If you’ve ever been stopped by a police officer for a traffic violation, chances are you can answer this question: upon being stopped, what is the first thing the officer asks you to produce?
A better question for this post would be: "What do you call it when members of a certain racial group are harassed by the police?"
Considering this country's shameful record of racial profiling POC for speeding/traffic violations, even w/o AZ legislation, asking what ID one is asked to produce is a little facetious. How about instead, prove that the law isn't racist? Or just accept the idea that deep down you want to side with us evil, helplessly indoctrinated Liberals on this one!
You keep asserting that the law is racist, Amanda. But you haven't proven it. Nor can you, really. Here's a question for you -- if a person is in the country illegally, what should happen to that person? And just to make it interesting, let's assume the person is someplace other than Mexico or some other Latin American country. How about, say, Norway?
I have to prove that *signaling out a specific race group* for police harassment is racist?
Anyway, if a person were from Norway, and in AZ illegally, that's just the point, Mr. D - no one is going to stop them and demand papers - because they're white.
As for my personal opinion on immigration, I have a very relaxed attitude toward foreigners seeking to live and work in our country. I think the US *owes* Mexico and Central America a certain amount of leeway in order to make up for the ways we've subverted their political and economic systems for the last couple of centuries (no, I am not prepared to present a thesis on that one in your comments section at the moment), and even if we weren't as relaxed as is my personal preference, the issue is so much more complicated than "kick them all out!" OUR economy relies strongly on illegal workers making next to nothing - take SoCal for instance - you can get people to clean, build, and do any kind of manual labor for peanuts - SO MUCH LESS than the same services would cost in MN - and that makes big a difference for people and business owners down there. So, no, I don't have all the answers. Analying this and suggesting a solution from an economic POV is above my head, but I do know that racial profiling isn't the answer, if for no other reason than the fact that legitimate US citizens will be targeted and treated as suspects for a crime.
I have to prove that *signaling out a specific race group* for police harassment is racist?
You have to prove it happens consistently. Actually, you don't personally, but you don't know that is the case. Not really, at least.
Anyway, if a person were from Norway, and in AZ illegally, that's just the point, Mr. D - no one is going to stop them and demand papers - because they're white.
And according to what I've read, no one is going to stop a Mexican national who is not doing something else that violates a law. A Norwegian who doesn't have a valid driver's license is subject to arrest. As I would be, too.
There's an old joke about children's sermons. No matter what the question is, the answer is always "Jesus." Little kids might not have any idea what the pastor is talking about, but they're happy to answer "Jesus!" at the appropriate moment.
Liberals are like that. They can't be bothered with knowing stuff about public policy, but when put on the spot, what do they shout without fail? "Racism!"
Remember Jesse Ventura's comment about religion being a crutch for the weak? Racism is a crutch for the person with no arguments.
I never got stopped by the cops when I lived in Arizona, but then, I'm a white guy.
And for some reason, the Minnesota cops wouldn't accept my White Privilege Get Out of Court Free card when I gave them my license and insurance information. Jerks.
Interestingly enough, the Arizona Republic newspaper reports that polls show 70% approval of the new measure, including significant approval percentages from hispanics and democrats. That reminds me that a couple of years ago 47% of Hispanic voters (i.e., legal residents) approved Prop. 200, forbidding state benefits to illegal residents.
Clearly the people who have the most at stake in this situation in terms of appropriation of state resources, crime and quality of life have seen the impact and used their constitutional perogative through the ballot box to protect their homes and families from a threat that's not as benign as some would have you believe.
Oh, and for the record, this particular racist white guy once had an illegal alien live with my family for over a year while his case before the INS ground through the bureaucracy and courts, and a member of our extended family is married to a woman who entered the country illegally with her family a number of years ago and has since gone through the lengthy process of becoming a citizen.
I don't know about Norway, but Duncan MacLean, in his book "Lone Star Swing" has an amusing account of having his pasty-white, Scottish butt pulled over by the Texas Border Patrol.
OUR economy relies strongly on illegal workers making next to nothing - take SoCal for instance - you can get people to clean, build, and do any kind of manual labor for peanuts - SO MUCH LESS than the same services would cost in MN - and that makes big a difference for people and business owners down there.
amanda: it make s a big difference to us workers here in CA too, who are trying to earn a decent wage.
strange, aint it, you wont tip at caribou out of protest for the low wages paid to students, but you defend the cause of low wages paid to people trying to support a family in CA?
