This was almost included in the Questions earlier, but I feel deserves a stand-alone entry.

Keeping in mind that the state is nearly bankrupt, the following is analogous to buying another pack of cigarettes with the last welfare check:

Although profiling is a useful pseudo-science in law-enforcement and apprehension, most people dislike “racial profiling” in most other circumstances (e.g., driving while black). Of course the proper scope of profiling is limited to describing the likely tendencies, habits, and character traits of an unknown subject with regards to a known crime, or series of crimes.

Profiling is used properly to discover criminals when a crime is known to have been committed, not crimes. There is a subtle, but necessary distinction. Otherwise, we’d have to detain every single, white male in his thirties, these being statistically most likely to be serial killers.

So what about a State law that would deny revenue-sharing dollars to communities who have laws against racial profiling on their books? Would it make a difference if we’re talking about Guatemálans and Mexicans instead of Blacks?

Aside from the aforementioned “low-hanging fruit” problem, there is clearly insufficient cause to assume that everyone who “looks like a Mexican,” (whatever that means) actually is a Mexican (and not instead a Filipino or a Portuguese, a naturalized citizen, or a born-and-bred citizen of Mexican ancestry), let alone to assume that said person who “looks like a Mexican” is also violating an immigration law. It is facially absurd, and ultimately boils down to payment for profiling, by the State, to a municipality. Or if you’d rather, from those municipalities who abhor the idea of profiling, to those municipalities who embrace it.

How charming. But, what did you expect?