Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Female: And welcome to the ACLU's Peter B. Lewis Building, here in Washington D.C. This
is the panel called Three Races ... Three Faces of Racial Profiling. We're talking about
racial profiling in the national security border enforcement and traditional law enforcement
context. I'm so glad all of you made it here on this rainy morning.
Just a little technical update: in addition to the live audience of policy experts, and
media from D.C., we'd also like to welcome our live stream audience from around the country.
If you are watching online, you can participate on Twitter, using the hash tag pound profiling,
with no space, to encourage others to watch, or submit questions for the panelists. You
can also download a pdf document of materials handed out to people in our live audience,
which can be found on the live stream web, or, at W W W ACLU dot org.
Again, the hash tag is pound profiling. And, if you like the program, we would hope that
you would share a link to the recording to your friends on Facebook and Twitter.
A certain President said, quote: "Racial profiling is wrong, and we will end it in America. In
so doing, we will not hinder the work of our nation's brave police officers. They protect
us every day, often at great risk, but, by stopping the abuses of a few, we will add
to the public confidence our police officers earn and deserve." These were not the words
of President Barack Obama, but they were part of a speech delivered in February of 2001
by George W. Bush, to a joint session of Congress. During the tenure of George Bush, and then
Attorney General Ashcroft, the Justice Department issued guidance designed to end racial profiling
by federal agents in routine police work, but, the guidance allowed large loopholes
for the use of race and ethnicity to identify terrorism suspects, and to engage in border
enforcement. What we've found in the years since the 2003 guidance, is that the exceptions
have swallowed the rule. Back in early 2001, why was George Bush saying
these kinds of things? Why did Attorney General Ashcroft issue the guidance? Because, in the
decade before, the '90s, we were rocked by big picture instances of police brutality
and racial profiling, first starting in 1991 with the Rodney King incident, and then, in
1999, a guy named Amadou Diallo was shot dead by 4 New York City ... unmarked out-of-uniform
police officers, so, going into the 2000 presidential race, racial profiling was a huge issue, but,
it seems as though we've lost incredible ground since then. Today is about how racial profiling
has surged, and what we can do to stop that surge.
But first a definition: racial profiling refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement
officials, of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime, based on the individuals race, ethnicity,
religion, or national origin. Examples of racial profiling are the use of race to determine
which drivers to stop for minor traffic offences, which people to ask for citizenship documents,
which mask ... to surveil- because of national security concerns.
Those are a few examples of what we're seeing today, but the ACLU believes that guilt by
association, guilt by skin color, guilt by religion, and national origin, are not American
values. They fly in the face of innocence until guilt is proven, and equal protection
of the law. Whilst we believe that racial profiling is a violation of the 4th and the
14th amendment, the 4th amendment guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures,
and the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protection, under the law.
As John Ashcroft said, using race as a proxy for potential criminal behavior is unconstitutional,
and it undermines law enforcement, undermining the confidence people can have in law enforcement.
So, let's get to the panel. First, it is my great pleasure to introduce Congressman Keith
Ellison, from the 5th district of Minnesota. Representative Ellison is the first Muslim
American to be sworn in as a member of Congress. He was sworn in on the Qur'an owned by Thomas
Jefferson. He represents the most diverse district in the state of Minnesota, and he
has been a champion on the issue of racial profiling, and religious intolerance, and
he is - if you recall - recently stood up to Representative Peter King, when he held
hearings, on the so-called threat posed by Muslim Americans.
Before we get to Representative Ellison ... and I'd also ask you to look at your packet, because
you'll have more detailed Bios, I want to introduce to his left, Joanne Lin, who is
a legislative counsel for the ACLU, focusing on immigration issues, Mike German, who's
a senior policy counsel, focusing on national security issues, and Jennifer Bellamy, who
is a legislative counsel, focusing on criminal justice issues. They're just 3 of the many
rock stars that I'm privileged to lead in the ACLU Washington legislative office.
Representative Ellison, could you give us your views, your feel, for what it is we need
to talk about, why we have to have this dialogue in our country now?
Male: We need this dialogue, because, racial profiling is as bad a problem as it's ever
been, and yet, in the wake of 9/11, our country, I think, got a little distracted around issues
of law enforcement, and how race, religion, and culture might factor in to law enforcement
decision making. I think sometimes we can get confused, in the face of issues of security
around what's actually good security, what's constitutional security, and we can want to
cut corners, and throw a broad brush, and get sloppy, quite frankly, about how we protect
our country, constitutionally. The fact is, that if you go to law enforcement
officials, they will agree, as you pointed out, that it's illegal, non-constitutional,
to use race as a proxy for criminality, or ... and dangerousness, and then therefore
go after whole groups of people who fit into a particular racial, or religious, category.
At the same time, it still happens. The numbers show it. The numbers prove it, and, most interestingly,
many people are resistant to legislation that could help root it out. If law enforcement
officials agree that it's a problem, agree that it's wrong, then we shouldn't have any
problem passing a bill, but we've had a lot of problems passing a bill.
