Why, yes, it is discriminatory

April 28th, 2010

In response to Arizona’s tough new illegal immigranion law, viagra canada advice  San Francisco Supervisor David Campos says:

 “We as San Franciscans need to send a very clear message that this kind of discriminatory law is not going to be tolerated.”

Uhh, viagra buy tadalafil all laws are discriminatory. Some discriminate against people going five miles an hour over an arbitrary speed limit, no rx some discriminate against people who want to smoke in restaurants, some discriminate against people who are in the country without a visa or green card.

You might not agree that illegal immigration is worth discriminating about, but to imply that discriminating against the act is the same as discriminating against the race is inaccurate and inflammatory.

Entry Filed under: Observations

19 Comments Add your own

  • 1. jimspice  |  April 28th, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    It does not discriminate against the act. It discriminates against people who look a certain way. Speeders and smokers choose to do so. Hispanics do not choose their appearance. I will not be asked for papers while other legal citizens with darker skin may be. THAT, is discrimination.

  • 2. John Foust  |  April 28th, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    Gosh, Jim, you make it sound so simple.

  • 3. TerryN  |  April 28th, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    How does this law discriminate more than the federal laws already on the books?

  • 4. Dan  |  April 30th, 2010 at 10:21 pm

    John and Jim, please show me in the law where it says it allows racial profiling.
    When liberals were defending the health care bill, they would say: “Show me in the bill where it says.. ” fill in the blank
    Well, show me in the AZ law where it allows racial profiling.

  • 5. jimspice  |  May 2nd, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Dan, fair enough:


    The important words here are “reasonable suspicion” and “shall”. The onus here is on the law enforcement officer, with no guidelines given by statute as to what constitutes reasonable suspicion. As a result, there will be as many definitions as there are officers. And the choice of “shall” requires detention, even upon application of the most loose definition of suspicion.

    Yes, elsewhere in the law it is stipulated that “the attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin,” but by that time the detention has already occurred, and that does not preclude further investigation if the suspicions are based on perfectly legal behaviors, such as refusing to speak or provide ID.

    It should be noted that “lawful contact” is not limited to stops for other violations. It could be construed as questioning of witnesses or responding to a call for help.

  • 6. Dan  |  May 2nd, 2010 at 9:49 pm

    “lawful contact”, I agree can be almost anything. But it certainly not true that the cops can just walk down the street and stop someone looking like an illegal. This is what many on the left say will happen.
    I also think most cops have better things to do than just stopping anyone walking down the street.

  • 7. John Foust  |  May 3rd, 2010 at 7:55 am

    Really, Dan? Why not?

  • 8. Dan  |  May 3rd, 2010 at 10:24 am

    Sorry John, I guess I gave you way too much credit. I guess once a cop hater always a cop hater.

  • 9. Elliot  |  May 3rd, 2010 at 10:31 am

    Please no cop hating…that’s what got me into this chair in the first place.

  • 10. John Foust  |  May 3rd, 2010 at 11:10 am

    That’s a cop-out personal insult, Dan. I don’t hate the police by any stretch.

    You can’t see why this might possibly tread on precious elements of the Constitution? You don’t see a need to question whether it could be abused on the street? You assert that a cop can’t stop “someone looking like an illegal.” I’m asking you, on what basis do you make that statement?

    I’ll steal a point from someone named “FreeLunch” at Illy T’s blog. Do you think we should prosecute anyone who benefited from hiring an illegal? Hire a day laborer outside Home Depot, get sent to Sheriff Joe’s tent city?

  • 11. jimspice  |  May 3rd, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    Dang, and here I thought I had a well presented argument that might spur debate, and all I get in response is “the cops can(‘t) stop someone (for) looking like an illegal” which was nowhere to be found in my comment.

    You know, the vast majority of lefties, like myself, are pro law enforcement. We are also happy free marketers. We just recognize the role in plugging some of holes that may lead to abuse in an unregulated market. A “visible hand” if you will.

