Arresting the "Brown Skins"

Arizona Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio is in the news again. Anyone looking Hispanic or with "Brown skin" is a target of Sheriff Joe.

It is not illegal to be of Spanish descent.

This sheriff's activities seem to be racist, Un-american, and Unconstitutional.

* * * *

Commentary: Local police shouldn't enforce immigration law [CNN]


Ruben Navarrette Jr.: Using local law enforcement in immigration matters will end badly.

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- The wacky world of immigration reform is full of half-baked ideas, but none has the taste of having spent less time in the oven than letting local cops enforce federal immigration law.

As the son of a retired cop who spent 37 years on the job, and someone who has seen firsthand how much havoc this policy can wreak, let me be clear: No. No. No. It's a dreadful idea that never goes away. In fact, someone should drive a wooden stake through its heart.

Listen to the experts. And I don't mean right-wing pundits, who have never worn a badge. I'm talking about men and women who have spent their careers in law enforcement. Most police chiefs in the country, and many rank-and-file officers, are smart enough to balk at enforcing immigration law. But the law enforcement community isn't monolithic. There are younger officers who are eager to jump into the muck and enforce immigration law. Many of the veteran officers know better and oppose it.

Meanwhile, politicians foolishly rush in. In December 2005, the Costa Mesa, California, City Council made that city the first in the United States to take advantage of a Justice Department program that trains local officers to enforce immigration law.

Now the issue is raging in Phoenix, Arizona, where media hound Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio struck an agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, authorizing the training of 100 deputies to arrest illegal immigrants who pose a threat to national security or public safety. Among the more than 1,000 people arrested so far: corn vendors scooped off city streets. You know the world is a dangerous place when food vendors are considered a threat to national security.

Things also are heating up in Irving, Texas, where police officers are using -- some say abusing -- an ICE initiative called the Criminal Alien Program, which allows local police departments to detain illegal immigrants who have been accused of a crime. That sounds reasonable enough, except for the complaints streaming in that Irving police officers are engaging in racial profiling by rounding up anyone who looks Hispanic who isn't carrying his papers.

This will end badly. Local immigrant communities need to be able to trust law enforcement, or they'll never cooperate with them as witnesses or report crimes when they're the victims. Word will get out that the immigrant communities are good prey, because the people there never go to the police. An initiative intended to fight crime could backfire and lead to more of it.

Besides, federal immigration officials couldn't care less what trouble local officials get into while playing border patrol agent. If there is racial profiling, and lawsuits start to fly, the feds will leave the locals holding the bag. You see, "interagency cooperation" stops at the courtroom door.

Yet some people still think that law enforcement entities are interchangeable and that one badge is as good as another. For those who believe that, the world of cops and robbers is a delightfully simple place. Law enforcement officers chase down criminals. Illegal immigrants are criminals. Ergo, local law enforcement should chase down illegal immigrants.

Sure. I'll buy that --- the next time I see FBI agents writing speeding tickets.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist. You can read his column [here].

* * * *

It is getting scary in America. The "Round-ups" have begun. The supposed snitch in the Texas case of "polygamists", still hasn't surfaced. Does giving supposed groups of criminals, labels, an excuse for sacking the US Constitution?

Shouldn't court proceeding and police procedures be law abiding and Constitutional? Why does the majority of the American people tolerate this? Have we gone soft?

* * * *

A police officer sent this photo to other cop buddies while on duty:



[click here] for story

* * * *
* * * *

Connecticut Educational Apartheid [more]

http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/

Black State Troopers File Lawsuit Against Connecticut

Christine Stuart photo

[click here] for story from Connecticut News Junkie

A State's Greed and getting poorer Whites and Minorities off the road

Officials in States don't "care" about us, they are out to collect as much as possible in undeclared taxes. They reward their friends with cushy contracts and jobs with little work and high pay. More and more scams are needed to pay for the corruption and waste. Minorities and poorer Whites that can't pay traffic fines risk arrest, violation of probation, possible prison terms, and maybe a lifetime of not being legal to drive. Cell phone and other fines are just scams meant to perpetuate unfairness, racism, bias, separate and unequal, and make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.

CONNECTICUT NEWS
Drivers Mailed $700K In Phone Fines
Cases Were Dropped Against 8,900 Others

February 13, 2007
By COLIN POITRAS, Courant Staff Writer

The state took in more than $700,000 last year from people who didn't put up a fight and simply mailed in a $100 fine after being caught driving while talking on a hand-held cellphone, statistics show.

That amount could have been a lot more: Potential fines totaling $900,000 were not pursued because the state chose not to prosecute more than 8,900 other drivers who received tickets for cellphone violations and then showed up for court.

The reasons for not prosecuting the cases vary and are not broken down in statistics provided to The Courant by the state judicial branch.

State law allows first-time offenders to have the fine waived if they can prove they have purchased a hands-free accessory for their phone within 30 days of getting a ticket. In some cases, prosecutors may have accepted a driver's excuse for the violation or proof that using the cellphone was for an emergency allowable under the law.

Whatever the circumstance, the statistics related to enforcement of the law are sure to add grist to the debate over a legislative proposal to raise the fine for a cellphone violation to $250.

A bill calling for a higher fine is currently pending before the Transportation Committee, and one co-sponsor of the legislation is already reconsidering whether a higher fine is the way to go.

State Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, who has been pushing the cellphone ban for nearly 10 years, said his first response to learning the amount of money collected in fines was sympathy for those who chose to pay.

"That's a lot of money, money that could be put to good use I'm sure by the people who were fined," Roy said.

Roy said Monday that he is second-guessing the proposal to raise the fine after numerous police officers contacted him about the bill. He now believes lowering the fine might be the better way to go.

"A seat belt violation is $37," Roy said. "One officer said he had no trouble giving out a $37 ticket, but he would have a lot trouble giving out a $200 fine for a cellphone. That takes food off people's tables."

Having a hefty fine wouldn't be effective if it wasn't enforced, Roy said.

Overall, statistics show that Connecticut law enforcement handed out more than 19,000 tickets for violating the state's cellphone ban in 2006, according to the judicial branch. Of that total, 8,901 people or 46.74 percent of those ticketed were not prosecuted.

Another 7,265 motorists, or about 38 percent of the total, pleaded "no contest" to the charge and mailed in a $100 fine. More than 1,800 drivers, about 9.5 percent of those ticketed, were found guilty of a cellphone violation after challenging their case in court. Only 1.5 percent or 285 people had their cases dismissed by a judge. Three people were found not guilty of a violation when they pursued their case in court.

Some 763 individuals, or about 4 percent of the total ticketed, failed to respond to their ticket by mailing in a fine or appearing in court and had their licenses suspended, judicial statistics show.

State Rep. Thomas J. Drew, D-Fairfield, who is co-sponsoring the raise-the-fine bill with Roy, said the statistics, although intriguing, do not tell the whole story.

"The big question here that is difficult to pick up in the statistics is how many times were there violations that police saw but did not issue a ticket?" Drew said. "What we want to do is cause people to comply with the law in the first place and find a sensible way for people to enforce the law in the second."

The president of the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, Norwalk Police Chief Harry W. Rilling, said he believes drivers will take the ban more seriously if they know they risk a substantial fine. He was less sure if it would increase enforcement, saying police officers try to maintain the ban along with a host of other - sometimes more urgent - responsibilities they face on their daily beat.

"The amount of the fine really wouldn't have an impact on a police officer's likelihood of enforcing the law," Rilling said. "What it would do is send a very clear message to those people ignoring the law that the legislature is serious about it and it would have a significant impact on them."

Contact Colin Poitras at cpoitras@courant.com.