One bill that's going to be introduced soon, and I'll be an original co-author of, is the
End Racial Profiling Act of 2011. Senator Cardin introduced a bill on October 6th, big
ups to him, and Representative Conyers will introduce the bill in the House - soon I'll
be an original co-author of that bill -- and the House Judiciary Committee may have a hearing
on racial profiling soon, as well. The bill would do a few quick things: 1, prohibit
racial profiling, let's start with that. Enforceable by declaratory or injunctive relief, it'll
mandate training on racial profiling for law enforcement officials. Now, this is a big
deal, because one of the things that has come out recently, and maybe the panel can talk
about, is how some local FBI officers have some very biased, poorly informed, downright
wrong information that they're imparting law enforcement officials, regarding the Muslim
community. One document I saw said that the more ... actually trained people to believe
that the more devout a Muslim practitioner is, and how ... the more they display religious
devotion, the more dangerous, or prone to terrorism that they may be. This is absolutely,
positively wrong. It's 180 degrees wrong, and yet, it's being taught to people who are
empowered to enforce the law and carry guns. The condition ... the third factor of the
bill: it would condition federal funds to law enforcement on their adoption of racial
profiling prohibitions, and then the 4th item would be to provide grants for the best police
practices, and to ... so people can improve their policing practices and discourage profiling.
Finally, it would require the AG to regularly report on racial profiling practices.
Now, let me just say this before I pass the microphone. We need legislation. We absolutely
need legislation. It's true that legislation might not be able to change people's hearts,
but it can change their behavior, and that's what we need.
I think if we have a national consensus that there is racial profiling, that it is unconstitutional,
then we should do something about it, in fact, we have a responsibility to do so. I doubt
we'd get much argumentation from law enforcement on the first 2 items, but the actual doing
something about part of it, is where the rubber may well hit the road, and we're going to
need every advocate of The Constitution, and freedom of individual liberties to stand up
and be counted on this, and to be heard, and to not back down when people say, "Well, you
know, profiling might be necessary to protect us from the terrorist, the criminals, the
this, the that, the ... ", fill in the blank, whoever the bad person of de jour. But, we
all need to step up as Americans and assert our constitutional prerogative, and this is
a good time to do it, so with that I'll pass the mike.
Female: Thank you, Representative Ellison. I want to go to Jennifer Bellamy. Jennifer,
historically, many people think about racial profiling as impacting African Americans,
but we have a black President now, and, do you think the concept of Driving While Black
is outdated, because we're in a so-called post-racial era?
And, tell us a little bit about who's impacted by racial profiling in the African American
community. How prevalent is it now? Female: Well, it's absolutely not outdated.
I wish I could say that it was, and, the President, and African American President, which shows
the great progress that we've made in this country said himself, in a 2009 conference
that was supposed to be about healthcare ... I think everyone remembers the controversial
question that came up about Professor Skip Gates, a Harvard Professor, who was attempting
to get into his home. He had forgot his keys, and the police officer was called onto the
scene to investigate, but what should have ended after he showed him identification,
proving that he was the home owner, ended up with Professor Gates being arrested for
disorderly conduct. I think the first part of the analysis that
shows that we are not in post-racial era is the backlash that the President faced after
he criticized the police officer for arresting Professor Gates in his own home. There was
so much ... there was such swift and ferocious backlash, that I think the administration
has been reluctant to take on some racial justice initiatives for fear of similar backlash
occurring, so we're definitely not in a post-racial era, even though we've made some great progress,
and the President said himself that the problem of racial profiling, it still haunts us.
As to who is impacted by racial: as we've already talked about a little bit, for centuries
black men and women, if you were perceived to be in the wrong neighborhood, were subject
to racial profiling. We thought of it as Driving While Black. Everyone knew of it anecdotally.
About a decade ago, after September 11, the idea that a law enforcement officer could
determine who was a likely terrorist, based on their skin color, resulted in a lot of
South-Asian Americans, and Arab Americans being racially profiled, and anyone who has
read the headlines, know what's happening in Alabama. Very sad circumstances where people
are perceived to be here without documentation, just based on the color of their skin, and
they are having these terrible interactions with law enforcement officers, who are acting
like immigration agents, so I think, several ... many communities are impacted directly
by racial profiling, but I think that we're all indirectly impacted by racial profiling,
because, frankly., it takes away limited law enforcement resources that could be used more
effectively to protect all of our communities. Female: Thank you.
Mike, it's fair to say since 9/11, people want to feel more safe and secure, and so,
what's happened though, in our desire to feel safe and secure, what communities have been
impacted, and why isn't a little surveillance such a bad thing?
Male: Unfortunately, as Representative Ellison suggested, many of the post 9/11 government
counter-terrorism programs have been based more on fear and ignorance, rather than a
true understanding of the threat. The Congressman mentioned some of this factually flawed and
biased training materials that we revealed through our Freedom of Information Act campaign.
