Laudably civil, well-intentioned, poorly informed.
by Chris Deaton
We live in a soundbite culture. We take 10 seconds from the top of a 10-hour debate and use them as the foundation of our understanding because we haven’t the time, care, or some combination thereof to dig further.
The superficial conclusions we draw often favor sensitivity. If the matter is controversial, we must choose the most seemingly inoffensive alternative to suppress our greatest fear: the bad within us. It’s a nonpartisan feeling, for to Seth MacFarlane, a liberal and a comedic visionary, and Connie Mack, a conservative Congressman, that bad is our inner Nazi, our inner Gestapo.
S.B. 1070 in 10 seconds: … reasonable suspicion exists that … person is an alien who is unlawfully present … reasonable attempt … to determine the immigration status …
No, Suns President Robert Sarver didn’t go so far as to suggest governmental thuggery of foreign regimes past, but his fear was palpable: “… the result of passing the law is that our basic principles of equal rights and protection under the law are being called into question.” Steve Nash was equally cautionary and temperate: “I think the law is very misguided … I think the law obviously can target opportunities for racial profiling. Things we don’t want to see and don’t need to see in 2010.”
They had to speak out on this. They had to assure their supporters, Arizonans, Americans, Earthlings — most importantly, themselves — that Governor Jan Brewer and the legislature didn’t reflect the views of the Phoenix Suns. They had to disassociate themselves from a surely existent stigma that “people around the world and around the country look at our state as less than equal, less than fair,” Nash said.
So all further apologetic words from players and team officials were superfluous when a mere moniker, Los Suns, a bit of Spanglish one step above “mano y mano”, would succinctly strike the right tone. These uniforms, once reserved for designated noches Latinas to recognize the Hispanic public in select media markets, would serve as a political battle cry, yes, but also “let the Latin community know we’re behind them 100 percent,” said Amar’e Stoudemire.
Solidarity. Sarver and Nash; GM Steve Kerr, who said on behalf of his organization, “… we don’t agree with the law itself;” even Billy Hunter, executive director of the National Basketball Players Association, whose comments were among the most forthright of any League personnel: “Any attempt to encourage, tolerate or legalize racial profiling is offensive and incompatible with basic notions of fairness and equal protection;” all of them have entrenched themselves as ‘of the people’.
And they’re misguided. Only 36 percent of Americans agree with them, and this minority retains no moral absolutism — the law is at least debatable, and the majority of the public aren’t xenophobic kooks.
Go beyond the 10 seconds. Fill in the ellipses. It’s the difference between, … reasonable suspicion that … person is an alien who is unlawfully present … reasonable attempt … to determine the immigration status … — the disturbing essence of a would-be police-state decree — and, For any legitimate contact made by an official where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person …
The latter is restrictive; ‘legitimate contact’ in this context is compelled by the possibility of a legal infraction, and no legal document applicable in the state of Arizona even implies that the possession of a particular skin color is a legal infraction. From the same chunk of language italicized above, Sec. 2, item B: A law enforcement official … may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. In other words, the question of immigration status is step B or beyond of any encounter between a person and law enforcement.
Does that mean officers will find ways to manufacture step As? That depends upon the number of overzealous Arizona patrolmen willing to pull someone over for doing 58 in a 55, which, by most any reasonable guess, is small — the outliers of the equation as likely to affect Christophers as they are Cristobals.
But we fear the worst, and that’s why the attention-grabbing 10 seconds will always elicit more emotion and response than the remaining nine hours, 59 minutes and 50 seconds of the debate. That’s why Sarver, Nash, et al had to go out of their ways to voice their concerns, because given America’s checkered history with race relations and our modern, national paranoia to fervently guard against perceptions of marginalizing others, we have to vocalize or make recordable our reassurances that everyone in this country plays on the same team.
I wish it didn’t have to be like that; I wish that our default position was an assumption of equality that didn’t beckon the show of Los Suns. I’m still wishing for that one day when we realize the presence of many ethnicities, many cultures, but one race — the human race — and a desperate but limited law, intended for the curbing of illegal immigration and not the perversion of persecuting Latinos, wouldn’t call the unity into question.
LATEST NEWS & RUMORS
View all »
- Avery Bradley to Undergo Season-Ending Shoulder Surgery
- Jeff Van Gundy Blasts Orlando Magic for Handling of Stan Van Gundy’s Firing
- JR Smith Arrested in Miami Due to License, Then Released
- Kicks: Derrick Williams’ Birthday Sneaker Scavenger Hunt
- Are the Orlando Magic Ready to Trade Dwight Howard?
