where the writers are
Reflections on Racism and Reasonable Suspicion: Immigration, Arizona and Anti-Latino Bias

To get a sense of the fundamental injustice of Arizona's anti-immigration bill, SB 1070, consider something that happened recently, and something that didn't--neither of them in Arizona, but rather in Nashville, Tennessee.

Earlier this week, because our children were out of school for teacher in-service, my wife and I slept in late. Upon rolling out of bed, Kristy, who doesn't drink coffee, let it be known she was desperate for caffeine. This is her way of indicating that I am to go hunting and gathering for some carbonated delivery system of this critical stimulant, and not to return until I've found it.

So off I went to the closest fast food restaurant, which, not having paid me for product placement will receive no free advertising from me here, but which apparently is of Scottish derivation. Being barely awake upon my departure from the house, I grabbed cash but neglected to snag my driver's license from the drawer next to my bed. About halfway there I realized my oversight but opted to keep driving rather than turning back and retrieving it. I'll just be careful, I thought to myself. And anyway, it's only three miles round-trip.

After placing my order at the drive-thru, I pulled up to the window to pay. Needing to reach into my pocket for the money, I unhooked my seat belt for easier access, paid the $1.35 and drove away, neglecting to re-attach the belt: something I often forget to do in that situation. As I turned on to the street, I noticed a parked police car, officer inside, up against the curb. About 15 feet in front of him I came to the stop sign, then turned right onto the main road to go home, forgetting in the process, as I often do, to use my turn signal.

I glanced in the rear view mirror just long enough to notice that indeed the officer had been looking right at me as I made the turn: the turn that I made without a seatbelt on, and without first giving a signal, and without possessing (though he couldn't have known this) my driver's license, having left it at home. He did not follow me. He did not pull me over. He did not issue me a ticket, despite the two known violations I had committed, and the other one that, had he stopped me, he would have immediately discovered.

Nor did I really expect to be pulled over. Indeed, I was fairly confident that nothing would happen, just as I always am when forgetting to signal a lane change for long enough before moving over, or occasionally violating some other arcane rule of the road about which I have long since forgotten all these many years away from Driver's Ed.

And this is where the story begins to have relevance to the debate over SB 1070. Those who support the new law insist that it won't lead to police unfairly targeting Latino/as, even though literally all the anti-immigrant rhetoric in the state has been aimed at such folks. Although it allows law enforcement officials to ask for proof of legal status from anyone they "reasonably" suspect might be in the country illegally--an inherently vague notion--the standard won't be abused, they claim. After all, according to the law, police can only ask for such documentation during the course of an otherwise legal contact between themselves and the person they suspect of being unlawfully in the country. 

But such a stipulation hardly acquits the policy of the likely abuses to which it will be put in practice. After all, as my experience in the car demonstrated, violating minor traffic laws is something we all do regularly. Had the officer outside the restaurant decided to stop me, rather than continuing to eat his Scottish-named egg sandwich, he would have been perfectly within his rights to do so. The contact would have been lawful, even if a bit nit-picky. In Arizona, under the new law, officers who saw drivers they perceived as Latino/a, and who wanted to stop them, need only pick out some minor infraction (the kind we all commit every time we pull out of the driveway), and then use the infraction as an excuse for a stop the real purpose of which was to determine the lawful status of someone whose only reason for being stopped was their perceived ethnicity.

In fact, the law doesn't even require a moving violation. Because SB 1070 includes municipal code violations as a legitimate reason for "legal contact" by officers, police would be able to use everything from failure to cut one's grass often enough, to having too many cars in the driveway, to placing one's garbage containers in the wrong spot on the street, as reasons for a stop and document search.

In other words, Latino/a residents of Arizona, irrespective of their legal or even citizenship status, will now have to think about things no white person will have to sweat. No one, after all, really believes that police will be stopping German tourists, and asking for proper papers, no matter how thick their accents, or how much black clothing they're wearing, even on a sunny, hot Arizona day. Some outsiders will receive a pass, while some who are actually insiders--that is to say, not only lawful residents but even third, fourth or fifth generation citizens--will not. They will, because of skin color, or accent, be seen as ripe for questioning. 