Who gets ... so rather than focusing all the government resources on the relatively small
number of people involved in terrorist conspiracies, entire communities were treated as suspect,
and this primarily affected Muslim, Arab, Asian and South-Asian American communities,
who were subjected to increased surveillance, interviews and interrogations, infiltration
of their communities by informants, more intensive scrutiny at airports and border crossings,
all without any basis for suspicion, other than their race, ethnicity, national origin,
and religion. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, thousands
of Muslim immigrants and South-Asian immigrants were rounded up and detained, often mistreated,
deported, although none were ultimately convicted of terrorism related charges. Thousands more
of immigrants from Muslim majority countries were subjected to excessive registration requirements
that no other immigrants were being subjected to, based entirely on their religion and national
origin. But, there are also other groups who have
been affected by this, and this shows the ignorance of racial profiling. We work closely
with the Sikh community, who at some airports are sent to secondary screening 100% of the
time, and one of our coalition partners, the Sikh Coalition, Amardeep Singh, testified
in Congress, and really gave compelling testimony about not just being subjected himself to
this secondary screening, but also his 18 month old child being subjected to intensive
pat downs, simply because of their appearance and religious dress.
What comes out of this, and what's very clear is that these law enforcement and intelligence
programs are being misdirected, and completely innocent communities are being targeted for
intensive scrutiny that misdirects resources from security away from people who are real
threats, and, anytime that the government is investigating innocent people, that is
a waste of resources. Racial profiling simply makes us less safe.
Female: Joanne, before I get to you, I just want to ask Representative Ellison: in this
time of cost-cutting, why don't you think the idea that this is a waste of law enforcement
resources doesn't resonate more with the Congress? It seems to me, if you've got ... certainly,
if you hang everybody, you'll get the guilty, but that's not the American way, and that's
not the cost-effective way. What ... is there any dialogue in Congress attacking these programs?
Male: I question whether we're in a cost-cutting time. I think we're cutting some things. We're
cutting social programs to be absolutely certain we cannot be seen to afford a home heating
law for seniors. We can't afford Head Start. Can't afford stuff like the hi- can't afford
stuff like that, but when it comes to cranking up other expenses, we're quite willing to
spend our money, and unfortunately, if it will advance an ideological perspective, which
is that Americans should be afraid, very, very afraid, and we whip up fear and hysteria
against the other. Sadly, this is something certain folks are
willing to spend a lot of money on. I think that we need to confront the whole notion,
and ... because I am one who believes that we should be extremely careful with the American
public dollar, and this is a waste of money to do this scatter shot policing. We should
do it ... we should, absolutely protect the American people, but we should do it based
on good evidence that leads to tangible results, not just all of them, so, I think that you
raised an important question. It is ironic that we're willing to waste money, but I question
the basic premise that we're really ... this era we're in is about cost-cutting.
Female: Joanne, clearly what started in Arizona spread to at least 5 states, that is states
passing their own immigration enforcement laws. Is racial profiling and immigration
and border enforcement limited to those states? What's going on in the country? Paint us a
picture. Female: Sure, absolutely, thank you, Laura.
I just wanted to say at the outset, because sometimes we get these questions about whether
or not immigrants are protected from racial profiling by law enforcement, and I just wanted
to clarify that. The words of The Constitution apply to everyone within the borders of our
country, and that's every person. Whether they are a US citizen, or not a citizen, and
our Constitution guarantees fundamental fairness and equal protection to every person.
Now, the laws that Laura's speaking of are divisive and inhumane nativist laws that started
in Arizona in 2010, and have spread to an additional 5 states in 2011. Those other states
include Utah, Indiana, South Carolina, Georgia, and the infamous Alabama law.
Alabama has broken all records, and has taken racial profiling to a place where we have
never seen it before. The other states that I've just mentioned,
all have racial profiling state sanctioned laws involving law enforcement, and what I
mean by that is that they either mandate or authorize state and local police to verify
immigration status of anyone whom they suspect is unlawfully present in the United States.
The Alabama law also has that racial profiling state sanctioned provision for law enforcement,
and that provision has been in effect since late September. It is being enforced on the
ground today by Alabama state and local police. In addition to that, the Alabama law that
passed, and was signed by Governor Bentley included a profiling provision involving public
school officials. For the first time we saw a law go into effect where public school officials,
educators, were required to verify the immigration status of all students at the time of enrolment,
as well as the status of their parents. Now, fortunately, this part of the law was
recently blocked by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, but during the 2 weeks that that
part of the law was in effect in Alabama, this is what we heard: over 2000 students
were pulled out of Alabama public schools, mainly, and probably, all Hispanic students.
Teachers reported that those students who were in class were shaking, crying, worried
that their attending school would result in the deportation of their family members. US
citizen kids attending public schools, which they have a fundamental right to, guaranteed
by The Constitution, and by the Supreme Court, were reporting that they were being bullied,
harassed, and intimidated, and told to go back to Mexico, even though they were born
in the United States. We've also heard about young children walking
long distances to and from school by themselves because their parents are too afraid to get
in the car and drive them to school because they could be pulled over by an Alabama Trouper
or Deputy Sheriff, and then questioned about their status, and referred to DHS for deportation.
This is the picture on the ground in Alabama. Going back to your other question about the
picture of racial profiling, I do want to clarify the racial profiling of immigrants
and people of color, which includes US citizens and lawful Permanent Residents, is not limited
to the conservative states in the South-East and the South-West. The Obama administration
has made a Department of Homeland Security program called Secure Communities, the centerpiece
of its immigration enforcement regime. This program has been hugely controversial, and
has been opposed by 3 governors, 3 prominent governors, from the states of Illinois, New
York and Massachusetts, all close allies of the President. These governors have opposed
secure communities because the program, although billed as going after the worst of the worst,
has actually swept in 60% of the people deported under the program ...
