A Fallacy In Arrest Everybody by J. Sullum – Article Example

The paper "A Fallacy In Arrest Everybody by J. Sullum" is an outstanding example of an article on social science. The argument that I found to contain fallacy was in the Arizona legislation towards the minority in the state. Some of the immigrant affected by the law included David and Jessica Rodriquez Latino immigrant. In the first fallacy, David and his family took a road that had been closed due to rain damage. Police enforcement operating the road stopped them and demanded documents that included David’s Social Security Card and cited him falling to obey the law. Deputies from Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office use a traffic stop as a pretext to check Latino immigration status. The legislation is discriminatory in nature since other motorists that make a similar mistake around the same time do not have to submit their documents. The deputy officers simply warn them concerning the washed out road and allow them to go. The issue is that David and his family are Latino while the rest of American descent. Arizona’s new law requirement poisons the principle of legal equality as they investigate the immigration status in the course of their work. The law encourages Maricopa County Sheriff Arpiano to seize upon any excuse to hunt on the illegal immigrants. The second fallacy is a proposal from Arpiano that Phoenix police should arrest everybody on the probable cause they were preventing arrests of Latinos that might prevent arrests of Latinos that be illegal residents. The Rodriguez was detained in one of the Arpiano arrest sweeps. The amendment of the state legislature specifies that police should demand proof of legal residence during stop, detention, or arrest only related to the enforcement of another law. This means that the police that uses road safety rules and if they fail to provide enough opportunities for immigration checks, the police can apply local ordinances to regulate things such as upkeep, noise, and residential occupancy. The police have an obligation to perform immigration check when there is reasonable suspicion of the illegal presence of immigrants. Another fallacy that Arpaio use is to stop people on the reasonable suspicion they engage in criminal activity that includes living in America illegally. The Supreme Court approves such investigatory stops that include pat-downs that aim to find weapons. The court holds that an objective and reasonable inference forms the basis for a particular suspicion while it leaves a considerable room for police discretion subject to legal review only when a lawsuit or criminal case ensues. The Arizona legislature recognizes the potential for racial profiling and for that reason, the immigration checks should not base solely on national origin, color, or race. The revised law state that the police will only consider race, color, and national origin to the extent of Arizona Constitution. The Governor of the state exaggerates that the state will not tolerate racial profiling since it is illegal. Currently, David and wife are involved in a federal lawsuit where they state that the police sweeps are more on race while Aipaio remains unrepentant.