|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
I see there have now been 7 lawsuits filed against the Arizona immigration law. The latest one includes as a plaintiff the League of United Latin American Citizens and complains that the training materials for the police in learning how to enforce the new law will promote racial profiling.
It seems the training teaches police NOT to profile, but to include such observations as whether a person speaks poor English, looks nervous or is traveling in an overcrowded vehicle. They can also take into account whether someone is wearing several layers of clothing in a hot climate or hanging out in an area where illegal aliens are known to look for work.
I'm not sure whether the League thinks that hispanic Americans all speak poor English, look nervous all the time, wear far too many clothes and hang out with illegal aliens looking for work or if they think all illegal aliens doing these things will be hispanic.
Sounds more to me as if the lawsuit is the one guilty of profiling, not the training materials.......
Good point about the lawsuit having more prejudice than what it's complaining about.
Things like this are really crazy. I remember people complaining that muslims were being targetted through profiling by anti-terrorism police. But surely if a police unit investigating Islamic terrorism were to deliberately investigate innocent Christians, Jews and Hindu's just to 'balance the books' then that would be a dereliction of duty and would endanger people's lives. In the same way if police are investigating illegal immigration from Latin American countries, then surely they have to target Latin American people, don't they? How else could the law be enforced? Everyone just gets so sensitive about it and cries racism at the first opportunity, but I think that they just have to get over it and accept that's the way it is.
And I'm sure you'd be quite happy to be forced to carry your papers around because you're hispanic. Or have to put up with being stopped by police all the time, because you're the third generation of your family to live in America.
It's really easy to say "get over it" when it's not happening to you.
Or worse, "that's the way it is." A phrase more dangerous to freedom and liberty has rarely been heard.
Sorry, I know it sounds glib coming from someone who doesn't experience it and I do feel for people who are, but I just see it as a choice between enforcing the law and inconveniencing a group of people, or not enforcing the law.
And really, is getting stopped and asked a couple of question every now and again really that bad? If the police are actually wrongly arresting people or bullying and mistreating them then that's different, but that's not to do with the profiling issue, it's to do with police misconduct.
The consistent use of "your papers" is the lefts way of relating enforcing the law to the crimes of Nazi Germany.
I was born in the U.S. and carry my "papers" everywhere, its called
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n.
The race baiting is old, find a new shtick.
Cool, Jim. You said it well. If I'd seen your post before, I probably wouldn't have written mine. But anyway, it said what I wanted it to say, and it was high time anyway.
Not seeing the difference displays the weakness of your position on the matter.
I must have a weak position because you said so.
And seeing the difference displays YOUR bias...
I'm quite proud of my bias. I happen to share it with most law enforcemnet personnel in Arizona. They (and everyone but the wingnuts) understand the detrimental effect this law would have on ACTUAL law enforcement.
Your bias prevents you from looking at things objectively.
I see you are still looking at the world through the prism of Us vs Them...The enlightened liberal mind against the dastardly conservative wingnuts...That is so yesterday...Come into the light, my friend, and leave that Flagstaff fountainhead of faux fascism behind...Flagstaff is much like Berkeley in that it is a politically insular and self-aggrandizing community dominated by secular progressives in academia and government...
My association with Law Enforcement is professional, and I can tell you that SB1070 is a most welcome tool that will be aggressively enforced when activated in August...Incidentally, here is a list of those Law Enforcement associations and groups that support SB1070: Supporters of the bill includes the Arizona Police Association, nine county sheriffs, the Fraternal Order of Police, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, Maricopa Deputy’s Law Enforcement Association, Maricopa County Detention Officers Association, Glendale Mesa and Chandler Police Officers Associations, Border Patrol Officers Association, the Arizona Highway Patrol Association and many more.
It's good to know that many of our Law Enforcement people still maintain both common sense and the integrity of the Law.
Maven101 it is great to see you today!
You are confusing political figures (elected sherriffs) and political organizations with people who actually are involved with law enforcement on a daily basis.
The first suit against the ridiculous bill was filed by Tucson police officer Martin Escobar with the support of rank and file officers accross the state.
Police chiefs and city governments close to the border (the ones who would be hurt most if the bill actually came to be) are firmly against it.
Ron's probably wrong about that as usual.
It could be, however, that some police officers, etc., are scared of being MOBBED by all the illegals, especially since our "dear" President is against rightful law enforcement. His biased dumb stance is making it hard for good men to do their jobs at the border.
I wont assume he's wrong I just want to know what he means.
