Loading ...Archive for police
Faking Democracy: More Evidence of Racist Barriers in US Voting
Posted by: | Comments
Cord Jefferson at TheRoot has a good piece on the 1965 Voting Rights Act now 45 years later. There are still many barriers to black voting, both as a result of disenfranchisement because of (often nonviolent) crimes and very direct discriminatory blocking of voters of color:
Currently, 10 states — including Florida, Virginia, Arizona and Kentucky — permanently disenfranchise at least some convicted felons, and 20 more require criminals to complete prison, parole and probation before being allowed to vote again. … An estimated 5.3 million Americans, 4 million of whom are out of prison, are denied the right to vote based on their felony convictions. About a third of them are black, including 13 percent of all African-American men.
Much of this disenfranchisement, as Michelle Alexander has shown in her fine book, The New Jim Crow, comes from being imprisoned for drug crimes that whites, who do much of the drug crime, rarely get imprisoned for.
There is also the issue the substantial discrimination against black voters and other voters of color that still is carried out by white conservative forces, including Republican operatives. As I pointed out recently in Racist America (second edition, 2010):
Researchers have identified an array of blocking strategies used by white officials to reduce black representation: gerrymandering political districts, changing elective offices into appointive offices, adding new qualifications for office, purging voter-registration rolls, suddenly changing the location of polling places, creating difficult registration procedures, and using numerous other strategies to dilute the black vote. One dilution strategy consists of intentionally setting up or continuing at-large electoral systems, instead of utilizing elections by smaller districts. The purpose is to enable white voters, who dominate the larger political unit, to determine who will be the political representatives in that unit. Research data on local and state elections indicate that, taken together, these strategies have significantly reduced black political power in many areas.
Jefferson also notes that legislators have been slow to do anything about these mostly white-generated anti-voter felonies:
For five years now, lawmakers have attempted to push through the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, to no avail. That means it’s still not a federal crime to knowingly lie to voters in order to keep them from the polls, even during a federal election. Maryland Senator Ben Cardin spoke to the Deceptive Practices Act’s importance in 2007, citing a false flyer that had been handed out in black communities in Milwaukee during the 2004 presidential election.
The flyer made phony, sometimes wild claims–such as that a traffic ticket disqualified you from voting. Still no protective law has been passed. Could it be that the U.S. is still far from being a real democracy?
Using “Nazi” and “Neo-Nazi” for Anti-Immigrant Policing & Protests?
Posted by: | Comments
The website, Project Economic Refugee, a project of the Progressive American Latino Community, has a spot-on article discussing the use of the “Nazi” and “neo-Nazi” terms for the private and government police-state-type actions taken against Latino immigrants and other Latinos, not only in Arizona (as Maria recently discussed), but in numerous other states, indeed now for more than a decade. The article begins:
It’s time to stop apologizing for calling out racism and for categorizing Arizona’s immigration law as what it truly is about. Now that Judge Susan Bolton (a conservative judge…) has struck down major portions of Arizona’s authoritarian police law…. Governor Brewer and her camp are looking more and more like nothing else but right-wing authoritarians that have embraced ideals that are in direct opposition to American values. … right-wing Arizonan politicians are forcing honest well-intentioned police officers to act as some sort of gestapo agents.
Recognizing that lots of mainstream folks, especially in the media, object to such “Nazi” and “Gestapo” comparisons, they lay out their reasons:
When you hear about how actual neo-Nazis are literally out hunting down immigrants, it’s hard not to call it “Nazi.” When you hear about how white supremacist nationalists are behind the legal defense fund in support of SB 1070, it’s hard not to call it “Nazi.” When you see cases where racial profiling has led to such barbaric acts such as the time when a pregnant woman was forced to give birth cuffed by the wrists and ankles, it’s hard not to use the word “Nazi” … when you find out that SB 1070 was written by and introduced to the Arizona legislature by people that are proud to identify themselves as “Nazis”, [see here it’s hard not to use the word “Nazi”.
