1. Honestly, I wouldn't have surprised if Obama backed off his desire to enact immigration reform. I'm not willing to give odds on what I think the chances are of some meaningful legislation actually getting passed.
2. Middle East: Roger Cohen says Netanyahu is "crying wolf" over claims that Iran will obtain and use a nuclear weapon against Israel, and the Obama administration announces in a dramatic shift that they will join nuclear talks with Iran. Israel's new Foreign Minister rejects the 2007 Annapolis agreement, but Obama signals that the U.S. expects Israel to comply with the agreement and, according to Haaretz, is preparing his administration for a confrontation with Israel over Palestine.
3. Eric Holder begins a "revamp" of the Public Integrity Unit at the DOJ.
4. An organization of Cuban exiles signals they are willing to accept broad changes in American's policies towards Cuba.
5. Nicholas Kristof says that we've reached a turning point when it comes to animal rights.
6. Thanks to the recession, more states are considering raising taxes. Naturally, they will do so quietly.
7. A Texas Republican says Asian-Americans should change to names that are "easier for Americans to deal with." Because of course that makes more sense than just not enacting ridiculous and unnecessary voter ID legislation.
8. Co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons Dave Arneson has died. As you may recall, Gary Gygax passed away this time last year. The world of role-playing owes both its existence and popularity mostly to these two men.
9. Idiots shoot and kill a dog belonging to a retired Navy SEAL living in the Houston area, who nearly kills them in return. Both his name and book sounded familiar so I looked him up. Sure enough, I remember him from this NPR story from 2007 recounting a battle in Afghanistan in which he was the only survivor. I can tell you that had he shot one or more of those guys, no jury in Texas would've convicted him.
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Saturday, April 04, 2009
NY Times article about Irving's Mayor
This was just posted today by the NY Times, and for those seeking a greater understanding of Mayor Gears' position on the matter, I fully suggest reading it. Here. It doesn't really add much to the discussion, especially for anyone who's been following events in Irving in the past couple of years, but I think it does a good job explaining why the City is neither backing off of enforcement nor taking a harder stance. It also makes Mayor Gears look not quite as bad as he may have come off when people who are strongly opposed to his stance talk about him. The most interesting thing is that people on both sides are damning him for his middle-of-the-road approach. Of course, Gears' explanation that he had to do what he did gives him a convenient excuse while allowing him to maintain the appearance of a man who's not the slickest politician in the city, pulling the wool over his friends' eyes on both sides of the issue. The last thing he'd want is to look like the bad guy. Anyway, I suggest reading the article and finding out what it's all about for yourself.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Friday Links
For your edification:
1. Via Volokh, Congress takes on the issue of cyber security.
2. A federal judge rules that some detainees being held at Bagram in Afghanistan can challenge their detention in court.
3. Social Security is clogged with a backlog of disability cases. In my law school's legal clinic, I was very bluntly informed by the senior attorneys working there that the Social Security Administration always denies an initial application for disability, regardless of the merits. And that they will fight tooth and nail to deny benefits to all but those who are most clearly disabled (such as with blindness, paralysis, loss of limb, etc.) The SSA's role should be to to fairly dispense entitlement benefits, but they seem to regard themselves as the government's moneysavers.
4. Speaking of government malfeasance, immigrants die in custody and not only does nobody care, but nobody even bothers to report it. I understand the need to enforce immigration laws in our country, but we treat detained immigrants worse than we treat terrorist being held at Guantanamo Bay.
5. The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously strikes down the state's ban on gay marriage finding that it violates the Iowa State Constitution forbidding . According to Maggie Gallagher, teenagers will now begin fornicating left and right (more than they already do, I presume.)
6. Photographs from the day Martin Luther King Jr. died.
7. The U.S. Men's soccer team beat Trinidad and Tobago the other night, 3-0. The score probably should've been worse for T&T, who looked out of sync and discombobulated all night. All three goals came from the feet of Jozy Altidore, who's put in two phenomenal performances for the national team. But nobody should declare him the great American hope yet, as we've seen this sort of thing before (Eddie Johnson, anyone?)
8. The Mavericks cling to the hope that they can grab the 7th seed and avoid a first round match-up against L.A. They're getting a little help from Utah, but they need to win out to have a chance.
1. Via Volokh, Congress takes on the issue of cyber security.
2. A federal judge rules that some detainees being held at Bagram in Afghanistan can challenge their detention in court.
3. Social Security is clogged with a backlog of disability cases. In my law school's legal clinic, I was very bluntly informed by the senior attorneys working there that the Social Security Administration always denies an initial application for disability, regardless of the merits. And that they will fight tooth and nail to deny benefits to all but those who are most clearly disabled (such as with blindness, paralysis, loss of limb, etc.) The SSA's role should be to to fairly dispense entitlement benefits, but they seem to regard themselves as the government's moneysavers.
4. Speaking of government malfeasance, immigrants die in custody and not only does nobody care, but nobody even bothers to report it. I understand the need to enforce immigration laws in our country, but we treat detained immigrants worse than we treat terrorist being held at Guantanamo Bay.
5. The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously strikes down the state's ban on gay marriage finding that it violates the Iowa State Constitution forbidding . According to Maggie Gallagher, teenagers will now begin fornicating left and right (more than they already do, I presume.)
6. Photographs from the day Martin Luther King Jr. died.
7. The U.S. Men's soccer team beat Trinidad and Tobago the other night, 3-0. The score probably should've been worse for T&T, who looked out of sync and discombobulated all night. All three goals came from the feet of Jozy Altidore, who's put in two phenomenal performances for the national team. But nobody should declare him the great American hope yet, as we've seen this sort of thing before (Eddie Johnson, anyone?)
8. The Mavericks cling to the hope that they can grab the 7th seed and avoid a first round match-up against L.A. They're getting a little help from Utah, but they need to win out to have a chance.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Fugitive Program Targeted Non-Criminal Illegals
I think one thing that liberals and conservatives can agree on is that dangerous illegal immigrants should not be allowed to roam the country freely, and that they probably ought to be deported back to their home countries or made to face justice in some manner. Such was the supposed purpose of programs being run by ICE to enforce deportation orders against dangerous, criminal or fugitive illegals. Alas, the Bush administration managed to screw this up as well:
So instead of a program designed to round up dangerous illegals, combined with comprehensive immigration reform, we got a program that picked off the low-hanging fruit and no reform at all. Thanks guys.
The raids on homes around the country were billed as carefully planned hunts for dangerous immigrant fugitives, and given catchy names like Operation Return to Sender.
And they garnered bigger increases in money and staff from Congress than any other program run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, even as complaints grew that teams of armed agents were entering homes indiscriminately.
But in fact, beginning in 2006, the program was no longer what was being advertised. Federal immigration officials had repeatedly told Congress that among more than half a million immigrants with outstanding deportation orders, they would concentrate on rounding up the most threatening — criminals and terrorism suspects.
Instead, newly available documents show, the agency changed the rules, and the program increasingly went after easier targets. A vast majority of those arrested had no criminal record, and many had no deportation orders against them, either.
Internal directives by immigration officials in 2006 raised arrest quotas for each team in the National Fugitive Operations Program, eliminated a requirement that 75 percent of those arrested be criminals, and then allowed the teams to include nonfugitives in their count.
[...]
The impact of the internal directives, obtained by a professor and students at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law through a Freedom of Information lawsuit and shared with The New York Times, shows the power of administrative memos to significantly alter immigration enforcement policy without any legislative change.
The memos also help explain the pattern of arrests documented in a report, criticizing the fugitive operations program, to be released on Wednesday by the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington.
[...]
Peter L. Markowitz, who teaches immigration law at Cardozo and directs its immigration legal clinic, said the memos obtained in its lawsuit reflected the Bush administration’s effort to appear tough on immigration enforcement during the unsuccessful push to pass comprehensive immigration legislation in 2006, and amid rising anger over illegal immigration.
“It looks like what happened here is that the law enforcement strategy was hijacked by the political agenda of the administration,” he said.
So instead of a program designed to round up dangerous illegals, combined with comprehensive immigration reform, we got a program that picked off the low-hanging fruit and no reform at all. Thanks guys.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Disgraceful
Were I to treat a dog this way, I would be sent to jail in many states. A person, and I would be guilty of negligent homicide at the last. But when Homeland Security treats an immigrant in this manner, the result is an "internal investigation." Our immigration policies and services in this nation are a disgrace, and it shouldn't take detainees dying in excruciating pain to tell us this.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
More illegals leaving voluntarily
Or as this story puts it, "self deport".
