|
This simply is not so. The very moment they choose to break the laws by entering this country illegaly they become criminals.I must ask you to read the entire thread; this bit of semantics has been well addressed.
Bugleyman, um, you keep using that word "semantics". I do not think you know what that word means.
You know, considering that, by definition, breaking the law makes someone a criminal.
You can disagree with Arizona's law, but continuing to use the word "semantics" is starting to make you look foolish.
|
|
You know damn well what I meant...I do know what you meant, which is why I posted what I did. If you think racial profiling is a great idea, let's start rounding up white Christian veterans and making them prove they're not storing up big piles of fertilizer.
Hell, the most famous and successful terrorist organization in American history was a white veterans' organization. They rode around lynching people and wearing sheets. If you think it's absurd to treat all white people you come across as potential Klansmen, you should think it's just as absurd to treat any brown person you come across as a potential illegal who should be under obligation to prove otherwise.
If you think there's some excuse to treat non-whites worse than whites, we have a word for that.
Bigot?
Racist?
Worthlesswasteofair?
Redneck? /rantSorry, I just cannot stand ignorant racists. Plus this whole tea party thing with them wanting to start militias is just too reminiscent of the civil war. As soon as s#@& starts goin down I'm grabbing my family and headin for canada. The last thing I need are some ignorant teabagging militiamen harrassing (or worse) my family because I'm white, my wife is black, and to top it all off we had the audacity to breed.
Do you realize that implying that, "ignorant teabagging militiamen harrassing (or worse) my family because" of race is its own form of bigotry?
How is assuming the worst about members of a political group better than assuming the worst about members of an ethnic group?
I am generalizing, and for that I apologize, but this is something that honestly worries me. I mean tell me this doesn't have shades of the civil war. A group of (mostly white) people are using the loss of "states' rights" as justification for forming a militia? And it's not like they haven't had some pretty damn racist protest signs (Obama as an African witch doctor? Seriously?) I personally believe that a decent amount of the outrage and indignation harbored by a decent number of tea partiers is due to the fact that Obama is black. Do I have numbers to back it up? No. But that is how they come across. If they don't want to be viewed in that light, then they need to do something about it. By not standing up and saying "this is not what we are" they are giving passive credence to that argument. (Conservatives use this same argument to say the same thing about non-violent muslims vs. muslim extremists.)
|
|
As somebody pointed out upthread...the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Just because the tea party at large doesn't want it to be so doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen.or the fact that a group of them shouted "the n-word" at some black congressmen?You do realize this didn't actually happen, right?
No, the fact that there were ample recording devices, media people, private citizens, and a throng of reporters with video and audio recorders right around the congressmen and no one has produced one snippet of video or audio where a "group of people shouting" the -n-bomb means it didn't happen.
This is why I think neither the left nor the right deserve any respect. They only believe what their masters tell them, even in the face of facts.
F#~@ing sheep.
|
|
Can you see how this reasoning becomes a train wreck when you apply it to other basic human rights?Hate to be rude and interrupt, but, which human right does invading a foreign nation's sovereignty fall under?
Must be really easy for somebody who doesn't fall into the racially profiled group to say...
Must be really easy for somebody who doesn't fall into the racially profiled group to say...Can you see how this reasoning becomes a train wreck when you apply it to other basic human rights?Hate to be rude and interrupt, but, which human right does invading a foreign nation's sovereignty fall under?
Tread lightly. You're very close to falling into "you can only comment on this if you are one of the affected people", which is a stupid route to follow.
|
|
As somebody pointed out upthread...the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Just because the tea party at large doesn't want it to be so doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen.or the fact that a group of them shouted "the n-word" at some black congressmen?You do realize this didn't actually happen, right?No, the fact that there were ample recording devices, media people, private citizens, and a throng of reporters with video and audio recorders right around the congressmen and no one has produced one snippet of video or audio where a "group of people shouting" the -n-bomb means it didn't happen.
This is why I think neither the left nor the right deserve any respect. They only believe what their masters tell them, even in the face of facts.
f&~~ing sheep.
Are you even able to vote? I don't mean to be a dick, but I noticed upthread that you spent some time in uncle sam's "retirement home" as you put it IIRC. The only reason I ask is to simply point out that, as a convict, I'm sure you are discriminated against constantly based on past indiscretions. You may be straight as an arrow nowadays, but I'm sure people still judge you based on something that you did in the past. Now think about how that makes you feel and I'm sure you'll have some understanding of what racial profiling is like.
