Hypocrisy in the Justice Department

Since its inception, Arizona officials have argued that their immigration law merely reflected the current policies of the federal government.  This was not accidental.  Arizona legislators knew that if and when their immigration bill had passed, Constitutional challenges were likely to emerge from liberal organizations like the ACLU and La Raza.  So in order to protect themselves, they crafted SB 1070 using federal immigration policy as a template.  By doing this, they tried to eliminate the risk of conflict between the state and federal governments.

As similar as Arizona's law was to federal policy, a certain Chinese-American woman, interviewed by the New York Times, saw things differently.  She told the Times that while aboard a train in New York, federal agents woke up her Mexican boyfriend to question him about his citizenship.  When he confessed to being undocumented, they arrested and detained him there on the spot. She told the Times, "At least in Arizona, you have to be doing something wrong to be stopped." 

Technically, she is right.  Arizona's law specifies that either an arrest or a Terry stop must be made before local law enforcement can inquire about one's legal status.  In fact, if local police did the same thing in Arizona that federal agents did in New York, Arizona would be vulnerable to a lawsuit.  The point is simple.  Racial profiling is wrong whether it's done by Arizona's police or federal agents.   

So the million dollar question is, why did the Obama Administration file a lawsuit against Arizona when their own policy advocates the same thing?  One could say that Obama's lawsuit was filed on Constitutional grounds and that Arizona's law preempts the right of the federal government to determine immigration policy.   The argument could certainly be made, but only if Arizona's law is different from the federal policy in such a way as to obstruct the job of federal agents. 

Arizona's Law Mirrors Current Federal Policy

According to SB 1070, Arizona's law enforcement officials cannot deport undocumented immigrants, nor can they demand that the federal government deport them.  In other words, Arizona's law itself has no teeth.  It is merely a tool at the disposal of the federal government when they need an extra set of eyes and ears on the ground.  It has yet to be determined how this preempts the federal government's right to determine immigration policy.  Since nobody is forcing the federal government to deport undocumented immigrants, the Constitutional grounds for the U.S. Justice Department to file a lawsuit against Arizona seems flimsy. 

More surprising is the claim by Attorney General Eric Holder that the Justice Department might pursue an additional lawsuit against Arizona on the grounds of racial profiling.  Essentially, the feds will wait for Arizona to make their first mistake so they can file a racial profiling lawsuit.

The question should be asked: how is it that federal agencies can racially profile a Latino sleeping on an Amtrak train, but make a big ordeal over Arizona's law that requires wrongdoing before law enforcement officers can act?   If the Justice Department is priming themselves to sue Arizona, shouldn't they be suing themselves first? 

It's About Winning in November

Many believe that the Federal Government is posturing before the November elections.  The reasoning is simple.  The legal groundwork for suing Arizona is flimsy.  First, Arizona's law is a premeditated facsimile of federal policy, thus the right of the federal government to determine immigration policy has not been preempted.  And second, the very institution that is laying the groundwork to sue Arizona for racial profiling lawsuit has a time-tested practice of racial profiling themselves.  This suggests that Obama's lawsuits against Arizona is not really about preempting government or racial profliling.

Recent polls indicate that President Obama's popularity is near 40% and our primary elections suggest an anti-incumbent mood throughout the country.  Obama is running around the country on the taxpayer's dime stumping for Democrat candidates because they are worried they may lose control of Congress.  By suing Arizona, it is thought that President Obama planned to rally the Hispanic vote for November.

However, people haven't easily forgotten Obama's campaign pledge to solve the immigration problem.  Even fringe groups like Voces de la Frontera have criticized Obama calling his failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform a "tremendous disappointment."  In the two years of his presidency, Obama has done nothing discernible on immigration reform other than file a lawsuit that is likely to be overturned on the basis of past precedent.

Last week, the Democrat Governors Association tweeted this about Meg Whitman, a gubernatorial candidate in California: "Are you Latino?  Meg Whitman wants to eat tacos with you! Or deport you.  She can't seem to decide."

The point the DGA was trying to make, we think, is that Whitman's view on illegal immigration is inconsistent with courting Latino voters.  In some respects, they are right; but the subtext provides us more information about the Democrat Governor's Association than it does about Meg Whitman.  Back to that in a moment.

In Wisconsin

Last week, The Democrat Party of Wisconsin, the Democrat Black Caucus, and Democrat gubernatorial candidate Tom Barrett all criticized Walker's campaign for a tweet linking Obama's recent visit to a "Soul Train" video.  It was considered racially insensitive by some and blatantly racist by others.

Democrat leaders saw blood in the water and were relentless in their pursuit.  A reporter for the state's largest newspaper put it this way,

"Let's face it: When the first black president is in town and campaign staffers for the leading Republican candidate for governor start making references to 'Soul Train,' that doesn't seem like a coincidence."

Back to California

In California, the Democrat Governor's Association did something far more egregious than link to a "Soul Train" video.  First, they stereotyped Latinos as taco lovers.  And to make things worse, they also stereotyped them as being illegal.