The article at first implies that one, a majority of illegals who are moving are going back to Mexico, and two, the reason is because of immigration crackdowns in many states. I have no doubt that these two things are connected, but I find it implausible that is the primary reason. The article itself later goes on to give contradictory evidence:
I'm inclined to believe that more people would do that than simply leave. At a certain point, of course, the other, safer, states would simply run out of capacity to absorb them. However, we haven't seen that in any state in the US, ever, so it's not likely that would deter anyone from moving to say, Vermont or New Hampshire.
But although it would be hard to prove one way or another, I'd wager money that the more important reason is the economic downturn the US is suffering, especially in the housing sector. We've blogged about that before in a variety of posts you can see by clicking this link. New data (from Business Week Online) says:
And from NPR:
Now couple that with this statistic (from the San Francisco Chronicle):
(It's a year old, but there's no reason to think it would have changed in that year). It's easy to see that there's going to be a strong connection between home construction and immigration. I'm not saying the crackdowns have nothing to do with it, but as with crackdowns on illegal drugs, they weren't showing a lot of success before. There's no reason to think that simply because enforcement got stronger there wasn't enough economic incentive for illegals to stay. After all, they've been being deported and sneaking back for decades already. Nothing much we do is likely to change that.
The point I'm trying to make is that people shouldn't be out there cheering in the streets because some illegals are finally going back home. The problem is not solved at all, and tougher laws and more stringent enforcement aren't the most effective answer. As you can see, it's all about jobs. One final point (from the AP article):
Yeah, it's all about the money. If it's not worth it to work here, they won't. But watch, when in five years, or two or ten, whenever it happens, the US economy turns around and gets supercharged again, if we haven't solved the problem in the meanwhile they'll come back. They'll just come back to make money like they did before. That's an official TWM prediction and warning to lawmakers: do something about immigration before it happens!
The couple are among a growing number of illegal immigrants across the United States who are starting to pack their bags and move on as a crackdown on undocumented immigrants widens and the U.S. economy slows, turning a traditional Christmas trek home into a one-way trip.
The article at first implies that one, a majority of illegals who are moving are going back to Mexico, and two, the reason is because of immigration crackdowns in many states. I have no doubt that these two things are connected, but I find it implausible that is the primary reason. The article itself later goes on to give contradictory evidence:
While some illegal immigrants are simply self deporting, others are moving within the United States to avoid federal immigration raids and pro-enforcement measures passed by a patchwork of state and local authorities.
I'm inclined to believe that more people would do that than simply leave. At a certain point, of course, the other, safer, states would simply run out of capacity to absorb them. However, we haven't seen that in any state in the US, ever, so it's not likely that would deter anyone from moving to say, Vermont or New Hampshire.
But although it would be hard to prove one way or another, I'd wager money that the more important reason is the economic downturn the US is suffering, especially in the housing sector. We've blogged about that before in a variety of posts you can see by clicking this link. New data (from Business Week Online) says:
U.S. home prices fell in October for the 10th consecutive month, posting their largest monthly drop since 1991, a widely watched index showed on Dec. 26. The record 6.7% drop in the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home price index also marked the 23rd consecutive month prices either grew more slowly or declined.
And from NPR:
Not too long ago, foreclosures were considered a rare, unhappy event. Now entire cities are plagued by foreclosures — which are at their highest level since the Great Depression. At the same time, new home construction has fallen to the level it was at in 1991
Now couple that with this statistic (from the San Francisco Chronicle):
The National Association of Home Builders estimates that 20 percent of the construction workforce -- about 2.4 million people -- is foreign-born. While it's impossible to know how many are undocumented, some estimates put the number at 50 percent or more.
(It's a year old, but there's no reason to think it would have changed in that year). It's easy to see that there's going to be a strong connection between home construction and immigration. I'm not saying the crackdowns have nothing to do with it, but as with crackdowns on illegal drugs, they weren't showing a lot of success before. There's no reason to think that simply because enforcement got stronger there wasn't enough economic incentive for illegals to stay. After all, they've been being deported and sneaking back for decades already. Nothing much we do is likely to change that.
The point I'm trying to make is that people shouldn't be out there cheering in the streets because some illegals are finally going back home. The problem is not solved at all, and tougher laws and more stringent enforcement aren't the most effective answer. As you can see, it's all about jobs. One final point (from the AP article):
Other returning immigrants cite a slowdown in the U.S. economy as a factor, and the falling value of the U.S. dollar against other currencies, which has eaten into the value of remittances sent to support families at home.
Yeah, it's all about the money. If it's not worth it to work here, they won't. But watch, when in five years, or two or ten, whenever it happens, the US economy turns around and gets supercharged again, if we haven't solved the problem in the meanwhile they'll come back. They'll just come back to make money like they did before. That's an official TWM prediction and warning to lawmakers: do something about immigration before it happens!
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Update on Irving
In this continuation of the story that TWM has been covering for the past three months, the Dallas Morning News reports:
As the article goes on to say this has a host of implications. State funding for schools is determined by how many children are attending school, so it may have a major impact. The school district is now thinking about whether they need to build the two additional schools they had scheduled, and are wondering if this trend will continue and require them to downsize the faculty.
This appears to confirm the hypothesis that this crackdown is intended to get Hispanics out of Irving, a possibility we raised earlier.
Evidently some in the Hispanic community have started to catch on (quoting the DMN again):
Of course the Hispanic community is automatically going to assume that the main motivation behind the crackdown is racial, but I'm still not convinced of that. I think that the leadership of Irving is looking more at the bottom line (money-wise) than doing anything so petty as persecuting Hispanics (I mean, this isn't Farmer's Branch!), but it works out about the same anyway.
And the city gives the same old excuse:
The city did, however, turn a blind eye for a long enough time that these apartments became near slums. And then instead of giving them an equally long time to fix the apartments, the city decided that these apartments just had to meet new standards in the period of a few months. But worst of all, really, is that instead of implementing any plans to try to replace those slums with decent low-income housing, the city has done nothing except force the closures of those apartments. There hasn't been any plan to relocate those residents, and certainly no effort to make sure they don't leave Irving.
On a similar note, the City of Irving instituted a program among employees called "Eyes on Irving". The city issued a little booklet to every employee with a card inside it that has a list of common code violations and a 24-hour phone number to call and report problems. The idea behind it is that using every city employee as a spotter for code violations, code enforcement will be much more efficient and stringent. While it's possible that this will never lead to abuse, such as the many city employees who live in Irving reporting on their neighbors who annoy them, I think it's likely that a lot of employees are going to use this to make their problem neighbors regret it.
I have yet to figure out exactly why code enforcement has become such a big issue recently. The city is aging less than gracefully in some areas, but it's far from turning into a trash heap like certain areas of Dallas. It just doesn't seem rational.
Update (4/11/08): Well, recently we've gotten some new information passed our way about events and happenings in Irving having to do with the code enforcement crackdown. If you know or even strongly suspect anything, leave a comment or drop us a line at twisemen@gmail.com. You never know what could happen just from talking!
The Irving school district has lost 656 students since the end of September, and officials attribute the decline to a crackdown on illegal immigrants and the shutting down of aging apartment complexes.
[...]Last year, Irving schools lost 283 students during the same period.[...]
Superintendent Jack Singley said a city code-enforcement crackdown on declining apartments where many low-income families live may have caused people to leave town. And some immigrants may have left Irving because they feared deportation.
As the article goes on to say this has a host of implications. State funding for schools is determined by how many children are attending school, so it may have a major impact. The school district is now thinking about whether they need to build the two additional schools they had scheduled, and are wondering if this trend will continue and require them to downsize the faculty.
This appears to confirm the hypothesis that this crackdown is intended to get Hispanics out of Irving, a possibility we raised earlier.
Evidently some in the Hispanic community have started to catch on (quoting the DMN again):
In addition to heightened fear of deportation, city officials are targeting aging and dilapidated apartment complexes for demolition if they don't make required improvements.
Pastor Pedro Portillo of the Santa Maria de Guadalupe Church said he sees the apartment crackdown as targeting the same group as the deportations. Many of his parishioners with children have left the city and are too afraid to return for Sunday services, he said.
