If a law is mostly broken by one race is that law unjust because its racist?

Talking about immigration.
Thats the logic we are going to continue to cater to.

No, the law would not be considered racist because all humans from a race groups knows the difference between right and wrong.

Well, you can't just look at the law. They've gone through plenty of politically correct revisions. I think the problem is in the system. Hate crimes were laws that were made to protect people from becoming the victims of prejudice. Yet why is it that the majority of people that are convicted of hate crimes are minorities?

I have wondered the same thing and I do not know the answer.

Along the same lines, if a person of one race has been repeatedly hurt by people of another race, is it racist to be afraid of that race?

If there are violent gangs of a certain race in your area, is it racist to stay away from that race?

When does racism ultimately become safety?

No

Nope, just anoyther politically correct excuse to explain why peole don;t have to obey laws they don't care for. If most people who commit bank robberies are of one race does that make bank robberie laws racist? If mostly rich white folks get busted for tax evasion or security law violations does that make these laws racist? I think not. What worries me is this kind of thing cold lead to a far right party in the US suddenly coming on the scene and gaining main stream followers who are tired of having the race card played anytime someon doean;t get what they want.

Well, maybe we NEED a good backlash to this bulls#!t race-card-pulling by anyone who wants to excuse their criminal behavior.

Blacks and black advocates claim that the death penality is "racist" because lots of blacks are subjected to it. Well, um, if you don't want to be subject to the death penalty, DON'T MURDER. It is not the fault of the law that blacks DO, statistically, commit a disproportionately high percentage of murders, so DUH, YEAH, there will be more of them given the death penalty.

Laws that are not made specifically to target a given race cannot possibly be racist. Sure, enforcement of a given law can be motivated by race, but in the case of immigration, it's motivated by the fact that PEOPLE are coming into the U.S. illegally, not that they're MEXICAN. They could be any race, any nationality: the U.S. still is entitled to have its immigration laws obeyed, and it is still entitled to protect its borders.

-Jeffrey

There are two factors to consider.

First, is the law written (or structured) such that it directly targets a specific race? Is the race named, or referenced in such a way that you can show an intent to target that race? If so, then that law will probably be unconstitutional on its face by violating the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

If not, then ask: Was the law passed, after it was known that members of one particular race were the primary group committing the (now-prohibited) act? In other words, did the law come into existence to punish a particular activity, where there is evidence BEFORE the law is passed that it would adversely affect one or more races more than others. If so, then again there may be an Equal Protection violation.

Finally, a law may be invalid in application where it is facially neutral, but only enforced against a particular race. If so, again possibly Equal Protection violation.

If it is neutrally written and enforced equally against anyone who breaks it, then it passes constitutional muster.

You are talking about immigration. The basic immigration requirements regarding application and registration, and prohibiting illegal entry, have been in place for a very long time. Over that time, the percentages of what races have primarily been illegal immigrants have changed dramatically. And over that time, many different races have been affected, based on whoever was immigrating at that time.

It's not a racist law if members of one particular race choose to break it AFTER it is already in effect. And it's not racist to continue enforcing a law that is already in effect, just because the racial demographic of those who are breaking it might change later.