Female: You're excused. Keep going. Female: ... okay ... do not have criminal
convictions involving serious crimes. Also, significantly, just last week, the New
York Times reported a new study authored by 2 law schools that found that 93% of people
arrested under Secure Communities are Latinos, even though Latinos only comprise 3 quarters
of the undocumented population in the United States.
So, the problem of racial profiling is not limited to a handful of states, it's being
advanced and codified by this administration. Female: Joanne, thanks for that comprehensive
overview, l but I think it would be good to go to our video, talking about the experiences
on the ground, with ... in Alabama. Male: This is a third generation farm. We
have 125 acres, and me and my dad run the farm, now it's K&V farms.
The day after the judge upheld the law, I sat right here, and paid 64 people. At the
end of the day I had 11, so I went from 64 workers to 11 in 1 day. Some of these worked
had been working for my family for 25 to 30 years, the ones that had been here, they're
like family to me, they've ... they were the first ones to up and leave. They just fear
the harassment. The fields stopped, to be cleaned up, we laid plastic and mulch and
have drip irrigation, and stakes, and a string, and all that has to be cleaned up, and we
don't have anybody left to do that, which is going to be a problem for us, if we don't
get it cleaned up, then we won't be able to farm next year anyway.
Senator Beason sat over here personally, and told us that Alabamians ... we would see that
Alabamians would take these jobs, and it's just not happened, so it pretty much grinds
Alabama agriculture down while everybody else's is still flourishing.
If I cannot get my normal workforce back, then, I'll not even attempt to farm.
Female: Thank you. I want to thank the ACLU Communications and Advocacy team for going
down to Alabama, right after the law was implemented, and this is just 1 of 4 interviews available
of the ACLU website. All you have to do is type in Alabama, and you'll see interviews
with people who have been victimized by this law, like this farmer.
Jennifer, don't routine traffic stops by law enforcement reveal more evidence of criminality?
Aren't the police just doing their job? Some people say, if you haven't done anything wrong,
what's the harm? Female: That's a really popularly held assumption,
but the research demonstrates that ... the ACLU's research demonstrates that even though
black people, and Hispanic people, and other racial minorities are more likely to be stopped
and searched, those searches are less likely to reveal contraband.
For instance, the New York Civil Liberties Union recently produced an analysis of the
stop and frisk practices of the New York Police Department, and over a period of ... from
about 2005 to 2008, about 3 million New Yorkers were stopped. Now 80% of those ... 85% of
those were African American, and 8% were white, even though we know the percentages, New York
City is not majority African American, and out of that the majority of the people who
actually had contraband were the white people who were stopped. We know this based on research,
and even the Department of Justice's own research reveals that when police engage in these stops
and frisks, and investigations in the course of routine law enforcement, stops of minorities
are less likely to reveal contraband, even though they are more likely to be stopped,
and they are also more likely to be detained for longer periods of time, and subjected
to greater uses of force. Female: Before we go to a video, I just want
to recognize 2 people in the audience, and ask them to stand. One is Margaret Wong, and
the other is Jamana Musa, who are leaders in the Rights Working Group. Would you just
stand and turn around and wave your hands [inaudible 00:28:39]. You have produced a
great report, and it's outside, and it's available, and I just think the audience need to acknowledge
your presence. Female: Thank you.
Female: Thank you. (Applause)
Female: If we can, can we go the video? Male: Pulled over, sort of, late night, accused
of being, as he put it, suspicious activity, so I was pulled over in the immediate area,
asked for my license, my registration, my insurance, I had it all, I showed them my
everything, he was, "Okay". I've been interrogated a couple of hours of interrogation, out in
the cold out in the boxes, and all the cops just having casual conversation, making me
look like the fool ... that's tough, being the kid, but that's ... sometimes you go through
that. [Inaudible 00:29:54], I was let go, no citation,
no ticket, no reason, only because, in my opinion, because I was a Muslim kid in the
wrong part of the neighborhood, so they said. But, that's ... I've seen a lot in my life,
but to be degraded ... [inaudible 00:30:19] stripped out of my clothes, being stripped
of my dignity was what I had a problem with. You run away from the injustices, only to
come back and face it, that was tough. This is still the land of opportunity. This
is America. People flee from other countries to come to a beautiful place like this, but
sometimes, they don't realize the harsh reality of it. Every beautiful face has an ugly side
to it. Female: I want to thank the Rights Working
Group for allowing us to use a portion of their video, telling this compelling story.
Mike, you're a former FBI agent, so, from the perspective of national and border security,
we expect law enforcement to protect us, so, how are these agencies like the FBI using
racial profiling today, and is it ... some ask if it's an important tool that needs to
be retained? Of course, I don't feel that, but a lot of people are asking shouldn't the
FBI have this authority? Male: I think this one person's experience
shows that this isn't a victimless crime, and what law enforcement, I think, recognizes,
and why they are generally against racial profiling, is that it doesn't just misdirect
their resources, obviously, all the security resources that were devoted to interrogating
this young man were completely wasted, when there were other crime problems that could
have been addressed, but also that it undermines community support, that ... for somebody like
this to perhaps come upon something that's truly suspicious, not pretend suspicious,
and that maybe this is something I should report to law enforcement ... obviously, he
doesn't have any confidence that that would be treated fairly, or responsibly, and so,
they'd be less likely to report it, and law enforcement in this country needs citizen
support, so once the law enforcement techniques undermine that support, it actually harms
our security. Anytime the government acts illegally -- I
probably have this quote wrong -- but I think it was Justice Brandeis who said, "For good
or for ill, government is the great teacher", and if the government acts illegally, you
can expect that that's going to undermine community security in the long run.