"It's another discriminatory way to move the Hispanic community from the area," he said. "Most of the people that live there are Hispanic."
Of course the Hispanic community is automatically going to assume that the main motivation behind the crackdown is racial, but I'm still not convinced of that. I think that the leadership of Irving is looking more at the bottom line (money-wise) than doing anything so petty as persecuting Hispanics (I mean, this isn't Farmer's Branch!), but it works out about the same anyway.
And the city gives the same old excuse:
"I know that this does disrupt families, but our first and foremost concern is the living conditions of these folks, and they were not safe," code compliance director Teresa Adrian said. "We can't turn a blind eye."
The city did, however, turn a blind eye for a long enough time that these apartments became near slums. And then instead of giving them an equally long time to fix the apartments, the city decided that these apartments just had to meet new standards in the period of a few months. But worst of all, really, is that instead of implementing any plans to try to replace those slums with decent low-income housing, the city has done nothing except force the closures of those apartments. There hasn't been any plan to relocate those residents, and certainly no effort to make sure they don't leave Irving.
On a similar note, the City of Irving instituted a program among employees called "Eyes on Irving". The city issued a little booklet to every employee with a card inside it that has a list of common code violations and a 24-hour phone number to call and report problems. The idea behind it is that using every city employee as a spotter for code violations, code enforcement will be much more efficient and stringent. While it's possible that this will never lead to abuse, such as the many city employees who live in Irving reporting on their neighbors who annoy them, I think it's likely that a lot of employees are going to use this to make their problem neighbors regret it.
I have yet to figure out exactly why code enforcement has become such a big issue recently. The city is aging less than gracefully in some areas, but it's far from turning into a trash heap like certain areas of Dallas. It just doesn't seem rational.
Update (4/11/08): Well, recently we've gotten some new information passed our way about events and happenings in Irving having to do with the code enforcement crackdown. If you know or even strongly suspect anything, leave a comment or drop us a line at twisemen@gmail.com. You never know what could happen just from talking!
Friday, November 16, 2007
Irving Activist Arrested
Carlos Quintanilla, prominent in the recent protests in Irving, was picked up in Irving by police on Thursday.
Ok, I get that the guy should have paid his parking tickets. But is this not just stupid? To arrest him the day of a planned rally?
Oh yeah, and here the DMN once again underestimates the number of people at the rally: "Only about three dozen protesters, mostly Hispanics, gathered at Irving City Hall by 4:30 p.m." I was there, I saw more like 50 people. Far from the 1,000 that gathered last month, but still, the paper even then underestimated the number. On WRR they gave the count as 2 dozen. I don't get this. Why do they want to cut the numbers down?
Police said Mr. Quintanilla, leader of Dallas-based Accion America, had seven outstanding warrants – mostly traffic citations – from police in Dallas and Farmers Branch and the Dallas County sheriff's office. He was arrested after an Irving police lieutenant saw him giving an interview to a reporter in the 1000 block of East Irving Boulevard.
Ok, I get that the guy should have paid his parking tickets. But is this not just stupid? To arrest him the day of a planned rally?
Oh yeah, and here the DMN once again underestimates the number of people at the rally: "Only about three dozen protesters, mostly Hispanics, gathered at Irving City Hall by 4:30 p.m." I was there, I saw more like 50 people. Far from the 1,000 that gathered last month, but still, the paper even then underestimated the number. On WRR they gave the count as 2 dozen. I don't get this. Why do they want to cut the numbers down?
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Irving Rally Tonight
For those of you who are interested, critics of Irving's immigration policies are rallying again today at City Hall at 3pm. About a thousand or so people turned out at the last rally, so we'll see if this one enjoy similar success.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Good riddance
Crazy, racist, hate mongering Congressman Tom Tancredo has announced he will not seek re-election, regardless of the outcome of the race for the Republican presidential nomination. I pretty much can't think of anyone in the House that's more clearly a bad human being than him (just look at his recent antics where he called on the feds to raid a rally for the DREAM Act put on by Sen. Dick Durbin - the Assistant Majority Leader!). His entire presidential campaign is based on appealing to the most xenophobic elements of the Republican Party, in his quest to return American policy to the types of anti-immigration laws we saw in the 1920s (despite the fact that even illegal immigration does more good than harm for the economy). Not that he doesn't take a far-right position on any issue - throw in comments about nuking the Middle East and you have a candidate even many Republicans can't endorse.
His House seats will more than likely stay in Republican hands, but again, it is hard to imagine his successor being worse than him. The article indicates that Tancredo may run for Senate in 2010 against Democrat Ken Salazar, but we'd have nothing to worry about at all if he did given Salazar's popularity, Tancredo's insanity, and the general Democratic trend the state has been the last few years.
His House seats will more than likely stay in Republican hands, but again, it is hard to imagine his successor being worse than him. The article indicates that Tancredo may run for Senate in 2010 against Democrat Ken Salazar, but we'd have nothing to worry about at all if he did given Salazar's popularity, Tancredo's insanity, and the general Democratic trend the state has been the last few years.
Friday, October 12, 2007
This is going to be a big one!
I know I just reported on Wednesday that there's going to be another immigration rally in Irving on Saturday. What I just saw on CBS 11's website is that there's also a counter-protest scheduled!
Hah hah! There's no "plaza" in Irving! There's a grassy sward on one side of city hall and a parking lot on the other! If these rallies draw a few thousand people, there's going to be some seriously trampled grass tomorrow!
To be completely serious, I really hate that this is happening in Irving. For a long time, this has been a pleasnt city, despite the fact that the old fuddy-duddies insist on people not being able to buy alcohol in Irving even though they all drink. But I blame most of this friction on people who resent the "Mexicanization" of their city. You wait two generations and all that'll be left of the Mexico-town is a couple of restaurants and a mural. But no, they can't wait. We can't assimilate this culture like we have every other! They're a threat to our way of life! We have to get rid of them and get rid of them now!
I think it's stupid when people say, "I blame both sides" and proceed to tell you why they're on some higher ground where they don't have take a stance and risk being called wrong (or worse) by one side or the other. However, to be sure, there is some blame to go around on both sides. Originally this whole issue was simply whether or not Irving was targeting Hispanics (which would be wrong, unethical, and illegal). However, the Hispanic advocates seem to have lost their focus on that issue and have let this become a referendum on illegal immigration. Carlos Quintanilla said that he has a problem with them deporting non-violent offenders as well as violent offenders. But the law is the law; they're all illegal. There's nothing that's really improper about all of them getting deported. What might be improper is why they got arrested in the first place. But instead of focusing on that, here we are with people protesting each other over the status of illegal immigrants. And why do these people come out of the woodwork to protest illegals when this issue isn't about illegals but rather simply the possibility of discriminatory enforcement?
I'm not Hispanic, but I do know some Hispanic people in the city and they're scared and uncomfortable. That means that the city is failing to do its job. And it's not the job of the city to enforce immigration law. That's so unimportant I don't know why the city hasn't already compromised by saying that they'll only subject violent criminals to immigration screening. Why not compromise and let this whole thing blow away? It's only going to hurt the city, whether the immigration screening program comes through intact or whether it's halted.
Irving police are dealing with two opposing protest groups, planning to stage rallies Saturday, at almost the same time. The two competing sides will come face-to-face at Irving City Hall.
The city plaza is expected to be packed with people who have opposing views on illegal immigration.
Hah hah! There's no "plaza" in Irving! There's a grassy sward on one side of city hall and a parking lot on the other! If these rallies draw a few thousand people, there's going to be some seriously trampled grass tomorrow!
To be completely serious, I really hate that this is happening in Irving. For a long time, this has been a pleasnt city, despite the fact that the old fuddy-duddies insist on people not being able to buy alcohol in Irving even though they all drink. But I blame most of this friction on people who resent the "Mexicanization" of their city. You wait two generations and all that'll be left of the Mexico-town is a couple of restaurants and a mural. But no, they can't wait. We can't assimilate this culture like we have every other! They're a threat to our way of life! We have to get rid of them and get rid of them now!