The website piece has links to evidence for these assertions. They continue:
Congresswoman Linda Sanchez pointed out something that is very much the case: how some of the people behind the Arizona law actually ARE white supremacists. …. What most people are doing, is comparing Arizona’s law to the threat of racist authoritarian supremacist acts.
After discussing how some Jewish American leaders have protested the use of Holocaust or Nazi comparisons as exaggerations for what is going on with anti-Mexican immigration efforts, the author adds this:
The Anti-Defamation League itself has also come out in staunch opposition to Arizona’s immigration law, going as far as filing an actual legal challenge to it. . . . the law was written and introduced by people that are proud to consider themselves supporters of actual neo-Nazis. …. All in all, I’m reminded of the words of Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel: “No Human Being is illegal.”
Police-State Treatment Of Latino Civil Rights Efforts in Arizona
Posted by: | Comments
The treatment and arrest of Mexican-American civil rights leader Sal Reza, head of the group Puente and opponent of Arizona’s SB 1070 last Thursday by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s deputies reminds me of the 1960s treatment of civil rights protesters, especially the treatment of blacks. While not the same, Arizona is a modern police state similar to the police states of the south during the 1960s.
During the 1960s the controlling white population found it acceptable that the police could be used against people of color and Americans who spoke out against protests of all kinds such as the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, or the Women’s Movement. We have all read, seen on television, or heard the stories of the police attacking blacks and other civil rights protestors with night sticks, shot guns, and dogs. It was a shameful use of the police in our history and contributed to the current distrust between law enforcement and communities of color. This distrust has only grown as people of color have been singled out by law enforcement officers for years. As Eduardo Bonilla-Silva states in Racism Without Racists “blacks and dark-skinned Latinos are the targets of racial profiling by the policy that, combined with the highly racialized criminal court system, guarantees their overrepresentation among those arrested, prosecuted, incarcerated, and if charged for a capital crime, executed.”
However, our law enforcement culture has changed in many ways since the 1960s. One of the important changes to note is that modern day police have much greater power to violate civil rights and civil liberties than ever before. While the police states of the south had brutalized black people for decades (centuries, really), the tools they had to conduct their terror were not as sophisticated as they are today—not that this made much difference to the victims of the police brutality—but the direction our police have gone since then impact the civil rights of all Americans, especially those who are “othered” in our society for whatever reason. Today the police have more tools of intimidation at their disposal and anyone who thinks our civil rights are important should be concerned.
Over the last 20 years of the American “tough on crime” ethic, we have developed a hyper-active law enforcement. Now we have police who are out with armored personnel carriers, high tech body armor, and automatic weapons. This results in a system that can easily abuse constitutional rights as what seems to have happened with Mr. Reza. The arrest of a known older civil rights protestor by a swat team is an example of political oppression. It appears that Mr. Reza was arrested because of his political views and his membership in an organization, not his involvement in any illegal activities. This is one example of the consequences of our modern militarized police machine.
Protection of our civil rights and civil liberties are key aspects of citizenship and critical for the success of democracy. We live in a police state that is exercising its power to repress political opposition, silence political views, and intimidate members of certain civil rights organizations. This is increasingly being used against Latinos and anti-racist white allies in Arizona who are participating in their constitutional rights to speak out against policies of the state. This is a sad commentary on American society, politics, and culture. Sheriff Arpaio and his deputies’ actions are contributing to our police state. And they call themselves Americans.
On 24 June 2010, encircled by a substantial police presence, 1,500 indigenous activists and their allies marched through downtown Toronto under the slogan “Canada can’t hide genocide,” openly contesting Canada’s authority in negotiating on the global stage. Shouting “No G20 on stolen native land!” the marchers carried placards, banners, Mohawk Nation flags, and an inverted Canadian flag. The group altered the Canadian national anthem’s opening lines “O Canada! Our home and native land!”, singing instead “O Canada! Our home on native land!” They hoped to bring international awareness to aboriginal issues via media coverage of the G8 and G20 summits. The demonstrators urged the Canadian government to investigate the disappearance of some 500 aboriginal women , demanded self-determination, complete political recognition of past treaties, and nation-to-nation negotiations with Canada on equal terms.
