- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Racial Profiling in the Name of Immigration Law Enforcement
I attended a lively, well-attended and diverse -- meaning age, Latino background and allies -- Latino Caucus at the Netroots Nation Convention in Las Vegas yesterday. The caucus was headed by Nicole Rivera, who is a field representative for U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and it did not disappoint.
At the heart of the conversation was how to pass the DREAM Act to help undocumented Latino college students -- who were represented at the caucus, by the way! -- achieve conditional permanent residency. Also, we discussed coalition-building to pass comprehensive immigration reform to meet the demand for labor in this country as well as a reasonable path to residency and citizenship so that people don't have to cross the border illegally.
There was big-time concern over racial profiling, especially in light of Arizona's proposed law, SB 1070, which would require local police to ask for documentation of anyone under "reasonable suspicion" of being in the country illegally. Carmen Cornejo, who lives in Arizona, said so much tension and animosity has arisen from the proposed law that her son was questioned by police simply for "looking suspicious" on his walk home. Also, she said that one politician running for office in Arizona has proposing less than ethical ways to combat illegal immigration like cutting off the electricity of people suspected of harboring undocumented immigrants -- in Arizona's 110-degree heat, mind you.
"(Arizona's law) SB 1070 brings this antagonism between the Latino community and the rest of the community in a painful way," she said. "It is very, very nasty."
There was agreement in the room that the public is not reading enough stories about the racial profiling that is going on due to heightened fears and xenophobia.
Cori Redstone, an organizer in Utah, brought up this civil rights infringement in the name of citizen immigration law enforcement. An actual list of Latino families, their social security numbers and personal information like "baby due 4/4/10" actually circulated offline and on the Internet, causing for some families to receive threatening phone calls and face harassment. The problem is not all the families on the list were undocumented, yet their privacy was violated, Redstone said. (Update: there is a criminal investigation into the person/people who compiled the list.)
Redstone proposed building a coalition to pass immigration reform like the churches. The Church of Latter Day Saints in Utah, for example, has issued a statement calling for "the strongest desire to do what is best for all of God’s children."
Finally, we discussed ways to frame the issue so that immigration reform is not only a "Latino issue," but an American issue that warrants the public's attention. Here were a couple of suggestions:
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Racial profiling is impossible
According to Wiki:
"The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race "."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic
Since "Latino" isn't a race, arguing " racial profiling " is just plain stupid.
And, if you think the Arizona law looks icky, have a look at Federal law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001182----000-.html
Sounds logical.
The Fed's case is that the Federal Government has sole authority when it comes to immigration issues. Is Justice going to sue all the other states like it is suing Arizona?
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/arizona-s-immigration-law-isn-t-the-only-one
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
Constitution
Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization".
The Tenth Amendment provides that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
While it's hard saying what the 5 - 4 court will do on any given day, I don't see a rational argument that dealing with illegal aliens is the same as formulating uniform rules of naturalization.
The Arizona law doesn't have anything to do with naturalization, is not in conflict with the rules Congress has made, and deals only with criminals who have not been naturalized under the law , as required by the law.
Maybe the court would see the provision as stretching far enough to include putting enforcement of violations under Federal jurisdiction, but that strikes me as a bit of a stretch. There's no language to that effect. Since that authority isn't explicitly vested in Congress, it's reserved to the states or to the people under the Tenth.
Under Article IV, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government , and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence ."
Under Article I, Section 10: "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops , or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."
Considering the above, even if Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over the illegal alien problem, there is an exemption when a state has been invaded or is in imminent danger. At the end of the day, that's what the Arizona law is all about. Half a million foreign criminals have invaded Arizona like a plague of locusts, and Congress isn't doing squat.
The Arizona law is fantastically tame compared to the Constitutional authority Arizona could potentially exercise . Under the circumstances, Arizona could raise a militia, suspend habeas corpus under Article I, Section 9, and round up every foreign invader in the state.
The most conservative estimate I can come up with is illegal aliens are costing US taxpayers over $250 billion per year. The true number could easily be twice that amount. Enough is enough. Send the criminals back where they came from. Welcome those who come to America legally, after demonstrating under our laws they will make America better, not worse.
