Feds to Sue Arpaio, but Carry Out Largest National Round-up Yet

It may seem like great news that the federal Justice Department will finally be suing sheriff joe.  According to "Government plans to sue Arizona sheriff for targeting Latinos",

The administration's Justice Department and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office have been in settlement talks for months over allegations that officers regularly made unlawful stops and arrests of Latinos, used excessive force against them and failed to adequately protect the Hispanic community.
Those negotiations have broken down because of a fight over the Justice Department's demand that an independent monitor be appointed by a federal court to oversee compliance with the settlement...

But can the federal government really take the moral high ground when you contrast the latest round-up, which happens to be the largest yet, with sheriff joe's sweeps?  In Colorlines' "ICE Arrest 3k Immigrants in 6 Days, Largest Roundup Ever", the raids are described:

On Monday, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced 3,168 undocumented immigrants were detained over the course of six-days in a national operation the agency dubbed “Cross Check.” According to ICE, the six-day operation was the largest such effort in the agency’s history.

I find it interesting that I hardly saw any mention in my social media networks about this largest round-up ever.  Arizonans in particular seem to think that the federal government could and would save us from horrible politicians like Arpaio.  The Federal government prefers to think of their work as colorblind, that what sets them apart from Arpaio is that he is actively discriminating which "erodes the public trust," according to Napolitano.  I snarkily commented in last December's post, "Federal Goverment Prefers Their Way Better Than Arpaio's", "because blatant maliciousness and hypocrisy erode the public trust, the status quo doesn't."

The following points really contextualize the federal government's approach:

“The raids are in line with the administration’s record on immigration to date: while claiming to target serious offenders the majority of those detained were in fact people with misdemeanor convictions and people who’ve returned to the United States after having been deported previously. In the case of the later group, many have returned to the United States to be with their families,” [Colorlines.com’s investigative reporter Seth Freed] Wessler went on to point out.

In it’s press release, ICE again claims that the agency “is focused on smart, effective immigration enforcement that targets serious criminal aliens who present the greatest risk to the security of our communities.” And the Washington Post reported the news with an inevitable highlights reel, naming a Cameroonian drug distributer with a gun charge and Mexican murderer among the group. “But of course, the vast majority of those in the serious criminal list are not kin-pins and murderers. ICE officials continue to draw on racialized hysteria to naturalize what’s clearly a bald policy of mass deportation,” Wessler said.

Wessler also notes operation Cross Check is the third such national scale enforcement operation in the last year, which together have detained nearly 8,500 people. “These numbers amount to only a fraction of all deportations. Last year nearly 400,000 people were deported.”

Read that last paragraph again.  As I have pointed out in the past, the federal government does not create elaborate press circuses to feed their ego, accompanied by veiled racist rhetoric, quite the way Arpaio does.  But let's be honest here.  The federal government is doing the majority of the detaining and they're doing all of the deporting.  It has been over three years since I wrote, Federal Government will not be Maricopa County's Savior in response to the announcement that the House Judiciary Committee was pushing Eric Holder and Napolitano to investigate Arpaio.  I pointed out that "Much of the activism is focused around getting people from the federal government to pay attention, although others also call on the federal government to stop the raids. The primary voice of immigrants’ rights advocacy in anglo media is Stephen Lemons who recently said, 'The political reality of Cactus Country is this: Without intervention from the Obama administration, we are royally screwed.'"

In further commentary, I wrote,

We cannot expect a government that has been built on racism and continues to practice it in various ways (much higher rates of incarceration of people of color than whites, lack of indigenous rights, wars, just to name some examples) to be a force against white supremacy. The operator of immigration detention centers (or the ones who outsource private detention facilities), the performer of raids, is not the one whose going to save us from the similar actions of the Sheriff. He is doing their work for them. He's just doing it in an extra "look how demeaning i can be to these people" way. If the federal government does anything about it, it will only be to legitimize and continue its own actions and those of other jurisdictions.

The federal government is the reason why stepping across a man-made line or overstaying a visa are illegal in the first place.  They are they ones who have forced programs like Secure Communities onto city and state governments.  Arpaio just pushes the limits to see how far and blatant it can go.

It seems in some ways that Arizonans are still waiting and hoping for some federal intervention.   Considering the actions of the federal government, however, does this not seem rather ridiculous?  Not to mention that treating the lawsuit against Arpaio as a victory distracts from the major problems that continue to occur.

Edit:  See also: Operation Cross Check » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names.

Federal Goverment Prefers Their Way Better Than Arpaio's

The federal government has finally decided it doesn't exactly like how Arpaio has been enforcing immigration, huh?  Admittedly I can't help but get a little kick out of the blow to Arpaio's ego (and career?) but at the same time, I really can't stand the idea that people would be celebrating the federal government for finally putting their foot down against maltreatment of migrants.  Why?

I broke it down almost three years ago in my blog post, Federal Government will not be Maricopa County's Savior, one of the main points being that the federal government is just as bad if not worse in handling the immigration issue.  I think of Arpaio as an extremist clown- he is a spectacle that pushes the limits of what the public will accept.  He makes nearly everyone else who is pro-immigration enforcement (aside from Pearce who was right there with him) look responsible and reasonable.  So the federal government militarizes the border, holds thousands of migrants in detention centers and/or deports them, still conducts huge raids (Obama's raids surpassed previous ones, i.e. here and here), etc,. but they get to decide, to the delight of many, that Arpaio just went to far because he's been using his federal authority to discriminate. 

"The Department of Homeland Security is troubled by the Department of Justice's findings of discriminatory policing practices within the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office," Napolitano said in a statement. "Discrimination undermines law enforcement and erodes the public trust. DHS will not be a party to such practices. Accordingly, and effective immediately, DHS is terminating MCSO's 287(g) jail model agreement and is restricting the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office access to the Secure Communities program." (Source).

Apparently the federal government knows how not to erode the public trust. For similar reasons I have a problem with people focusing on the "innocent" victims of racial profiling and such.  Sure, go after the real criminals, we won't question that concept, just as long as all the people caught up in the deportation/detention system are the ones you say you're going after- because blatant maliciousness and hypocrisy erode the public trust, the status quo doesn't.

Yes, I'd like to see Arpaio gone, just as I liked seeing Russell Pearce gone (it'd be better if he was goner) but the illusion of victory distracts from what's really happening.  As I've mentioned numerous times, the Phoenix PD continues to deport more people than MCSO, but they do it without all the media hubbub, and therefore without comment from Stephen Lemons and migrant rights groups.  Arpaio is the face that can be pasted to a piñata, but he's not the only one we should be hitting with the metaphorical (or not) stick.

Some of what I wrote in early 2009 is pretty out-dated, but the following concluding paragraphs are more timeless.

One problem with appealing to the government is that to do so would require not being a threat. But any real just solution to the “immigration problem”, inevitably involving the dismantling of NAFTA and other neoliberal projects, as well as a serious change in social/political structure, is and always will be a threat to the government.

Another problem is that the government has an interest in appearing to be able and willing to deliver justice. But overall it is not in its interest to truly liberate the people from injustice and in fact its existence is actually antithetical to such an action. It would like to have people ask instead of demand changes, however, and would like us to think of it as a benevolent force in such cases when it’s actually worth the time to make reforms that benefit the people. Therefore, if we ask and they give, they are the heroes. If we demand and they give, they are still the heroes although we still have some sense of having played a part.

Related, the government is not a just one. We cannot expect a government that has been built on racism and continues to practice it in various ways (much higher rates of incarceration of people of color than whites, lack of indigenous rights, wars, just to name some examples) to be a force against white supremacy. The operator of immigration detention centers (or the ones who outsource private detention facilities), the performer of raids, is not the one whose going to save us from the similar actions of the Sheriff. He is doing their work for them. He's just doing it in an extra "look how demeaning i can be to these people" way. If the federal government does anything about it, it will only be to legitimize and continue its own actions and those of other jurisdictions.

