Repost: Private Prisons in a Wider Context: Video

I watched this video again and felt that it might be worth re-posting. There are some really important points in here, especially those made by Michelle Alexander. Many people watched the first video but not the second. Are you one of those people? Check it out.

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Private Prisons in a Wider Context: Video

It has been encouraging to see the awareness about the role of private prison companies in influencing criminalization of people grow and grow in the last year.  SB 1070 and the relationship between various legislators like Russell Pearce and private prison companies like CCA and Geo Group within the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and between governor Jan Brewer and CCA, has been exposed recently.  People had already started to address the connection between Wells Fargo and private prison-run detention centers that hold thousands of migrants in other parts of the country and a tiny bit here in AZ.  Now there are country-wide campaigns popping off against private prisons companies and against ALEC.

However, as horrible as the conditions in private prisons are (and they do tend to be several times worse than state-run facilities), and as obvious as it is that SB 1070 passed with great influence on the part of those who stand to make millions off of putting people in cages, I would hate to see the focus be solely on this most recent phenomenon.  An anti-private prison campaign can easily fall into the same traps as the "go after the real criminals" message, as though there's nothing wrong with the "criminal" "justice" system.  As though the criminalization of people who cross a man-made line is not similar to the criminalization of so many of the people in prisons today and historically.  We should also consider the limitations of previous nation-wide anti-private prison campaigns like the one that targeted Sodexho in the early 2000's. A focus only on the privatization of prisons can only divert energy from addressing the prison system in general; the various reasons people end up in jail or prison, and the ways in which the system will never and is not meant to address the real ills of our society.

I put together the following video to provide a complex yet still simplistic (limited by time and resources) history of criminalization of people for the benefit of the few.  Please share it with anyone you think would be interested.  This video is a follow up from several of my blog entries including No Borders or Prison Walls and What came first: the Racism or the Profit Motive? On Private Prisons' push for SB1070



Please also view the 2nd part.  It all ties together, and there's some good commentary towards the end.

Private Prisons in a Wider Context: Video

It has been encouraging to see the awareness about the role of private prison companies in influencing criminalization of people grow and grow in the last year.  SB 1070 and the relationship between various legislators like Russell Pearce and private prison companies like CCA and Geo Group within the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and between governor Jan Brewer and CCA, has been exposed recently.  People had already started to address the connection between Wells Fargo and private prison-run detention centers that hold thousands of migrants in other parts of the country and a tiny bit here in AZ.  Now there are country-wide campaigns popping off against private prisons companies and against ALEC.

However, as horrible as the conditions in private prisons are (and they do tend to be several times worse than state-run facilities), and as obvious as it is that SB 1070 passed with great influence on the part of those who stand to make millions off of putting people in cages, I would hate to see the focus be solely on this most recent phenomenon.  An anti-private prison campaign can easily fall into the same traps as the "go after the real criminals" message, as though there's nothing wrong with the "criminal" "justice" system.  As though the criminalization of people who cross a man-made line is not similar to the criminalization of so many of the people in prisons today and historically.  We should also consider the limitations of previous nation-wide anti-private prison campaigns like the one that targeted Sodexho in the early 2000's. A focus only on the privatization of prisons can only divert energy from addressing the prison system in general; the various reasons people end up in jail or prison, and the ways in which the system will never and is not meant to address the real ills of our society.

I put together the following video to provide a complex yet still simplistic (limited by time and resources) history of criminalization of people for the benefit of the few.  Please share it with anyone you think would be interested.  This video is a follow up from several of my blog entries including No Borders or Prison Walls and What came first: the Racism or the Profit Motive? On Private Prisons' push for SB1070



Please also view the 2nd part.  It all ties together, and there's some good commentary towards the end.

Ending criminalization of people of color must be priority

Three separate times, tears welled up as, on the corner of Swan and Golf Links outside the Border Patrol headquarters in Tucson, a Wackenhut bus full of undocumented detainees drove by.  The protest on this corner corresponded to the lockdown of 6 people in the BP office to protest militarization of the border.

The protesters who locked down said that as they were being booked, they saw the people standing, waiting in the "cage" to be processed and then sent off to a detention center or possibly deported, transported on these very buses we saw.  A powerful moment was after the protesters had been released and had joined us on the corner, when a bus drove by and we all raised our fists, gave peace signs, and/or waved, knowing to some extent the fate of the prisoners, and wanting to show our solidarity, though limited by gestures.

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.

While racial profiling seems to be discussed in the media and by certain so-called spokespeople as a problem because it catches innocent/"legal" people up in it, it will be a problem because not only will SB 1070 make it easier and more justifiable to catch undocumented immigrants, it also allows the police to do what they have been doing for so long: treating all people of color as criminals.  What tends to be overlooked is that people of color have been criminalized, in different ways in different contexts.  The criminalization, whose enforcement is steadily increasing in the case of migrants, is used to paint people as law-breakers and justify their imprisonment and/or disenfranchisement (and here I don't just mean voting, but also any sort of means to make changes in their lives).  Not only are certain acts of people of color criminalized or treated as worse crimes (such as the treatment of crack users vs. cocaine users), but the police are given a special position to deem people criminals even if they haven't done anything wrong.

Whiteness has made room for certain people of color to be model citizens (even cops or border patrol agents) to blur the line, but it is clear where the line is.  If we don't question this criminalization, there will always be hundreds of thousands of people of color imprisoned in this country, or in constant fear of being ripped from their everyday life, if not even murdered by the state on occasion (even once is far too often).  Racial profiling is part of this racial criminalization, and to be clear, perhaps we should use the latter term, unless we buy into this idea that those who have been convicted of crimes or those who we know have crossed the border illegally are being justifyably punished.  When you hear or read the arguments for deporting or imprisoning undocumented immigrants it all comes down to the law for them, even though their racism often comes clearly through.  There's no effort to examine the purpose of the (immigration) law among those who seem to have convinced themselves that race plays no part. 