Usually the cops simply tell me to touch my nose and try to walk a straight line......just kidding.
Amanda, what your host is trying to get across to you is that any question about legal or illegal status will only follow probable cause, specifically the failure to produce a valid drivers' license, vehicle registration, or proof of insurance, or other actionable crime.
Not having dark skin. Got it?
Besides, if I want to hear about objectionable profiling, I'll just take a look at mainstream media articles about the Tea Parties.
Thank you, gentlemen. Amanda, all I am saying is this: the Godwin's Law "show us your papers" argument is silly. In this country, as a practical matter, a valid driver's license is the equivalent of "show us your papers."
And it's absurd to assume that already overburdened police officers, who know that any charge of racial profiling will pretty much end their careers, are going to turn vigilante because of this law.
Arizona's law is really, at bottom, a way to call the Feds to account for their border enforcement efforts, or lack thereof. There are many, many people in this country who immigrate the right way, go through the red tape and hassles, because they want to be here.
And by the way, know this: my brother-in-law was born in Mexico and is now an American citizen. He has no use for what is happening on our borders, because he recognizes that the rampant criminality, including human trafficking, murder and worse, hurts not only those people living in Arizona, but also the people that you and your well-meaning friends purport to support.
We need to have a serious discussion about this problem. When people start with racism and the Nazi stuff, it's clear they aren't ready to be serious.
WBP - That's disrespectful. If you can't even CONSIDER my side of the argument, you could at least have the decency to refrain from hurtling insults my way.
NW - That doesn't mean White Privilege doesn't exist.
Gino - I'm your friend.
I didn't say that it's okay for American businesses to exploit illegal labor. I said that because of that, it's more complicated. An analogy would be pulling a tablecloth out from under the placesettings and centerpiece - it must done carefully if you don't want everything to fly off the table and shatter.
Also, my beef with Caribou isn't about low wages for baristas - it's about charging more for the coffee than advertised - pushing the cost onto the consumer because you don't want to pay people more per hour.
I know CAians need jobs. Especially Merced County, which I read has the lowest unemployment in the nation. But how many people are going to give up their corporate level unemployment checks to get a legitimate job make way less as a day laborer? Like I said, it's more complicated than that.
Bike Bubba - The law says that police officers can ask for papers from people when engaged in "lawful contact." The trick? There's no definition for that. ANYONE who interacts with a law enforcement official, whether or not they were doing something suspicious, is taking part in "lawful contact."
Mr. D - Let me paraphrase your comment here: "Thanks for helping me attempt to explain to this to the feeble-minded Liberal female."
Not everybody - US citizens included - has a driver's license - or a state ID. I used to work in a plasma center many moons ago. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. Mostly poor people with no discernable foreign accents. The white homeless guy being shooed off for vagrancy? No one is going to ask for his ID. Why don't you go ahead and tell me why?
Actually, I'll tell you: Because he's white.
Now AGAIN, please explain to me what is not "racial profiling" about the law.
As for the "my friend/relative is Mexican and they think this is great" argument - sorry - that's as valid an argument as the one about how all Liberals are just indoctrinated idiots who only scream "RACISM!" because they don't know anything about public policy.
Re: Nazis - Because Europeans weren't justified in enacting anti-sematic policies against Jews, but American citizens ARE justified in enacting racial profiling laws against Mexicans?
Yeah, you're right. COMPLETELY different.
There's a point to the idea that it is wise to learn from history, Mr. D, and it's relevant to point out any similarity in history, from horrors of the past, in order to communicate that what is taking place in the present is just as wrong.
You keep asserting things as fact that are not in evidence. And no one here thinks that you are feeble-minded at all. If we thought that, we'd ignore you. That we engage your arguments should tell you something.
Again, on the Nazi comparison -- I'm going to borrow an argument from Chris Matthews, of all people. He was on Hardball last night talking about the Nazi comparisons. He reminded his audience of a few, ahem, differences between the Nazis and the Arizona government:
1) The Nazis were trying to keep from fleeing, while the Arizona government is trying to stop people from coming.
