Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Discrimination in Arizona's Immigration Bill?

SuzzaneO
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 3:59:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I personally don't see a problem with the Arizona immigration bill SB 1070 that allows officers to demand ID. Racial profiling was created for a reason. Stereotypes are based from facts. Most, if not all, of the illegal immigrants living in Arizona and other border states are Mexican. How can we not racial profile?
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 4:20:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 3:59:08 PM, SuzzaneO wrote:
I personally don't see a problem with the Arizona immigration bill SB 1070 that allows officers to demand ID. Racial profiling was created for a reason. Stereotypes are based from facts. Most, if not all, of the illegal immigrants living in Arizona and other border states are Mexican. How can we not racial profile?

I agree with you completely. Well except for the fact that you say Stereotypes are based from facts.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 4:33:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 3:59:08 PM, SuzzaneO wrote:
I personally don't see a problem with the Arizona immigration bill SB 1070 that allows officers to demand ID. Racial profiling was created for a reason. Stereotypes are based from facts. Most, if not all, of the illegal immigrants living in Arizona and other border states are Mexican. How can we not racial profile?

Stereotypes are rooted in facts, and blown out of proportion.

However, the bill itself does not call for racial profiling. The only excuse is that officers will misuse the bill (as if they can't do that on everything else) to use racial enforcement.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 5:35:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 4:33:45 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/9/2011 3:59:08 PM, SuzzaneO wrote:
I personally don't see a problem with the Arizona immigration bill SB 1070 that allows officers to demand ID. Racial profiling was created for a reason. Stereotypes are based from facts. Most, if not all, of the illegal immigrants living in Arizona and other border states are Mexican. How can we not racial profile?

Stereotypes are rooted in facts, and blown out of proportion.

However, the bill itself does not call for racial profiling. The only excuse is that officers will misuse the bill (as if they can't do that on everything else) to use racial enforcement.

Yea, OreEle is technically correct in saying that the bill doesn't call for racial profiling, but even if it did, I would still support it.
SuzzaneO
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 9:16:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 5:35:06 PM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
At 5/9/2011 4:33:45 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/9/2011 3:59:08 PM, SuzzaneO wrote:
I personally don't see a problem with the Arizona immigration bill SB 1070 that allows officers to demand ID. Racial profiling was created for a reason. Stereotypes are based from facts. Most, if not all, of the illegal immigrants living in Arizona and other border states are Mexican. How can we not racial profile?

Stereotypes are rooted in facts, and blown out of proportion.

However, the bill itself does not call for racial profiling. The only excuse is that officers will misuse the bill (as if they can't do that on everything else) to use racial enforcement.

Yea, OreEle is technically correct in saying that the bill doesn't call for racial profiling, but even if it did, I would still support it.

How do you not racial profile while trying to prevent mexican immigrants from illegally entering the country?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 9:25:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 3:59:08 PM, SuzzaneO wrote:
I personally don't see a problem with the Arizona immigration bill SB 1070 that allows officers to demand ID. Racial profiling was created for a reason. Stereotypes are based from facts. Most, if not all, of the illegal immigrants living in Arizona and other border states are Mexican. How can we not racial profile?:

1. Do you have any idea how many people of hispanic descent are legally living in the United States? There are millions of legal U.S. citizens of hispanic descent living in Arizona right now.

2. Although I don't look the part, I'm of hispanic origin on my father's side of the family. In fact, there are many hispanics who don't "look" Mestizo (Spanish/Indian mix). That means you're making the assumption based on nothing but the way someone looks.... and you don't see an issue with that?

2. Should it be assumed, if you're white, that you're actually a British or Canadian citizen, and you should be pulled over every time a cop sees you?

3. The Constitution clearly states that immigration is a federal issue to be dealt with by federal authorities (i.e. Coast Guard, Border Patrol, ICE, CPB), not Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Interesting name he has. It sounds foreign. Let's violate his civil rights.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 9:37:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 9:25:25 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 5/9/2011 3:59:08 PM, SuzzaneO wrote:
I personally don't see a problem with the Arizona immigration bill SB 1070 that allows officers to demand ID. Racial profiling was created for a reason. Stereotypes are based from facts. Most, if not all, of the illegal immigrants living in Arizona and other border states are Mexican. How can we not racial profile?:

1. Do you have any idea how many people of hispanic descent are legally living in the United States? There are millions of legal U.S. citizens of hispanic descent living in Arizona right now.