This criminalization not only puts people in jail but attempts to make it more justifiable to treat people of color inhumanely.  The press release for yesterday's Border Patrol protest states, "Indigenous people along the border have been forced by border patrol to carry and provide proof of tribal membership when moving across their traditional lands that have been bisected by this imposed border; a border that has been extremely damaging to the cultural and spiritual practices of these communities. Many people are not able to journey to sacred sites because the communities where people live are on the opposite side of the border from these sites. Since the creation of the current U.S./Mexico border, 45 O’odham villages on or near the border have been completely depopulated."  In addition, they state, "The impacts of border militarization are constantly made invisible in the media, the popular culture of this country and even the mainstream immigrants rights movement which has often pushed for 'reform' that means further militarization of the border, which means increased suffering for our communities."

It is important that we carefully remain critical of the elements of any social movement that are are more embraced by the mainstream media and politicians.  The folks who did this protest did it in such a way as to risk federal charges to get national media attention, which they hardly got.  In the meantime, messages about Comprehensive Immigration Reform and against racial profiling are more successful even when no arrests are involved.  Of course calls to end criminalization of people and to stop border militarization are going to be marginalized!  This is why they must at least be demarginalized within the social justice movements. 

A friend of mine told me that her mother cried when listening to Al Sharpton speak against SB1070.  I wonder if what he's been saying in the media is different from what he said at the public event (see First They Came for the "Illegals" but I only care about Racial Profiling).   Either way, I will remain weary of anyone marginalizes undocumented immigrants to oppose laws that target them.


See also No Borders or Prison Walls for a longer essay on some of these issues.

No Borders or Prison Walls: as it relates to racial profiling focus

I started writing something that ended up being very similar to what I had written about a year ago, so I figured I'd re-post it since it is still very relevant.

I've written a number of posts criticizing the focus on racial profiling, since when it is discussed, particularly by various politicians, it implies that the profiling catches innocent people up in it, while the true criminals deserve to be caught. Yet, racial profiling is certainly an important issue and has been occurring since race has existed. In fact in many ways law enforcement is what has shaped race in the first place. I discuss this further in this article.

What I feel is important to bring into the racial profiling discussion is that most people seem to agree that it is wrong--in fact I believe it is technically illegal. But what has been happening is something that perhaps can be called racial criminalization. The intentional criminalization of people because they are not white. This is exemplified in immigration law where undocumented immigrants (mostly poc) are criminalized because of their situation as migrants who cannot attain legal status. But it's not only that they are automatically "illegal" when they cross the border or when their visa expires, etc., but that people place a significance on that particular crime vs. many other much more serious crimes. Additionally, as we can see with Arizona bill SB1070, the criminalization of these migrants is compounded with more laws that make them criminals- the trespassing part of the bill and the part that criminalizes day laborers. Read on.

No Borders or Prison Walls: Beyond Immigrants' Rights to Ending Criminalization of All People of Color

How bad do things have to be for a group of people to be afraid to leave their houses because la migra might pick them up and place their family members in separate detention centers to eventually deport them? Or that people crossing the border not only have to be concerned about the environmental dangers, but also the more recent upsurge of people who kidnap migrants, steal from them, assault them, and hold them for ransom. The police or ICE commit similar atrocities, but masquerading as heroes; “saving” the immigrants from the drop houses. Many citizens believe undocumented immigrants deserve the harm or misfortune inflicted upon them because they are here “illegally”.

Nearly any debate about “illegal” immigration comes down to one thing: the law is the law. They say illegal people have no legitimate claims in “our” country. Despite the many illegal actions that people take everyday without feeling an ounce of guilt (speeding, downloading music), being in the country “illegally” is seen as a crime against the citizens. Despite the fact that many of us see this law, like so many others, as illegitimate and hypocritical based on its historical roots and the context in which it is enforced, as a means to maintain an exploitable class, as enforcement of the color line, and as a tool of government to control people and quash dissent; we seem quite silent about what we think about it.

Read more...

First They Came for the "Illegals" But I Only Care about Racial Profiling

You know that poem that starts off with "THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist." Well, I had always interpreted it as meaning that you should care not because one day it will be you they go after, but you should care because it is happening to someone else who could easily be you. What does it mean if those who make themselves out to be spokespeople for a movement are not fully behind the ones most affected?

It's inspiring that so many different kinds of people are coming out against Arizona's SB1070 immigration bill, due to go into effect in a few months. However, it may not be obvious to all, but there are major discrepancies between politicians and so-called leadership, and the people. For example, while you have undocumented immigrants and their allies at these demonstrations wearing things like t-shirts or signs that say "I'm an illegal", others are focused on racial profiling. This is particularly telling:

“This is not about immigrants taken out of the streets. This is about who is next,” said Phoenix City Council Member Michael Johnson. The former police officer recently alleged he was the victim of racial profiling. (Source)(My emphasis).

Michael Johnson has openly supported Arpaio and his law enforcement efforts against undocumented immigrants. How many people coming out against this bill feel this way is unclear, though as I mentioned, Phil Gordon (Phil Gordon: Foe to Undocumented Immigrants) and Kirsten Sinema (Racial Profiling Focus is Still a Distraction) have said that they oppose the racial profiling part of the bill but have not openly opposed the targeting of undocumented immigrants by law enforcement (particularly federal).

The quote above is from an article about Al Sharpton coming to town to participate in a church service and a march to the capitol. From the same article, this quote exemplifies the presence and position of some undocumented immigrants,

Despite the increased fear caused by the new law several undocumented immigrants decided to join the march. Among them was Catalina Vargas, 67, a former farm worker.

“I’m going to fight as much as I can for legalization,” said Vargas, who marched out front holding an American flag.

About a year ago, Al Sharpton appeared on Lou Dobb's show regarding racial profiling and Arpaio's sweeps, and I discussed his emphasis on racial profiling in Racial Profiling Discussion Undermines Solidarity with Immigrants. Yesterday he made similar statements:

"There is no way this law could be enforced," said Sharpton, "without profiling people based on whether they are Latino or appear to be Mexican...You can amend it. You can bend it. You can do everything you want to with it.

"To say that based on reasonable suspicion, state law enforcement can go after people based on Mexican immigration is to say that it is reasonable to look at anyone that appears Latino and subject them to a harassment and a scrutiny that other citizens in Arizona would not be subjected to."