2) The Nazis killed millions of people. The Arizona government, not so much.
The Nazi argument is a blood libel. You are capable of much better than that. If you really were feeble minded, I'd let it slide. But you're not feeble minded at all, which is why I'm calling b.s. on it.
As far as the no driver's license/i.d. argument -- that's silly. In most places, getting a state i.d. is essentially free. It's a lot less burdensome requirement than forcing someone to buy health insurance.
As many people have mentioned elsewhere, Arizona is acting in this fashion because they are bearing the brunt of a federal problem that has been a matter of neglect for a long, long time. This isn't about blaming Obama, either, since the problems at the border go back to at least the Reagan years. The federal government needs to make a decision and stick with it regarding what should be happening on the southern border of this country. This is Arizona throwing down the gauntlet. Don't be surprised if New Mexico and Texas follow suit, and soon.
Amanda, Yes, my comment was ridiculing liberals in general. It was kind of similar to you impugning the legislators and law enforcement officers of the state of AZ as racists. I shouldn't be condescending, but it gets tiresome to be assumed a racist, sexist child of privilege who hates as a hobby. If you have a better argument than racism, make it.
Amanda, that's NOT the definition of lawful contact. Lawful contact is an actual legal term which describes what officers can and cannot do in questioning and detaining people, and officers know very well what is likely to happen if officers "stretch" the limits about it.
So sorry, your "racism" theme is misguided, and WB is exactly right to point out that when that's your kneejerk response, it's no more meaningful than when kids in the children's minute shout "Jesus" at the appropriate time.
For reference, you do need to have an ID to give plasma or blood these days, thankfully. If Amanda's former employer does not, I'm sure there are some recipients that will be "less than thankful" for this oversight. Lots of things can get into blood, and you sure want to make sure you're not getting a repeat offender.
All, there seems to be an assumption that only the drivers of cars and donaters of bodily fluids will be asked for ID. Is that the case? I haven't read the particulars of the law, so I am not really sure, but I think many of the objections to this law are based upon the notion that the police can stop anyone and say show me your papers. As far as I know, I am not required to carry papers, so what happens if I refuse to present my bonafides and I am not giving blood or driving? Can I be arrested? If so, I find that a little revolting. Don't any of you?
As far as I know, I am not required to carry papers, so what happens if I refuse to present my bonafides and I am not giving blood or driving? Can I be arrested? If so, I find that a little revolting. Don't any of you?
If that were going to happen, well hell yeah it would be revolting. But there's no evidence in the law nor in the comments of public officials in Arizona that there is any intention of setting up roadblocks, or sending secret policemen through the streets or anything of that sort. The standard I've seen is if there is probable cause of a crime being committed, a person is subject to being detained. Which is true of anyone.
If you're just a person walking down the street minding your own business, there's very little chance of being stopped, especially given the reality that there will be a flotilla of pro bono lawyers poised and at the ready to file suit the minute any gendarme goes crosswise.
And again, I am quite convinced that if the federal government would actually take responsibility for border enforcement instead of offloading it to the states, states like Arizona wouldn't enact such laws. But that's where we are.
Mr. D - I argue against calling people "Nazis" as an empty insult, but I used the comparison here because the Nazis gave us a *notable* instance of government-sanctioned racial profiling. Racial profiling is racial profiling whether or not concentration camps exist. I could have used (and I think I did in a previous post) the comparision of segregation in this country. Or the example of the Japanese internment camps in this country. Regardless of the result in each instance, they are examples of scrutinizing and/or criminalizing people because they belong to a specific race. People who use the Nazi comparison particularly aren't doing it to be simple-minded or outrageous, but to give us perspective on what has happened in history, in the most extreme and horrific, so we can avoid it in the future.
As far as the no driver's license/i.d. argument -- that's silly. In most places, getting a state i.d. is essentially free. It's a lot less burdensome requirement than forcing someone to buy health insurance.
It's difficult if you don't have a permanent address, or if you don't have bills with your address, or if you can't make the DMV hours because you can't get out of work, OR if you can't get to the DMV because you don't have a car. And for many other reasons personal to the people who know. If you disagree, remember you are speaking from the POV of never having any difficulty with the above scenarios.
