ACLU: Propagating false accusations of profiling, inventing racism
Posted on July 8, 2008
am New York: Bus, train passengers: Border Patrol racial profiling at times
OK, before we get to anything else, let this sink in: Border Patrol racial profiling at times. Hard to find a better subtle example of Leftist dementia (and/or lack of critical thinking ability). Accusing the Border Patrol of “racially profiling at times” actually vindicates it of the charge! But the Left doesn’t see it that way. If Border Patrol actually questions non-Hispanics, the Left will still accuse it “profiling” because it ALSO questions Hispanics. Seems that the only way the Border Patrol can escape charges of “profiling” is to never, ever, ever questions the immigration status of a Hispanic. But then, wouldn’t that be “reverse profiling?”
Anyway…
Border patrol agents upstate are increasingly arresting New York City undocumented immigrants aboard Amtrak trains and Greyhound buses, raising questions that the government sometimes resorts to racial profiling, immigration advocates and attorneys said.
The arrests have been an authorized practice for decades but seem to have hit a fevered pitch recently, according to advocates.
The patrols have sparked protests in the city as well as upstate, most recently last weekend in Syracuse, where a group said that agents have even targeted U.S. citizens who look “foreign”. Immigration attorneys say witnesses have said that agents sometimes question only people of color.
Typical charge. Yawn. But what comes next?
The Border Patrol also denied accounts of profiling. An official said the agency is following a federal law that allows agents to make warrantless stops within a reasonable distance from the country’s borders, about 100 miles. The practice helps to catch criminals, contraband and people crossing the Canadian border illegally. It also allows agents to arrest undocumented immigrants traveling from state to state, authorities said.
“A bus pulls in, you talk to everyone,” said Border Patrol Operations Officer Mark Henry, whose sector covers five upstate counties.
Sounds pretty reasonable, no? The ACLU weighs in.
The patrols have captured the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is counseling immigrant groups on their rights and is monitoring the patrols for instances of profiling.
“In terms of the legality, it may be legal for border patrol to go onto a train,” said Judy Rabinovitz from the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project.
“What’s not legal is just to stop and question people just because they look foreign.”
Ummmmm, but didn’t Mr. Henry already explain that everyone on said buses are interviewed, “foreign-looking” or not? See, the ACLU doesn’t have to make an explicit accusation to make the accusation. No one is questioning anyone simply for “looking foreign.”
The money quote is here:
“Certainly it sent shockwaves through the Irish community,” said a Manhattan Irish pub owner, whose bartender was recently deported after Border Patrol agents found him on a bus without identification. “You’re not safe anywhere.”
Talk about journalistic profiling!!!! Bwaaaaaa-haaaah. The reporter finds an IRISH guy whose frikkin’ BARTENDER got deported!
The “bartender” either “looked foreign” (along with the rest of the shockwave-beset Irish community)…or the “profiling” charge is just another stupid attempt to prevent America from preserving its sovereignty…or maybe it’s the “Black Irish” being profiled.
» Filed Under Uncategorized
Trackback URL
Comments
8 Responses to “ACLU: Propagating false accusations of profiling, inventing racism”
Leave a Reply
Yes, but there may be racial profiling going on even though officers deny it. It’s not unreasonable to suspect that the Border Patrol is just saying this to avoid accusations of racism. Maybe, maybe not. “A bus pulls in, you talk to everyone” may be the real policy in practice, but the pervasiveness of racism in our society may result in officers singling out people of color more often than white people, even if this is not their intent.
I see how this could be a problem becca. Statistically, most illegal aliens are white…right?
No, the percentage of white, non-Hispanic, illegal immigrants is relatively low. This does not in any way give border patrol the right to treat people of color unfairly.
OK BB — where is the evidence of BP treating “people of color” unfairly?
Let’s say that we know that 75% of illegals are “people of color.” Wouldn’t it be fair that more “people of color” are questioned than people of, um, “uncolor?”
Anyway, that’s not even the point. You decontexualized one point in a long post in order to argue an incomplete point. Did you miss the whole thing about the Irish?
Or do you think it is unfair to “profile” illegal immigrants while enforcing immigration law?
