You are taking the phrase "reasonable suspicion" out of context. Governor Brewer was asked what an illegal immigrant looks like. She admitted that she doesn't even know. Your example would be irrelevant.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/23/obama.immigration/index.html (see the third-to-last paragraph)
1. How am I taking it out of context? The premise behind the bill is to determine whether or not an individual is here legally, and if not (i.e. they are breaking the law or doing something illegal), to alleviate the issue (since it is causing various problems).
Checking for legality, and administering consequences if it doesn't fall within the confines of the law?
a. Pulled you over because you were swerving in and out of the lane. I suspect you are driving under the influence of alcohol. This is illegal. I administer a BAC test, you fail, you face the legal consequences.
b. You ran away from the cop car as I pulled into a parking lot. This is suspicious. I suspect you are living here illegally. I check, you are, you face the legal consequences.
Both clear examples of not only a simple check for legality, but also perfect examples of reasonable suspicion. Is it reasonable for a police officer to pull someone over when they swerve, but unethical to check someone's identification when they run away from a cop car??? I personally don't see the difference. Maybe a difference in severity, but not really with regard to simple procedure.
2. What an illegal immigrant looks like? I didn't know illegal was a race, ethnicity, or standard set of facial features. What a loaded question.
Do me a favor. Describe what a pedophile looks like? Impossible? Of course. Would you be morally disgusted if the police asked to see some identification and justification from a 40 year old man hanging out, alone, watching kids at a playground???
Again, the original question was completely loaded, and simply aimed at trying to get this Governor to say "illegal immigrants look like Mexicans." This was to try and make her look like a biggot, racist, who was prejudice against individuals from Mexico, when the truth is that this has NOTHING to do with the bill. It's a bill against illegal immigration, which, clearly, is a serious issue in our society.
3. Thanks for giving me info from CNN. I'm going to respond with info from Fox
4. Here's the real issue ... you believe and feel that this bill is anti-PC, and racist. You're really not arguing it's merits, you're making radical statements about all Latinos being profiled, the Governor not being able to 'describe what an illegal alien looks like,' and laughing when Jon Stewart compares it to slavery.
HOWEVER, despite what CNN and Jon Stewart want you to think, proponents of this bill aren't a bunch of inbred, yokel, racists who hate Mexicans, they are people who are simply sick of the illegal immigration problem and the strain it has on the economy, the risk of disease spread, issues with drug trafficking, etc.
If you want to debate the merits of the bill, that's fine. However, if you want to get caught up in some sort of programmed, sensitive, knee-jerk reaction to anything involving race, then we really can't have this discussion.
This bill tries to solve a problem. It isn't trying to promote fear, or racism, or anything else, and I think the people who are interpreting it this way are doing so based on some programmed mindset to follow the status quo, and not ever support anything that others deem sexist, racist, etc.
I understand the frustration. I live in the NYC metro area, and illegal immigration is out of control. I'm all for doing something about it. You have to take a two-fold approach. First, find a rational way of dealing with those who are already here. We can't simply deport all of them. Secondly, you have to disincentivise people from coming here. Cracking down on those employers who exploit undocumented immigrants is a start. That part of the law makes sense. My concern is that the process of determining suspicion is highly subjective and will amount to nothing more than racial profiling.
Great. As soon as someone creates a bill that uses this two-fold approach, I will applaud it as well. However, until it's demonstrated to me that this bill will create noting but fear, hatred, and profiling ... I'm happy to see any step towards resolution (and do not find this bill racist, offensive, etc).
