McCain's daughter criticizes Arizona's anti-illegal immigrant law

As Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) makes the rounds on television, standing up for the Arizona immigration law that has sparked protests and outrage nationwide, his daughter calls it "a license to discriminate."

"Let me say up-front that I do not support the bill that was signed by Governor Jan Brewer," Meghan McCain wrote in her Daily Beast blog on Wednesday. "I believe it gives the state police a license to discriminate, and also, in many ways, violates the civil rights of Arizona residents."

Sen. McCain, however, feels the law will not become corrupted, as his daughter fears.

.............

However, the younger McCain - who was born and raised in Arizona, but now lives in New York City - feels the approach taken by the controversial Arizona law is not the answer.

"The concept that a law-enforcement official can stop an individual when 'reasonable suspicion exists that a person is an alien, who is unlawfully present in the United States' is essentially a license to pull someone over for being Hispanic," (Meghan)McCain wrote.

Full Story
I have agreed all along that the borders have not been secured like they should be.

But I also have to agree with the daughter here, this will lead to BWH. Driving While Hispanic.
I honestly do remember several decades ago...even up until recently in South Carolina where I am originally from there was what was called DWB. Driving While Black. Basically, the police pulling people over for no other reason than race.

On another note...what the hell is a Daily Beast blog?

[edit on 28-4-2010 by webpirate]

I think you are getting ahead of the law here into territory of hearsay. Can you prove some DWB cases to me other than just the lyrics from rap songs and plaintiff's trying to score some dough from the state. And the law thoroughly states that only a justified contact would initiate further review for the proper documents.

McCain daughter sure would be against this bill, otherwise she might have to get off her fat fanny and start doing some house chores.

reply to post by webpirate


I do not feel it is discriminatory to call a duck a duck. If the vast majority of illegal immigrants to your country are from a certain racial subset, then targeting your law to identify persons from that background first is Logic.

For example: Say my town was being plagued by roving gangs of white young men dressed like thugs. They had been overrunning the town, causing chaos, robbing people left right and center, even murdering innocents! Now, the law enforcement knew that all these thugs had a gang mark on their arm, and announced that anyone who fit the stereotype was to be pulled over on suspicion of belonging to this gang and searched for this mark on their arm.

Would we hear these cries of racism and bigotry and rights? No, the law enforcement would be (in any sane world) would be applauded for their actions in getting these dangerous young men off the street.

Now, I'm not suggesting that the illegal immigrants are in any way parallel to the gang I created above. I want to point out that this is not descrimination, not racism or bigotry, It is identifying the group that is responsible for the bulk of your problems, and creating a strategy that targets it directly.

You can throw petty claims about the humanity of the situation at it as much as you want. This world is not a utopia, the USA is not in the business of free handouts. If you knowingly ran the border and entered the country, you will have to face the consequences that you knew existed before you entered the US.

reply to post by D.E.M.

For example: Say my town was being plagued by roving gangs of white young men dressed like thugs. They had been overrunning the town, causing chaos, robbing people left right and center, even murdering innocents! Now, the law enforcement knew that all these thugs had a gang mark on their arm, and announced that anyone who fit the stereotype was to be pulled over on suspicion of belonging to this gang and searched for this mark on their arm.

Preposterous!
"Dressed like thugs" - what does that mean? Could be a police uniform!
"Anyone who fit the stereotype" - what stereotype? Being a young white man?
IF the law enforcement made such a claim and stopped people for being young, male and "dressed like thugs" WITHOUT any other reason - that looks clearly like a 4th ammendment violation. IF on the otherhand there was a traffic or any other kind of offence that provided a cause to stop these folks, there's still the question of legal search.
IF the tatoo was on their face and clearly visible - that's a different story.

What is it about "unreasonable search and seizure" you don't get?

gj
edit remove extraneous characters

[edit on 28-4-2010 by ganjoa]

reply to post by ganjoa


Perhaps I should have used a better example. Up here in Canada, we have this group called the "Hells Angels". A biker gang well known for drug running, murder, rape, and pretty much every crime on the book. Hells Angels members are very easily identified.

As a result, wherever there is a large Hells Angels gathering, the RCMP cordon the roads and search the members for those with outstanding warrants issued on them, as well as any contraband.

Is this against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Questionably.
Does it keep murderers, rapists, and the foul dregs of society behind bars? Yes, yes it does.
Do people care? No, the only ones who raise an outcry are the members or their proxy organizations. Why? because any sane, logical person is able to see the value in maintaining order and keeping the laws in line.

I don't care if you are white, black, latino, or asian. If you break the law, you should be held accountable for your crime. If you are part of a large group that flaunts the laws and is causing a headache for citizens, then expect for exceptions to be made to bring your group to heel.

What is it about desperate times call for desperate measures that YOU don't get? Extraordinary situations.

Gotta love when a silver spooned, never have to worry about bills, spoiled brat speaks her mind and waits on daddy's next deposit into her NYC bank account.

While she gets the best healthcare in the US, I have to pay out my a@@ just to get decent coverage, yet the ILLEGALS here in Atlanta walk into grady, get treated, walk out and...oh yeah NO BILL.

While she can go out buy anything she wants, I am cutting corners and pinching pennies trying to pay my bills, pay my taxes, etc...all while ILLEGALS make more money then I do because they don't have to worry about being raped by Uncle Sam. Not to mention those with anchor babies collecting public assistance....where is my handout?

I just pulled a guy over the other day for speeding in a 2009 Ford Mustang. Easily a $30,000 vehicle....he works for Tyson Chicken...he had no drivers license, but he did have a fake one, along with a Social Security Card that he STOLE from a 76 year old woman (who IS a citizen). He is now in jail....someone tell me why he SHOULDN'T be deported?????????????????????????? Please give me ONE valid reason....thats all, just one! Considering here in GA he will go to court, probably get probation or at most a year in jail, then released...guess where...BACK TO THE STREETS OF ATLANTA......

You may not like the AZ bill, but dealing with this crap EVERYDAY makes me wish it COULD be implimented here and dealt with appropriatly....rather then half a@@ed!!!!

reply to post by D.E.M.


I applaud your more to the point and better example.

The situation you describe falls within the scope of my comment "that's a different story" - sure if you're showing visible GANG signs you could be in for some restrictions or surveillance of your activities. I have little problem with that and no problem segregating the group from the general public.

RCW1975 from the law enforcement field has some strong opinions and rightfully so. His description of the incident points to one very significant factor that the new AZ law doesn't require - at the point he checked the speeders papers, an offense had already been committed. Had he encountered the same man as a pedestrian on the sidewalk - not commiting any offense - I am certain RCW1975 would NOT have asked the man for papers. Based on his prior posts RCW1975 is a conscientious law officer (and I respect him for that as well as his posts). And he is completely correct that the perp should be deported - whether or not he gets jail time. Why should the taxpayer put this guy up for a year just to let him out in the public?

But desperate times requiring desperate measures is absolutely no excuse to infringe the civil liberties of our citizens as well as those enjoying the protections of the USA, regardless of immigration status. IMHO.

gj

reply to post by ganjoa


We appear to be mostly on the same side, then. But a little bit of disagreement is what makes debate interesting.