DOJ Sues Arizona, but not for civil rights violations

[Ridge]

Washington (CNN) -- The Justice Department weighed in on one of the most explosive issues in American politics Tuesday, filing a lawsuit to overturn a tough new Arizona immigration law that has sharply divided people along partisan, ideological and ethnic lines.

It also asked the federal courts to grant an injunction to stop enforcement of the measure before it takes effect late this month.

Arizona's law requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and allows police to question the residency status of people in the course of enforcing another law. It also targets businesses that hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.

Justice Department lawyers argued that the state statute should be declared invalid because it has improperly preempted federal law.

"In our constitutional system, the power to regulate immigration is exclusively vested in the federal government," the brief states.

"The immigration framework set forth by Congress and administered by federal agencies reflects a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian concerns -- concerns that belong to the nation as a whole, not a single state."

"The Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country. Although a state may adopt regulations that have an indirect or incidental effect on aliens, a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with federal immigration law. The State of Arizona has crossed this constitutional line."

The brief contends that the Arizona law "disrupts federal enforcement priorities and resources that focus on aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety. ... If allowed to go into effect, [its] mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government's careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives."

The Justice Department highlighted statements in support for the lawsuit from the sheriff of Arizona's Santa Cruz County and several Department of Homeland Security officials, among others.

President Barack Obama said in a speech July 1 that the measure has "fanned the flames of an already contentious debate." Among other things, it puts pressure on police officers to enforce rules that are "unenforceable" while making communities less safe -- in part, by making people more reluctant to report crimes, he said.

It also has "the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound."

Arizona's two Republican senators, however, immediately blasted the decision to file the lawsuit.

"The American people must wonder whether the Obama administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law," Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain said in a statement.

The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee also ripped the decision.

"Not only does this lawsuit reveal the Obama administration's contempt for immigration laws and the people of Arizona, it reveals contempt for the majority of the American people who support Arizona's efforts to reduce human smuggling, drug trafficking and illegal immigration," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas. "Arizona's law simply applies state penalties to acts already illegal under federal law."

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Arizona, released a statement calling the lawsuit a "sideshow."

"A court battle between the federal government and Arizona will not move us closer to securing the border or fixing America's broken immigration system," she said.

Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, has accused the Obama administration of failing to secure the border with Mexico, thereby forcing her state to act on its own.

"Do your job. Secure the border," Brewer said of the president in a July 1 speech to a GOP group. She pledged to "defend this law against every assault, including attacks by the Obama administration."

Obama renewed his push for comprehensive immigration reform last week, calling for bipartisan cooperation on an issue reflecting deep social and political divisions.

Seeking an elusive middle ground on the subject, the president highlighted the importance of immigrants to American history and progress while acknowledging the fear and frustration many feel with a system that he said seems "fundamentally broken."

He asserted that the majority of Americans are ready to embrace reform legislation that would help resolve the status of an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.

In his July 1 speech, Obama warned that rounding up everyone in the country who has entered illegally would be both "logistically impossible" and "tear at the fabric of the nation." At the same time, the president indicated it would be wrong to offer blanket amnesty for people who came into the United States unlawfully.

Despite Obama's call for bipartisan immigration reform, several senior Democratic sources said Thursday that they see virtually no chance of Congress taking up such a measure before November's midterm elections.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. national poll conducted in late May showed 57 percent of Americans backing the Arizona law, with 37 percent opposed to it.

The poll also indicated that public support for beefing up security along the U.S. border with Mexico has grown significantly. According to the survey, nearly nine out of 10 Americans want to increase U.S. law enforcement along the border with Mexico.

Eight in 10 questioned also supported a program that would allow illegal immigrants already in the United States to stay here and apply for legal residency, provided they had a job and paid back taxes.

But only 38 percent say that program should be a higher priority than border security and other get-tough proposals. Six in 10 said border security was the higher priority.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/06/arizona.immigration.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T1

 

[No Limit]

Here is a fun fact, the Bush administration used this same basis to force states to deregulate banks by forcing them to follow federal guidelines instead of the harsher state guidelines.