Law Enforcement Doesn't Stop Sexual Assault: On the MCSO Controversy

Trigger Warning: Sexual Assault

While it's embarrassing for the MCSO that former investigators' claims led to media attention such as MCSO priorities blamed for sex-crimes snafu, I cringe when thinking about how this will be framed, as usual, that regular police departments who are not led by extremist clowns like Arpaio, do a fine job at dealing with sex-crimes.  Interestingly, the articles I read barely mention Arpaio's focus on immigration, whereas independent media like Sheriff Arpaio ignored rape cases for years does.  It is clear that solving sexual assault cases took a back seat to the politically-motivated anti-immigrant campaign of attrition.  Yet this is not to insinuate that law enforcement is meant to prevent or even solve crime for the most part- particularly when it happens to especially-marginalized people.

Let's contrast this recent MCSO controversy with the situation that is rarely talked about: Immigrant Detainees: The New Sex Abuse Crisis.

There is abundant evidence that rape is a systemic problem in our immigration detention facilities—for women, for men, and, as the Women’s Refugee Commission has documented, for children. In 2010, Human Rights Watch released a report based on over fifty known incidents and allegations of sexual abuse of immigration detainees. The American Civil Liberties Union has discovered 185 government reports of such allegations since 2007, and a senior ACLU staff attorney says this is only “the tip of the iceberg.”

For crossing a man-made line in the sand in an unauthorized way, people are made particularly vulnerable to abuses inside and outside the prison system.  Sometimes the coyotes assault those they're helping to smuggle across the border.  Men have dressed as ICE agents to assault women.  Real ICE agents, police, and detention officers get away with abuses of this sort all the time.  Whether this behavior is excused or ignored because of racism or because the survivor is "illegal", it is made easier and more commonplace because of the criminalization of people.

Police or ICE officials sometimes make themselves out to be saviors of people held against their will, such as in drop-house busts in cases where migrants are held for ransom, only to turn around and hold the migrants in their own cages, where many of the same abuses occur.  The question that arises while people are calling out Arpaio for de-prioritizing sexual assault cases is, whose bodily integrity matters?  Are we considering the cases of those who get picked up for overstaying their visa?  Do they even have the choice to report the crimes perpetrated against them?

Terrified of deportation and separation from their families, immigrants in detention are often extremely reluctant to file grievances against facilities run by the very people who can expel them from the country; and there is little question that deportation is sometimes used as retribution against immigration detainees who complain, and sometimes as a way of forestalling investigations into abuses. And it’s clear that facilities holding people who do not feel able to complain are particularly fertile grounds for abuse, as are institutions that can easily deport witnesses against them. 

What comes to mind is the situation with criminalization of sex-workers, especially where it overlaps with immigration.  While sex-trafficking does occur, laws that are written to supposedly curb sex-trafficking actually make things worse for sex-workers.

As Nandita Sharma said in an interview,

Anti-trafficking legislation is used to target so-called “illegal migration.” Instead of placing the blame for migrants’ vulnerability on the restrictive immigration policies of national states that force people into a condition of illegality, it blames those who are actually facilitating their movement across borders... Anti-trafficking legislation criminalizes people who facilitate migrants’ entry into national states. I think this is the underlying agenda behind anti-trafficking legislation. It offers ideological cover to target both the migrants themselves and the people who facilitate their movement. In this way, anti-trafficking legislation strengthens border policing...

Let me give you two examples of how anti-trafficking legislation actually increases the vulnerability and exploitation that many women migrants face. First, anti-trafficking legislation targets people who are helping women cross borders. This raises the cost of moving across borders and, as a result, women have to go further into debt in order to do so. Second, by imposing these enormous penalties – which, in Canada, can include a life-sentence and in the United States can include a death sentence – those facilitating movement make migrants use routes that are less safe. People are being forced to cross borders in very vulnerable places like deserts and mountains, places where hundreds of migrant bodies are found dead every year. Anti-trafficking legislation is thus making migration less safe for women.

Jessica Yee was also interviewed:

Women around the world, especially racialized women, shoulder the burden of labour that doesn’t get acknowledged or reported. Forced labour and exploitation are reported even less. When we’re talking about “trafficking,” people assume we’re talking only about sex work, and only about cross-border trafficking. We need to remind ourselves that sexual slavery and the forcing of sexual acts are not the only kinds of exploitation, even though they seem particularly salacious compared to other forms of forced labour. We also need to understand that “trafficking” takes place within nation states, and against Indigenous people.

Many people uncritically accept the conflation of trafficking and sex work. The same people who think it is taboo to talk about sex are the first to suggest that this is the number one issue of forced labour, but it’s not. And people who are actually being trafficked and moved against their will receive no attention because the state is so focused on raiding massage parlours and arresting women who are sex workers. This neglect occurs in the name of righteousness and “saving” women, yet it is merely the further colonization of women’s bodies, women’s spaces, and women’s choices.

(Listen to the radio show here).

This is all to familiar to those of us who had been following the situation of the migrants in Maricopa County who were charged with conspiracy in human smuggling cases.  Even though the law wasn't meant to go after migrants themselves, hundreds of migrants were charged with conspiracy by MCSO over the last few years.  While many who didn't take a guilty plea were not convicted, MCSO was still able to get them caught up in the legal system because they could take them in under reasonable suspicion.  And even though the authors of the bill said they didn't intend for the law to be used that way, it was clearly an effort to cut down on migration, while likely increasing the risks of those involved in a similar way as the sex-trafficking laws discussed above.  This is also similar to the ways in which the Employer Sanctions Law should really be called the Employee Sanctions Law because many more employees have been arrested under the guise of going after employers, few of whom have seen any consequences (Another workplace raid targets workers not bosses).

The criminalization of unauthorized movement, drugs, and sex-work is done allegedly for the sake of minimizing violence, issues of security, and health problems, when in fact it perpetuates these things.
The badges, guns, and official vehicles, this assumption that law enforcement are never/rarely law-breakers, allows violations to occur against people, not to mention the drug smuggling enabled by the authority provided to various agents (Mexican Smugglers Exploit the Corrupt Reputation of U.S. Border Officers).  This is not about the unfortunate bad apples who spoil the barrel- this is a systemic, institutional problem.  And even while Arpaio gets publicly called out for deprioritizing sex-crimes, it is not as though the media doesn't praise the (other) police as well as perpetuate victim-blaming.

The Fascists Already Have the Keys and the Handcuffs

I've heard that even with the success of protesters holding up the nazis for over an hour from starting their rally last weekend, some folks still insist that they should just be ignored.  True, they wouldn't have had an audience and perhaps no media coverage had no one showed up to oppose them.  While I'm interested in what the opposition may have accomplished as far as the NSM's enthusiasm or ability to organize in this city goes, I am also interested in some differences in media coverage and what that might mean.

Last year, observations were made that at least one TV channel's coverage simply characterized the NSM rally as an anti-immigrant rally (well, that probably wasn't their wording).  They showed the seig heils and uniforms and such, but they made no reference to their extremist politics.  I thought this was good in a way- blurring the lines between swastika-wearing NSM extremists and the extremists who wear suits or police uniforms and deny their racism is probably a good thing.  Especially since most of those who oppose the NSM tend to ignore the other anti-immigrant rallies and tea-party rallies (much of which overlap).  On the other hand, it is important for people to know that there are actual nazis in town (okay, a lot of the ones who actually organize are from out of town, fortunately) and that nazis LOVE SB 1070.  The resistance against the NSM march and rally brought this out into the limelight.

Not so long ago, NSM members JT Ready (not in NSM anymore but affiliated is what we hear) and Harry Hughes (both attended this last NSM rally), called on others to patrol areas of Pinal County to for migrants.  Phoenix Insurgent writes in reference to Stephen Lemons' column, "one of the things I picked up on was Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu's failure to denounce the Nazi composition of the patrols. Sure, he says that he doesn't think the patrols would be helpful, but it seems as if Babeu, like the local media (with the exception of Lemons), has opted to treat Ready's little Nazi crew as legitimate, giving him a pass on his white supremacist beliefs and his many violent threats. Consider the fact the two media headlines about the event identify the NSM in the title only as a 'militia', not as Nazis or even a 'Nazi militia'. A more honest characterization would surely change the way people view the action" (Source).  The Feathered Bastard has also pointed out how newscasters are hesitant to call Nazis what they are.

