[Masthead] Fair ~ 76°F  
High: 80°F ~ Low: 54°F
Saturday, Oct. 25, 2014

What Racial Profiling?

Posted Thursday, May 20, 2010, at 12:42 AM

You may not know it but I was a police officer in my younger days. When I was a policeman we worked open cases, did paperwork and many times traffic enforcement. If someone was speeding, failed to stop, expired plates or whatever the reason might be for the traffic stop most of the times they were just routine. Once I approached the drivers window I asked for three things; drivers license, registration and insurance card. Failure to provide either a drivers license or insurance card would get the driver arrested or cited. No drivers license - arrested. No insurance card - citation and the car was parked. In the community were I worked you wouldn't be permitted to just drive away. The owner of the car could get an insured driver to drive the car away or the vehicle could be towed away.

I've been hearing a lot of talk about the new Arizona law that was passed recently. People in various states calling for a boycott of Arizona products or cancellation of conventions in the State of Arizona. They are claiming that the new law in Arizona is a call for racial profiling. Although I have not read the new law and have seen and heard Arizona officials state very clearly that a police cannot ask about a persons legal status as the primary contact. A police officer can only ask about legal status as a secondary contact and then only if there is probable cause to believe that a person may be in the United States illegally. I don't know why so many people a sounding off on racial profiling when these type of traffic stops have been standard operating procedures for over thirty years. I noticed in the Marshall Democrat poll that 79% of the local readers where in favor of the new law in Arizona. It seems that the vocal minority are sounding off while the silent majority are taking a step back and see attitude.

Are you in favor of the new law in Arizona? Are other states going to adopt similar laws?

I'm John Q.

What do you think?


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

I completely agree and support the Arizona law fully! They are upholding and enforcing a Federal Law...not making up something new. Why arent these other states/cities boycotting the federal government? It was their law to begin with.

I hope more states start enforcing this law to prevent illegal immigrants from living in our country. Im all for immigration, as long as it is done in the proper fashion.

-- Posted by ALM on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 8:24 AM

The vocal minority seems louder because the liberal media is providing the Public Address system for them.

-- Posted by outsider on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 12:14 PM

I agree with it 100%. As a U.S. citizen, I am ask for I.D by law enforcement and have no problems with it. Going against the law seems to promote people being in our country without a leagal status. It is sad to see the endless arm of the federal government reviewing the law for legal action against it. This by the way being a law they (Federal Government) should be enforcing so the state of Arizona could focus on other things.

Just my thoughts!

-- Posted by hatebegetshate on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 10:53 PM

I agree with the AZ law. Not only because states need to protect their citizen but because this law echos and refers to specific, and already existing, federal laws that state the same thing. States have always been able to add to but not take away from Federal law and this type of law is no different.

As to racial profiling... personally I dont see it as racial profiling. If 95% of the ILLEGAL immigrants in AZ and the other SW states are hispanic, do we logically target white or black or asian people?

In Rural missour we have a problem with meth cooking. Are they black people or hispanic people mostly? NOPE they are white people typically. Guess what... I have been the target of racial profiling in this case... I was a stranger to the particular rural area out hunting on a friends land and parked on the side of the road. When I got back to my truck a deputy was waiting on me and guess what? I have to prove who I was, why I was there and show ID. Heck I even had to go to the trouble of driving with the deputy to my friends house and verify that I had premission to be where I was. Not ONCE did I find this offensive or abusive or harassing.

Not sure what the big deal is with showing your LEGAL ID and answering some questions.

The law is specific in that racial profiling is prohibited. IF any cops do this with disregard to the law, then they will already be doing this same thing right now and the actual law will not encourage more cops to do it. I mean being a cop is their means to earn their living and support their families.

As for the boycotts... CAL is an idiotic state and we should expect them to continue to act in an idiotic manner... lol

-- Posted by mrxray on Sat, May 22, 2010, at 9:00 PM

NanaDot, As I have stated, police officers have been asking these questions for years. The law simply allows police officers to ask about a persons legal status during the performance of their duty. Two years ago I was camping on my own land. A deputy who did not know me stopped by to inquire who I was and why was I there. I for one appreciate that the fact that he was keeping an eye on the property.

-- Posted by John Q. on Mon, May 24, 2010, at 2:45 AM

seems to me that everyone is arguing the wrong thing - the Arizona law. what we should be concerned about - and what this law tries to correct - is the flood (yes - flood) of illegal immigrants coming into the country. the feds haven't shown any concern for this horrendous problem - so the states are taking steps to at least decrease the flow. i for one do not understand why so many people seem to be against enforcing the law already in place, which states that it is illegal to be in the state illegally (duh). what part of illegal don't they understand?

zeke

-- Posted by zeke on Tue, May 25, 2010, at 9:38 AM

Supposedly there have been three American Presidents who have decided to deport illegals for the benefit of those here legally. Hoover, a Republican did it. In 1929, Hoover authorized the Mexican Repatriation program. To combat rampant unemployment, the burden on municipal aid services, and remove people seen as usurpers of American jobs, the program was largely a forced migration of approximately 500,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans to Mexico. The program continued through 1937.

Supposedly Truman did it again after WWII to free up jobs for returning veterans although I haven't found anything I can cite. Truman was a Democrat.

Then Eisenhower had his little program. Burgeoning numbers of illegal Mexican immigrants prompted President Dwight D. Eisenhower to appoint his longtime friends, John Cox and General Joseph Swing, as INS Commissioner. According to Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration upon taking office. What did the Eisenhower administration call their little program? It was officially known as "OPERATION WETBACK". Makes the folks in Arizona seem down right liberal doesn't it?

-- Posted by GettinAround on Wed, May 26, 2010, at 12:15 AM

Some of the congressional Democrats are beginning to see the big picture, which is...this issue could get them defeated in November. Unfortunately, the Pelosis and Obamas of the world see the illegals as holding the key to keeping the Dems in power for decades to come...as soon as they can wrangle voting rights for them. Don't laugh...they already get SS and other benefits....even though they're in the country illegally. Voting rights for illegals are coming soon to a district near you.

-- Posted by outsider on Wed, May 26, 2010, at 11:30 AM

According to the Border Patrol the public is being mislead as to WHO is coming into the US from Mexico. As reported by WSBTV in Atlanta these two links address the issue of OTM's.

http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/inde...

http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/inde...

-- Posted by John Q. on Thu, May 27, 2010, at 1:18 AM

NanaDot, . Who knows the reasons or intentions of people coming across the border. 250,000 - 20% with criminal records. There just might be one or two terrorists in the bunch.

-- Posted by John Q. on Thu, May 27, 2010, at 9:59 PM

NanaDot, we gotta talk! Either agree with me on this one or else I'll go back to torture.

-- Posted by John Q. on Sat, May 29, 2010, at 1:47 AM

NanaDot, all laws carry that same possibility. Someone could try to sue officers if they did or didn't perform some task.

-- Posted by John Q. on Wed, Jun 2, 2010, at 1:48 AM

Drive On. John Q I agree!

-- Posted by honest opinion on Tue, Jun 8, 2010, at 12:25 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


John Q. Public
LARRY MAXWELL
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Larry Maxwell is a retired businessman who often writes about topics related to faith and religion.
Hot topics
A Nation Divided
(6 ~ 12:28 PM, May 7)

Politicians Promises & Money
(10 ~ 10:32 AM, Sep 27)

The Checks In The Mail
(2 ~ 7:32 AM, Apr 17)

Separation of Church & State
(42 ~ 3:38 PM, Mar 27)

They Burned My Flag
(37 ~ 10:59 AM, Mar 15)