For reference, the US Constitution:
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution
Failure to understand.
I completely fail to understand how an alleged constitutional scholar like our president can determine that AZ's law is unconstitutional. It is plain as day: Arizona has the power to do what it is doing, just like those other states; just like South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Michigan are doing.
The constitution is on Arizona's side. Other states are on Arizona's side. The public is on Arizona's side...
The only ones not on Arizona's side are the illegal immigrants and the politicians who need their votes.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
Bring up the law
but most people know that what the law says and what happens are very often two different things.
Probable cause can be a person's weeds are too high outside their fence, or they have a car in their backyard. It can be something as simple as a broken license plate light, or taking off from a light too fast or too slow.
Do you see Sheriff Joe pulling his sweeps in any well to do or white neighborhoods? Do you see his deputies asking for birth certificates when a white person reports a crime ?
You can tell us all day what the law says. That is just like the Chinese government saying there is no prostitution there because their laws forbid prostitution. But until extra documentation is asked for of everyone then the chances are there will be profiling.
"Politicians should wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we can identify their corporate sponsors" - Robin Williams
Good heavens
A chance that someone might have to pull out their ID? Heaven forbid.
It'll be interesting, to be sure
If the attorneys for Arizona are bright enough to read and argue the plain language of the Constitution, BO should come away looking like the moron he is. I don't have much faith in attorneys generally being that bright, though, even when plain language is on their side across the board. English comprehension isn't a skill developed in law schools , since bad guys always pay better, and plain language always works against bad guys. To make the big bucks, you start a fire with pages from a dictionary, then use those as kindling to burn up the stars and stripes, and every law enacted in the interest of the public good. Once you get good at it, you become a judge .
Make Mexico the 51st State
Here's how a path to citizenship could work . Arm the 12 million illegals in the US and send them back to Mexico to take over the government . Since everyone is Mexico wants to be US citizens anyhow, it should be a very popular uprising. Once they've gained control over Mexico, they can petition to become the 51st state of the Union. It's win win for everyone. The Mexicans all become US citizens, and the US gets back all the tax revenue from expatrioted US companies.
Since making everyone in Mexico US citizens seems to be the program being promoted by illegal aliens anyhow, it seems only fair that they be the ones to take over the Mexican government.
Racial profiling when enforcing Arizona's 1070 would be illegal.
Pretending that people will be profiled is a farce still perpetrated. No wonder there is animosity: those opposing Arizona's efforts to work toward solving their illegal immigrant problem are serial liars.
Idiots. Why is there concern over profiling? Can't you people read English? The law itself prohibits race being a factor when the police are building reasonable suspicion. Somebody translate this into Spanish so all this drama can stop.
"(Arizona's law) SB 1070 brings this antagonism between the Latino community and the rest of the community in a painful way," she said. "It is very, very nasty."
Read the law . Get someone to read it for you if you can't read it yourself. The only reason there is nastiness and antagonism is because of a failure on the part of the illegal community to get the facts. That is very sad.
Sadder still would be4 poor illegals losing their electricity in Arizona's heat: Until one considers that Mexico's heat is the same, and lots of people don't have power their either... One could call such an idea: 'Making illegals feel at home', until caught and deported, that is.
Finally, as a point-by-point rebuttal to all of the suggestions at the end of the above piece:
1...
2...
3...
4...
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
How does it
How does the law ban racial profiling ?
It says that the police have to ask for proof of citizenship during stops (which can be done for any reason) if they suspect that the person(s) are there illegally? What will qualify as suspicion other then racial / cultural cues?
How
RE: "What will qualify as suspicion other then racial / cultural cues?"
First off, you need to understand that "Mexican", "Latino", or "Hispanic" are not racial references. Mexico is a country. A citizen of Mexico is a Mexican. According to the best information available, some 20% of Mexicans are white, as many as 30% are native American (as in North American), and the rest are black, Asian, Jewish, Arabian, etc.. Hispanic or Latino, while originally defined as one of Spanish origin, has come to mean anyone from a country where the primary language is Spanish.