This weekend, however, the media is being much more clear about who was being opposed.  "Neo-Nazi march met by protesters in Phoenix" was Channel 3's headline. "Police Arrest 2 In Clash With Neo-Nazis" was Channel 5's. Channel 10: "Neo-Nazis Protest in Downtown Phoenix".

In some ways it is useful that they are being identified as neo-nazis.  In other ways, we mustn't fall into the tendency of seeing the nazis as separate from the other anti-immigrant folks.  Within the anti-immigrant movement, they are the fanatics making the others look more legitimate, more reasonable.  If we only focus on them, we lose sight of the bigger picture, just as focusing on Arpaio draws opposition away from the other police who make even more arrests but without making a show of it.   This comparison also brings up the other point about separating white supremacists from institutional white supremacy/racism, which I brought up in my last post.  As pointed out by a sign in a photo on the Prison Abolitionist blog, "The Fascists already have the Keys".

We should consider the ways in which focusing on the fascists legitimizes the other forms of white supremacy- those with more power.  This is not to imply that the folks resisting the nazis otherwise ignore these other forms--in fact the protest was in many ways just as much against the police as the nazis.  The relationship between the two is explained at the Fires Never Extinguished blog as well, but of course the issue with the police is not only their protection of and participation with nazis, but their role being mostly to enforce the color line such as through police brutality and murder as we saw in the case of Oscar Grant earlier this year.

I hope to see the kind of enthusiasm that surrounds protesting nazis also shown in cases of police brutality and prison issues in the future.  There is something to say about how resistance affects the general population's view of things, not to mention the ability of those systems and people to function in the first place.

Phoenix PD Conduct Immigration Sweep

It is not Arpaio this time who is conducting an immigration sweep, but the Phoenix PD. I've been told that this has been confirmed for today from 12-4 in Maryvale (west phoenix), and that they will be harassing corn vendors checking for compliance with the laws involved in that. But of course they're checking for undocumented migrants, and since it's the Phoenix PD, they are not going to make a big circus out of it like Arpaio does.

It is important to see that although I don't know if they've done sweeps quite like this before, the Phoenix PD does engage in such harassment and arrests of migrants. They've been known to mess with day laborers, and they also did nothing about day laborers getting threatened with a gun by one of the minuteman-types several weeks back. They also orchestrated an attack and arrests at the recent anti-Arpaio march. In addition, as I've been pointing out, they arrest many more migrants that the MCSO. And all this is not to mention the police brutality and murders that they inflict on the community, as well as their racist treatment of participants of the Martin Luther King Jr events each year after the event ends.

So I ask again, why is Arpaio the bad guy, while Phoenix PD liaisons are welcomed at immigrants' rights meetings? Can we not see that this is a systemic problem? If anything, Arpaio's antics make the other police departments seem more reasonable, yet we should not be fooled!


Update: I'm hearing that the word got out adequately and no corn vendors were out for the police to harass (or worse), but apparently the police were going to people's houses.

Response to "American Law Enforcement Must Demand the Removal of Sheriff Arpaio from Duty"

I came across this article linked on facebook, and decided to comment on it real quick. Since my comment is still awaiting moderation the following morning and i see it cross-posted across facebook, i figured i'd post my comment here in the meantime. I would write more, but i have to be off to work soon.

i’m sorry, but this is rather silly to me. it is the unwritten job of the police to enforce the color line and to undermine dissent. i somewhat understand the point of publishing a seemingly liberal cop’s view on the sheriff, but i don’t buy the bad apple theory. the role of the police was based partly on slave patrols and has not backed down on putting people of color in prisons. just look at the numbers. i highly doubt that the admins of this website believe that people of color tend to to commit more crime in general? or worse crimes than those white collar folks out there? (i suggest reading “our enemies in blue” by kristian williams for lots of solid info on the cops.

the sheriff is not the only problem. we have a horrible racist senator who is looking to pass some anti-immigrant legislation, on top of city (as opposed to the county) police departments that arrest more migrants- they just don’t flaunt it for the cameras. on top of that we have all these racist groups ranging from the nsm to the minutemen to the tea party people who are actually protesting the arpaio march this weekend. think of all the people who passed the anti-immigrant legislation in the last few years, along with re-electing arpaio. concentrating on arpaio marginalizes this reality. what happens when arpaio is gone? we still have border militarization and detention centers and border deaths and hate crimes. anyway, i wrote a bit on this in one of my last blog posts if anyone wants to check it out.

Further reading: The Civil Rights Movement's Lessons for Anti-Arpaio March, Race and the Rule of Law in Maricopa County, What Happens When Arpaio Serves The Warrants, Racial Profiling Focus is Distraction, Freedom, not Reform: If we don’t demand it, it can’t happen, No Borders or Prison Walls, If Phx and Mesa PD are arresting more immigrants, why is focus on Arpaio?

The Civil Rights Movement's Lessons for Anti-Arpaio March

"Not since the days of Bull Connor has this country seen a public official abuse his authority in order to terrorize and intimidate communities based on the color of their skin," states a call for the big January 16th march in Phoenix against Arpaio. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is often compared to Bull Connor, the police official in Birmingham who fought civil rights activists with attack dogs, and strong water hoses back in the 1960's. He acted above the law, although some could argue that his actions were not contrary to the general orientation of the rule of law then or even today. He was more blatant about abusing protesters and disregarding federal law than most law enforcement officials, which is why Arpaio is compared to him.

During the civil rights movement, there were no marches against Bull Connor, but there were efforts to produce situations in which he would show the world what he was willing to do to fight integration. The horrible treatment of marchers drew the attention of the nation and encouraged John F. Kennedy to initiate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To some, the Civil Rights Act was a victory, and the story somewhat ends there. This perspective makes it seem that Bull Connor was an important catalyst and therefore target (although he wasn't quite a target in the way Arpaio is today). Yet if this was the case, why do stories that focus on a wider black liberation movement rather than focus on aspects of what's called the civil rights movement that often center on the federal government's benevolence or Martin Luther King's heroism not really mention Bull Connor at all?

If one were to argue that strategically it makes sense to go after Arpaio because of the significance of Bull Connor's role in getting the Civil Rights Act passed, I would say, Arpaio is our big villain, but just as Bull Connor was but a piece of the entire picture, Arpaio should not be the central focus of the current movement. According to The numbers don’t match Arpaio’s hype, Arpaio, despite having spent much more money and time and having wider jurisdiction and more media attention, arrested less people than city police departments in the county. The many politicians and those who elected them, the police, and ICE- all those who are enemies to undocumented people- make it clear that Arpaio is but one figure, and that opposition to racist attitudes must address something bigger than a politician, in many ways a symbol, no matter how monstrous. Yet the focus on Arpaio remains, locally and nationally.

Shall we just have marches against Arpaio until we get a crappy Immigration Reform bill? And maybe even get rid of Arpaio? Will that solve all the problems of migrants and others caught up in the arrests, checkpoints, and militarization of the border? We can bet that these things, especially the militarization of the border, will still exist after reform. There will still be "illegal" people, and a permanent underclass.

A call to action for the March in Phoenix on January 16th says, "It is time, just like Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement took the streets of Montgomery Alabama that at that time was the epicenter of hate; we must do the same in Phoenix." The movement for immigrants’ rights is often compared with the civil rights movement, but we must ask whether the civil rights movement was even effective.

First, the civil rights/black liberation movement involved a lot of amazing work and the organizing by many people who are rarely credited for their contributions. Often their ideas about what should come of the movement are not recognized today. What is recognized are the agreeable aspects which the white mainstream chose to co-opt. It is not that the movement did not succeed exactly, but we are made to think that racism no longer exists because of the it. Yet we have the largest prison populations in the world and the relative majority of those in prison are non-white, and many are in for non-violent offenses. This is only one example of the way that racism has been disguised, yet still exists today.

Despite the fact that many people have been empowered by the amazing work by organizers of the civil rights and power movements, what happened is that while elements of the movement(s) were co-opted, others were effectively destroyed through the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO). Briefly, COINTELPRO sought to eradicate dissidence, to destroy Martin Luther King Jr., the Black Panthers, and other radicals, and was, with the help of local police and the criminalization of people, the downfall of many liberation movements.

