Blame the people, not the tool. I'm glad to see that qualifies as silly in everyone's eyes.
How the law is applied is very different from how a gun is used. Precedence, anyone?
And if it were in New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana or Florida it'd still be racial profiling because there's only one typical immigrant, right? Does that mean it'd be okay in California (not that they'd ever pass a law like this there) because there's more than one typical suspicion? Or is it because you think skin color and accent are the only things officers would look for?
I don't think they're the only things that they'll look for, but it's definitely going to be a point of suspicion.
Bolded for emphasis, because they don't exist. Everyone in this country is either giving Arizona a pat on the back or threatening to gut all interstate connections. The reason I mentioned it is because I understood it, not because it's my opinion. I'm studying criminal justice with the goal of joining the police force.
It's still your opinion, even if it's based on something. And if it's based on something that's solid, you could always link to that as evidence to back up your claim. Also, there are people who are in the middle, saying there's no one is a bit silly. Personally, I'm a little confused as to what to believe. If someone could actually show to me that the interpretation that you are offering is true, and if someone could convince me that racial profiling isn't likely to occur, I think I'd probably support it. I find complete support for this law just as ridiculous as I find the Nazi Germany comparisons.
All laws regarding police proceedure and conduct are created with the human element in mind to leave some discretion up to the officer. If some officer actually testifies in court that he asked for immigration documents on the basis of "His skin was slightly darker than mine and he talked funny" I will laugh my ass off and reccomend his resignation. Failure to produce a lisence, producing a phoney lisence or reluctance are three distinct scenarios in the span of 3 seconds that an officer has to use to make a judgement call.
The thing is, people are very good at justifying their behavior. They won't actually say in court that it's because the color of their skin. The law is so complicated and vast that if a police officer really wants to find a reason to be suspicious, they can do it--people tend to act extremely erratic around the police whether they're guilty of something or not.
An officer has an obligation to identify witnesses. That's probably the only instance in which a bystander would be asked for their I.D. Loitering or Soliciting in a place that prohibits it doesn't qualify as innocent bystander material. You STILL have to commit a crime or give the police probable cause that you HAVE committed a crime before they can ask you for any documentation of immigrant status. If there isn't any, that's what the "you can sue us" portion of the law is for.
I get that they're only supposed to approach them, according to you, if they can find a legal reason to do so. I just don't think it's that hard to find a reason to suspect someone of breaking a crime if you look hard enough. What do most people think when they look at a Mexican who only speaks Spanish? The Police will then look for a reason to ask for their papers--again it's not very hard.