And I bet if this law forced everyone to carry a birth certificate at all times 57 percent of americans wouldn't support this. But as long as it only applies to brown people nobody gives a shit.

 

[Ridge]

Its not requiring a birth certificate.

...requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times...

Like a Visa, or a Green Card...its similar to you carrying your social security card...

 

[No Limit]

Except that there are many legal US citizens that don't have alien registration documents because, well, they aren't aliens. But since they look brown they will need to present a state certified ID such as a birth certificate.

What do you think Ridge? Should we require all US citizens to carry federally approved identification before they can step foot outside their house?

 

[Ridge]

People in America dont step anywhere anymore...they drive, and often carry a state-sponsored paper saying they are legal...

 

[No Limit]

Way to side step the question. I go running a lot, I dont like to carry my wallet with me when I do. When I go I see plenty of people out running or walking that probably feel the same about carrying their wallets. Should we be forced to carry federal ID when we step outside our house? Believe it or not I also usually don't carry ID when I go out to take the trash, should I have to?

 

[Ridge]

Well perhaps it'll be more of an issue when 100 million western europeans have snuck over the border and brought illecit drugs and weapons with them...

Oh, and in before you mention the 16th and 17th centuries...

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Here is a fun fact, the Bush administration used this same basis to force states to deregulate banks by forcing them to follow federal guidelines instead of the harsher state guidelines.

And I bet if this law forced everyone to carry a birth certificate at all times 57 percent of americans wouldn't support this. But as long as it only applies to brown people nobody gives a shit.

Its not just about race. Most of the white people who voted for the law dont realize the law will apply to them as well.

NO ID, and you can be detained in COUNTY JAIL. That's big boy lockup btw. Until you can PROVE you're a legal citizen. Any cop that wants to be a dick can legally use that against a person without ID on them. They'd be clear to. They're pretty much forced to as well, because SB1070 has a provision that if a citizen feels a law enforcement agency is NOT enforcing the law, they can file suit for damages against that agency! So cops are forced into it or they face lawsuits.

Like a Visa, or a Green Card...its similar to you carrying your social security card...

I was BORN IN THIS COUNTRY. Yet this law can send me to jail for not carrying papers (which no other law says I must carry in the first place)

This law to me is just as bad as Obamacare because it is compulsory. That is what I'm against. FORCING someone to do, carry, or buy something is un-American.

I have an ID and dont always carry it on me at all times, especially if I'm just walking down the street to the park to play basketball or something. Yet that's when I most often encounter law enforcement. I dont get pulled over often in the least (driving I always have my drivers license.)

 

[No Limit]

Well perhaps it'll be more of an issue when 100 million western europeans have snuck over the border and brought illecit drugs and weapons with them...

Oh, and in before you mention the 16th and 17th centuries...

So again, you don't think ALL people should carry papers with them when they go outside. Just mexicans. Very classy. I wonder where your opinion fits in with the consitution, I guess we should impeach you.

RakuraiTenjin, stop pretending. The law does not say everyone has to carry the papers. The law says the only time a cop has a right to check papers is because of reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal. If you think cops are going to suspect white people of being illegals you are lying to yourself.

 

[Ridge]

So again, you don't think ALL people should carry papers with them when they go outside. Just mexicans. Very classy. I wonder where your opinion fits in with the consitution, I guess we should impeach you.

RakuraiTenjin, stop pretending. The law does not say everyone has to carry the papers. The law says the only time a cop has a right to check papers is because of reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal. If you think cops are going to suspect white people of being illegals you are lying to yourself.

Could be Canadians...I think they are a threat almost equal to Mexican cartels and drug runners....with their pot and their wooden shoes and whatnot...