It is difficult to use the civil rights movement as a model for a movement of today for these reasons (and many others), primarily because what most people know of it is what they are encouraged to know, their education about history filtered for the purposes of maintaining the status quo.

If we were to see the Civil Rights Act as a success of the civil rights movement, it would make sense for us to seek something comparable from the immigrants' rights movement. Another call to action for the January 16th march says, "Join us and march against the injustices and separation of families caused by the 287(g) and Joe Arpaio. We will be demanding that the Obama administration take direct action on the issues affecting our communities." Some calls for the march, seemingly mostly or solely coming from the National Day Laborer Network, call for comprehensive immigration reform.

Something many people don't know about are two riders added to the Civil Rights Act of 1968, one which outlawed crossing state lines (which includes using a telephone or sending mail across state lines) with intent to "incite a riot" and the other making it a federal crime to "obstruct law enforcement officers or firemen doing their lawful duty in connection with a civil disorder which obstructs a federally-protected function". Both of these have been used against Black Panthers, the American Indian movement, and various other radicals. This is yet another example of the way the federal government criminalizes dissent, as well as an example of how laws that claim to solve problems (such as discrimination) actually perpetuate those problems by undermining the people's ability to rebel, and by contributing to the filling of the prisons. Oh, and get this: the Civil Rights Act of 1968 that was meant to prohibit violence against black people exempted from prosecution any law enforcement officers, member of the National Guard and Armed Forces who are engaging in suppressing a riot or civil disturbance.

The integrity of the Civil Rights Bills aside, it is important to make the point that the federal government was involved in crimes against the people (such as through COINTELPRO), and watched as racists such as the KKK and southern police committed crimes against black people. One example is that the federal government was providing information about the Freedom Riders to the Birmingham police, who in turn was providing that information to the KKK. The Klan used that information to attack civil rights activists, such as when the freedom riders arrived at a bus terminal and the KKK beat them while the police waited to show up until most of the Klan members had left. The police were actually providing a lot of information about local civil rights activities, but who they were providing it to was especially interesting. The information was being given to a KKK member who was actually an FBI agent who had infiltrated the Klan. So the FBI knew all along that the information was being provided to the KKK, and they also knew the details of the various acts of violence the Klan and the police were perpetrating against the black population and civil rights activists. Keep in mind that Birmingham was being called "Bombingham" because of all the bombings at the time. Yet neither the FBI, nor the federal government in general, did anything to stop the horrible violence that was occurring even though they did have the ability to do so (Source). This is the government that benevolently gave us the Civil Rights bills?

So it must be asked, were the Civil Rights laws a success? I would concede that laws do shape people's attitudes, that outlawing racial discrimination shaped the white consciousness. Yet, on the flip side of this, laws and law enforcement have played a stronger role in justifying racist attitudes. I would argue that the criminalization of people, which did not start with the civil rights movement, but at that time was intentionally shifted towards appearing unbiased, is the newer face of racism. Certainly things have changed due to the civil rights movement, but we must ask what was it that really changed and what has not changed? As mentioned above, dissent has been criminalized, as well as has been poverty, drug use, etc. The police enforce the color line by partaking in harassment, brutality, and arrests of people of color. Especially relevant to this discussion is that movement across borders has been limited and criminalized, constructing a whole mass of people as criminals. From this perspective, the rule of law is perfectly congruent with racism. So Connor and Arpaio are not aberrations except in the way that they flaunt their penchant for abusing people. While not as blatantly racist as Connor was, Arpaio can still terrorize migrants under the power of the law.

Another question to be asked: Were the Civil Rights Bills written because of a moral imperative of the federal government, perhaps with a push from leaders like Martin Luther King Jr.? Or were they an attempt to quash dissent? After all, protests and riots were a major concern. What better way to deal with it than to throw the people a bone while you further criminalize rioting?

Malcolm X said, "You’ll get freedom by letting your enemy know that you’ll do anything to get your freedom; then you’ll get it... when you stay radical long enough and get enough people to be like you, you’ll get your freedom." Additionally, a couple months after the big March on Washington, Malcolm X described in a speech how the March was co-opted by the federal government; that originally the marchers were talking about how they were going to march on the government buildings and bring them to a halt, and even that they would lay down on the runways of the airports and stop planes from landing. This frightened the government so much, that got Martin Luther King Jr and others together to undermine the organizing for these activities by making it a passive march instead. "They controlled it so tight, they told those Negroes what time to hit town, how to come, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn't make; and then told them to get out town by sundown." Yes, the government has its ways to undermine true dissent, and obviously it's not always through force. Reform is used to undermine revolution.

This is why I believe that if anything with a positive façade is to come out of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, it is out of fear of the power of the people. After all, no moral imperative is preventing the federal government from running all the detention centers, from militarizing the border, from being involved in the corrupt drug war, etc. (On the flip side, I believe the federal government is also afraid of the racists who scapegoat migrants and other people of color for their problems but also are angry with the government for collaborating with businesses to make money off of cheap labor). Even if you believe that new opportunities come with Obama in power, the fact remains: the rule of law is intimately tied to racism. History may not repeat itself, but there are many lessons to be learned.

It is also worth mentioning that Malcolm X's story should be considered when movement leaders invite cops to meetings, when activists police the behavior of the people during protests, and when they try to control the message.

To conclude, Arpaio mustn't be the focus for the movement, and neither should reform. Knowing that Arpaio, like Bull Connor, was elected time and again by a mass of white folks who feel that people of color are somehow a threat, and that the rule of law, with the participation of the federal government, is inextricably racist, we have much to do. We need to challenge white people on their racism and no longer legitimize the federal government or other law enforcement by comparing Arpaio the "Sadistic Man" to those whose acts of repression are simply less visible. We need resistance, no compromise on freedom. Lives are at stake. Freedom not reform.

This is all not to say you shouldn't attend actions like the march against Arpaio. In fact you should, and you should bring your message and your passion for freedom.

Further reading:
No Borders or Prison Walls: Beyond Immigrants' Rights to Ending Criminalization of All People of Color
and
Freedom, Not Reform: On the New CIR-ASAP bill

Race and the Rule of Law in Maricopa County

So many people are thinking it: Arpaio and his collaborators are putting the law into question, especially with the latest lawsuits and the disproportionate ways in which the laws have been enforced. After the stories on the singing protest of Arpaio that caused him to walk out on an interview, a news search for Arpaio will give you these stories: Arpaio and County Attorney Andrew Thomas are suing several judges and other county officials, and an MCSO officer recently got jail time for contempt of court for not apologizing for stealing files from a defense lawyers folder (and the resulting chaos involving a walk-out and a bomb threat, and the likelihood that the officer is in Arpaio's fancy jail for his allies).

When you hear statement after statement from the sheriff and county attorney and others that they're enforcing the law- that undocumented people are stopped/jailed because they're breaking the law, and then on top of that they all seem confused about what is actually legal or illegal and law-breaking cops get different treatment, you can't help but find that they are amazingly hypocritical.

What I'm getting at certainly isn't that we should be concerned that the sheriff and county attorney and others are making a mockery of law enforcement or the rule of law in general. The purpose of bringing these things up in relation to immigration is to point out that the rule of law is and always has been used to work in certain people's favor- those in power and with money, and to work against anyone who is a threat to holding onto that power and money. It's not quite as simple as that when you have a local sheriff giving a big middle finger to the federal and local governments- certainly they don't all work together.

Arpaio consistently says he's enforcing the law. Yet, he apparently doesn't even know what law he's talking about, and belongs to the camp that is looking for new ways to change the law to further criminalize migrants. At the same time he says things like, "This is yet another example of my continued promise to enforce all the illegal immigration laws in Maricopa County regardless of the ever changing policies emanating from Washington D.C."

And what about the latest shenanigans with the MCSO officer?

On Wednesday, the morning after a sheriff's detention officer reported to jail to serve a contempt of court sentence, 20 of his colleagues called in sick for work at the Maricopa County Superior Court Buildings in Phoenix.

Those same buildings were evacuated for three hours Wednesday morning when a bomb threat was called in targeting public defenders, the Arizona Republic reported. (Source).