You know, considering that, by definition, breaking the law makes someone a criminal.
Minor correction:
Breaking a criminal law makes one a criminal.Breaking a civil law makes one a civil lawbreaker.
What's covered under criminal law isn't always covered under civil law, and vice versa -- unless my understanding is quite wrong (which is possible; I'm not a lawyer).
|
|
Tread lightly. You're very close to falling into "you can only comment on this if you are one of the affected people", which is a stupid route to follow.Must be really easy for somebody who doesn't fall into the racially profiled group to say...Can you see how this reasoning becomes a train wreck when you apply it to other basic human rights?Hate to be rude and interrupt, but, which human right does invading a foreign nation's sovereignty fall under?
It has some truth to it. I'd be willing to bet that a fair portion of the people posting on this topic are people who wouldn't even be affected by the law under discussion. How can they argue the merits of the law if they cannot even begin to fathom the detriments of it?
|
|
Just to point out that if someone is renting, they are paying property taxes, just indirectly.
To the portion of the rent they pay. It is not uncommon for more people than an apartment was designed to hold to gather together to save on rent. Furthermore falsely documented illegal immigrants (read: identity thieves) often qualify for HUD assistance reducing their rent, and their indirect property tax burden.
One could also argue that this creates additional stain on our country's citizens as they now compete with government subsidized illegal immigrants for rental space, raising the rental rates for the entire population.
.... or the fact that a group of them shouted "the n-word" at some black congressmen? ...Cool, so I guess you're enjoying that $100,000 that was being offered for proof that this actually happened?Absence of evidence != evidence of absence.
Besides, I guarantee the tea party contains at least some racists; pretty much any sizable group of people does. The question isn't "do they exist?"; the question is "do they represent the core values and beliefs of the organization?" The "problem" with the tea party is they lack a hierarchy or structure, meaning anyone can claim to represent their views. As a result, it's hard to figure out what they stand for, or even who is a "real" tea party member. If they want to have a group identity, then they're going to need to change that.
Absence of evidence of something that allegedly happened when a hundred media outlets and probably a few hundred people with personal recording devices were present and recording = a pretty good chance someone's lying their ass off about being called a racial epithet.
Well, considering the only people identifying any sort of racist "core belief" in the Tea Party would be Obama's staff and their cronies in the press, I'd have to say they're touching a nerve.
And the fact they have no structure or hierarchy works for them, not against them. The impetus of the movement is people getting tired of being screwed by Washington (both parties), by their "organized" leaders.
Hmmm...I thought about not replying, because honestly our standards of evidence and logic don't seem to be the same, but hopefully we can manage to have a meaningful discussion. Here goes:
I agree with what I believe you're implying: That if someone claims to have been called a n*ger, then they need to prove it. Our system only works if there is a presumption of innocence; if the burden of proof rests with the accuser. Does that mean some people will "get away with it?" Yup. But that beats the alternative.
I don't know how to respond to the bit about "cronies" in the press. Granted, it's not hard to see some pretty obvious liberal media bias (MSNBC), but it's easy to find obvious conservative media bias (FOX). What happened that day? I don't know. But there are definitely some people with questionable motivations that claim to be part of the Tea Party. The pictures aren't hard to find.
And that, to me, is the problem with the Tea Party having no structure or hierarchy. IMO, if the Tea Party is going to coalesce to a long-term force in our political system, they're going to have to get a platform and some sort of leadership. If they don't articulate their message and beliefs for themselves, someone else will be happy to do it for them.
Must be really easy for somebody who doesn't fall into the racially profiled group to say...Can you see how this reasoning becomes a train wreck when you apply it to other basic human rights?Hate to be rude and interrupt, but, which human right does invading a foreign nation's sovereignty fall under?
His question is not unreasonable, although I thought the context of my post was pretty clear.
I never meant to imply that illegal aliens have a basic human right to be here in violation of US law.
The point of the slippery slope argument is that if we are going to let the government bypass basic human rights to "solve" some problem like crime or terrorism then we are on a path that leads to incremental erosion of individual liberty.
I would include a great many laws in the category of eroding basic human rights, but I believe in an extremely limited role for government.
Bugleyman, um, you keep using that word "semantics". I do not think you know what that word means.
You know, considering that, by definition, breaking the law makes someone a criminal.
You can disagree with Arizona's law, but continuing to use the word "semantics" is starting to make you look foolish.