- Layup Lines: Survival of the Fittest
- Video: Dwyane Wade Was Proud to Wear Hot Pink Pants
- Russell Westbrook Still Bothered By 42 Points Tony Parker Scored on Him
- Magic Johnson Urges Lakers to Pull Trigger on Major Trades
- View All »
People who point out that officers will have to have some legitimate reason to stop individuals before they check their immigration status and thus that will prevent racial profiling clearly don’t understand how racial profiling works.
Currently, in 99 percent of law enforcement districts, it’s ILLEGAL to stop ANYONE because of their race. Period.
Yet, despite this illegality, we all understand that racial profiling occurs constantly. Why is that?
Because it’s quite easy for a police officer to create “reasonable suspicion.”
Don’t use your signal when you change lanes, reasonable suspicion.
Fail to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, reasonable suspicion.
In fact, if you appear “nervous” or refuse to meet an officer’s eyes, that can be deemed REASONABLE SUSPICION.
Police officers have wide discretion in making traffic stops and in conducting searches during those traffic stops. That is why it’s so difficult to PROVE racial profiling. Police officers regularly concoct bogus reasons for making traffic stops, or use their lawful discretion disproportionately on minorities, and can claim that racial profiling is not an issue.
Hell, under New York’s stop and frisk law, I think roughly 90 percent of the people stopped and frisked were black and Latino, and weapons were found less than 10 percent of the time. That means the the vast majority of blacks and Latinos are not carrying weapons, yet officers continue to stop them disproportionately. And the NYPD continues to deny that racial profiling is an issue.
There is no magic sign that denotes racial profiling. Once you give officer wide discretion to stop, search and demand papers from individuals you give also allow their biases to dictate who they stop and search. It’s obvious that VERY few white citizens will ever be stopped under this new law because given the biases of the vast majority of police officers, they don’t fit the profile that would provide “reasonable suspicion” that they are illegal immigrants.
You have to first understand how racial profiling works before you can honestly say this law doesn’t legalize racial profiling.
Otherwise, your comments are misguided.
What is that comment based on? Have you looked at the studies of the insidious nature of racial bias and how we all as humans determine threats based on our biases?
Have WORKED with police officers, examined police reports, or talked to people who claim to have been targeted by police?
I have. And in my opinion, police operate from a standard playbook that denotes “good guys” and “bad guys.” They create black and white distinctions among the general public because it makes their jobs simpler and safer.
That’s the truth. Using stereotypes reduces reaction times, and makes officers safer given the over committment of police officers in most urban and minority heavy areas. If they automatically assume that every black or brown person is a threat, they don’t have to worry about their reactions being slowed when those people actually become threats.
The problem is that the vast majority of black and brown folks ARE NOT threats, and the default position of police officers working in urban, minority-heavy areas means that abuses will occur constantly.
Police officers have a difficult and dangerous job. They also have an AMAZING amount of power in our society. We have to acknowledge both realities, and understand how those realities affect the lives of the general public.
This piece was horribly naive in its characterizations of the interactions between the police and the public, particularly the minority public.
When you find a thriving, free democracy that instructs its law enforcement officers to question and detain people based on how they look/act, please let me know.
What Allen said, in other words.
You are free to do as you please with the comments section, that’s on you. But, I will note that none of the first responses appeared to target you as a hick or attack you personally. I know my comments did not. I attacked your argument, which I maintain is horribly flawed for two simple reason, which I will restate.
1. You have ignored what “reasonable suspicion” is for police officers.
2. You have ignored how much discretion officers have in making traffic stops.
That is the crux of the argument. This law permits officers to request new documentation from anyone they “suspect” of being an illegal immigrant during a traffic stop.
You attempt to focus on the fact that this law requires a legitimate reason for the traffic stop to occur, while ignoring that traffic stops are conducted CONSTANTLY for illegitimate reasons.
Furthermore, I didn’t use hyperbole. I used well documented facts about bias and how it affects policing. I even referenced recent news articles about how that bias has been demonstrated in New York where officers have the power to search ANYONE for weapons when they conduct random pedestrian stops on them. What the statistics show is that officers disproportionately stop blacks and Latinos, and also search them disproportionately. They also show that officers RARELY find guns! This is all easily verifiable by reading the New York Times recent articles on the issue.
So, what that law shows us is that law enforcement officers in “liberal” New York have shown a clear bias in how they conduct stops of citizens, and it also shows us that these stops do not really solve the illegal weapon problem.
Just like this immigration law, which has been panned by a plethora of law enforcement officials.
This law gives the police the ability to request “immigration papers” from anyone they stop, who they have a “reasonable suspicion” might be an illegal immigrant.