One of the programs that the government has now initiated, is something that they call
a suspicious activity reporting, which he alluded to, he was being called suspicious.
The unfortunate part of it is that they have defined down what suspicion,, and what they've
said is that suspicious activity includes things like ... suspicious activity can be
related to terrorism, includes things like taking notes, and I see a number of you taking
notes, so, unfortunately, I'm going to have to report that to Homeland Security. Taking
photographs, there were a number of people taking photographs, or video tape, which you're
taking now. Obviously, those aren't really suspicious,
what they are is standing in as a proxy for police officers, or, the public in general
to use what is their bias, whoever they're biased against, as a reason to justify reporting
their activities, and the government is collecting these vast data bases of this information.
Most recently, we've learned that the FBI is actually engaging in a racial and ethnic
mapping program, where they are making crass racial stereotypes about who commits what
types of crime, and then using that as a justification for collecting demographic information about
the entire community, and mapping where that community is, for future intelligence operations,
or, investigations, so, this is racial profiling, literally on an industrial scale.
Female: Jennifer, you had your ... you want to get ...
Female: I just wanted to add, I completely agree with Mike. This is not a victimless
crime. The ACLU has litigated a number of cases on behalf of victims of racial profiling.
For example, there was a case in Detroit where a number of young people, young black kids
were riding their bikes in predominantly white neighborhoods, and the police would just take
their bikes away, and auction them off, because they were not ... they didn't belong there,
and so, it has a real impact on real people. Unfortunately, the ACLU Michigan was able
to settle that case, and there are a number of other cases.
I think everyone probably knows about the Robert Wilkins case, where the Harvard-educated
lawyer was driving home from a funeral, in the rain, with his family, and they were pulled
over by a police officer, who thought that he fit a drug dealer profile, because he had
a nice car, and they tore the car apart, in the rain, coming home from a funeral. I think
we can all imagine the frustration, and the resentment, and the sense of helplessness
that people would feel after being subjected to such unfairness.
Female: Thanks, Jennifer. Before I show you what Mike was referring
to, in terms of what the ACLU is concerned about, concerning FBI practices, I do want
to acknowledge 2 real leaders in the ... in this fight for racial justice, and I'm not
talking about leaders of the last decade, or leaders of the decade before that,, but
leaders who have been with us for decades. One is Stuart Ishemaru, who's a commissioner
for the EEOC, who's in our audience. Stuart, would you stand up please? We're so glad to
have you. The other is Floyd Mori, who has been head
of the Japanese American Citizen League, and Mr. Mori has been there at every step of the
way in this post 9/11 trauma that the government has experienced, and in ... within 2 weeks
after the horrible bombings of 9/11, Mr. Mori gathered people around the memorial and ... so
that we could be reminded of how we over-reacted during World War II, and interned Japanese
Americans in internment camps, and I would like Mr. Mori to stand up. He's been such
a great champion of ours. Thank you so much. I'd like to go to the ACLU/FBI web page, because
I want people to understand the breadth of this tool. Mike ...
Male: The ACLU is involved in [crosstalk 00:37:17] ... where we're starting to reveal those documents.
We've received thousands of documents that we're still processing, but we've revealed
documents that show surveillance of the Muslim community in Detroit, surveillance of the
Chines and Asian communities [crosstalk 00:37:48] ... something that we're trying to address
by educating the public about it. We've also written a letter to Attorney General
Holder, asking him to tighten up the FBI's guidelines to prohibit racial profiling, but
also to prohibit suspicionless investigations, so we're working hard to try to get this done,
and of course, the Ending Racial Profiling Act would go a long way towards preventing
this type of activity. Female: I just want to say, we recently celebrated
the dedication of the monument to Martin Luther King, and everyone refers to that "I Have
a Dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial, and one portion of that speech spoke to the fierce
urgency of now, and we're in a moment where there's a fierce urgency needed from our coalition
partners, from our friends across the country, but especially from the Obama administration
and the Congress, and so, Joanne, I'd like you to talk about, briefly, what we need from
the Obama administration and Congress, and then I'll go to Jennifer and Mike, and then
we'll open it up for questions. Female: Sure, thank you.
Absolutely, we need to take all actions necessary, and apply all pressure on Congress and the
administration to halt racial profiling of Latinos, Asians, and other people of color,
under the guise of immigration and border enforcement. The Obama administration has
the immediate power to halt racial profiling, and it must pursue several avenues to achieve
this. First, we thank and applaud the Justice Department
for challenging the unconstitutional discriminatory laws that were passed in Alabama and Arizona.