They won't be able to take anything for granted, though white folks, as always, still will. They will have to follow every rule to the letter, for fear of being otherwise legally harassed by cops, even as those of us belonging to the dominant group will be able to nonchalantly go through our days, unconcerned about having to prove our identity just because a piece of our taillight cover was cracked, or because we went a few miles over the speed limit, or because our muffler wasn't working sufficiently to reduce the noise from our car within legal limits in our communities.

That such a response will result in the arbitrary stopping and searching of those who are undocumented--but who despite their legal status are still protected under the Constitution from unreasonable searches and seizures, and are guaranteed (in theory) equal protection of the laws--should be sufficiently disturbing. But beyond that, SB 1070 virtually guarantees that any and all Latino/as in the state will be vulnerable to such authoritarian measures. While supporters of the law shrug off this truth as a mere inconvenience, it is quite a bit more than that. For an entire class of citizens to fear that law enforcement will focus attention on their group is to make a mockery of the nation's pretensions to equal justice under law: something we have also long done with regard to black folks, and, since 9/11 especially, to persons seen as Arab or religiously Muslim. It is to stigmatize the group in question in the eyes of the broader public, to label them deviant, untrustworthy, and undeserving of the basic Constitutional protections that white folks take for granted. And the ability to take those protections for granted is the epitome of privilege and entitlement.

Although conservative Tea Party activists insist they are defenders of the Constitution--and that indeed, their deep reverence for it is the primary motivation for their current outrage--they have launched a petition drive in favor of the Arizona immigration crackdown, irrespective of the obvious 4th and 14th Amendment implications. Which makes sense, given that neither of these amendments include the stuff about guns, which is the only part the right much cares for or has seen fit to memorize.

Speaking of which, and in the spirit of bipartisanship, perhaps there's a way to bridge the seeming impasse between right and left when it comes to immigration, SB 1070 and the Constitution. On the one hand, we could allow the new law to stand so as to satisfy the concerns of Arizonans who feel they are being "overrun" by the undocumented. But on the other, and in keeping with the Second Amendment, we could immediately hand out guns--lots of them--to every Latino/a in the state so as to defend themselves against the heavy hand of government tyranny. Then we can sit back and see just how badly cops want to play immigration agent, or how much more they value their donuts, coffee, and the beating of their own hearts. I think I know what most would decide.

After all, and as the NRA reminds us, "an armed society is a polite society."

Indeed.

Tim Wise is the author of five books on race and racism. His latest is Colorblind: The Rise of Post-Racial Politics and the Retreat from Racial Equity

Comments
14 Comment count
Comment Bubble Tip

And a couple more issues:

AZ teachers can be fired for having a discernible accent (although I would bet that they are not concerned with UK Received Diction ...): http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/sb1070-not-xenophobic-enough-arizona

AZ schools no longer allowed to teach ethnic studies classes: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100512/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_ethnic_studies

How anyone can pretend that these policies are anything but racist is beyond me ...

Comment Bubble Tip

Tonight before bed I read

Tonight before bed I read "The Tale of Pigling Bland," to the children here. Part of the plot is that Pigling Bland, being a pig, has to have papers to prove he is allowed to go to market. He has his and his brother's papers, but ends up using his brother's papers to provide cover for a little girl pig he came across. They get stopped, the papers produced and questioned, the grocer who stopped them goes to confer with a farmer nearby, and the little pigs race for their lives. All I could think of while reading it was the Arizona law and everyone who looks vaguely Latino/a living in fear of coming in contact with a cop and being ordered to produce their 'papers.' My KidOne, who looks entirely Latina, is forever misplacing or actually losing her wallet--heaven forfend she should ever do so in Arizona.

Comment Bubble Tip

Driving while white

First, I think the police in Tennessee should be notified that they have an admitted serial traffic law violator driving in their midst. For the benefit of the safety of the citizens and protection of their property, the police should be on the lookout for what can aptly be described as an angry white male with a crazed look in his eye and likely having a "Free Mumia" bumper sticker prominently displayed. If spotted, police should approach the subject with extreme caution, especially if they're white, as the subject has a pronounced dislike of white people. If possible, a black police officer should be the one to approach the subject and/or his vehicle so as to help ensure a peaceful outcome... although that would be discriminatory.

