But you don't necessarily have to be committing a crime. You could be pulled over for a broken taillight something you wouldn't be arrested for the majority of the time and be detained indefinitely until you can prove your citizenship.

Not to mention that there is no concise answer for what is acceptable proof of naturalization or citizenship. A drivers license doesn't cut it because illegal immigrants can get those.

Probable cause =/= knowing for certain a crime is afoot. An officer can look at just about anything. Race is not one of those things, but there are many other factors which could be considered in such a routine traffic stop--lack of ability to speak English would be a factor in favor of PC because someone who doesn't speak English is much more likely to be illegal than someone who does; lack of insurance might also mitigate in favor of PC as illegals are much less likely to carry insurance.

It's not a racial thing, but let's be honest, in Arizona, illegal Mexicans are fairly common, so things common with illegal Mexicans aside from race and color are going to be fair game.

Saying that you know for a fact that race/color are going to be the singular motivating factors as to whether searches occur before the law has even started being enforced is sensational and pseudo-clairvoyant. You just don't know how Arizona police will be trained or how these laws will be enforced.

If the law is enforced, will the vast majority of arrests be Mexicans? Hell yeah... the vast majority of illegal immigrants are Mexican, 'specially in AZ.

But we know from past incidents that no matter the training some police officers use their power in inappropriate ways. This law gives people who have "issues" with Mexicans a way to go after them and cover it by saying they had this reason or that reason. We shouldn't be passing laws in this country that can increase racial profiling.

If civil rights issues occur, someone's going to get paid and training will be corrected.

Oklahoma tried to pass a regime of laws a few years back to deal with employers who violated the immigration laws. Our laws were almost all struck down. Arizona did something its legal experts thought just might stand a chance (I disagree).

But the potential of racial profiling happening is not enough by itself to make something illegal. If that were the case, laws making crack cocaine illegal should be declared unconstitutional as well since the vast majority of crack cocaine arrestees are black. The fact that one racial minority is more likely to violate a certain law is not proof that law enforcement will use profiling to enforce that law.

more arrests =/= that group is using the most

Hence, the profiling argument.

I get what your saying and I'm hoping the Feds win this case. I just personally don't like the idea that this law is going to happen and then if it goes wrong you can sue. I don't believe in waiting to see if it leads to profiling. Stop it before it gets to that point is my opinion.

If you look at the current population [black males in particular] this potential racial profiling issue might be a compelling reason for overturning just about every law on the books. Racial profiling is a danger with any law. And when it happens, the remedy is the same for everyone--get a lawyer and get paid.

When the numbers are what they are with black crack users arrests vs. white cocaine users arrests, it's hard to imagine that racial profiling is the difference maker there. In 2006, blacks consisted of 82% of crack cocaine arrests. In that same year, whites accounted for 72% of powder cocaine arrests.

And yet, the penalties against crack cocaine are ridiculously higher than those for powder cocaine.

There's pretty much a documented issue in Illinois with racial profiling among police officers when it comes to traffic stops and searches folowing those stops. Even though they searched something like 8x more minorities than whites they found drugs in the cars of whites 2x more often. Yet they keep pulling over the minorities at a much higher rate. It's not as simple as "someone gets paid and retraining happens and it's all ok now."

Do your numbers not contemplate the existence of probable cause to initiate a search at those traffic stops? You assume race is at the top of the list. Yet you do that without any evidence of that. Just a bunch of assumption.

I had my numbers wrong, here's a quote on the article based on the 2008 report
Here's the IDoT website

So the other answer is that minorities "look guiltier" but are more innocent. Which means the cops have a skewed idea of what "looking guilty" means, and it drives down racial lines in some way or another.

Illinois officers have to report the race of everyone they stop and the result of the stop, verbal warning, written warning, ticket, etc. Even after they get the numbers back every year, there doesn't appear to be much of a change in them.

i would venture to say that many folks believe that race is the sole thing on that list.

ok, rounding this back to illegal immigration....

approximately 81 percent of illegal immigrants are of hispanic descent.

and of that 81 percent, almost 75 percent are from mexico.

meaning that approximately 7 million of the 12-13 million illegals in this country are from mexico.

http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf

And while being hispanic is not probable cause, speaking only Spanish would be probably get you there.

this is a issue in the sentencing, not a flaw in the arrest and detaining.

Why? A lot of Puerto Ricans for instance can't speak English to save their lives. Also remember that the United States does NOT have an official language.

Flaw with the legislation (one that suggests a bias) which relates back to this case here. I only mentioned it since Kevin felt it important to bring up.