(Gee, they wouldn't have called in a threat to prove a point, would they?)
Arpaio says he's an equal opportunity enforcer of the law. How can you not see the inconsistency?

It's not inconsistent, however, with the way law enforcement has been used to enforce the color line. We can see this with their origins in the slave patrols, the relationship between the klan and the police, to, for example, the death of Fred Hampton forty years ago, other efforts against groups that empower their communities, as well as the drug war, racial profiling, and now the anti-immigrant efforts. As I state in No Borders or Prison Walls,

The war against “illegal” immigration is just one part of institutional racism, except this is an example that makes it all the more clear that crimes have been made out of the actions of people because of who they are. It is clear that the law has been used purposefully to render people powerless and exploitable.

Although the lawsuits against other county officials don't quite fit into this whole concept, it is allowed to happen because the other activities of the MCSO are congruent with the larger purpose of government control (see also, Federal Government will not be Maricopa County's Savior).

In Our Enemies in Blue, Kristian Williams expands on the fact that sometimes the police and the government are at odds, and why this is still acceptable. Talking mainly about police brutality, he says,

The police may violate the law, as long as they do so in the pursuit of ends that people with power generally endorse, and from which such people profit. This idea may become clear if we consider police brutality and other illegal tactics in relations to lawful policing: When the police enforce the law, they do unevenly, in ways that give disproportionate attention to the activities of poor people, people of color and others near the bottom of the social pyramid. And when the police violate the law, these same people are their most frequent victims. This is a coincidence too large to overlook. If we put aside, for the moment, all questions of legality, it must become quite clear that the object of police attention, and the target of police violence, is overwhelmingly the portion of the population that lacks real power. And this is precisely the point: police activities, legal or illegal, violent or non-violent, tend to keep people who currently stand at the bottom of the social hierarchy in their place, where they belong- at the bottom.

I've heard some say that Arpaio isn't racist, he's just a in it for the media and the power. Yet Arpaio (and Andrew Thomas, and Russell Pearce, and ICE, etc.) is participating in the criminalization and the incarceration and terrorization of people of color. Institutionalized racism benefits those in power. Whether or not they are bigoted or not, they participate in it, and they gain from it, at the expense of people's lives and dignity. And if they are okay with that and even celebrate it, how can you not call them racist?

Yet, they maintain that it's all about the law. The law, or the importance of enforcing it, often comes down to what undocumented immigrants are allegedly costing us as citizens (for an example, see Russell Pearce's latest). Yet, how much are all these lawsuits costing us? How about Andrew Thomas’ Battle Against Spanish-Language DUI Probation Has Cost Us a Half-Million Dollars. But Who's Counting? And lawsuits against Arpaio have cost at least $41 million (Source). That's not even counting the cost of the lawsuits he's brought against others. And all the investigations into various opponents of his. And all the sweeps. And his expensive office in the Wells Fargo building costing $650,000 per year in rent when he already has an office in a county building.

We don't even need to ask why it's apparently okay with so many citizens that these officials are wasting our tax dollars but not okay for undocumented immigrants to allegedly cost us so much (which is actually quite doubtful). The money argument is illegitimate and the rule of law crap is bogus. We can see what is behind this. An eminent threat: too many brown people and an undermining of the oppressive order of things. This is why we must challenge white people on their racism. We need to point out the areas that are inconsistent and hypocritical. They themselves might not see it. It's up to us to understand it and to make them understand it. (For a recent discussion of this in context, see The NSM offers nothing for the white working class but more exploitation and misery.) I'll leave you with this quote from senator Russell Pearce.

There is currently a battle raging in this country that will determine whether our nation enforces its immigration laws and secures its borders or becomes victim of its enemies. We are a Nation built upon the “Rule of Law” and either we stand up for the principles that our Founding Fathers gave us to ensure lasting Liberty, enshrined in a Constitution that protects those liberties or we destroy all that is sacred and the end result will be a nation who commits suicide. Illegal immigration is the Trojan Horse and we must secure our borders and enforces our laws.

Why We Sang Sheriff Joe off the Stage

from http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2009/12/75698.php

"America's Toughest Sheriff"? The cowardly wind bag ran away from a choir! -KB

The notorious Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, AZ was invited to be interviewed by professional journalists as part of an event at the Arizona State University Walter Cronkite School of Journalism this last Monday, and was disrupted by protesters singing the "Immigration Rhapsody", to the tune of the "Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen.

How do you… just kill a man,
Let him wither on his route,
Criminalized and shut out,
How do you… detain someone,
Because you perceive a threat to your privilege?
NAFTA, ooo,
Caused folks to lose their land
Just so the rich could profit off the outcome
Limit choice, lower pay, as if their lives don’t matter...

Freedom ooo- (any way the migrants flow)
Without walls and jails,
What does it take for freedom to ring for all? Read it all...

Although we did not plan ultimately to stop the event, Arpaio decided to walk off stage with 12 minutes left of the forum. Faced with hard questions, he seemed to be looking for an excuse to leave as he quickly decided to give up because we were not being removed or silenced.

A disruption was expected by many, with various articles reporting on the planned protests, the decision to limit the public event to students, faculty and staff (which excluded some of our singers- but those of us with old IDs got in no problem), and the stationing of uniformed and plain clothes police throughout the building and outside. The protest outside was lively and eventually, due to some anarchists, made its way into the building, occupying it for an impromptu Haymarket Squares show. Inside the event, while the interview was still going on, various protesters held signs and two banners were dropped, eliciting no response from Arpaio, nor police, but were impassioned nonetheless.

Although post-protest press was dominated by expressions of disappointment or disapproval about how the journalists were not allowed to finish asking their difficult questions of the sheriff, ultimately, Arpaio decided to leave. They could've all waited for the song to end (it was maybe 2 1/2 to 3 minutes long) and continued the event- extending it past 8pm (gasp), but that is not what happened. Instead, those of us who sang were blamed for ruining it.

There have been speculations that Arpaio wanted an excuse to take off early.

"I felt that the protesters were really out of place by not allowing the journalists to finish questioning him," said Gabrielle Abrams, a Cronkite student. "In protesting Arpaio, they helped him out by letting him leave 20 minutes early." (Source).

Some felt that the journalists' questions were very important because they dug at some of the issues that make Arpaio so controversial. That might be true, at least from Arpaio's perspective. One must ask, where were the security and the police? There had been at least 4 plain clothes police officers (I'm guessing MCSO, but I don't know) near us, and at least two Phoenix PD community relations officers in the room, but none seemed to be around by the time we started singing. Arpaio certainly expected something, given that he brought a hat (apparently the U of A mascot hat was supposed to offend us) to put on in the case of a disruption. That man is prepared for anything.

Although many might feel the singing was inappropriate, some people have pointed out that Arpaio deserved to be shut down. He shouldn't have even been there in the first place. In addition, he was skirting the questions, not really giving any sort of straight answer to some very important questions. Although I myself was surprised by the blatant accusatory manner of the questions, I was still disappointed by the lack of accountability demanded of Arpaio, who manipulated his excuse for answers to avoid accountability.

From my perspective, though, the event itself was ridiculous. This man is a horrible monster- not worthy of any sort of respect, nor forum. Yet he's on the national news often, on the local news more, able to share his views on "illegals". Just a short list of reasons: tent city, deaths in the jails, horrible jail conditions in general, immigration sweeps, pink underwear, chain gangs, green baloney, etc, etc. To those who care about these issues, it is a joke and it is offensive that anyone would give him the time of day. He deserved to be offended, pissed off, and silenced. Had those of us who sang thought we could've gotten away with singing him off the stage, most or all of us probably would've started earlier with that intention.

Amusingly, I read articles and comments that expressed concern for the journalists and the journalism students, but very few were concerned about the disrespect shown towards Arpaio. Perhaps that'll piss him off a bit more.

We didn't expect to complete the entire song successfully (some people have been arrested by MCSO for clapping at a Board of Supervisors Meeting), so we weren't all that prepared for media questions and getting the message across. We had several copies of the lyrics to hand out to the media, yet very few came looking for us. They mostly went to interview Arpaio as he left through a different exit. We were around outside with the protest for quite a while after the event, available for interviews, and did engage in a handful, mostly with student journalists. The lyrics were up on a State Press article by the time I got home, and were also added to Arizona Indymedia, yet some mainstream articles reported that we sang the "Bohemian Rhapsody". You can hear clearly on the videos (there was a live feed going on) that we were not singing the original lyrics. You'd almost think those reporters didn't give a shit. Or maybe you know they don't.