    As such, and following on JT’s point, if you want to stem illegal immigration, you have to curb the demand. And that is accomplished by targeting the employers. If it becomes too expensive to hire cheap labor, that employment will stop. No jobs, no immigration. No immigration, no need for a fence or an over-inflated ICE.

    And there lies the rub for the Republicans. What should be an easy decision for lawmakers is complicated by the fact that its business constituency, particularly ag and construction, abhores these solutions.

  • 12. Dan  |  May 3rd, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    “That’s a cop-out personal insult, Dan. I don’t hate the police by any stretch”
    But John, you just insulted their intelligence and their honesty. I said “I also think most cops have better things to do than just stopping anyone walking down the street.”
    You said “Really, Dan? Why not?”. You just said they may not be capable of controlling their instincts and they would stop people down the street. You just said cops lack ethics and morality.
    So, don’t be a hater John.

  • 13. Dan  |  May 3rd, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    And to Jim, I totally agree with you about the employer bit. No doubt about it, if we go after the employer, a lot will happen. But in case you didn’t know, Arizona also has a law on that- they fine the employers heavily if they hire illegals.
    I have to be honest, I don’t know why illegals want to go to AZ, unless they are making their way to other states like here in Nevada.

  • 14. John Foust  |  May 3rd, 2010 at 9:59 pm

    Gosh, Dan, you’ve managed to simplify more than a century of judicial interpretation and debate about the Constitution. How do you do it?

    I didn’t say cops lacked ethics or morality. We have laws to prevent abuse. Are you suggesting cops are incapable of abuse?

    Why do some love to ascribe all that is positive and good to police officers, yet ascribe all that is slothful, bureaucratic, and arbitrary to all other government employees except for the cops? DMV office workers are the devil, but cops on the beat are angels?

  • 15. John Foust  |  May 3rd, 2010 at 10:03 pm

    Jimspice, when jobs are illegal, only illegals will have jobs. Entrepreneurial jobs, that is. Who needs a boss, particularly if they’re over-eager to turn you in? Sell direct to the customer, like oranges on the street corner. Open your own place, be your own boss.

    Think of what a wonderful world we’d have if every government employee, everywhere, every landlord, every grocery store, was asking “Papers please!” and ratting out their neighbors! Why, it sounds like the USSR of my youth. Brought to you by the Republicans – For Your Safety!

  • 16. Dan  |  May 4th, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    Whyatever, John. You can spin all you want but you said what you said. Maybe you didn’t mean what you said but you lack the fortitude to take it back.
    Fact is you insulted all cops with your statement. If you want to be a weasel and deny it, fine, but then it really does show your character.
    And by your second comment to Jim, it really does show your ignorance on the subject.

  • 17. John Foust  |  May 7th, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    Dan, this is FromWhereISit, not BadgerBlogger.

  • 18. Dan  |  May 7th, 2010 at 11:28 pm

    Ahh, yes, John, lecturing people to be civil when you are what? Civil? Right.
    But I am sorry, John that when you blow your arguement, this is the best you can do.

  • 19. John Foust  |  May 8th, 2010 at 8:53 am

    I’ve hunted in this thread for anything I said that would reasonably lead you to make the dramatic assertion that I was a “cop hater”. I don’t see it. I do see some confusion, which I can hope to clarify. In #7, where I ask “Why not?” in reference to your #6, where you claimed “But it certainly not true that the cops can just walk down the street and stop someone looking like an illegal,” which is what the other grown-ups were talking about in this thread.

    As we see in your #12, you thought I was referring to your other sentence about “better things to do.” Fans of reading comprehension might note that if I was referring to this sentence, “Why not?” doesn’t make as much sense as it would for the prior sentence. As for this sentence, I’m sure we can both imagine situations where cops are on a routine patrol or travelling between other destinations and they could indeed decide to stop someone for the vague reasons allowed in this law. Of course, now that it’s a law, by definition it’s one of those “better things to do,” right?

    In your #16 and #18, there’s nothing but personal insult, hence my reference to BadgerBlogger. Flinging poo might be fun and it’s certainly easy. Crafting a reasoned response takes more thought. Crafting a truly funny response is what gets the chicks. I’m here for the groupies.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.