Bordering On Chaos

While anti-immigration wingnut Michelle Malkin was probably gleefully bouncing up in down in her computer chair while typing out her piece on Arizona's preposterous, and likely unconstitutional, immigration law, there's still some unease amongst some of her fellow conservatives.

Here's a portion of Malkin's screed:

It’s official: GOP Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has signed the nation’s toughest immigration enforcement bill. They’re doing the job the feds won’t do — taking the law and our borders seriously to protect the health, safety, and welfare of our citizens first.

Cue the ACLU lawyers, the open-borders lobby, and the race-card players. And watch the Left show you what intolerance is really all about.

You ever notice that the ACLU is always the first to get slammed when something like this happens? I mean, I can at least see how conservatives are want to allow people's civil liberties to be trampled on, but one has to wonder how a woman of Philippine/Cuban decent is so eager to shill for this law. After all, if she ever visits Arizona, she's just as likely to be stopped for "driving while not white" as anybody. I'm sure that's at least in the back of her mind, but don't expect her to admit it.

Here's Allahpundits take on the new law in which he addresses the fact that there's still a lot of gray area in it that doesn't give law enforcement a very clear picture of what is and what isn't "reasonable suspicion".

The “reasonable suspicion” requirement is still there (see yesterday’s post for more on that) but this version specifies that there have to be independent grounds for suspicion beyond race. Also new is the list of documents that someone can present to create a presumption that they’re here legally, although it’s unclear to me how that’ll work in practice. If you’re pulled over on suspicion of being illegal for whatever reason and you produce an Arizona driver’s license, does the cop then let you go (probably, in most cases) or does he get to hold you while he tries to come up with further evidence to overcome the presumption? Another open question — and this is the key for civil libertarians — is whether “reasonable suspicion” can be formed simply by virtue of the fact that the suspect isn’t carrying one of the ID types listed. If so, then cops could theoretically start pulling people aside on the sidewalk and hauling them in if they don’t produce their “papers.” I don’t read this section that way; it sounds like “reasonable suspicion” must exist before any “reasonable attempt” to verify the suspect’s immigration status is made. But if I’m misreading it and “reasonable suspicion” is satisfied if the suspect is guilty of nothing more than being Latino and forgetting his driver’s license at home, then they’re going to have a Category Five legal and political clusterfark on their hands when the first American citizens of Hispanic descent are mistakenly arrested.

You'll notice that I quote Allah on her fairly regularly. This isn't because I accept his point of view on all things, but because he treads that fine line between "against everything Obama does" and "for everything that conservatives do". That being said, I don't think it makes him a particularly honest blogger either, as this too often comes off as pre-damage control just in case the need arises.

To the point though that law enforcement officials have to now police race ( and that's what's happening people ) as well as protect that citizenry that is here legally, this is likely to be a resource-drainer in many instances.

And even though the "birth certificate" claim is being walked back by conservatives now, there has already been an instance of this happening even before legislation was signed by the governor of Arizona. So who's to say that this isn't going to happen again?

By and large, this new law does not make Arizona look good. Well, to hardline right-wingers it does, but the socio-political and economic ramifications that this poses are far more reaching that most people are going to realize. Certainly, immigration reform is needed, and this most certainly is not the way to approach it. From my perspective, this not only will make life more difficult for legal immigrants, but for natural-born citizens of not only Hispanic heritage, but anyone that isn't white.

This is not going to play out well, especially for conservatives.

The Most Important Thing To Be Done?

And now the age range has gone up, but they continue to stop just short of using the word "racial"



So what would be more effective - full body scans or ( racial ) profiling. The later is classified as such because this is targeted at non-white males. But the question still remains - how are you going to determine who is and who isn't a "Muslim"?

Another factor to consider is the ratio of terrorist Muslims that attempt to board planes versus Muslims that just need to get to point B from point A and utilize the air transit system. That's a rather interesting ratio to look at. What are really saying here - if you're Muslim, don't get on a plane coming to America?

Non-White Screeners

Perhaps he intends to have them "marked" in such a fashion where they are recognizable?



The very concept of "profiling" has it's foundations in racial stereotyping, period. And, as the bulk of Muslims in the world aren't white, it's not a grand leap of logic to state that this process would have directives to primarily stop people that don't fit the traditional caricature of "American".

So how can you tell if someone is Muslim in order to put them through additional screenings and strip-searches in airports? Is there some sort of secret set of questions to be used just like in Blade Runner when they tried to find out who's a Replicant and who isn't?



But here's the part that causes me to question this style of information mining - why 18-28? Is that some secret age-window that terrorists can only attack from? Is that a special demographic that has been determined by intelligence agencies? Is there just a 10 year shelf life for suicide bombers in radical Islam?

I'm not sure if Julie Banderas is showing and actual honest response or if this is just concern-trolling or her attempting to inject some form of "balance" into the discussion. I'm guessing it's a healthy does of the former and just enough of the later for Fox execs to claim that this wasn't a practice endorsed or condoned by the network.

In the end, this is about stopping any person at the airport that has dark skin. Period.

Profiled And Pontificated

I've hesitated posting anything about Prof. Henry Louis Gates and Barack Obama until I have read enough of the relevant data to make my decision.

While Obama's statements during what was intended to be his healthcare news conference, he was asked about the Gates arrest. His answer has gotten more coverage by the establishment press and talk radio than Gates himself.