WBP - I've argued on this blog that EVERYBODY at times is racist/sexist/classist/whateverist, even Liberals. I'm going to call a racist law a racist law, no matter who is supporting it. I think Obama allowed some sexist crap to go into the HCR bill - and I'm not the only Liberal complaining. Why be frustrated about this, if you feel confident that the goals of the conservative movement are above reproach?
Bike Bubba - Where is that "actual legal term" referenced? My interpretation is that the term is purposely vaguely worded in the law.
So sorry to you, but "that's a kneejerk response" IS a kneejerk response. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why the my police officer isn't going to demand ID from the white homeless man.
Did I say that the plasma center didn't require ID? It certainly did, and there were strict regulations for the ID used as well. I heard a ton of reasons for why people didn't have IDs, or didn't have valid IDs, and they were all heartbreaking to listen to, since these were all poor people who were desperate for money. You can't donate plasma if you don't have a valid ID - people got turned away for that reason everyday.
I didn't say "frustrated," I said "tiresome." As in, boring, mundane, predictable.
And the goals of the conservative movement aren't above reproach. Human beings, especially those with power, aren't to be trusted as a general rule. Hence the desire for separation of powers, limited government, etc...
Read the link that Picklesworth posted. It's from Andy McCarthy, a federal prosecutor who understands the law a whole lot better than any of us amateurs. The law is quite specific in what it allows officers to do. There's no way in hell that they are going to go around Nazi-style and start asking people for papers. The officer who does that risks his career and probably his life savings via civil suits.
And if everyone is racist, then racism is an empty charge. Picklesworth is correct -- it is all tiresome.
And if everyone is racist, then racism is an empty charge.
At this point, believe me, I'm tired of talking about it myself. Although I don't believe this stuff about "boredom." The response to the suggestion of racism is too defensive for me to believe that. But, whatever. I certainly won't persist in that argument.
Saying that everyone is racist, and therefore racism is an empty charge is not correct. (Further, I'm talking about laws, not people.) The point of singling out racism is to correct it, not to make everything "equally" racist.
26 comments:
Driver's license, and proof of insurance.
Yep. How about in Arizona?
A better question for this post would be: "What do you call it when members of a certain racial group are harassed by the police?"
Considering this country's shameful record of racial profiling POC for speeding/traffic violations, even w/o AZ legislation, asking what ID one is asked to produce is a little facetious. How about instead, prove that the law isn't racist? Or just accept the idea that deep down you want to side with us evil, helplessly indoctrinated Liberals on this one!
You keep asserting that the law is racist, Amanda. But you haven't proven it. Nor can you, really. Here's a question for you -- if a person is in the country illegally, what should happen to that person? And just to make it interesting, let's assume the person is someplace other than Mexico or some other Latin American country. How about, say, Norway?
I have to prove that *signaling out a specific race group* for police harassment is racist?
Anyway, if a person were from Norway, and in AZ illegally, that's just the point, Mr. D - no one is going to stop them and demand papers - because they're white.
As for my personal opinion on immigration, I have a very relaxed attitude toward foreigners seeking to live and work in our country. I think the US *owes* Mexico and Central America a certain amount of leeway in order to make up for the ways we've subverted their political and economic systems for the last couple of centuries (no, I am not prepared to present a thesis on that one in your comments section at the moment), and even if we weren't as relaxed as is my personal preference, the issue is so much more complicated than "kick them all out!" OUR economy relies strongly on illegal workers making next to nothing - take SoCal for instance - you can get people to clean, build, and do any kind of manual labor for peanuts - SO MUCH LESS than the same services would cost in MN - and that makes big a difference for people and business owners down there. So, no, I don't have all the answers. Analying this and suggesting a solution from an economic POV is above my head, but I do know that racial profiling isn't the answer, if for no other reason than the fact that legitimate US citizens will be targeted and treated as suspects for a crime.
I have to prove that *signaling out a specific race group* for police harassment is racist?
You have to prove it happens consistently. Actually, you don't personally, but you don't know that is the case. Not really, at least.
Anyway, if a person were from Norway, and in AZ illegally, that's just the point, Mr. D - no one is going to stop them and demand papers - because they're white.
And according to what I've read, no one is going to stop a Mexican national who is not doing something else that violates a law. A Norwegian who doesn't have a valid driver's license is subject to arrest. As I would be, too.
