Of course it's not profiling. You're fishing, you need to have a license.
My Hispanic looking relatives could be doing anything, walking or driving down a street for instance, and be stopped and harassed for merely being suspected of being illegal. As a white person, I don't have to worry about that. That's profiling.
A real world example: My blue-eyed, blonde haired relative is married to an American born woman of Mexican heritage. They have two children. One is blue-eyed and white, the other is brown eyed and brunette. He could be out with his daughter and have no worries. She could be out with their son and potentially be stopped. They live in Arizona, so my concerns are very real, this could effect her and their child.
So you suspect this will be happening on a daily basis, maybe even several times per day.
So essentially the SCOTUS upheld the only part of the law that anyone was talking about?
I have no idea, but the police are free to do it as often as they want, for merely being suspect, not actually doing some suspicious. The stop is based on how they look.
Could be that they are simply following the information and training given BY Federal Immigration agencies TO State and Local law enforcement agencies.
ICE and Federal Law Enforcement Training Center hold kick-off ceremony welcoming class of 287 (g) officers
And they can set up alcohol check points and stop everyone to check sobriety.
And everyone going through them is subject to stop. Not only someone fitting a physical description or characteristics.
So the Arizona law say that cops can only stop people if they look like Mexicans?
They are going to stop my blonde-haired, blue-eyed relative under the suspicion of being illegal?
"Can you give us a description of the rapaist, Ma'am?"I have no idea, but the police are free to do it as often as they want, for merely being suspect, not actually doing some suspicious. The stop is based on how they look.
Does the law stop them from doing so?
Did they? Cuz...the ONLY things being discussed prior to this going to trial was Law Enforcement asking for proof of immigrant status and that seems to be the part upheld. I'm thinking what has happened is that people are scurrying to claim a 'victory'. Meanwhile, the states (not just Arizona) are left to deal with the problems.Basically what they did is gut the law and affirm that federal law preempts state law on immigration. A big win for Obama.
"Can you give us a description of the rapaist, Ma'am?"
"Yes, officer .. he was a little shorter than average, I'd say, brown eyes, black hair, spoke short, curt, definite accent, and he had a devious look to his smile, and this attitude that I couldn't stop him, oh, and he had this mole on his face to the left of his nose ... "
"Okay, thanks, Ma'am .. we'll keep a look out for anyone matching that description -- we'll get him, you can rest assured."
In this particular case of 20 million law-breakers, the group-description profile is an ethically appropriate target.
How a suspect looks is always germane to hunting him down.
Whenever a suspect(s) is pursued, a number of innocents with similar profiles get detained for questioning and released, no harm done, and it even becomes their interesting story of the day.
Real Americans so detained will thank law enforcement for being on the job.
"White" American citizens only have themseves to blame now for condoning the illegal immigration injustice against their fellow American citizens.
Did they? Cuz...the ONLY things being discussed prior to this going to trial was Law Enforcement asking for proof of immigrant status and that seems to be the part upheld. I'm thinking what has happened is that people are scurrying to claim a 'victory'. Meanwhile, the states (not just Arizona) are left to deal with the problems.
And...tell us all again how the fed refuses to enforce immigration laws and blocks states from enforcing immigration laws equates to a victory for Obama...or anyone for that matter.
Are you pretending that would be the case?
"White" American citizens only have themseves to blame now for condoning the illegal immigration injustice against their fellow American citizens.
They were right to do this. Federal law should overrule a state law so long as the Federal law doesn't trample on state's rights according to the Constitution.
They need to do the same thing to the states that are trying to legalize marijuana.
No.Wait, are you saying white people can't be illegal immigrants?
I think you are placing an outcome on the law, not me.
So what is the recourse when the Fed refuses to enforce a law? Has it not then violated the Constitution? The state of Arizona has asked for help, and the federal govt refuses to provide it. If the fed govt wants to sit in the driver's seat, then it needs to drive.
So what is the recourse when the Fed refuses to enforce a law? Has it not then violated the Constitution? The state of Arizona has asked for help, and the federal govt refuses to provide it. If the fed govt wants to sit in the driver's seat, then it needs to drive.
THIS is a nonsensical statement of belief unsupported by reality.
ON the section of the AZ law that was upheld by the Supreme Court, the "papers please" bit - there is one major aspect that I don't see mentioned here. The AZ police are no longer allowed to detain someone without prior federal approval of such detention.
Also, nobody has mentioned the fact that Native Americans have also been stopped and questioned under this AZ law - are they also "illegals" or do they just look like they are?
There are roughly 20 million illegals in America. Are you saying that for each one of them there will be one similarly-looking American citizen detained in the search for the 20 million illegals?Yes and 20 million American citizens should not be suspect due to a broad resemblance to those here illegally.
Your implied obfuscation is rejected.You are arguing with me, but yet you seem to agree with me. I don't condone it. So please pursue someone else with that point.