If you read how right-wingers have vilified Al Sharpton, you might tend to think he's on the correct path. I would argue, however, that his focus on racial profiling is the wrong way to go.

For example, here is a common argument:

"Nowhere in the bill does it say (police can stop or question people about their immigration status) because of race. It just says illegal immigrants," said Whitney Pew, 20. (Source).

Russell Pearce himself has repeated that "Illegal is not a race, it is a crime" (discussed further here). Sharpton, Gordon, Michael Johnson, etc. could easily be saying the same goddamn thing, just in different words. "Illegal is not a race, which is why we're going after illegals but finding every way possible to do it besides based on their race." So many people keep saying that it is the job of the federal government, not local police to enforce immigration. To not oppose the criminalization itself, rather than just the racial consequences of law enforcement of this crime, is no way to be an ally to undocumented immigrants, and perhaps this is the point. Perhaps some folks want to continue to support the rule of law and only oppose what they understand to be racism, instead of seeing how the rule of law in many ways is intertwined with racism.

This is why so many of us have to pick this up where they leave off. Push the debate further by opposing the criminalization of people. How do we take this resistance to racial profiling which is so popular right now and expand it to address criminalization?

Phil Gordon: Foe to Undocumented Immigrants

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon is at it again, trying to make himself out to be the good guy opposing SB 1070. He tried to get the city council to oppose the law and bring a lawsuit against it, but failed. He spoke at one of the big rallies at the capitol talking about how unconstitutional it is.

It was about two years ago that I was involved in strategizing about how to oppose Phil Gordon's idea to change the immigration policy of the Phoenix Police Department. He initiated a change to Operations Order 1.4.3 which had previously not allowed police to ask about immigration status for serious crimes, but now allows the Phoenix PD to ask anyone arrested. Those stopped for traffic violations would normally not be arrested, and therefore were not asked about status.

Although this change in policy, again, initiated by Gordon, led to an increased number of undocumented immigrants arrested, the Mayor was able to justify to himself that this was okay because he wasn't as bad as Arpaio, whose officers were asking about immigration status to anyone they stopped--mostly for traffic violations, some of which were bogus.

SB1070 is different enough from Operations Order 1.4.3, but isn't really all that much worse, especially considering that Pearce claimed that the current policy meant Phoenix was a sanctuary city and that he needed to "take the handcuffs off the police".

Arizona is not a state seething with hatred, eager to trample the civil rights of its citizens in haphazard pursuit of illegal immigrants. Nor are most Arizonans bigots anxious to drag our state back to the 1980s, when Gov. Evan Mecham’s absurd behavior made our home a national laughingstock.

Instead, our state, which has become Ground Zero on illegal immigration because of years of lapsed federal border security, is frustrated...

...that we cannot rule with a velvet glove, seemingly fair but hiding the injustices brought against people everyday in the form of police brutality, bad working conditions, etc. When bills like this pass with such blatant hatred and targeting of people most do not agree are criminals, it makes it harder for us to keep the people blind and in line.

This is the kind of thing that these democrats do. The Phoenix Police department has arrested more undocumented immigrants than Arpaio has, yet because of the Mayor's vocal opposition to the extreme actions and publicity show that Arpaio (and now SB1070) are involved in, he makes himself out to be the good guy.

Let us not be blind to the fact that not only did he initiate the change to Operations Order 1.4.3, he's not exactly being a hypocrite. He is not advocating for the rights of undocumented immigrants. He is only opposing racial profiling (and hate). As discussed in Racial Profiling Focus is Still a Distraction this creates a hierarchy of importance with citizens being more important, and undocumented immigrants not being important. Racial profiling is a legal term which cannot address the unjust situation of the "illegal" person. Therefore, Phil Gordon is a foe, not a friend, of undocumented immigrants.

See also: Mayor Gordon Criticizes Anti-Immigrant Racists and Phoenix Mayor Supports Change In Phx PD Immigration Policy

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:

"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!

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.

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?

Harassment of Legal Observers at Sheriff's Sweep

Please view these videos from the last sweep.





We need to continue to observe and document these sweeps (even if doing just that doesn't accomplish much). They clearly don't like us doing it, more so now than ever, it seems. What are they trying to hide?

These officers cannot stop you from filming. They have no expectation of privacy!

Both officers claimed that they can take the video as evidence. If it is true that they can take your camera as evidence because you're filming their investigation, then wouldn't they want that evidence? Hey, free effortless evidence, right? In my years of copwatching, I have only heard this response from a cop once (at the time the cop claimed we couldn't film the other cop reading a suspect his Miranda rights. What kinda bullshit is that?). It is interesting that different MCSO cops in different locations used the same response.

If we were to assume that it is true that one cannot document an active investigation, is a traffic stop an active investigation? And if so, why have folks been able to document millions of traffic stops all over the country? The fact is that the police are public servants (supposedly) and have no expectation of privacy when they are performing their duties.

The next question is, can one film undercover officers? I have heard this response a few times in the past, but it never results in anything. If it is true that one cannot film undercovers then why does one cop say it, drop it, and the other cop doesn't bring it up until later on. Must not be that big of a deal, huh? The way he explains it is that the undercover officers wouldn't want people to take pictures of their face. Is that a legal issue?

Someone filming from across the street is not interfering with a stop or investigation. The police choose to bring their attention to the folks who are documenting, just as they have chosen many times to ignore folks with cameras.

While the filming may not actually stop the racial profiling and harassment of folks with brown skin, it does tend to put the police on the defensive, and often they start treating the "suspects" better when they're on film. It is important that the legal observing continue.

If you plan to document the police locally, please contact Phoenix Copwatch. They can provide you with information to help you observe and film safely and with minimum risk of arrest. phoenix_copwatch [at] yahoo [dot] com

Update: These incidents got some mainstream media coverage. MCSO YouTube Clip Sparks Outcry was rather sympathetic to the folks documenting, or maybe it just seems so because the MCSO representative was so inarticulate. This is one quote: "'The First Amendment, yeah, he does have the right to express and do what he needs to do but when asked by a law enforcement officer as he is conducting an official investigation, then he does cross the line,' said MCSO Detective Aaron Douglas." He's not even making a clear statement here. In addition he suggests that one option to deal with this problem is, as the article reports, "deputies may even start carrying video cameras so they can record incidents where people are videotaping them." What is that!? They'll film back, and that's the solution?

