Reuters/Reuters - Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio addresses the media about a simulated school shooting in Fountain Hills, Arizona, February 9, 2013. REUTERS/Darryl Webb
Yahoo News
Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio violated the constitutional rights of Latino drivers in his crackdown on illegal immigration, a federal judge found on Friday, and ordered him to stop using race as a factor in law enforcement decisions.
The ruling against the Maricopa County sheriff came in response to a class-action lawsuit brought by Hispanic drivers that tested whether police can target illegal immigrants without racially profiling U.S. citizens and legal residents of Hispanic origin.U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow ruled that the sheriff's policies violated the drivers' constitutional rights and ordered Arpaio's office to cease using race or ancestry as a grounds to stop, detain or hold occupants of vehicles - some of them in crime sweeps dubbed "saturation patrols.""The great weight of the evidence is that all types of saturation patrols at issue in this case incorporated race as a consideration into their operations," Snow said in a written ruling.
He added that race had factored into which vehicles the deputies decided to stop, and into who they decided to investigate for immigration violations.
How are they supposed to crack down on illegal immigration without using race as a factor in deciding whom to stop? Or is cracking down on illegal immigration in and of itself racist?
How does this differ from the "stop and frisk" policy in New York?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
It's good to see you recognize that the policies of the tyrant of New York are a violation of rights. Keep up this sudden growth in enlightenment.
ReplyDeleteActually what I did was question if the police work in Arizona can be accused of racial profiling, since all illegal immigrants are identified by their ethnicity.
DeleteI asked a simple question about New York, which should have been answered with a simple no, it's not the same.
I asked a simple question about New York, which should have been answered with a simple no, it's not the same.
DeleteOK--I'll say it: "Simply no, it's not the same, because Arizona cops don't have to check 667 IDs to find one illegal immigrant."
I should add, however, that in one aspect the two policies are very similar, in that they are both very obviously egregious cases of racial profiling.
That what you had in mind, Mikeb?
And here I was, trying to have hope for you, Mikeb.
DeleteAnd here I was, trying to have hope for you, Mikeb.
DeleteDon't beat yourself up, Greg--I think we've all made that mistake a time or two in the past.
Hey, Mikeb! Did you see your hero Bloomberg is now saying that the NYPD needs to do more racial profiling in its "stop and frisk" campaign?
DeleteMayor Bloomberg claimed that people of color should be stopped and frisked more -- not less -- while whites are stopped too frequently.
"I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little."
"Gun control" and racism--they just go together.
I can't wait to see how you defend this.
Arpaio is the toughest sheriff, Bloomberg is the toughest mayor. What Zimmerman did is racial profiling. What these guys are doing is not, it's just common sense. When 90 percent of the crime is done by blacks in a certain area, you need to concentrate your efforts on them. When 100% of illegal aliens are foreigners, you need to concentrate on them.
DeleteWhat Zimmerman did is racial profiling. What these guys are doing is not . . .
DeleteWRONG.
Treating people differently based solely on race is the very definition of racial profiling, and therefore of racial bigotry.
Sheriff Arpaio has contended that his detentions of illegal immigrants are the result of legal traffic stops for equipment and moving violations. The probable cause for police stops in NYC seems to be much more vague.
ReplyDelete"Another young woman from Harlem Heights said police officers who claimed to be searching for a rapist interrupted her and two female friends, demanded identification and then patted her down. “It was uncalled-for,” she said. “It made no sense. How are you going to stop three females when you are supposedly looking for a male rapist?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/opinion/stop-and-frisk-in-new-york-city.html?_r=0
The federal government has gone to court claiming sole authority to enforce immigration laws and the court has found that law enforcement can ask for ID in conjuction with a stop. So the short answer is that they arent supposed to be actively looking for illegals. They are only allowed to check when they are dealing with other offenses.
How does this differ from the "stop and frisk" policy in New York?
ReplyDeleteIt wouldn't surprise me if it differs--perhaps by a lot--in the rate of success in finding violators.
Bloomberg's stop-and-frisk policy's rate of success in finding guns, after all, sets the bar pretty low, at 0.15%. Yep--for every gun found, Bloomberg's goons trample the Fourth Amendment rights of 667 people, only 60 of whom are white.
That's "gun control" for you, of course--racist to its evil core.
Though I don't agree with the Sheriff's immigration policy, asking for ID is not as bad as groping.
ReplyDelete