Uncategorized

ACLU warns House Bill 786 Would Lead to Racial Profiling

The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina (ACLU-NC) is sharply criticizing the RECLAIM NC Act, 786legislation the organization says would bring an Arizona-style anti-immigrant law to North Carolina.

As detailed on the Progressive Pulse yesterday, House Bill 786 would allow law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of anyone they stop, detain or arrest. It would also require anyone who is undocumented and arrested to pay the cost of their incarceration, and law enforcement would be authorized to  seize and impound the vehicles of undocumented drivers.

“This is a harsh, Arizona-style anti-immigrant bill that will lead to racial profiling and send a message that North Carolina is a hostile environment for aspiring citizens,” said Sarah Preston, ACLU-NC Policy Director. “The proposal gives police the power to harass people based solely on suspicion of their immigration status, opening the door to stops based on stereotypes and racial bias rather than facts and evidence.”

The ACLU-NC notes that the bill flatly rejects matricula consular IDs issued by the Mexican government, while authorizing undocumented immigrants to obtain an annual driver’s permit that will include the driver’s thumbprint.

“While we agree that North Carolina should extend driving privileges to all who qualify, regardless of immigration status, everything else in this bill is unnecessary, anti-immigrant, and would move our state in the wrong direction,” Preston said.

6 Comments

  1. Doug

    April 11, 2013 at 4:26 pm

    So why would this nebulous “racial profiling” be a bad thing if you know a member of a certain race was likely to have committed a crime? Why is is “harsh” if there is the likelyhood you are going to reveal a crime? Is it “harsh” to step up patrols in neighborhoods that are predominantly one race that are crime ridden? Or do you suggest that it would be prudent to ignore what goes on there in the same way as we should ignore illegal aliens? Are you being racist on this blog by assuming that all illegal aliens are one race? So many questions…and so much hysteria.

  2. Gene Bridges

    April 11, 2013 at 10:56 pm

    Doug writes; So why would this nebulous “racial profiling” be a bad thing if you know a member of a certain race was likely to have committed a crime?

    Well for starters, that’s logically fallacious. Reasoning from the specific to the general is the very definition of logical fallacy – overgeneralization. Let’s apply this logic to another domain: The disputant will stereotype his opponent as belonging to a suspect class, viz., all Christians are fundamentalists, all fundamentalists are ignorant. Why? Because he’s met an ignorant fundamentalist. Many fundamentalists are, in fact, ignorant in my experience – I have a background in Christian Apologetics in the Reformed (PCA and Reformed Baptist) churches, and I’ve run across many ignorant fundamentalists, but it would logically fallacious to reason that, because I know a member of a certain class (fundamentalist Christians) is ignorant, it is likely to be ignorant. That’s just for starters, Doug. Logic must not be your forte.

    “Racial profiling,” for the record, is not a “nebulous” term. Rather that’s your tendentious characterization. It has a specific definition.Racial profiling is a form of discrimination by which law enforcement uses a person’s race or cultural background as the primary reason to suspect that the individual has broken the law.

    Doug reveals his racism further: Why is is “harsh” if there is the likelyhood you are going to reveal a crime?

    Race does not, in itself, select for commission of a crime. Thanks for the cross burning.

    Doug asks another dumb question: Is it “harsh” to step up patrols in neighborhoods that are predominantly one race that are crime ridden?

    The reason this is dumb is because it answers itself in its own phraseology. No, it isn’t, because those patrols aren’t there because of the racial makeup of the neighborhood, rather, they are there because of the high crime rate in the neighborhood. It would be racial profiling, and therefore, “harsh,” if they were there simply because the neighborhood is black, hispanic, white, or, for that matter Muslim, Christian, etc. That’s what you get for asking a loaded question. They sometimes backfire.

    Doug suggests a straw man: Or do you suggest that it would be prudent to ignore what goes on there in the same way as we should ignore illegal aliens?

    Doug is a lazy critic. This blog has never suggested we should “ignore” legal aliens. He’s a lazy critic, because he is attributing a position to his opposition that his opposition does not hold by tendentiously characterizingi things that have been stated. By definition, that’s lazy.

    Doug projects his own racism further: Are you being racist on this blog by assuming that all illegal aliens are one race?

    Doug is a lazy critic again. This blog doesn’t assume all illegal aliens are of one race, rather it is pegged to the actions of people in the General Assembly. Therefore any perception that all illegals of of one race would be reflective, not on the blog or the bloggers here, but on the racists in the General Assembly – remember, also, at least one of these persons is the same person who wanted to craft a resolution to nullify the First and Fourteenth Amendments. That says a lot about the level at which the General Assembly is working these days.

    So many questions…and so much hysteria.

    Yes, you frequently come across as hysterical and shrill. We truly hope that now that you realize this you will tone it down a little.

  3. Jeff S

    April 12, 2013 at 2:49 am

    And… the party of hate continues their attack on “them”.

    I particularly like that a driving offense warrants remand without bail. That fits perfectly with the previously listed violent felonies and sex offenses.

  4. david esmay

    April 12, 2013 at 11:59 am

    Gene, while I obviously don’t agree with you on certain philosophical view points, I would like to thank you for your thoughtful and insightful posts, they are always a joy to read, keep up the contributions.

  5. Doug

    April 12, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    So truth is racism…..only if you are versed in the scientific Law of Ignorance of Liberalism. You have not proven how acting on probable cause is racism, just blathered a bunch of liberal straw arguments.

  6. Gene Bridges

    April 12, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    So truth is racism

    That’s not logically deducible from my reply.

    only if you are versed in the scientific Law of Ignorance of Liberalism.

    That would only be valid coming from somebody who is versed in the scientific law of ignorance of Liberalism. Notice here that all Doug has done is repeat the claim that liberals are “ignorant” but he, as always, does nothing to demonstrate the truth of his assertions.

    You have not proven how acting on probable cause is racism

    You have only proven you did not read what I wrote very well. Actually I did – race, does not, in itself, constitute probable cause. To say otherwise is, by definition, racism.

    just blathered a bunch of liberal straw arguments.

    You have a strange concept of a straw man fallacy. This is the straw man fallacy: The disputant imputes to his opponent a view which his opponent doesn’t hold, or else the worst possible version of a view he does hold, and then proceeds to rebut it.

    A. You’ve not demonstrated your assertion that I raised a straw man.
    B. I actually quoted your own words and then replied to them, and each reply was on point.
    C. You are the one raising straw men. For example, accusing this blog of saying illegal aliens/the illegal alien problem should be ignored is a classic example. You have a nasty habit of falsely accusing people who reply to you here of engaging in tactics that you, yourself, employ in your own responses to which their replies are pegged.