It isn't possible to racially profile illegal aliens from Mexico because there is no race to build a profile on. As to "cultural cues", I think it goes without saying that someone who doesn't speak a word of English probably isn't from around here.
So, let's say you're a white American, visiting a predominately white neighborhood in Europe. It would take the locals less than 60 seconds to spot that you're not from around there. If you are stopped for a traffic violation, local law enforcement will certainly ask to see your passport or visa. If you started screaming, "Everyone is picking on me because I'm white!!!", you'd just look like the biggest idiot on the face of the earth. It doesn't have anything to do with your race.
All the Arizona law is saying is show us your green card, not your race card. There isn't another country in the world that would do otherwise.
card
So they can demand to see a green card from any Latino looking individual that they happen to stop?
Your bit about white people is exactly the point... There is no reason for an officer to demand to see proof of residency or citizenship from a "white person"... rather it is targeted directly at "foreigners".
It is a tool for harassment, nothing more... "Hey look a Mexican in a white neighborhood, let's stop him and demand to see proof of citizenship.
The stop has to be a lawful stop.
That is in the Az. law also. Do you need me to point out where?
Stopping somebody due to the color of their skin, or the language of the voice on their stereo is not a legal Terry stop.
You are wrong on this, Book, that is why the facts keep disagreeing with your opinions.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
stopping and asking
Yet you are the one who keeps ducking the question of where in the bill can be found specific language prohibiting racial profiling . Though the stop has to be legitimate that covers a wide area... an officer can stop you largely on a whim (failure to signal a turn, driving erratically, etc).
So will everyone the police in Az stop have to produce proof of citizenship /residency? If I go out without my wallet do I risk being held until my citizenship can be verified?
Whimsy != discretion
Sure, a cop can ignore your failure to signal a turn or any number of infractions. I doubt that driving erratically would be overlooked, but I'm not going to split hairs here.
I'm not ducking anything. It is not my fault you are ignorant of the law . That's on you.
Page 2 (SB1070) lines 20-26:
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
Do you know what reasonable suspicion means?
Reasonable suspicion:
"Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs . A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion."
You are a reasonable person, usually. Would you find it reasonable to suspect a person was in America illegally due to the skin color?
If you would, then you are right, the cops can "racially profile". If you think that skin color is not enough, then you are wrong .
Learn the law, not the damn leftist talking points.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
reasonable people
So what behavior could a "reasonable person" see as reasonable for suspecting that someone is in the USA illegally?
Accent is out... as just having a foreign accent does not mean that one is here illegally... nor is the color of ones skin or facial features.
Someone who is in the USA illegally is performing an illegal act by being here... which is what everyone else is doing as well.
Sometimes you're like a child. Picture this:
So, a cop is patrolling, and he sees some car run a stop sign.
She pulls the car over, dismounts, and approaches on foot. "License, registration, and proof of insurance , please," she says to the driver.
He says he has no license, but in broken English. She asks for his name so she can run it for wants and warrants. He pauses and looks at the person in the passenger seat for a moment, turns back and gives a name. She asks for D.O.B. and he tells her, after another pause.
She radios for another officer who speaks Spanish in order to minimize any language barriers which might arise. Then she runs the name. It comes back with two hits. She asks the guy for his address, and he doesn't reply. He mumbles something to the passenger, wipes the sweat from his brow, but it is a nice, cool night.
The passenger opens his door and as he starts to exit the car, our officer orders him to get back in the car, but he looks at her blankly.
The backup unit arrives and approaches the passenger, ordering him back in using Spanish, and gets compliance. He asks the passenger what his, and the driver's name is, and gets names, which he calls in.
Turns out, the driver has a warrant for whatever and is arrested .
Now, the cops contact the INS with these guys' names and the INS advises them that one, the driver is here on a work visa, but the passenger is here illegally. The INS either comes to the station to take custody or they don't, it's up to them.
The cops had probable cause to suspect the guys in that car were illegals, and were wrong about the driver. But all they did in regards to immigration enforcement, as per the law , was to inquire with the Federal government as to the immigration status of the guys in the car.
