Since I've been extremely one sided, here is an article that has quotations from one of the authors of the bill, rebutting some of the arguments against the bill.
"As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:
It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers … you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.
“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
* * *
The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.
It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.
State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit."
http://www.publiusnm.org/az-sb-1070-from-the-author/
Wednesday
SB 1070's final version: HB 2162
These abbreviations sound like diseases...
Anyways, I've been referring to SB 1070 but I should be referring to it AND to HB 2162. It was passed to amend SB 1070. The main difference is that "race, color, or ethnicity simply cannot be used as part of reasonable suspicion" (http://www.publiusnm.org/sb-1070-meet-hb-2162-az-immigration-law-amended/).
Here is the direct quote from the bill:
"C. A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution." http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm
Take a look at HB 2162 for yourself and tell me what you think. Does this solve the racial profiling that might occur from the passage of SB 1070?
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm
Anyways, I've been referring to SB 1070 but I should be referring to it AND to HB 2162. It was passed to amend SB 1070. The main difference is that "race, color, or ethnicity simply cannot be used as part of reasonable suspicion" (http://www.publiusnm.org/sb-1070-meet-hb-2162-az-immigration-law-amended/).
Here is the direct quote from the bill:
"C. A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution." http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm
Take a look at HB 2162 for yourself and tell me what you think. Does this solve the racial profiling that might occur from the passage of SB 1070?
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm
Monday
Learning more about conservatives' spending power
If you have access to a university library, check out this article by Kathleen deMarrais from the University of Georgia. I just had the opportunity to observe one of her classes this evening. She is an amazing teacher and researcher.
Demarrais, K. (2006). "The Haves and the Have Mores": Fueling a conservative ideological war on Public education (or tracking the money). Educational Studies, 39(3), 201-240.
I found it using Academic Search Complete.
If you don't have access, post your email address in the comment field and I can send you the article.
Demarrais, K. (2006). "The Haves and the Have Mores": Fueling a conservative ideological war on Public education (or tracking the money). Educational Studies, 39(3), 201-240.
I found it using Academic Search Complete.
If you don't have access, post your email address in the comment field and I can send you the article.
What other organizations exist like ALEC?
Here is an organization we talked about in one of the classes I recently visited:
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
"The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE's core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them." http://thefire.org/about/mission/
Sounds like they do good work right? Well, that's open to interpretation. Check out this article from 2003 on NPR (surprisingly, that was the most recent NPR piece on the organization).
"A Philadelphia-based group sues Shippensburg University, saying a school code aimed at promoting sensitivity and protecting the rights of minorities violates the First Amendment. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which plans to file similar challenges at universities across the country, says the policy bars students from speaking out."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1260465
This was the best example of a nonprofit doing very political work, in my opinion. Are there others you know of? Please share in the comments section!
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
"The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE's core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them." http://thefire.org/about/mission/
Sounds like they do good work right? Well, that's open to interpretation. Check out this article from 2003 on NPR (surprisingly, that was the most recent NPR piece on the organization).
"A Philadelphia-based group sues Shippensburg University, saying a school code aimed at promoting sensitivity and protecting the rights of minorities violates the First Amendment. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which plans to file similar challenges at universities across the country, says the policy bars students from speaking out."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1260465
This was the best example of a nonprofit doing very political work, in my opinion. Are there others you know of? Please share in the comments section!
What is ALEC?
So, if you have been reading, you may be wondering, who is ALEC? The organization was mentioned quite a bit in the NPR story a few posts back. Well, here's their website and their summary statement.
ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council
"Nonpartisan individual membership organization of state legislators which favors federalism and conservative public policy solutions."
Yes, that's right, "nonpartisan". Do you think it's possible to be nonpartisan? I really mean that. I am not trying to get a certain answer here because I don't know if it is, but I'm open to hearing arguments on both sides.
ALEC is one of the 501(c)3 organizations that, for a lack of a better way of saying it, try to influence policy by going as far as writing legislation and giving it to legislators to whom they contribute funds and with whom they share similar goals and ideals. This is legal because they are a non-profit. However, non-profits are not supposed to be involved in policy creation like this or else they may be confused as lobbyists.
Here is what the IRS has to say about non-profits and their work as lobbyists:
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
ALEC isn't the only organization dancing on the line between being a non-profit and a lobbyist. I'll post some examples in my next post.
ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council
"Nonpartisan individual membership organization of state legislators which favors federalism and conservative public policy solutions."
Yes, that's right, "nonpartisan". Do you think it's possible to be nonpartisan? I really mean that. I am not trying to get a certain answer here because I don't know if it is, but I'm open to hearing arguments on both sides.
ALEC is one of the 501(c)3 organizations that, for a lack of a better way of saying it, try to influence policy by going as far as writing legislation and giving it to legislators to whom they contribute funds and with whom they share similar goals and ideals. This is legal because they are a non-profit. However, non-profits are not supposed to be involved in policy creation like this or else they may be confused as lobbyists.
Here is what the IRS has to say about non-profits and their work as lobbyists:
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention." http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html
Just in case you didn't listen to the NPR story, here is what you missed:
- ALEC holds conferences where they invite legislators to be "educated" about issues.
- At one of these conferences, Senator Russel Pearce brought the idea for SB 1070 (according to a source of Sullivan's). NPR Story
- SB 1070 was written and taken to the Arizona State House of Representatives.
ALEC isn't the only organization dancing on the line between being a non-profit and a lobbyist. I'll post some examples in my next post.
Sunday
How far is too far?
I know I post a lot of links on here in my text-heavy posts. If you read anything, please read this article. As the late Dr. King said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=133660035
Latest Ariz. Immigration Bills Have Tougher Path
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=133660035
Who started SB 1070 anyway?
An NPR story covers who started SB 1070:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131191523
Just in case you don't have 30 minutes to read or listen to the story, here's the summary of it:
A "subtle pattern of influence that helped this bill along from the very beginning" came from the private prison industry.
From a paper written by one of my best friends last week:
"The problem is that crime has actually decreased in Arizona and many other states, so if these companies are to continue to increase revenues, they must find new prisoners (Hodai, 2010). The source for these new prisoners is illegal immigration." (citation not included to protect privacy)
So, the private prison business wants to make money. They decided that the best way to do that is to "educate" legislators on illegal immigration practices and to write a new law. Do these businesses have too much power?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131191523
Just in case you don't have 30 minutes to read or listen to the story, here's the summary of it:
A "subtle pattern of influence that helped this bill along from the very beginning" came from the private prison industry.
From a paper written by one of my best friends last week:
"The problem is that crime has actually decreased in Arizona and many other states, so if these companies are to continue to increase revenues, they must find new prisoners (Hodai, 2010). The source for these new prisoners is illegal immigration." (citation not included to protect privacy)
So, the private prison business wants to make money. They decided that the best way to do that is to "educate" legislators on illegal immigration practices and to write a new law. Do these businesses have too much power?
Who is fighting to end SB 1070?
The following organizations have filed a lawsuit, Friendly House v. Whiting, against SB 1070:
American Civil Liberties Union
MALDEF
National Immigration Law Center
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
ACLU of Arizona
National Day Laborer Organizing Network
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
This case is pending before the district court, but the good news is that the court has not dismissed the case, as the defendant has asked.
A second case, filed by the United States Department of Justice (yup, you read that right, the federal government even believes there is something wrong with SB 1070) also makes some of the same claims as the lawsuit mentioned above.
Because of the second case, there is an injunction that halts major portions of SB 1070. While this is great, there are still portions of the law that are being enforced. Including portions that hurt day laborers and their employers. For more information, check out this article on the ACLU's website:
http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/frequently-asked-questions-update-legal-challenges-arizonas-racial-
American Civil Liberties Union
MALDEF
National Immigration Law Center
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
ACLU of Arizona
National Day Laborer Organizing Network
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
This case is pending before the district court, but the good news is that the court has not dismissed the case, as the defendant has asked.
A second case, filed by the United States Department of Justice (yup, you read that right, the federal government even believes there is something wrong with SB 1070) also makes some of the same claims as the lawsuit mentioned above.
Because of the second case, there is an injunction that halts major portions of SB 1070. While this is great, there are still portions of the law that are being enforced. Including portions that hurt day laborers and their employers. For more information, check out this article on the ACLU's website:
http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/frequently-asked-questions-update-legal-challenges-arizonas-racial-
No time for enforcement?
