@mafia:
you had me agreeing with you about the ideologies not being swayed all the way up to the point that you said that the vast majority of the litererature backs you up. It's no secret that the vast majority of people submitting scholarly social science articles to the literature, fall on your side of that ideology. So the stat is meaningless.

And lets talk about scholarly math for a second. You are trying to attribute to me the exact OPPOSITE of what I said. I said if 99% of the illegals are Mexican, then it makes sense that 99% of the people questioned about their imigration status will be mexican. And you said that I admit that it will be disproportionate.

maybe you're using the word disproportionate in a context I'm not familiar with, but ummm, I kinda said the proportions would be exact.

Now whether my guess is right or wrong, remains to be seen, but you were using my guess to say that I admitted that it would be disproportionate, when my point was that it would be proportionate.

Narnia ... seriously? You think there isn't racism in Narnia? Do you not see how the "White Queen" treats the lessar races Fauns, and talking beavers and the like ... very bad example.

But again, no that's not at all what I was saying. I'm saying it still exists because Liberals perpetuate it.

What I meant by disproportionate was disproportionate relative to the total number of Hispanics (legal or not) in the population as a whole. So for instance maybe 90% of the people asked for ID will be Hispanic, but only 40% of the population of Arizona as a whole is Hispanic. (Don't put too much stock in my numbers, I'm just pulling them out of thin air to demonstrate what I mean.)

Hehehe. You're totally right. Narnia was a bad example

And I disagree that it exists because liberals perpetuate racial inequality. Society as a whole perpetuates it. Liberals, conservatives, independents, non-politically involved people, minorities, majorities. EVERYONE plays a part. Ignoring a problem never makes it go away, and yet this is always what conservatives say. And yet we can see time and time again that ignoring race makes inequality worse. This is reality. Why are we all so invested in denying that.

@mafia - you are a very good writer, very articulate. You seem pretty educated about the topic. You could probably be a pretty good debater if you'd just work on the reading and interpreting part of it. Becase it seems like you want to argue a point (call it a straw man) that no one is making, so you'll frame it in a way that pretends that it was the point being made by someone when clearly it isn't. Very obamish.

He's always saying things like:
"There are those on the other side that say government shouldn't do anything to help anyone ... ever. Well, I think they're wrong"

Except we know that there isn't really anyone saying any such thing. He just can't argue with what "they" are actually saying, so he argues a made-up point.

Fix that and you'll be a master debater ;-)

Valid concern, Mafia, and I should backtrack, the issue certainly isn't one confined to the occasional prick cop on the job. I would argue, though, that if the problem is as systematic as you've stated (and I have agreed to as a general statement -- I don't know if we're necessarily agreed on the degree of it, but as a general statement I do agree the problem is woefully systemic), they don't need another law to carry out prejudice and abuse. It seems as though the same result would happen regardless of this law being on the books or not. The negative consequence of the law that we've been ascribing to it is a negative consequence that already existed prior to the law's being enacted. And when the law IS justly executed, it does help. If we can agree on those two premises, then I would say the law has a net positive because it at least leaves open the door for being used justly -- and if it isn't used justly, the result is the same as it not existing, because the prejudice would exist anyway.

(And yes, it's a terrible statement to say "Well, the cops are gonna harass Mexicans anyway, might as well let them do something good if they end up harassing the right ones." I'll admit that those standards for law enforcement are abhorrent. But I won't pretend to have a solution to those standards -- only pretend to have a way to make something positive out of those standards.)

Mmm, I feel I should make this clear. I'm not accusing you or anyone else of actually being racist in the sense of like "I think racial group X is better than Y." Or "I hate Zs!" I don't think anyone here actually thinks that way, and in society as a whole, people like that are a very very very tiny minority and are not what I'm talking about. That's not what I mean by "racism" or "racist". I hope no one took me to mean that.

I think you may have a point philcore, but in my defense I will say this. In all honesty, I have tried to interpret your meaning as honestly and plainly as I can. Any discrepancy between what you say, and what I appear to interpret is the result of an honest mistake, rather than an intentional misinterpretation. I think we're both approaching this topic in very, very different ways, and that accounts for our inability to mutually communicate clearly.

OK. Philcore, I've read over the whole debate, and I still don't see where I misinterpreted you, or put words in your mouth. I don't doubt that I have done those things, and really this just increases my opinion that we're probably discussing the issue from incompatible angles, which is at least good to know.

Wow, a couple dedicated hours of work and I'm *way* behind.

Mafia (and others), I have no doubt that what's in the law and how it is executed will be substantially different. But, as phil points out, just because the vast majority of people who are asked for proof will be hispanic, it doesn't make it disproportionate. If 99% of the illegals are hispanic, then 99% of the people questioned should be hispanic, even if only 20% of the populace is hispanic. Your looking for criminals. You know your odds of finding them go up when you narrow your query by selecting certain parameters. As long as you treat the individuals fairly and with courtesy and respect, then it is no different than when the cops are looking for a tubby 40-something white male about 5'11" to 6'1" driving a red SUV and I get pulled over.

Hell, they profile white guys incertain neighborhoods known for prostitution and drugs because they know that most people coming into that neighborhood fitting the profile are looking for drugs or sex. But no one screams racism there. And yes, they do just that. Watch Cops whenthey are in Miami and you'll see just that profiling.

Honestly, why do we keep tying cops hands when it's a "minority" but let them have free reign when they racially profile caucasians?