I'm sure you'd like to think so, Houston, but as it happens, I'm quite familiar with the definition of semantics. Since the distinction in question involves connotation, my use of the word is wholly appropriate. Further, you very often appear foolish to me, but I try to give you the benefit of the doubt. Some days, like today, you do not make this easy.
To the matter at hand: While it is technically correct that illegal immigrants are criminals by definition -- so what? There is no meaningful correlation between breaking an immigration law and raping/kidnapping/murdering someone. Therefore, the argument that illegals are more likely to be violent and dangerous, which has been implied several times in this thread (and indeed, was the whole point of me bringing the matter up in the first place!), is not valid.
You seem stubbornly unwilling (unable?) to discern subtle shades of meaning, instead taking an almost perverse pleasure in your furious need to discredit all things remotely intellectual. It's...tiresome, if not unexpected.
It has some truth to it. I'd be willing to bet that a fair portion of the people posting on this topic are people who wouldn't even be affected by the law under discussion. How can they argue the merits of the law if they cannot even begin to fathom the detriments of it?Tread lightly. You're very close to falling into "you can only comment on this if you are one of the affected people", which is a stupid route to follow.Must be really easy for somebody who doesn't fall into the racially profiled group to say...Can you see how this reasoning becomes a train wreck when you apply it to other basic human rights?Hate to be rude and interrupt, but, which human right does invading a foreign nation's sovereignty fall under?
I respectfully reject this line of thought. Let's take a deep breath, and not walk into an emotional trap.
Men can be pro choice, and non drug users can oppose criminalization and so on.
I respectfully reject this line of thought. Let's take a deep breath, and not walk into an emotional trap.
Men can be pro choice, and non drug users can oppose criminalization and so on.
Guilty on both counts.
Guilty on both counts.I respectfully reject this line of thought. Let's take a deep breath, and not walk into an emotional trap.
Men can be pro choice, and non drug users can oppose criminalization and so on.
I hope I didn't derail the thread with my choice of examples.
|
I hope I didn't derail the thread with my choice of examples.Guilty on both counts.I respectfully reject this line of thought. Let's take a deep breath, and not walk into an emotional trap.
Men can be pro choice, and non drug users can oppose criminalization and so on.
Would it really be a great loss if you did? ;)
I hope I didn't derail the thread with my choice of examples.Guilty on both counts.I respectfully reject this line of thought. Let's take a deep breath, and not walk into an emotional trap.
Men can be pro choice, and non drug users can oppose criminalization and so on.
Not at all. Of course, the thread is pretty well derailed already...
|
|
Are you saying my assumption is wrong?Must be really easy for somebody who doesn't fall into the racially profiled group to say...Have you seen me?
I'm asking a simple question. You write as though you have seen me, and I'm at a loss if you have. Now if you have not seen me then you would be judging me before knowing me in a personal context, some would call this a prejudice.
Those who have seen me, know which prejudices I fall under when examined by authorities.
If you have not seen me and would like to find out what I look like I invite you to Gamer's Inn (http://store.gamersinnaz.com/).
As somebody pointed out upthread...the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Just because the tea party at large doesn't want it to be so doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen.or the fact that a group of them shouted "the n-word" at some black congressmen?You do realize this didn't actually happen, right?
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence is correct.
The problem is that it does not apply to this situation because evidence to the contrary does exist.
The statement was made that a group was shouting the n-word rather than an individual or two. However, the entire incident is on tape with audio. Although it is perfectly reasonable to think that one or two people saying the n-word once or twice would not be picked up it is not reasonable to ASSERT that a whole group of the people shouting the n-word would not show up in the audio, IMO.
So, rather than an absence of evidence there is explicit evidence of the absence of your claim.
You have no legitimate foundation for making your racist claims against the tea party.
|
|
The point of the slippery slope argument is that if we are going to let the government bypass basic human rights to "solve" some problem like crime or terrorism then we are on a path that leads to incremental erosion of individual liberty.
I see no such bypass to human rights as defined in the constitution of the United States. Of the 10 rights granted to us I see no faults with the law as written (abbreviated as LAW... that's incredibly convenient).