In this article from the Center for Immigration Studies last July, the author discussed how the federal government barely has time to investigate "criminal aliens" let alone people suspected of potentially being "illegal aliens".
http://www.cis.org/kammer/foreshadowing-sb1070
If the government is already stretched, then why the new law to add to their workload? The author contends that the government wanted to add an extra level of accountability to the work to make sure things were getting done. Wow.
http://www.cis.org/kammer/foreshadowing-sb1070
If the government is already stretched, then why the new law to add to their workload? The author contends that the government wanted to add an extra level of accountability to the work to make sure things were getting done. Wow.
History of Racial Profiling in the US
Check out this article on the history of racial profiling in the US.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/History-of-Racial-Profiling.htm
Check out the paragraph on the New Jersey Turnpike. Wow. You can't dispute those numbers.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/History-of-Racial-Profiling.htm
Check out the paragraph on the New Jersey Turnpike. Wow. You can't dispute those numbers.
Saturday
Racial profiling: Who is being targeted?
“The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor.” (as quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070, this is from the case United States v. Brignoni-Ponce)
Mexican people and those appearing to be Latina/o, are being targeted by this law. They are being harassed for the color of their skin and it is wrong.
Although, in the final version of the bill it says the following:
"A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm
But, since Arizona and US Supreme Courts have upheld using race as a factor, how will the state protect people from racial profiling?
While this law obviously targets Latina/o, it also threatens all of our rights. This bill takes what little fairness and accountability exists for treating people equally.
Mexican people and those appearing to be Latina/o, are being targeted by this law. They are being harassed for the color of their skin and it is wrong.
Although, in the final version of the bill it says the following:
"A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm
But, since Arizona and US Supreme Courts have upheld using race as a factor, how will the state protect people from racial profiling?
While this law obviously targets Latina/o, it also threatens all of our rights. This bill takes what little fairness and accountability exists for treating people equally.
Who is an "alien"?
I'm trying to get to the bottom of how we determine who an "alien" is. Since it is all over SB 1070 there must be some extremely scientific and fool proof way of figuring this out. Let's see what definitions exist that can help clear this up...
Ahh, the IRS. They will have a clear cut answer. So, who is an alien?
To summarize:
You are considered a resident alien if you either meet the green card test or the substantial presence test. If you had a green card at some point during the year, Yea! You're a resident alien. If you were "physically present in the United States on at least 31 days during the current year, and 183 days during the 3 year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before." http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html
Oh and you're exempt if you are a professional athlete doing some charity work, just sayin'.
If you don't meet these guidelines then you're a nonresident alien, an illegal alien, or a citizen...I think. They don't make this easy!
Okay, well that didn't help us. We know how to figure out if someone is a resident or a nonresident but why the word alien? What does it mean?
A dictionary must have the correct answer. Let's see what Definitions.net has to say about the meaning of the word alien. Here are a few excerpts from the list of possible definitions:
An alien is...
"1. (n.) alien
a foreign-born resident who has not been naturalized and who owes allegiance to another country.
3. alien
a person who has been estranged or excluded.
4. alien
an extraterrestrial.
7. alien
unlike one's own; strange.
8. alien
opposed; hostile (usu. fol. by to or from):
ideas alien to modern thinking."
http://www.definitions.net/definition/alien
Interesting. So we use the term alien for people who are not naturalized but we can also use the term alien for people who are strange or people who have been estranged. I'm seeing a value statement here? Anyone else?
Getting serious now...
This is where I see the problem. How can we call people by a term that sets them up to be excluded from community and society? Why is this okay? Yes, it's in the dictionary but we set the definitions. We choose how to define words and they are always evolving. It is time to use a different term. Something inclusive that does not have such a derogatory double meaning.
Ahh, the IRS. They will have a clear cut answer. So, who is an alien?
To summarize:
You are considered a resident alien if you either meet the green card test or the substantial presence test. If you had a green card at some point during the year, Yea! You're a resident alien. If you were "physically present in the United States on at least 31 days during the current year, and 183 days during the 3 year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before." http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html
Oh and you're exempt if you are a professional athlete doing some charity work, just sayin'.
If you don't meet these guidelines then you're a nonresident alien, an illegal alien, or a citizen...I think. They don't make this easy!
Okay, well that didn't help us. We know how to figure out if someone is a resident or a nonresident but why the word alien? What does it mean?
A dictionary must have the correct answer. Let's see what Definitions.net has to say about the meaning of the word alien. Here are a few excerpts from the list of possible definitions:
An alien is...
