It's discrimination in the boldest. There is no "if you look hispanic, we can investigate you" openly worded but it's still there. The solution is not so simple as either side thinks.
Put up a fence. Really? That's about as effective against illegal immigrants as teenagers looking for a place to hang out.
We know border patrols are equally worthless. Giving them more freedom or numbers just promotes abuse of power and the likelyhood of nasty incidents.
Just letting anyone in who wants to come in is equally unacceptable. We have enough people who are out of a job, who need help and assistance as it is without adding more people in even worse situations to the pot.
I'm not saying no more immigrants or anything of the sort. The real problem here is that they come here expecting to find a better life. Whether they do or not I can't say but it's probably less dangerous for them given that Mexico is about two steps from becoming the world's largest uncontrolled country with the amount of drug lords, corruption, economic instability, etc going on there. The other Latin American countries aren't faring much better.
Ironically the best way to stem the immigration into the U.S. is to improve the situation in their home countries but I have no idea how to do that. Stepping in and propping up a government is not going to work (never has) and this Free Trade deal has back-fired incredibly.
The entire world needs to step in and deal with these countries where people leave because they fear for their lives and can't live. The U.N. ought to be involved but it's so toothless and spineless it's useless. We need another solution.
Nope, cant investigate someone for just having brown skin in spite of the hyperbole stating other wise.
Where the fence is in place it has been effective. On those rare occasions when the border patrol is given the resources it needs to carry out its duties, it has been effective.
You are right about what is necessary for stem the tide. The rampant corruption, crime, and poverty in these nations need to be reduced / stomped out. It is the duties of these other nations to clean up their own back yards. It is not their duty to try to mask over their problems by exporting them.
I think it's ironic that San Francisco, which is only 14% hispanic and 7% black, wants to boycott Arizona - which has a far higher percentage of blacks and hispanics than "culturally diverse" San Francisco.
Even more ironic is the city of Santa Cruz begging for help from the federal government to stem the rampant crime caused by illegal immigrant populated gangs. I say ironic because in 1982 when INS did a raid (and it was indeed ham fisted) the city declared its self a sanctuary city to all illegals and vowed to interfere with the federal government.
Not when it comes to driving. Driving on anything other than your private land or private land you have permission to drive on is a privilege, not a right. As such you have to comply with the laws granting you that privilege. One of those conditions is that you must have on you at all times your drivers license and must produce is immediately upon request by an LEO.
True, but thanks to the SCOTUS when part of an investigation one MUST provide a valid form of identification upon request by an LEO as defined by the government. No I am not happy with that at all, but it is a constitutional requirement.
But if I'm not an immigrant and just look Hispanic and don't have an ID they will bring be to the police station anyways. That's the problem.
If you look like George Steinbrenner and you get pulled over for a traffic violation and it is determined that you don't have your drivers license on you, you still get arrested and sent to jail. So looking hispanic has nothing to do with it.
Sorry that doesn't fly. This effectively makes a law that requires citizens to carry papers around all the time. Remember, your driver's license isn't proof of being a citizen. If a cop decides to stop you, what is going to stop him from arresting you? After all, you have no proof of your innocence.
It is a violation of the 5th amendment for a citizen to be have to prove his innocence or be arrested. There is no difference between robbing a store and driving without a license. In both cases, a person broke the law. If that person is a citizen, he forces the government to provide evidence for an arrest because of due process.
So let me repeat myself: the government has to prove GUILT. The citizen does not have prove INNOCENCE.
It does indeed fly and quite well at that. See the above posts. There is no violation of your 5th amendment rights per the SCOTUS in having to provide valid ID while part of an investigation. Now is it right? Again I don't agree with it, but it is a constitutional requirement.
On the flip side there is nothing in the AZ law that commands a citizen walking down the street to produce ID just because an LEO says to. That would be unconstitutional. There is also nothing in the law that commands or gives permission to an LEO to do random stops on the road or anywhere as that too would be unconstitutional.
