
California Classifies Immigration Enforcement as Misuse of Network - panarky
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/05/california-now-classifies-immigration-enforcement-misuse-statewide-law-enforcement
======
DoofusOfDeath
I think it's a mistake for the EFF to get involved in the politics of
enforcement of immigration law.

I support EFF's main mission. But I don't necessarily agree with their
positions on these ancillary issues. I'm less likely now to support the EFF
financially and otherwise.

~~~
panarky
This is a bigger issue than immigration, and the EFF isn't taking a position
on immigration.

The EFF identified abuse of the CLETS system before immigration became
relevant.

It's now relevant since a new California law prohibits use of state resources
for federal immigration enforcement (except for prosecuting property crimes
and violent crimes).

So using CLETS to support mass deportations of people who aren't wanted for
property crimes or violent crimes is unlawful.

Are we a nation of laws, or is it just ideology all the way down? Do we expect
law enforcement to follow the law, or can they break the law with impunity?

~~~
tomatotomato37
>Are we a nation of laws, or is it just ideology all the way down? Do we
expect law enforcement to follow the law, or can they break the law with
impunity?

In this context there's a conflict between state and federal law, so any law
enforcement would be simultaneously following and breaking the law. Personally
I'm more for state sovereignty than federal control (for issues on both side
of the spectrum, none of that hypocritical bullshit here), but proponents of a
more centralized form of government would argue differently.

~~~
panarky
There's no conflict between state and federal law.

Immigration law a federal responsibility. States don't maintain national
borders.

California isn't contravening federal law, they've made it unlawful to use
California-funded networks to enforce federal law.

Federal law enforcement officers are violating California law, currently with
impunity. Seems to me if you believe in the rule of law, then you shouldn't
support law enforcement breaking the law.

------
deogeo
Hispanics are the largest ethnic group in California [1], so it is not
surprising that they would push for laws in their own ethnic self-interest.
Once immigration has progressed sufficiently, it can no longer be stopped.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California#Nat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California#National_origin)

~~~
NTDF9
>> Hispanics are the largest ethnic group in California [1], so it is not
surprising that they would push for laws in their own ethnic self-interest.
Once immigration has progressed sufficiently, it can no longer be stopped.

Am I the only one who sees this as racist?

Are there no hispanic Americans?

Can hispanic Americans not be a majority?

Are hispanic Americans not supposed to care for their near and dear when law
enforcement has gone bonkers?

What makes non-hispanic ethnicities so special that they can comment on
hispanics as a whole?

What makes you so special to think ethnic self interested is all there can be?

~~~
deogeo
> Am I the only one who sees this as racist?

Feel free to point out if there's something factually incorrect in my
statement. Bear in mind 59% of hispanic Americans view their ethnicity as
extremely to very important to their identity (compared to 15% of whites) [1],
so it's not unfounded to say their votes would be influenced by ethnic self-
interest.

[1] [https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/04/09/race-in-
america-2...](https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/04/09/race-in-
america-2019/)

~~~
Fjolsvith
Seems far more complicated than that:

"There’s one obvious reason that the Hispanic and Latino vote splits up and
isn’t monolithic: Hispanic and Latino voters aren’t one identity homogeneous
group. As with every other large racial and ethnic category (white, black,
Asian), there’s a lot of internal diversity when you look under the hood.

Hispanic and Latino Americans, like Asian Americans, don’t all come from one
place. Most originally come from Mexico, but a solid number come from Puerto
Rico, Cuba and elsewhere in Central and South America. And voting patterns
vary across these groups. Cubans, for example, are a key voting group in
Florida, and they tend to be more Republican than other Latino populations.
There are real generational divides: Self-identified Hispanics who are third-
generation or higher are more likely than others to self-describe primarily as
American rather than Hispanic/Latino, less likely to say they have felt
discriminated against because of their background and feel less connected to
their country of origin. Hispanics live in a wide variety of areas, and
there’s some evidence that rural Hispanics moved a bit toward Trump in 2016.
Evangelical Protestant Hispanics are more Republican than mainline Protestant,
Catholic or religiously unaffiliated Hispanics. There’s a gender gap in
Hispanic voting, too. Democrats won both Hispanic men and women in 2018, but
Hispanic men were more likely to vote for Republicans than women were."

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/05/trumps-
su...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/05/trumps-support-
among-hispanics-latinos-is-real-dont-assume-it-will-
fade/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.705f49cce3cd)