I think it's stupid when people say, "I blame both sides" and proceed to tell you why they're on some higher ground where they don't have take a stance and risk being called wrong (or worse) by one side or the other. However, to be sure, there is some blame to go around on both sides. Originally this whole issue was simply whether or not Irving was targeting Hispanics (which would be wrong, unethical, and illegal). However, the Hispanic advocates seem to have lost their focus on that issue and have let this become a referendum on illegal immigration. Carlos Quintanilla said that he has a problem with them deporting non-violent offenders as well as violent offenders. But the law is the law; they're all illegal. There's nothing that's really improper about all of them getting deported. What might be improper is why they got arrested in the first place. But instead of focusing on that, here we are with people protesting each other over the status of illegal immigrants. And why do these people come out of the woodwork to protest illegals when this issue isn't about illegals but rather simply the possibility of discriminatory enforcement?
I'm not Hispanic, but I do know some Hispanic people in the city and they're scared and uncomfortable. That means that the city is failing to do its job. And it's not the job of the city to enforce immigration law. That's so unimportant I don't know why the city hasn't already compromised by saying that they'll only subject violent criminals to immigration screening. Why not compromise and let this whole thing blow away? It's only going to hurt the city, whether the immigration screening program comes through intact or whether it's halted.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Immigrant Homeowners
Via Oliver Willis, a solution for the burst housing bubble presents itself. Or I should say, the solution is already here.
Do the Math
An article in the DMN highlights a new report out from the Irving PD on arrest rates in the city. The article title is "Irving Illegal Immigrant's Charges Mostly Misdemeanors" but the real key is not what they're being arrested for or charged with, but the percentage of Hispanics and illegals being arrested in proportion to all other arrests:
Did he not calculate the percentages before bringing that up? Ok, 1,638 out of 14,000 is 11.7% of arrests. The question is, how much of Irving's population is illegal? According to the last census, Hispanics of any race make up just over 30% of the population. If all races get arrested at the same rate (assuming they all commit crimes at the same rate), Hispanic arrests should make up 30% of arrests. But if that's true, and 11.7% are illegals, that means fully a third of Irving's Hispanics are illegal! But illegal immigrants of all races make up only 4% of the American population. That means they should, based on equal policing, make up 4% of arrests (unless you buy the argument that they commit crimes in higher proportion). We know, however, that illegals try to avoid any police scrutiny and are very paranoid about having the police called on them and will do anything to avoid it.
And this:
Is that the same proportion as non-Hispanic arrests? Do most non-Hispanics go to jail for those same charges? And lastly:
12% arrested for driving without a license, but on what pretext were they pulled over?
If City of Irving officials were hoping this report would tamp down suspicions about racial profiling in the city, they're mistaken. Far from answering questions, this report will only cause more to be asked.
UPDATE: I don't have any time for in-depth analysis for any of these, but here are some links you might be interested in. First, this DMN story about anti-immigration proponents demonstrating how stupid they are. And this story in the Dallas Observer about how DHS crackdowns are having the-entirely predictable-effect of depriving businesses of laborers they need.
UPDATE II: And now, CNN is paying attention.
Police Department spokesman David Tull said 14,000 people were arrested in Irving during the same time, but only 1,638 of them were flagged by federal officials for illegal immigration violations.
Did he not calculate the percentages before bringing that up? Ok, 1,638 out of 14,000 is 11.7% of arrests. The question is, how much of Irving's population is illegal? According to the last census, Hispanics of any race make up just over 30% of the population. If all races get arrested at the same rate (assuming they all commit crimes at the same rate), Hispanic arrests should make up 30% of arrests. But if that's true, and 11.7% are illegals, that means fully a third of Irving's Hispanics are illegal! But illegal immigrants of all races make up only 4% of the American population. That means they should, based on equal policing, make up 4% of arrests (unless you buy the argument that they commit crimes in higher proportion). We know, however, that illegals try to avoid any police scrutiny and are very paranoid about having the police called on them and will do anything to avoid it.
And this:
More than 63 percent of the 3,901 criminal charges filed against the 1,638 illegal immigrants were listed as misdemeanors, including outstanding traffic tickets, outstanding warrants, assault, theft, criminal mischief and prostitution.
Is that the same proportion as non-Hispanic arrests? Do most non-Hispanics go to jail for those same charges? And lastly:
Another 16 percent were arrested on suspicion of DWI or public intoxication offenses, while almost 12 percent of the charges filed were listed as driving without a license or driving with a suspended or invalid driver's license.
12% arrested for driving without a license, but on what pretext were they pulled over?
If City of Irving officials were hoping this report would tamp down suspicions about racial profiling in the city, they're mistaken. Far from answering questions, this report will only cause more to be asked.
UPDATE: I don't have any time for in-depth analysis for any of these, but here are some links you might be interested in. First, this DMN story about anti-immigration proponents demonstrating how stupid they are. And this story in the Dallas Observer about how DHS crackdowns are having the-entirely predictable-effect of depriving businesses of laborers they need.
UPDATE II: And now, CNN is paying attention.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Uh oh Irving, here we go again!
There is another protest march scheduled for this Saturday at 3PM in the city of Irving. Protesting, I assume, the city of Irving's deportations of illegals. This message went out to city employees today:
Hmm, opportunity for live-blogging? I wonder if there's going to be any more crazy old white folk there attacking the marchers?
Please be aware of a protest march scheduled for this Saturday at 3 p.m. According to newspaper reports, the march will start at Rock Island and Main Street and move west. There will no doubt be increased police presence in the area.
Hmm, opportunity for live-blogging? I wonder if there's going to be any more crazy old white folk there attacking the marchers?
Sunday, October 07, 2007
The Constitution and Racial Profiling
The Constitutional issues surrounding the arrests and deportations in Irving can be a little confusing, so I thought I'd throw a short note up about what authorities are and are not permitted to do when they're thinking about arresting someone or pulling someone over for a traffic stop.
First of all, it's important to remember that police can't stop someone who's Hispanic just because they suspect he might be an illegal immigrant. In fact, police can't stop you at all and question you absent some reasonable suspicion that you're up to no good, and they're not permitted to stop you and demand I.D. unless they have a reasonable suspicion for doing so. And it's discriminatory to target Hispanics just because they're more likely to be illegal immigrants, absent-against-some reasonable suspicion that the particular person their stopping is up to no good (though that doesn't mean police aren't doing it, if you see the link to Nat-Wu's post above.) So how are these people in Irving being arrested in the first place?
Well clearly, you can be arrested for committing a crime, either with or without a warrant. But then, the police just about always arrest people for committing crimes. So the real question is, have the number of Hispanics being arrested gone up? According to the story Nat-Wu linked to, the Irving city manager admitted that 300 of the people who've been detained and turned over to ICE for deportation were detained during traffic stops. Now you may not know this, but under both the U.S. Constitution and Texas law, police are permitted to make pretextual traffic stops. What this means is that if the cops want to pull you over because they think you're a drug dealer and are hiding some drugs in your car but they can't prove that just by watching you drive by, they can pull you over so long as they have another reason for pulling you over, like if you make an illegal U-turn or fail to use a turn signal. And you may not know this either, but under both the U.S. Constitution and Texas law, police are also permitted to arrest you for a traffic offense, no matter how minor, including an offense as minor as failure to wear a seat-belt or failure to carry insurance. And if they arrest you, they can search your car incident to that arrest even without your consent, and even if the search has nothing to do with the reason that they stopped and arrested you.
As you can well imagine, combining all of these factors means that police can essentially justify pulling you over, arresting you and searching your vehicle for even the most minor of traffic offenses, and it doesn't matter if the real reason their doing it has more to do with what else they suspect you're up to, including being an illegal immigrant.
Why does this matter? Because it makes it very difficult to prove that the police are engaging in discriminatory racial profiling in any particular instance. The only possible way you can even show a pattern of racial profiling is by looking at figures related to traffic stops and arrests. According to this Ft. Worth Star Telegram article, Hispanics in Irving made up about a third of those pulled over in traffic stops in 2006. However, of the non-consent searches conducted following these stops, about half of them involved Hispanics, whereas only about 1/3 involved Caucasians. Why is it that while more Caucasians were pulled over, more Hispanics were searched? Who knows? And it's very difficult to know, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court and Texas law.
Now as near as I can tell reading about the Criminal Alien Program in Irving, officials from ICE can only review the status of suspected illegal immigrants once they are detained and held in a city jail. This gives police on the streets every incentive to pull over Hispanics over any traffic offense, arrest them, and have them taken down to the city jail so that ICE officials can eventually get around to checking their status.
