Police Should Live In The Community They Serve

How would you feel if we imported our police officers from foreign countries -- and didn't require them to become citizens or even become a part of the community they worked in. Do you think they would treat you fairly? Would they understand the problems you face, or the problems affecting the community at large? Probably not -- since they would have no personal investment in your community. And any problems that arose would be compounded if they happened to be of a different race or ethnic culture.

That might sound far-fetched to you, but it really isn't. Something very similar is happening in cities and counties across this nation. The chart at left, from fivethirtyeight.com, shows that many cities in this country are served by police officers who do not live in that city. In fact, the percentage of police officers who live outside the city they serve is more than 50% -- and if you just look at White police officers, that figure climbs to slightly over 60%.

You may not think this is a problem, but it is. When a police officer doesn't live in the community they serve it becomes much easier to view the citizens where they work as being different from themselves. It helps to create an "us" against "them" attitude among the officers -- and that kind of attitude can infect a whole department, and engender a situation where police profile and harass citizens and citizens don't trust the police (much like what has happened in Ferguson, Missouri).

The problem is only compounded when the police are White (and live in a mostly White city), but work in a different (mostly minority) community.

I'm not saying it is impossible for a White policeman to adequately and fairly serve a minority community -- only that it can encourage those with a propensity to view those of another race or ethnicity as being different (and unfortunately, there are many) to act on that view -- making it easier to profile, harass, beat, or even murder those "different" people.

Too often Whites expect all communities to be like the one they live in, and don't understand or recognize that different communities have different problems. It is simply easier to understand the problems of the community where you live, and have a stake in seeing those problems solved appropriately.

I believe police officers should live in the community they serve -- and the the department serving a community should generally have the same racial or ethnic make-up of that community. That wouldn't solve all the problems with policing in America -- but it would certainly be a good start.

Republican Values - Hate And Bullying

Please excuse my language, but stories like this just plain piss me off. The Republicans in Alabama had to prove they were even more hateful and bigoted than the folks in other states, so a few weeks ago they passed an anti-immigrant law that was even more restrictive than the one passed by Arizona. The law in Alabama went further by including schools. It mandated that the state's schools collect information about students who may be undocumented.

They did this in spite of the fact that the United States Supreme Court has dictated that schools may not discriminate by denying an education to any child -- even children who may not be in the country illegally. Evidently, Alabama has decided that although they can't deny an education to these kids they can certainly single them out for harassment and bullying -- and that's exactly what they have done.

One of the first things the new and incredibly stupid law did was convince the school's bullies that it is now open season on kids that look Hispanic, and they have jumped to take advantage of that. It has been reported that bullying by young racial bigots has increased in the schools and Hispanic students are being harassed by their classmates. That would be bad enough, but it looks like teachers are joining the harassing of these poor children.

Only The "Brown" Immigrants Are Unwelcome

Ever since Arizona passed their unconstitutional law designed to racially profile and harass Hispanics (in the hope of keeping Arizona white), several other states have been making noises about passing a similar law.   In Florida, a law has already been introduced.

Republican State Senator William Snyder introduced a bill last August that is very similar to Arizona's law.   Of course, Sen. Snyder claims the bill would not encourage racial or ethnic profiling.   He says that because he knows the Supreme Court has outlawed racial profiling by police or other government agencies.   But it is obvious that the only people the bill is aimed at are the people with darker skin.

How can I claim such a thing?   Easy.   This idiot senator actually wrote that into his silly law.   There is a provision of the law that would exempt anyone from Canada or a "visa waiver country" (which includes four Asian nations and all 32 Western European nations).   Anyone showing a passport from these countries (composed mainly of whites) is "presumed" to be in the country legally.

But anyone from any other country (meaning anyone with darker skin) must prove they are in the country legally.   That sounds to me like they have written a profiling provision into the law, while at the same time claiming that the law doesn't encourage profiling.

I, and many others, have been claiming for quite a while now that the current anti-immigrant fervor in this country has racial and ethnic origins.   It is meant exclusively for darker-skinned immigrants.   Senator Snyder removes any doubt in his law.   If you're Canadian or European (read that as white), you can stay whether you are legal or not.   But anyone from another country (and with a darker hue) is not wanted in Florida.

The sad part is that this law will probably pass.   Don't even try to tell me this is about protecting our borders.   It's just discrimination.

Even Republicans Think Arizona Law Is Wrong

As you probably know by now, Arizona has passed a new law aimed at taking over the federal government's constitutional mandate to control immigration. The law would force Arizona police to engage in racial profiling and would force Hispanics in Arizona to carry identity papers (failure to do so would result in a $2500 fine and six months in jail, with a second offense being a felony).

The racist and unconstitutional law was instantly met with outrage by liberals and Hispanic groups. It has also resulted in a warning issued by the Mexican government to its citizens planning to visit Arizona. Mexican officials called the law "discriminatory" and said it would create a "negative political environment" for Mexican visitors. They went on to say, "As long as no clear criteria are defined for when, where and who the authorities will inspect, it must be assumed that any Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time."

But now it's becoming clear that it's not just liberals, Hispanics and the Mexican government that believes the new Arizona law is wrong. Some Republicans and other right-wingers have also come out against the law. Here are some examples of opposition to the law from the right:

Former Bush Advisor Karl Rove -

"I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill. I wish they hadn't passed it, in a way."

Right-Wing TV Host Joe Scarborough -

"It does offend me that when one out of every three citizens in the state of Arizona are Hispanics, and you have now put a target on the back of one of three citizens who, if they're walking their dog around a neighborhood, if they're walking their child to school, and they're an American citizen or a legal, legal immigrant, can now put a target on their back and make them think every time they walk out of their door, they may have to prove something. I will tell you that is un-American. It is unacceptable, and it's un-American."

