In the news recently, an Arizona law which makes it legal for the state to enforce laws against illegal immigration (traditionally, a federal, not state issue) has sparked much controversy with critics citing the tendency for the law to simply be enforced based on race and supporters of the law saying that some action is needed because the federal government hasn’t done anything.
Here’s an example of what a Republican friend said in support of the new law: 30% of AZ is Hispanic & 80% of ill. immig. are Hispanic. oh & 60% of America is with me, i dont need Tancredo!
If his argument doesn’t strike you as discriminating, overzealous, attributing percentages incorrectly, maybe even racist, then read the actual paragraph from the article where he got his data:
Since roughly 30 percent of Arizona is Hispanic and about 80 percentof illegal immigrants are also Hispanic, critics say the law basically mandates that police engage in racial profiling—i.e., apprehending people based on their appearance rather than on any evidence that they may be in violation of the law. After she signed the bill into law, Arizona’s Republican. Gov. Jan Brewer discounted this view, saying at the signing ceremony that she worked hard to amend the bill with language to prevent enforcement from “solely considering race, color, or national origin in implementing the requirements of this section…” Critics have countered that the bill doesn’t say what might be grounds for detention apart from race, color or national origin.
As you can tell, even the article he is basing his argument (in support of the law) off of notes that because 30% of Arizona is Hispanic and 80% if illegal immigrants are Hispanic, the law gives the policy license to racial profile. Simply put, if there is no way to support the new Arizona law without sounding racist, then maybe the problem is that the law you’re trying to support is really racist itself.
