The new Arizona immigration law is a step in the right direction

"My opponent makes that claim that the bill puts forth a policy of racial profiling, however it does not. This is clear to see because the bill does not mention race, only legality of citizenship, which any race can be legal or illegal. While it is true that in Arizona, nearly all the arrests will be of hispanic illegals, that is not due to racial profiling, but due to the fact that nearly all of the illegal immigrants in Arizona are hispanic. " Have you ever noticed that some things are "implied" and taken differently than what is actually written? It's easy to see that law enforcement will focus on Hispanic people and others who do not generate a White appearance. Why? Unfortunately, it is assumed that most of the illegal immigrants will be from Latin countries or elsewhere around the world. The effects of this bill make cops focus on trying to determine if someone is illegal, and the focus will be on a traditional-looking illegal, one of noticeable Hispanic decent. "While there may end up being individual cases of racial profiling, those cases would be caused by individual officers not doing their job correctly, as opposed to the law itself promoting it. " So what? The whole point of a law is to have a policy executed and followed. The effects of this law result in racial profiling. The law promotes racial profiling, and in respects to common sense, most officers will go for stereotypes to determine who is illegal under the new law. "Police officers don't work under this principle, they never have. The courts work under this. If you are "suspected" of a crime with reasonable evidence (note that reasonable evidence is not proof, as many cases, people turn out to be innocent), the police will arrest you and the court will determine innocent or guilt. " However, this belief of "reasonable evidence" usually comes with a warrant, smell of foul substances, or some already gathered proof. The police officers will start individually investigating people merely on looking at someone and determining if he could be illegal only based on appearance. Just because there's a black guy in a dark alley, means that cops will have to search him for drugs? This is simply ridiculous. "This principle also applies to similar baseball saying "tie goes to the runner" meaning that "when in doubt, they are innocent," that also applies to the courts rather then officers. " Look at the above. "Now officers are required to have reasonable suspicion (or whatever the legal term is, they have so many that sound the same to everyday people, but mean so much different in terms of law) as to prevent abuse, and in many cases have a warrant (which is a judge saying "there is reasonable suspicion"), but the police are not required to prove guilt before the arrest. " As I have explained previously, there is no legitimate reasonable suspicion based on someone's outer appearance or superficial analysis. It is unreasonable to arrest someone simply because he or she does not currently have papers on their person. I will give an example in a couple of explanations. "And this is the same that this Arizona law is doing, allowing officers "with reasonable suspicion" to make arrests for a long time standing federal crime. " This reasonable suspicion is only based upon how someone looks or a conclusion based off of nothing that is reasonable in the first place. "Instead of "It is illegal to be an illegal immigrant. Any officer may question anyone that they have reasonable suspicion is an illegal immigrant" we replace "an illegal immigrant" with "high on drugs" so it now reads. "It is illegal to be high on drugs. Any officer may question anyone that they have reasonable suspicion is high on drugs. " That is certainly a law that we have had for a long time that doesn't get many complaints. But more men do drugs then women, does that mean that this law is sexist against men? Certainly not. Would it be sexist for an officer to question 5 men that appeared to be under the influence and no women? No, should he go questioning random women, just so he meets some quota that allows him to appear all nice and non-sexist? No. " Really? When cops are suspicious of drugs, they either smell them, have seen a deal take place, or have dogs that can sense the smell. You cannot compare this to the topic of illegal immigration, where there is no smell, deal, or animal sensing taking place. For the illegal immigration policy, it's a matter of external appearance, which is simply unjust. The bill does not accomplish a step in the right direction. This measure is simply bad for law enforcement, for immigrant communities, and bad for everyone because some crooks will even go free. The latter will now be explained in a logical scenario: Picture that you are Hispanic, and that you are the only one to witness a hit-and-run. You are on the way home from the park with your kids, and didn't bring you wallet because you figured you wouldn't need it. Will you reveal yourself as a witness to the aggrieved party, and consequently to be interviewed by police offers, so that the over-aggressive deputies can drag you downtown and result in inconvenience, embarrassment, and expense to prove that you are legal? Hell no! You are getting out of there before the cops come, and the drunk driver will not get away. Encouraging law enforcement to get involved in immigration matters results in less interaction between immigration communities and law enforcement, which as you can tell by the logical scenario, is not good. I rest my case. Thank you.