Tweets by @Stanford_Daily

9.5 percent of early applicants admitted to Stanford’s Class of 2020 https://t.co/3d1lbpcSaz: 1 day ago, The Stanford Daily
Today, Stanford accepted 9.5 percent of applicants to its restrictive early action program. 745 students were admitted to the Class of 2020.: 1 day ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/11/2015 - https://t.co/7YSqquBpRe: 2 days ago, The Stanford Daily
Learn about both the difficulties and the resources that come with being a student athlete at Stanford. https://t.co/3RNId2OPnx: 2 days ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/10/2015 - https://t.co/DpwHR3f97N: 3 days ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/9/2015 - https://t.co/iwgZnRpCim: 4 days ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/8/2015 - https://t.co/vrx5bGAhd9: 5 days ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/7/2015 - https://t.co/ip2j6mBm91: 6 days ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/4/2015 - https://t.co/WofW7yq7Z1: 1 week ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/3/2015 - https://t.co/JdWMKeKTZw: 1 week ago, The Stanford Daily

Protesters gather in White Plaza

The Daily News Staff

By: The Daily News Staff

Correction: In an earlier version of this story, The Daily incorrectly reported that protesters “profiled” students who were not wearing Stanford gear or red shirts. In fact, the protesters did choose students who were wearing that apparel to participate in the demonstration.

About 30 volunteers staged a demonstration yesterday afternoon in White Plaza, protesting against Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070.

Undeterred by the rain, volunteers set up aisles along the pathway through Braun Auditorium. The protestors sought to replicate the “profiling” that suspected undocumented immigrants may face as a byproduct of S.B. 1070.

Volunteers isolated students who sported Stanford gear or red shirts; these individuals were “profiled” and asked to show their student ID cards in order to prove their Stanford affiliation and pass through the aisles. Those who failed to present their IDs were subject to “interrogation” by volunteers.

AV David ‘12, one of the protestors, said S.B. 1070 would lead to cases where minorities are “profiled on how they looked.”

David said the possibility of such racial profiling “would divide people” on both a state and national level.

Though the law only has a direct legislative impact on the residents within Arizona, demonstrators said they were concerned about wide-reaching implications on immigration reform.

Signed into law in late April, the bill conferred wide-ranging powers to state and local police for immigration law enforcement. The bill’s text reads that the provisions of the bill are “to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.”

Police are tasked with detaining and prosecuting suspected undocumented immigrants.

But protestors aren’t convinced.

“Racial profiling is wrong; we can’t judge anyone on their face, ethnicity or anything else,” David said.

The debate is set to continue at the “Bringing Home the Border” forum on Thursday in Old Union, where students are encouraged to talk about the effects of the Arizona law and general immigration reform.

“S.B. 1070 is available (PDF) online.”

— An Le Nguyen

Tagged with:

  • Anonymous

    While I fully support passionate protesting on campus, I believe that blocking a necessary traffic area and forcing people to participate in the protest should not be allowed. The administration should not allow for things like this to happen as I know many students were uncomfortable by being forced to participate in the protest, even if they were exposed to racial profiling. Protest all you want, but make sure it’s amongst yourselves and doesn’t force anyone’s involvement.

  • Not quite accurate?

    If I am not mistaken, the police can ask for immigration status IF the person was detained for another crime, rather than just stopping random people on the street.
    If that is the case – what is the problem? How do those against the Arizona law propose to solve the problem of illegal immigration? While you’re concerned about racism, you don’t seem to propose alternatives. Give some suggestions (accusations are easy to make).

  • Read the bill?

    Section B on the second page of the bill states: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state where “reasonable” (quotes are mine) suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States a reasonable attempt shall be made to determine the immigration status of that person.”

    Pending on the rules for that particular state and I am going to go ahead and assume that “lawful contact” includes the right of officers to ask for your ID for any reason, in that case, what this says is that an officer can inquire about someone’s immigration status if they have “reasonable suspicion” to do so, not only can they inquire, but they shall inquire. So what that means is that looking into someone’s immigration status can and will extend past the point of being detained for a crime.

    As far as detention of criminals is concerned, what the bill says about that is that persons being detained for a crime MUST have their immigration status inquired into and MUST be handed over to customs should they be found to be illegal immigrants. People keeps mixing up these two passages, they are not one and the same.

    So the concern of protesters is that the first cited provision will be abused. Everyone seems to be pretty naive about this point, racial profiling happens even when there isn’t a law encouraging it, so I don’t see why it wouldn’t have here.

  • @Read the bill?

    And what happens when you have a police department with a clearly demonstrated record of discrimination and abuse of the law?

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

  • Student

    Protests often are organized in a way that forces those passing by to take notice, divert their route, or engage with the organizers.

    To ask those who are informed and taking action to protest amongst themselves sounds like a strategy more suited for a group meeting type forum rather than a non-violent demonstration.

  • Anon

    @ Anonymous

    As is the case with most of America. The protest effectively brought an issue to a localized context. The protest elicited direct contact because the issue is completely skewed towards the minority immigrant populations. This may not be the case with you, but for many, it is the first time this issue has been brought so close to home.

    Sending emails people don’t read, hosting meeting with no attendance besides those that it affects the most, and printing flyers that do unnoticed or are disregarded as a foreign issue is pointless.

    The issue needed to be brought out to Stanford one way or another – this method clearly warrants some praise.

  • john

    I doubt any of these clueless protestors have read the Arizona bill (now law, not a bill any longer). I also doubt these protestors could articulate how the Arizona law is any different than Federal law regarding this issue.

    Anon, you seem to want to be a dictator. Do you decide what issues are “brought out to Stanford one way or another”?

    Do you protestors realize any time you are stopped by law enforcement in California you are required to provide identification. Try telling any law enforcement official who stops you for any random traffic violation that you don’t need to have any stinkin ID and see what happens.

  • Eric G.

    If Arizona and Arizonans are so racist against illegal aliens, why would they want to go there?

  • Sam King

    @john

    Nonviolent political free speech is necessary for a functioning democracy. Equating nonviolent political free speech with dictatorship is not productive.
    Similarly, making ad hominum attacks on the protesters and blanket generalizations is not productive.

    The Arizona bill is not analogous to traffic laws.
    1) Traffic laws require presenting a driver license when driving because drivers are required to have a driver license. If I were pulled over and asked to present my birth certificate, I could rightfully say that I didn’t have a birth certificate on me.
    2) Traffic laws do not endorse racial profiling for their enforcement. If there were a law that said that an individual could be pulled over based on ‘reasonable’ suspicion, which could include their race, then I would protest that traffic law also.

    @Eric G

    Racial profiling affects legal citizens in addition to undocumented persons.

  • @@@Read the bill?

    I believe that was part of my point. I said that this was going to get abused and everyone else was failing to read the bill and failing to take into consideration our own bad track record with racial profiling.

© 2015 THE STANFORD DAILY