Secondly, if you can prove that a black or Hispanic driver would have been treated any differently, I will effing pay you for it.

Thirdly, you've just shown that providing proper identification to the police is a reasonable expectation, even for native born Americans. It is no big deal.

Fourthly, there can be and will be no "arbitrary stopping and searching of those who are undocumented." It is expressly prohibited.

That said, let me give some instances of a white male being stopped by the police, with a summary at the end.

Instance 1: Driving home from the bank at 10:00 on a Sunday morning, I was stopped by 3 police cars, whereupon 2 more arrived, and 10 police officers. The reason? One of them thought my windows were tinted too darkly. They weren't, so after a long time of sitting and sweating in my car for no good reason, they sent me happily on my way.

Instance 2: Driving to my dentist's office, a cop car pulls out ahead of me and a few trucks in front of me, from an intersecting road. He slows down as all of us pass him on the right, then pulls in behind me, lights flashing, sirens wailing, and pulls me over and says that I ran a red light right in front of him. I told him that not only did I not run a red light, but that he was ahead of me when I went through the light. He was angry to begin with, and that made him angrier. He asked me to say I wouldn't do it again or he'd write me a ticket. I told him to go ahead and write the ticket and that I'd fight it in court. I had a perfect driving record, and this guy was hallucinating, so I thought I had a fair shot of winning, and I wanted to stand on principle. The guy just walked off in a huff and left.

Instance 3: New Year's Eve, 2004, driving home from work and traffic on the highway is clogged. I see a break in it and accelerate quickly to pass the clogged part. No sooner did I pass it, then a black cop pulled me over and wrote me a ticket for speeding. Months later I went to court for it, met with the officer, and plea bargained it down to a seatbelt violation, although my seatbelt was attached during the stop.

Lessons Learned:
1. Police sometimes do stupid things, but race has nothing to do with it. It'd be hard for anyone to look whiter than I do, but that didn't stop police from stopping me twice for no good reason, although had I been black and written to you about it, you'd be outraged that a black person was having his rights violated.

2. In no case was either my person or my vehicle searched. Why? Because in no case did I say or do anything to give them reason to - no unexpected moves, no odor of alcohol or marijuana, no crack pipe on the passenger seat, etc. Those are the things that get people and cars searched, not race.

3. Plea bargains happen. That's how someone who was guilty of committing one violation, in this case speeding, can get convicted of a lesser offense, no seatbelt. That's also how violent offenders can get convicted of drug possession rather than, or perhaps in addition to, the more serious offenses they might have convicted, resulting in skewed figures for drug busts.

 

In general, that there's a remote possibility that something, including a law, CAN be abused, doesn't mean it WILL be abused, especially when there's a line of defense against that in the forms of proper legal procedures and judges.   If you try hard enough, you can take anything to an extreme, and that's what you're doing with your dreams of Arizona police stopping people randomly and asking about their legal status in the country.   If you had been stopped, as white as you are, you would have had to produce your driver's license, which establishes your identity.  It's no imposition on anyone's rights to have the same expectation of illegal immigrants.

Comment Bubble Tip

Brian, you'd go broke in a

Brian, you'd go broke in a day if you paid someone every time they could prove some cops (not all) treat some black/brown folks (not all) differently. 

And why do you think that being pro-civil right for all (meaning including people of color) means being anti-white?

But my favorite line up there is "that there's a remote possibility that something, including a law, CAN be abused, doesn't mean it WILL be abused, especially when there's a line of defense against that in the forms of proper legal procedures and judges."  Oh, I feel so much better now.  The police and judges will protect me.

Of course they will.  I'm white.

Comment Bubble Tip

To Susan

To the contrary, I probably wouldn't lose more than a few dollars if I paid someone every time they could prove that some cops treat "black/brown" folks differently.  I would,  however, go broke if I paid someone every time a false accusation of such treatment - or police brutality - were made. 

