Have you actually read the SB 1070 bill?

[BDKJMU]

We should. To act as though the ethnicity of a person has no bearing on the "likelihood" that the person in question represents a certain problem is ridiculous. That does not mean that a person is KNOWN to be a problem. But to create a situation in which you ignore ethnic associations in focusing your efforts is just downright stupid.

Because it punishes all members of that race or ethnicity even if they are innocent. If all Middle Easterns, brown people, or people with a funny last name have are screened more thoroughly solely because of their race or ethnicity... it's discrimination. Plain and simple.

I thought you loved liberty, JSO? Doesn't discrimination infringe on liberty? "...immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority." Isn't racial profiling "arbitrary exercise of authority?" Why are you against taking liberty away from certain segments of the population?

And someone's race certainly doesn't meet the "probable cause" test of the 4th amendment... an amendment I'd expect libertarians to display particular strict constructionist principles for:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Being hispanic, middle eastern, brown skinned, or speaking with an accent isn't probably cause.

But it is a factor for reasonable suspicion on/near the border. Law enforcement doesn't need probable cause for a traffic stop- just reasonable suspicion. On/near the Southern US/Mexico border can't pull over people solely because they look Hispanic, but it can be one of multiple articulateable factors adding up to reasonable suspicion. U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975), the SCOTUS ruled that race cannot be the exclusive basis for an immigration stop. But the Court further also stated that “the likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor” to the Border Patrol in making an immigration stop.

Over time, the phrase “Mexican appearance” employed by the Supreme Court in the Brignoni-Ponce case evolved into the broader category of “Hispanic appearance.” This change occurred in the 1980s as the Border Patrol encountered increasing numbers of Central Americans who were illegally entering the US..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... noni-Ponce" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

Jelly is the type in random screening at an airport would screen the 80 some yr old great grandma with a walker over the 20-30 something middle eastern male...

Is random a confusing concept?

No, but with out of touch, politically correct, linguine spined pols, bureacrats and lawyers sitting behind their desks in DC, clueless about whats going on out in the field so to speak, who with the same attitude as you insist we can't profile, well then, sometimes people have to improvise. If I was a screener and was asked, I would reply that I randomly picked the middle eastern guy.

[Skjellyfetti]

But it is a factor for reasonable suspicion on/near the border. Law enforcement doesn't need probable cause for a traffic stop- just reasonable suspicion. On/near the Southern US/Mexico border can't pull over people solely because they look Hispanic, but it can be one of multiple articulateable factors adding up to reasonable suspicion. U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975), the SCOTUS ruled that race cannot be the exclusive basis for an immigration stop. But the Court further also stated that “the likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor” to the Border Patrol in making an immigration stop.

Over time, the phrase “Mexican appearance” employed by the Supreme Court in the Brignoni-Ponce case evolved into the broader category of “Hispanic appearance.” This change occurred in the 1980s as the Border Patrol encountered increasing numbers of Central Americans who were illegally entering the US..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... noni-Ponce" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

First, as you say "SCOTUS ruled that race cannot be the exclusive basis for an immigration stop." That's all I care about. If there is other reason to suspect someone is illegal PLUS the fact that he's hispanic... that's fine with me. But, there has to be something more substantial than his skin color or his accent.

Second, the key distinction is Border Patrol. The Border Patrol is a FEDERAL agency (and this issue is a FEDERAL responsibility). They are specially trained in immigration law. They are much, much, better equipped to come to a reasonable conclusion as to someone's legality than a Arizona cop... UNLESS Arizona requires all cops in its state to be trained in immigration law, Spanish, etc. I doubt that will happen though.

[Skjellyfetti]

No, but with out of touch, politically correct, linguine spined pols, bureacrats and lawyers sitting behind their desks in DC, clueless about whats going on out in the field so to speak, who with the same attitude as you insist we can't profile, well then, sometimes people have to improvise. If I was a screener and was asked, I would reply that I randomly picked the middle eastern guy.

I realize it would make it easier to prevent terrorist attacks. And that would be a good thing... but, American citizens, regardless of religion or ancestry, have rights granted to them in the Constitution. I'm not OK with trampling on those rights except in EXTREME circumstances. I'm as socially liberal as it comes. No doubt about it. I wish more libertarians were.

[AZGrizFan]

No, but with out of touch, politically correct, linguine spined pols, bureacrats and lawyers sitting behind their desks in DC, clueless about whats going on out in the field so to speak, who with the same attitude as you insist we can't profile, well then, sometimes people have to improvise. If I was a screener and was asked, I would reply that I randomly picked the middle eastern guy.

I realize it would make it easier to prevent terrorist attacks. And that would be a good thing... but, American citizens, regardless of religion or ancestry, have rights granted to them in the Constitution. I'm not OK with trampling on those rights except in EXTREME circumstances. I'm as socially liberal as it comes. No doubt about it. I wish more libertarians were.

Interesting. The only folks whose rights are getting "trampled" on in this process are the NON-citizens. Are THEY afforded the same rights as citizens? Because they have no RIGHT to be here, they've committed a CRIME by being here, and you (in the name of political correctness) seem OK with that.