2. Although I don't look the part, I'm of hispanic origin on my father's side of the family. In fact, there are many hispanics who don't "look" Mestizo (Spanish/Indian mix). That means you're making the assumption based on nothing but the way someone looks.... and you don't see an issue with that?

2. Should it be assumed, if you're white, that you're actually a British or Canadian citizen, and you should be pulled over every time a cop sees you?

3. The Constitution clearly states that immigration is a federal issue to be dealt with by federal authorities (i.e. Coast Guard, Border Patrol, ICE, CPB), not Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Interesting name he has. It sounds foreign. Let's violate his civil rights.

And Paradigm wins the thread
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 11:25:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 9:25:25 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 5/9/2011 3:59:08 PM, SuzzaneO wrote:
I personally don't see a problem with the Arizona immigration bill SB 1070 that allows officers to demand ID. Racial profiling was created for a reason. Stereotypes are based from facts. Most, if not all, of the illegal immigrants living in Arizona and other border states are Mexican. How can we not racial profile?:

1. Do you have any idea how many people of Hispanic descent are legally living in the United States? There are millions of legal U.S. citizens of Hispanic descent living in Arizona right now.
Yes, there are a lot of people of Hispanic descent that are living in the United States legally, and Arizona, but that doesn't change the fact that nearly all illegal immigrants are of Hispanic descent and are living in Arizona and the United States as of right now.

2. Although I don't look the part, I'm of Hispanic origin on my father's side of the family. In fact, there are many Hispanics who don't "look" Mestizo (Spanish/Indian mix). That means you're making the assumption based on nothing but the way someone looks.... and you don't see an issue with that?
Just because there happens to be Hispanics that don't "look" "Mestizo", doesn't mean that the majority of Hispanics don't look like that. If a certain trait is consistent within a certain social group, (Keep in mind I acknowledge the fact that there will always be some people that don't have this certain trait that are in this social group as you mentioned above) that means that it can be a fair assumption for one to profile another if they deem that trait to be very consistent within a certain social group, as there happens to be with hispanics

2. Should it be assumed, if you're white, that you're actually a British or Canadian citizen, and you should be pulled over every time a cop sees you?
First, I would like to mention that people who advocate racial and/or police profiling don't advocate that (There are some exceptions such as David Duke and others) the police should profile in a manner such as that. Second, as many liberals have mentioned, Canada (From a liberals perspective, but not necessarily from all liberals perspectives) have been claimed by several people (Including Newsweek magazine) that Canada is a much better place to live in the U.S. due to a number of reasons that I won't get into here. So why then would Canadians come over here to the U.S. in any reasonable numbers that people of Hispanic decent come over here for?

3. The Constitution clearly states that immigration is a federal issue to be dealt with by federal authorities (i.e. Coast Guard, Border Patrol, ICE, CPB), not Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Interesting name he has. It sounds foreign. Let's violate his civil rights.
This is true, but what if the federal government and/or federal authorities don't protect and enforce our immigration laws? There are numerous amounts of reports and evidence to say that the federal government hasn't enforced our border and/or enforce immigration laws. The states have the right to enforce their immigration laws if the federal government fails to do so, and significant evidence seems to show that the federal government indeed hasn't been doing their job.
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 11:26:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 9:37:00 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 5/10/2011 9:25:25 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 5/9/2011 3:59:08 PM, SuzzaneO wrote:
I personally don't see a problem with the Arizona immigration bill SB 1070 that allows officers to demand ID. Racial profiling was created for a reason. Stereotypes are based from facts. Most, if not all, of the illegal immigrants living in Arizona and other border states are Mexican. How can we not racial profile?:

1. Do you have any idea how many people of hispanic descent are legally living in the United States? There are millions of legal U.S. citizens of hispanic descent living in Arizona right now.

