In an exclusive interview with this writer, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's official spokesperson, Press Secretary Paul Senseman, did not wait for me to ask whether Arizona's hotly disputed anti-immigration law opened wide the flood gate to racial profiling. Senseman plowed right in and repeatedly denied that the law sanctioned racial profiling. With voice rising in indignation, he insisted that Brewer was keenly sensitive to the danger, had fought throughout her political career against the practice, and had even pushed the Arizona legislature to clarify the law to make it "crystal clear" that racial profiling is illegal. Senseman said that Brewer would never have signed the bill if there was any hint that it profiled anyone based on race.
Brewer no doubt sincerely believes that the law makes racial profiling a non-issue. She's wrong. She and the Arizona legislature did something that civil rights leaders couldn't do. They dumped profiling back on the nation's table. Racial profiling had virtually disappeared as a sore point of debate and contention before Arizona's immigration battle. The feeling was that court decisions, challenges, lawsuits, state legislatures, police official's vigorous disavowal of profiling, and the repeated declaration that racial profiling is illegal rendered it a thing of the bygone past. Nothing was further from the truth.
The US Supreme Court virtually gave open license to profiling in enforcing immigration laws in its 1975 ruling that "Mexican appearance" was a valid consideration in stopping anyone to verify their citizenship status. Though subsequent court rulings held that law enforcement could not stop someone solely because of their Mexican ancestry, the "valid consideration of appearance" as a factor still stood. In other words race can be considered a relevant factor in making immigration stops. The countless lawsuits challenging profiling based on appearance have crashed hard against the near impossibility of proving that a border or street stop and arrest is made based on race. Despite its pristine, sanitized race neutral wording, the Arizona law doesn't change that. Enforcement efforts are not aimed at illegal immigrants from Canada, Europe, Asia, the Caribbean or even other Latin American countries. The target is illegal immigrants from Mexico, or as the Supreme Court put it those of "Mexican appearance."
Police racial profiling of African-Americans takes a similar tact. In the past decade, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Miami and other big and small cities have repeatedly been called on the carpet for racial profiling, and police officials routinely deny that profiling happens. In an address to a joint session of Congress in 2001, then President Bush blasted racial profiling, "It's wrong and we will end it in America." They were nice words, but that's all.
The refusal to admit that racial profiling exists by many public officials and many in law enforcement has done much to torpedo nearly every effort by local and national civil rights and civil liberties groups to get law enforcement and federal agencies not only to admit that racial profiling happens but to end it. A perennial federal bill served up by House Democrat John Conyers to get federal agencies to collect stats and do reports on racial profiling still hasn't gotten to first base.
Meanwhile, nearly every state collects data either voluntarily or compelled by state law on unwarranted pedestrian contacts and traffic stops. Most police officials vehemently contend that good police work is about the business of catching criminals and reducing crime, not about profiling blacks and Latinos. And if more black and Latino men are stopped it's not because they're black or Latino but because they commit more crimes. The other even more problematic tactic used to debunk racial profiling is the few statistics that have been compiled on unwarranted stops.
In this case not by police agencies but based on citizen responses. In two surveys, the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics took a hard, long quantified look at racial profiling using information that it got from citizens. Both times, the agency found that while whites are stopped, searched and arrested far less than blacks, there was no hard proof that the stops had anything to do with race.
The same rationale holds true to justify immigration stops that target Latinos, as is used with blacks. Blacks are the ones most likely to commit street and especially drug crimes and Latinos are the ones most likely to be illegal immigrants. Both are fallacies. Numerous surveys show that blacks and whites use drugs in about the same numbers and only half of undocumented workers are from Mexico and other Latin American countries. But they are still the exclusive targets of law enforcement.
Brewer may be sincere in declaring that profiling in Arizona won't be tolerated. But it won't mean much on the streets and the border. Those stopped, searched and arrested will be those of Mexican appearance. The only good thing about any of this is that Arizona tossed the nation's glare back on racial profiling.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge (Middle Passage Press).
Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson
Dave Zirin: Bud Selig: The Choice Is Yours
Baseball has an obligation to respond to Arizona's anti-immigrant actions because it has for a generation invested billions of dollars in developing talent on the cheap in Latin America, where 27.7% of players were born.
