American Politics mark something something

[The Progressive]

There was an interview of Rand Paul on NPR yesterday in which he voiced opposition to the Civil Rights Act, the American with Disabilities Act, and the Evironmental Protection Agency.

It was crazy libertarian hysteria at its best, lol.

[TrackerNeil]

Rand Paul will not support a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Apparently he was against it before he was for it.

Well, I suppose that's a relief.

There's no view that is too right-wing for an influential Republican, is there? There are liberal extremists as well, to be sure, but they don't wield any real influence in the Democratic Party, nor is the party required to cater to them. For example, the losers who wanted to replace Nancy Pelosi with Cindy Sheehan were pretty much ignored by the Democratic power-brokers, and rightly so. However, the Republican Party can't afford to ignore those who wish to eradicate the Department of Education, privatize Social Security, and repeal not only the 17th Amendment but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well. It's bizarre.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

To my knowledge, reasonable suspicion cases don't tend to cover immigration cases, which is kind of the big problem. It's fairly easy to imagine what would create reasonable suspicion that somebody is selling drugs or about to hold up a liquor store. Somebody who is here illegally isn't necessarily going to be exhibiting any sort of specific, observable behavior that would be different from a legal permanent resident in America. "Reasonable suspicion" may be well established in other areas of the law, but so far as I know, this is uncharted territory and the police won't have clear guidelines to work from. And the combination of institutional pressure to stop illegal immigration in Arizona plus authority that isn't clearly defined will undoubtedly lead to abuses.

I think that would be a larger problem if the law didn't already limit such reasonable suspicion questioning to stops that were lawful for other reasons. So, the Terry protections for which caselaw already exists are built into the process before you can begin asking questions about immigration at all. That stops the "I want to question those brown men eating ice cream" scenario at the outset.

And since Terry includes the right to ask for identification, I don't see how this law really threatens an additional deprivation of rights.

All that being said, I imagine case law will develop on this just like it did after Terry, so there is a phase where courts will have to hash it out. But the Terry protections that exist for the initial stop should prevent most abuses.

[Tempra]

"You can imagine if you are an Hispanic American in Arizona, your great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state, but now suddenly if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're gonna be harassed," Obama said. "That's something that could potentially happen. That's not the right way to go."

Context, my friend. Context.

The president was right, that's something that could potentially happen. Doesn't matter whether it's legal or lawful, because how many people actually know that? How many people truly know all aspects of a law? And how many people will stand up to a police officer who has stopped them illegally, when doing so will likely only antagonize the cop? Especially since if the cop has stopped them illegally in the first place, chances are pretty darn good that the cop is a bullying a-hole looking for a reason to take you in?

Mine either. It was a pretty bad decision.

No, he wasn't. And it absolutely matters whether a person is stopped lawfully. If a police officer racially profiles, he is violating the law and he (and the county/state) may be held liable.

And general ignorance of the law is irrelevant. We have these brave, courageous, and virtuous individuals called lawyers who have no problem sticking it to the police.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

I think that would be a larger problem if the law didn't already limit such reasonable suspicion questioning to stops that were lawful for other reasons.

I agree with that; and it's a good thing for all concerned that the Arizona legislature ended up bowing under pressure from people like President Obama and made that change. But the law (and the Terry doctrine) does nothing to prevent stops made under pretext where the real purpose is to harass somebody, and you better believe that the average Arizona cop is going to be feeling pressure after this law to round a few illegal immigrants.

[alguien]

No, he wasn't. And it absolutely matters whether a person is stopped lawfully. If a police officer racially profiles, he is violating the law and he (and the county/state) may be held liable.

The point is, the law makes it that much easier to racially profile and have protection from criminal prosecution. Obama is right.

I suspect that you know this, but are just arguing to belabor the point.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Sidebar- Rand Paul wasn't named after Ayn Rand. Rand is short for Randal. He also goes by Randy.

[Tempra]

The point is, the law makes it that much easier to racially profile and have protection from criminal prosecution. Obama is right.

I suspect that you know this, but are just arguing to belabor the point.

No amount of bleating from the left is going to change the fact that this law does not legalize racial profiling. Such conduct is in violation of the Constitution and is actionable against the individual and the state.

[alguien]

No amount of bleating from the left is going to change the fact that this law does not legalize racial profiling.

No amount of blathering from the right is going to change the fact this makes it EXTREMELY easier for police to get away with racial profiling.

Such conduct is in violation of the Constitution and is actionable against the individual and the state.

Is this the part where I salute the flag, with a hand over my chest and a tear in my eye? :rolleyes:

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The point is, the law makes it that much easier to racially profile and have protection from criminal prosecution. Obama is right.

I suspect that you know this, but are just arguing to belabor the point.

I honestly don't understand this point. What in the law makes it "easier" to racially profile? You still need to meet the Constitutional standard for a Terry stop first. If a cop wanted to harass "brown people", he could have done it just as well before this law was passed because the law itself does not grant any authority for a stop.

ETA: I really waver back and forth on this law. I don't think it will actually accomplish anything directly, and there is the downside of at least the perception of racial profiling. Arizona doesn't have the ability to deport illegal aliens (or perhaps, "undocumented Democrats" would be a better term), so the bill really is just symbolic. And I hate symbolic laws.