2. Although I don't look the part, I'm of hispanic origin on my father's side of the family. In fact, there are many hispanics who don't "look" Mestizo (Spanish/Indian mix). That means you're making the assumption based on nothing but the way someone looks.... and you don't see an issue with that?

2. Should it be assumed, if you're white, that you're actually a British or Canadian citizen, and you should be pulled over every time a cop sees you?

3. The Constitution clearly states that immigration is a federal issue to be dealt with by federal authorities (i.e. Coast Guard, Border Patrol, ICE, CPB), not Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Interesting name he has. It sounds foreign. Let's violate his civil rights.

And Paradigm wins the thread

Oh...I don't think so...
Experiment
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2011 7:56:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 3:59:08 PM, SuzzaneO wrote:
I personally don't see a problem with the Arizona immigration bill SB 1070 that allows officers to demand ID. Racial profiling was created for a reason.

It wasn't created, it simply exists.

Stereotypes are based from facts.

They are more like exaggerated facts.

Most, if not all, of the illegal immigrants living in Arizona and other border states are Mexican. How can we not racial profile?

How can you tell if someone is Mexican? Because they are not explicitly Caucasian? What if they are Hispanic but not Mexican...or Indian, or Native American, or Eastern European, or Middle Eastern, or bi-racial, or simply just tan? People are going to be pulled over and asked to show documentation now based on the color of their skin? Demanding that people show their papers (proof of citizenship) is what the government used to do to slaves. There are undocumented people of all national origins living in the country. It's a shame that Republicans feel the need to perpetually embarrass themselves by specifically going after those who are dark skinned. This is probably not a good idea for their party considering the demographics of this country are drastically changing.
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 12:22:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/19/2011 7:56:53 PM, Experiment wrote:
At 5/9/2011 3:59:08 PM, SuzzaneO wrote:
I personally don't see a problem with the Arizona immigration bill SB 1070 that allows officers to demand ID. Racial profiling was created for a reason.

It wasn't created, it simply exists.

Stereotypes are based from facts.

They are more like exaggerated facts.

Most, if not all, of the illegal immigrants living in Arizona and other border states are Mexican. How can we not racial profile?

How can you tell if someone is Mexican? Because they are not explicitly Caucasian? What if they are Hispanic but not Mexican...or Indian, or Native American, or Eastern European, or Middle Eastern, or bi-racial, or simply just tan? People are going to be pulled over and asked to show documentation now based on the color of their skin? Demanding that people show their papers (proof of citizenship) is what the government used to do to slaves. There are undocumented people of all national origins living in the country. It's a shame that Republicans feel the need to perpetually embarrass themselves by specifically going after those who are dark skinned. This is probably not a good idea for their party considering the demographics of this country are drastically changing.

Lol, this is really funny. So tell me...why did George Bush have an African American secretary of state if you think that Republicans need to "perpetually embarrass themselves by specifically going after those who are dark skinned"? Why did he even have Condoleezza Rice if he felt that was toward "dark skinned" people as coined by you?

I find your logic to be rather amusing.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 12:31:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 12:22:55 PM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
Lol, this is really funny. So tell me...why did George Bush have an African American secretary of state if you think that Republicans need to "perpetually embarrass themselves by specifically going after those who are dark skinned"? Why did he even have Condoleezza Rice if he felt that was toward "dark skinned" people as coined by you?

I find your logic to be rather amusing.

granted his argument was poor, but yours isn't much better. you're pretty much claiming "well republicans have black friends so they can't be racist!!!!11!".

whether the law ends up being racist in effect depends on how its enforced.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 12:36:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 9:16:27 AM, SuzzaneO wrote:
At 5/9/2011 5:35:06 PM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
At 5/9/2011 4:33:45 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/9/2011 3:59:08 PM, SuzzaneO wrote:
I personally don't see a problem with the Arizona immigration bill SB 1070 that allows officers to demand ID. Racial profiling was created for a reason. Stereotypes are based from facts. Most, if not all, of the illegal immigrants living in Arizona and other border states are Mexican. How can we not racial profile?

