Arizona Replaces Racial Profiling With Poverty Profiling?

by Alex DiBranco · 2010-05-04 08:29:00 UTC
Topics:

Last Thursday, in response to outrage over Arizona SB 1070, the state legislature passed a few amendments. To quell racial profiling concerns, the alterations removed law enforcement's ability to use race in determining "reasonable suspicion." They also switched out the phrase "lawful contact" for "lawful stop, detention or arrest," so that witnesses to and victims of crimes would not be deterred from coming to the police.

Sounds better, right? Sort of. Kris Kobach, the nativist lawyer who is apparently calling the shots in Arizona, wrote in an email obtained by Think Progress that, when making that change, they needed to slip in the ability to investigate anyone in violation of "any county or municipal ordinance. This will allow police to use violations of property code (ie cars on blocks in the yard) or rental codes (too many occupants of a rental accommodation) to initiate queries as well." Of course! when passing harsh, discriminatory legislation, if you can't get away with racism, then go for classism. Hmm ... I wonder ... when Rep. Brian Bilbray suggested you can tell an undocumented immigrant by what they wear, did he maybe mean you can tell a poor person by what they wear?

Targeting the poor and vulnerable of society who will be least likely to stand up for their rights is smart, Arizona. So when you racially profile them, they'll be less likely to be able to sue you for doing something illegal. Yeah, racially profile. Because, let's get real: the way the bill is designed, it's still gonna happen, even with the line say it can't. That's why a lawsuit against the bill by a police veteran objects that in his "experience as a Law Enforcement Officer, skin color and/or physical features does not provide any race neutral criteria or basis to suspect or identify who is lawfully in the United States." If you find too many people in an apartment, and their skin color is dark, will police dub that "reasonable suspicion"?

And even if police guess wrong, unreasonably harassed low-income U.S. citizens won't have the money to sue over violations of their constitutional rights. Win-win!

Photo credit: Fibonnacci Blue

Alex DiBranco is a Change.org Editor who has worked for the Nation, Political Research Associates, and the Center for American Progress. She is now based in New York City.
PREVIOUS STORY:
Top Suspect in Rancher Murder Is ... an American?
NEXT STORY:
Community Members Fight Detention of High School Graduate with a Mental Disability

COMMENTS (54)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.