More soon.
There's an old joke about children's sermons. No matter what the question is, the answer is always "Jesus." Little kids might not have any idea what the pastor is talking about, but they're happy to answer "Jesus!" at the appropriate moment.
Liberals are like that. They can't be bothered with knowing stuff about public policy, but when put on the spot, what do they shout without fail? "Racism!"
Remember Jesse Ventura's comment about religion being a crutch for the weak? Racism is a crutch for the person with no arguments.
I never got stopped by the cops when I lived in Arizona, but then, I'm a white guy.
And for some reason, the Minnesota cops wouldn't accept my White Privilege Get Out of Court Free card when I gave them my license and insurance information. Jerks.
Interestingly enough, the Arizona Republic newspaper reports that polls show 70% approval of the new measure, including significant approval percentages from hispanics and democrats. That reminds me that a couple of years ago 47% of Hispanic voters (i.e., legal residents) approved Prop. 200, forbidding state benefits to illegal residents.
Clearly the people who have the most at stake in this situation in terms of appropriation of state resources, crime and quality of life have seen the impact and used their constitutional perogative through the ballot box to protect their homes and families from a threat that's not as benign as some would have you believe.
Oh, and for the record, this particular racist white guy once had an illegal alien live with my family for over a year while his case before the INS ground through the bureaucracy and courts, and a member of our extended family is married to a woman who entered the country illegally with her family a number of years ago and has since gone through the lengthy process of becoming a citizen.
I don't know about Norway, but Duncan MacLean, in his book "Lone Star Swing" has an amusing account of having his pasty-white, Scottish butt pulled over by the Texas Border Patrol.
OUR economy relies strongly on illegal workers making next to nothing - take SoCal for instance - you can get people to clean, build, and do any kind of manual labor for peanuts - SO MUCH LESS than the same services would cost in MN - and that makes big a difference for people and business owners down there.
amanda: it make s a big difference to us workers here in CA too, who are trying to earn a decent wage.
strange, aint it, you wont tip at caribou out of protest for the low wages paid to students, but you defend the cause of low wages paid to people trying to support a family in CA?
who's friend are you?
Usually the cops simply tell me to touch my nose and try to walk a straight line......just kidding.
Amanda, what your host is trying to get across to you is that any question about legal or illegal status will only follow probable cause, specifically the failure to produce a valid drivers' license, vehicle registration, or proof of insurance, or other actionable crime.
Not having dark skin. Got it?
Besides, if I want to hear about objectionable profiling, I'll just take a look at mainstream media articles about the Tea Parties.
Thank you, gentlemen. Amanda, all I am saying is this: the Godwin's Law "show us your papers" argument is silly. In this country, as a practical matter, a valid driver's license is the equivalent of "show us your papers."
And it's absurd to assume that already overburdened police officers, who know that any charge of racial profiling will pretty much end their careers, are going to turn vigilante because of this law.
Arizona's law is really, at bottom, a way to call the Feds to account for their border enforcement efforts, or lack thereof. There are many, many people in this country who immigrate the right way, go through the red tape and hassles, because they want to be here.
And by the way, know this: my brother-in-law was born in Mexico and is now an American citizen. He has no use for what is happening on our borders, because he recognizes that the rampant criminality, including human trafficking, murder and worse, hurts not only those people living in Arizona, but also the people that you and your well-meaning friends purport to support.
We need to have a serious discussion about this problem. When people start with racism and the Nazi stuff, it's clear they aren't ready to be serious.
WBP - That's disrespectful. If you can't even CONSIDER my side of the argument, you could at least have the decency to refrain from hurtling insults my way.
NW - That doesn't mean White Privilege doesn't exist.
Gino - I'm your friend.
I didn't say that it's okay for American businesses to exploit illegal labor. I said that because of that, it's more complicated. An analogy would be pulling a tablecloth out from under the placesettings and centerpiece - it must done carefully if you don't want everything to fly off the table and shatter.
Also, my beef with Caribou isn't about low wages for baristas - it's about charging more for the coffee than advertised - pushing the cost onto the consumer because you don't want to pay people more per hour.
I know CAians need jobs. Especially Merced County, which I read has the lowest unemployment in the nation. But how many people are going to give up their corporate level unemployment checks to get a legitimate job make way less as a day laborer? Like I said, it's more complicated than that.