On the other hand, illegal immigration is a major problem the Administration would prefer to sweep under the rug, and maybe Arizona's law is going to force the issue to be addressed, which is a good thing.

[Tempra]

No amount of blathering from the right is going to change the fact this makes it EXTREMELY easier for police to get away with racial profiling.

Until you can point to something in the law that makes it easier for police to racially profile, I can only assume that you are repeating liberal talking points and do not understand criminal procedure/constitutional law.

Is this the part where I salute the flag, with a hand over my chest and a tear in my eye? :rolleyes:

No, this is the part where you realize that your understanding of the law is suspect.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Not sure if this goes here or gets it's own thread. Glenn Greenwald (our nation's most valuable resource at this point) is reporting that the Australian government has confiscated the passport of the guy who owns and runs Wikileaks. Their excuse? "It looked worn".

[Nymeria Sand]

Until you can point to something in the law that makes it easier for police to racially profile, I can only assume that you are repeating liberal talking points and do not understand criminal procedure/constitutional law.

Where I live, it's not unheard of for cops to make up something. They don't need a reason, no matter what the law says. The only difference is the skin color--we don't have a lot of Mexicans, but we do have a lot of African Americans.

Different race, same result.

[Alcibiades]

Oh man. If the teabaggers delivered us both Kentucky and Florida, I could die happy. Florida is a definite maybe (Crist is drifting seriously leftward and I wouldn't be surprised to see him caucus with senate dems), but kentucky probably won't happen.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Where I live, it's not unheard of for cops to make up something. They don't need a reason, no matter what the law says. The only difference is the skin color--we don't have a lot of Mexicans, but we do have a lot of African Americans.

Different race, same result.

That's true, but it's happening in your area without this law even existing, and presumably it happened in Arizona as well before this law because there are some scummy cops out there too. I don't think anyone denies that racial profiling exists to some extent. But the question is how did this law make it any easier to do that than it already was? If a cop lies now to get justification for a Terrry stop, he could have done the exact same thing before the law was passed.

[awesome possum]

That's true, but it's happening in your area without this law even existing, and presumably it happened in Arizona as well before this law because there are some scummy cops out there too. I don't think anyone denies that racial profiling exists to some extent. But the question is how did this law make it any easier to do that than it already was? If a cop lies now to get justification for a Terrry stop, he could have done the exact same thing before the law was passed.

Who's claiming it makes it easier? It simply makes it more accepted.. as long as the person is brown-skinned.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Who's claiming it makes it easier?

The actual phrase upthread was "extremely easier"

[alguien]

Until you can point to something in the law that makes it easier for police to racially profile, I can only assume that you are repeating liberal talking points and do not understand criminal procedure/constitutional law.

Lawmakers on Thursday night changed the language to require scrutiny only of people who police stop, detain or arrest. They also changed a section of the bill that barred officers from "solely" using race as grounds for suspecting someone is in the country illegally; opponents had argued that that would allow race to be a factor. The legislators removed the word "solely" to bar race from being used by officers enforcing the law.

So it was worse before and I guess you're sort of right, now they can't use "race" as a factor. So, what does give someone a "suspicion" that they're an illegal immigrant in Arizona?

No, this is the part where you realize that your understanding of the law is suspect.

Keep up your sterling defense the poor, abused, white males, Tempra, its what you do best.

[TrackerNeil]

I'm thinking again about Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act. I don't know a great deal about Kentucky politics, but are voters in that state really going to hold Mr. Paul's support for the right of private businesses to discriminate against him? There are probably a good deal of Kentuckians (?) who agree with him, even if they might not be so forward with their opinions.

BTW, Rand Paul was incredible on Rachel Maddow. He was spinning like crazy, trying to walk back his support for the right of private businesses to discriminate without utterly abandoning it. During the interview, I learned that Rand Paul absolutely, utterly, completely hates racism.

Edited to add: I'm continuing to watch the Maddow interview and I have concluded that Rand Paul is a toad. He's trying to equate government forbidding discrimination by private business with a government takeover of those businesses. It's amazing to me that this man may be sitting in the Senate before a year is up.

[Nymeria Sand]

That's true, but it's happening in your area without this law even existing, and presumably it happened in Arizona as well before this law because there are some scummy cops out there too. I don't think anyone denies that racial profiling exists to some extent. But the question is how did this law make it any easier to do that than it already was? If a cop lies now to get justification for a Terrry stop, he could have done the exact same thing before the law was passed.

And probably did.

The law gives cops the justification they need. They don't even have to make it up any more--all they have to say is, "Well, we had reasonable suspicion that he was illegal." And they can still make up why they thought he was illegal to begin with.

Answer me this: How can they do this without racial profiling? If the aim is to crack down on illegals, then you go after the ones suspected of being illegal, in this case Mexicans. But illegals don't include just Mexicans. They can include Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Thai, Phillipinos, Arabs, or anyone else. I'll bet a month's paycheck that it won't be the blue-eyed Swedes who get pulled over.

Look, you can support them if you want to, but I've seen this my whole life, with or without justification. Police do not need a reason, no matter what the law says.