 

[No Limit]

You're not being funny. Again, you think only people that look like Mexicans should carry papers, not white people. Before you try to back out of that statement read a few posts up, it's pretty clear. But no, you're not racist. And I think my original point stands as you just demonstrated. If the law required white people to carry papers it wouldn't have 57% support, now would it?

 

[Ridge]

You're not being funny. Again, you think only people that look like Mexicans should carry papers, not white people. Before you try to back out of that statement read a few posts up, it's pretty clear. But no, you're not racist. And I think my original point stands as you just demonstrated. If the law required white people to carry papers it wouldn't have 57% support, now would it?

I admit Im racist. But Im an equal opportunity racist. I hate all colors equally. Will you admit you are a racist?

 

[No Limit]

Again, you're not being funny bro.

 

[Ridge]

Im saying what I believe. Sorry its not amusing to you.

 

[No Limit]

Im saying what I believe. Sorry its not amusing to you.

The problem is you wanted to impeach Obama because you thought he was going against the constitution. Yet here you are going against equal protection under the law which is one of the core principles of our constitution. What is that word for people that apply standards to others they themselves dont actually follow? I think it starts with an "H".

 

[Ridge]

Equal protection to CITIZENS. These people are not citizens. They have not followed the proper paths and procedures to become a UNITED STATES CITIZEN.

 

[No Limit]

Lol wut? All brown people are not citizens?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Equal protection to CITIZENS. These people are not citizens. They have not followed the proper paths and procedures to become a UNITED STATES CITIZEN.

I am a citizen! SB1070 you can be jailed for not having your ID "on you"

I mean literally on your person. You have to carry papers. All citizens. The law puts the burden of proof on the person to prove innocence.

RakuraiTenjin, stop pretending. The law does not say everyone has to carry the papers. The law says the only time a cop has a right to check papers is because of reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal. If you think cops are going to suspect white people of being illegals you are lying to yourself.

Are you kidding? Joe Arpaio will do anything to jail people he disagrees with. He tried in vain to get the IP addresses of people who criticized him on the internet for Christ's sake.

This isnt about race, the law doesnt even mention race. Yes, here the MCSO will harass you if brown, so racial profiling will be a problem. But they also will use this against whites without ID just to avoid lawsuits, and when they want to detain people for other reasons but have no other legal way to do so. Just like the PATRIOT act was used for whatever million other reasons, this will be used to detain people the police want to when they have no other way.

Everyone in Arizona must now carry ID or they could be jailed. If you dont think that issue transcends race you're ignoring the main constitutional problem.

 

[Sulkdodds]

It looks like in most cases the law is going to be enforced with race in mind, but there are no barriers to it being used against anyone at all through malice or even mistake. The constitutional problem depends on where you rest your attention: a legalistic focus on the words of the law follows what Rakurai said, while a practical focus on how the law would be enforced raises mostly issues about race and equality under the law. But even in the latter case you have to consider how easy the law would make it to harass dissidents or just kids the local cops don't like.

 

[No Limit]

This isnt about race, the law doesnt even mention race. Yes, here the MCSO will harass you if brown, so racial profiling will be a problem. But they also will use this against whites without ID just to avoid lawsuits, and when they want to detain people for other reasons but have no other legal way to do so. Just like the PATRIOT act was used for whatever million other reasons, this will be used to detain people the police want to when they have no other way.

Everyone in Arizona must now carry ID or they could be jailed. If you dont think that issue transcends race you're ignoring the main constitutional problem.

What does an illegal immigrant look like? Again, the issue is reasonable suspicion. For a cop to ask for your papers he must have reasonable suspicion. A white kid that's been here all his life isn't going to be suspected of being here illegally. A brown person with an accent will.

If this wasn't about race they would have required everyone to carry papers. They didn't do that. The reason they didn't is because as you've seen in this thread as soon as you force white people to carry papers to step outside people would totally loose their shit. But when you target brown people by adding "reasonable suspecion" suddenly 57% of americans support it. Funny how that works.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

What does an illegal immigrant look like? Again, the issue is reasonable suspicion. For a cop to ask for your papers he must have reasonable suspicion. A white kid that's been here all his life isn't going to be suspected of being here illegally. A brown person with an accent will.

