Immigration decision still leaves room for mischief by states

So, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the first of the two major decisions of the year (actually three, after it refused to revisit its horrendous Citizen’s United decision, which essentially took democratic governance out of the hands of the citizenry and into the hands of a few billionaires and their puppets). While we wait for the high court’s decision on the public mandate portion of the Obama health care law, it has ruled on the “show me your papers” provision of Arizona’s anti-immigrant SB-1070 law. To my incomprehension, the court unanimously upheld the notion that local law enforcement can demand to see not merely ID like a driver’s license, but “proof” that a person is a legal resident. However, while law enforcement officers can “ask,” they supposedly cannot detain anyone who doesn’t happen to be carrying their “papers,” or anyone they “suspect” of being an illegal alien for any length of time. A majority also struck down provisions that makes it a crime for an illegal alien to seek work (and pay taxes), to not register his or her status with the federal agencies, or for police to conduct warrantless arrests if they merely “suspect” that a person who is a legal resident may be guilty of a crime that would make them susceptible to deportation. Technically, it would seem at first blush, the actual enforcement of immigration laws remains in the hands of the federal government.

But as I intimated, the ruling still troubles me. Although the court decision stated it might revisit the “show me your papers” provision” if it still leads to widespread racial profiling and civil rights abuses—making it a violation of the 4^th and 14^th Amendments—by upholding it, all kinds of mischief is sure to follow. For example, Maricopa County’s racist sheriff, Joe Arpaio, insists that the ruling will not change how he and his deputies operate, even in the face of a Justice Department lawsuit and its charges of endemic racial profiling, terrorism and various abuses in the Latino community, regardless of the legal status of those effected.

A 2008 Pulitzer Prize-winning series in the East Valley Journal reported on the “devastating impact of overzealous law enforcement” when it is tasked to immigration “duties” at the expense of its normal functions. While Arpaio and his minions worked out their racist fantasies, crime outside Latino communities spiked due to inattention, while a review of response times for life-threatening emergencies were far below acceptable standards. Complaints that Arpaio’s regime was bleeding the county dry was reinforced by the discovery of “rampant overtime spending" in order to reach immigration-related targets. So many deputies were on immigration “duty” that many areas of the county were denuded of on-site deputies. Thus the justices could have stopped such abuses in their tracks had they invalidated the “show me your papers” provision. Instead, the likes of Joe Arpaio will continue to act as if nothing has changed.

It doesn’t get much better outside of Arpaio’s jurisdiction. For example, Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor acts as if he doesn’t understand what the Supreme Court’s ruling actually said. He claims that 36,000 “suspects” are arrested a year in his jurisdiction for offenses like “disorderly conduct, misdemeanor assault, shoplifting, vandalism and driving more than 25 mph over the speed limit.” While if they were white (or black) they would merely receive a citation, it appears that Latinos who can’t immediately prove their legal status are detained, until immigration authorities “answer the phone.” First of all, the decision makes it unlawful for local police to detain anyone who they suspect is an illegal immigrant for any length of time. While they can certainly call immigration authorities concerning their suspicions, they cannot detain a “suspect” longer than they would anyone for similar offenses. Federal immigration authorities have already informed local law enforcement that their “priority” are those who commit violent crimes; why would Villasenor then waste time and money filling his jails with people guilty of traffic violations? Again, this is something that the Supreme Court could have stopped if its decision had been more clear in its delineation between federal and local responsibilities. And it isn’t just Arizona where “confusion” will be “rampant.” States across the South have passed similar laws, and given the racist history of that region, it isn’t difficult to imagine what being “unclear” will mean.

But if the Supreme Court kept the water muddied, the Department of Homeland Security has made it clear to Arizona that it will not be taking phone calls from state jurisdictions in regard to their “suspects.” DHS has announced its decision to cancel all of its contracts in Arizona for its infamous “Secure Communities” program, which has been used as an excuse to perpetrate massive violations of the civil rights of Latinos all over the country, regardless of legal status. The program “deputizes” local law enforcement, giving them the power of federal immigration agents. The problem is that these untrained police officers have used their new authority with impunity, as if they are immune from any ethical standards that a “normal” police officer would be expected to uphold. The result is that thuggish police officers pretending to be “feds” terrorize whole communities, making it next to impossible for the regular police forces to conduct business-as-usual in those communities, because of the absence of trust.

A public meeting in Phoenix after the court decision, according to a story in the New Times weekly, seemed to raise more questions than answers about how local police would respond. The police chief admitted that he had no “guidance” on what constituted “suspicious” behavior when deciding to “ask for papers.” "Reasonable suspicion includes several facts and circumstances that would make a reasonable person believe someone is committing or has committed an immigration violation. It is based on the totality of all the facts and circumstances known to the officer." Huh? Of course, all it might take is for a cop who thinks being a “Mexican” is a crime. Although there was an insistence that police would obey state law and continue to call immigration authorities for “pick-ups,” the mayor, when asked if he would “support” the police chief if he made the decision to stop detaining people merely on the suspicion of being illegal aliens if it was deemed a waste of time calling immigration authorities (which DHS has already suggested would be the case), stated that if that decision was made, he would do so.

