Baileys Original

Brewer's amendments to the law don't really change anything. The federal constitution and all state constitutions already explicitly ban racial profiling for any reason. The fact that Brewer and Republican advocates of this law felt the need to add this meaningless amendment "banning" racial profiling shows that they know the law is vulnerable to that particular criticism, and they're willing to make the most meaningless gestures to cover their asses.

Racial profiling will occur with or without a federal or state ban. Just ask black guys living in any part of the nation. Explicit bans on profiling don't stop cops from profiling blacks and Latinos. The problem with this law is that it only makes it easier and less taboo to profile people suspected of being "illegal", i.e. Latinos. The idea that cops now need a pretext to check someone's papers is not to be celebrated - cops already use pretexts to profile minorities. So the amendment doesn't protect anybody from violations of privacy, and it's ridiculous to champion it.

The most obvious criticism to your assessment is that the law is just part of a racist zeitgeist against illegal immigrants, specifically Latinos. They're the latest scapegoats for American anger and fear. You didn't see anyone taking steps like this when the economy was healthy and people were happy to have illegals working the jobs Americans didn't want to do. Let's just call this what it is: a cynical, racist attempt to set up illegals as strawmen for all the problems in our society, when in fact they do not rely on government welfare, commit crimes, or use healthcare resources more than the average American. The idea that a people can be so disdained when they are contributing to our society (unlike Wall Street Bankers) is ridiculous.

Baileys Original

Your link doesn't give anything other than an anecdote. You can't blow anecdotes out of proportion and claim that they represent some trend. You also can't simply assume a cause. I'd like to see any statistic that proves illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crimes than the average American.

It's funny that you say cities with high illegal populations have experienced rises in crime. I'm from Los Angeles, which has a huge illegal population, and our crime rate has declined since 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Los_Angeles

UPDATE: It turns out that illegal immigrant population does have higher crime rates than other communities, but this is only because of a technicality in state laws that counts minor crimes - shoplifting, for example - as "aggravated felonies". As a result, the felony rate among illegals is supposedly higher than the average. However, it must be noted that this statistic is only possible if you apply the law in discriminatory fashion and assume that minor infractions can be considered felonies. Otherwise, illegals do not commit more felonies and violent crimes than the average American.

Going back to the causes of crime along the Mexican-American border: it is irrational to claim crime is caused by illegal immigration. Crime is more likely caused by the fact that there is a drug war raging along the border. Drug traffickers don't gain significant amounts of money from moving immigrants - they gain most of their money by trafficking drugs. Moving immigrants is often just a way of moving drugs simultaneously. The vices you mention are funded with drug money and are mostly made possible by the nonsensical drug laws we have in America.

Moving on:

"And when you break the law, you're breaking the law regardless of your color. If you break the law, the police shouldn't care what color you are and should stop and question you. That's not racial profiling, it's enforcing the law."

That statement ignores the realities of law enforcement in urban America. There are wide disparities in how cops enforce the law in minority communities and how they do it in white communities. Hell, there are disparities in how the law is enforced among individuals of different races within the same community. Blacks and Latinos are more likely to be stopped for minor traffic infringements than white citizens, for example. It is entirely up to the cop's discretion whether or not he or she will stop somebody for even the most minor infringement, and as minorities know well (and as studies have proven), officers are biased in how they enforce the law.

What's more, it is up to the officer's discretion whether or not they even ask to see proper documentation. Something tells me they are less likely to ask for documents from a white or Asian citizen than they are to ask for documents from a Latino citizen. They are only required to ask for documents if asked to do so by another citizen - once again, something tells me people are more likely to report Latinos as illegal immigrants.

Never mind the fact that it is a severe invasion of democratic rights for a citizen to be forced to reproduce immigration documents. This will probably lead to a rash of incidents where lawful Latino citizens are asked for documents, which, in reality, few if any white, Asian, or African citizens will be forced to do. That alone is problematic.

So what you have here is a law that enshrines profiling, despite whatever amendments are added. Like I said, all state constitutions, including Arizona's, ban racial profiling. That's not some remote federal law, that's Arizona's own law. So the fact that this amendment, which only vaguely and superfluously bans the concept of profiling without addressing the realities of law enforcement, even had to be added points to an inherent flaw in the legislation. It is full of potential blind spots and loopholes, and is clearly unconstitutional. No amendment will change this crucial flaw. Arizona's Republicans have made a brash, racist, and politically based decision that has made federal legislation more urgent than ever.

The only solution is to seek more constitutional and fair ways of enforcing immigration law, which Democrats are trying to do right now, and like Bush attempted in 2005. Also, it should tell you something when Republicans from Bush's circle are being critical of this bill. It should also tell you something when Tom Tancredo is critical of it. Think about it.

Finally, the idea that this law was motivated by anything other than anger and fear is untruthful. To say that it has nothing to do with the economy ignores the history of anti-immigrant sentiment in America. The dynamic between anti-immigrant sentiment and economic downturns goes back to the nineteenth century anti-Italian, anti-Irish, and anti-Chinese riots. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
Yes, the issue existed in the past, but it took the atmosphere of the recession to make something like this appear acceptable to people.

It says a lot that the same Arizona Republicans who voted for this bill also supported a bill requiring potential presidential candidates to show a birth certificate. The Arizona GOP has clearly been intimidated and taken over by Tea Party activists.

Baileys Original

http://gawker.com/5529320/the-racist-hate-group-behind-arizonas-new-immi...

The organization that helped draft Arizona's bill has ties to white supremacist groups. That is not a coincidence.