Again, the numbers are key. Right now stats are insufficient to get a good picture of what's going on. One would need to know how many Hispanics are being arrested and what they're being arrested for to even get a sense of what's really going on in Irving, and those figures just aren't readily available. A jump in the arrest of Hispanics for all reasons and in all circumstances would be deeply suspicious. But a jump in the number of Hispanics being detained after traffic stops would also be extremely suspicious. And questioning and arrest of Hispanics solely based on suspicion over their immigration status-absent any other crime-would be unconstitutional.
Either way, it can't be forgotten that whatever the justification for the traffic stops and arrests, the Irving City Council has made the conscious decision to start looking into the immigration status of those they arrest, and referring them to ICE when their status can't be determined, something that most cities in America don't look into. And in doing so, they've given themselves all the incentive in the world to start pulling people over and arresting them based solely on suspicion of their immigration status. Why would they start doing that now? Well...that's an excellent question.
First of all, it's important to remember that police can't stop someone who's Hispanic just because they suspect he might be an illegal immigrant. In fact, police can't stop you at all and question you absent some reasonable suspicion that you're up to no good, and they're not permitted to stop you and demand I.D. unless they have a reasonable suspicion for doing so. And it's discriminatory to target Hispanics just because they're more likely to be illegal immigrants, absent-against-some reasonable suspicion that the particular person their stopping is up to no good (though that doesn't mean police aren't doing it, if you see the link to Nat-Wu's post above.) So how are these people in Irving being arrested in the first place?
Well clearly, you can be arrested for committing a crime, either with or without a warrant. But then, the police just about always arrest people for committing crimes. So the real question is, have the number of Hispanics being arrested gone up? According to the story Nat-Wu linked to, the Irving city manager admitted that 300 of the people who've been detained and turned over to ICE for deportation were detained during traffic stops. Now you may not know this, but under both the U.S. Constitution and Texas law, police are permitted to make pretextual traffic stops. What this means is that if the cops want to pull you over because they think you're a drug dealer and are hiding some drugs in your car but they can't prove that just by watching you drive by, they can pull you over so long as they have another reason for pulling you over, like if you make an illegal U-turn or fail to use a turn signal. And you may not know this either, but under both the U.S. Constitution and Texas law, police are also permitted to arrest you for a traffic offense, no matter how minor, including an offense as minor as failure to wear a seat-belt or failure to carry insurance. And if they arrest you, they can search your car incident to that arrest even without your consent, and even if the search has nothing to do with the reason that they stopped and arrested you.
As you can well imagine, combining all of these factors means that police can essentially justify pulling you over, arresting you and searching your vehicle for even the most minor of traffic offenses, and it doesn't matter if the real reason their doing it has more to do with what else they suspect you're up to, including being an illegal immigrant.
Why does this matter? Because it makes it very difficult to prove that the police are engaging in discriminatory racial profiling in any particular instance. The only possible way you can even show a pattern of racial profiling is by looking at figures related to traffic stops and arrests. According to this Ft. Worth Star Telegram article, Hispanics in Irving made up about a third of those pulled over in traffic stops in 2006. However, of the non-consent searches conducted following these stops, about half of them involved Hispanics, whereas only about 1/3 involved Caucasians. Why is it that while more Caucasians were pulled over, more Hispanics were searched? Who knows? And it's very difficult to know, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court and Texas law.
Now as near as I can tell reading about the Criminal Alien Program in Irving, officials from ICE can only review the status of suspected illegal immigrants once they are detained and held in a city jail. This gives police on the streets every incentive to pull over Hispanics over any traffic offense, arrest them, and have them taken down to the city jail so that ICE officials can eventually get around to checking their status.
Again, the numbers are key. Right now stats are insufficient to get a good picture of what's going on. One would need to know how many Hispanics are being arrested and what they're being arrested for to even get a sense of what's really going on in Irving, and those figures just aren't readily available. A jump in the arrest of Hispanics for all reasons and in all circumstances would be deeply suspicious. But a jump in the number of Hispanics being detained after traffic stops would also be extremely suspicious. And questioning and arrest of Hispanics solely based on suspicion over their immigration status-absent any other crime-would be unconstitutional.
Either way, it can't be forgotten that whatever the justification for the traffic stops and arrests, the Irving City Council has made the conscious decision to start looking into the immigration status of those they arrest, and referring them to ICE when their status can't be determined, something that most cities in America don't look into. And in doing so, they've given themselves all the incentive in the world to start pulling people over and arresting them based solely on suspicion of their immigration status. Why would they start doing that now? Well...that's an excellent question.
What's Really Going On In Irving, TX?
Over the past few weeks any attention given to Irving has either been focused on the (anti)immigrant enforcement of the Irving Police Department or the Dallas Cowboys, but even though there is another story of actions by the city of Irving that may be responsible for getting rid of far more Hispanics than will ever be deported under the Criminal Alien Program, apparently almost no one has noticed it. Not that anyone can be blamed for not noticing it; so far it’s been a very subtle movement and it can’t be explained simply. But the sentiments that run behind the CAP operate on a far higher level than simple law enforcement. Without any direct evidence, it’s impossible to say whether or not those forces are conspiring to use a backhanded method of cleansing Irving of its lower (largely Hispanic, somewhat illegal) class. However, there is circumstantial evidence, and with the new focus on getting rid of illegal immigrants, a strong case can be made that Irving is trying to do away with its large population of apartment-dwelling lower-class citizens (again, many of whom happen to be Hispanic).
Two characteristics about Irving are important to understanding what this story is about: one, that about 67% of Irving’s residents live in multi-family housing; two, that about 33% of Irving’s residents are Hispanic. In accordance with traditional demographics of poor populations, the Hispanics have more children, thus over 60% of Irving’s school population is Hispanic. There are plenty of Hispanics living in houses, to be sure. That’s why so many Irving homeowners end up complaining about three or four families living in single-family housing. But the majority of them live in cheap apartments in Irving’s older south side. There are plenty of white and black apartment and town-home dwellers as well. Many of them also live in cheap apartments on the south side but many also dwell in newer, higher-rent apartments up north in Valley Ranch or Las Colinas. The divide isn’t simply about race; it’s about class and Irving’s vision of its own future. This is why it’s necessary to briefly dip into a geo-political history of Irving.
Irving is basically divided into old Irving and new Irving by Airport Freeway (183). The older original part of town the south has long been fully developed, at least as far as land usage. It’s mostly suburban single-family housing with some small commercial areas thrown in. Aside from the large city complex, it’s typical suburbia. The “downtown” area, or as it’s known in Irving the “Heritage District” has none of the charm or success of similar areas in Grapevine or Denton. Aside from Big State, the old and old-fashioned soda fountain and hamburger joint, there’s not much there worth mentioning. Of course, the quaintness of the area is also spoiled by being home to Arby’s, a Bank of America branch, and of course, McDonald’s (and a few more of such charmless businesses).
South Irving is also home to much of the city’s Hispanic population. Many of these people are immigrants (whose immigration status may not be quite legal). So much so that the Irving Public Library’s East Branch (not quite matching the geography; it should be the southeast branch) is the home of the Library’s literacy and English as a Second Language programs, as well as having a Spanish-language collection that is equal to that of the main library (Central). As well, when one cruises down Irving Boulevard towards Dallas, one cannot but notice the number of taquerias and tortillerias lining the road, as well as the large Fiesta supermarket at the corner of Nursery and Irving blvd.
North Irving is another story. This is the part of Irving that has developed mainly since the opening of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, and largely because of it. The Las Colinas and Valley Ranch areas are home to multi-national, multi-billion dollar industries and the Cowboys, respectively. And for those of you who’ve always wondered if they’re separate cities, no, they’re just special parts of Irving that are TIFs, in which their taxes go back into funding improvements in those areas. Needless to say, these have always been the more upscale areas of Irving where you will find very few restaurants or stores that cater to the lower-class citizens (especially Hispanics) and where you are likeliest to see Hummers and BMWs on the streets.