Stereotypes are rooted in facts, and blown out of proportion.

However, the bill itself does not call for racial profiling. The only excuse is that officers will misuse the bill (as if they can't do that on everything else) to use racial enforcement.

Yea, OreEle is technically correct in saying that the bill doesn't call for racial profiling, but even if it did, I would still support it.

How do you not racial profile while trying to prevent mexican immigrants from illegally entering the country?

Simple, you pull a car over for speeding (assuming it was actually speeding). While you give them the ticket, as you would for anyone that was speeding, you notice that they don't speak english. Right there, you have a way to identify without using race.

If I came across someone that only spoke Chinese (and no english) I would check them out too. It has nothing to do with race, but with language.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 12:40:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 12:31:30 PM, belle wrote:
At 5/20/2011 12:22:55 PM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
Lol, this is really funny. So tell me...why did George Bush have an African American secretary of state if you think that Republicans need to "perpetually embarrass themselves by specifically going after those who are dark skinned"? Why did he even have Condoleezza Rice if he felt that was toward "dark skinned" people as coined by you?

I find your logic to be rather amusing.

granted his argument was poor, but yours isn't much better. you're pretty much claiming "well republicans have black friends so they can't be racist!!!!11!".

whether the law ends up being racist in effect depends on how its enforced.

That doesn't make the law racist, only the officers mis-using the law. Drug laws don't allow for racial profiling, but if a cop pulls over every black guy to check for drugs, is the law racist? Or that officer?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 12:49:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 12:40:51 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/20/2011 12:31:30 PM, belle wrote:
At 5/20/2011 12:22:55 PM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
Lol, this is really funny. So tell me...why did George Bush have an African American secretary of state if you think that Republicans need to "perpetually embarrass themselves by specifically going after those who are dark skinned"? Why did he even have Condoleezza Rice if he felt that was toward "dark skinned" people as coined by you?

I find your logic to be rather amusing.

granted his argument was poor, but yours isn't much better. you're pretty much claiming "well republicans have black friends so they can't be racist!!!!11!".

whether the law ends up being racist in effect depends on how its enforced.

That doesn't make the law racist, only the officers mis-using the law. Drug laws don't allow for racial profiling, but if a cop pulls over every black guy to check for drugs, is the law racist? Or that officer?

thats why i said "racist in effect"- i meant to imply whether or not the effects of the law end up being racist or not. the law itself is neutral.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Experiment
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 4:00:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 12:22:55 PM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
Lol, this is really funny. So tell me...why did George Bush have an African American secretary of state if you think that Republicans need to "perpetually embarrass themselves by specifically going after those who are dark skinned"? Why did he even have Condoleezza Rice if he felt that was toward "dark skinned" people as coined by you?

I find your logic to be rather amusing.

I was not being literal when I said that all Republicans in general were racist, though it is no secret that historically the right has been far more inclined to favor seemingly racist policies than the left. It is amusing though that you think because President Bush appointed black people to his cabinet (which was obviously at the advisory of his other council and various other extensive political pressure to do so--unofficial affirmative action if you will) that it somehow means he is not racist. I won't pretend to know anything about his character and also spare you a lecture on the Hurricane Katrina fiasco but needless to say I have my suspicions.
Experiment
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 4:07:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 12:31:30 PM, belle wrote:
At 5/20/2011 12:22:55 PM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
Lol, this is really funny. So tell me...why did George Bush have an African American secretary of state if you think that Republicans need to "perpetually embarrass themselves by specifically going after those who are dark skinned"? Why did he even have Condoleezza Rice if he felt that was toward "dark skinned" people as coined by you?

I find your logic to be rather amusing.

granted his argument was poor, but yours isn't much better. you're pretty much claiming "well republicans have black friends so they can't be racist!!!!11!".

whether the law ends up being racist in effect depends on how its enforced.