I am generalizing, and for that I apologize, but this is something that honestly worries me. I mean tell me this doesn't have shades of the civil war. A group of (mostly white) people are using the loss of "states' rights" as justification for forming a militia? And it's not like they haven't had some pretty damn racist protest signs (Obama as an African witch doctor? Seriously?) I personally believe that a decent amount of the outrage and indignation harbored by a decent number of tea partiers is due to the fact that Obama is black. Do I have numbers to back it up? No. But that is how they come across. If they don't want to be viewed in that light, then they need to do something about it. By not standing up and saying "this is not what we are" they are giving passive credence to that argument. (Conservatives use this same argument to say the same thing about non-violent muslims vs. muslim extremists.)
You may have a legitimate point about armed resistance to state force, but in my experience it's a purist position that most Tea Party supporters and conservatives don't really hold. Although there are a substantial minority that share my view that breaking away from the government by force is a basic human right (in effect an extension of self defense). In practical terms, however, a solid majority of Republicans and Tea Party supporters would see succession as basically treasonous.
I must say the race issue is a complete red herring in my experience, and I have quite a bit of personal experience with conservative and Republican politics.
The vast majority of Tea party leadership have denounced racism and violence. Your comparison for the standard of judgment is fair I think, but I think the standard has been met and exceeded. Unfortunately denouncing violence and such seems to be considered less than newsworthy, but terror attacks or someone being a wanker at a rally lead the news cycle. "If it bleeds it leads", the saying goes.
|
|
Not at all. Of course, the thread is pretty well derailed already...I hope I didn't derail the thread with my choice of examples.Guilty on both counts.I respectfully reject this line of thought. Let's take a deep breath, and not walk into an emotional trap.
Men can be pro choice, and non drug users can oppose criminalization and so on.
Otherwise known as a Train wreck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The point of the slippery slope argument is that if we are going to let the government bypass basic human rights to "solve" some problem like crime or terrorism then we are on a path that leads to incremental erosion of individual liberty.I see no such bypass to human rights as defined in the constitution of the United States. Of the 10 rights granted to us I see no faults with the law as written (abbreviated as LAW... that's incredibly convenient).
At the risk of nit picking, I don't believe nations grant fundamental human rights. I believe they recognize and/or enumerate them. For instance, the ninth amendment in the Bill of Rights states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The argument can be made that this is a dead letter in contemporary constitutional law, but it matters to folks like me.
That said, racial profiling would directly violate the 14th amendment equal protection clause. While the text of the law explicitly prohibits racial profiling there are very real doubts about whether the law as written can be practically executed without unreasonably targeting Latinos. I have also cited questions up thread as to whether or not non law enforcement personnel posses the training to apply the law without profiling or running afoul of the "duty" provisions of the statute.
Some critics believe the law also violates the doctrine of federal supremacy, but I disagree with the established case law of federal supremacy, so I don't support this point. The federal courts are unlikely to agree with me. I suspect the federal courts would strike down the statute on this basis alone, but it will be challenged on a number of grounds.
<SNIP> While the text of the law explicitly prohibits racial profiling there are very real doubts about whether the law as written can be practically executed without unreasonably targeting Latinos. </SNIP>
For me, this is the crux of the matter. Many supporters say its all about the illegals, but I couldn't disagree more. If the governor of AZ can't provide a reasonable criteria that can be used to enforce this law without racial profiling ("What does an illegal immigrant look like?"), then how can we expect police officers to do so?
Yes, illegal immigration is a problem. Racially profiling our citizenry isn't the answer.
|
|
At the risk of nit picking, I don't believe nations grant fundamental human rights.
I believe we agree on this matter, but, one can be discredited when throwing around certain words, especially in certain social climates.
That said, racial profiling would directly violate the 14th amendment equal protection clause.
Such practices are expressly forbidden in the LAW. Without racial context there are many clues as to whom may or may not be an illegal immigrant. Just to name the most obvious, anyone caught working under the table (as I once did) as a 'day laborer' could be reasonably suspected of being an illegal immigrant.
I have also cited questions up thread as to whether or not non law enforcement personnel posses the training to apply the law without profiling or running afoul of the "duty" provisions of the statute.
From what I read of the LAW it does not provide for non law enforcement personnel to assert or uphold the law.
Some critics believe the law also violates the doctrine of federal supremacy, but I disagree with the established case law of federal supremacy, so I don't support this point.
That could be, I hope the law is not struck down, as it mimics the federal laws and allows the state to act when the federal authorities are either unable or unwilling to act.
Tread lightly. You're very close to falling into "you can only comment on this if you are one of the affected people", which is a stupid route to follow.Must be really easy for somebody who doesn't fall into the racially profiled group to say...Can you see how this reasoning becomes a train wreck when you apply it to other basic human rights?Hate to be rude and interrupt, but, which human right does invading a foreign nation's sovereignty fall under?
