Althouse: Pew: "Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them."

May 12, 2010

Pew: "Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them."

"Two-thirds (67%) approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status, while 62% approve of allowing police to question people they think may be in the country illegally."

I wonder what those percentages would be if the President and the political elite had not pressured us to think the Arizona law was outrageously racist.

237 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 237 of 237

GMay said...: "We won't really know how the law is applied until the police start applying the law, will we?

If they start hassling Poles and Irish who have overstayed their tourist visas, then I would be content."

Considering that people who are in the system can actually be (and frequently are) "hassled" to obey the law, I'd say you have no real argument...again.

Really? "Hassled" to obey the law? You're a piece of work.; 5/13/10, 10:23 AM
Scott M said...: We won't really know how the law is applied until the police start applying the law, will we?

That's not what you said at all. You said if the law...the LAW...applies to Hispanics. Not the enforcement of it.

I suppose it will be analogous to shaking down 80-year-old white women in airports. That's the extent the authorities in question will have to go to in order to satisfy someone like you.

In actual practice, though, there won't be enough fake documents that will pass the initial smell test for the officer making a stop. The inertia this alone generates will have the coyotes moving their people AROUND Arizona.

Twenty-five million illegals have flocked here since Reagan gave their predecessors "amnesty." What has the effect of non-enforcement been?

Really? It's been all wine and roses?; 5/13/10, 10:25 AM
AllenS said...: Cook made me think of something. I was on jury duty in the 1980s. One case that I was a juror, concerned a man who was associated with the Posse Comitatus and was picked up for a traffic violation. He didn't have a drivers license, and said he didn't need one because the Constitution didn't require it. In the courtroom the man proved to be an idiot, making one stupid proclamation after another. Finally the judge explained why he was wrong, and why he couldn't further waste everyone's time, and he finally quit his nonsense. I guess the man wasn't a sheep, but just dumber than a rock.; 5/13/10, 10:26 AM
former law student said...: Scott M: You're right, I phrased it poorly. I meant, "if the law will only be used against Hispanics..."; 5/13/10, 10:30 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: I have often wondered what a Police Officer would do if, pulling me over (and I don't have the dl on me), I just told him (or her) the letter followed by 13-digits.

He would still ask to see it, cite you for not carrying ID when driving and if you refused you would probably be arrested for being an asshole not to mention...breaking the law.

I have to look at and verify ID all the time in my work in the securities industry, under the Patriot Act and Anti Money laundering act.

As a notary, not only do I have to visually see your license and record it in my book....even though I have know the person for years.....I also take thumbprints when the notarization is real estate involved.

I guess you object to those rules too?

Try to open a bank account and refuse to show your 'papers' aka: driver's license or other ID.

Double dog dare you.; 5/13/10, 10:31 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: If they start hassling Poles and Irish who have overstayed their tourist visas, then I would be content."

If there were 10-15 million Poles and Irish that were living here illegally I'd say you might have a point.

But as usual, you don't.; 5/13/10, 10:32 AM
former law student said...: your contention that there is a mass wave of Asian and African illegal immigrants crossing the US-Mexican border

I did not mean to contend that. You implied the law applied only to southern border crossers. I tried to find out if by that you meant the law only would be used against Hispanics. Apparently in practice it will.; 5/13/10, 10:34 AM
GMay said...: fls projects: "I would try to address GMay's arguments, if he would ever present one."

That's because I'm attacking your terrible premises. That's when you defend your argument. It's pretty basic stuff really. That you can't grasp these things provides insight into your daily failures here.

Look, I'll make it easier for you. My argument is simple and isn't really hard to figure out as it echoes those already made here:

How is enforcing the law a bad thing? Now if you can answer that without some sort of reflexive reference to racism, or failure to acknowledge the undeniable fact that we've been requiring people present their "papers" for decades when stopped by police for the most routine reasons, I'll be willing to engage in thoughtful and respectful discussion. I guarantee I will answer you point for point.