I suppose it would be useful to address a few rationales that xenophobes and bigots use to justify law enforcement abuses against Latinos, as well as myths perpetrated by the media. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, these rationales and myths include such far-out there claims that “Undocumented immigrants kill 25 Americans a day.” This claim was made by Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King: "The lives of 12 U.S. citizens would be saved who otherwise die a violent death at the hands of murderous illegal aliens each day. Another 13 Americans would survive who are otherwise killed each day by uninsured drunk driving illegals." Using that number, Denver's right-wing radio host Peter Boyles in 2006 came-up with 45,000 American citizens “murdered” by illegal immigrants since 9-11. What is the truth? King deliberately misinterpreted GAO statistics that stated that 28 percent of prisoners in state, local and federal prisons were immigrants; the report did not in fact distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants—of which half of the latter were incarcerated only on immigration status violations, not for any other actual “crime.” King’s attempt to conjure-up a number concerning murder rates was simple racist fantasy; between 9-11 and 2006, there were 85,000 murders in the U.S.; this “would mean undocumented immigrants, who make up under 4% of the U.S. population, were responsible for 53% of all murders,” according to the Center. I should also like to point out that none of those 21 murdered individuals in Seattle through last month were victims of an illegal immigrant.

Another myth is that “Undocumented immigrants are more criminal than natives.” The anti-immigrant FAIR—which is on the Center’s list of hate groups, and was largely responsible for the philosophy behind SB-1070—claimed that "Illegal aliens are more prone to criminal activity than the rest of the population.” Jim Gilchrist of the Minuteman Project, another proud member of the hate group fraternity, claimed that it was "okay to say 'rapist,' 'robber' and 'murderer'" in the same breath as illegal immigrants. The reality? Many legitimate studies on the subject have found that even in areas where poverty is great and where there would be expected to be a correlation with high crime rates, Latino immigrant communities were far less susceptible to crime than other communities, which makes Arpaio and his gang’s activities even more suspicious. A 2005 report in The American Journal of Health, written by Harvard’s Robert J. Sampson, found “the rate of violence among Mexican Americans was significantly lower than among non-Latino white and black Americans.” Other studies found that “second- and third-generation immigrants are significantly more criminal than their parents, suggesting that U.S. culture somehow eventually produces more, not less, criminality among its citizens.” Obviously there is some disconnect between these last two statements; murder rates in the Latino community isn’t anywhere close to that of the black community, in fact in the same ballpark as whites. It would. However, it does make sense to say that there is much less crime among illegal immigrants because of their tendency to wish to remain under the radar; remember that half of all illegal immigrants who are in jail are so only for immigration status violations.

We should also address the reasons why illegal immigration is so prevalent. If it was just a simple matter crossing and re-crossing the border, as had occurred without much controversy for most of century following the end of the Mexican-American War until the economic disruptions caused by the Great Depression (in fact Latin American immigrants were not mentioned in the 1924 immigration law)—or if work visa laws were reformed to make such cross-traffic less onerous—there would likely be far fewer illegal immigrants in this country. But because work visa laws are so stringent for the vast majority of Latin Americans—even those who wish only to work seasonally—many illegal immigrants, once across the border, simply stay out of lack of choice. The absurd—and discriminatory—work visa policy has caused significant labor shortages among local growers and farmers, with only the apparent prejudice against “Mexicans” to explain it. According to immigration statistics, out of 1 million work visas given out last year, only 10,000 were for those seeking those “low-skill” jobs that “real” Americans seem unmotivated to do.

According to the SPL Center, the obstacles to average Latin Americans from entering the U.S. legally are so great that various myths surrounding the subject have become rampant, and yet have very little relation to fact. For example, contrary to popular belief, parents of “anchor babies” cannot petition for permanent residency until their children are 21. Even for spouses of U.S. citizens, it can take as long as 20 years to gain permanent residency. “Some of these family relationship categories are so backlogged with immigrants seeking legal permanent resident status,” according to the Center, “that federal officials have declared those categories unavailable. Immigrants who don't have these relationships will find that their path to citizenship is non-existent.” In regard to the aforementioned employer-based work visa program, “There are so many individuals waiting for these visas, the category has been designated as unavailable by immigration officials.”

While Asian immigrants, especially those who have entered the country illegally to begin with, have regularly been granted refugee/asylee status, it is almost impossible for anyone from Latin America to be granted such status—shocking considering the right-wing murder regimes that the U.S. has supported in the past that targeted mostly the indigenous or mixed-race groups that Americans apparently hate the most. Even Mexican journalists and activists and their families who are targeted for death by drug cartels in the U.S.-funded “war” on drugs find it nearly impossible to obtain asylee status.

Today, recent changes in immigration laws make it almost impossible for Latinos who are already in the country and are eligible to receive permanent residency, but must leave the country first to reapply for admittance, to actually re-enter the country. What motivation do they have to leave the country—especially since current immigration laws seem to be solely aimed at discomfiting them, while nearly 2 million illegal aliens of Asian extraction remain unmolested? As I've said many times, nothing burns me up like hypocrisy.