This goes to show that despite this creative and audacious stunt, it is nearly impossible to get our position out in the mainstream press. Worse, although we know they have to fit a lot of important information into a short period of time, even Democracy Now! was rather cursory about our message (see video below). We weren't just taunting Sheriff Joe, we had a very clear message (well, clear if you saw the lyrics, which were sent to DN! that night, by the way). Even Stephen Lemons seemed to not quite get the point, "What I think many have forgotten in their rush to condemn the impish act of civil disobedience by a few is that there's a certain carny logic at work with any Joe show. That is, if you invite the circus to town, there will be clowns — one big clown, for sure."

We were trying to share a message that addresses issues like NAFTA, the purposeful criminalization of people, the disproportionate access to cross the border based on color/class/origin, etc. (limited by the number of syllables and verses of the original song). These are issues that the media does not want to deal with. The resistance to Sheriff Joe is something we want exposed and promoted, but the immigration issue is so much bigger than him.

It is worth noting that we are not just some random lefty students with a thing for pissing off Arpaio. In fact, at least three of us are no longer students at ASU. Our perspective doesn't represent the student body (I wish). We have a variety of experiences protesting, writing, copwatching. Some of us are anarchists as well. Overall the song was meant to express a radical view on the bigger picture.

People say we could've just protested outside, we could've done it afterwards, blah blah blah. But would that have gotten us the results we got? No (I've been protesting Arpaio for years- we need new tactics). And are the results we got good enough? Mostly no. The lyrics have gotten out to hundreds or maybe even thousands of people. Did they just reach sympathetic people? Maybe. And just people with internet access? Pretty much.

At least this singing is part of the escalating resistance to Sheriff Joe and his policies. It is an example of something creative that caused a ruckus without offending too many people (although we still apparently offended a good number who thought the performance was misplaced). There are many that we will never satisfy, even if they share a distaste for Arpaio. So we must be happy with what we can achieve. Plus it was fun and funny. The reality of the situation migrants face is not at all funny, but sometimes humor and music are good therapy for all the crap going on in the world.

Liberal [sic] Protesters Threaten Very Fabric of Society By Interrupting Sheriff Joe -Weekly Standard

Immigration Rhapsody: Song Interrupts Arpaio

Protesters started singing towards the end of the event at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at ASU on Monday. They sang the following song:


Immigration Rhapsody

http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2009/11/75603.php

Is this legitimate?
Is this atrocity?
Caught up in politics-
No sense of reality-
Open your eyes
Look down to the south and see-
The border stops brown folks, they cannot cross the line.
But its easy come, easy go,
for the rich, n’their cargo.
Anyway the migrants flow, doesn’t really matter to me,
To me

How do you… just kill a man,
Let him wither on his route,
Criminalized and shut out,
How do you… detain someone,
Because you perceive a threat to your privilege?
NAFTA, ooo,
Caused folks to lose their land
Just so the rich could profit off the outcome
Limit choice, lower pay, as if their lives don’t matter.

The hate, minutemen promote,
Sends shivers down my spine-
Heart is aching all the time,
Goodbye to bigotry –you’ve got to go-
Gotta leave this place behind n’reveal the truth-
Freedom ooo- (any way the migrants flow)
Without walls and jails,
What does it take for freedom to ring for all?

I see a little editorial ‘bout some creeps,
Russell Pearce, Russell Pearce could you be more fascistic?
Andrew Thomas presiding -very very frightening me-
Hey Arpaio , Hey Arpaio,
Hey Arpaio Hey Arpaio
Hey Arpaio payaso- payaso-o-o-o -
The border stops brown folks, they cannot cross the line -
Yeah the border stops brown folks, breaks up a family-
Spare all these folks from this monstrosity-
Easy come easy go, will you let them go?
Tent City! no-,they will not let you go-let ‘em go-
Tent City! they will not let you go-let ‘em go
Tent City! they will not let you go-let ‘em go
Will not let them go-let them go
Will not let them go let them go
No,no,no,no,no,no,no-
Hey Arpaio , Hey Arpaio, Hey Arpaio , let them go-
Rising up are the people in the streets, you see, you see, you see -

So you think you can jail me and spit in my eye-
So you think you can hate me and leave me to die-
Oh Arpeeo-cant do this to me Arpeeo-
Just gotta get out-just gotta get out of Tent City-

Media only matters,
Anyone can see,
Attention only matters-, ego only matters to he/me


Update: read Why We Sang Sheriff Joe off the Stage

What Happens When Arpaio Serves The Warrants

Because Sheriff Arpaio has been targeting migrants who are just driving, waiting for work, or working, activists have reacted by pointing out that the sheriff has not been serving 40,000 open warrants. Now the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department is serving warrants... in Guadalupe.

As an example of the focus on warrants, a press release from no specific organization but about "Leaders from the civil rights and Latino communities" came out in March 2008 saying,

The people are entitled to have a true lawman for Sheriff, someone who goes after real criminals, not gardeners, cooks, nannies and pregnant mothers. America’s “toughest sheriff” must stop making mothers and fathers disappear in the middle of the night, callously leaving vulnerable, terrorized children at home alone. He can turn a new leaf and start protecting the public by serving the county’s 70,000 arrest warrants that he has allowed to remain outstanding.

If you went to a protest against Arpaio in 2008 or early 2009, you likely would've seen a reference to the warrants on some signs. Often they would be referenced by groups such as the Maricopa Citizens for Safety and Accountability. While the warrants have been discussed very little since the Senate hearing on the issue, you will occasionally still hear the warrants brought up.

What I don't understand is the assumption that these warrants are justified- that all the people who have warrants out for their arrest, or perhaps all the people with felony warrants, are hardened criminals who all deserve to go to Tent City. Do you really believe this? Do you think the criminal "justice" system is infallible? Are not undocumented migrants being further criminalized for political/racist/economic reasons? Isn't that fundamental to the criminal "justice" system? There is much evidence that the police are used to keep people in check and to maintain the social hierarchy. In many ways, the police actually perpetuate the crimes of those who do not have access to many of the opportunities that more privilege people have. And as I write in Chaparral: No Borders or Prison Walls:

Many examples exist of ways in which crime-fighting is not, in fact, intended to end the activities which are considered crimes. The government has no interest in ending crime unless it is targeted towards the government itself, the rich or their property. One could list a number of crimes committed by people who get away with it everyday, and a number of acts that should be crimes because they hurt people, other beings, and/or the planet, yet they are not crimes because it is not in the interest of the government to control those actions. Crimes against people who are seen as less valuable are not important to enforce unless it benefits the system in another way... Crimes committed by government, government agents, businesses, are treated differently, with the perpetrators facing much less harsh punishment than their civilian counter-parts face, if any. Often crimes are enabled by involvement with the government such as the drug trafficking done with government vehicles and physical and sexual abuse by police, border patrol, and prison officials, yet the criminals in these cases are treated as a few bad apples.

And why does it not occur to folks that many of those warrants might be for gardeners, cooks, nannies and pregnant mothers who might disappear at night leaving their children terrorized?

And if you agree with nothing else I've said so far about the problems with the rule of law, please realize that you are basically saying that if the sheriff was serving all those warrants, then he would be doing a good job- Tent City, pink underwear, chain gangs, green baloney and all.

Indeed, I have brought up that Arpaio has in fact not been doing as efficient of a job at arresting migrants- other police departments have- yet they don't have this warrants issue hanging over their heads. In fact, they are mostly ignored and in some cases even seen as allies (phoenix pd officers are invited to activist meetings, ex-mesa police chief gascon was celebrated for standing up against arpaio) yet, as i've written in the past, If Phx and Mesa PD are arresting more immigrants, why is focus on Arpaio?

