Don't you love when officials get slapped in the face with their own hypocrisy? I have posted numerous times about border patrol agents and national guard down near the border getting caught trafficking drugs while the general attitude promotes the stereotypical Mexican drug trafficker. Just recently, the biggest villains in Maricopa County have both had their hypocrisy exposed.
Just recently 3 of Sheriff Arpaio's deputies were arrested for their involvement in drug trafficking. One is suspected of having been corrupt for ten years. Arpaio knows that drugs are trafficked by cops and other government officials, but turns a blind eye. Meanwhile, he acts as though Mexican immigrants are the criminals (some are, but obviously some police are too). To top it off, he often portrays his officers as saviors of people held captive by human traffickers even as those officers also keep the same folks captive in their custody (and/or transfer them to detention or have them deported).
Senator Russell Pearce's son has gotten into trouble a lot, but the most recent news is that he violated his probation by smoking pot and will serve a year in prison. This is likely a light sentence for such a thing. Of course the Pearces, or mormons, or white people are not tinged with the stereotype of drug addicts, nor as law breakers. Mexicans are said to be the problem.
As I have pointed out before, the media tends to be a lot more understanding of the pressures involved in being an official down at the border and getting caught up in drug dealing. The big drug traffickers have the money to offer relatively low-waged border patrol agents. These agents are just parents who want to provide for their family. They're vulnerable to corruption because things are hard economically. Yeah, and isn't that the case for Mexicans too? Somehow we can just picture Mexicans as particularly devious and having no qualms about getting involved in drug dealing, whereas white people/US citizens give some resistance but cave in out of desparation. We should also consider that there is a wide range of involvement in the drug trafficking industry from the people heading the cartels, the folks who torture and murder others, to the small time pot dealer who could easily be your friendly neighbor who wouldn't hurt a flea. The thing about being a cop or an agent or a national guardsman is that these folks have the legitimacy and the tools they need to give them access to that which wouldn't be possible for other folks. They can cross the border unquestioned, they can use their authority and gun for criminal uses. They've been empowered to be even better drug traffickers than those without the uniforms and badges.
We must also acknowledge the ways in which the drug trafficking scene is so much more violent due to the involvement of the government. Recently there have been massive demonstrations by Mexican citizens demanding that the military remove itself from the war on drugs. It's making things worse. Of course the Mexican government is corrupt, and they're likely fighting certain cartels in favor of other cartels. Weapons and training (such as torture and murder) are provided directly or indirectly (though of course quietly) from military to cartels. People defect to the cartels because they pay better.
An overarching theme here is that drug trafficking pays better than most other jobs. In situations where people are hurting for money (such as poverty especially south of the border but also in the US) on top of the social pressures of showing you can purchase expensive things (particularly here in the US) and people getting into huge amounts of debt, how can anyone expect that people will steer clear of drug trafficking? If the state did not prevent people from (re)obtaining the means of subsistence (such as land), then they would have alternatives to these activities. If drugs were not illegal, there wouldn't be so much money in it, and there wouldn't be so much violence involved. If people were not so alienated and beaten down in their daily lives, there would be less demand for drugs in the first place.
See also: National Guardsmen Caught in Drug Smuggling Bust
Ex-ICE Officer Charged in Drug-Smuggling
Authorities bust major marijuana smuggling ring
Ex-ICE Officer Charged in Drug-Smuggling
Showing posts with label pearce. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pearce. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Focus on Bigger Picture in Shadow of Victory
Yes, it's encouraging in some ways that Arizona Senate rejects 5 illegal-immigration bills, yet of course this is no reversal of SB 1070 or anything before it. As my partner noted to me, it's likely that it was more the pressure from the businesses than the people that made an impact this round, though I'd like to think that protesters are at least an annoyance if not worse to the politicians deciding the fate of so many.
I would like to point out, as I have in previous posts though perhaps buried within my writing, that the overarching goal of anti-immigrant legislation is not to remove all immigrants. It is to criminalize them so as to make them more exploitable and controllable. As many of you understand, migrants provide cheap labor. They would to some extent, even if they were not "illegal", as they have been in the past. But criminalizing them more and more keeps them in the precarious position that makes them easily exploited. Of course what makes them "illegal" is their presence in this country, which implies that the law makers want them out--and some probably do. But where blatant racists and business owners' interests come together is the interest in criminalizing a permanent underclass.
Let us not forget, however, that the prison industrial complex, the private prison industry in particular, directly profits from the criminalization of migrants. This is a more direct and observable player in this game, especially where it connects with those in government like Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer as I discussed in What came first: the Racism or the Profit Motive? On Private Prisons' push for SB1070. Then on a larger scale, with more funds and power, are the defense contractors who have been pushing for securing the border with walls and a variety of technological equipment.