 In any event, where did I state or imply that being pro civil rights in any way means being anti-white?  Being anti-white means being anti-white, however, and sometimes anti-white is to claim civil rights abuses on the parts of whites that aren't taking place.

 And, yes, the police and judges will protect you and are protecting you even as I write this.  You live in a land with unprecedented personal liberties, brought to you courtesy of the men in blue and judges in black.

 

 

 

Comment Bubble Tip

Well...

Then get ready to pay up, since as I keep showing you to no avail, there are dozens of studies that show pervasive and endless mistreatment by police as well as judges, lawyers, etc. Since every one of those documented incidents would be a few bucks...

But studies on false accusations of police brutality? Oh, right, you haven't cited any.

Comment Bubble Tip

Um, no.

Brian wrote:  Thirdly, you've just shown that providing proper identification to the police is a reasonable expectation, even for native born Americans. It is no big deal.

 US citizens are not required to carry identification on their person.  A driver's license, which serves as de facto identification, is only required to be present when one is operating a motor vehicle.  If you are strolling down the street, you don't have to have your driver's license, or any other form of ID.  If you are paying cash for an ice cream at the local Dairy Queen, you don't have to have your driver's license of any other form of ID.

 If you are *not* a US citizen, you must have your proof of immigration status on you while strolling down the street or buying an ice cream.  If you are an illegal immigrant, you are not in possesion of said documentation; if you are a US citizen, you don't have to carry it.

 So, now let's pretend you are a person of color -- a citizen, for the sake of this argument and, just for fun, a naturalized citizen with a discernible accent -- strolling down the street in Arizona, on your way to buy an ice cream.  You have cash in your pocket, along with your house keys.  Let's just say that a law enforcement officer now decides to "suspect" that you are drunk in public ... and stops you on the street.  You ask what the problem is, and he demands to see your immigration papers -- which, as a citizen, you do not possess on your person, as the law states you don't have to do so.  So, because you can't prove your immigration status, instead of getting an ice cream you are waiting for ICE thanks to SB 1070.

 You really don't get it.  You sit in your position of white male privilege and pretend that racism doesn't exist because you are unaffected by it.  I can't help wondering what color the sky is in your world ...

Comment Bubble Tip

Mendicant

"First, I think the police in Tennessee should be notified that they have an admitted serial traffic law violator driving in their midst. For the benefit of the safety of the citizens and protection of their property, the police should be on the lookout for what can aptly be described as an angry white male with a crazed look in his eye and likely having a "Free Mumia" bumper sticker prominently displayed. If spotted, police should approach the subject with extreme caution, especially if they're white, as the subject has a pronounced dislike of white people. If possible, a black police officer should be the one to approach the subject and/or his vehicle so as to help ensure a peaceful outcome... although that would be discriminatory. "

If they do that, then they have to be approaching all white drivers that way, because literally everyone has broken a traffic ordinance, or can be argued to have, virtually every day. Sort of the point :D

"Secondly, if you can prove that a black or Hispanic driver would have been treated any differently, I will effing pay you for it."

What an empty promise since, as a hypothetical AND as an individual example, you can't "prove" ANYTHING.

What I CAN "prove", though, and already have with reams of sociological data you ignored, is that Tim's estimation that he wouldn't be pulled over would be FAR more rational than a black or brown driver making that estimation. So much so that black and brown drivers generally don't and white drivers generally do. The example still resonates.

More importantly, under SB 1070, Tim would face at worst a ticket, whereas Latina/os would face deportation. That's the point you missed.

"Thirdly, you've just shown that providing proper identification to the police is a reasonable expectation, even for native born Americans. It is no big deal."

How did he show that at all? The example indicates that he COULDN'T have. If he had been pulled over for the multiple laws he had undoubtedly broken, he couldn't have proven that he was a citizen and would have begun to face deportation proceedings. If he were brown. Get it?

"Fourthly, there can be and will be no "arbitrary stopping and searching of those who are undocumented." It is expressly prohibited."