Perhaps it's simply cynicism, but here's my thought process:

Racial profiling happens now.
Law is passed that requires police to make a judgments about legal status.
The law has to be clarified to state that race is not allowed to be the "reasonable suspicion."
There appears to be a complete lack of data on what actually is a way to identify someone with reasonable suspicion of being illegal. No studies have been cited, and in fact the first comments involved things like "the way they dress."

Based on all of that, yes I'm coming to the conclusion that racial profiling will continue to occur, is encouraged by this law, and will be covered up by referencing alternative 'reasons' for probable cause. Which makes this a bad law IMO. (Also the whole 'passing a law to make a point' thing makes this a bad law.

that still doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of the US legal population communicates in english. that's why you don't see street and traffic signs in spanish.

can't and won't are two different things. just because one chooses not to, doesn't mean they can't.

how do you know it's a cover up? quite possibly (and very strongly) there are a bevy of other reasons to reference.

If a Filipino says it, it must be true. :D

^^^^^ knows the deal

I will not argue that English isn't the de facto national language of the United States. However that being said it holds no legal status in this country. So using the justification "He doesn't speak English, he must be illegal." doesn't make sense. And yes I do know that can't and won't aren't the same. But I also do know people who's control of English is near non existent and would probably be the same as most Mexicans who live near the border or have a lot of contact with Americans if not worst.

it can certainly fall under reasonable suspicion.


again, can't and won't aren't the same thing. and can't communicate well is way different from can't communicate at all.

hence in order to become a naturalized citizen, one must have basic skills in the english language. the same with getting a green card.

What about those who are born citizens but never learn English?

Also there are illegals who can speak English pretty decently. So your logic falls pretty flat.

Because it occurs now and is outright denied by the individuals who do it. It's been documented as having happened in the past and it is reasonable to assume it will continue to be the same in the future.

I see this law as encouraging it even when it says that you can't use race.

you're talking about a miniscule sect of the population. an atomic bomb and a herd of elephants can also hit my house during a tornado, too.

sure. there illegals who can speak english. so quite possibly they may not be questioned. people get away with crimes all the time. that still doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue them. but then that goes back to their question, what about their id? unless they're traveling to a jurisdiction that gives out ids to illegals, then purposely traveling back to arizona. which is highly unlikely. about as likely as being a citizen who can't speak english.

ok, then all laws are unconstitutional. however, i'm not disputing what you're saying.

FWIW I don't think it's backhanded encouragement of racial profiling aspect that makes this unconstitutional, I just think it makes it a bad law.

I think it's unconstitutional for a bunch of other reasons that I'm sure I listed previously... somewhere.

Anyway thanks for the discussion.

It's not illegal to smell like marijuana either, or get into a car after spilling a glass of whiskey on yourself--it's just going to get your car searched 100% of the time.

I don't think smelling like alcohol or marijuana can be equated to looking hispanic or not speaking English.

Oh man, don't get me started on Americans who can't speak English. As I learned during my brief flirtation with Orthodox Judaism, there are entire TOWNS!!!! of Hasidic Jews who speak very little, if any, English. They know basic commercial English but most of the time speak Yiddish and only Yiddish. There's no need for them to speak English, since they don't go in the mainstream world.

:rolleyes:

Because healthcare costs weren't increasing before the bill? And the cost saving side of the Healthcare Bill doesn't go into effect until later.

Criticizing the president doesn't mean that people are "bailing" on him. He's still better than the alternative (IMO) and his shots at a second term are better than most. But REALLY not the topic going on here.

Well this white person (since apparently only race matters in politics) will vote for him again.

Not if they are over 50/55. That requirement is waived then.

Ditto. Very little of the healthcare bill is in effect yet and costs that are rising are due to the high number of uninsureds/underinsureds.

Ditto.

It's what's his face. That guy.

This isn't about healthcare, if you want to talk about that make another thread. Or you know you could post about greek life stuff since you're new here and all ;)

Nanners...a warning...do not engage...this is a former GC member who keeps coming back like herpes. They will be banned soon.

Not speaking English is commonly associated with being illegally here. Smelling like marijuana is commonly associated with being under the influence or in possession. Smelling like whiskey is associated with being drunk.

That commonality doesn't mean it's correct.

It doesn't have to. Correlation doesn't have to definitely mean the crime is afoot, it just has to lead to a reasonable suspicion. If you've encountered someone who doesn't speak English and doesn't have identification or insurance, you definitely can have the reasonable belief that this person is illegal and can investigate whether they are.