This is of course provided you don't just ignore the large holes in your arguments that you usually do. That's called trolling.

If you resort to any of the above or one of your usual platitudes or logic pretzels, I'll continue to give you the shit you deserve.; 5/13/10, 10:34 AM
Robert Cook said...: "As a notary, not only do I have to visually see your license and record it in my book....even though I have know the person for years.....I also take thumbprints when the notarization is real estate involved.

I guess you object to those rules too?

Try to open a bank account and refuse to show your 'papers' aka: driver's license or other ID.

Double dog dare you."

And how is any of this akin to minding one's own business, walking down the street or having a coffee and being approached and asked to show identification?; 5/13/10, 10:35 AM
former law student said...: Hoosier Daddy appears to be conceding the law is racist, in that it will not be used against Africans, Asians, Poles, or Irish.

I don't know why he would take that tack.; 5/13/10, 10:36 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Twenty-five million illegals have flocked here since Reagan gave their predecessors "amnesty." What has the effect of non-enforcement been?

Because we don't enforce our immigration laws:

Lowered wages from illegals working under the table at substandard wages. Ask any construction/landscaping independent contractor in California.

Strain and overuse of welfare benefits such as Medicaid/MediCal services, emergency rooms used as walk in clinics causing hospitals to be on the verge of bankruptcy.

Welfare fraud: food stamps, housing subsidies

Gang activity: unsafe neighborhoods. Unsafe schools. A take over of public lands by illegal aliens running drug operations and meth labs in our National Forests.

Shoot outs in the streets of American cities in the Southwest.

Kidnappings and human slavery and human smuggling.

Stress on the public school system from illegals carting their children across the border to use, without paying any taxes, the system.

Identity theft.

Tax fraud.

want more.; 5/13/10, 10:38 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: And how is any of this akin to minding one's own business, walking down the street or having a coffee and being approached and asked to show identification?

It doesn't and neither does your statement have anything to do with the Arizona law.

Quit making things up.; 5/13/10, 10:40 AM
blake said...: And how is any of this akin to minding one's own business, walking down the street or having a coffee and being approached and asked to show identification?

What does THAT have to do with the AZ law?; 5/13/10, 10:41 AM
Robert Cook said...: "...and neither does your statement have anything to do with the Arizona law.

Quit making things up."

And "enhanced interrogation" (term originated by the Nazis to describe their own practices) is not torture, because "We don't torture" (sic).

Stop kidding yourself.; 5/13/10, 10:43 AM
AllenS said...: Correction--

It wasn't Posse Comitatus, but the Wild River Patriots. Local boys.; 5/13/10, 10:46 AM
Scott M said...: Apparently in practice it will.

Apparently, in practice, it will, I agree. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the number of white and black people "hassled", as you say, by this law will be COMPLETELY out of whack with the number of white and black illegal immigrants in Arizona.

In fact, it will be so much so, that Al Sharpton and his ilk should be marching in opposition to the number of whites and blacks "hassled" relative to the number of white and black illegal immigrants in Arizona. It will be a human rights travesty.

On the other hand, if you were being rational, you might have to admit that the number of Hispanic illegals is far, far more than the number of illegals of other elasticities in Arizona. This situation does not exist in a philosophical or politically correct petri dish. It exists in the context of the actual situation in Arizona.; 5/13/10, 10:46 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: And thus, the thread spins irretrievably out of control with the introduction of Robert Cook and his tiresome drumbeat and introduction of water boarding and Bush into every possible topic.

If we were discussing shoes, he would find a way to weave it into the conversation.

Are you this boring and annoying in your real life?; 5/13/10, 10:47 AM
Scott M said...: elasticities = ethnicities

damned spellcheckers...that's pretty funny tho; 5/13/10, 10:48 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: You implied the law applied only to southern border crossers. I tried to find out if by that you meant the law only would be used against Hispanics. Apparently in practice it will.