If Phx and Mesa PD are arresting more immigrants, why is focus on Arpaio?

It's one thing after another hitting arpaio these days (such as this lawsuit). But today i came upon another example of why focusing on Arpaio is not the best strategy for immigrants' rights. This came in a guest column in the East Valley Tribune, by the title, The numbers don’t match Arpaio’s hype. The retired police officer who wrote the article blasts arpaio, but not exactly for the reasons you'd imagine. This is an excerpt:

Then the hearing turned into the usual good-old-boy, back-slapping, fanny-kissing festival with an endless stream of platitudes of how Arpaio is leading the charge against illegal immigration and crime...

Arpaio gratuitously thanked Pearce and the Legislature for the $1.6 million he was just given for his immigration sweeps. Arpaio has been given millions by the state for immigration operations, all while the state crime lab is cash strapped and performing poorly...

Even with our millions of dollars and 160 federally certified 287(g) immigration enforcement deputies, Arpaio doesn’t lead the county in immigration arrests. Phoenix police Chief Jack Harris does. Phoenix police arrested more than 7,300 illegal immigrants during 2008. Second place belongs to Mesa police Chief George Gascón, whose officers arrested more than 1,200 illegal immigrants and investigated 60 drop houses last year. Phoenix and Mesa made more than 8,500 immigration arrests during routine policing operations by following well-formulated city policies, state and federal laws, and without legislative meddling.

And Arpaio? According to the sheriff’s office, since April 2006, deputies have arrested a little more than 3,000 illegal immigrants...

So are we to applaud the Phoenix PD and the Mesa PD instead for their high numbers of arrests of immigrants? Not much of a surprise coming from a retired cop. Most Arpaio opposition actually applauds the PPD and MPD for not arresting a bunch of immigrants, so why the disparity?

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.

Sure, arpaio is feeding off of, but more importantly, feeding the anti-immigrant hysteria, which the other police departments do not seem to seek to do. His actions are highly politically-motivated and self-interested, rather than being the run of the mill everyday activities of police officials. But since we think it is wrong for him to go out and arrest undocumented immigrants, why is it okay that other police departments are doing the same thing (only "better")?

I am all to aware that a lot of immigrants rights advocates are not, in fact willing to outright oppose these arrests (i've commented on it a number of times). Instead it is made about the racial profiling: the sweeps might catch legal immigrants or citizens in its net (see this blog post). Or it is made about not going after "real criminals", nor serving warrants, despite the fact that most of us would acknowledge that the "criminal justice" system is inherently racist. The federal government is called on to save us from arpaio. I believe that if they do anything, it will only fit within its plans to focus on "criminal aliens" and streamlining its law enforcement abilities by introducing a program called "secure communities" (see this blog post and this older one).

The mindset that doesn't question these issues will only allow injustices to continue. Since most undocumented immigrants are too vulnerable to speak out, those of us who fight on their behalf must concern ourselves most with what's best for them. A friend of mine has said something to the effect of "they've spoken with their feet," in that they have made it clear what they think of the border and immigration laws. Those things are illegitimate and unjust, and should be treated as such.

I am concerned that when federal immigration reform comes up again, the compromise between liberal and conservative opinions will go unquestioned. Likely to benefit business but not people, and to appease a few, immigration reform will not involve solutions to the problems that bring people here in the first place, nor will it address the problems they face here.

There need to be strong voices that oppose anything less than true freedom- because how else are we going to get it?

See also: No Borders or Prison Walls: Beyond Immigrants' Rights to Ending Criminalization of All People of Color,
Release them all! Stop jailing migrants!,
Cop vs. Cop: Sheriff and Mesa Chief spar over sweeps
and The Immigrants Rights/Police Brutality Disconnect

Racial Profiling Discussion Undermines Solidarity with Immigrants

The video of Lou Dobbs's show on which Al Sharpton and a representative of ACORN named Bertha Lewis criticized Arpaio has been emailed around. It exemplified my concern about the focus on Arpaio and racial profiling, which overshadows the real issues. Because they don't want to take a stance on "illegal" immigration they skirt the issue and focus on how it hurts the people we should be more concerned about.

Below are some excerpts of the transcript from the show. As you can see, the issue they are concerned with is only the racial profiling. I certainly don't think racial profiling is okay, but the focus on stopping people because of their skin color reinforces the idea that there is a supposedly legitimate reason to be stopping people- but it isn't the color of one's skin. What's left unsaid is that people being harassed and arrested because they are undocumented is not that much of a problem. Either that or it is not strategically useful to address that. Why not?

I understand that addressing the racial profiling exposes the hypocrisy of the sheriff's law enforcement tactics. And when the audience understand that as citizens they too can be caught up in this crazy man's antics, they might have sympathy for undocumented people. But the way the racial profiling thing is being discussed, it creates a hierarchy of people based on value. The citizen is more valuable than the non-citizen. The legal is more important than the "illegal". Sure, if you're on a mainstream tv show, especially Dobbs's show, it makes sense to speak the language. But i tend to think that the idea is not to advocate for the undocumented by exposing the racial profiling.

Despite the fact that Sharpton and Lewis were denying political motivation (as in not trying to gain power for Democrats), they are at the same time buying in to the terms of the debate set by mainstream politics. Even though they are criticizing Arpaio, i do not see them as advocates for undocumented immigrants.

If we want to be in solidarity with undocumented immigrants, we mustn't allow these movement leaders to control the terms of the debate.

SHARPTON:But when we are told that you have a sheriff that are pulling people over constantly because of the color of their skin, they become a suspect of being an illegal immigrant, that's a civil rights violation, Lou.

But on top of that, when you get people that are born American citizens saying because of the color of my skin, I'm constantly pulled over, questioned about show my citizenship papers, this is a violation of people's civil rights...

LEWIS: He actually is giving law enforcement folks who do the right thing a bad name.

Let me just say this. The federal government's job is to protect our borders and to make sure we have the same immigration program and so therefore...we cannot have people like Arpaio taking anything that he wants to do and profiling based on people's color. It's not right.