"1. (n.) alien
a foreign-born resident who has not been naturalized and who owes allegiance to another country.
3. alien
a person who has been estranged or excluded.
4. alien
an extraterrestrial.
7. alien
unlike one's own; strange.
8. alien
opposed; hostile (usu. fol. by to or from):
ideas alien to modern thinking."
http://www.definitions.net/definition/alien
Interesting. So we use the term alien for people who are not naturalized but we can also use the term alien for people who are strange or people who have been estranged. I'm seeing a value statement here? Anyone else?
Getting serious now...
This is where I see the problem. How can we call people by a term that sets them up to be excluded from community and society? Why is this okay? Yes, it's in the dictionary but we set the definitions. We choose how to define words and they are always evolving. It is time to use a different term. Something inclusive that does not have such a derogatory double meaning.
Who is affected by SB 1070?
The law reads:
"The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States."
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Really!? Aliens! Well, golly. I guess they do exist.
But seriously, let's keep reading and see if we can understand what they are saying here...
"WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON." (This was in caps in the document. No, I'm not yelling at you.)
Okay, so let's do a close reading on this.
1) We are looking for people who are "aliens"
2) If there is "reasonable" suspicion, then we pull them over, stop them on the street, etc. and check their identification.
So, now we're getting somewhere. If we see people who look like aliens, we stop them because they must be "illegal" and even if they're "legal" we need to check because we're all safer that way.
But I still don't know how you tell someone is an alien? Because if we don't have a definitive idea of who is and who is not an alien, isn't there potential for pulling over or stopping EVERY single person in the state of Arizona? Surely the police people have better things to do, like enforcing laws that actually protect people instead of harming them.
For my next post...
What is an "alien"? Am I an "alien"?
"The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States."
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Really!? Aliens! Well, golly. I guess they do exist.
But seriously, let's keep reading and see if we can understand what they are saying here...
"WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON." (This was in caps in the document. No, I'm not yelling at you.)
Okay, so let's do a close reading on this.
1) We are looking for people who are "aliens"
2) If there is "reasonable" suspicion, then we pull them over, stop them on the street, etc. and check their identification.
So, now we're getting somewhere. If we see people who look like aliens, we stop them because they must be "illegal" and even if they're "legal" we need to check because we're all safer that way.
But I still don't know how you tell someone is an alien? Because if we don't have a definitive idea of who is and who is not an alien, isn't there potential for pulling over or stopping EVERY single person in the state of Arizona? Surely the police people have better things to do, like enforcing laws that actually protect people instead of harming them.
For my next post...
What is an "alien"? Am I an "alien"?
Thursday
Is racial profiling wrong?
Does it work? Is it wrong? Check out this article that covers some of the myths of racial profiling.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/Against-Racial-Profiling.htm
Here's an author who disagrees. She asserts that if there is a statistically significant number of people within a characteristic who commit certain acts then it is okay to profile.
http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/profiles/blogs/what-exactly-is-wrong-with
What do you think? How would/do you feel if you are part of this group that holds the "characteristic"?
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/Against-Racial-Profiling.htm
Here's an author who disagrees. She asserts that if there is a statistically significant number of people within a characteristic who commit certain acts then it is okay to profile.
http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/profiles/blogs/what-exactly-is-wrong-with
What do you think? How would/do you feel if you are part of this group that holds the "characteristic"?
What is racial profiling?
It's important to start with a definition to frame this conversation. Here are a couple definitions I found:
"The most common example of police racial profiling is "DWB", otherwise known as "driving while black". This refers to the practice of police targeting African Americans for traffic stops because they believe that African Americans are more likely to be engaged in criminal activity."
http://www.ethnicmajority.com/racial_profiling.htm
"Racial profiling refers to the use of an individual's race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. make a traffic stop or arrest)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling
I found it interesting that racial profiling only applies to law enforcement. I thought there might be a broader definition that would include assumptions being made based on race in other situations.
"The most common example of police racial profiling is "DWB", otherwise known as "driving while black". This refers to the practice of police targeting African Americans for traffic stops because they believe that African Americans are more likely to be engaged in criminal activity."
http://www.ethnicmajority.com/racial_profiling.htm
"Racial profiling refers to the use of an individual's race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. make a traffic stop or arrest)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling
I found it interesting that racial profiling only applies to law enforcement. I thought there might be a broader definition that would include assumptions being made based on race in other situations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)