Last Sunday, during a speech made at the dedication of the monument honoring the Reverend Martin Luther King, President Obama declared, in King-like cadences, that the slain civil rights leader "stirred our conscience."
The president, who is desperately trying to win back Latino votes lost since 2008, went on in the speech to say that King reminds us "to show compassion to the immigrant family, with the knowledge that most of are just a few generations removed from similar hardships." He has also taken to engaging in high-profile appointments and meetings with Latino media executives, like Univision's president, César Conde, and Latino superstars like Shakira.
While Obama's meetings and his words of compassion for immigrant families are most welcome, the president's deeds - and their effects on immigrant families - provide a stunning and tragic contrast.
As documented in Tuesday's broadcast of PBS Frontline's 'Lost in Detention' documentary, President Obama's policies have led to the record and heart-breaking deportation of more than 1 million immigrants, the separation of thousands of families, and the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands forced to live in subhuman conditions in what some of us are calling "Obama's Immigrant Gulag." Detainees fall victim to rape and sexual abuse, racism, having to eat worm-infested and rotten food, physical and psychological abuse, the denial of basic rights and other humiliating conditions.
At the heart of this immigrant tragedy is a radical racial profiling program known as "Secure Communities," or S-COMM, which turns local and state law enforcement officers into immigration officers who are beginning to ask everyone - citizen and non-citizen - for their papers simply because they look a certain way.
By the tens of thousands, Latinos, one of the groups most profiled under S-COMM, will watch the documentary, which will speak to the concerns about the president's immigration policies and about which an increasing numbers of us are growing angry and impatient.
Polls, like the Latino Decisions-ImpreMedia, conducted in August 2011, tell us definitively that most Latino voters know one of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants.
Presente.org and its allies in 10 cities will call on the Obama Administration to do away with the rotten fruits of S-COMM and other immigration policies he promised to either alter or abolish altogether. The absolute failure and damage of these immigration policies have been thoroughly documented by lawyers, immigrant rights groups and, increasingly, journalists like those responsible for tonight's unprecedented documentary.
Trying to cover up and divert the attention of the public, especially the now very fed up Latino voter public, will not work. Trying to blame the failure of S-COMM, a program of the executive branch of government, by handing over responsibility to Congress, the legislative branch, as Cecilia Muñoz, Obama's top advisor on immigration, has done repeatedly, will not work.
Latinos are not stupid. We will not accept the false statements and diversionary tactics of apologists for the abominable immigration policies of the administration.
To (re)gain trust of Latino voters, Obama must make fundamental changes to the immigration laws he can change at will, as he proved on August 18, when he announced slight changes to immigration policy after groups across the country protested his campaign offices, including his campaign headquarters.
Until President Obama makes more fundamental changes to his dangerous immigration policies, we will take back the slogan that Obama the candidate borrowed from Latinos - "Sí Se Puede/Yes We Can" - and use it for our efforts to both stop S-COMM and abolish Obama's Immigrant Gulag.
Follow Roberto Lovato on Twitter: www.twitter.com/robvato
How will BHO maintain deporting 1 illegal every 79 seconds of every hour, of every day, of every week, of every month, as he's done during his 32-month presidency
After all, look at the liberal immigration laws in their nation.
By the same token, the Mafia would like very much for us to end all criminal database checks. Or at least do away with those silly laws about bribery. Why not let judges make a little money on the side?
That would keep many people out of jail or prison and reduce the prison population in America.
After all, why should breaking one little law get someone punished for any other laws they might have run afoul of?
Soon we could have a peaceful, secure country just like theirs.
When will the pro-illegal special interests stop demonizing the honest Americans who want our laws fairly and honestly enforced against all who stay/come here illegally regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, or nation of origin? When will the special interests stop pretending that Americans are to blame or are behaving wrongly, and honestly put the blame on the lawbreakers- the lawbreakers are the perpetrators and not the victims, after all.
========================================
A very large majority of the illegal aliens in this country are from Mexico. Most frequently also.. they speak very poor English, and of course, you must be able to speak and write English to enter the United States. (Interpreters are VERY expensive in our court systems when they do not speak English). So it is silly to suggest Latino's are profiled.. it is very correct to suggest people who do not speak any English, or very poor English, become persons of serious interest when they have accidents, or require an interpreter.
Latino Citizens in this country number about 9.5% of the population. When someone threatens us with their anger, or threatens us with their communities anger, we need to look at the source before we publish an article by that person. Particularly if that article has very, very bigoted assertions and the assertions are not supported.
ALL Americans including a majority of the Hispanics in this country, want the immigration law enforced. Let the individuals who assume the false mantel of leadership prove their assertions ..before.. they are published in the future.
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/polls.html
We very badly need to vote on this issue in this coming election!
