Is thinking logically wrong?

With the case involving the Texas Department of Housing and Community affairs and city of Dallas, it is a little unclear. When you look at it from the buyers side it makes sense. I am sure property taxes are cheaper in an area that has high crime rate and high poverty rate. However, when "discrimination and segregation arise, there is a lot more then logical thinking going on. It may even bring up ideas of what other government controlled programs are put in place to "regulate" specific groups of citizens.

I don't agree with the city of Dallas. I do not believe that they are intending to discriminate or segregate minorities from the majorities. My opinion is not to pass this case because if ruled in favor of Dallas I believe there is going to be a follow up trial because the housing will no longer be upto standard. I am sure the City of Dallas wants the best for their community no matter who they are, but I am afraid that they may be asking for a little too much when asking for new projects to be in nicer communities. There is already a lot that the government does for citizens in need, why should there be question behind a lending hand? If I were to receive help, I would not be picky on what I'm giving. I would simply be grateful and try my hardest to recover and give back. Of course if the Department were to say that they are purposely discriminating then yes, it is wrong. But I strongly believe, they are just making a business decision that does not recognize emotion and in some eyes it's wrong, but it is just logical thinking.

Arizona wanting to bring US down to Mexico's level

 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-tougher-than-arizonas/

Is the state of Arizona interfering with federal governments duty to handle immigration? Yes, and some are even referring to it as a "cry of frustration." I would have to agree. The arguments and pointing of fingers Arizona is doing is the reason why President Obama calls it an example of "irresponsibility" by the state. Representative Steve King of Iowa says how can Mexico's President Felipe Calderon not be in agreement when his laws against illegal immigration are far worse. Is Mr. King really upset because we are not at the same standard as Mexico? There is however, a great argument of a bill passed in 1998, that if your employer has "reasonable suspicion" that you are under the influence then they are legally protected to ask you for a urine sample. The argument made with this example is why it hasn't been challenged when this is what Arizona is doing. I don't know about you, but when I'm drunk I'm a complete opposite person of who I am sober. I'm sure everyone would say they have more then suspicion of me being under the influence and I would understand. However, if I were to be pulled over for a routine traffic stop and the officer takes a good look at my name, skin color, and spanish accent and now have a "reasonable suspicion" that I'm an illegal immigrant then now I feel striped of my human rights. I don't believe it's right for immigrants to live in any country illegally but I don't agree in the unethical way Arizona wants to address the issue.