Actually a more careful reading of my comment would show that you are incorrect in your assumption. My insistence on adherence to the law, is the immigration laws currently on the books. That is, there are legal requirements that must be met in order to reside in and become a citizen of this country. It has nothing to do with the AZ law insofar as the AZ law is in response to the Fed not enforcing the immigration laws.

So again, I ask, provide a valid reason that those individuals crossing the border from Mexico should not have to follow the immigration laws that Euros, Africans and Asians must follow.; 5/13/10, 10:50 AM
blake said...: The usual suspects are here, proving a point that I've been making since the Dems won in the 2008 election.

You can create support for your position by making up whatever crap you want as long as it doesn't directly contradict what people know.

For example, you can say 100 million people died in Iraq and people will nod, because they don't know anybody in Iraq, and they don't realize that 100M > 30M (the actual population of Iraq).

You can say "jobless recovery" while employment is at 5%, since just because you don't know anyone out of work doesn't mean there aren't people out of work, maybe just not in your circle.

But hammer away on how the stimulus worked and cite evidence "millions of created jobs"? Well, when people are still factually out of work, specifically them and lots of people they know, you lose credibility with those people.

Hammer away on how being against the HCR bill is racist, and each person who had doubts that it was a good idea and doesn't appreciate being called a racist will start to doubt your credibility.

It can get so bad that even a law that sort of sounds bad (show my papers!?!) can actually get some credibility by being called racist.

The left has pushed the racist button so hard, they've broken it. And possibly started to make it work in reverse.

Which was Althouse's point, I believe.; 5/13/10, 10:53 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Hoosier Daddy appears to be conceding the law is racist, in that it will not be used against Africans, Asians, Poles, or Irish.

I don't know why he would take that tack.

Same reason FLS thinks that a certain demographic crossing the southern border should be exempt from the same immigration laws that Euros, Africans and Asians must adhere to.; 5/13/10, 10:53 AM
GMay said...: Robert Cook provides his usual leftist parody: "And "enhanced interrogation" (term originated by the Nazis to describe their own practices) is not torture, because "We don't torture" (sic)."

Granted Cookie never really presented a rational argument here to begin with, but this is just classic Godwin. Style points for being completely off topic Godwin at that.

Subtle stuff really.; 5/13/10, 11:01 AM
knox said...: Are you this boring and annoying in your real life?

LOL. Doubtless. His politcs are the wellspring of his self-worth.; 5/13/10, 11:26 AM
SH said...: Christy said...

"Much as I like the idea of annoying the Politically Correct, I'm not crazy about the authorities being able to stop anyone walking by and demanding papers. Too much abuse potential."

Just like the leftists never assume they'll be caught in the net of their own rules (like being stuck with the bad healthcare they want for everyone else)... I have to admit, I assume I'll have a few sets of forged papers. ;-); 5/13/10, 11:50 AM
Blue@9 said...: I think it's incredibly sad that a state has to pass a law that essentially requires everyone to carry ID, but extreme policies get passed when previous gov'ts ignore serious problems. It's a crappy law, but what other choice does AZ have, pray that the federal gov't is going to do something, at some point in some very distant future?; 5/13/10, 1:56 PM
Blue@9 said...: What doesn't bother me at all is that the law will focus primarily on Hispanic-looking individuals. So? That's the source of the problem in AZ--of course the police are going to be looking out for them!

When did we get to the point that we can't focus on problems because they stem from one identifiable racial or national source?

Immigration officials in Seattle look for FOB-looking Asians. Is it because they're racist against Asians? No, it's because that's the problem they're facing!

It's weird--no other country in the world has an issue dealing with shit this way. If a Turkish gang is menacing Berlin, the police look for Turkish gang members. If there are Russian mobsters in Paris, the police look for Russian mobsters. Here we can't even say it, the problem is Hispanic illegal immigrants.; 5/13/10, 2:03 PM
Synova said...: C3 -- on your list of the percent of population that you gave, you had to scroll down to "white persons, non-Hispanic" to get the percentage of white non-Hispanic. Even the Tuscon numbers are only 58% white non-Hispanic. The Nogales one, that you list as 80% is only 14% white non-Hispanic.

