Watching posted to you:
"The article says, wants to force the Costa Mesa City Council to reconsider plans to train police to do immigration checks on people suspected of serious crimes.
How can you possibly have a problem with this."
Granted, he left off the "?" but that was clearly a typo, and it was clearly a question.
I'm not familiar with the procedure the police use when interviewing somebody suspected of a serious crime. I would have thought that a positive ID in the form of a driver's license, and an employment check would be a bare minimum. That should be sufficient for checking legal status in most cases, and "white and black" people DO submit to it and would likely not need to be checked further.
In the case that a person is unwilling to provide this information, then a further check of legal status should be done for ANYONE. I am surprised this is not standard practice already, and that Costa Mesa would need a new policy to do so.
Being "suspected of serious crimes" is not something that happens casually. Anybody can sue a police department for defamation of character, so I don't expect police to do this without cause. This does not look like a license to round up all the people that look hispanic. The police still have to have a probable cause that links somebody to a crime. Of course, refusing to cooperate with police and refusing to provide postive ID does provide a reasonable basis for suspicion.
I missed that question. As for all the problems I have with this programs, I've given plenty of other examples too - if ALL people, regardless of color, are checked for immigration status, I already said the equal protection problem I have would be gone.