If you are the voice of reason and calm for a thread does that count as a sign of the Apocalypse? ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
That said, racial profiling would directly violate the 14th amendment equal protection clause.
Bitter Thorn, you may have a better grounding in this matter than I, but I don't think that's the case.
Police use profiling all the time. For example, if there's a rash of graffiti defacement and grocery store shoplifting incidents, they'll be looking for teenagers rather than 50-year-olds. Closer to home, if they're looking for someone who has sexually assaulted white women, they'll be looking primarily for a while man, because sexual predators almost always target victims of their own race.
Profiling for any characteristic is legal if law enforcement has some reasonable justification for linking the characteristic to the crime. The "random" car searches in New Jersey that targeted blacks disproportionately was not legal, because there was no justification for profiling drug possession with race. (Indeed, records showed that black motorists were no more likely to be caught with drugs than were whites or Hispanics.)
Illegal aliens in Arizona are disproportionately Latino. There's a reasonable justification to profile for that crime with that characteristic.
Again, if you've been reading case law that says otherwise, I'd be happy to stand corrected.
The problem for many, it seems, is that illegal immigration seems like such a benign crime. Let's say that the FBI had good reason to believe that some whacked-out militia group was planning to assassinate the president, but they didn't have the pictures of the people involved. They need to neutralize this threat, and time is not on their side. Do you really want them checking random people, regardless of age, sex or race? I know that I would think better of them if they focused their search on white guys, since militia membership is almost exclusively white guys. Or would you consider that unconstitutional?
How many of you have actually read the statute in question?You mean this one?
I misread the duty clause as it applies to non law enforcement personnel and agencies.
pg1
40 F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
41 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
42 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
43 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF
44 ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE
45 OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:
pg2
1 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE
2 PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
3 STATE.
4 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF
5 RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL
6 ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
7 3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.
8 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN
9 COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER
10 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.
|
|
Are you saying my assumption is wrong?Must be really easy for somebody who doesn't fall into the racially profiled group to say...Have you seen me?I'm asking a simple question. You write as though you have seen me, and I'm at a loss if you have. Now if you have not seen me then you would be judging me before knowing me in a personal context, some would call this a prejudice.
Those who have seen me, know which prejudices I fall under when examined by authorities.
If you have not seen me and would like to find out what I look like I invite you to Gamer's Inn (http://store.gamersinnaz.com/).
What am I looking for here? No pics on that page.
<SNIP> While the text of the law explicitly prohibits racial profiling there are very real doubts about whether the law as written can be practically executed without unreasonably targeting Latinos. </SNIP>For me, this is the crux of the matter. Many supporters say its all about the illegals, but I couldn't disagree more. If the governor of AZ can't provide a reasonable criteria that can be used to enforce this law without racial profiling ("What does an illegal immigrant look like?"), then how can we expect police officers to do so?
Yes, illegal immigration is a problem. Racially profiling our citizenry isn't the answer.
Let me turn it around:
What does a drug dealer look like? What does a drug user look like?
And bear in mind, we aren't talking about "how does a drug dealer/user ACT."
In other words, that is a loaded question to ask the governor. And is a bit unfair.
|
|
You may have a legitimate point about armed resistance to state force, but in my experience it's a purist position that most Tea Party supporters and conservatives don't really hold. Although there are a substantial minority that share my view that breaking away from the government by force is a basic human right (in effect an extension of self defense). In practical terms, however, a solid majority of Republicans and Tea Party supporters would see succession as basically treasonous.
I must say the race issue is a complete red herring in my experience, and I have quite a bit of personal experience with conservative and Republican politics.
The vast majority of Tea party leadership have denounced racism and violence. Your comparison for the standard of judgment is fair I think, but I think the standard has been met and exceeded. Unfortunately denouncing violence and such seems to be considered less than newsworthy, but terror attacks or someone being a wanker at a rally lead the news cycle. "If it bleeds it leads", the saying goes.