When they count those things, Hispanics get counted as white, and then counted again.; 5/13/10, 2:16 PM
Synova said...: "If they start hassling Poles and Irish who have overstayed their tourist visas, then I would be content."

Do you really think that a Pole or an Irish person who is pulled over in Arizona for a traffic violation or who has other contact with the police according to the law there... say, they get a domestic violence call on them or something... you really actually for real honest to god think that when the police ask for their drivers license or ID and they only have an expired one that they won't haul them down to INS, they'll just let them go?; 5/13/10, 2:36 PM
Robert Cook said...: "And thus, the thread spins irretrievably out of control with the introduction of Robert Cook and his tiresome drumbeat and introduction of water boarding and Bush into every possible topic."

Why assume I'm talking about water-boarding or Bush? Certainly, water-boarding is torture and is and has long been illegal, and certainly, Bush (or Dick) has bragged about our torture program, but our torture is not limited to water-boarding and neither did it end with Bush; we have no reason to believe it is not now continuing under Obama, our current war-criminal-in-chief, (who, by the way, recently authorized the assassination of an American citizen abroad**), particularly given recent revelations of continuing secret prisons where our terror war captives are held and subjected to unsupervised but presumably "harsh" treatment.

**See:

http://www.salon.com
/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations; 5/13/10, 2:38 PM
blake said...: FLS--

Apparently all AZ laws are racist, since they'll never be used against Sumerians.; 5/13/10, 2:45 PM
GMay said...: Robert Cook continues well off course: "Why assume I'm talking about water-boarding or Bush?"

If I may quote you in answer to you:

"Stop kidding yourself."

And I'd like to add - stop assuming everyone is as stupid as you are.; 5/13/10, 4:03 PM
former law student said...: Apparently racial profiling is OK if one race predominates in the statistics.

Reminds me of when I was doing genealogy. The census includes institutions as well as addresses. So I looked up people in the Illinois State Penitentiary who had been born in "Russia."

In 1910, all the Russians in the state pen were Jewish. So profiling Jews would have made sense back then, right?; 5/13/10, 7:25 PM
Anonymous said...: FLS -- Were Jews illegally immigrating to a particular state and causing all kinds of economic and criminal problems?

If so, yes. If not, your analogy is horrendous.; 5/13/10, 8:52 PM
Synova said...: Racially profiling Hispanics in Arizona is like racially profiling Norwegians in Minnesota.

Racially profiling Hispanics in Minnesota would be entirely a different sort of thing, or racially profiling Somalis or Blacks... but it's a bit hard to worry very much about the police in Minnesota suddenly feeling free to harass people for "driving while blond."

And that's actually the relevant comparison, fls. Racially profiling Scandinavians in Minnesota. It would be a waste of time. The police in Arizona (or in New Mexico or Texas) would be wasting their time "profiling" Hispanics, every bit as much as cops in Minnesota would be wasting their time bothering random Swedes.

You can continue to insist that one Hispanic is indistinguishable from another, but "all look the same" is generally considered a sign of racial prejudice.; 5/13/10, 11:29 PM
Revenant said...: Apparently racial profiling is OK if one race predominates in the statistics.

If one race predominates in the statistics, any legitimate police work will be indistinguishable from "racial profiling".

The overwhelming majority of illegals are Hispanic. Ergo any effective enforcement of immigration law will overwhelmingly target Hispanics, and the predictable "waaaa they're racially profiling" will follow.; 5/14/10, 1:03 AM
Opus One Media said...: Hoosier Daddy said...
"Well as I esplained to hdhouse.."

Always count on Desi Arnaz to make an appearance - however brief.; 5/14/10, 6:33 AM
Revenant said...: I tried to find out if by that you meant the law only would be used against Hispanics. Apparently in practice it will.

Hispanic illegal immigrants are the problem.; 5/15/10, 3:06 AM