Susan Blumenthal, M.D.: A 21st Century Health Care Roadmap: The Path from Peril to Progress
Now that historic health care reform legislation has been passed, it is critical to examine the next steps necessary to ensure that all Americans gain maximum value out of our current health care system.
Fernando Espuelas: Why the U.S. Needs More Immigrants
If we want to maintain our superpower status, assure economic growth, save Social Security and other entitlement programs, we need a growing pool of (immigrant) tax payers to fund it.
The law was not designed/intended so that Mexican-Central-American foreign national criminal invaders could abuse that law on a massive scale, just so that they could easily obtain completely unearned, undeserved, inexplicable US Citizenship status for their family members, just because they crossed the border to do so, or were residing here illegally on their own free will at the time of their new childs arrival.
Be honest, the anchor baby legal loophole was not intended for the way it's being abused. It was intended to make sure that the children born of US African slaves and all future family members, etc. from then on were guaranteed US Citizenship, without anyone trying to dispute that fact and/or try to raise it as an issue in any number of ways, court cases, etc.
Many right wingers argue that these undocument workers are running up social service aid budgets, but more than likely undocumented workers are least likely to use social services for fear of deportation or arrest.
Amazingly, all the xenophobics are using this issue to express their narrow-minded sentiments, driven by racial animosity more than common sense. In the state of Arizona, the Hispanic population is said to be 30-40% of the total population. If this is true, these undocumented workers make a substantial contribution to the overall economic health of the State of Arizona by purchasing goods & services, paying taxes, paying rents, and establishing businesses in many under used commercial areas.
Illegal immigrants with children born in the US are able to avail themselves of the full range of social services available to people living in poverty in the US. This has been shown to be a widespread phenomenon in Southern California.
Also they should just enforce all of thelaws on the books not just the em,ployer laws and vyes, they would stop coming here and alot of them would go home. You'd have to anti-American-against your own country/or not too smart-no-common-sense to be against the long awaited anti/non-PC brave righteous move that AZ is doing by pass SB 1070, and we should all be supporting them !!!
Mexican Constitution
Article 16
Any Mexican private citizen may arrest someone committing a crime, such as being an alien in the country illegally, and hand them over to authorities for prosecution.
Articles 55, 91, 95, 130
Immigrants may not become lawmakers, cabinet officers, or Supreme Court Justice, but must be a native born Mexican.
Article 33
Foreigners may not participate in political affairs in any way.
Article 32
Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners for employment, and Mexicans citizenship by birth is considered indispensable for certain jobs.
Mexican Constitution
US Constitution; 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..."
Republican tea-klanners in CO, CA, TX, NM, NV and AZ are gonna get tossed out of office in 2010, the Latin@ FURY will smack them like a pinata.
cracking down on "innercity gangs" would require a profiling of their activities, not their ethnicities.
Further where were the voices from the open borders, amnesty now, viva la raza groups when immigrants of other colors have been violated? This is a perfect example of why black leadership ie Sheila Jackson Lee, Al Sharpton, and John Lewis are irrelevant to most black people. They see the writing on the wall and base their political decisions on what is good for them not their constituents. Formining coalitions with groups who give little to no support for our (black) issues is the perfect example of the crabs climbing over each in the barrel analogy. Name the latino leaders who have lead marches when native blacks have been targeted by law enforcement. I don't wish it on anyone but I'm damn sure not going to march, blog, or offer support for those who never offer theirs to/for me.
Hate to break this to you, but that ain't how this works.
The minorities will tell YOU who are their leaders, and you'd be wise to treat them with the proper respect.
"Numerous surveys show that blacks and whites use drugs in about the same numbers and only half of undocumented WORKERS are from Mexico and other Latin American countries".
This way, most people won't stop to question why he feels those illegal immigrants who aren't employed were left out of his 'numerous surveys' and walk away with the impression that the impact of illegal immigration is not so serious. You must first master the skill of removing large segments of a population in order to make your argument appear reasonable.
Once again Earl was working the numbers either because he can't be bothered to report accurately or because he still gets published whether he does or not.