If this wasn't about race they would have required everyone to carry papers. They didn't do that. The reason they didn't is because as you've seen in this thread as soon as you force white people to carry papers to step outside people would totally loose their shit. But when you target brown people by adding "reasonable suspecion" suddenly 57% of americans support it. Funny how that works.

Reasonable suspicion of any crime or malicious activity. They actually cant JUST use suspicion of being illegal, so they cant legally use race.

The same rules they have no to stop/accost you now, which is basically any damn reason they please. They just say "you looked suspicious" or "we got a call about a suspicious person around here.."

 

[Tagaziel]

What's the problem with carrying an ID on you? I always carry it with me, prolly because it makes life easier and a leather business card holder with my ID isn't going to weigh me down.

 

[Yuri]

What's the problem with carrying an ID on you? I always carry it with me, prolly because it makes life easier and a leather business card holder with my ID isn't going to weigh me down.

You know, to some extent, I can agree with this. Illegal immigration is rampant and.. rather necessary, in this country. But I would like to hear an explanation why it couldn't just be made easier to legally immigrate here, while simultaneously taking harsher methods against illegal immigration. I don't see much problem with requiring citizens to carry some sort of proof of citizenship. I suppose it is a step toward an authoritative state, but it is not exactly the most inconvenient, or unreasonable, requirement.

The problem with Arizona's law, as far as I know, is that it requires that all citizens carry proof of citizenship with documents not meant to be carried around. Also, considering how it is an infamously racist state, it will clearly be used for racial profiling, even if it is only required when another crime is committed.

Another question is why the focus is put on the illegal immigrants themselves, not the businesses who hire them.

Eight in 10 questioned also supported a program that would allow illegal immigrants already in the United States to stay here and apply for legal residency, provided they had a job and paid back taxes.

I am not the most informed on this whole subject, but why only 8 out of 10? I think I know the answers to these questions, actually :/

 

[No Limit]

Reasonable suspicion of any crime or malicious activity. They actually cant JUST use suspicion of being illegal, so they cant legally use race.

No, it's not reasonable suspicion of any crime, it's reasonable suspiction that the person is here illegally:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Im too lazy to format, you can read it in the PDF.

So again, what does an illegal alien look like? And if they didn't want to be racist why not simply make it law that everyone needs ID to step outside?

The same rules they have no to stop/accost you now, which is basically any damn reason they please. They just say "you looked suspicious" or "we got a call about a suspicious person around here.."

But if they stop you on the street while you are walking they have no right to arrest you for no ID. This law made it so they can arrest mexicans with no ID while leaving everyone else alone.

What's the problem with carrying an ID on you? I always carry it with me, prolly because it makes life easier and a leather business card holder with my ID isn't going to weigh me down.

So there has never ever been a time you left your house without an ID? And I do mean never. You never forgot your wallet? Never walked outside to take the trash out without grabbing your wallet?

 

[Ridge]

If you go to take the trash out, you are still on your property. Private property. Which police cannot enter without probable cause of another crime, or your permission.

 

[No Limit]

Some of us do live in apartments believe it or not. And you are telling me a cop has no right to ask for my ID if was in the front yard of my house? Tell that to that Henry Luis Gates guy.

Also way to ignore everything else as you often do. I'll try to ask this question one more time incase you missed it the last 3 times I asked it. Why not make this law simply apply to everyone?

 

[Ridge]

The law DOES apply to everyone. It is up to the officers to follow it through. Nowhere does it say brown people are to be detained.

 

[No Limit]

Do you smoke a lot of pot? Because even my short term memory isn't that bad. I already addressed what you just responded with, here let me quote myself for you:

What does an illegal immigrant look like? Again, the issue is reasonable suspicion. For a cop to ask for your papers he must have reasonable suspicion. A white kid that's been here all his life isn't going to be suspected of being here illegally. A brown person with an accent will.

