Arizona Dumped Racial Profiling Back on the Nation’s Table
New America Media, Commentary, Earl Ofari Hutchinson Posted: May 04, 2010
In an exclusive interview with this writer, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s official spokesperson, 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 were 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 officials’ 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 U.S. Supreme Court gave open license to profiling in enforcing immigration laws with 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 tack. In the past decade, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Miami and other big and small cities have been repeatedly 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 by many public officials and law enforcement officials to admit that racial profiling exists has done much to torpedo nearly every efforts by 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 two surveys, the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics looked 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 is used to justify immigration stops that target Latinos. 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
Page
1 of 1
|
User Comments
Cowboy Taco on May 04, 2010 at 21:22:44 said:
Self Deporting! That's a joke. You do not live Aryanzona. Do not beleive everything Hannity and Limbaugh say. These two guys would rather see America fail then to see President Obama succeed. Racial profiling has always been a way of life in Aryanzona. Racial profiling is synonymous with...
dom youngross on May 04, 2010 at 14:07:53 said:
You can say Jan Brewer is wrong as much as you can say Achilles can never overtake the tortoise.
The same way Zeno's paradoxes fall apart when a limit is applied, the racial-profiling argument made here to dispute Arizona's immigration law similarly falls apart.
In the case of Zeno's paradoxes the limit comes from calculus. In the case of Arizona's immigration law, the limit is that constitutionally, no one has the right to be secure in their illegality. All arguments against Arizona's immigration law slam into this limit.
Arizona's illegal immigration law is already working, before even taking effect. Illegals are self-deporting as fewer people want to run the risk of hiring them. And the law will likely pass Supreme Court scrutiny, as Supreme Court justices aren't a group of philosophers stuck in a philosophical paradox.
dom youngross on May 04, 2010 at 14:06:40 said:
You can say Jan Brewer is wrong as much as you can say Achilles can never overtake the tortoise.
The same way Zeno's paradoxes fall apart when a limit is applied, the racial-profiling argument made here to dispute Arizona's immigration law similarly falls apart.
In the case of Zeno's paradoxes the limit comes from calculus. In the case of Arizona's immigration law, the limit is that constitutionally, no one has the right to be secure in their illegality. All arguments against Arizona's immigration law slam into this limit.
Arizona's illegal immigration law is already working, before even taking effect. Illegals are self-deporting as fewer people want to run the risk of hiring them. And the law will likely pass Supreme Court scrutiny, as Supreme Court justices aren't a group of philosophers stuck in a philosophical paradox.
Ingemar Smith on May 04, 2010 at 11:05:15 said:
Most interesting in this article are the repeated mentions of law enforcement and govt's 'refusal to admit' the existence of racial profiling.
What does it say about the real strength of these 'civil rights leaders' and their 'movements' when the only avenue for change is getting the profilers to ADMIT that they are profiling.
I don't know if Hutchinson is trying speak to us in code or not but this is damning. This is pathetic. But more importantly, this should be a call to arms. We need something more militant, radical and grassroots than the lawyers and non-prof legal professionals that are currently running the movement on our behalf.
sekes on May 04, 2010 at 08:12:50 said:
We DON'T work for America. Why not?
astray on May 04, 2010 at 08:08:38 said:
Yes .. remember .. when when it was a common and effective and acceptable and RESPECTED way to job hunt .. just walk down a street and go into one business after the next, introducing yourself and asking to speak to the manager? And land a job that way after X number of pavements? Remember those days?
35 million Americans out of work. Health care still not happening.
astray on May 04, 2010 at 08:06:56 said:
Remember the days? When a friend or acquaintance might say, "Hey, we need someone over where I'm working, at such-and-such business. Want to come in?" When it was not unusual or what would today be a considered a freak occurrence for an American citizen?
astray on May 04, 2010 at 07:59:01 said:
Remember the days, long ago, when it was common to see "Help Wanted" signs hanging in windows? Or pages and pages of jobs in newspapers? Where you could actually, call a few, get into to see almost as many, and land a job? Where employers were just looking for a human being to hire? Rather than a slave?
-->