If that is racial profiling , then I'm Sarah Palin.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
already
exactly... they suspected because of their accent/english. That is racial profiling . Had they pulled two white guys with a southern accent then the officers would not have cause for suspicion. That is the whole racial profiling bit.
Further we have to consider the potential for abuse ... could this law be used to abuse or otherwise harass people? I'd say yes, the police could easily use this as a tool for harassment.
Illegal immigrant is not a race.
It is an illegal act.
Sure. cops are people too, not robots.
I have no doubt that Dennis Burke will bring any cop who attempts to uphold the law to swift justice.
We can't have them cops enforcing the law.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
Is English your second language?
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LATINO LOOKING PERSON!!!
YOU CANNOT TELL BY LOOKING AT A PERSON IF THEY ARE LATINO!!!
What part of that don't you understand?
looking
Would you prefer "individual of apparent Mexican or South American decent"?
Look at the picture which tops of the original post... what is the nationality of the individual therein?
Are you some kind of bigot?
You figure all Mexicans look alike? Are you an Archie Bunker type who thinks all Mexicans are little brown guys in straw hats, baggy pantaloons and serapes, who eat tacos and ride burros?
RE: "Look at the picture which tops of the original post... what is the nationality of the individual therein?"
Which "individual" would that be? Pictured is a room full of people, none of whom appear to be of North or South American ancestory.
Since you seem to be rather slow witted, I'll repeat it for you one more time. Mexico is a country, not a race . A Mexican is a citizen of Mexico. A "Latino" or "Hispanic" is a person from a country where the primary language is Spanish. Mexicans are a subset of "Latino" or "Hispanic", as would be Costa Ricans, or any other citizen of a Spanish speaking country.
So, tell us Archie Bunker, how do you tell by looking at someone what language they speak? How do you tell by looking at someone their country of origin?
In the second row there is a tall blond. Can you tell by looking at her where she was born?
Sorry Archie, Mexicans don't all look alike. It's a country as racially mixed as the US. You could no more pick a Mexican out of a crowd than you could a Canadian.
Under Federal law , foreigners legally in the US are required to carry their documentation with them at all times and to identify themselves on demand. The only two foreign countries I've visited are Canada and Mexico. Both places required me to do the same when I was there. Since I was there legally, it never crossed my mind to march on the capitals to complain about how everyone was picking on gringos or yankees. I just showed my passport when requested to do so, and enjoyed my visits to both places.
Back in the Vietnam era, a lot of US draft dodgers illegally crashed the Canadian border. The Canadian government deported as many of them as they could catch. I don't see you making a big stink about it. You seem to be a man with two faces. Why shouldn't the US enforce laws that are virtually identical to every other country in the world, and which are enforced by every other country in the world?
hispanic
No, I don't figure that they all look alike... However I am familiar enough with the various ethnic groups that I have a fair eye at picking peoples ethnic heritage.
You are doing quite a good job illustrating the probable issues with this law ... In that what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" has never been adequately explained. Is what constitutes reasonable suspicion an accent? A mannerism? Being at a certain place at a certain time?
Your question about the people in the photo further illuistrates my point. While the fellow in the foreground is most likely of Hispanic / Latino decent that does not mean that he is certainly a foreign national (either legal or illegal ).
Foreign nationals do... But US citizens do not have to carry ID proving citizenship at all times. So if I go for a walk and leave my wallet at home (assuming that a Drivers license counts as a valid proof of citizenship) then I can be held until my citizenship ststus can be confirmed. I have a big problrm with requiring everyone to carry their "papers" even if they are just going for a walk.
As to Vietnam...
1). Vietnam ended, officially, in 1975... Four years before I was born.
2) I don't have a problem with finding and deporting illegals... It is how we go about the finding and deporting that is the issue.
You're still lost on the meaning of words
RE: "While the fellow in the foreground is most likely of Hispanic / Latino decent"
If I were to hazard a guess, the fellow in the foreground is of Middle Eastern ancestory, which is beside the point in any case. Stereotyping by country of origin is abysmally foolish on the North and South American continents, or what was once referred to as "The New World". Prior to the discovery of the Americas, and development of modern transportation , you might have been able slap a label on folks in the Old World based on country of origin, but that's not true today, and especially not true in the Americas.