There has been a status quo for at least a decade. Las Colinas boomed briefly around 20 years ago and then stalled. After the construction of several office buildings, development slowed down leaving an area that looked upscale and half-finished. Development in the rest of Irving was slow and the pace hasn’t changed until recently. In just the past two years, new houses and apartments have gone up all over Irving (to use the parlance, both single-family and multi-family residences). There have been housing developments in lots so small they can only build 8 houses and they’re building homes that start at $350,000 between a Wal-Mart and Fry’s Electronics just north of 635 off Macarthur. Several new apartment, condo or town-home developments are underway in Las Colinas, including the stunningly expensive La Villita. The grapevine has it that the business buildings are full up and city tax receipts are doing nicely. Many new retail businesses have opened as well to help things along.
Three new developments (or rather, two new developments and one redevelopment) are now on the drawing board that appear likely to bring unprecedented income in taxes to the City as well as an image of prosperity that Irving has been struggling to obtain for years. The first of these is named Las Colinas Live, a multi-million dollar entertainment, residential and shopping area modeled after successful ventures such as Dallas’ West Village or Mockingbird Station. It will also have a DART rail stop.
It’s a long read so far and you’re thinking “there’s nothing sinister in that”, right? True. But wait just a little longer and you’ll start seeing what it’s all about. The other major development will be on the site of what is now Texas Stadium. In case you didn’t read that piece of news, the City of Irving will be tearing it down and building a retail and business development on it. More on that later. The last development to talk about is the “Old Towne” development, which is being done by Delbert McDougal. Old Towne is basically the old part of Irving, which, ironically, is going to be developed with all-new buildings.
Breathe deep now, because this is where it gets real. The fact of redevelopment isn't noteworthy unless you’re involved financially. What got my attention was Irving's crackdown on apartments. I first got clued in when a place called Villa Martinique apts. was condemned last year, before the Olde Towne redevelopment was announced. Villa Martinique is inside the Olde Towne area. After it was condemned the company that has the contract for Old Towne bought that property. Again, nothing shady if that's the whole story. What's funky though is that it was condemned barely a month before Irving announced the Old Towne project. What's really funky is that a friend of mine lived there 10 years ago and he said they were a hellhole even then. Those apartments have been condemnation-worthy for years, at least a decade. So why the sudden action? I don’t have the answer, but the timing sure was convenient for Mr. Delbert McDougal, and that, combined with some other developments, gets a little suspicious. There’s more to the story.
So then these stories start coming out in the DMN that Irving has decided to crack down on, let's call them delinquent, apartments. They've decided that after putting up with these complexes for decades, no more! In the past three months, King's Manor and Chivas Square apts. have also been shut down. Let me tell you what these apartments have in common: poor people and crappy old buildings. Of course, only poor people live in crappy apartments, but then nobody's out there building decent cheap apartments for poor people. Furthermore, Irving lawmakers want to require apartments to install fire sprinklers, a move that would convince a lot of apartment owners that it’s not worth doing business in Irving anymore. Of course some of these places were just barely above what you’d consider slums. The wonder is that Irving tolerated them for so long and only now decided it was necessary to come down on them.
I realize that this does not look like a sinister plan yet. Just hold on. According to a city employee, there are 16 complexes targeted for “cleanup” (which probably means forced closure) in the next five years. These complexes are in the area south of 183 around Carl Road. Guess what’s just five minutes down the highway? Texas Stadium, soon to be home of a multi-billion dollar redevelopment. Not sold on it yet?
I’m not saying that for sure there’s anything unsavory going on. It may all be on the up and up and the apartment cleanup may be because Irving has more money now than it has in quite a while instead of cashing in on the homes of its poorer residents when business is booming. But if you were going to go about getting rid of your poorer residents, many of whom happen to be dark-skinned Spanish speakers, this is one way you might go about it. Irving can’t use eminent domain to seize land simply because it doesn’t like apartments. But what it can do is run apartments off by making it impossible for them to continue operating.
It's my suspicion that a couple of things may be going on here. In Land Use we've just been talking about zoning restrictions that were passed for the purposes (disguised of course) of getting rid of apartments and apartment dwellers. Now that was back in the 30's and the 40's, but the law on zoning remains essentially the same; as long as a city has a rational basis for doing it, it's going to be upheld even if an argument can be made that the hidden purpose of the zoning regulation is discriminatory (as long as it's not blatant discrimination based on race.) I thought of that when I read about the sprinkler systems. Irving can argue it as a safety measure, but who will it impact the most, and what will the likely effect be? The closing of apartments in which poor people live. You may or may not remember, but in the wake of the Kelo v. New London decision from 2005, Texas passed a constitutional amendment which forbids the taking of private property by the state under its eminent domain powers, to confer a private benefit on a private party, or for economic development purposes (which is in direct repudiation to the more generous Kelo holding.) So that means in Texas, no seizing property under eminent domain so private developers can develop there. That means that if a city wants to take property, it's going to have to condemn it for other reasons...like that it's unsafe. But once they do so, a lot of these absentee landlords are going to sell the property, and they're likely to sell it to developers who want to use the property the apartments are built on, which just so happens to be the same projects that the City is interested in developing.
Irving has used eminent domain actually, to seize the area for the new Northlake South Campus, which just happens to be in the southwest corner of the Olde Towne development. Of course it was for the public good, but it doesn’t hurt that it’s a “$10.2 million facility” and will bring hundreds of students daily to a sleepy, under-retailed area of Irving, which some day soon may sprout more restaurants and shops.
You still might say that this is all legitimate practice for a city attempting to better its station. But what if those low-rent apartments that are being closed down are being closed down despite their attempts to come into code compliance, and are being given too little leeway to actually achieve it? Some of the apartments being closed down are suing the city claiming just that. The Spanish Trace apartments are suing the city in an attempt to remain open. Their suit claims this is Irving’s “aggressive attempt to rid itself of working-class minority immigrants." Take also the Chivas Square apartments. A city employee who had occasion to go there frequently remarked that management only found that the apartments were to be closed a month in advance (they were given that month to make improvements). When the employee visited, they found that some of the tenants were unaware that they were going to be forced to leave in a month.
City Manager Tommy Gonzalez addressed this issue (somewhat) in a recent Town Hall meeting. He said that it is his and the council’s goal that no citizen in Irving live in waste and squalor when apartment owners are getting rich off the poor, so every apartment needs to be brought up to code (which they’ve increased to a higher standard and added cops specifically to deal with; look on the city’s website for a current opening for a “Code Compliance Assistant).
How about the fact that preference is obviously being given to apartments like those in Las Colinas where one bedroom, one bath apartments go for over $800 a month? There is no talk on the city council of finding room for new apartments for low-income residents. Those who are forced out must find accommodations in existing apartments or leave altogether, although I did read that Irving was considering giving any tenant forced out $600 in assistance (so generous!). Irving isn’t against apartments, it’s just against apartments that poor people can afford. This quote from the DMN is telling: “But council members say these apartments will be different. They'll be within walking distance of restaurants and shops. Rents will be expensive, and some units will be for sale. In other words, they're trying not to repeat past mistakes.”1If you consider making housing available that your working class members can afford a mistake, Irving is doing a good job of rectifying it.
Lest you assume that this is entirely about apartments, there is the fact that as of this month Irving has reorganized its structure so that the department of Code Enforcement is now under the command of the Chief of Police Larry Boyd. Here’s the text of the paragraph that discusses this move in an internal city memo:
I’m not sure who’s violating all those codes, but it could be that after years of older white home owners complaining about 4 families living in one house and 18 cars being parked on the street in front of it, not to mention having to listen to extremely loud music late at night, the city has finally decided to get tough on single-family housing as well. Of course this newly invigorated code enforcement will still be unleashed on apartments first, but we can expect to see some changes on suburban streets as well.
Is it safe to say that Irving is enacting a comprehensive plan intending to run Hispanics out of town and discourage them from living here? Probably not. But it cannot be denied that Irving’s recent actions are having and will have a disproportionate effect on Irving’s Hispanic community. Is it safe to say that the City Council is aware of that? Probably so. They have a bird’s-eye view of everything that’s going on in Irving and if I can see this happening, surely they can too. Whether or not this strategy is unsavory, as yet there’s nothing to say that it’s illegal.
But witnessing Irving’s crackdown on illegal immigrants (possibly violating the rights of US citizens and legal residents), it is evident that there are definitely forces in the power structure of Irving that are unfriendly to the Hispanic community. There are probably elements in Irving's leadership who would like to see less Mexicans combined with people who want to develop Irving economically and want to get some of these buildings out of the way to do so, none of whom much cares what happens to those people once their apartments have been condemned so long as they just get out.