Yet, the law does not explain what constitutes a reasonble suspicion, and it’s supporters ignore the fact that traffic stops are largely discretionary, and according to the data, discriminatory.
Do you dispute that racial profiling is a massive problem for blacks and Latinos?
Do you dispute that police officers have shown themselves willing to use discriminatory practices when it comes to stops, searches and seizures?
Do you need me to provide a detailed account of how this bias has manifested itself, or reference those cases where officers have lied and fabricated information to justify traffic stops or other searches?
I can do that, I can the links for the case Texas where a narcotics officer used “reasonable suspicion” and fabricated documents to arrest damn near the entire black population of a town. Or I can reference the Danzinger Bridge shooting in New Orleans, which has sparked a federal investigation and convictions for police corruption.
I can direct you to old stories documenting the discriminatory practices of the Maryland State Highway Patrol and how they conducted traffic stops on black and brown drivers.
I can go back to reports from state troopers from other states who said that the police Baton Rouge racially profiled Katrina evacuees.
How much proof do you need to understand just how widespread racial profiling is, and to understand that its ILLEGAL everywhere.
You don’t have to legalize racial profiling on paper, to make it legal and acceptable in reality. If you widen police officer’s discretion, you give more ground for their biases to come into play when they stop, question and detain individuals.
And what you’re doing is placing an unjust burden on the Latino population of Arizona that is abiding by the law and does not deserve to be harassed and stopped.
I don’t have a problem with illegal immigrants being detained and deported, I have a problem with this law.
I think that illegal immigrants show a disdain for the immigration process.
Now, I understand that our process is all effed up, and that we regularly discriminate when it comes to which folks we allow to immigrate (Hatians vs. Cubans anyone?).
But, we do have some rules in place, and I think it’s a problem that some folks follow the rules, wait in line and pay fees, while other folks just break the rules and place a great burden on these border states.
Because, while illegal immigrants offer cheap labor and can help jumpstart certain industries, they can often place a drain on public resources.
I think that if you blatantly break a law, you should be prepared to deal with the consequences of that action. In this case, deportation if you are caught.
I don’t think illegal immigrants are evil bogeyman, but I recognize that they do cause problems for many states, and I think those states deserve some relief.
I don’t understand the need to have this law, and how it provides a solution to the immigration problem.
The law makes being an illegal immigrant a misdemeanor crime and subjects the immigrant to fine or short jail stint.
Local authorities do not have the power to start deportation proceedings, and federal officials already drag their feet when it comes to deporting illegal immigrants solely for being in the country.
I don’t need to find a way for the law to work without looking like racial profiling, because I think the law is a stupid example of political pandering that doesnt’ provide any solutions anyway.
HOnestly, you need to stop whining.
This is an opinion piece, it isn’t a game notes story.
You called the Suns decision “misguided” and you defended Arizona’s law.
I have deconstructed and rebutted your argument without using any sort of personal attacks. I have provided examples, I have used “intelligent” language.
I will repeat, your argument hinged on the idea that this law does not facilliate or justify racial profiling.
I believe you are wrong and are operating from a faulty understanding of racial profiling and how it is facillitated. You have failed to provide any rebuttal to my assertions and have instead chosen to whine that your thoughts weren’t welcomed with open arms and championed as wonderful.
Get over it.
If you want to write opinion pieces, you need to be ready to deal with folks attacking your opinion. As someone who operates a blog, and has actually written opinion pieces for newspapers, I know that you have to be read to defend your argument, not whine that people are disagreeing with you.
As for this article taking up too much of my time and effort it’s no big deal.
I’m at work, putting off writing a story, and I had some time kill. I’m not angry, I just don’t like when people attempt to castigate others for being misguided, when they themselves are misguided. And I’m having like two or three simultaneous discussions with folks on different topics because that’s what I enjoy. Exchanging ideas and testing arguments.
You don’t seem to love that, which would appear to be a problem if you want to write OPINION pieces for a national publication.
Just my thoughts.
I made the exact same argument on my blog.
Unfortunately, most of the folks who support this bill wouldn’t be worried if their was a national law forcing them to prove their American citizenship at anytime.
They figure they LOOK like “real Americans” and thus it wouldn’t be an issue.
Barry Stevens
You seem to be saying that because you suffered injustice in foreign countries, it makes sense for the United States to create the same laws.
At least that’s what I took from your comment. I would like you to explain how the actions of other countries affect what America does within its borders on immigration, and I like to know how your mistreatment as a minority relates to this discussion?
“Only 36 percent of Americans agree with them, and this minority retains no moral absolutism — the law is at least debatable, and the majority of the public aren’t xenophobic kooks.”
