Shankar Narayan of the ACLU of Washington this week had a press conference to say that saying that Arizona's law establishes "racial profiling."
By now, we all know that's a lie. The law expressly prohibits racial profiling, and further says that all reasonable suspicion must be based on existing state and federal laws, which already prohibit it. Narayan said, "We know that you simply cannot enforce a law like SB 1070's Section 2(B) without engaging in racial profiling, because people will inevitably be targeted based on how they look or sound." That's simply a lie. We know no such thing.
For example, maybe they will only use the law based on a combination of factors that have nothing to do with how someone (in terms of ethnicity) "looks or sounds." If someone is blond and white, and is going 75 in a 55, and gets pulled over and has no ID and can't speak English (only German), then that's certainly reasonable suspicion, without resorting to any racial profiling at all. Of course, what's more likely in Arizona is that it won't be a blond white German, but that's beside the point.
Narayan and his ACLU of Washington are lying, pure and simple. And there's a reason why: they dislike the law, and so they want it defeated, but they cannot do that unless they convince people it facially violates the Constitution; so they invent lies about how it cannot be enforced without resorting to racial profiling. And now they and their friends are going to look to manufacture evidence of racial profiling for an as-applied challenge.
I am not saying I like this law (I think it's probably a waste of resources, and will likely cause harm to people who should be very low law enforcement priorities, if not legalized); and I am not saying that if the law is violated, the state and its agents shouldn't be held accountable.
But clearly, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with using your head to reasonably suspect that someone isn't here legally, without resorting to racial profiling, and instead of engaging in a witchhunt over it, they should focus their efforts on inventing a time machine so they can go back to 2009 when Obama and Democratic majorities and actually could have passed immigration reform and made it law.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at June 26, 2012 02:28 PM | Email ThisMore to the point: For example, maybe they will only use the law based on a combination of factors that have nothing to do with how someone (in terms of ethnicity) "looks or sounds." If someone is blond and white, and is going 75 in a 55, and gets pulled over and has no ID and can't speak English (only German), then that's certainly reasonable suspicion, without resorting to any racial profiling at all. Of course, what's more likely in Arizona is that it won't be a blond white German, but that's beside the point.
You do realize, by your own example, you are judging the person by how they look (white, German), and sound (can't speak English). That is, unless you are suggesting that anyone in Arizona who is pulled over for doing 75 in a 55 zone is automatically assumed to be in the country illegally.
What can reasonably lead to a suspicion that anyone is in this country illegally? Can't be that they have an accent, their are plenty of citizens and people in this country legally who have both. Can't be skin color, as there are plenty of darker skin people in Arizona who are citizens or legal aliens. Can't be that they are speeding, as I would bet that most of the people pulled over for speeding are citizens, and I can't believe you think that anyone pulled over for speeding should be detained by the government on the hunch that they may not be in the country legally.
Your own attempt to show how the law is harmless actually does the opposite. You are either going to engage in profiling (as you did in you example where foreign looking and sounding = illegal alien), or you are going to impose a police state where you have to produce proof of citizenship any time a cop comes in contact with you. I'm not really sure we want either of those worlds.
But thanks for proving the ACLU's point.
Posted by: Lionel Hutz Esq. on June 26, 2012 03:32 PMShrug. Let's see you back that up. He said this law establishes racial profiling; it does not, as I demonstrated. He said this law cannot be enforced without racial profiling; it can.
You do realize, by your own example, you are judging the person by how they look (white, German), and sound (can't speak English).
False. The fact that he is white was not part of the judgment, but merely a statement of fact to set up the situation, to show how it could be applied regardless of appearance. Thats obvious. Stop being stupid.
And the fact that someone cannot speak English is not about how they "sound": maybe he's mute, but can't understand English. The ACLU's point is about accent, not about English ability, because it is extremely rare for an American citizen to not know English. This, too, is obvious.
Your own attempt to show how the law is harmless actually does the opposite.
Nope. My attempt actually shows that the ACLU is lying by saying that this law establishes racial profiling, that it cannot be enforced without racial profling, because I gave a clear example of how the law could be enforced without any racial profiling.
You are either going to engage in profiling (as you did in you example where foreign looking and sounding = illegal alien)
He doesn't look foreign: his white with blond hair. Nothing about that is foreign-looking. And the fact that he can't speak English has nothing directly to do with how he sounds.
It's hard to believe you're this stupid.
... or you are going to impose a police state where you have to produce proof of citizenship any time a cop comes in contact with you.
That, too, is illegal, just like racial profiling is, and this law requires neither.
Stop lying.
@1 - You realize you are making an absurd and irrelevant argument, hence creating a straw man. You are essentially labeling him a racist - because you have no other argument and he doesn't happen to agree with your pro-ACLU point of view.
SAD !
After suffering through the Hutz-inator's delusional, incoherent, disconnected, illogical, pouting, immature ramblings of late, in the spirit of coherent debate, perhaps you might just ban him so that us adults are spared drivel from the mentally ill.
Not that any of us are into censorship, but, since WA State closed Buckley and Sedro Wooley, the loons have been on the loose for decades, to the endangerment of the general public.
Posted by: Hank on June 26, 2012 04:38 PMThat these groups and people lie about this issue is all they've got left. So, while they ARE lies that shouldn't suprise anyone...
...It's what they do.
Posted by: Hinton on June 26, 2012 05:21 PMSo I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Mr. Hutz doesn't know what racial profiling means.
Posted by: Oscarphone on June 26, 2012 06:25 PMJust think of what may have been stopped on Sept 11. If others had stepped up to the plate instead of being so PC. Like most lib's want. .
Posted by: Medic/Vet on June 27, 2012 07:35 AMYes. He tells lies just about every day. He's the most prolific liar in the Senate, so this is expected. But it is very clear -- even legal scholars on the left admit it -- that this law does not encourage or condone -- and on the contrary, forcefully condemns and outlaws -- judging based on the color of their skin.
And there is no evidence -- as the Court recognized explicitly -- that this law has, or would, lead to such racial profiling. That's why Holder's hyperpartisan DOJ has set up a hotline to try to get people to complain, so they can look for that proverbial needle in a haystack. But for an as-applied challenge to strike down the law, they are going to need to find a hell of a lot of needles.
I wonder how he feels about afirmative action and diversity programs.
Do you? :-) Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance.
Also progressive pundents commented that police are not capable of making good decisions on the use of: probable cause" in the implimentauion of the law. I wonder if they feel police are capable of using deadly force.
While I am very sensitive to the fact that some police officers are idiots and thugs, we need to weed those out, not paint all of them with a broad brush. I might even say that "People should not be judged on the color of their uniform".
Jimbo
Posted by: Jimbo on June 27, 2012 09:26 AM