However, there are several other states that also enacted similar laws, including South
Carolina, Georgia, Indiana and Utah, and we would urge the Justice Department to challenge
these laws as well, and we anticipate that other states may follow the Alabama example,
and be emboldened by the Alabama success from the nativist perspective, and 2012 could be
a very difficult time, in terms of the anti-immigrant onslaught in the states.
Secondly, the administration, specifically the Department of Homeland Security, which
is charged with immigration and border enforcement, must immediately end all programs that encourage
racial profiling. There are several programs that do this, including Secure Communities,
which is a program that's designed to go nationwide by the end of 2013 ..., the 287 (g) program.
Both of these programs are premised on the federal government partnering with state and
local law enforcement, and what is particularly troubling about the Obama administration's
record is that Secure Communities is currently being deployed in jurisdictions where there
are documented records of discriminatory policing, most obviously in Alabama, where Secure Communities
is activated in 55% of all jurisdictions, but also in places like New Orleans, Puerto
Rico, Suffolk County New York, Maricopa County Arizona, where the Justice department, the
sister agency of the Department of Homeland Security has investigated local law enforcement
for discriminatory policing, and in some cases, has issued findings and made very strong recommendations
about reforming local police practices. There's a huge dichotomy between the 2 departments,
and we urge that DHS review all of its immigration and border enforcement practices to ensure
that they do not violate The Constitution, and do not violate our civil rights laws.
Finally, we urge the federal government to reclaim its well-established authority to
enforce immigration laws. Until it does so loudly and clearly, we will continue to see
more Arizonas, Alabamas, and other states devising their own immigration fiefdoms.
Female: Thank you Joanne. Jennifer? What are the asks?
Female: What are the asks? I think it's pass the Racial Profiling Act.
The ACLU brought a case that I think clearly demonstrates this need at the ACLU of Oklahoma,
when Martin Luther King first gave his I Have A Dream speech, that my sons and daughters
by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin, one of the ACLU's
clients was about 3 months old, and many years later, in 2000, he could not drive more than
30 minutes in the state of Oklahoma without having ... without being stopped by a police
officer, so I agree with you. We have to do something about this, now, if we want to actually
honor what Martin Luther King was working towards, and this reflects our values.
Female: Mike? Male: One of the things that the administration
could do right away is enforce the guidance on the use of race in federal law enforcement,
One of the interesting things about the FBI's racial mapping program is that it exploited
the loophole for national security, but then also used the same programs to target other
racial groups based entirely on criminal matters, which should have been banned under the Ashcroft
guidance on use of race. Simply by enforcing it, a lot of the problem
can be addressed, and then, obviously ... this is one example when you create a loophole,
it quickly swallows the rule, and when ... once behavior is allowed, it starts to be allowed
in other contexts, so we're urging the Attorney General to close the loophole for national
security and border integrity investigations, and to add religion and national origin as
profiling as part of the ban, and finally to also apply it to state and local law enforcement
agencies that are receiving federal funds. Female: Thank you. That's a long list, but,
fortunately we've put that long list in writing for you so you don't have to memorize it,
and it's in your handout, and it's also available online, and we encourage you to give us suggestions
about additional actions, and, I also wanted to say that Representative Ellison only left
because he had votes. It was his intention to stay for the entire panel, and he wants
to give all of you his regards and appreciation. So let's all give a round of applause to our
great panelists. And now we will open it up for questions,
and there ... [Sandia 00:44:46] has a microphone, so, if you just raise your hand, if there
are any questions? No questions? I can't believe that.
All right, Jocelyn. Female: Joanne, I was wondering could you
talk a little bit more about the Secure Communities program, and how it works, and what ... how
... and what the problems are, how it's problematic. Female: Absolutely. Thank you Jessica, the
question. Secure Communities is a federal department
of Homeland Security program. It was first introduced in the final months of the Bush
administration in 2008 when DHS Secretary Napolitano came in she quickly made this the
centerpiece of her immigration enforcement plan.
The way it works is that under the current system, when somebody is arrested for any
type of crime, the local jail will forward the fingerprints of that individual to the
FBI. What Secure Communities does is then it automatically forwards those fingerprints
to the Department of Homeland Security, to check against their immigration data base.
Now, the way I just explained it might sound innocuous. However: the way Secure Communities
has played out is that it actually encourages pre-textual arrests. Let me explain why.
If you are a local police officer, or a Deputy Sheriff, and you pull, somebody over for driving
with an expired tag, or driving with a broken tail light, or not properly signaling before
you made a turn -- and these are not hypotheticals, these are examples we hear every week -- in
48 out of 50 states in the United States, you cannot get a valid driver's license without
proof of lawful presence, so what we hear about is that people are pulled over. They
get arrested for a minor traffic offence. They're pulled over based on the color of
their skin. Once they're booked into the jail where Secure Communities is activated, within
4 hours they are brought to the attention to the Department of Homeland Security. The
Department of Homeland Security can then initiate deportation proceedings against the person.
If you look at, for instance, the national data on Secure Communities, 60% of people
have been deported under Secure Communities have not been convicted of serious crimes.
Many then, have no criminal records. Some of them have convictions for misdemeanors,
only. What that means is that in some areas, Secure Communities is being used as a dragnet
to sweep in people to get into the immigration/deportation system, even if they're not being actually
charged and prosecuted for the underlying crime.