DOBBS: You conflated a number of things. One, that he is indeed racial profiling which he denies which by the way his department denies and over a fifth of his department is Hispanic, by the way. The rest of the statement that's interesting is, I asked you how is the federal government doing, in enforcing border security, and in enforcing U.S. immigration law. And what's ironic about that is, Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security as governor of Arizona was the first person to call for emergency action on the border in her state.

SHARPTON: Well, again, we're confusing two issues. I think what National Action Network and NAACP board joined with ACORN today was on the violation of civil rights. We're not talking about immigration policy, one way or another on that issue...

SHARPTON: ...Bertha and I may disagree on how to deal with the border. All of us agree that people because of the color of their skin should not be stopped. When they do, we ought to deal with it. That was the basis we came on.


(Source).

Let's not just focus on racial profiling

A consistent example of arpaio's abuses has been the racial profiling. And there's no doubt in my mind that this has occurred. I could be wrong, but it seems that racial profiling in this case, implies that people are being pulled over because they are perceived as being mexican, and that when people are pulled over who are not criminals, or not "illegal", then that is when it is wrong. In essence, it is okay that police harassment and arrests occur against the people who don't matter (undocumented immigrants), but it is a problem, a civil rights violation, when it happens to the people who do matter (citizens). If i'm not mistaken as well, "civil rights" refers to citizens, although this may just be a matter of semantics.

I know that most people involved in working towards arpaio's political demise are concerned about the well-being of undocumented immigrants. I fear, however, that if this fight is on the government's terms, then the focus will shift or has shifted to the negative effect the war on undocumented people will have on those who are supposed to be protected. What is happening to undocumented immigrants is unacceptable no matter who is doing it. Let's keep this in mind.

Sheriff's office starts racial profiling campaign

For the second evening in a row, the sheriff's office is saturating an area of phoenix in order to pull over and arrest as many undocumented immigrants as they can. Last night and tonight, the sheriff's set up a large area in the parking lot of big lots on thomas with a command unit, stadium lights, and other large vehicles. Although they will say that they are only pulling over people committing crimes such as traffic violations, it can't be more blatant that they are going after specific people. For one, just read the press release the sheriff's office put out the other day, below.

Last night, one car that was stopped was pulled over for not having adequate lighting on their license plate. The driver was arrested and taken away.

I also heard that rusty childress was deputized as a posse member by sheriff joe. This is not the first anti-immigrant organizer to be part of his posse. Please see the article, MCSO Posse Member 's Hate Speech Against Immigrants. The sheriff allegedly spoke at one of the united for sovereign americans meeting the other day. It is rumored also that rusty childress was also caught prank calling a supporter of the local day laborers.

The press release below mentions written requests for police presence, which i heard that buffalo rick (the one who peed in public and got caught) was behind gathering support for this campaign. The mayor has said that the area the sheriff's office is targetting is not higher in crime than other areas of phoenix. There has also been another published study that shows undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than citizens.

Written requests for additional police presence and protection were sent to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio this week from business owners in two separate areas of Phoenix. Owners are complaining of increases in crime and other problems largely related to illegal immigrants and day laborers there.
As a result, Sheriff Arpaio is sending hundreds of volunteer armed posse men and women along with several ICE trained deputies to saturate the two areas beginning Friday, March 21, 2008.

“Businesses owners is these two parts of Phoenix have indicated to me that they are extremely frustrated with the growing problems associated with illegal immigration," Arpaio says. "They say they feel that only this Sheriff's Office will provide the kind of law enforcement help they want and need to reduce the problems."

Arpaio says nearly 200 Sheriff's posse men and deputies will patrol the areas looking for any and all criminal activity there. It is a repeat of the Thomas Road operations that occurred late last year when owners of the Pruitt's Furniture Store appealed to the Sheriff for help with their day laborer related problems. Over the duration of that operation, Arpaio says, over 134 of people were arrested and booked into jail, 94 of whom were determined to be illegal aliens.

"Any illegal immigrant whom we come across in the course of our crime suppression program in these two valley areas will be arrested and taken directly to jail," Arpaio says. (Source).

2007 Retrospective: The Local War on the Undocumented

"It's just crazy here." This is what I tell people who are not from Phoenix, Arizona, the political climate surrounding immigration is like. It's hard to sum up, but having kept up fairly well with local immigration news for the past couple years, I can reflect on 2007 and the direction that things have gone. We have seen ever-increasing repression against undocumented immigrants. In some ways we saw this coming. In other ways, we have been surprised. Overall, things changed gradually enough that it wouldn't necessarily be perceived as an onslaught, though putting it into perspective by looking back at 2007 as a whole might make it hard to be seen otherwise.

Arizona has seen an increasingly unfriendly environment for undocumented immigrants, with the threat of raids, violence, and repression. Within a short time, a select number of officers from different police departments with jurisdiction in Maricopa County were trained to enforce immigration laws. Some agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were deputized as well, giving dual jurisdiction to an increasing number of officials. Immigration law began to be enforced in the jails and prisons as well. The efficiency gained by these changes to enforce immigration laws is likely part of the plan set forth by the Office of Detention and Removal, part of Homeland Security. This plan, which provides strategies to "remove all removable aliens" by 2012 is called Endgame.

The year started out on the heels of a raid on workers of meat-packing plants covering six states, the largest of its kind in the U.S. at that time. On January 23, 2007, a southern California raid that nearly matched that, consisted of arrests of 761 people from countries all across the world. At that time, raids were mostly part of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) "Operation Return to Sender" which purported to target undocumented immigrants who were criminals- those who were known to be involved in specific illegal activities, such as identity theft, or having committed serious crimes, were deported and came back into the states. However, on January 24, a Baltimore raid targeted day laborers, which may not have been the first time ICE targeted people looking for work, but nonetheless, seems to show a general shift in focus from enforcing immigration law for removing serious criminals to enforcement that targets undocumented workers in general. We must also not forget that especially the first few years after 9/11, 2001, immigration enforcement was promoted as a way to deal with terrorists, but has since, like I said, shifted focus.