Here’s how I read this post as a whole: Border Patrol questions people on Amtrak trains and Greyhound buses, sometimes leading to the arrests of illegal immigrants. Witnesses say officers sometimes question only people of color, resulting in accusations of racial profiling. Mark Henry denies that racial profiling is going on. An Irish pub owner reports that his bartender was deported after being found on a bus without identification.
Fair enough summary?
My point is that there MAY be racial profiling going on. The evidence of Border Patrol treating people of color unfairly is that “witnesses have said that agents sometimes question only people of color”. The evidence contradicting this is Mark Henry’s claim that racial profiling is not going on.
It is NOT fair to question more people of color than white people, even if most illegal immigrants are people of color. While this may lead to more arrests (based on probablility), it is not fair to the individual who is constantly questioned based on his or her racial or ethnic background. This is a case of harmful discrimination and should not be tolerated.
I did not miss the point about the Irish, but I do find it irrelevant. The fact that an Irish bartender was arrested and deported says nothing about general trends in questioning patterns. Border Patrol may be targeting people of color (by questioning them at relatively high rates) without questioning them exclusively.
Also, the term ‘person of color’ refers to someone who is not white. Thus, it would be fine to phrase your question: “Wouldn’t it be fair that more people of color are questioned than white people?”
Also keep in mind that Latin@s may be of any race, which is why ‘white, non-Hispanic’ is technically more accurate in this case than simply ‘white’.
I appreciate your earnest responses BB…but your sincerity is not a substitute for common sense.
The only apparent “profiling” taking place here is the profiling of illegal immigrants. The fact that there are “shockwaves” through the Irish community and, as you have pointed out, Hispanics can be of a number of different races (which demonstrates how ridiculous the classification is in the first place) shows that if you are an ILLEGAL, you have reason to fear…as you should.
You have bought in to the professional grievance group propaganda and internalized it so deeply that you reject critical thinking. That is manifest most comically in your most recent comment where you seem to be making a sincere attempt to “educate” me on the “proper” use of ethno-racial terms, not even realizing that I was making fun of such classifications when I wrote “uncolor.”
The article is self-refuting but you are just so committed to race-mongering that you don’t see it. Demonstrated:
“Border Patrol may be targeting people of color (by questioning them at relatively high rates) without questioning them exclusively.”
Then it’s not “profiling.” Sounds to me (assuming what you say is true, I don’t know for sure, because the “shockwave” has apparently struck the Irish community) as if the BP might, just might be questioning people who are more likely to be illegals. Pretty much common sense. Should Border Patrol resources be used to monitor the parking garages at a Tribeca apartment building or should BP be questioning people in areas with known high concentrations of illegals? And should BP NOT question some people if they have already questioned a certain number of people of a certain skin tone that day? Pretty much “duh” questions to which there is really only one answer. Sorry, but the truth is, illegals tend to congregate together and most illegals in this country come from one country. When they get here they tend to set up shop proximate to other people doing the same thing (things associated with being in this country illegally), so if more of them are questioned, it’s just a fact of life and it’s just BP doing its job.
Anyway, who do you think the Border Patrol would more likely question:
1) A red-haired guy in the parking lot of a Home Depot soliciting construction work from every truck that pulls up.
OR
2) A Hispanic woman who gets out of a Volvo wearing a business suit walking into the employees’ entrance to an investment banking firm with a grande mocha.
You know the answer. It’s the one who fits the “profile” of an illegal.
“That is manifest most comically in your most recent comment where you seem to be making a sincere attempt to “educate” me on the “proper” use of ethno-racial terms, not even realizing that I was making fun of such classifications when I wrote “uncolor.””
The joke must have slipped by me. Yes, that was a sincere attempt at education, as it appeared to me that you were struggling to find an opposite for “people of color”. My apologies if I came across as patronizing.
““Border Patrol may be targeting people of color (by questioning them at relatively high rates) without questioning them exclusively.”
Then it’s not “profiling.””
Here’s my definition of racial profiling (this is straight from Wikipedia, but I find it accurate): the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to commit a particular type of crime
I’m assuming we can agree that true racial profiling is unfair and a form of racism. The question is whether racial profiling is going on in this case. I don’t think the evidence in this article is strong enough in either direction to conclusively prove or disprove that profiling is going on here.