E. Hemingway
Estimated Illegal population in AZ = 500,000
Estimated illegal Hispanic in AZ = 400,000 (based on 80%) but this is probably higher since arrest numbers indicate that half of illegal border crossings in the US are in the Tucson sector.
Hispanic population in AZ = 1.6 million
Add the illegal Hispanics -> 2 million.
better than 1 in 5 hispanics in AZ are most likely illegal
Easy for all of you who to claim it's not "racial profiling" when you've never been the minority group....just remember, unless you are native american you are ALL immigrants. In fact, if you are european american, you're probably ILLEGAL too.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Read it for yourself before you further damage the image of your intelligence.
Check case law related to the 4th and 14th amendment and the terms probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Terry vs. the state of Ohio and Hiibel vs. the 6th circuit court
These issues have been around since the civil war and have been tested and modified to make them more robust.
Minority rights are protected by the consitution and federal laws - not taken away. SB1070 merely adds what is already on the federal books but at state level and demands that officials start to do their job or be sued.
It's foolish to pretend police officers can't understand and act upon this simple reality.
stereotypes are sometimes based upon fact.
also for all the complaining of mexico, you would think it wasn't a felony to enter mexico illegally.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf
People are upset over what they perceive as "racial-profiling", but, again, let's be logical, here. Of course the majority of illegals on our southern border will be Hispanic, so, stopping any of them AT ALL requires the authorities to notice and arrest a higher percentage of Hispanics than Canadians. That is not racial prejudice--it's stopping criminals who, up to this point, have been mocking our laws by hiding amongst legal immigrants with the same skin-color.
Do we believe that if an illegal gets past the Border Patrol, they are 'Home Free' because--now that they're here--it's unConstitutional to ask anyone to prove they're here legally? If so, then the very existence of ICE is racist; they have profiling down to an art-form, yet, ironically, they answer to Obama.
Police are compelled by threat of lawsuit to enforce this law, and it includes trespassing (state, not fed). One is trespassing if one is both in AZ and not properly documented. How do police enforce that law? How, without racial profiling? Though it may not have been the intent to have officers stop people walking down the street to prove their status, the door has certainly been opened. And given it was conceived by FAIR, denial of a racial component is suspect at best.
Further, it is “lawful contact” that's the impetus for enforcement, which encompasses more than reasonable suspicion of a crime. Ex - traffic stop would include a rundown of the driver and everyone in the vehicle.
For those unconcerned with the infringement of the 4th Amendment rights of AZ citizens, what about the police? FYI, they’re screwed too. If an officer is considered to have acted in bad faith, in failing to enforce this law, his or her personal assets can be taken via lawsuit. What is bad faith here? Is the officer that uses this law to track down drug thugs and ignores it in favor of a small businessman or fellow church member acting in bad faith? His kids can forget about college.
This is a stupid, unenforceable law that is going to cost Arizona a lot of money when they can least afford
It is legitimate to ask for ID during a lawful stop. AZ requires proof or legal residence to get a drivers license. Failure to produce a license would give grounds for further investigation. Failure to produce a drivers license would be probable cause for detaing teh suspect. Under federal law ICE are the only ones allowed to rule on status.
AZ population = 6.5 million
estimated Illegals in AZ = 500,000 => 1 in 13
IN any lawful traffic stop, there is an 8% chance that the driver is illegal
BTW statistcally 1 in 5 Hispanics in AZ are likely illegal.
failure to produce lis reasonable suspicion ID Try Terry vs Ohio and Hiibel vs the 6th district court.
People are upset over what they perceive as "racial-profiling", but, again, let's be logical, here. Of course the majority of illegals on our southern border will be Hispanic, so, stopping any of them AT ALL requires the authorities to notice and arrest a higher percentage of Hispanics than Canadians. That is not racial prejudice--it's stopping criminals who, up to this point, have been mocking our laws by hiding amongst legal immigrants with the same skin-color.
Do we believe that if an illegal gets past the Border Patrol, they are 'Home Free' because--now that they're here--it's unConstitutional to ask anyone to prove they're here legally? If so, then the very existence of ICE is racist; they have profiling down to an art-form, yet, ironically, they answer to Obama.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36754.html