First of all you are using an extremely limited CBS poll of 1000 UNITED STATES residents. Please remember that a person from say Chile, Columbia or Canada is also an “American”.
The more striking part of the poll is that a combined 64% either agree with it, think it doesnt go far enough, or dont know. That is a majority and a prime example of xenophobia in our country, maybe you missed it because you actually think racism is all gone because we have a “black” president? (you can look at it either way, he’s half white; he’s half black)
The Jerseys are a great gesture- but I think it would have been even more effective if it was not on Cinco De Mayo. But where was all this discussion and protest before the bill was actually passed? Here in the United States of Pacifists, We will take this as a victory if the bill gets repealed, when in actuality we will be back to where we were, with no immigration reform.
Use this opportunity fellow citizens. DOWN WITH SB1070!!! Equality for all!
Chris, your argument was that the Suns reaction was overdone becuase the law doesn’t advocate racial profiling. I read the entire piece.
You argued that the Suns were over the top and misguided because the law does not advocate racial profiling. You argued that the law requires officers to have a legitimate reason to stop anyone, in this case “reasonable suspicion.”
You went on to lament that the Suns chose this way to make their protest because you deemed it an example of our soundbite culture which values flash over substance. You then hoped for a future filled with equality where people wouldn’t see the Arizona law as targeting a particular group.
I understood your piece quite well.
If you wanted the last two paragraphs to be the most important part of your argument, you probably should have put them in the lede or nut graph. That’s journalism 101.
You probably shouldn’t have spent the bulk of your piece detailing how the new law doesn’t advocate racial profiling, including snippets of the actual bill.
But, bottom line, if you wanted to say that Suns were misguided, you needed to provide a better argument than: “This law doesn’t advocate racial profiling, and we should all just get along.”
What I’ve tried repeatedly to get you to realize is how racial profiling works and how this law would operate in that framework. You’ve refused to discuss or consider that aspect, which of course is CENTRAL to your argument about the Suns.
After all, if this law DOES increase racial profiling, then can you STILL argue that the Suns overreacted?
Honestly, I’m not impressed with the Suns decision to change their jerseys. Sarver is a millionaire, he could have hired lobbyists and run ads if he really wanted to affect the political process. His whole jersey thing is for show, in my opinion.
Which is why I’m baffled that you deem it an overreaction?
You don’t bother to explain why wearing the Los Suns jerseys is an overreaction. Rather, you do explain why its an overreaction and your explanation is that the Suns shouldn’t be protesting racial profiling because this law won’t even affect that in a big way.
Look, you can keep your attempts to minimize my arguments or paint me as someone deeply invested in this debate. The truth is, I’m not. The most I’ve done is write a single blog post about why it’s stupid and reminds me of the Freedom Papers freed slaves had to carry back in the day.
I’m invested in people making coherent well-thought arguments. I’m invested in people bothering to educate themselves on issues before they start spewing patronizing opinions. If you check my track record as a commenter here, you would find that to be true.
But, it’s cool, you don’t have to discuss it with me anymore, I’ve made my point. I’m finished.
I think that people have broken this debate down into two erroneous camps that don’t represent the vast majority of Americans.
1. People who support racial profiling
2. People who support illegal immigration
Most Americans do not support racial profiling, at least not consciously. Most Americans do not support illegal immigration.
But, the problem is that most people don’t understand how racial profiling works, and why that makes this law problematic. For some reason they can’t see the connection between this law and racial profiling, mainly because they believe that racial profiling is either a very minor issue, or is not that widespread. I contend that is false.
Second, having a problem with this law does not mean you support illegal immigration, or want to remove laws. I have stated already that illegal immigration is a problem, and that I believe in following rules as long as those rule are not unjust. I don’t think that requiring people to go through an immigration process is unjust on its face, although I think that there are various issues with how the United States handles immigration. Ultimately, I believe that if you sneak into the country illegally, you really have no legitimate complaint when the authorities deport you. You broke the law knowingly, and there are thousands of folks who didn’t break the law and who followed the correct procedure.
This isn’t about supporting illegal immigration. It’s about seeing how a law infringes unjustly on the rights of LEGAL immigrants and Americans. It’s about recognizing that this law is simply an attempt at PANDERING, not an attempt to actually solve the problem of illegal immigration.
I would like somebody who supports this law to explain why they think it will stem the tide of illegal immigration.
Finally, to restate, I think the Suns are grandstanding, and I think that if Robert Sarver really wanted to impact our Democratic process, he probably had the money and influence to do something earlier. Now, Sarver may have been working behind the scenes and I’m just not aware of it, but I have yet to read any reports of him fighting against this bill before it was passed. I’ll have to check and see if that’s the case.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/44943
I mostly agree with your post, although I would note that I find it problematic that the statement by Arizona residents will penalize a particular segment of the population that has nothing wrong. Namely, legal Latino immigrants and Latino Americans.