There are some questions that need to be followed up on. Was the timing of the condemnation of the Villa Martinique apartments just highly convenient for the McDougal Olde Towne deal, or did someone on the council make it clear that it was time for them to be condemned with foreknowledge of the McDougal deal? Have other deals taken place whereby developers are buying land at rock-bottom prices when everyone else is paying top dollar (remember those $350,000 homes)? If Irving’s goal is simply to make sure that no Irving resident is living in a slum, where are the proposed low-income housing developments to replace the only apartments many people can afford? Is this a racist policy aimed primarily at getting rid of Irving’s Hispanics or just an insensitive classist policy that will have that side-effect?
Two characteristics about Irving are important to understanding what this story is about: one, that about 67% of Irving’s residents live in multi-family housing; two, that about 33% of Irving’s residents are Hispanic. In accordance with traditional demographics of poor populations, the Hispanics have more children, thus over 60% of Irving’s school population is Hispanic. There are plenty of Hispanics living in houses, to be sure. That’s why so many Irving homeowners end up complaining about three or four families living in single-family housing. But the majority of them live in cheap apartments in Irving’s older south side. There are plenty of white and black apartment and town-home dwellers as well. Many of them also live in cheap apartments on the south side but many also dwell in newer, higher-rent apartments up north in Valley Ranch or Las Colinas. The divide isn’t simply about race; it’s about class and Irving’s vision of its own future. This is why it’s necessary to briefly dip into a geo-political history of Irving.
Irving is basically divided into old Irving and new Irving by Airport Freeway (183). The older original part of town the south has long been fully developed, at least as far as land usage. It’s mostly suburban single-family housing with some small commercial areas thrown in. Aside from the large city complex, it’s typical suburbia. The “downtown” area, or as it’s known in Irving the “Heritage District” has none of the charm or success of similar areas in Grapevine or Denton. Aside from Big State, the old and old-fashioned soda fountain and hamburger joint, there’s not much there worth mentioning. Of course, the quaintness of the area is also spoiled by being home to Arby’s, a Bank of America branch, and of course, McDonald’s (and a few more of such charmless businesses).
South Irving is also home to much of the city’s Hispanic population. Many of these people are immigrants (whose immigration status may not be quite legal). So much so that the Irving Public Library’s East Branch (not quite matching the geography; it should be the southeast branch) is the home of the Library’s literacy and English as a Second Language programs, as well as having a Spanish-language collection that is equal to that of the main library (Central). As well, when one cruises down Irving Boulevard towards Dallas, one cannot but notice the number of taquerias and tortillerias lining the road, as well as the large Fiesta supermarket at the corner of Nursery and Irving blvd.
North Irving is another story. This is the part of Irving that has developed mainly since the opening of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, and largely because of it. The Las Colinas and Valley Ranch areas are home to multi-national, multi-billion dollar industries and the Cowboys, respectively. And for those of you who’ve always wondered if they’re separate cities, no, they’re just special parts of Irving that are TIFs, in which their taxes go back into funding improvements in those areas. Needless to say, these have always been the more upscale areas of Irving where you will find very few restaurants or stores that cater to the lower-class citizens (especially Hispanics) and where you are likeliest to see Hummers and BMWs on the streets.
There has been a status quo for at least a decade. Las Colinas boomed briefly around 20 years ago and then stalled. After the construction of several office buildings, development slowed down leaving an area that looked upscale and half-finished. Development in the rest of Irving was slow and the pace hasn’t changed until recently. In just the past two years, new houses and apartments have gone up all over Irving (to use the parlance, both single-family and multi-family residences). There have been housing developments in lots so small they can only build 8 houses and they’re building homes that start at $350,000 between a Wal-Mart and Fry’s Electronics just north of 635 off Macarthur. Several new apartment, condo or town-home developments are underway in Las Colinas, including the stunningly expensive La Villita. The grapevine has it that the business buildings are full up and city tax receipts are doing nicely. Many new retail businesses have opened as well to help things along.
Three new developments (or rather, two new developments and one redevelopment) are now on the drawing board that appear likely to bring unprecedented income in taxes to the City as well as an image of prosperity that Irving has been struggling to obtain for years. The first of these is named Las Colinas Live, a multi-million dollar entertainment, residential and shopping area modeled after successful ventures such as Dallas’ West Village or Mockingbird Station. It will also have a DART rail stop.
It’s a long read so far and you’re thinking “there’s nothing sinister in that”, right? True. But wait just a little longer and you’ll start seeing what it’s all about. The other major development will be on the site of what is now Texas Stadium. In case you didn’t read that piece of news, the City of Irving will be tearing it down and building a retail and business development on it. More on that later. The last development to talk about is the “Old Towne” development, which is being done by Delbert McDougal. Old Towne is basically the old part of Irving, which, ironically, is going to be developed with all-new buildings.
Breathe deep now, because this is where it gets real. The fact of redevelopment isn't noteworthy unless you’re involved financially. What got my attention was Irving's crackdown on apartments. I first got clued in when a place called Villa Martinique apts. was condemned last year, before the Olde Towne redevelopment was announced. Villa Martinique is inside the Olde Towne area. After it was condemned the company that has the contract for Old Towne bought that property. Again, nothing shady if that's the whole story. What's funky though is that it was condemned barely a month before Irving announced the Old Towne project. What's really funky is that a friend of mine lived there 10 years ago and he said they were a hellhole even then. Those apartments have been condemnation-worthy for years, at least a decade. So why the sudden action? I don’t have the answer, but the timing sure was convenient for Mr. Delbert McDougal, and that, combined with some other developments, gets a little suspicious. There’s more to the story.
So then these stories start coming out in the DMN that Irving has decided to crack down on, let's call them delinquent, apartments. They've decided that after putting up with these complexes for decades, no more! In the past three months, King's Manor and Chivas Square apts. have also been shut down. Let me tell you what these apartments have in common: poor people and crappy old buildings. Of course, only poor people live in crappy apartments, but then nobody's out there building decent cheap apartments for poor people. Furthermore, Irving lawmakers want to require apartments to install fire sprinklers, a move that would convince a lot of apartment owners that it’s not worth doing business in Irving anymore. Of course some of these places were just barely above what you’d consider slums. The wonder is that Irving tolerated them for so long and only now decided it was necessary to come down on them.
I realize that this does not look like a sinister plan yet. Just hold on. According to a city employee, there are 16 complexes targeted for “cleanup” (which probably means forced closure) in the next five years. These complexes are in the area south of 183 around Carl Road. Guess what’s just five minutes down the highway? Texas Stadium, soon to be home of a multi-billion dollar redevelopment. Not sold on it yet?
I’m not saying that for sure there’s anything unsavory going on. It may all be on the up and up and the apartment cleanup may be because Irving has more money now than it has in quite a while instead of cashing in on the homes of its poorer residents when business is booming. But if you were going to go about getting rid of your poorer residents, many of whom happen to be dark-skinned Spanish speakers, this is one way you might go about it. Irving can’t use eminent domain to seize land simply because it doesn’t like apartments. But what it can do is run apartments off by making it impossible for them to continue operating.
It's my suspicion that a couple of things may be going on here. In Land Use we've just been talking about zoning restrictions that were passed for the purposes (disguised of course) of getting rid of apartments and apartment dwellers. Now that was back in the 30's and the 40's, but the law on zoning remains essentially the same; as long as a city has a rational basis for doing it, it's going to be upheld even if an argument can be made that the hidden purpose of the zoning regulation is discriminatory (as long as it's not blatant discrimination based on race.) I thought of that when I read about the sprinkler systems. Irving can argue it as a safety measure, but who will it impact the most, and what will the likely effect be? The closing of apartments in which poor people live. You may or may not remember, but in the wake of the Kelo v. New London decision from 2005, Texas passed a constitutional amendment which forbids the taking of private property by the state under its eminent domain powers, to confer a private benefit on a private party, or for economic development purposes (which is in direct repudiation to the more generous Kelo holding.) So that means in Texas, no seizing property under eminent domain so private developers can develop there. That means that if a city wants to take property, it's going to have to condemn it for other reasons...like that it's unsafe. But once they do so, a lot of these absentee landlords are going to sell the property, and they're likely to sell it to developers who want to use the property the apartments are built on, which just so happens to be the same projects that the City is interested in developing.
