The Glade 4.0

Good point from one of Khross' favorite commentators:



Given the frequency with which that tax argument is made on these forums, this post of McArdle's seemed particularly relevant.

The more of her stuff you post, the more I agree with Khross's assessment of her mental capabilities.

Perhaps someone should inform her that requesting a driver's license is checking the "immigration status", as Arizona and most other states only issues DLs to legal residents.

And to make things even more clear, which I know was your intent, they DO ask everyone for one.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Excellent. So, since this law is apparently entirely redundant given current practice anyway, we might as well just scrap it. Silly Arizona legislature! They had this whole fight for no reason at all.

It isn't redundant because they have added penalties.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

This level of stupidity is beneath you.

Just like yo momma is!

Sorry, I was going for jovial sarcasm with my last reply, not actual snark. Guess it didn't come across that way. I'm in too good a mood to be snarky today.

Seriously, though, I think McArdle's point is valid. When majorities pass laws that disproportionately affect minorities, those laws will tend to be more intrusive than they would be if they applied to everyone, and conservatives embrace that insight with regards to taxes but seem wholly unwilling to do so with regards to racial profiling (and other crime-related practices).

My mistake then, I didn't read that post as a joke (though I did laugh at the momma joke.. despite it being mother's day and your blatant misogynist attitudes that have no place in the civilized world).

But seriously, there is still a huge disconnect here. How is the AZ law, except that it now applies state fines/penalties, any different than the Federal law?

How does the state law specifically affect a subset in the manner in which you state?

Rapists are a minority population. Laws that penalize rapists are the majority passing a law that disproportionally affects rapists.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

That's because the crime in question is being disproportionately committed by one "race" (nationality, really) and for reasons directly related to their nationality - the crime is trying to move from another nation, which has a more ethnically homogenous propulation that tends to share certain appearance traits, to this one.

Complaints about racial profiling are valid when applied to situations where people are being stopped and scrutinized simply because their race makes the police believe they are doing something illegal, or where a law that has no aspects to which race, ethnicity, nationality or whatever are relevant (the vast majority of laws). It's the thing of "group X is more likely to be committing a crime of some sort, so I'll pay special attention to members of that group in order to have a better likelyhood of catching them at something."

In situations like this, the only reason for claims of "racial profiling" is the simple fact that the people committing the crime come from another country that happens to have a certain combination of ethnic backgrounds, that share common appearance similarities with each other. Everyone knows this, yet people are demanding that this be ignored by law enforcement simply to make people who bear a resemblance to the people committing the crime feel better. Not only that, but it's a specific crime; it's not as if this law makes it easier to stop and scrutinize this particular ethnic group without probable cause of some other crime that is not related to race.

Moreover, it totally ignores the fact that when dealing with someone suspected of this crime, an officer will take into account far more than just appearance; if, for example a Hispanic person speaks excellent English, or has little to no Spanish accent, they are unlikely to be scrutinized, while a white person with, say, a strong German accent is fairly likely to be checked for an expired visa.

Complaining that this law is racial profiling would be like complaining that rape laws are sex profiling against men because men are far better equipped to commit rape than women.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'll happily show my drivers license and SS card to any officer who stops me for speeding. Not a problem.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Too extreme.


Just go with "criminals." Equally true, and by being more broad helps demonstrate the stupidity of the position.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Sure, but will you happily be led away in handcuffs and spend 6 hours in a holding cell while the officer checks your immigration status with ICE because you didn't happen to have your wallet with you when he gave you a bullsh*t ticket for jaywalking? Because that's what this law will inevitably involve. Don't believe it? Just think about how the Drug Wars have played out.

Actually, neither rapists nor criminals do anything to counter my position, because neither is a remotely appropriate analogy.

Wait, you're throwing those out for spurious logic but utilizing this:



Hello equally spurious logic, welcome to PotKettleville.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

How is the example I gave of a likely enforcement scenario spurious?

Because you can give cops information regarding who you are that can allow them to verify your identity while there. Your argument basically breaks down to stating some cops will be racist and there's nothing we can do. Fact of the matter is, they didn't need this law to do that. And when they do needlessly harass somebody, you can bet there are a myriad advocacy groups waiting in the wings to swoop in and sue the pants off the cop.

Cops in Arizona don't have enough time to stop somebody for jaywalking in the hopes the person is an illegal alien. Their funding has been cut so much it takes them hours to respond to crimes that actually have victims. If you're so concerned about it, don't jaywalk in Arizona.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Because its not very likely?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

With our crimes codes the way they are - everyone is a "criminal" of some sort.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

You're too smart to believe that the scenario is "likely". Possible - sure, its also possible before the law.

The law simply extended enforcement of existing Federal crimes to state officers with some increased penalties.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Mainly because you started off by calling a perfectly legitimate offense (jaywalking) a bullshit ticket. It's a perfectly legitimate ticket. Moreover, a cop can check your identity by calling Dispatch with your name and DOB or driver's license/state ID number if you remember it, just using his portable radio. If you get hauled off to have your status checked, it's because that didn't work.

If you mean "bullshit ticket" as in you weren't actually jaywalking, then A) there's a possibility the cop is mistaken in which case you can plead your case in court or B) that he's making it up, in which case the problem isn't with this law, because a cop willing to make up a fake offense to stop you and haul you off to check your immigration status can already come up with plenty of other reasons to haul you away too - including fictitious ones. It has nothing to do with this law; that's a matter of one particular cop who shouldn't be working as a cop.

So, yes, your entire example is spurious. You're making up 'likely' enforcement scenarios that aren't likely at all. You really on't know what's likely; you're just imagining up things that support your argument and claiming they're 'likely'.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This seems an incredibly unlikely scenario, at least to me personally. However, yes I am willing to put up with the potential inconvenience of investigation and temporary detention in exchange for a society that can effectivly prosecute those unlawfully present in this country.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Allow me to elaborate. I find the scenario unlikely to me personally because I very rarely leave the house without my wallet and almost never get citated for a non vechicular infraction. The two events cooinciding in my life seem of low probability.

However I have been woken up at two in the morning and questioned by a LEO because he was looking for a perp whose last known address was my current. To say I was "happy" about might be a stretch but I understood the need and was glad to accept his sincere appology for the in convenience once it was settled.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Ladas:

You do know that Megan McArdle claims to be a constitutionalist libertarian right?

_________________

Just a quick reply (since I should be working) regarding the likelihood of a lot of innocent Hispanic people being stopped. In NYC, there's a statute permitting cops to stop and question people based on "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity. Same standard as the AZ law. In the last 5 years alone, 2 million pedestrians have been stopped pursuant to this law. Of those, roughly 90% were completely innocent of any wrongdoing, and roughly 90% were minorities. Given the racial makeup of the city, the chances of a white person being stopped are about 1 in 50. The chances of a black person being stopped are about 1 in 4. And that's without any racial correlation to the underlying crimes. How much worse do you think it's going to be when the underlying crime is heavily correlated with race?

As for hauling people off if they don't have ID, I'll get to that later, since it requires quoting from the bill itself. My recollection, though, is that the text requires an ICE check, which doesn't happen very quickly.