I understand statements, but this law is a statement that’s going to impact people’s lives in a way that I don’t find minor.
Many people see racial profiling as a minor annoyance, I contend that those people are not regularly racially profiled, nor are their family and friends racially profiled.
Racially profiling can get you killed or arrested. It’s humilating. It’s not minor.
I’m Canadian, and we don’t have a great deal of illegal immigration to speak of here. Primarily because our Southern border tightened up a lot after 9/11, and our Northern border is mostly the Arctic Ocean. Due to my lack of knowledge on the topic of immigration, I won’t speak on it. I just wanted to thank everyone for their excellent posts. The only way for everyone to meet in the middle and find ways to resolve issues is to keep talking.
Thanks again Chris!
Correct me if I’m wrong, Chris Deaton, but your refusal to discuss and debate this issue with Allenp after he clearly and articulately outlined his problems with your post, and then telling us how little time you spent writing it–isn’t that aiming for the “10 second” response you seem to have so much disdain for?
Let’s cut the crap, okay: Since America’s inception, the “land of the free and home of the brave” has been marred with HUGE problems of discrimination, whether against ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or gender. This is NOT news.
So when a team like the Phoenix Suns shows an objection for a ridiculous and discriminatory law, it’s NOT “edgy” or “cool” to criticize them for caring too much. Is it for political correctness and public relations? Maybe.
But that’s the story of America’s past–people ostracizing others for “caring too much”, caring too much about slavery, caring too much about segregation, caring too much about the Natives, the Chinese, the indentured laborers who built this land, the Jews, the countless ghettos that have persisted since the urbanization of America.
Sure, America is no longer segregated; but I really, really h@te when people downplay these sensitive issues because “sh!t happened so long ago, why can’t you forget about it?”
Yes, I just went off on a tangent about history, but dammit, if you can’t see a correlation between this “law” and others like it in the past…
[* Rant over].
Who are they going to target? Latinos and Asians. Come on, Chris, if you can’t see this plain as day, I don’t know what to tell you.
But COME ON, we all know most media coverage slants illegal immigration to be an indictment of America’s Southern neighbors.
The only people really associating all Latinos with illegal immigration are the very people advocating for laws like Arizona’s. You can hear the vile stereotypes being said and perpetuated just by walking down the street and hearing people cracking jokes.
AND WHY IS IT that I hear more about illegal immigrants joining gangs and trafficking narcotics, than I hear about men and women working their @sses off to feed their families for businessmen who exploit and take advantage of their illegal status–and why do I seldom hear of these exploitative businessmen in the news?
Do you really believe this, or are you just kidding me? Way to be unbelievably off-base, buddy. That’s like saying “Slavery, what slavery? I didn’t know giving someone free room and board was slavery.”
Or “What’s so bad about child labour? You get work in the manual labor world by sending kids to do cheap jobs for cheap pay.”
Come on, man, if there’s a point you should take back it’s that (unless that was what you were referring to).
I ain’t mad at you for writing this misguided article. We all commit brain-farts, and you seem very intelligent, so it’s alright. No biggie. But I do think that when Allenp shredded your argument, the least you could do was engage with dude. That would have been preferable to acting like an injured pu$$ycat.
Keep up the good work Chris, and lets hope the Spurs make this an (even more) interesting series.
“Channing Frye converted many three-point shots while wearing a ‘Los Suns’ jersey. Great article!”
Yeah son. I really can’t understand the idea that we should “stick to basketball” on this article.
Ummm, it’s not about BASKETBALL.
The jerseys have nothing to do with the actual game. Nothing to do with scoring, nothing to do with defense. Writing about the Suns decision to wear “Los Suns” on their jersey has nothing at all to do with basketball in any real sense.
Am I missing something?
I mean, if we weren’t going to discuss the law and the issues surrounding it, why even write an article on the Suns decision? How can you discuss their decision, without discussing the law and situation that prompted it?
I didn’t plan on commenting again, but I really wanted to raise those points.
“You’re not working in Midtown Manhattan, where people are walking around, smiling and being happy,” a lieutenant tells officers in a November 1, 2008, roll call. “You’re working in Bed-Stuy, where everyone’s probably got a warrant.”
That is how racial profiling works. And that is a warning, or directive depending on how you look at it, from a superior to subordinates.
WOW, I like how the stupid bill tries to equate “resentment of a particular race” with “advocating ethnic solidarity.”
Comments