The police acted supidly. And he's right.

However, it wasn't exactly what he should have said.

Sure, Barack Obama is going to have strong opinions on certain issues, but when you are the President, you have to temper your words, evaluate the situation, make sure that you are clear but not so divisive that you face backlash. All this has to be done within moments of specific things happening. Sometimes it's seconds, as in the case of being asked a quesiton at a presser. Well, there are those that claim that the reporter that asked that was a plant, but those same people think Sarah Palin is of giant intellect and is a formidable opponent for the Democrats in 2012 - but that's another issue.

So where does profiling come into the equation?

One has to but look at the "birther" movement to see that racism and nativism is just as strong as it was decades ago. The entire movement is predicated on a black man being in a position of power. So, how is Gates connected to this?

( From Stanley Fish with additional h/t to Dayvoe @ 2 Political Junkies )

As the story unfolded in the press and on the Internet, I flashed back 20 years or so to the time when Gates arrived in Durham, N.C., to take up the position I had offered him in my capacity as chairman of the English department of Duke University. One of the first things Gates did was buy the grandest house in town (owned previously by a movie director) and renovate it. During the renovation workers would often take Gates for a servant and ask to be pointed to the house’s owner. The drivers of delivery trucks made the same mistake.

The message was unmistakable: What was a black man doing living in a place like this?

It's easy to forget that while many of our parents were young a black man and woman couldn't drink from the same water fountain, use the same restroom, even dine in the same restaurant. Now, some short decades later, a black man is holding the highest office in the land.

Both Obama and Gates have been racially profiled. Would you have reacted simularly if you had been the subject of repeated police visits because you happened to not fit the description of everyone else living in your neighborhood? How would this mutate your view of law enforcement.

Of course, it doesn't help that the arresting officer fit so neatly into the stereotype of condecending twat. But what has caused him to become the man or the officer that he is today?

Both Gates and Obama reacted in a way that shows that racial profiling is not dead - and neither is racism as a whole. But another problem exists within this story - the very real fact that conservative media outlets ( whether on cable or radio ) are laboring under the assumption that racism is dead now that Obama is in office. So, to them, the only real reason that both Gates and Obama reacted in such fashion is that it is in fact THEY who are racists.

This Is What Paranoid-Patriotism Does

What happens when you put anyone that moderately resembles an "Arab" on a flight? Nothing. Well, unless you count the paranoid reactions from people that listen to too much Sean Hannity:

Nine Muslim passengers were kicked off a flight from Washington, D.C., to Florida after other passengers reported hearing a suspicious remark about airplane security.

AirTran Airways spokesman Tad Hutcheson called the incident on the New Year's Day flight from Reagan National Airport to Orlando, Fla., a misunderstanding, but defended the company's response. He said the airline followed federal rules and did nothing wrong.

Having flown in the "post-9/11 world" ( god, I hate having to use that phrase ) I have seen the glances and heard the whispers of "white people" when they see a person of varrying ethnicity taking their seat on a plane, picking up their lugage, or checking in at the airport.

Not suprisingly, when someone says something about a "plane", and "engine", or someone hears the word "security", and possibly even the phrase "I wonder if they are going to have hot-dogs" - and the phrase comes from someone that may or may not be "Arab" - then there's got to be trouble, right?

One of the Muslim passengers, Kashif Irfan, told The Washington Post the confusion began when his brother was talking about the safest place to sit on an airplane.

"My brother and his wife were discussing some aspect of airport security," Irfan said. "The only thing my brother said was, 'Wow, the jets are right next to my window.'"

Irfan told the newspaper he thought he and the others were profiled because of their appearance. The men had beards and the women wore headscarves, traditional Muslim attire.

Damn, traditional ethnic attire. I guess the next time I see someone in a cowboy hat and they have dirty boots on and I hear them mention the name Garth Brooks, then that must mean that they fuck their sister. I'm pretty sure that's still illegal in most states.

Irfan, 34, is an anesthesiologist and his brother is a lawyer. Both live in Alexandria, Va., with their families, and were born in Detroit. They were traveling with their wives, Irfan's sister-in-law and Irfan's three sons, ages 7, 4 and 2. A family friend also was traveling with the group to a religious retreat in Florida.

Here's where the wingers are going to get their red-meat posts from.

A "religious retreat".

*queue scary music*

"The FBI agents actually cleared our names," Inayet Sahin, one of the family members kicked off the flight, told CNN. "They went on our behalf and spoke to the airlines and said, 'There is no suspicious activity here. They are clear. Please let them get on a flight so they can go on their vacation,' and they still refused."

More here.

Ed Morrissey and his twitchy, idiotic followers at HotAir have a crack at this - with predictable results

Racial Profiling - Well, Not Really

Attorney General Michael Mukasey told a congressional panel that 'racial profiling' really isn't the "only" thing that the FBI uses.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ap_mukasey_080709_mn.jpg

From ABC News:

"Under these new guidelines, will the fact that a person is of a certain ethnicity or national origin be enough, without any evidence of wrongdoing, to justify a preliminary inquiry?" asked Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. "No," Mukasey said. "And that is -- that represents no change from prior rules that said that we -- that says that we don't use that as the basis alone for predicating an investigation into anyone."

SusanG @ DailyKos seems to think this all sounds a little too familiar.

Think "wiretaps and warrants".....