Too bad "arbitrary" DOESN'T mean "being stopped for committing an inconsequential traffic law whites commit every day then being deported". You've CONCEDED that will happen over and over again, because you've admitted, as is obviously the case, that pretextual stops occur and are Constitutional.

"1. Police sometimes do stupid things, but race has nothing to do with it. It'd be hard for anyone to look whiter than I do, but that didn't stop police from stopping me twice for no good reason, although had I been black and written to you about it, you'd be outraged that a black person was having his rights violated.

2. In no case was either my person or my vehicle searched. Why? Because in no case did I say or do anything to give them reason to - no unexpected moves, no odor of alcohol or marijuana, no crack pipe on the passenger seat, etc. Those are the things that get people and cars searched, not race.

3. Plea bargains happen. That's how someone who was guilty of committing one violation, in this case speeding, can get convicted of a lesser offense, no seatbelt. That's also how violent offenders can get convicted of drug possession rather than, or perhaps in addition to, the more serious offenses they might have convicted, resulting in skewed figures for drug busts."

The fact that you think your anecdotal examples overwhelm reams of sociological data you've been shown and ignored indicates how little you take this seriously. Hey, Brian, I've never had my job taken by an illegal! Must not be a problem. Hey, Brian, I've never been killed by a terrorist! Why don't you conservatives stop whining about terrorism and stop killing innocent people over nothing?

Also, the fact that you said in one breath that you were treated just like any black man, THEN SAID YOUR VEHICLE WASN'T SEARCHED EVEN THOUGH THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN AND WOMEN, also indicates how stupid this is. If your tires HAD been slashed open and your couches ripped apart to find contraband, THEN you would be able to say race didn't matter, you mendicant.

I can give you dozens of examples of when I have been pulled over, or interacted with police, having broken various laws or been witness to breaking various laws, and gotten away with it because I'm middle-class and white. My examples don't deny yours and they don't sociologically mean yours are wrong. That'd be stupid. Like your argument. The hilarious thing is that you think YOUR experience as a white guy denies THEIR experience as a black guy. That's, wait, WHITE PRIVILEGE.

Comment Bubble Tip

You can not be serious

Frederic:

>Also, the fact that you said in one breath that you were treated just like any black man, THEN SAID YOUR VEHICLE WASN'T SEARCHED EVEN THOUGH THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN AND WOMEN, <

According to the 2002 data in the report Tim referenced, only 5% of drivers and/or their vehicles categorically were searched.  8.1% of black drivers, 8.3% of Hispanic drivers, and 2.5% of white drivers.  And barring any evidence to the contrary, it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of all those searches were warranted.  To claim that a black driver would be searched, especially to claim it was a function of race, when only 8.1% of those stopped were in fact searched, is simply delusional.

 >also indicates how stupid this is. If your tires HAD been slashed open and your couches ripped apart to find contraband, THEN you would be able to say race didn't matter, you mendicant.<

 Frederic, you're taking Tim's hyperbole seriously.  It's never a good idea to do that.

Comment Bubble Tip

Please

"According to the 2002 data in the report Tim referenced, only 5% of drivers and/or their vehicles categorically were searched.  8.1% of black drivers, 8.3% of Hispanic drivers, and 2.5% of white drivers.  And barring any evidence to the contrary, it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of all those searches were warranted.  To claim that a black driver would be searched, especially to claim it was a function of race, when only 8.1% of those stopped were in fact searched, is simply delusional."

The evidence to the contrary is

a) That there is NO evidence that the police provided that blacks commit the crimes they were being searched for more often or that they had reasonable suspicion,

b)  That whites USE MORE DRUGS, so they should be pulled over MORE OFTEN not less for contraband searches,

c) That contraband searches YIELDED MORE RESULTS FOR WHITES.

A policy appears where the cops target those who have the LEAST contraband MORE often and you think it's RATIONAL? Please.

That 8.1% of black drivers, by the way, is still tens of thousands of people. Tens of thousands of people who have felt the sting of discrimination. Let alone discrimination in the job market, criminal justice system, mortgages and banking, education, etc. No wonder majorities of African-Americans report experiencing routine discrimination, while whites don't report that. But hey, no white privilege exists.