The Obama Administration has been a great friend of the Hispanic community. Ignoring their efforts, while struggling with legal frameworks, is not only unfair, it's disrespectful. I'm a subscriber to presente.org emails, but please do not make the same mistakes I've seen from Code Pink, to become so blind and accusatory that we inadventently alienate friends.
I wrote a fairly articulate post and it still hasn't made it onto this page.
What a shame that such "tolerance" and "diversity" (of opinion) is so fervently embraced by Herr "Latino". and his talking donkeys.
Section 434 of the Welfare Reform Act and Section 642 of the Immigration Reform Act state that
“Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no state or local entity may be prohibited or restricted from reporting information to federal authorities.”
Employment eligibility verification guidelines are also incorporated into the Immigration Reform Act, including sanctions for employers who fail to comply with the regulations and restrictions.
By expressly prohibiting restraints on communications with federal officials, the 1996 laws targeted “don’t tell” measures that banned local cooperation with federal authorities.
When New York City challenged the constitutionality of Sections 434 and 642, the Second Circuit upheld the statutes and nullified New York City’s Executive Order 124, which, in many cases, prohibited local officials from providing federal authorities with immigration status information. As a result of Sections 434 and 642, the sanctuary movement is currently vulnerable to attacks on the validity of “don’t tell” measures.
“Don’t tell” measures as “obvious targets for express preemption” given the apparent conflict between “don’t tell” policies and the restrictions in Sections 434 and 642.54
Because of the make-up of our Illegal Immigrant population there is no way ANY form of immigration law enforcement can escape the label of Racial Profiling as long as people insist on comparing arrest rates to the general US population. But our antidiscrimination law is not set up that way. The key is the term “relevant population”. Would a business located in a mostly Latino city that hires mostly Anglos escape the label of discriminatory just because they compare themselves to the US population as a whole? No way!
If 78% of those illegally residing in the USA are of Latino origin does this not mean that to insure no discrimination exists 78% of those investigated for being illegally in the USA should be of Latino origin? That is the relevant population. Would not departing from that percentage be discriminatory to Black, Asian, and White Americans? In this case are claims of Racial Profiling a knowing misuse of a legal concept meant to defend the disadvantaged in order to shelter illegal activity? Or just misunderstanding the law?
Not so fast, please.
If 60 % (instead of your quoted 78%) were Hispanic, yet a rate of 90% of people being questioned by authorites were Hispanic, then you might reasonably suspect some "profiling" was going on.
But overall, I think you are mostly correct...The profiling card is being overplayed.
The point is, this Author complains that a lot of Latinos who are illegally living in the USA are being deported and this must me Racial Profiling. Yet nowhere is there any statistics to support such a claim. To say that a majority of those deported are Latino means nothing when 78% of the people living illegally in the USA are Latino per the Pew Center. A majority means anything above 50%. If the real statistic lies between 50% and 80% there is no support for the claim of Racial Profiling.
This means that Latino Voter's feelings on immigration approximately reflect the way they voted Democrat versus Republican in the Bush/Kerry election of 2004. That also means the dire prophecies of Republican disaster for not supporting "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" are just smoke and mirrors. In fact, just like other Americans, Latino voters will vote based on historic voting patterns, such as unemployment and economic opportunity, rather than the single issue politics advocated in this opinion piece.
Get your priorities straight.
"At the heart of this immigrant tragedy is a radical racial profiling program known as "Secure Communities," or S-COMM, which turns local and state law enforcement officers into immigration officers who are beginning to ask everyone - citizen and non-citizen - for their papers simply because they look a certain way."
Local police have long had the right to enforce federal immigration law and to arrest people that do not have permission to be here.
Gonzales v. City of Peoria, - “Federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.
United States v. Salinas-Calderon, - “ a state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”
United States v. Santana-Garcia, “that state law enforcement officers have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ & “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”
United States v. Favela-Favela, Did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation.
United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, "A state trooper, who has executed a lawful stop, has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations."
Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, A city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws.
If you truly want to live in a lawless society try moving to somewhere like Somalia and just how many minority protections you will enjoy.
The United States Federal Code of Regulations, Part 8, Title 287, Section 8 states "Interrogation and detention not amounting to arrest. (1) Interrogation is questioning designed to elicit specific information. An immigration officer, like any other person, has the right to ask questions of anyone as long as the immigration officer does not restrain the freedom of an individual, not under arrest, to walk away. (2) If the immigration officer has a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned is, or is attempting to be, engaged in an offense against the United States or is an alien illegally in the United States, the immigration officer may briefly detain the person for questioning. (3) Information obtained from this questioning may provide the basis for a subsequent arrest, which must be effected only by a designated immigration officer… "
Per the ‘Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Sec. 133 Acceptance Of State Services To Carry Out Immigration Enforcement’ an “officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State” with the appropriate training can obtain “certification” as a “designated immigration officer” (abridged to save space).