More than 235 people died crossing the border in 2007. A study came out in the beginning of the year that put the blame on border security for the 20-fold increase in migrant deaths since 1990. The article states that the Binational Migration Institute conducted the study that showed the "funnel effect" of causing immigrants to cross the Arizona desert contributed to a great increase in deaths. According to Arizona Indymedia, "In 2007 the Pima County Medical Examiner's Office had to open a new building in order to cope with the volume of remains being recovered. While the majority of deaths occurred as the result of exposure to the elements, an increasing number resulted from trauma, including gunshot wounds. In spite of this humanitarian crisis, which Arizona human rights groups such as the Coalicion de Derechos Humanos and No More Deaths argue is a direct result of the militarization of the U.S./Mexico border, border militarization and internal enforcement continue to grow."

A series of shootings against undocumented immigrants around Arizona started 2007 on a bad foot. Immigrants were shot on January 27 in Eloy, Arizona, by four men in military-style berets and camouflage clothing. Described as three white men and one Hispanic man who spoke limited Spanish, they shot on 12 undocumented immigrants and the driver. One man was injured in the leg and the driver, apparently a citizen, was killed. About a week later, near Sasabe, undocumented immigrants were robbed at gunpoint by masked men. The next day, north west of Tucson, two men and a fifteen year-old girl, in a pick-up truck with 7-8 survivors, were killed by gunfire from another truck. The Tucson Citizen printed an article a few days later about hate crimes in Arizona, saying "Law enforcement officials blame rival immigrant smugglers for last week's violence against illegal immigrants. But others say the anti-illegal immigrant hatred saturating southern Arizona cannot be discounted. At the very least, it enables these crimes to occur." Indeed, undocumented people are being robbed, held for ransom, assaulted, and killed by other undocumented people. All of these issues- even the fact that immigrants die while crossing the desert- are related. They're related because immigrants are seen as exploitable and disposable, and therefore crimes against them can continue. Another attack occurred in Chandler, Arizona on February 22nd. These types of attacks have continued, though perhaps at a lower rate, and they remain mostly unreported by news media.

In February, I read about some efforts to set up a state militia in Arizona. Apparently a number of other states already have similar militias. The idea is that a militia would be able to help the government in emergencies. It's pretty obvious from the article, Security force for state debated, that the focus is on the border. Currently we have the national guard down at the border because governor Napolitano declared a "state of emergency", which the national guard is somehow supposed to fix. Because of the incident where armed people approached the national guard from the Mexico side of the border, forcing the national guard to retreat, some anti-immigrant folks were riled up about some supposed security threat.

Some research into this man, Arizona senator Jack Harper, who's pushing this bill that would create a state militia, shows that he has sponsored a number of bills that would make it harder for undocumented immigrants to live here. The militia bill passed in the legislature, but the governor vetoed it. Of course unofficial militias exist throughout the state (just do an internet search for Arizona militia), and many of these focus on the border. For example, the Cochise Borders Civil Defense Corps is now officially known as Cochise County Militia.

There were several anti-immigrant bills that were introduced in the legislature last year. One would keep immigrants from sending money out of the country if they didn't pay taxes on that money. Another involved allowing the police to enforce immigration laws, obstacles to registering vehicles, and an appeal to the federal government to make it so children of undocumented immigrants born in the U.S. are not automatically granted citizenship (which is still in the works). An anti-day-laborer bill would make it a trespassing offense if anyone blocks a public right of way to solicit a job or hire a day laborer.

Some legislators tried to change Arizona's official definition of domestic terrorism. Kirsten Sinema attempted to have the definition of domestic terrorism include border vigilante activity, which backfired when it was rejected and replaced by Russell Pearce with a wording change that would make it "illegal for undocumented persons to protest against a US citizen by an act that threatens, intimidates or results in physical injury to the citizen, to commit a crime against a citizen, or belong to a criminal street gang that protests against citizens."

None of the laws went into effect except the employer sanctions law, HB2779, which prohibits businesses from knowingly hiring undocumented workers. Businesses would risk their business license if they are found to not comply. Obviously the true target of sanctions is the undocumented worker.

In October, the Arizona Republic covered the racial profiling that was happening even a few months before the employer sanctions law was to go into effect. In late November, the Arizona Republic also carried a story on hundreds of people getting fired due to the employer sanctions law that still had not even gone into effect. Amazingly, completely contradictory information was shared with the public about whether the law would even apply to people who were already employed as we brought in the new year. On November 21st, the Arizona Republic put out a story on the new employee sanctions law only applying to new hires. However, on December 13th, an associated press story in the same newspaper stated the exact opposite of that story and doesn't even make any reference to Pearce's past statements.

There remain various unanswered questions even a month after the law went into effect. Despite the ridiculous lack of clarity around the law and the lawsuits brought against it, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) will be enforcing the new law in this county, which is not at all likely to lessen the controversy around it.

At the beginning of 2007, Sheriff Joe Arpaio was working on his department's ability to enforce immigration laws. He had already been arresting undocumented immigrants and charging them with conspiracy to smuggle themselves. Backed by Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, and using a law that aimed at cracking down on human smuggling, the sheriff's officers began in March of 2006 to arrest folks and put them in the jails to either plead guilty or await trial. This was considered a misinterpretation of the law according to its authors, yet the arrests continue. The last count I heard was over 1000. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is one of few sheriffs with a posse, a group of volunteers who have limited training to help enforce some laws. Joe's posse was involved in many of the patrols to catch undocumented immigrants. Some are armed.

By early February, Sheriff Joe got the go-ahead from the County Board of Supervisors for training one hundred and sixty officers to enforce immigration law.

The Arizona Republic article, Deputies may start arresting migrants stated,

Although the details are still being worked out, Arpaio did not rule out the possibility that deputies could use their expanded authority to question people about their immigration status during traffic stops and infractions as minor as "spitting on the sidewalk."

"Any time we come across an enforcement action and we find there are illegals present, then we will put our federal authority hat on and we will arrest them," Arpaio said. "I will do anything I can to fight this illegal-immigration problem, and this is one more step."

A federal official with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, though, said the intent of the program is not to use the deputies for routine traffic stops, as Arpaio plans.