That's how Secure Communities works. Then you have to add onto the fact that DHS is
absolutely intent on rolling out this program to every state and jurisdiction by the end
of 2013. Even though the program has engendered tremendous opposition in states and localities
across the country, the fact that DHS, the Department of Homeland Security is operating
Secure Communities in areas like New Orleans, Puerto Rico, Suffolk County New York, Maricopa
County, these are all jurisdictions where the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division
is actively investigating the local law enforcement agencies for discriminatory policing targeting
Latinos, and other immigrants, so you have the Justice Department enforcing civil rights
laws, while the Homeland Security Department is allowing these very local law enforcement
agencies to channel people into the federal deportation system.
This is hugely problematic, and not withstanding all the outcry that has come from the community
around Secure Communities, this administration, all the way up to the President himself, has
remained intent on rolling out Secure Communities, nationwide.
Female: Thank you. One of the purposes of this panel, and I see
the questioner, and we'll get to you in just 1 second, is to talk about some of the silos
that we've been operating in. The immigration groups have been working on comprehensive
immigration reform, and detention reform, and many other issues. The national security
Muslim, Sikh, South-Asian groups have been working on national security ... interrogation,
surveillance, and the traditional civil rights groups like the NAACP have long been champions
of the End Racial Profiling Act, and I think one of the goals of this conversation is to
break down the silos, so, let's go to our next question.
The questioner has to be identified, because she is a leader in a big coalition, her name
is Lexer Quami, she's with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, who, like the
Rights Working Group has been an outstanding coalition partner.
Female: Thank you, thank you very much, Laura, thank you to all the panelists.
I have a question about the See Something, Say Something program. Many of us have heard
the advertisement, and see the signs of the Metro, if you see something, say something,
and in theory that'll empower us as private individuals to say something, if we see something.
I'm wondering if you heard anything about the impact of this program. The use ... I
think, potentially, it certainly has some profiling implications, but I understand that
it's a DHS program. There are some attempts to talk ... work with DHS, but if you could
say a little bit more about what we know about the impact, thus far.
Male: [Inaudible 00:50:41] See Something, Say Something is one of the suspicious activity
reporting programs that I mentions. This has become a popular theme, and many state and
local enforcement agencies have their own program. DHS has See Something, Say Something.
FBI has eGuardian. The Director of National Intelligence has the Information Sharing Environment,
and they're all designed to have activities at the state and local level, so reported
by local police, or people to their local, police, funneled up to the intelligence community
and federal law enforcement community, to be held in data bases. Again, the behaviors
that they identify in these programs include things like taking notes, taking measurements,
drawing diagrams, taking photographs or video. In some cases, espousing extreme views.
They have real criminal activity, one of the behaviors is stealing explosives, and I've
said, "Yes, if somebody's stealing explosives, that's certainly something you should report",
but when it comes down to somebody note-taking, what they're really encouraging is not ... they
would be quickly overwhelmed if everybody reported all the note-taking, but, it's only
people based on their own biases, whatever those biases are, reporting people who they're
already suspicious of, and this is giving them a proxy ton use that.
We work hard with the Director of National Intelligence, the program manager for the
Information Sharing Environment, and to their credit, they amended their policy, requiring
a reasonable indication of a connection to terrorism or criminality. Also, including
some of the best racial profiling I've seen in a federal policy. The problem is there's
no enforcement mechanism to ensure that those standards are being met, and these other agencies
are creating their own programs that don't necessarily follow that policy, and it creates
a race to the bottom. In other words, everybody wants the most information, so the lower a
standard you have, the more information you'll get. It's a real problem when these other
agencies start running these competing programs. Finally, we do have some evidence that our
concerns about racial profiling are real. The Center for Investigative Reporting, and
NPR did a great serious on suspicious activity reporting, where they got all this suspicious
activity reports out of the security at the Mall of America, and found that there was
a great racial disparity on who was being reported. So, there is evidence now, and we
think it's really time to examine this program. Because, again, it's not just the disparate
impact, it's that it's a complete waste of information that when they examine these suspicious
activity reports, this is completely innocuous information. It's wasting everyone's time.
It's clogging these intelligence data bases with useless information. It's creating a
cloud of suspicion that can never be removed from somebody who's reported in these programs,
so it's a huge problem, and unfortunately, these programs are growing without enough
oversight or limiting regulations. Female: So, as a result of careless reporting
of suspicious activities, someone could end up in a federal data base, and we wouldn't
know how to help them out, and we wouldn't know if that person applied for a federal
job, or a federal grant, or a federal contract, whether the government was, in fact, using
unconfirmed allegations to deny a person some sort of federal participation or benefit.
Male: And the group that seems to be most attacked by this is photographers, and with
that it gets into some 1st Amendment activity, where you see in demonstrations them going
at the photographers, and the videographers, because, that is ... been entrained to them
as an inherently suspicious behavior. Female: Joanne, you've gotten another question,
which is from a Tweet: how are communities across the country fighting Secure Communities?
You mentioned the governors. Maybe some activism too.
Female: Okay. I will start that conversation, although I
think there are actually people in front of me who can speak to that more directly.