RE: "I have a big problrm with requiring everyone to carry their "papers" even if they are just going for a walk."
As far as I know, there isn't a state in the US where you aren't required to provide law enforcement with proof of your identity on request, even if you're just out for a walk. Among other considerations, it's just plain dumb not to carry your ID with you. What if an escaped convict, of similar appearance to yourself, robbed a liquior store two blocks down the street? I think it goes without saying that it would be in your best interest to quickly identify yourself. On its face, I can't treat your argument as serious. How many people do you know who don't habitually carry their ID with them at all times outside their home?
In my state, to obtain a driver's license or a state ID card, you have to prove who you are. Among the accepted proofs are immigration and naturalization documents. On that point alone, a person unable to identify themselves would create reasonable grounds to suspect they were in the US illegally, especially if they spoke with a foreign accent. That is not racial profiling . Your American accent and lack of ID would put you in hot water in every country on the face of the planet.
I'd venture to guess that like most of those buying into the whole "racial profiling" argument, you haven't even bothered to read the law that is being discussed. The law specifically excludes racial profiling, and only requires proof when law enforcement is in contact with a person for a legitimate, non immigration purpose.
So, let's say you crashed the Canadian border and were driving without a license. You get pulled over for speeding and have no ID. Your American accent indicates you are not a native Canadian citizen, and you are then held on suspicion of being in the country illegally.
Other than being miffed about being caught, and aside from the typical belief of criminal sociopaths that laws which apply to every other similarly situated person shouldn't apply to you, what would be your beef?
RE: " I don't have a problem with finding and deporting illegals... It is how we go about the finding and deporting that is the issue."
So, take ten minutes to read the Arizona law and point out the parts you find unreasonable. I've read it and could find nothing a reasonable, fair minded person could object to.
Why are you telling me what it says,
When it is clear that you have not read the law ?
Go read it. Twice, if your reading miscomprehension is acting up.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
You will find, in more than one location, language preventing the prosecution of any illegal who was 'racially profiled', or in other words, anyone who the police created a complaint for the D.A. was suspected of being an illegal immigrant based solely on race , color or national origin.
I know what it says. I have actually read it. But to answer your question, I'll point you here:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/05/19/20100519arizona-immigration-training-for-officers.html
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
specific
So where specifically does it?
I swept through the document an number of times and the term racial does not appear (the term race appears once, on line 26 of page 10.
The article you cite does not say what constitutes "Reasonable Suspicion", it just repeats that that is what is going to be used. So again, how... baring racial cues, what will count as reasonable suspicion?
Ask the police trainer.
You know, the ones who will carry out the mandatory training. Did you email them and ask them?
I doubt it. I doubt you have looked into this much at all. I'm sure, though, that you have read many op-eds which ignorantly deride the pending law as " racial profiling ", and I further bet that you think racial profiling will be a big problem regardless of the fact that the law itself has clear language preventing it.
Because for folks like you, once you make up your mind (or are convinced) it is impossible to use facts and reason to deprogram the falsehoods.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
clear language
If there is clear language in the bill then you can cite the specific passages that define and prevent racial profiling .
Well, I linked you to it
If I have to draw you a picture also, I will.
Page 7, lines 28-43 and page 11, lines 24-45.
All you had to do was type race and you would have seen it.
You need to start being more motivated in finding the truth and less interested in divisive rhetoric.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
lines
Lines 28-43 on page 7 deal with investigating employers for illegal immigrants... stating that an anonymous complaint based on race should be ignored (unless the complaint used racist language how would the investigators know that the complaint was based on race?)
Lines 24-45 on page 11 similarly relates to anonymous complaints made about employees / employers.
Neither section talks about police officers specifically targeting minorities .
Does every law in your state
...tell cops not to racially profile, specifically? No? then they must be as racist as Az, right?
It probably says something like Page 3 lines 34-37
"THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS."
Pretty sure that racially profiling is a violation of some people's civil rights . Is this language, coupled with the other sections you failed to comprehend the first time around, stymies your bleeding heart. You lost this argument. Stop with the 'Az. is racist' song and dance now.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.