On 25 June 2010 ‘Shout Out for Global Justice,’ sponsored by the Council of Canadians, organized an incredible line-up of speakers to challenge the G20 and demand trade, water, and climate justice. The event was sold out. 2,700 people attended, as well as many others who watched the forum by web-cast in communities across Canada and at the U.S. Social Forum in Detroit. The line-up of speakers included Clayton Thomas-Müller of the Mathais Colomb Cree Nation in Northern Manitoba and tar sands campaigner with the U.S.-based organization Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN).
The five First Nations in the region of the tar sands in Alberta, Canada, rely on traditional food sources, like moose, fish, beaver, and muskrat, all of which have become contaminated by mining pollution. A community of only 1,200 has seen more than 100 deaths in the last decade from rare cancers and autoimmune diseases. The tar sands leases also breach aboriginal treaty rights; they were sold by the provincial government without the prior informed consent of local communities.
There is no scarcity of examples of native resistance in recent Canadian history. In 1990, an historic armed standoff between Mohawks and the Canadian army near Oka, Québec lasted more than two months when the provincial government tried to convert a native burial ground into a golf course. Five years later, the Canadian government employed helicopters, armoured personnel carriers, improvised explosives, and more than 77,000 rounds of ammunition during a three-month standoff over land title at Gustafsen Lake in British Columbia. In 2007, the Mohawk community at Tyendinaga, 200 kilometres east of Toronto, blocked the trans-continental rail line, and Canada’s largest highway, in protest at the government’s failure to address land rights and basic issues of survival within First Nations – including safe drinking water, which the community lacked. Despite the exposure of such injustices, a foremost concern in 2007 appeared to be how to circumvent a roadblock. (See here and here.)
Aboriginal peoples living in Canada have lower life expectancy, less access to education, a much lower average income, and a much higher suicide rate than the rest of the country. The UN has stated that if Canada were “judged solely on the economic and social well-being of its First Nations” peoples, the country’s human development ranking would drop from 7th to 48th out of 174 countries. Organizations like Amnesty International have sharply criticized Canada’s treatment of aboriginals, calling the country’s reserves a third world problem in one of the world’s richest countries.
One final thought. Press coverage of issues related to aboriginals clears the way for government actions that “reproduce material and social inequality between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people” (including subtle sanitized ethno-genocide). This is a major cause of concern because it promotes an environment in which social injustice is tolerated and Canadians are less likely to be sympathetic to aboriginal resistance movements.
Tessa M. Blaikie, Nicole R. Gordon, and Natalia T. Ilyniak are sociology honours students at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba, Canada. Kimberley A. Ducey is a faculty member in the Department of Sociology, University of Winnipeg.
The Many Costs of Racism
Posted by: | Comments
We have all heard the story that America is a nation of active citizens and joiners (Alexis de Tocqueville, 1840) — resulting in a citizenry that joins together for the common good. However, according to Harvard professor Robert Putnam, social capital—which is about connections, reciprocity, and trust—is on the decline and consequently, American civil society is on the decline. Putnam lists many reasons for this decline in our modern lifestyles, but I believe that nothing decreases connections and trust among Americans more than racist public policies such as Arizona’s SB 1070 law.
We need to consider the costs that this policy will have on the overall American story of connectedness. Not surprisingly social capital among blacks and Latinos is already significantly lower than among whites (See link here.) However, it is important to consider that Latino citizens are a huge part of the population in Arizona. Pretending that Latino citizens aren’t a huge part of the population in Arizona and that these Latino citizens won’t incur gigantic costs in terms of civil liberties violations and sense of personal security is ridiculous. Despite Governor Brewer’s assurances that there will be no racial profiling against Latino citizens, anyone who reads the bill, which, “Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person…,” knows that it is patently obvious that long-time Latino citizens are indistinguishable from undocumented Latinos. “Reasonable suspicion” amounts to being Latino in Arizona. My father, a Latino living in Tucson, now feels uncomfortable around his white friends because they disagree about SB 1070. This is beyond a political or ideological disagreement.