Maybe I'm just a little more paranoid and susceptible to the slanting news coverage given my personal/family situation (not to mention the fact that I live in the only state to have their tea party be so outspoken about wanting to form a militia). OTOH, when it comes to my family's safety, better safe than sorry.
|
|
It has some truth to it. I'd be willing to bet that a fair portion of the people posting on this topic are people who wouldn't even be affected by the law under discussion. How can they argue the merits of the law if they cannot even begin to fathom the detriments of it?Tread lightly. You're very close to falling into "you can only comment on this if you are one of the affected people", which is a stupid route to follow.Must be really easy for somebody who doesn't fall into the racially profiled group to say...Can you see how this reasoning becomes a train wreck when you apply it to other basic human rights?Hate to be rude and interrupt, but, which human right does invading a foreign nation's sovereignty fall under?I respectfully reject this line of thought. Let's take a deep breath, and not walk into an emotional trap.
Men can be pro choice, and non drug users can oppose criminalization and so on.
I realize those are just examples you've thrown out, but both of them happen to be personal choices that can be made by individuals (a man does have some say in an abortion--an opinion at least). Nobody chooses to be racially profiled, and TBH, even though I am in a unique position (relatively), I'm not going to even pretend that I understand what it's like to get pulled over for DWB (driving while black) even though my wife has to worry about it. Do I have more understanding than the average non-brown person? Yes. Do I even come close to having the same understanding as someone who is brown? No.
That said, racial profiling would directly violate the 14th amendment equal protection clause.Bitter Thorn, you may have a better grounding in this matter than I, but I don't think that's the case.
Police use profiling all the time. For example, if there's a rash of graffiti defacement and grocery store shoplifting incidents, they'll be looking for teenagers rather than 50-year-olds. Closer to home, if they're looking for someone who has sexually assaulted white women, they'll be looking primarily for a while man, because sexual predators almost always target victims of their own race.
Profiling for any characteristic is legal if law enforcement has some reasonable justification for linking the characteristic to the crime. The "random" car searches in New Jersey that targeted blacks disproportionately was not legal, because there was no justification for profiling drug possession with race. (Indeed, records showed that black motorists were no more likely to be caught with drugs than were whites or Hispanics.)
Illegal aliens in Arizona are disproportionately Latino. There's a reasonable justification to profile for that crime with that characteristic.
Again, if you've been reading case law that says otherwise, I'd be happy to stand corrected.
The problem for many, it seems, is that illegal immigration seems like such a benign crime. Let's say that the FBI had good reason to believe that some whacked-out militia group was planning to assassinate the president, but they didn't have the pictures of the people involved. They need to neutralize this threat, and time is not on their side. Do you really want them checking random people, regardless of age, sex or race? I know that I would think better of them if they focused their search on white guys, since militia membership is almost exclusively white guys. Or would you consider that unconstitutional?
You correctly point out that there is a lot of gray area in this and most civil liberty issues. There are some good articles and essays about profiling in the age of terror etc. Racial profiling can be difficult to define let alone avoid. The civil case law is interesting.
Let me give you the this link to start, and I'll try to find a decent abridged version of the case law to date later.
For me I'm going to err on the side of limiting the government and protecting individual liberty, but you are correct in noting that there are reasonable arguments on both sides.
|
|
If you don't like the law work to change it!!! Even better look for a better solution!!!Do you know exactly how much easier said that is than done? Have YOU personally ever tried to influence government policy? One person can't do it. f&@@, a thousand people can't do it.All I can think of is the old quote: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
I know. Only problem is, right now, I'm doing all I can, and I'm sliding backwards.
|
|
What am I looking for here? No pics on that page.I'm sorry, I was a bit vague. I invite you to my FLGS so you may see me in person. I was merely giving directions.
Ah I see...that's going to be kind of hard to pull off...I live in OK. I'm (now) assuming that you're Hispanic or some degree of brown, and if so I apologize for my earlier assumption and snark.
I am generalizing, and for that I apologize, but this is something that honestly worries me. I mean tell me this doesn't have shades of the civil war. A group of (mostly white) people are using the loss of "states' rights" as justification for forming a militia? And it's not like they haven't had some pretty damn racist protest signs (Obama as an African witch doctor? Seriously?) I personally believe that a decent amount of the outrage and indignation harbored by a decent number of tea partiers is due to the fact that Obama is black. Do I have numbers to back it up? No. But that is how they come across. If they don't want to be viewed in that light, then they need to do something about it. By not standing up and saying "this is not what we are" they are giving passive credence to that argument. (Conservatives use this same argument to say the same thing about non-violent muslims vs. muslim extremists.)
