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.