For a Latino, this is about acceptance, respect, equality, and yes, trust. So, there are more than civil liberties violations and personal security at stake—it is about the ending of relationships between Latinos and whites, it is about separating life-long friends, maybe for good.
The story of Latinos living in Arizona after SB 1070 now is sadness, and at best for those Latinos who are citizens an increased fear–and hiding at worst for those who aren’t documented. It is about decreased community connectedness along racial lines on all counts. I know if I was an undocumented Latina about to give birth I would risk giving birth at home rather than going to the hospital and possibly being deported. Why can’t whites see the social and personal costs of this policy? Perhaps it is because most whites are between four to ten generations removed from their immigrant parents; immigration for them is some distant thing. Maybe this is why they do not realize we are all in the same boat. Maybe that is why they don’t see the costs of this type of racism on America.
De Tocqueville had it wrong. We are not a nation of active citizens and joiners. We are a nation of exclusion by race. If strong social capital is an important component of our nation’s civic health, then America will pay a huge cost for generations to come if we keep targeting Latinos.
Stop, Frisk, Collect Data: NYCLU Files Suit Against Racially Biased NYPD Practice
Posted by: | CommentsSince 2004, the New York Police Department (NYPD) has stopped and interrogated people nearly 3 million times, more than 80 percent were black or Latino. The names and addresses of those stopped have been entered into the department’s database, regardless of whether the person had done anything wrong. Last year, NYPD officers stopped and questioned or frisked more than 575,000 people, the most ever. Nearly nine out of 10 of those stopped and questioned by police last year were neither arrested nor issued a summons.
The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) has filed a lawsuit in State Supreme Court for New York County on behalf of what may be more than 100,000 New Yorkers whose personal information is being kept in the NYPD database even though state laws require that all police records of their stop-and-frisk encounters be sealed and not be available to any public or private agency. The lead plaintiffs are two New York City residents who have been stopped and frisked by police officers, issued summonses, and subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing.
The lawsuit asks, among other things, for an injunction requiring the NYPD to seal all records, including personal information in the stop-and-frisk database, of people who were stopped and frisked, were arrested or issued a summons, and whose cases ended either in dismissal or only the payment of a fine for a noncriminal violation. NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly, the City of New York and several unnamed police officers are listed as defendants. Here’s a short video clip (2:43), produced by the NYCLU, that gives some more background:
In the second chapter of her book, The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander offers a detailed analysis of how “stop-and-frisk” practices, like the one in place in New York City, have taken precedent over the constitutionally protected right against unlawful search and seizure (Fourth Amendment). Alexander writes that these sorts of practices are part of the apparatus creating a new caste system, a caste system of black and brown people trapped in permanent, second-class status.
While the NYCLU’s lawsuit, even if successful, will not entirely dismantle ‘the new Jim Crow,’ it is a step in the right direction.
Anti-Latino Racism: A Pew Center report
Posted by: | CommentsThe Pew Hispanic Center has an interesting fact sheet, “Hispanics and Arizona’s New Immigration Law,” which provides some useful data for our often data-less, faith-based, often white-racist or white-fearful, debates on U.S. immigration. According to a 2009 Pew survey of Americans
nearly one-in- four (23%) Americans said Hispanics are discriminated against “a lot” in society today, a share higher than observed for any other group…This represents a change from 2001, when blacks were seen as the racial/ethnic group discriminated against the most in society.
In the earlier period some 25 percent of those polled said blacks were discriminated against a lot, which was more than the 19 percent who said the same for Latinos. Now in the 2009 survey only 19 percent said blacks were discriminated against “a lot,” compared to the 23 percent for Latinos. Pew makes a significant point out of Latinos being seen as (but, actually, only a little ) more discriminated against than African Americans, but what I see as much more striking is that this majority-white national sample actually has rather low percentages that see either group as facing “a lot” of discrimination.