Bike Bubba - The law says that police officers can ask for papers from people when engaged in "lawful contact." The trick? There's no definition for that. ANYONE who interacts with a law enforcement official, whether or not they were doing something suspicious, is taking part in "lawful contact."
Mr. D - Let me paraphrase your comment here: "Thanks for helping me attempt to explain to this to the feeble-minded Liberal female."
Not everybody - US citizens included - has a driver's license - or a state ID. I used to work in a plasma center many moons ago. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. Mostly poor people with no discernable foreign accents. The white homeless guy being shooed off for vagrancy? No one is going to ask for his ID. Why don't you go ahead and tell me why?
Actually, I'll tell you: Because he's white.
Now AGAIN, please explain to me what is not "racial profiling" about the law.
As for the "my friend/relative is Mexican and they think this is great" argument - sorry - that's as valid an argument as the one about how all Liberals are just indoctrinated idiots who only scream "RACISM!" because they don't know anything about public policy.
Re: Nazis - Because Europeans weren't justified in enacting anti-sematic policies against Jews, but American citizens ARE justified in enacting racial profiling laws against Mexicans?
Yeah, you're right. COMPLETELY different.
There's a point to the idea that it is wise to learn from history, Mr. D, and it's relevant to point out any similarity in history, from horrors of the past, in order to communicate that what is taking place in the present is just as wrong.
Amanda,
You keep asserting things as fact that are not in evidence. And no one here thinks that you are feeble-minded at all. If we thought that, we'd ignore you. That we engage your arguments should tell you something.
Again, on the Nazi comparison -- I'm going to borrow an argument from Chris Matthews, of all people. He was on Hardball last night talking about the Nazi comparisons. He reminded his audience of a few, ahem, differences between the Nazis and the Arizona government:
1) The Nazis were trying to keep from fleeing, while the Arizona government is trying to stop people from coming.
2) The Nazis killed millions of people. The Arizona government, not so much.
The Nazi argument is a blood libel. You are capable of much better than that. If you really were feeble minded, I'd let it slide. But you're not feeble minded at all, which is why I'm calling b.s. on it.
As far as the no driver's license/i.d. argument -- that's silly. In most places, getting a state i.d. is essentially free. It's a lot less burdensome requirement than forcing someone to buy health insurance.
As many people have mentioned elsewhere, Arizona is acting in this fashion because they are bearing the brunt of a federal problem that has been a matter of neglect for a long, long time. This isn't about blaming Obama, either, since the problems at the border go back to at least the Reagan years. The federal government needs to make a decision and stick with it regarding what should be happening on the southern border of this country. This is Arizona throwing down the gauntlet. Don't be surprised if New Mexico and Texas follow suit, and soon.
Amanda,
Yes, my comment was ridiculing liberals in general. It was kind of similar to you impugning the legislators and law enforcement officers of the state of AZ as racists. I shouldn't be condescending, but it gets tiresome to be assumed a racist, sexist child of privilege who hates as a hobby. If you have a better argument than racism, make it.
Amanda, that's NOT the definition of lawful contact. Lawful contact is an actual legal term which describes what officers can and cannot do in questioning and detaining people, and officers know very well what is likely to happen if officers "stretch" the limits about it.
So sorry, your "racism" theme is misguided, and WB is exactly right to point out that when that's your kneejerk response, it's no more meaningful than when kids in the children's minute shout "Jesus" at the appropriate time.
For reference, you do need to have an ID to give plasma or blood these days, thankfully. If Amanda's former employer does not, I'm sure there are some recipients that will be "less than thankful" for this oversight. Lots of things can get into blood, and you sure want to make sure you're not getting a repeat offender.
http://www.biolifeplasma.com/html/the_program/eligibility.html
All,
there seems to be an assumption that only the drivers of cars and donaters of bodily fluids will be asked for ID. Is that the case? I haven't read the particulars of the law, so I am not really sure, but I think many of the objections to this law are based upon the notion that the police can stop anyone and say show me your papers. As far as I know, I am not required to carry papers, so what happens if I refuse to present my bonafides and I am not giving blood or driving? Can I be arrested? If so, I find that a little revolting. Don't any of you?