The best part? You've now conceded that there IS white privilege, since blacks get searched more often. You just don't think it matters. Several months to get to basic rationality! Yay!

" Frederic, you're taking Tim's hyperbole seriously.  It's never a good idea to do that."

It's not hyperbole. If you had done an ounce of research, you'd know it happens.

But, since you're white and don't care, you don't bother.

No white privilege, indeed.

Comment Bubble Tip

I've had many a similar experience

I recently moved to Jersey City, the 2nd largest city in the most densely populated state. I have realized that the cops have very important things to worry about, such as murders, gang violence, drug lords, etc, and that they don't care if I run a "yellow" (but blatantly red) light, fail to use my turn signal, or any other minor traffic violation short of smashing my car into something. I have pulled these maneuvers right in front of cops many a time in the past few months that I've lived here and *knock on wood* never been pulled over. There are always a plethora of cop cars in my neighborhood, and I live in an area predominantly inhabited by racial minorities (coincidence?). I cannot attest to whether they get pulled over any more than I do for the same traffic violations however, since I have not asked them.

However, having grown up in 99% white suburbia, I am also very aware of the frivolous pull overs cops do, seeing as the biggest issues small town suburban cops have to worry about is a white high school student with pot or drunk soccer dad coming home from a night out with the guys. When I go home to visit my mom, I have to remember NOT to run the yellow light as I enter town, and to actually go the speed limit.

For example, while I still lived with my mom, she picked me up from my waitressing job on my birthday, for which I wore a plastic, shiny crown. (Working on ones birthday sucks enough, I thought I'd at least have fun with it!) So as she's driving home, going the speed limit, back from the town with all the bars to our quiet home in suburbia, a cop pulls her over. She hasn't gotten a ticket in over 30 years. Once he came up to us and saw that it was a middle aged white woman driving, his reaction was a mix between shock and embarrassment. His claim was that she "hugged the yellow line a little too closely" as she went through the intersection. She denied it, and when he also saw how clean her record was, and to avoid more humiliation, he let us go with a verbal warning.

My theory is that he saw my wearing my sparkly crown and assumed that we had just come back from drinking for either a birthday or bachelorette party and were very likely drunk driving. This is further proven by his reaction once he saw that my mom was the driver. I'm sure if there were more than 2 non-white families in the town, cops might profile more. However, since there's not, the only profiling they do is that of a teenager who might have pot, be drinking underage, or driving past the midnight curfew with a provisional license.

So yes, cops pull us whites over for stupid things all the time, but they rarely do anything about it. They certainly don't search our cars, and they rarely even give us tickets for it. And if they do, it's probably because you're in a small town where cops have nothing better to do. But point is, if you were black, and especially if you are a Latino in Arizona, you are more likely to get pulled over for frivolous/false violations, and then more likely to have your car searched.

Comment Bubble Tip

Great Point...

"So yes, cops pull us whites over for stupid things all the time, but they rarely do anything about it. They certainly don't search our cars, and they rarely even give us tickets for it. And if they do, it's probably because you're in a small town where cops have nothing better to do. But point is, if you were black, and especially if you are a Latino in Arizona, you are more likely to get pulled over for frivolous/false violations, and then more likely to have your car searched."

A great point. I have certainly been profiled for being young, or looking like I was in the wrong part of town, or looking like a pothead, or whatever. And certainly those who look poor, of all races, face higher rates of police harassment (not least because the police don't have to worry about being sued). But it is quite another thing entirely to be black and even middle-class...

Comment Bubble Tip

From this morning's news:

An Illinois preview of the Arizona Law, wherein a US citizen is threatened with deportation to Mexico.

http://gawker.com/5547572/lawmen-threaten-to-deport-puerto-rican-guy-to-...

Comment Bubble Tip

My Family/Mi Familia

The mass deportation aka repatriation of latinos was depicted in the movie My Family/Mi Familia--until I saw that movie, I had no idea the U.S. had done this.  The movie depicted a U.S. citizen rounded up while shopping and sent straight to Mexico, despite her protestations in English that she was an American.