This is the more important finding. Once again, only a modest minority of whites apparently see any problem with racial discrimination for either group. This is the white racial frame in its modern white-virtue, little-discrimination form. Lots of analysts talk about this as a new form of racism, of “colorblind racism,” but actually it goes back for centuries. Whites since the 1600s have seen themselves as virtuous, and thus as doing nothing wrong or bad in their everyday oppression– which is thus seen as something other than oppression or racial discrimination.
Pew also has some interesting data on other matters affecting Latinos:
One-in-ten Hispanics say that they have been asked by police or other authorities about their immigration status….According to the [Pew] 2008 National Survey of Latinos, 45% of Latinos said they had a great deal or fair amount of confidence that police officers in their communities would treat Latinos fairly. Eight-in-ten Hispanics say local police should not be involved in identifying undocumented or illegal immigrants.
Racial profiling and likely other police malpractice thus seem a reality for many Latinos in this country–even before Arizona’s nativistic legislators made it even more of a national discussion. Less than half have confidence in police officers treating folks fairly. Also
According to a 2009 Pew Hispanic Center survey of Hispanics ages 16 and older, one-third (32%) say they, a family member, or a close friend have experienced discrimination in the five years prior to the survey because of their racial or ethnic background.
Significant anti-Latino discrimination is regularly found in Pew surveys, but I have yet to see any national discussion of this raical discrimination. Indeed, to my knowledge well into the 21st century we still have no major study or book of the extensiveness of racial discrimination facing Latinos in the United States. How tardy is our contemporary “social science”?
Of course, a little recent social science data indicate that this Pew “32 percent” is very likely a severe underestimate of the actual discriminatory reality faced by Latinos. (And my Latino students report much more than this.)
I keep wondering when U.S. pollsters like those at Pew will get beyond their methodological naïveté on these matters, and ask in-depth questions that use savvy language likely to get people of color to talk more openly about the extensive discrimination they do face–more likely about 90 percent, not 32 percent, in recent months (not years).
Arizona Immigration Law Requires Police to Racially Profile
Posted by: | CommentsOver at DailyKos Pennsylvania State Senator Daylin Leach makes some very important points about the vague language in the new Arizona law, which says a police officer in “any lawful contact” with people can investigate if they are immigrants here if he or she has a “reasonable suspicion” about that matter.
The key of course is these vague terms, which Leach argues well means police must do racial profiling:
“Any lawful contact” is such a breathtakingly broad standard it could mean literally any contact. It need not require suspicion that said person has committed a crime. It could be ascertaining if that person is a witness to a crime he is not suspected of. It could be simply asking the person to move out of the way if he’s standing in the wrong place. Once that contact is made, the police may request immigration documents based on “reasonable suspicion” of illegality.
OK, then how would a police officer have such a reasonable suspicion. What would the criteria be? Well, they have to be centrally about race:
Very few people wear “Kiss me, I’m illegal” T-shirts or spontaneously blurt out “You got me, I’m undocumented!” So what does an illegal immigrant look like? What would cause a police officer to interact with two people, and decide one person is worthy of further investigation and one is not? There is only one answer, race. Think of it this way. Two guys get into a fight while playing baseball. The police are called to break it up. Neither has ID. One is a Caucasian named Thomas Stevens who has no discernable accent. The other is a brown skinned man named Jose Figueroa who has a slight Hispanic accent. That’s all the officer knows. Which one of these men do you suppose will be detained for further investigation into his immigration status?
Presumably, the white conservative legislators know this is exactly what they have now forced Arizona police to do—violate U.S. civil rights laws by doing discriminating on the basis of race. I wonder how hard this one will be to knock down in U.S. courts?
And then there is their general ignorance of immigration, immigrants, and how the economy of Arizona runs on immigration–points underscored recently by distinguished Latino scholars.