If this wasn't about race they would have required everyone to carry papers. They didn't do that. The reason they didn't is because as you've seen in this thread as soon as you force white people to carry papers to step outside people would totally loose their shit. But when you target brown people by adding "reasonable suspecion" suddenly 57% of americans support it. Funny how that works.

Just in case that isn't clear enough for you I'll ask again, why not require everyone to simply carry proper state approved ID to step outside your house? If you can't provide that ID you go to jail until you can prove who you truly are. It removes any element of racism as then it truly applies to everyone. Can you please do me a favor and explain why that would be a bad approach and why Arizona didn't go that route?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

What's the problem with carrying an ID on you? I always carry it with me, prolly because it makes life easier and a leather business card holder with my ID isn't going to weigh me down.

Sure, if you choose to. If you choose not to you shouldn't be detained. But SB1070 makes that impossible.

Just in case that isn't clear enough for you I'll ask again, why not require everyone to simply carry proper state approved ID to step outside your house? If you can't provide that ID you go to jail until you can prove who you truly are. It removes any element of racism as then it truly applies to everyone. Can you please do me a favor and explain why that would be a bad approach and why Arizona didn't go that route?

That IS basically what this law does. Have you read the complete bill? There are also provisions that state if a citizen believes that an officer is not attempting to enforce the law that they have grounds to sue the department and win damages. That last bit ensures the law is going to be enforced at any encounter, because they dont want the person they just encountered to file suit saying "The officer accosted me, asked for ID, I didn't have it and they didn't detain me to check my citizenship, so they must not be enforcing it" and that person will have a case, as race legally cant be used to enforce it. I am not saying race wont be used, I'm saying race wont be an issue in civil cases citizens bring against law enforcement departments that don't enforce the law against everyone.

 

[No Limit]

That IS basically what this law does. Have you read the complete bill? There are also provisions that state if a citizen believes that an officer is not attempting to enforce the law that they have grounds to sue the department and win damages. That last bit ensures the law is going to be enforced at any encounter, because they dont want the person they just encountered to file suit saying "The officer accosted me, asked for ID, I didn't have it and they didn't detain me to check my citizenship, so they must not be enforcing it" and that person will have a case, as race legally cant be used to enforce it. I am not saying race wont be used, I'm saying race wont be an issue in civil cases citizens bring against law enforcement departments that don't enforce the law against everyone.

No, that's not what this bill does as pointed out above, they can only detain someone if they have reasonable suspicion that person is an illegal. So it will be up to the cop and race will be the factor.

Why can't you just answer my simple question? How come they didn't just require everyone to carry ID at all times? Why add the reasonable suspicion clause?

 

[Ridge]

No, that's not what this bill does as pointed out above, they can only detain someone if they have reasonable suspicion that person is an illegal. So it will be up to the cop and race will be the factor.

Why can't you just answer my simple question? How come they didn't just require everyone to carry ID at all times? Why add the reasonable suspicion clause?

The cop can only question the suspect AFTER stopping him for violating another law.

 

[No Limit]

The cop can only question the suspect AFTER stopping him for violating another law.

Jesus christ dude, can you answer the ****ing question? Yes, after a cop stops someone during an investigation of a crime he can detain someone for not having ID IF he has reasonable suspicion that that person is here illegally. If this isn't about race why put the reasonable suspicion in there? Why didn't they simply make the law so if during a cops investigation of a crime if you don't have an ID (not matter what race or nationality) you go to jail until you can produce one?

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Arizona's system is retarded. As far as current illegals go, if found out through some non-retarded means, they should be deported. But it's not like they're all horrible people, I'm sure there's plenty around here and all I've gotten from them is a friendly hello and cheap renovation labor.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

No, that's not what this bill does as pointed out above, they can only detain someone if they have reasonable suspicion that person is an illegal. So it will be up to the cop and race will be the factor.