Unless you are white,conservative,religious,or generally anything they are not.
The president and his attorney general have filed the suit to continue the correct path of law enforcement Brenda. Crime is down in the region and resources have greatly increased during Obama's time in office.
Prove me wrong instead of making things up.
Sorry, Ron, the president and his attorney general have filed the suit to continue the NONEXISTENT path of law enforcement. They have refused to enforce the federal laws and will continue to do so.
They would no longer be able to decide how to utilize their scarce resources. According to SB 1070, any citizen can sue the police departments for not adequately enforcing the law. So if a police chief decides that drug dealers (immigrant or not) -yes Brenda, white Christian folks do commit crimes - are a greater priority for his force than a group of lettuce pickers and janitors, he can (and certainly will) be sued for implementing the correct policy.
Oh come on. Any citizen can already sue the police dept. if they don't do their jobs.
And as for your most recent post, the President and Atty. General Holder have filed the suit to continue their inciting of State against State. They will end up dividing America so badly that there will be a civil war if they keep on pushing. Obama needs to step down. It's unconscienable that a man can spout outright racism and many other forms of blatant division as well as perversion from The White House and still not be impeached. His policies are unsustainable. It's sad that so many Americans won't admit it.
Wrong again. This is the first state law which specifically states that a citizen can sue police for inadequate enforcement.
Anybody can be sued for anything and that has always been the case, You are probably right that the law is the first to say you can sue but it isn't that it couldn't ever be done.
Arizona's crime rate may indeed be coming down and since it averages more than the national median it could stand to.
Who knows what the statistics are on that anyway, and what it involves?
I know if I were an illegal alien and knew that Arizona is being badmouthed by Obama in favor of me, I'd behave myself too until I got free reign to do whatever the heck I wanted to! Because that's what Obama is telling the illegals basically, that they can do whatever they want to and then whine racism when they get caught.
I am pretty sure a citizen can sue for anything and has always been able to do so.
I certainly think a citizen would have their priorities in order and suing the police would not be high on their list. Especially if the Chief/Sheriff utilized their resources to stop crime that most often occurs.
Excuse me, but I've been an American citizen all my life, and I'm white, and I'm of the "third generation of my family to live in America", AND I have to "carry my papers around" (my driver's license and other I.D.); and I personally don't MIND being stopped if there's some suspicion about my car or that my appearance might fit the profile of a person of interest to the police or something.
That's the way it is. And no that's not a "dangerous phrase" in THIS issue. It IS a dangerous phrase coming from the highest Office in the land, though, because he has rubbed our noses into that phrase time after time, and from the liberals like you who are so selfishly thinking only of YOUR "feelings".
If "civil-rights"-activist-minded people like you keep pushing us, conservative WHITES might just finally decide WE need a bunch of advocacy groups in our government to defend OUR rights, because I for one am about fed up with the whinings of people who want to change America into Mexico or Africa or whatever. THIS IS AMERICA. If immigrants want to come here and BE Americans, good! But if they want to come here and change it into something different, they should go back to where they came from.
You say we don't know how you feel?
YOU don't know how I feel. Well, you do now, if you'll stop being so focused on your own self.
You're right. The clock should be turned back on civil rights; back to the good 'ol days of white supremancy, and darkies knowin' their place.
Gimme that old time religion..
It's good enough for me!
You're right in that if you are white, or black, or oriental you probably won't be stopped while walking down the street to show your "papers". Of course the same holds true for hispanics as well - without additional indications police have no reason to demand identification.
On the other hand, it won't matter what race you are if you are wearing all the clothes you own in 100 degree heat, standing with illegal aliens looking for work and darting glances around looking for police while ready to run at the drop of a hat. Police SHOULD check, and are being trained to do so.
Again, it sounds to me as if YOU are the one profiling, having decided that only hispanics are illegal aliens.
Police always "profile" when looking for illegal activity. If you spill hot coffee in your lap while driving and weave around a bit while getting it off yourself, you may be stopped for a breathalyzer test as a weaving car is one of the "profiled" activities police look for in DUI cases. The only question in Arizona is whether race profiling is being used for investigations and they have gone to great lengths to eliminate all such reasons possible.
No, it's just another case of trumped up charges being claimed in an effort to continue the importation and use of illegal aliens (I wonder how many US citizens belong to the "League of United Latin American Citizens").
It's all a moot point anyway
It will never get through the courts. It was a cheap political ploy from the beginning.