As I wrote in Ending criminalization of people of color must be priority,
I would like to point out, as I have in previous posts though perhaps buried within my writing, that the overarching goal of anti-immigrant legislation is not to remove all immigrants. It is to criminalize them so as to make them more exploitable and controllable. As many of you understand, migrants provide cheap labor. They would to some extent, even if they were not "illegal", as they have been in the past. But criminalizing them more and more keeps them in the precarious position that makes them easily exploited. Of course what makes them "illegal" is their presence in this country, which implies that the law makers want them out--and some probably do. But where blatant racists and business owners' interests come together is the interest in criminalizing a permanent underclass.
Let us not forget, however, that the prison industrial complex, the private prison industry in particular, directly profits from the criminalization of migrants. This is a more direct and observable player in this game, especially where it connects with those in government like Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer as I discussed in What came first: the Racism or the Profit Motive? On Private Prisons' push for SB1070. Then on a larger scale, with more funds and power, are the defense contractors who have been pushing for securing the border with walls and a variety of technological equipment.
As I wrote in Ending criminalization of people of color must be priority,
Tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants, like those whose faces I could barely see, are held in detention centers and jails. SB 1070 has not yet gone into effect. This has been going on for so long and will only continue to do so as long as activists only insist upon ending racial profiling and stopping SB 1070 or even all racist bills/laws if it stops before calling for an end to the border and criminalization of people of color. There are so many undocumented immigrants who are living in our cities whose voices are overpowered by those who want to maintain the status quo. There are so many indigenous people near the border or even throughout this state whose voices are not heard, who are also impacted by the border and will also be impacted by SB1070 and so much more.We must not buy the rhetoric that if it weren't for this right-wing attack on immigrants, things would be just fine. Even before so many people were worried they'd be deported at any moment, they still had to work shitty jobs for low wages. Even before so many border patrol agents or national guard invaded O'odham land, there were still many problems faced by people in the border regions, or just with brown skin in general. Let's address the reasons so many are forced here in the first place and why so many people of color are in prisons, who profits, how settlers can decide who does or doesn't belong, and how does it all come crumbling down?
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Racial Profiling Focus is Still a Distraction
(This is an updated version of a post I made a few months back).
I keep hearing people (such as at the last anti-SB1070 rally) repeating their concerns about racial profiling as if this is the main problem with the bill. Racial profiling is a legal term and is against the law. Unfortunately, "illegal" immigration is also against the law. So when people talk about racial profiling, it sounds like they are only concerned with "legal" people.
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.
We've been hearing about racial profiling for a while. Anti-Arpaio folks have been 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 opposing wholesale the legislation Pearce has passed and 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.
Representative Kirsten Sinema was heard on KFYI 550 (radio) that she doesn't have a problem with all of the anti-immigrant bill that just passed, just a few parts. In the paper she said, "This bill criminalizes people who appear to be Latino and puts them at risk for racial profiling and prosecution and harassment in the state."
Likewise, of Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, cheered on at the last rally, Fox News reported:
And yes, this is a problem. A Native American 16 year old was stopped by the police while he was walking and asked for ID. Because he didn't have it, if I got got the story right, he was ticketed or arrested (I just heard this story last night).
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.
And so while folks are still waiting for the federal government to save the day (maybe they've given up?), 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:
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. Well, I'm saying it: Movement should not be a crime.
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?
Free movement for all!
I keep hearing people (such as at the last anti-SB1070 rally) repeating their concerns about racial profiling as if this is the main problem with the bill. Racial profiling is a legal term and is against the law. Unfortunately, "illegal" immigration is also against the law. So when people talk about racial profiling, it sounds like they are only concerned with "legal" people.
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.
We've been hearing about racial profiling for a while. Anti-Arpaio folks have been 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 opposing wholesale the legislation Pearce has passed and 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.
Representative Kirsten Sinema was heard on KFYI 550 (radio) that she doesn't have a problem with all of the anti-immigrant bill that just passed, just a few parts. In the paper she said, "This bill criminalizes people who appear to be Latino and puts them at risk for racial profiling and prosecution and harassment in the state."
Likewise, of Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, cheered on at the last rally, Fox News reported:
"Gordon, a staunch opponent of the state law, said that means anyone who doesn't carry an Arizona license -- children under 16, seniors who don't drive and people from out of state -- could be "at risk of being arrested and turned over to (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)."
"It tramples civil rights," Gordon told Fox News on Sunday. "Now everyone has to show and prove that they're a legal resident or citizen."
And yes, this is a problem. A Native American 16 year old was stopped by the police while he was walking and asked for ID. Because he didn't have it, if I got got the story right, he was ticketed or arrested (I just heard this story last night).
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.
And so while folks are still waiting for the federal government to save the day (maybe they've given up?), 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. Well, I'm saying it: Movement should not be a crime.
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?
Free movement for all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
