… even in Arizona. But then, Roger notes, “the Arizona law has already been changed so that, on its face at least, it bans racial profiling,” though he adds that the manner in which it will be enforced still remains to be seen.
Roger takes issue with a column by Jonah Goldberg that, in my view, does a superb job of pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals who abhor racial profiling by the police but heartily endorse it when done by admissions officers, employers, etc. (now where have we heard that before?) — not for that well-done point but for Jonah’s view that “that the two positions aren’t that analogous.”
Read both, make up your own mind, and then stick with that view until and unless it diverges from what is argued here.
I noted that Clegg said there is no de minimus in racial profiling in law enforcement, then goes on to say he supports profiling in terrorism and war. So, there is rational basis for profiling apparently. Why not then add a little for immigration law enforcement when the race of the illegal aliens is readily apparent, such as in Arizona. A writer in the San Francisco Examiner said that the Arizona police won’t be questioning alot of Swedes, which is correct, especially since there are not alot of Swedish illegal aliens in Arizona or the rest of the United States.
To quote Roger Clegg
“And it is certainly not justified when the target is suspected not of mass murder, not of dealing drugs, but of nothing more than coming to this country (yes, illegally) to find work and a better way of life for himself and his family”
Roger Clegg advocates unlimited immigration (illegal and legal) from Latin America for some reason I can’t fathom. Yet such immigrants once they become citizens are eligible for and demand preferential treatment in education and employment.
Without mass Latino immigration, there would be much less pressure for affirmative action/preferences. In fact, former UC President
Dynes publicly hoped that such immigration would allow 209 to eventually be overturned.
We can’t have continued mass immigration by people who arrogantly feel they are entitled to preferences based on their last name and skin color.
————————
From the Oct. 28 2006 Contra Costa times
Byline: Matt Krupnick
Oct. 28–If the University of California system challenges the state’s ban on affirmative action, the timing will need to be right, UC President Robert Dynes said Friday.
Speaking at a daylong conference on the effects and future of Proposition 209, Dynes and others said California’s demographics eventually will change enough to overturn the 1996 voter-approved ban.
On racial profiling:
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/05/07/2010-05-07_untitled__2apple07m.html
Pol wants explanation for allegations that Apple store employees are discriminating against Chinese
BY Rich Schapiro
http://gothamist.com/2010/05/07/apple_3.php#comments
Some Claim Apple SoHo Is Discrimating Against Chinese