The funny thing is, many supporters of the tea party movement have done just that. Come out on various programs (MSNBC even, when they get a chance to get a word in edgewise) as well as people in threads like this and have said, "Those views don't represent most of us. Those are fringe elements. Don't judge everyone by some wack-job." And then folks like yourself turn around and do just that. I have no doubt that someone had a sign that was racial towards Obama, but I do have a doubt that most of the people there were carrying such signs or support them.
Someone mentioned that less than 1% of the tea party movement is african-american. Yes, that is sad, but what is more sad is that we never see them on news programs? I mean, we just admitted that there are some there, why do we never show them, at least in passing? Is because it then is harder to say it is all white? Does it weaken our "they are all racists" message to show even an example or two of non-whites that are in fact present? At that point, I really have to wonder who is pushing the racism?
As for the congressman and what he heard. I have no idea, but the fact that he said the scene reminded him of the racial tensions in the 60's maybe influenced what he percieved he heard. The mind is a funny thing. It hates chaos and disorder, and it will often create order to help it process the random information it has coming in.
That said, racial profiling would directly violate the 14th amendment equal protection clause.Bitter Thorn, you may have a better grounding in this matter than I, but I don't think that's the case.
Police use profiling all the time. For example, if there's a rash of graffiti defacement and grocery store shoplifting incidents, they'll be looking for teenagers rather than 50-year-olds. Closer to home, if they're looking for someone who has sexually assaulted white women, they'll be looking primarily for a while man, because sexual predators almost always target victims of their own race.
Profiling for any characteristic is legal if law enforcement has some reasonable justification for linking the characteristic to the crime. The "random" car searches in New Jersey that targeted blacks disproportionately was not legal, because there was no justification for profiling drug possession with race. (Indeed, records showed that black motorists were no more likely to be caught with drugs than were whites or Hispanics.)
Illegal aliens in Arizona are disproportionately Latino. There's a reasonable justification to profile for that crime with that characteristic.
Again, if you've been reading case law that says otherwise, I'd be happy to stand corrected.
The problem for many, it seems, is that illegal immigration seems like such a benign crime. Let's say that the FBI had good reason to believe that some whacked-out militia group was planning to assassinate the president, but they didn't have the pictures of the people involved. They need to neutralize this threat, and time is not on their side. Do you really want them checking random people, regardless of age, sex or race? I know that I would think better of them if they focused their search on white guys, since militia membership is almost exclusively white guys. Or would you consider that unconstitutional?
Just think of all those FBI serial killer movies.
"Ok, our killer is probably a white male between the ages of 25 and 40. He ...""Sorry, you need to stop. You are profiling and that is wrong."
"This is statistically what is most likely the case, this is how we will narrow our search."
"Sorry, it is wrong. You have to find another way to do your job."
"Ok... Someone killed some people. We have no idea who that person is and can't assume anything about them or their motives ... I guess we'll just wait until the allow themselves to get caught?"
"Better."
What a wonderful movie experience that would be, huh?
|
|
I expanded upon this a little bit a few posts upthread:
Maybe I'm just a little more paranoid and susceptible to the slanting news coverage given my personal/family situation (not to mention the fact that I live in the only state to have their tea party be so outspoken about wanting to form a militia). OTOH, when it comes to my family's safety, better safe than sorry.
So yeah, I've probably done a decent job of overlooking the denunciations, but the racist portion of the tea party (even if it is on the fringe) scares me and the fact that some of them (in my own state no less) want to form militias to uphold "states' rights" terrifies and angers me.
I expanded upon this a little bit a few posts upthread:
Maybe I'm just a little more paranoid and susceptible to the slanting news coverage given my personal/family situation (not to mention the fact that I live in the only state to have their tea party be so outspoken about wanting to form a militia). OTOH, when it comes to my family's safety, better safe than sorry.So yeah, I've probably done a decent job of overlooking the denunciations, but the racist portion of the tea party (even if it is on the fringe) scares me and the fact that some of them (in my own state no less) want to form militias to uphold "states' rights" terrifies and angers me.
So, do you retract your generalizing statements regarding the tea partiers being racist as a group?
Just looking for clarification.
|
|
I expanded upon this a little bit a few posts upthread:
Maybe I'm just a little more paranoid and susceptible to the slanting news coverage given my personal/family situation (not to mention the fact that I live in the only state to have their tea party be so outspoken about wanting to form a militia). OTOH, when it comes to my family's safety, better safe than sorry.So yeah, I've probably done a decent job of overlooking the denunciations, but the racist portion of the tea party (even if it is on the fringe) scares me and the fact that some of them (in my own state no less) want to form militias to uphold "states' rights" terrifies and angers me.So, do you retract your generalizing statements regarding the tea partiers being racist as a group?