I have always found this to be a very significant set of statements. And we shall see how they relate to his actions.

Meanwhile, outside of Maricopa county, in mid-February it was announced that Lake Havasu City Council gave the OK to the police to enforce immigration laws, and the town of Kingman was working on the same thing. Interestingly, around the same time, the East Valley Tribune and other publications printed a story about a study that showed that undocumented folks were less likely to commit crimes than citizens. However, that didn't slow the law enforcement efforts being made. Later, Prescott was also talking about getting a couple officers trained to enforce immigration law as well.
Also in early 2007, Federal immigration enforcement agents started working with Phoenix Police. The Arizona Republic reported:

Ten full-time Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents joined the Phoenix Police Department to work alongside detectives investigating violent and property crimes.

It's the first time a U.S. city has forged a side-by-side partnership with agents to intensify the fight against the criminal activity related to illegal immigration, including human and drug smuggling, kidnapping and murder.

By late march, a number of Maricopa County Sheriff's officers had been trained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), along with Department of Public Safety (DPS) officers. The MCSO officers would be authorized to detain and arrest suspected illegal immigrants both in the jails and on the streets. Later, some Phoenix police officers were trained to enforce immigration laws as well. The news about all these cops getting trained to enforce immigration highly increased concerns about raids. An email about a press conference stated, "Unidos en Arizona, Iglesia Palabra de Vida, Interfaith Worker Justice and the Hispanic Ministry of Faith Lutheran Church, calls on the Bush Administration to order AN IMMEDIATE MORATORIUM on all detentions, deportations, work-raids, employer sanctions, and the use of the 'No Match' letter which result in the separation of families until the passage of just and humane immigration legislation." But we were reassured by the governor, though not about Arpaio.

"The DPS is not going to be engaged in roundups," she said. Napolitano specifically cited the 1997 incident in Chandler where local police, working with federal immigration officers, went after anyone they thought was in this country illegally.

About 400 people were detained - including some U.S. citizens.

"That's not what they're going to do," she said.

In the beginning of March, a workplace raid took place in Tucson by ICE. ABC news reported,

Federal authorities on Friday raided a construction company accused of hiring illegal immigrants, detaining eight undocumented workers and arresting several other employees. Scores of agents fanned out in Douglas, along the Mexico border, and in Sierra Vista, about 50 miles northwest, in the raid on Sun Dry Wall & Stucco Inc.'s offices, a foreman's home, the home of a suspected counterfeiter and eight work sites...

In Arizona, immigration agents had promised stepped-up examinations of construction, agricultural, landscaping and service-industry businesses in hopes of deterring illegal hiring and lessening the economic incentive for immigrants to illegally cross the border.

Since then, workplace raids in Arizona have been minimal or not reported by mainstream media.

Around late March, an off-duty police officer began patrolling a certain area of Chandler to "write tickets enforcing the no-stopping ordinance, an attempt to discourage day laborers from gathering in the area," according to an Arizona Republic article, Merchants differ on off-duty cop to restrict day laborers. Also around the same time, the City of Gilbert was considering a change in policy. KTAR reported, "The deportation of three teenagers caught drag racing in Gilbert has sparked a push for a policy to turn over all illegal immigrants caught violating the law to federal authorities. If Gilbert adopts such a policy, it would be the first city in the East Valley to do so." As far as I can tell, Gilbert did not end up adopting this policy.

At the end of March, it was announced that as part of the new ability of officers to enforce immigration law, the Maricopa County Jails would be checking immigration status on all inmates and possibly have those who are undocumented deported. Around the same time, KVOA Tucson reported that "The federal agency that deports illegal immigrants is scheduled to open its first office inside a [Phoenix] prison later this week in an effort to expedite the deportation process."

In mid-July, Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced a set of efforts to combat the "immigration problem", which included a hotline that people could call to report undocumented immigrants. The hotline is believed to be the first in the country, and is printed on the side of some MCSO vehicles. The intent of the hotline was said to gather hard evidence, to go after undocumented immigrants only after having probable cause. This was only one part of the new plan. According to Arizona Republic:

In another part, about 160 sheriff's deputies, cross-trained to enforce immigration law, will saturate Valley cities and roadways to find and arrest those who are here illegally, the sheriff said. The deputies now have broad powers not only to question people about their immigration status during traffic stops, but also if they commit even a minor infraction, such as littering.

In addition, it was stated in this article that 64 ICE agents would be deputized. The East Valley Tribune reported in August that the Maricopa County Jails now have ICE databases as well, and that the Sheriff banned undocumented immigrants from visiting anyone in jail.

The MCSO stepped up efforts in October, arresting undocumented immigrants across the county in such places as Cave Creek, Queen Creek, Maryvale and Phoenix. The arrests were controversial. According to the Arizona Republic, "Others accuse Arpaio of overstepping the bounds of the agreement with ICE by using federally trained deputies to round up undocumented day laborers and corn vendors. ICE, however, says the sheriff is operating within his rights." Arpaio also announced his officers would be going after convicted criminals on probation who are undocumented, arresting them at their homes and workplaces.

Sheriff Joe began having people arrested in October in one of the main areas that day laborers have stood for work, near the Home Depot at 36th St. and Thomas in Phoenix. The area had been the site of minuteman protests in 2005 and later where area business-owners got together to hire off-duty police to patrol with the power to issue citations for trespassing and blocking traffic. Roger Sensing, owner of Pruitt's Home Furnishings, led the efforts against those standing on sidewalks looking for work in the area. His business was therefore the target of a boycott in late 2006 that resulted a few weeks later in an apparent agreement between Sensing and a leader in the boycott effort, Salvador Reza, in which Sensing agreed to stop hiring the off-duty cops if Reza would work on getting a day labor center in the area. Whatever the reason, a day labor center was not started in the area, and so day laborers remained standing on sidewalks in the area, although to a lesser degree by that time. Sensing and other business owners met with Sheriff Joe Arpaio to get him to do something about it. Sheriff's deputies arrested ten individuals in mid-October 2007. Reza and others started another boycott and began a weekly protest on Saturdays which lasted till the end of the year.