Sociologists without Borders Petitions Governor Jan Brewer in Arizona
Posted by: | Comments
Sociologists without Borders has prepared this statement on behalf of the human rights of immigrants of color, and other people of color, in the state of Arizona:
To: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer
Sociologists without Borders (SSF) strongly condemns Arizona Law SB1070 which requires police officers to request documentation from persons who they believe may be undocumented immigrants. SSF calls on state and federal authorities to prevent the law from going into effect. In addition, SSF will refrain from holding any meetings or soliciting the services of any entity, public or private, located in the state of Arizona. We call on SSF members and Sociologists to boycott travel to or soliciting the services of entities located in the state of Arizona unless absolutely necessary until the law is repealed or deemed unconstitutional.
SSF believes that Arizona Law SB1070 is a form of racial profiling and discrimination because officers will likely rely on appearance, phenotypes, language and accents to make judgments that will lead to the unnecessary harassment or detention of US citizens and residents, including SSF members and other Sociologists. SSF does not tolerate racial profiling or discrimination in the United States or elsewhere.
SSF recognizes that this law is part of a larger trend of discrimination against immigrants in the state of Arizona. We regret this trend and encourage local, national and international efforts to intervene through the use of non-violent tactics such as political organizing and economic boycotts. Matters of enforcement for immigration law is best handled by authorities that are specifically trained for this purpose and should remain that way in the state of Arizona. We regret that SB1070 was signed into law and hope that it is quickly repealed or deemed unconstitutional.
The SSF petition is here.
Ignoring “Illegal Employers”: Arizona’s Police-State Legislation
Posted by: | Comments
Now we have a state government, a Republican-led state government, in Arizona taking on federal responsibilities for immigration control. The Arizona governor signed SB 1070, the first state law making undocumented immigrants criminals.
Even though the governor claims this law will not result in racial profiling, which it certainly will (given past research evidence on policing, see here and here), she herself issued an executive order requiring police to train to avoid racial profiling in their street-level discretionary actions as they operate on a “reasonable suspicion” in dealing with brown-skinned Arizonans. The striking thing is that mainstream media have not asked, again and again, why such police training should be at all necessary unless the Arizona police already do a lot of racial profiling.
New America Media’s Valeria Fernández has a good summary of key issues in this police-state type legislation:
SB 1070, also known as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act,” would allow police officers to arrest a person based on “reasonable suspicion ” that he or she is an undocumented immigrant. Police departments could face lawsuits by individuals who believe they are not enforcing the law. … SB 1070 would also impose penalties for transporting or harboring an undocumented immigrant, which could include family members.
So family members get put in jail too? Among other issues Fernández notes the issue of the law’s constitutionality:
Several legal challenges to keep the legislation from taking effect are in the works by the Mexican American Legal and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON). “Arizona would have the same place in history as South Africa,” said Salvador Reza, organizer for the PUENTE movement, which advocates for human rights, comparing the new law to apartheid.
Actions often have unintended consequences, and one may be the growth of both pro-immigration rallies and legislation:
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez, D-Illinois, is expected to hold a rally in Arizona on Sunday. “We hope President Obama can join us at the rally to announce swift action the federal government will take to protect the civil rights of its residents,” said Pablo Alvarado, the executive director of NDLON. President Obama criticized the Arizona bill earlier today, saying it threatens to “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.” . . . Opponents of the bill are holding ongoing protests and planning economic boycotts of the state convention center.
Numerous state and local Arizona business leaders, perhaps not unexpectedly, are often opposed to the new law as “damaging the he Arizona economy.” Well, U.S. employers inside and outside Arizona are the ones who, in effect, put up the signs at the border saying “jobs to be filled,” which are indeed filled by the hundreds of thousands in Arizona alone by undocumented immigrants. This is indeed the main issue.
One critical part of the “immigration debates” is just how powerful the conservative framing of these issues is. Conservatives frame it as “illegal immigrants” or “illegal aliens,” while even liberals are focusing on “undocumented immigrants” and “immigration problems.” This is yet another example of how we get trapped in deep unreflective frames.
How about reframing the entire debate as about “lawless employers,” “illegal employers,” and “illegal employment”? Mostly white employers are certainly at the center of this national “problem.”
If you want to protest the Arizona profiling law, one way is this petition here.