Just looking for clarification.
I suppose I do in that I do believe a majority of them are not racially motivated. OTOH, I believe that there is a large minority (is that the correct term? seems oxymoronic to me) of them that are scared of a black president. So no, I don't be believe the tea party as a whole is racist, but they need to work to distance themselves from their members who are.
I suppose I do in that I do believe a majority of them are not racially motivated. OTOH, I believe that there is a large minority (is that the correct term? seems oxymoronic to me) of them that are scared of a black president. So no, I don't be believe the tea party as a whole is racist, but they need to work to distance themselves from their members who are.I expanded upon this a little bit a few posts upthread:
Maybe I'm just a little more paranoid and susceptible to the slanting news coverage given my personal/family situation (not to mention the fact that I live in the only state to have their tea party be so outspoken about wanting to form a militia). OTOH, when it comes to my family's safety, better safe than sorry.So yeah, I've probably done a decent job of overlooking the denunciations, but the racist portion of the tea party (even if it is on the fringe) scares me and the fact that some of them (in my own state no less) want to form militias to uphold "states' rights" terrifies and angers me.So, do you retract your generalizing statements regarding the tea partiers being racist as a group?
Just looking for clarification.
But again, I ask for justification in your determination that being "afraid of a black president" is the reasoning behind their opposition.
|
|
But again, I ask for justification in your determination that being "afraid of a black president" is the reasoning behind their opposition.I suppose I do in that I do believe a majority of them are not racially motivated. OTOH, I believe that there is a large minority (is that the correct term? seems oxymoronic to me) of them that are scared of a black president. So no, I don't be believe the tea party as a whole is racist, but they need to work to distance themselves from their members who are.I expanded upon this a little bit a few posts upthread:
Maybe I'm just a little more paranoid and susceptible to the slanting news coverage given my personal/family situation (not to mention the fact that I live in the only state to have their tea party be so outspoken about wanting to form a militia). OTOH, when it comes to my family's safety, better safe than sorry.So yeah, I've probably done a decent job of overlooking the denunciations, but the racist portion of the tea party (even if it is on the fringe) scares me and the fact that some of them (in my own state no less) want to form militias to uphold "states' rights" terrifies and angers me.So, do you retract your generalizing statements regarding the tea partiers being racist as a group?
Just looking for clarification.
For a couple of reasons. Spending was just as crazy under W...where was the tea party then? When W was POTUS it was treasonous to question anything a pres did during wartime...did I miss something? Are we no longer at war? Could this be b/c he's a democrat? Possibly, but we've had a dem POTUS before. The only thing that sets Obama apart from the many liberal presidents that came before him is the color of his skin. That, to me is indicative of an underlying racial motivation.
Is this thread still smurfing?
I suppose I do in that I do believe a majority of them are not racially motivated. OTOH, I believe that there is a large minority (is that the correct term? seems oxymoronic to me) of them that are scared of a black president. So no, I don't be believe the tea party as a whole is racist, but they need to work to distance themselves from their members who are.I expanded upon this a little bit a few posts upthread:
Maybe I'm just a little more paranoid and susceptible to the slanting news coverage given my personal/family situation (not to mention the fact that I live in the only state to have their tea party be so outspoken about wanting to form a militia). OTOH, when it comes to my family's safety, better safe than sorry.So yeah, I've probably done a decent job of overlooking the denunciations, but the racist portion of the tea party (even if it is on the fringe) scares me and the fact that some of them (in my own state no less) want to form militias to uphold "states' rights" terrifies and angers me.So, do you retract your generalizing statements regarding the tea partiers being racist as a group?
Just looking for clarification.
I'd like to issue you a personal challenge. Go to a meeting or an event in your town in OK. I'm not asking you to protest with or against them. I'm just asking you to meet a few of them as human beings. I imagine you may come across some wing nuts, but I bet you a beer that you're going to meet a bunch of decent people who feel like they are getting the shaft for working hard and paying their bills. I haven't been to OK in many years, but I bet you will see these people are not a secret resurgence of the Klan in sheep's clothing.
I'm not accusing you saying all Tea Party supporters are secret Klanners, but how many of these people do you know? All I'm saying is meet a few of them in person as human beings rather than taking the medias word for it.
I'm not saying they are all perfect angels. They are just regular folks who are tired of getting the short end of the deal.