Is racial profiling illegal in the United States?

[Praetorian Quintus]

My government class in HS was debating the new immigration law in Arizona, and I said that some think the law would encourage racial profiling, however I also am wondering whether racial profiling in of itself is illegal.

[El Brujo]

Racial profiling is a tool and as such not necessarily bad, though it can be.

This guy has an interesting take

[Manco]

The problem is when racial profiling (which would be a misnomer imo, since race would only be one of many parameters taken in account) devolves into assuming guilt.

[Vermelho_Steele]

How is it illegal? illogical yes, but illegal?

It already happens, many people do it on a subconcious level all the time. Say what you will, but many (by that anywhere from 90-75% of people) will assume the worst of a big black man in a dark alley when they're aren't black and are by themselves.

[Landsknecht_88]

How is it illegal? illogical yes, but illegal?

Racial profiling is hardly illogical, nor is it illegal. It is commonly used to catch sex criminals and serial killers. Generally, a White rapist will target White women, whereas a Black rapist will target Black women and so on. There are exceptions, but that's the general rule.

In the case of catching illegal immigrants, it would obviously make sense to narrow the search to Hispanics. To say that Whites and Blacks should be given equal consideration in this case for the sake of "fairness" would be silly and misguided.

[Count of Montesano]

Racial profiling is hardly illogical, nor is it illegal. It is commonly used to catch sex criminals and serial killers. Generally, a White rapist will target White women, whereas a Black rapist will target Black women and so on. There are exceptions, but that's the general rule.

In the case of catching illegal immigrants, it would obviously make sense to narrow the search to Hispanics. To say that Whites and Blacks should be given equal consideration in this case for the sake of "fairness" would be silly and misguided.

I think there's a misunderstanding of the difference between criminal profiling and racial profiling. In criminal profiling, you're looking at the race of a predator but also his socio-economic status, upbringing, MO, etc.

True racial profiling is stopping someone for no other reason than they are a minority. Example: stopping a wealthy black lawyer because he drives a nice car and you think he might be a drug dealer. It's incredibly demoralizing to a community because minorities begin to see cops as corrupt at best and sworn enemies at worst. It's one of the reasons too many inner city residents won't help the police, even when a terrible murder or gang rape has been commited. I hear this happens all the time from buddies in law enforcement - snitches get stitches.

BTW, the Arizona law still requires probable cause to check someone's immigration status. So it's not racial profiling per se, but could easily cross the line.

[Landsknecht_88]

I think there's a misunderstanding of the difference between criminal profiling and racial profiling. In criminal profiling, you're looking at the race of a predator but also his socio-economic status, upbringing, MO, etc.

I took a closer look at it now, and yes, apparently I was a bit off there.

[Sphere]

How is it illegal? illogical yes, but illegal?

The 4th and 14th amendments. Race alone is not a legitimate probable cause, this is an idea that the courts have upheld repeatedly

[Diamat]

The 4th and 14th amendments. Race alone is not a legitimate probable cause, this is an idea that the courts have upheld repeatedly

Yes, the 14th Amendment provides equal protection under the law.

Here are the actual words:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

States have to grant due process and equal protection to all people regardless of race. Discriminating against, say, Mexicans would, arguably, violate this. But again, everything is up to interpretation.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

it's pretty obviously that islamic extremist terrorists are likely to be islamic. Muslims are likely to be from muslim countries.

of course there is no profile of a suicide bobmer, and there are even australian members of the base.

[chilon]

it's pretty obviously that islamic extremist terrorists are likely to be islamic. Muslims are likely to be from muslim countries.

Unfortunately Reality does not conform to such "obviousness"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard...shoe_bomber%29

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Unfortunately Reality does not conform to such "obviousness"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard...shoe_bomber%29

thankyou for ignoring half of my post

[Tiberius Tosi]

it's pretty obviously that islamic extremist terrorists are likely to be islamic. Muslims are likely to be from muslim countries.

of course there is no profile of a suicide bobmer, and there are even australian members of the base.

Yes but there are a lot more middle eastern ones, hence why I and many other people have no problem with the idea of "random" searches at airports "randomly" selecting more middle eastern people for searches. If it were Irish, search the Irish, if it were Africans, search them. Somehow it is racial profiling when you search a muslim at an airport, but it is not when we all assume that the DC sniper is white because whites are more likely to carry out such attacks.

When a threat has in the past and currently comes from on area, race, country, etc. you focus on them and deduce that they are the most likely to attack you. If the US is threatened by Russia the most (just and example here) they don't point nukes at Britain just to be fair so the Russians don't feel like they are being descriminated against.

Now of course if they are detained and held illegally, that is of course wrong.

[Praetorian Quintus]

Well if the 14th amendment provides equal protection for every citizen, shouldn't it be made clear that states can't make laws that abridge the freedoms of one specific group?

[Diamat]

Well if the 14th amendment provides equal protection for every citizen, shouldn't it be made clear that states can't make laws that abridge the freedoms of one specific group?

The Supreme Court has made this clear on countless occasions. The 14th Amendment justifies selective incorporation, that is, selectively incorporating rights found in the Bill of Rights into the states (meaning that the states, not just the federal government, have to follow, for instance, due process protections guaranteed to citizens in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendment). Whenever this case comes to the Supreme Court, it will most likely uphold its previous rulings. I doubt it would try to reinterpret the meaning of the 14th Amendment, or that equal protection, for some reason, does not apply in this case.

[Darkside]

The new bill doesn't take into consideration race. It gives the police discretionary power to ask for identification if legality is suspect, but police officers take that initiative on countless other occassions, whether it be DWI, drug possession, what have you.

I can certainly symapthize on some level with those who would feel harrassed, but honestly, in this particular case, why would this be such a problem is the person WAS legally here? If they feel racially harrassed after the fact, report the officer. And those who honestly would say they can't understand the need for such a bill or understand it's contents as in terms of human rights and what have you, IMHO that's assinine.

[Defianc4]

My government class in HS was debating the new immigration law in Arizona, and I said that some think the law would encourage racial profiling, however I also am wondering whether racial profiling in of itself is illegal.

What is intrinsically wrong with racial profiling? Since we are currently fighting a war against Islam, why shouldn't we scan all Arabs and Pakistanis, since that will improve our chances of catching terrorists?

Why scan the tired white mother with two young children? I'm sure she poses a national security threat.

[Manco]

Because terrorists aren't so dumb to send easily identifiable people on suicide missions in the West when there's loads of converts and the like with Western appearances...

[justicar5]

racial profiling.. hmm tricky, ok useful sometimes, but can be immensly counter productive when it leads to 'walking while [insert racial group here]' policies, as part of a whole, taken with behaviour, age group, location etc, then yes it is a useful tool. When used to pre-assume guilt based solely on race, very, very bad idea. A classic example, from the UK, drinking in public parks has been banned by some councils, but is equally enforced, meaning that white office workers having a glass of wine in the park at lunch time aren't being prosecuted for what is technically a crime, but black or asian youths having a beer where, as where working class students (for instance)

[removeduser_487563287433]

Source for this general rule.

Stormfront doesn't count.