Let's look at this from a different perspective.  Let's say that the DGA released a statement saying, "Are you black?  Meg Whitman wants to eat watermelons with you.  Or take away your entitlements, she can't seem to decide."  We don't think that would go over too well with the black community.  Or how about this, "Are you Jewish?  Meg Whitman wants to eat unleavened bread with you.  Or convert you to Christianity, she can't seem to decide."  I have some Jewish friends that wouldn't care for such a statement.  But since they're talking about Latinos, the most discriminated ethnic group in the U.S., it's not a big deal, right?

In California, the Democrat Governor's Association made generalizations and stereotypes about Latinos.  Nothing happened.  In Wisconsin, one of Walker's staffers linked Obama's response to a "Soul Train" video, and the Democrat Black Caucus went nuts.  The former is a clear example of diminishing an ethnic group by generalizations and stereotypes.  The latter had no generalizations or stereotypes, and Walker's campaign had to apologize to keep the peace.

Conclusion

There is an underlined problem in politics known as partisan hypocrisy.  If tweets are racist, then they're racist regardless of what political party is doing it.  The Wisconsin Democrat Black Caucus pounced on an issue that was a minor offense that had no real evidence of malice.  In California, However, the intent was clear - Latinos either love tacos or are illegal.  When will people see that racism is not limited to political affiliation?

After linking to a few tweets by some Republican leaders, our liberal friend over at the Cognitive Dissidence had this to say,

"How many times do we have to see this kind of crap, especially among the higher ranks of the Republicans, before they admit this isn't a fluke for them?"

I have notified Liebenthal to the grievances in California.  We'll see if his outrage is righteous or partisan.     

Race in America

The United States is among the most remarkable experiments in world history.  Our Constitution, our laws, our brand of democracy, and our free market enterprise collectively serve as a blueprint for the rest of the world to follow.  But despite our unparalleled achievements, our record on race relations has begrimed our nation's great legacy.

Slavery represented America's most contemptible state.  It wasn't until the Republican Party was born in the mid-1800s that blacks found a powerful political advocate. And since then, we've come a long way.  The election of the first black president sent a clear message to the world that the racial divide in our country has narrowed.  But in the midst racial progress, the debate over illegal immigration has threatened to re-open an ugly scab.

A recent AP-Univision poll showed that Hispanics are now the most persecuted minority group in the country.  The report showed that 61% of people believe that Hispanics experience the most discrimination while 52% believe it's African-Americans.  It seems rather clear, racism still looms in America.     

Race Packaged as a Political Asset.

Given our tarnished past, some politicians thought it right to use racism for political gain.  Recently, black Democrats have pounced on Jill Bader, a Communications Director for Scott Walker's campaign, for posting a tweet linking to a Soul Train video.  The video showed people in a disco, primarily of African-American descent, dancing to a popular 90's song called "Come un 'N Ride it" (The Train).  What got Bader into trouble was when she tweeted it was Obama's response to Walker.  This was a mistake.

According to the Democrat Party of Wisconsin, a white person linking to a black video was a "calculated defiance of our state's deep tradition of tolerance".

But if Bader's tweet went against the "state's deep tradition of tolerance", wouldn't we have heard a more vociferous outcry from the public?  To date, only a handful of leaders in the black community have made statements.  And for this reason, it is truly difficult to tell if their outrage is more about racism or just a calculated attempt by Democrats to gain the upper hand on a politician already leading in the polls. 

Black Caucus Joins the Fray

Chairwoman of the Democrat Black Caucus Stephanie Findley, Vice Chair of the Black Caucus Henry Sanders, and Chairman of the Milwaukee County Board Lee Holloway have all issued public statements demanding an apology from the Walker campaign. 

El Conquistador asked Findley if she believed Bader's tweet was racist.  She said it "used blacks as if to say only blacks folks from Milwaukee would be the only passengers aboard the high speed rail."  She also said it was meant "to scare white voters up north" from supporting the rail line.  When asked if her press release was a stunt to promote her own candidacy for the State Senate, she said it made no mention of her campaign.

Vice Chair of the Black Caucus Henry Sanders, who is currently running for Lt. Governor, has been even more vocal in his opposition to Walker.  Sanders sent an open letter to Walker demanding that the Executive condemn the actions of his staffers.  Sanders told Walker that Wisconsin doesn't need a leader who practices the same old and tired politics of division.  Ironically, using a public press release to lambaste a gubernatorial candidate is more likely to be the "same old, tired politics of division" than Jill Bader's tweet. 

Shortly after he wrote his open letter, Sanders sent out an email to followers calling for them to rally behind Democrat Tom Barrett for Governor.  To harness the energy of the moment, he told followers that Walker's staff had circulated divisive videos to distract from the real issues at hand.  But some would argue that exploiting Bader's blunder itself was a form of distraction.

Conclusion

As minorities, it's a matter of justice to call out racism where it lies.  But calling out racism where it doesn't exist only causes more problems.  Bader's tweet on a Soul Train video was a minor lack in judgment, but there is no evidence that she devised it to scare white voters from supporting high speed rail.  Most white folks living up north don't follow Bader's Twitter account, so the claim appears to search for a problem that doesn't exist.