I would say that the myth of the infallibility of law and order is not questioned, for the most part, for to do so would make you vulnerable to attacks by the other side, accusing you of wanting chaos, or whatever else they associate with opposing arrests of so-called criminals. Too many immigrants' advocates are not willing to be outspoken about the racist nature of "criminal justice" and law enforcement, the border, and immigration law in general. The result, therefore, is that law enforcement that can appear reasonable alongside arpaio's media circuses are not to be questioned, but instead even applauded, even if their actual effect is worse than how arpaio's efforts appear.

This past week, the sheriff's department has been bringing a camera crew to stops all over Guadalupe to serve warrants. Guadalupe is a very small town next to Tempe, with a very high number of brown skinned people- mostly Yaquis and Mexican migrants. Arpaio has done a few sweeps there. It is one of a few places in the County that doesn't have it's own police department and pays the MCSO to handle problems. Instead, they've caused many problems. You can read all about it in Guadalupe made it clear that Joe Arpaio’s attacking anyone with brown skin, Joe Arpaio Returns to Guadalupe, with an Army of Deputies to Watch His Back, The MCSO Retaliates Against a Guadalupe Activist.

In fact, this might be retaliation for the copwatching going on in Guadalupe. Whatever the reason, people are being harassed and terrorized by Arpaio serving these warrants. Those who have demanded that the warrants be served are not to be blamed for those warrants being served in Guadalupe (or anywhere) necessarily, but it is necessary to keep all these things in perspective.

Racial Profiling Focus is Distraction

I have become convinced that the focus on racial profiling is a distraction to the detriment of migrants' freedom. I am not saying racial profiling is okay, but it implies that what is wrong is that people who are being stopped because of their skin color (or other physical cues) are innocent, implying that those who have broken immigration law are not those worth our concerns. Yet, i would hope that those who claim to be allies or advocates for undocumented immigrants would not allow this idea to be promoted.

Okay get this. Anti-Arpaio folks are so focused on these sweeps and the racial profiling and all that, yet only 6% of the arrests of undocumented immigrants occur out in the community, whereas the other 94% of migrants are identified for deportation when they go through the jails (and the folks in the jails are those arrested by the various police departments in the valley) (Source). (This is partly why DHS is continuing the agreements of 287(g) that involve jail checks.) Other police departments are arresting more migrants than the MCSO without these hyped-up "crime supression sweeps", as i discussed further in If Phx and Mesa PD are arresting more immigrants, why is focus on Arpaio?

Clearly, if we are concerned about migrants, we would be focused on the various police departments' arrests, on the jail checks, and on the legislation Pearce is trying to push, as well as on the federal laws. If it weren't for the federal laws, there wouldn't be arrests and deportations of migrants.

Overall, the lefty migrants' rights movement is unwilling to oppose the federal laws, and is therefore limited to using the available laws to advocate for migrants. When the justice department and the fbi announced their investigations of Arpaio, many activists jumped on the opportunity to bring Arpaio down. Yet they are obviously limited to what is already against the law. "The Civil Rights Division has an open and ongoing investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office into alleged patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures, and on allegations of national origin discrimination. As part of that investigation, we had observers on the ground in Arizona last week." (Source). Ignoring that the federal government is oppressing the migrants just as much, incidents of racial profiling and perhaps other things were reported to the feds.

When we look to the federal government to protect us (or others) from the local government (or anyone), we are confined to the law. If detaining migrants is legal, but racial profiling is illegal, then we document the racial profiling and hand over the videos to the feds, hoping something will come of it. The problem is, much of the injustices against migrants are perfectly legal.

In a lot of ways Arpaio is a clown, a decoy, distracting everyone's attention away from everything else that's going on. (Unfortunately because i'm not an investigative journalist, i rely on what the other media covers and so i end up focusing on these things as well). He's waving his arms, saying "look over here!", creating stunts and various media circus tricks, saying shocking things, and meanwhile his antics are not even accomplishing much at all. That is the funny thing about it. Sure, the sweeps might be terrorizing people, but he's not arresting all that many people, like i mentioned earlier. Meanwhile families are getting torn apart, people are having their dignity, health, and safety ripped away by other police departments, ICE/border patrol, the private detention centers. (I discuss this further in Federal Government Will Not be Maricopa County's Savior).

And so while folks are waiting for the federal government to save the day, they mustn't question the immigration laws or the enforcers themselves. I discussed this back in April in Racial Profiling Discussion Undermines Solidarity with Immigrants when Al Sharpton and a representative of ACORN were on the Lou Dobbs show discussing racial profiling.

The problem is that the way it's being discussed constructs a hierarchy in which people who are not "illegal" are the unintended targets who do not deserve to be stopped, while undocumented migrants are the correct targets of the racial profiling sweeps. Unfortunately, it is difficult to characterize commentators' position on the issue, and to separate media interpretation from advocates' stances. Additionally, racial profiling is often not defined, nor is it explained why it is wrong.

The ACLU defines racial profiling in this way:

"Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Criminal profiling, generally, as practiced by police, is the reliance on a group of characteristics they believe to be associated with crime. Examples of racial profiling are the use of race to determine which drivers to stop for minor traffic violations (commonly referred to as "driving while black or brown"), or the use of race to determine which pedestrians to search for illegal contraband.

The idea here is that one should not be suspected of a crime because of how they look, but if one has committed a crime, the way they are caught should not be by appearance. However, one could argue that those who are guilty of a crime should be caught no matter the means. Frankly, there are people who would make themselves out to be advocates for migrants when in fact they do not want to question the law, and therefore do not openly oppose the arrests of migrants under any conditions, involving racial profiling or not.

While some may say that this racial profiling is only wrong when it catches legal residents and citizens up in its net, others may say that what is wrong is for officers to investigate someone's citizenship status just because of the way they look- that a person who is undocumented should have the benefit of the doubt like everyone else. Yet the immigration laws themselves are rarely questioned. Some might state that the offense is only a misdemeanor and therefore should not be treated like worse crimes, yet hardly anyone says that movement should not be a crime.

The racial profiling issue is a big one right now, which is why i bring this up again (i discussed it earlier here and here). Stephen Lemons is writing an interesting series in the Phoenix New Times about legal residents and citizens getting arrested by MCSO during the racial profiling (and workplace raids). There was a great video put out called Arpaio's Reign of Terror. And just recently Arpaio has gotten a lot of media coverage for his statements on their ability to continue to enforce immigration law.

Arpaio recently has had to defend his immigration enforcement after having his 287(g) status limited by the feds. He has cited nonexistent laws to justify continuing his targeting of migrants. In addition, he has said that there are ways his officers can identify undocumented immigrants: "There are certain criteria. No identification, looking like they just came from Mexico, and they admit it. So that's enough." (Source).

He also denied and admitted to racial profiling on another show.

SANCHEZ: You just said you detain people who haven’t committed a crime — how do you prove they they’re not illegal?

ARPAIO: It has to do with their conduct, what type of clothes they’re wearing, their speech, they admit it, they may have phony IDs. A lot of variables are involved.

SANCHEZ: You judge people and arrest them based on their speech and the clothes they’re wearing sir?

ARPAIO: No, when they’re in the vehicle with someone who has committed a crime. We have the right to talk to those people. When they admit that they are here illegally we take action…the federal law specifies the speech, the clothes, the environment, the erratic behavior. It’s right in the law.
(Source).

By the way, the law he is referencing might either be the nonexistent law he cited earlier this week, or an old ICE manual, which is not law and doesn't apply to officers in the field because their jurisdiction under 287(g) has been restricted.

As part of Arpaio's defense, this was included in yesterday's press release:

Some of the indicators listed in the attached ICE training manual are:
(1) does the detainee have a thick accent or not comprehend English;
(2) whether the individual had identification;
(3) is the location of the stop a known illegal alien locale;
(4) is the detainee’s appearance unusual or out of place in the specific locale;
(5) does the detainee appear to be in transit or recently traveling;
(6) did the detainee’s demeanor (i.e., “freeze or take flight” when first spotted by
the officer;
(7) did the vehicle seem overcrowded or ride heavily; and
(8) did the passengers in the vehicle slouch down, slump or attempt to avoid being
detected in the vehicle. (Source).