I don't see how my argument was poor. I made a Republican generalization that was not to be taken literal, but I am not wrong about the inherent racism of the law. You say the law is only racist depending on how its enforced. The law says a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States. What do you think "probable cause" entails in terms of immigration? Will they stop everyone with an accent, including white tourists? Will they stop and interrogate white people who appear at least middle class? Or will they stop people who look Mexican (dark skinned, with certain facial features) and who are dressed like they are lower class? Using the color of one's skin and the way they are dressed as legitimate reason for probable cause, which they have been doing in Arionza, is not only racist but unconstitutional.

You would only be right if police officers didn't go after people who look "obviously Mexican" specifically, but that would completely undermine the entire purpose of the law and the way that it was intentionally written and passed, so that's a pipe dream. I prefer to be realistic.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 4:07:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Simple, you pull a car over for speeding (assuming it was actually speeding). While you give them the ticket, as you would for anyone that was speeding, you notice that they don't speak english. Right there, you have a way to identify without using race.

If I came across someone that only spoke Chinese (and no english) I would check them out too. It has nothing to do with race, but with language.:

The point is that it's still discriminatory. It's not a crime to speak Chinese or any other language. And that's a really bad way to screen people anyway. English is the language of commerce, making it the most known language on earth. There are plenty of illegal people in America who overstay their visas who speak fluent English.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 4:16:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't see how my argument was poor. I made a Republican generalization that was not to be taken literal, but I am not wrong about the inherent racism of the law. You say the law is only racist depending on how its enforced. The law says a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States. What do you think "probable cause" entails in terms of immigration? Will they stop everyone with an accent, including white tourists? Will they stop and interrogate white people who appear at least middle class? Or will they stop people who look Mexican (dark skinned, with certain facial features) and who are dressed like they are lower class? Using the color of one's skin and the way they are dressed as legitimate reason for probable cause, which they have been doing in Arionza, is not only racist but unconstitutional.:

Absolutely unconstitutional and racist because that's not probable cause, it's not even reasonable suspicion. It's a wild guess.

Profiling is sometimes a useful tool, but racial profiling is about as scientific as creationism.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Hardcore-Racist
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 10:19:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I find it interesting that a lot of people who say they aren't racist, support affirmative action. They then also viciously condemn racial profiling.

Here is my question to you...what is the difference?

With affirmative action, you technically "racially profile" the person for the job and/or college admission.

I for one am very racist (As the name hints) and support a lot of racist policies that some would disagree with nowadays. But I simply don't look at these topics with a "redneck" point of view. I acknowledge that racial profiling and affirmative action have pros and cons. Here is where it all breaks down though.

With racial profiling, the benefits outweigh the negatives.

With affirmative action, the negatives overpower the positives.

Some racist policies are good to have, while others shouldn't even be considered.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 10:36:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 4:07:27 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Simple, you pull a car over for speeding (assuming it was actually speeding). While you give them the ticket, as you would for anyone that was speeding, you notice that they don't speak english. Right there, you have a way to identify without using race.

If I came across someone that only spoke Chinese (and no english) I would check them out too. It has nothing to do with race, but with language.:

The point is that it's still discriminatory. It's not a crime to speak Chinese or any other language. And that's a really bad way to screen people anyway. English is the language of commerce, making it the most known language on earth. There are plenty of illegal people in America who overstay their visas who speak fluent English.

It's not discrimination as far as the law is concerned (language is not a protected class). If you want to use the non-legal definition of discriminate, then it is and I support it, just like I support discriminating against murderers.

There is no 100% faultless method to catch every illegal and never have a mistake. That in no way means that we should attempt to correct a problem.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2011 12:18:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
SB1070 requires ID if a person is stopped by police for a reason other than immigration suspicion, and there is some non-racial reason to suspect the person is not a citizen. The main characteristic is inability to speak English. The law required that a driver's license, state-issued ID, or Native American tribal ID be accepted as proof of citizenship.

A news report yesterday said that two main categories of non-Mexican illegals are Chinese and Indians. It's so easy to cross the border, illegal entry is an international business.

One well-known politician said that if he met a young Black man on a lonely street, he would worry more than if he met a young White man. The politician doing the racist stereotyping was Jesse Jackson.