The opposition against Secure Communities is truly a grassroots movement. I can't attribute
it to 1 organization, or 1 entity, but what we have seen most opposition has been certainly
in the states of California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, but also in places like
Texas, Colorado, Washington, and other states. Much of the discontent with Secure Communities
is the fact that th4e Department of Homeland Security has engaged in statements of misrepresentation
is probably the most benign way to say it, but another way to day it is that they have
lied. They have flat out lied to county officials, to sheriffs, to governors, about what this
program is supposed to be. As I mentioned earlier, it was designed to go after the worst
of the worse, which everyone, like Mike says, we want to go after people who truly pose
a threat to our society, and who want to do harm, but then, the reality is, is that, people
are finding that domestic violence victims in their communities are getting caught up
into Secure Communities when they call 911 for emergency help, because of an abusive
spouse. No one, and certainly not law enforcement wants a program like that to be in operation.
So, across the country, we have seen broad-based coalitions of religious groups, immigrant
rights groups, civil rights groups, victim service providers, work together with their
county commissioners in places like Santa Clara, Arlington County, Washington D.C.,
Cook County, New York City, and other places, to educate their county commissioners, their
police chiefs about the dangers of Secure Communities, and then that has percolated
upward to the governors, to the point where in this spring, 3 of the governors, from Illinois,
New York and Massachusetts, told the President, told the Department of Homeland Security that
they do not want Secure Communities in their states. They understand that the program presents
a serious civil rights violations. The happy side of Secure Communities is not
where I sit here in Washington. The happy side is that this is actually an example of
success, where grassroots efforts, starting ground up, have really, I would say, started
a revolution, and I think we're going to see more state bills being introduced in state
legislatures in 2012, because of states discontent with the federal government around Secure
Communities, so, we are still very much engaged in this struggle at all levels of governance
and society. Female: I would like to say thank you to our
ACLU affiliates, and our members, because we represent them here in Washington, we're
not just policy advocates with ideas. We actually have a constituency of over half a million
members, and we attempt to serve the goals of the states, and the local communities here
in Washington. So let's see any more questions. Three questions.
Greg. Another leader in the immigrants' rights community,
Greg Chen. Male: Yes, Greg Chen from the American Immigration
Lawyers Association. First of all, I want to say thank you for
having this panel, bringing together these different themes as it coalesces around racial
profiling. AILA is part of the Right Working Group, which you acknowledged before, which
tries, and does a very good job of bringing those themes together, and just very good
to have this audience here talking about that, so thank you.
My question is in some ways directed toward Laura, but perhaps also to Joanne. Laura,
when you opened up you mentioned the speech that President Bush had made, signaling the
importance of ending racial profiling, and I thought there was going to be a request
made to, actually, the President himself, in terms of what type of leadership there
needs to be to do this, and perhaps a speech, actually, or some kind of public declaration
on that theme. I didn't hear it in the ask ... there were very specific asks to the various
departments. Overall, I thought they were very important, but I was wondering if you
were going to make that ask, and it made me think, and this is perhaps more directed toward
Joanne, the request about preemption, which was the need for the federal government to
assert and make clear it's primacy in federal immigration laws, and its enforcement. I was
wondering if that was the way that could be done, or how would you suggest that be done?
Female: I'll turn it over to you in a sec, but I just want you to know we have been very
earnest in our attempt to meet with the President's Chief of Staff, Williams Daley, and we think
that meeting is essential. We'd like to meet with the President himself. We think this
is a national crisis, the crisis of racial profiling in America,, and it's leading to
lawlessness on the part of law enforcement officials, and lack of accountability. Joanne,
if you want to talk about ... Female: I think that it's a good point, actually,
be directing more pressure to the President, who, I think ... Jennifer mentioned this,
and I've certainly had conversations with my colleague Doug Vagens, who's in the back,
but the president has not made civil rights one of his more prominent platforms, one of
his more public issues, and the truth is that underneath ... in his administration, certainly
in the immigration and border enforcement context, he is rolling out programs that promote,
and actually are going to be retrenching racial profiling, so, I think that that's ... I take
that as a good suggestion. I think that the preemption issue which Greg
mentioned, that refers to the fact that we've had this struggle between the federal government
and the states as to who can regulate immigration, and I think that we would all agree that the
federal government has not done an adequate job, and what has happened is that states
and localities have jumped into that business. However, I think that the ask of the President
and the federal government should not just be limited to preemption. I really think that
it should be that the federal government needs to enforce the civil rights of all Alabamans,
of all people in these states, and as I mentioned at the outset of my comments, The Constitution,
our civil rights protections apply to all people, not just US citizens.
Female: That's a very important point to remember. Unfortunately, I've been given the signal.
We have to wrap up our program. I want to say thanks again to our live stream audience,
and Tweeter followers, and we encourage you to share a recording of this program on Facebook
and Twitter, and other social networks. Why am I having a problem saying, "Twitter?"
If you would like the ACLU on Facebook, we would be greatly appreciative, and look to
our website for other important policy issues, and we hope to encourage our coalition partners,
and our litigators in New York, and throughout the country to come to Washington, and participate
in these forums and take advantage of this great room that Anthony Romero, our Executive
Director made poss-