intent. This very well may be racial profiling, but I'm betting there is more to the story. I would think the trucker could lawyer up on this one if it is as cut and dried as the link makes it sound.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right. Is it worth canning the whole thing for ONE case?
Arpaio.
This law is simply bad law. Only the Supreme Court can determine whether it is unconstitutional, yet one conservative after another declares it is constitutional. Evidently being a talking head on Fox gives you insight into the future decisions of SCOTUS.
But we can all see it is bad law, because it moves us closer to a police state, in which all private actions are closely watched by the police and no one is ever safe from police interference.
The law does not define what is "reasonable suspicion". It is vague and general, and relies on the discretion of the individual, unsupervised police officer. Whether there is proof the law will be abused is beside the point. The fact is, it could be abused, because it offers no guidelines for the police.
Some have assumed that the legislature would not have passed the law if they believed it to be unconstitutional. This is obviously not true. Laws are passed because the politicians believe their constituents want them passed. So this is a politically motivated law.
What is that motivation?
Many people of Arizona do not like latino immigrants. Furthermore, they have no objection to subjecting citizens of latino heritage to harassment by the police. So the legislature and governor scored political points by giving them a new law. Yielding to bigots and racists is not a good reason to create a new law.
Many people of Arizona are upset that the federal government has not resolved the issue of immigration. So the legislature passed the law to send a message to the federal government that immigration reform is necessary. By doing so, many of them must have realized that the states cannot legislate in areas where federal law takes precedence. Passing a bad law to punish the federal government makes no sense.
Many politicians of Arizona would like to make a popular gesture in an election year. This includes many Senators and Representatives, the very people that are responsible for existing immigration law and passing new ones. But these people are ducking their responsibility. Instead of taking responsibility for bad laws, they blame the poor and powerless, the ones who are the targets of this very bad law.
This is a very bad law
1. Because it is at least partially motivated by racial hatred.
2. Because it is at least partially motivated by political animosity.
3. Because it permits the harassment and imprisonment of American citizens for the crime of being brown.