Republicans "all in" against Hispanics

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-24-2010
Republicans "all in" against Hispanics
145
Wed, 04-28-2010 - 9:47pm

Palin and the radical Republicans are "all in" against hispanics in supporting the Arizona immigration law.

This is the same law that says Mexican looking people can be pulled over based on a new unconstitutional standard of "reasonable" suspicion. It goes even further and says that citizen activists can sue law enforcement officials for not pulling people over based on this unconstitutional standard.

There is a reason that at least one prominent Arizona sheriff say he will not enforce this law. There is a reason that former Republican Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge is not comfortable with the law.

There is a reason even Republican svengali Karl Rove is having second thoughts. Karl knows hispanic voters he spent years pandering to are rightfully going to say thanks but no thanks to Republicans over this.

Karl also knows that independent voters will have serious doubts about Republicans over this, and that the measure will drive Democrats to the polls to enable reform.

This hateful unconstitutional law that Palin and the Republicans have gotten behind will have a just effect on their ability to convince people to vote for them this fall.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-25-2010
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 2:55pm
Hi Green!
I have not heard that phrase in a while but it does bring up several problems.
>>>"Driving while black"<<<
Many times it really is a way to enforce social status bias. How many times would a person be stopped? Police in many areas use this bias to stop people driving "above their station". This is not new. In Elizabethan England the status show was for men ruffles around the neck. The wider the ruffle the higher the status. What happened was armed guards posted to stop and question those THEY thought were of lower status. If so they would use scissors to cut back the ruffles. This is the same problem.
Where the enforcement needs to be is with the employers who hire illegals and the providers of false documents. This is not just the US, Europe,Singapore,Hong Kong,Australia all have illegal immigration problems.
25% of Mexico's GNP is from workers in the US sending money home.
Go figure in that money stayed in the US.

dRIVING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL
SINCE 1969

xvx Pictures, Images and Photos


iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 3:57pm

"I never said Bush was against reform."


Which would be why I never made any suggestion that you did.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-14-2010
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 8:28pm

"What is a "reasonable suspicion"?"


It's a legal standard that's been used for decades.


Do you know how a cop can enter your home without your permission? Stop and question people regarding where they are and what they're doing?


iVillage Member
Registered: 09-07-2009
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 8:41pm
This is very off topic but this happened last year in a southern suburb from me.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-24-2010
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 9:10pm

"Well...um...er...police can pull ANYONE over for a "reasonable suspicion"...but again, the dishonesty of libs rears it's ugly head by making up lies about a law that they've never read and obviously lack the ability to comprehend."

With your all caps shouting and insults against liberals, I can see that you are angry. Please remember that people who are angry usually are not thinking clearly.

Here is the truth. This is not a good bill. Even a few right wingers like Karl Rove and now ultra-right-wing Texas Governor Rick Perry admit concerns about this bill. This bill is very hispanic unfriendly. The Republicans are going "all in" against hispanics by supporting this bill. You may not like what you see as white Republicans go it alone in a country that is not just full of white people anymore.

As for the merits of the bill, "reasonable suspicion" is a lower standard of cause that is to be used when justified by more exigent circumstances than probable cause. It has not been applied to justify stopping and questioning someone walking down the street because they look hispanic (and therefore might be an illegal immigrant from Mexico).

This bill also does more than just restate existing law. If it did just that, as you seem to claim, there would be no need for it. We could just rely on existing law.

In skimming through the law, it has some interesting provisions that have not gotten as much press. For example:

G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

This provides that wherever the federal law allows for discretion the Police must take the most aggressive enforcement route every time. If the Police don't do that, everyone can sue them. And I thought Republicans were against being litigious society :)

Seriously, this is why the good sheriff I cited in an earlier post has said the law means the Arizona Police are now damned if they do and damned if they don't. That's why the good sheriff will not enforce this law. And another police officer is suing the State of Arizona over this law.

It is interesting that Arizona wants some of my money and yours (if you pay taxes) to help them with this law. Now that would not be money well spent or help with the deficit.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-04-26-arizona-immigration_N.htm

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 9:15pm

You would expect wrong. There is "probable cause," but that isn't "reasonable suspicion."


Who would have thought that after 2 plus centuries of adjudication, we still haven't figured out what "reasonable" means?!


I don't believe federal law has a requirement that police must determine immigration status if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is here illegally


No need for one. All peace officers take an oath to uphold the law, state and federal.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-07-2009
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 9:15pm
We need solutions for this problem.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-14-2010
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 9:16pm

<>


That is a federal law that one must provide certain documents for an I9 Form when getting hired.


iVillage Member
Registered: 02-14-2010
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 9:37pm

"How long would that inquiry with immigration take? Would I be detained during the wait, or could I go on with my life? "


You've taken a position on this legislation and don't know the amswers those

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2009
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 10:03pm

<<"What is a "reasonable suspicion"?"

It's a legal standard that's been used for decades. >>

I should have asked, "What is 'reasonable suspicion' when it comes to the Arizona law?"

<>

Not true. :-)

Pages