I don't think Arizona is trying to regulate immigration law, it seems to be identifying illegal immigrants and holds them for federal agents.
I think the law will hold up.
Like you, I'm not so sure it will be struck down. The first half of the article seems to indicate that it probably will, but the second half seems to say it may not.
I think it will mostly depend on the political and ethical stance of the judge(s) hearing the case. As prettydarkhorse points out below is all too often the deciding factor and will be in this case as well instead of actual law being the deciding factor.
I think that all people have prejudice and bias! Objectivity is a moot! Even judges don't read the law, they interpret it and judge according to what for them is right and wrong according to law and personal conviction!
Unfortunately there is far too much truth in your statements and it is an indication of what is wrong with our justice system. When the courts make law instead of the elected legislature the people are left out in the cold.
We also see the result in the current suits against Arizona. The intent of the law is quite clear - to catch illegal aliens WITHOUT the use of racial profiling, but this suit requests the court to "interpret" the law to include profiling instead. And the court, believing the law to be "wrong" on other ethical grounds may well interpret it that way in spite of clear language to the contrary.
Please...be oh so politically correct...because you are a racists if you want to see immigration done as the law written. No one says: "Get Out"...just follow the rules...but don't dare be an illigal immigrant in Mexico...they give their citizens the right to enforce "citizens arrest" on illigal immigrants. Alas...another double standard...Go figure? I.m just saying.
Yup. I've always heard about how anyone traveling to Mexico needs to be wary of the government there as well as the corrupt groups.
But here in America we are not supposed to have any national pride or sovreignty nor rights to look out for the well-being of our citizens, according to the "tolerant" liberals.
ILOVE THE SMELL OF NAPALM IN THE MORNING! From Apocalypse Now. Howdy all you them thar white folk! Someone here speak to my own friend, (and others I've known) His name will be "Tiny" he is a Tehano (PHonetic spelling, sorry!) His family has been in the U.S. since the Texas war of independence. Remember the Alamo? He hates, I repeat HATES illegalls. Is he prejudiced?
If the original Americans IE Indians are against it, that's good enough for me.
Who knows better the damage white people can do?
HHMMMM if your looking to go fishing... Go to a lake or ocean. If you want to buy fruit go to a fruit market or the produce section of the store but dont look for a frozen turkey at Office Max don't try to buy cheese at an auto repair shop-
The law is stupid- you will find what you are looking for - where? where IT IS... how do you find it - by what it looks likew or does- i am 240lb white guy with the tanning ability of notebook paper I speak with a Buffalonian accent or so I'm told- They are not going to stopp me because i look like an illegal alien but if they did i would show them whatever but C'mon why should they waste their time coming after me?
Racial profiling in Arizona? Who'd a thunk it? Answer: the Justice Department who is suing none other than Sheriff Joe Arpaio, hero of nativists, Teatards and other ignorant rabble.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/us/03 … scp=2&
The Justice Department filed a lawsuit on Thursday against Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County for not cooperating with an investigation into whether his department was systematically violating the rights of Hispanics.
The government is looking into whether Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s department discriminates against Hispanics in its immigration sweeps.
Obama administration officials called the suit the first time in 30 years that the federal government had to sue to compel a law enforcement agency to cooperate with an investigation concerning Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“The actions of the sheriff’s office are unprecedented,” Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the department’s civil rights division, said in a statement. “It is unfortunate that the department was forced to resort to litigation to gain access to public documents and facilities.”
by LailaK6 years ago
Many people agree and disagree with racial profiling. To put it in simpler words, if someone looks like a terrorist, for example, do you think he/she should be stopped and checked in the airport only because the person...
by tobey1008 years ago
I support the Arizona Immigration Law and I'll gladly tell you why....I've read it. All of it. I've been slammed from every corner for supporting profiling. I always ask my critic, "Have you read...
by Abdul Hood2 years ago
Is it reasonable to think one could fight and win a racial profiling case?In the south there are still police that racial profile to pull potential drug traffickers over to illegally search their vehicles....
by Mark Knowles8 years ago
http://glossynews.com/other-world-games … -americans
by the new left7 years ago
Everyone now on the conservative side keeps bashing hispanics are they nuts. They should be trying to persuade us since we are the major minority and in 20 years will be the majority in many states like texas and...
by Holle Abee7 years ago
Tell me if this is an example of racial profiling:I'm white, obviously, and so are my three daughters. One night my youngest daughter and her white friend were on their way home to our house when they were pulled over...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.