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) -

"It doesn't represent the best way forward."

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Florida) -

"I strongly disagree with the Arizona immigration law."

Florida Republican Senatorial Candidate Marco Rubio -

"From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. . .I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with 'reasonable suspicion', are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens."

You know a law can't be good when it has people from both sides of the political spectrum opposing it. This is just a bad law, and the sooner it is taken to court and declared unconstitutional, the better for our country and all of its citizens -- regardless of color or ethnicity.

Arizona Considering Unconstitutional Law

When people get scared, they become much more willing to give up their rights for a perceived safer world, and it looks like that is what's happening in Arizona. The right-wingers in the Republican Party have been demonizing immigrants for several years now -- especially those with a darker skin color, and Arizonans seem to be buying the racism the party is selling them.

The Arizona House of Representatives has just passed a bill, supposedly to fight illegal immigration. The bill is expected to also be passed by the senate and signed by the governor. The bill would forbid any city to adopt a "sanctuary" policy which would restrict police and social service workers from enforcing immigration laws. It would also expose drivers to sanctions if they knowingly transport an illegal alien -- even a family member.

But perhaps the most troubling aspect of the new law is the power it gives police to stop anyone and demand to see paperwork showing they are in the United States legally. Anyone without that paperwork could be arrested. I remember during the days when the Soviet Union was in existence, one of the differences between that country and America was the requirement to carry identity papers which could be demanded by police at any time.

The only identification that a citizen of the United States has been required to carry is a driver's license, and then only when driving. It has always been a mark of our freedom that we are not required to carry identification. It seems strange to me that the party that claims to be upholding our freedoms and our Constitution would be the party to take away some of that freedom -- the Republicans. I guess they can't be both the party of freedom and the party of fear at the same time, and they've chosen fear.

Of course, this law will almost force the police to engage in racial profiling (unless they plan to stop every citizen and demand to see their papers). No, I expect this will only happen to Hispanics -- many of them American citizens. This has to be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in that it creates a law aimed at only one class or race of people. It is simply wrong for Hispanics to be singled out to be harassed in this manner.

I think the law is also unconstitutional in a different way. Just a few years ago, an African-American man liked to take walks through a high-class suburb of San Francisco. He was repeatedly stopped and arrested by the suburban police because he did not carry any identification, although he always told them his true name and address and cooperated with them. He just believed that in America a man had the right to walk on public property anywhere without carrying identity papers.

He finally became angry with the continued harassment and sued the suburb. The case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and the court found the suburban community's police had violated the man's rights. They found that there was no requirement for an American to carry identity papers, and since the man cooperated and gave them his name and address, he should not have been arrested.

This Arizona bill is trying to do the same thing the suburban police had tried to do -- require American citizens to carry identity papers. It is wrong and should be quickly nullified by the courts.

I have nothing against the requirement to carry a driver's license when driving, but I have no desire to live in a state or country where I have to carry identity papers (such as pictured above) anytime I go out in public. That is just like an old-style East European police state, and cannot be tolerated in a truly free country.

It all boils down to one question. Do we want to live in a free country, or are we so fearful that we are willing to give up more of our freedoms? Personally, I choose to live in a free country.

Can The Police Investigate Themselves ?

The Los Angeles Police Department has just released some rather disturbing statistics. It seems that they had 320 accusations of racial profiling lodged against them in 2007. After investigating these charges, they found that not a single one of them was true. 252 of the cases were dismissed as unfounded. The others were dismissed because of "insufficient evidence".

It's amazing enough that not a single one of the charges was found justified, but it reaches the level of incredible when you consider that 2007 was the sixth year in a row that not a single case was to be found justified. Considering the past reputation of the LAPD, is it even remotely possible that the findings are correct?

The truth is that there are bad apples in even the best department. It is just the nature of the job, and the impossibility of weeding out all "bad apples" in the hiring process.

The LAPD, like all organizations that deal with people from a position of power, needs to have an outside investigative agency dealing with departmental accusations. The lesson to be learned here is that no organization does a decent job of investigating itself.

No department is perfect, no matter what the statistics say.

Justice Dept. Asked To Investigate Arpaio

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been an embarrassment to Arizona and the entire Southwest for several years now. He has ignored established legal procedures in an attempt to gain publicity and notoriety. He is famous for housing inmates in tents in the Arizona heat, making them wear pink clothing and feeding them a "loaf" made up of the day's menu all mixed together.

Finally, it looks like someone is trying to rein him in. The Mayor of Phoenix, Phil Gordon, has asked the United States Justice Department to investigate the sheriff. He wants to know if the sheriff has violated any civil rights laws in his very public crackdown on illegal immigrants.

Gordon is joined in this belief by the Arizona Ecumenical Council, the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. They say the sheriff's patrols have "evoked a police state atmosphere" resulting in "detainment on the basis of a racial profile and dehumanization of innocent people".

To be blunt, he is using racial profiling against Hispanics, so he can make himself look good by catching some undocumented immigrants. Arpaio claims he does not use racial profiling, but I don't know what else you could call it. His high-profile patrols only target Hispanic neighborhoods. How many innocent Hispanic citizens does he harass to get the few "illegals" he arrests?

I hope the Justice Department does investigate Arpaio's methods. Sheriffs have a lot of power in our system, but even they must obey the laws and rules. It is against the law to racially profile.

Hispanic citizens should have the same rights as other American citizens. They should not be profiled and hassled (even if subsequently released) just because they are Hispanic.