But as the Feathered Bastard quoted an ACLU lawyer as pointing out, this ICE manual is not law, nor is it relevant to the MCSO's duties on the streets since they no longer have auhtority under 287(g), and this manual is from 2005.

Racial profiling is a problem. And it is positive that shedding light on this blatant injustice shows that Arpaio is a hypocrite.

Okay, so say we stop the racial profiling. What then? Are we done or do we move on to the injustices that are sanctioned by the government? What if we start on those now instead of getting distracted by Arpaio's antics?

Arpaio's New Tool is a Joke

What a joke. Sheriff Arpaio had been hyping a "new tool" that he would use to counter those who document/videotape the stops during the immigration sweeps. Specifically it was said that this new tool would be used by "his deputies to overcome safety and security concerns of deputies being videotaped and interfered with during the course of their duties." (Source.) We were waiting to see what it would be. Something to block the camera? Arrests of observers? What would it be?

Well, the first day of the sweeps last weekend, we found out. MCSO is countering the videotaping by videotaping themselves! Bam! Take that copwatchers!

Seriously, this is really the "new tool". According to their press release that day,

Starting today, Sheriff’s deputies will utilize special teams to video tape deputies’ contact with the public to preserve an accurate account of any incident and to assist deputies during law enforcement operations.
The Sheriff stated that he understands and respects citizen’s first amendment rights. However, he also understands those rights need to be balanced by the possibility of danger to his deputies when they are distracted by these agitators approaching while they are trying to focus on their already difficult duties.

I, along with others I've talked to, suspect that they may have had a different "new tool" but realized it was unconstitutional, and so they came out with this really silly solution to their "safety and security concerns". In what way exactly does having an officer (or posse member?) videotape officers solve their concerns about officers getting videotaped and allegedly interfered with? How does it balance the possibility of danger to deputies when they are distracted by "agitators"?

This partially explains their logic:

"I too will now have people videotaping our deputies," he said. "We won't edit the tape the way they do." (Source).

This seems to be the only specific reason they've given for doing this; that they won't edit the tape. Yeah, the problem is the editing. Because the people who put their footage on youtube (seen here) edited out the parts in which the cops were nice. Right.

This really doesn't address what is implied by their reference of safety and security concerns. In fact, there really were no safety and security concerns in the legal sense. Copwatchers stay a safe distance away, the officers know what we're doing, there is absolutely no interference except when an officer himself chooses to interfere with his own investigation by going to harass the observers. As I have pointed out in the past, the officers themselves cause most of the problems they wish to blame copwatchers for. And I find it interesting that they are putting officers (or posse members) in charge of filming each stop- which means that person filming is not out there arresting people.

Overall, the filming by MCSO of MCSO is good news to copwatchers. We are out there partly to gain footage that can be used to stop the harassment of migrants, the racial profiling, and any other abuses, but mostly to prevent it. It is possible that the additional cameras around will help to accomplish this. We have no illusions that the MCSO would allow any of their footage to be used against them, however. Therefore we will continue to do what we've been doing.

FAIR Lies Blow up in Arpaio's Face

The anti-immigrant movement is known for its lies used to convince the general public that immigrants are a problem. I figured at some point an official of some sort would take one of the lies at face value, such as the made up statistic about how many americans get killed by undocumented immigrants. You gotta love it that this official ended up being Sheriff Arpaio.

Sheriff Joe's bungle reveals that he wants to enforce immigration law- he says its his duty- yet he doesn't even know the law. He has to have someone find some fake law on an anti-immigrant website. Clearly his sense of duty is not what he makes it out to be- it is a political position he has chosen to take.

Arpaio's 287(g) agreement with DHS has expired as of midnight last night. He has said that he still has the authority to do what he has been doing for a couple years: having the trained deputies ask about immigration status during stops and handling suspected undocumented immigrants until they end up in ICE custody. Specifically, his officers do saturated patrols often called "sweeps" in certain areas where many latinos reside, during which people will get pulled over for minor traffic violations or even made-up crimes and asked about their immigration status. As I write this, there is a sweep going on way out in Surprise today- a way of flipping the bird at the federal government and all those hoping that the end of 287(g) would mean the end of these sweeps.

The Feathered Bastard reported on the fake law that Arpaio was citing:

In Joe Arpaio's press conference last week, and since then on several news shows, the sheriff has insisted there is a law in the federal code that allows him to continue his anti-immigrant sweeps without his 287(g) field authority. This is the power stripped from him recently by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, while leaving his jails agreement in limbo.

Indeed, during that press conference, when asked what federal law allowed him to continue the sweeps, he told a reporter, "I'll give you the section, I'll even give you a copy of it, if you want." Reporters were then given handouts with bogus and misleading information, apparently copied -- in part -- from extremist nativist Web sites.

Accompanying the fake law was some additional text, and interpretation of the law that was made to look like part of the law. The Feathered Bastard wrote that "the text seems to be from a document on the Web site of the Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control, a nativist organization in Darien, Connecticut, which refers to an illegal immigration "invasion" and has "Welcome to MexAmerica" on its home page. The online doc itself says it was prepared by another anti-illegal group, Americans for Legal Immigration". The Arizona Republic says that "the interpretation actually originated on the Federation for American Immigration Reform Web site".

Further, they report:

Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for FAIR, verified that the language cited in Arpaio's document originated from a legal interpretation the group published in 1999.

The Arpaio document cites a provision of Title 8 of the federal code followed by language that says "state and local law-enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law."

It also states that "evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens" can be used to constitute reasonable suspicions someone is in the country illegally.

Arpaio discussed this alleged law and the characteristics that indicate that someone might be "illegal" on various national television shows such as the Glenn Beck show (the law is discussed at about 4 minutes in on this video).

Despite the fact that he also continues to insist that he doesn't need the federal law to enable him to make arrests of undocumented immigrants (because he can enforce state law such as the human smuggling law which he also uses to get migrants charged with conspiracy) his press people have acknowledged that the law he was citing was not actually real, and is now saying that a federal harboring law gives him the authority to enforce immigration law. The law enables Arpaio's officers to make arrests in cases in which someone is suspected of harboring undocumented immigrants. This is still pretty limiting and certainly doesn't allow officers to pull people over for cracked windshields to check their immigration status.

The whole thing is pretty funny considering that FAIR has somehow maintained a fairly good reputation and political position as part of the anti-immigrant movement, despite the fact that they have been linked to various hate groups and are in fact called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

This also reminds me of the story i covered in OOPS! Racist AZ politician "accidently" sent out article from National Alliance.

MCSO Seeking Loopholes in Immigration Enforcement: Unpaid Traffic Tickets

MCSO is being sneaky again. They're going after people why have unpaid traffic tickets and fines for not having drivers licenses. Of course a good portion of those who don't have licenses are most likely undocumented immigrants. And a lot of folks who are too afraid to show up for court or interact further with police after a stop are likely to be at risk for deportation as well.

What's messed up about this is that my friend who drove us to one of the big immigrants' rights marches a few years back got a ticket on his car when we got back to it. We were completely legally parked. We took pictures of the car and the signs and everything. I had a feeling that a lot of the cars in the area got ticketed even if they were legally parked. Then the undocumented migrants will either have to go to court and prove their innocence and then risk being found out as undocumented, or they will have to avoid the whole thing and have an unpaid ticket on their record.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio may have a way to bypass possible changes in federal immigration law by arresting illegal immigrants on outstanding charges such as unpaid traffic tickets and fines for not having drivers licenses, according to immigration attorneys and Hispanic activists who monitor the agency’s activities.

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Web site lists 30 individuals arrested over the past three days for not paying fines, another 24 had charges that included missing court dates. The information, however, did not specify whether the individuals were undocumented.

The failure to pay fine charge means the MCSO and other police agencies can arrest illegal immigrants without getting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement approval at the time of the arrest. Immigration charges can be added after defendants are booked, said sources, some of whom asked not to be identified.

“If there is an outstanding warrant for failure to pay fines, then MCSO can pick up the person on the warrant itself, regardless of their immigration status and not have to get into that with the person or call ICE — because it will be addressed when the person gets booked in jail,” said Margarita Silva, a Phoenix attorney with the law office of Navidad, Leal & Silva. More...