Forget political correctness…agree to naming conventions

“A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.” (Probable cause sure…doesn’t need warrant.)

This clause gives law officers permission to arrest people without warrant. Under this new law, illegal immigrants can be arrested for simply being in the United States on grounds of trespassing. (Should check your sources.)

In response to this claim we would clearly argue that being in the United States – illegally is a crime, whilst the language of “trespassing” is what’s extremely inappropriate. (Authors in dark blue…Arizona representive in black.)

“I think this will open the door to more racial profiling,” said Rep. Anna Tovar, D-Tolleson. “It is an attack on immigrants trying to find work in this country.”

As far as Anna Tovar is concerned don’t you just feel a bit sorry for her? Obviously she’s caught between jargons of political correctness. Let’s first start by asking: What is racial profiling? Furthermore, why is it an “attack” on illegal immigrants who are in the country illegally to begin with and are seeking work with the hopes of gaining ‘a better life?’

First, racial profiling is the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to commit a particular type of crime or an illegal act or to behave in a “predictable” manner. Admittedly this is where the argument begins. Predicated upon the characteristics of the crime and the perpetrators who committed the crime is always law enforcement’s first consideration. We believe that if any crime is more prominent in one group of individuals predicated upon the groups shared identity then “racial profiling” cannot exist.

What Ms. Tovar is referring to is the concept of “offender profiling.” Offender profiling has been perceived to be directed most often toward non white individuals. Who said that being politically correct was actually correct?

Take for example these statistics on the severe crimes: In the U.S. the drugs are distributed by feared street and prison gangs, which have spread from urban cities to suburban areas once thought to be impenetrable by such corruption. Nearly 1 million criminally active gangbangers representing about 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities sold drugs in the U.S. for Mexican cartels last year.

The operations are so sophisticated that it’s unlikely U.S. law enforcement agencies can stop them. The growing strength and organization of criminal gangs, including their alliances with large Mexican drug cartels, will make disrupting illicit drug availability and distribution increasingly difficult for law enforcement agencies, the feds claim in the report.

As for our part, Rep. Anna Tovar, D-Tolleson (Arizona House) is a liability to immigration reform. Anyone for that matter who espouses such rubbish as ‘racial profiling’ and that this notion is an attack on criminal illegal aliens, perhaps should relocate south of the border.

 In closing we find that the lack of standardization procedures primarily between the Department of Homeland Security, and what is referred to as the “leadership” of this nation are simply nonexistent. In order for there to be a comprehensive immigration reform to happen, every single person must be on the same page, with the same agenda, and having the procedures standard and formal.

Finally it is absolutely egregious that the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the Secretary of DHS, Janet Napolitano, cannot seem to agree on wording, moreover, the concept of right and wrong pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.