As far as I know, I am not required to carry papers, so what happens if I refuse to present my bonafides and I am not giving blood or driving? Can I be arrested? If so, I find that a little revolting. Don't any of you?
If that were going to happen, well hell yeah it would be revolting. But there's no evidence in the law nor in the comments of public officials in Arizona that there is any intention of setting up roadblocks, or sending secret policemen through the streets or anything of that sort. The standard I've seen is if there is probable cause of a crime being committed, a person is subject to being detained. Which is true of anyone.
If you're just a person walking down the street minding your own business, there's very little chance of being stopped, especially given the reality that there will be a flotilla of pro bono lawyers poised and at the ready to file suit the minute any gendarme goes crosswise.
And again, I am quite convinced that if the federal government would actually take responsibility for border enforcement instead of offloading it to the states, states like Arizona wouldn't enact such laws. But that's where we are.
Anon, I found this post by Andy McCarthy to be helpful.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZmY3OThiZWJkYTNiMDI4NzM4MGZiOTNhOTMzMzU=
Good find, WBP. Seems to be on point and McCarthy's credentials are impeccable.
Mr. D - I argue against calling people "Nazis" as an empty insult, but I used the comparison here because the Nazis gave us a *notable* instance of government-sanctioned racial profiling. Racial profiling is racial profiling whether or not concentration camps exist. I could have used (and I think I did in a previous post) the comparision of segregation in this country. Or the example of the Japanese internment camps in this country. Regardless of the result in each instance, they are examples of scrutinizing and/or criminalizing people because they belong to a specific race. People who use the Nazi comparison particularly aren't doing it to be simple-minded or outrageous, but to give us perspective on what has happened in history, in the most extreme and horrific, so we can avoid it in the future.
As far as the no driver's license/i.d. argument -- that's silly. In most places, getting a state i.d. is essentially free. It's a lot less burdensome requirement than forcing someone to buy health insurance.
It's difficult if you don't have a permanent address, or if you don't have bills with your address, or if you can't make the DMV hours because you can't get out of work, OR if you can't get to the DMV because you don't have a car. And for many other reasons personal to the people who know. If you disagree, remember you are speaking from the POV of never having any difficulty with the above scenarios.
WBP - I've argued on this blog that EVERYBODY at times is racist/sexist/classist/whateverist, even Liberals. I'm going to call a racist law a racist law, no matter who is supporting it. I think Obama allowed some sexist crap to go into the HCR bill - and I'm not the only Liberal complaining. Why be frustrated about this, if you feel confident that the goals of the conservative movement are above reproach?
Bike Bubba - Where is that "actual legal term" referenced? My interpretation is that the term is purposely vaguely worded in the law.
So sorry to you, but "that's a kneejerk response" IS a kneejerk response. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why the my police officer isn't going to demand ID from the white homeless man.
Did I say that the plasma center didn't require ID? It certainly did, and there were strict regulations for the ID used as well. I heard a ton of reasons for why people didn't have IDs, or didn't have valid IDs, and they were all heartbreaking to listen to, since these were all poor people who were desperate for money. You can't donate plasma if you don't have a valid ID - people got turned away for that reason everyday.
I didn't say "frustrated," I said "tiresome." As in, boring, mundane, predictable.
And the goals of the conservative movement aren't above reproach. Human beings, especially those with power, aren't to be trusted as a general rule. Hence the desire for separation of powers, limited government, etc...
Amanda,
Read the link that Picklesworth posted. It's from Andy McCarthy, a federal prosecutor who understands the law a whole lot better than any of us amateurs. The law is quite specific in what it allows officers to do. There's no way in hell that they are going to go around Nazi-style and start asking people for papers. The officer who does that risks his career and probably his life savings via civil suits.
And if everyone is racist, then racism is an empty charge. Picklesworth is correct -- it is all tiresome.
And if everyone is racist, then racism is an empty charge.
At this point, believe me, I'm tired of talking about it myself. Although I don't believe this stuff about "boredom." The response to the suggestion of racism is too defensive for me to believe that. But, whatever. I certainly won't persist in that argument.
Saying that everyone is racist, and therefore racism is an empty charge is not correct. (Further, I'm talking about laws, not people.) The point of singling out racism is to correct it, not to make everything "equally" racist.
Post a Comment