Why can't you just answer my simple question? How come they didn't just require everyone to carry ID at all times? Why add the reasonable suspicion clause?

Well obviously because they wanted to veil the 'papers please' aspect of it. The outcome is the same. I am not saying race didnt motivate SB1070 nor am I saying racial profiling wont happen. I'm saying the bill FORCES it to be applied to everyone because there is such a huge threat of litigation due to the provisions in the bill. They're estimating a staggering amount of lawsuits and costs to the state/municipalities when this goes into effect. Both from racial profiling suits AND citizens filing suit due to non enforcement (there are many sanctuary cities here who's departments will be very lax at enforcing the law against illegal immigrants)


Look at it like this. The Arizona Republic did a survey of some 'experts' in law enforcement asking about certain hypothetical situations. One was something along the lines of "Hispanic teenagers are playing basketball in a park at evening hours in a high crime are of town. They are wearing torn clothing and none have identification. Can a police officer detain them?"

Most of the experts said things like "well the police couldnt accost the people in the first place unless they have reasonable suspicion in any situation. theres no way theyd come into contact with law enforcement unless under suspicion of a crime." The problem with that is anyone who lives in the real world knows the cops will stop or accost you for any reason they please, or just claim "you looked suspicious in this area" as their reasoning. That means everyone is subject to being forced to carry documentation at all times. Reasonable suspicion is bullshit in practice.

I know you're also aware law enforcement will use ANY tools available to detain or restrict the rights of a 'suspect' or 'person of interest' related to a criminal investigation. You can bet your ass SB1070 will be used in situations where illegal immigration is not an aspect in the least. It'll be a 'gotcha' to detain someone in order to search the person and violate their 4th amendment rights.

 

[No Limit]

But you are yet to explain what would give you reasonable suspicion that someone is here illegally. If you say this law applies to everyone then again, why not just say "everyone needs ID at all times", this is already the papers please law.

You and I know that the reason they didn't write the law that way is because white people would go bat shit insane if they did, but since this only targets mexicans suddenly nobody has a problem. Lets not pretend otherwise.

 

[Ennui]

If nothing else, this thread has quite satisfactorily demonstrated that Ridge has the mental capacity of a cricket. Funny that everyone else in here has been arguing against a cricket, though.

No Limit is right though. And Yuri, it's not particularly a huge burden to be forced to carry ID and proof of citizenship at all times, but it's a matter of principle - once you start that kind of practice the government will just strip more and more small liberties away, and then slightly less small ones, and before too long.... we're England.

 

[Tyguy]

Recently Nebraska just had a vote to introduce a bill which would target housing rather than blindly asking people for their papers. The idea is to make landlords require proof of a renter's citizenship but in other states where this has been tried it has ultimately failed due to people being afraid of being prosecuted. Still, a much better way to tackle the problem as opposed to Arizona's plan.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

But you are yet to explain what would give you reasonable suspicion that someone is here illegally. If you say this law applies to everyone then again, why not just say "everyone needs ID at all times", this is already the papers please law.

You and I know that the reason they didn't write the law that way is because white people would go bat shit insane if they did, but since this only targets mexicans suddenly nobody has a problem. Lets not pretend otherwise.

People SHOULD be going batshit insane! I don't support the law and I think it WAS enacted out of racism/knee-jerk reactions. I'm saying that from a LAW ENFORCEMENT point of view this IS going to affect everyone.

I am saying it IS the same as if they'd written that ID is mandatory. People are just too stupid to realize, notice, or care. The end result is the same because law enforcement's hands are tied due to the threat of lawsuits. They are required to enforce the law, even departments that are against it.

 

[No Limit]

But it's not the same. If they end up arresting some white guy that has money and has lived here all his life the police department would be sued for a huge amount of money. So this won't apply unless the cops know they can get away with it, and the only time they can do that is if they target brown people because they can always fall back on that "reasonable suspicion" clause.

 

[Ridge]

You keep making the same argument, which is that the law will make racist cops racist.