According to news reports, the Sheriff's officers were apparently stopping people for traffic violations in the area, not targeting people standing on the sidewalks, although it seemed clear that this was an effort to intimidate if not arrest undocumented workers in the area. The arrests, many of which resulted in deportations, continued as weeks went by. Quickly the arrests were framed as a response to the boycott demonstrations and tended to especially take place on Saturdays during protests. The situation was soon becoming ground-zero for the national immigration debate. At the beginning of December, an article with the title, Illegal immigrants arrested at furniture store protest, was printed in the Arizona Republic. Other publications printed similar articles. The interesting thing was that those eight were not part of the protest. They were just in the neighborhood during the protest. Yet the the former article says,

The eight people arrested Saturday on suspicion of violating immigration laws were the first illegal immigrants taken into custody during the actual protests.
"I thought it was time to do something more about it," Sheriff Joe Arpaio said. "The Pruitt's situation is getting out of hand. They are demonstrating every week and destroying this business. I don't think that's fair."

Clearly it was intended to look like Sheriff Joe was arresting participants of the protest even though he wasn't. The language of the articles led back to a press release put out by the Sheriff's office.

SHERIFF'S OFFICE CRACKDOWN CARRIES ON IN MIDST OF PRO-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION DEMONSTRATION

EIGHT MORE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARRESTED
DURING PROTEST AT PRUITT'S FURNITURE STORE

The ongoing battle between illegal immigrant day laborers, Pruitt's, and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office human smuggling unit resulted in the arrests of eight (8) more illegal aliens today.

The eight illegals were arrested by Sheriff Joe Arpaio's deputies under federal immigration law, now bringing the total made to 32 arrests within the six weeks since Sheriff's deputies began patrolling the vicinity of the central Phoenix store, and are the first series of arrests to occur as protesters, for and against illegal alien day laborers, line Thomas Road near 36th Street...

In less than a week from these arrests, the Sheriff's Office put out another press release prior to the protest. Quoting the sheriff, it said, "This weekend, I will increase the number deputies [sic] to patrol the Pruitt's area, and I promise that my deputies will arrest all violators of the state and federal immigration laws. I will not give up. All the activists must stop their protest before I stop enforcing the law in that area." It was clear from this that the sheriff was intentionally enforcing this law to protect a business against free speech. In addition, he was looking to either intimidate people from attending, or to convince anti-immigrant folks that he was taking care of their concerns like the great presidential candidate they think he should be, or both. Either way, he managed to make it appear that he was targeting participants of the demonstrations while not actually getting entangled in a legal battle that would ensue if he did. Legal observers, copwatch, media, and others tried to observe and document as many stops as they could on Saturdays.

Before the end of the year, at least one racial-profiling lawsuit was brought against the MCSO. They pulled over a vehicle driven by a U.S. citizen allegedly for speeding, although no citation was given. The passenger was asked for his identification and presented his passport and other paperwork, which despite its validity, was not enough to keep the police from detaining him for 8 hours. The lawsuit also includes a Hispanic U.S. citizen who was stopped while walking and was also detained. Another lawsuit was in the works this January.

In the middle of all of this, in mid-November, we got a surprise from Sheriff Joe. Arpaio was on Lou Dobb's "Broken Borders" show saying "Well, you know, they call you KKK. They did me. I think it's an honor, right? It means we're doing something." He didn't express that opinion back when it was discovered that an image of Arpaio as a KKK member holding a noose to a migrant's neck was circulating through email. At this point also, a recall effort started against him again, and also controversial was the arrest of the director of the ACLU for allegedly trespassing on the property of Pruitt's furniture store during one of the protests. Even though the charge against Dan Pochoda was simply trespassing, for which most people simply get a citation, he was arrested and brought to jail for 10 hours, and his car was impounded. He has a history of challenging the Sheriff's authority, and it was apparent that Pochoda would not have been arrested if he had not identified his position with the ACLU. This all came shortly after a complicated and more controversial situation involving the a local free paper, the Phoenix New Times.

Meanwhile, down in Tucson in early November, the Tucson Police Department officially stated they would not call ICE to schools and churches after a group of around 100 students protested outside the police department in response to ICE deporting a man whose son was caught with marijuana on his high school campus. The father was deported and the rest of the family was removed voluntarily after they admitted they were in the country illegally.

An article in the November/December edition of Color Lines newsmagazine came out exposing Phoenix as the city with the highest number of shootings by police. This article, titled "Why So High?" detailed the statistics that showed a disproportionate number of shootings against people of color. "Among the 27 cities with more than 250,000 people that tracked victims' ethnicities during this time, 23 out of 137, or one in six, Hispanic victims of police shootings were killed in Phoenix, although Phoenix had just 6 percent of the total population." Mayor of Phoenix, Phil Gordon, dismissed the data and expressed his solid faith in the police to do their jobs correctly and with no racial bias. He soon also came out supporting a change in police policy regarding asking about immigration status.

The Phoenix PD at this point, and for the past 20 or so years, have a "don't ask" policy, which means they don't ask about anyone's immigration status. Now, due to pressures from the anti-immigration/racist elements, the mayor is saying he supports a change in this policy which would allow the police to notify ICE when a suspected undocumented immigrant commits a crime, which insinuates that police would be asking about immigration status. The mayor not only said he supported this change, but a new policy is in the works by a four-man advisory panel. About the change in policy, the mayor said, "As mayor, I have seen our situation escalate to a perilous point. Rhetoric is replacing reason. There's too much hate. It's ugly, it's dangerous, and good people continue to suffer." The mayor also recently publicly criticized the racism among the anti-immigrant movement. What doesn't make sense is how he imagines the "hate" justifies changing the police policy.

Just before the end of the year, the Scottsdale police also announced they would be asking "for proof of citizenship from every suspect they arrest" as the Arizona Daily Star words it, and calling ICE on those who were suspected of being undocumented. Although this would apparently only affect those who are arrested, it seems problematic that the burden of proof would be on each individual as far as their legal status goes. Conveniently, ICE is better staffed to deal with local calls, according to the same article.

The year 2007 in this region is but a piece of the wider picture of what undocumented immigrants are facing. Things continue to get worse, and we can only expect it to get worse unless more people voice their opposition.