Irving has used eminent domain actually, to seize the area for the new Northlake South Campus, which just happens to be in the southwest corner of the Olde Towne development. Of course it was for the public good, but it doesn’t hurt that it’s a “$10.2 million facility” and will bring hundreds of students daily to a sleepy, under-retailed area of Irving, which some day soon may sprout more restaurants and shops.
You still might say that this is all legitimate practice for a city attempting to better its station. But what if those low-rent apartments that are being closed down are being closed down despite their attempts to come into code compliance, and are being given too little leeway to actually achieve it? Some of the apartments being closed down are suing the city claiming just that. The Spanish Trace apartments are suing the city in an attempt to remain open. Their suit claims this is Irving’s “aggressive attempt to rid itself of working-class minority immigrants." Take also the Chivas Square apartments. A city employee who had occasion to go there frequently remarked that management only found that the apartments were to be closed a month in advance (they were given that month to make improvements). When the employee visited, they found that some of the tenants were unaware that they were going to be forced to leave in a month.
City Manager Tommy Gonzalez addressed this issue (somewhat) in a recent Town Hall meeting. He said that it is his and the council’s goal that no citizen in Irving live in waste and squalor when apartment owners are getting rich off the poor, so every apartment needs to be brought up to code (which they’ve increased to a higher standard and added cops specifically to deal with; look on the city’s website for a current opening for a “Code Compliance Assistant).
How about the fact that preference is obviously being given to apartments like those in Las Colinas where one bedroom, one bath apartments go for over $800 a month? There is no talk on the city council of finding room for new apartments for low-income residents. Those who are forced out must find accommodations in existing apartments or leave altogether, although I did read that Irving was considering giving any tenant forced out $600 in assistance (so generous!). Irving isn’t against apartments, it’s just against apartments that poor people can afford. This quote from the DMN is telling: “But council members say these apartments will be different. They'll be within walking distance of restaurants and shops. Rents will be expensive, and some units will be for sale. In other words, they're trying not to repeat past mistakes.”1If you consider making housing available that your working class members can afford a mistake, Irving is doing a good job of rectifying it.
Lest you assume that this is entirely about apartments, there is the fact that as of this month Irving has reorganized its structure so that the department of Code Enforcement is now under the command of the Chief of Police Larry Boyd. Here’s the text of the paragraph that discusses this move in an internal city memo:
Code Enforcement (led by director Teresa Adrian) will be placed under the auspices of the Police Department. This will allow police and codes staff to better collaborate and help streamline processes. It will give codes staff direct access to information such as vehicles, license plates, and the ability to find property owners in relation to addressing code enforcement issues. Police officers and code inspectors will be teamed up according to beat areas. This also will improve training opportunities: police officers training codes staff on citation issuance, and codes staff training officers on city ordinances to better recognize code violations. A marshal will report to Code Enforcement as well.
I’m not sure who’s violating all those codes, but it could be that after years of older white home owners complaining about 4 families living in one house and 18 cars being parked on the street in front of it, not to mention having to listen to extremely loud music late at night, the city has finally decided to get tough on single-family housing as well. Of course this newly invigorated code enforcement will still be unleashed on apartments first, but we can expect to see some changes on suburban streets as well.
Is it safe to say that Irving is enacting a comprehensive plan intending to run Hispanics out of town and discourage them from living here? Probably not. But it cannot be denied that Irving’s recent actions are having and will have a disproportionate effect on Irving’s Hispanic community. Is it safe to say that the City Council is aware of that? Probably so. They have a bird’s-eye view of everything that’s going on in Irving and if I can see this happening, surely they can too. Whether or not this strategy is unsavory, as yet there’s nothing to say that it’s illegal.
But witnessing Irving’s crackdown on illegal immigrants (possibly violating the rights of US citizens and legal residents), it is evident that there are definitely forces in the power structure of Irving that are unfriendly to the Hispanic community. There are probably elements in Irving's leadership who would like to see less Mexicans combined with people who want to develop Irving economically and want to get some of these buildings out of the way to do so, none of whom much cares what happens to those people once their apartments have been condemned so long as they just get out.
There are some questions that need to be followed up on. Was the timing of the condemnation of the Villa Martinique apartments just highly convenient for the McDougal Olde Towne deal, or did someone on the council make it clear that it was time for them to be condemned with foreknowledge of the McDougal deal? Have other deals taken place whereby developers are buying land at rock-bottom prices when everyone else is paying top dollar (remember those $350,000 homes)? If Irving’s goal is simply to make sure that no Irving resident is living in a slum, where are the proposed low-income housing developments to replace the only apartments many people can afford? Is this a racist policy aimed primarily at getting rid of Irving’s Hispanics or just an insensitive classist policy that will have that side-effect?
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Immigration Crackdowns Nationwide
Nat-Wu asked me to put up something about anti-immigrant enforcement nationwide as he is working on the continuing story of Irving. From ABC News:
Nat-Wu has done more than an adequate job pointing out how ridiculous things have gotten, so I wanted to touch on some of the legal questions of this kind of local enforcement since it is something I've researched in the past. Allow me to cannibalize my own college paper from awhile back:
In a staggering sweep in California, 1,300 illegal immigrants have been arrested. Last week, federal agents in Nevada raided 11 McDonald's restaurants as part of a crackdown on illegal immigrants. In New York's Nassau County, armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials raided homes in the middle of the night in search of gang members and fugitives.So that's the situation. Neighborhoods are being turned into a battleground as local governments and citizens, discontented with federal enforcement, decide to crackdown on illegal immigrants.
Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff admits that raids aren't the perfect solution, but that they are a reality right now.
"I think we have an obligation to use the tools that we do have at least to achieve what the law currently requires," Chertoff said.
But in Irving, like many places around the country, residents aren't willing to wait for government intervention. Police are turning over any arrested illegals to the feds.
Latino parents have grown so nervous, they are keeping their kids out of schools.
"If you look Hispanic they pull you over," Irving student Crystal Chacon said.
One man from Virginia said he was so frightened about being rounded up in Virginia, where governments are threatening action, that he would only talk to ABC News anonymously.
"What breaks my heart," he said, "is when my 6-year-old daughter comes home and asks why do they hate us."
Nat-Wu has done more than an adequate job pointing out how ridiculous things have gotten, so I wanted to touch on some of the legal questions of this kind of local enforcement since it is something I've researched in the past. Allow me to cannibalize my own college paper from awhile back:
Persuant to a 2005 Arizona statute, the County Attorney and Sheriff of Maricopa County arrested and prosecuted illegal immigrants entering the state with a charge of conspiracy related to the smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose. The Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, who have provided counsel for many prosecuted under the statute, argues that this state law violates the doctrine of preemption. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution places federal law above state law at all times, and when in conflict state law must yield. The organization argues that because immigration is regulated by federal law, the application of this Arizona statue would be in conflict with U.S. government immigration policy.Whew, I know that's long (my constitutional law classes clearly paid off!). Thankfully things aren't as wild in most places as they are in Maricopa County. However, I think this does point out the legal ramifications of the increasingly aggressive role local law enforcement in trying to play in regards to illegal immigrants. This of course doesn't mean they can't do anything about it, but they certainly shouldn't be practicing the kinds of clear discriminatory practices going on in Irving either no matter what enforcement powers you think they have. Anyway, this is just another example of how we are being failed by certain members of Congress who don't want to update our national immigration policy.
Let us turn to the doctrine of preemption and previous Supreme Court rulings in this area. In Pennsylvania v. Nelson, the Court dealt with the question of whether a Pennsylvania statute prohibiting the advocating of the overthrow of the United States government was in conflict with the federal Smith Act of 1940 which prohibited the same conduct. The Court held that the Pennsylvania Sedition Act was superseded by the federal law. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the majority opinion that the scheme of federal regulation of seditious activities was "pervasive" and "left no room for the states to supplement it." Secondly, the Court held the federal interest must be dominant, and that this was so with the issue at hand. Certainly the investigation of communist activities and the prosecution thereof were seen as a part of the national security interest at the time. Indeed, the Smith Act dealt with an issue seen as of primary importance to the federal government making any enforcement of similar state laws potentially harmful to the smooth execution of national statutes and the purposes that were behind their enactment (especially considering the Pennsylvania law provided for harsher penalties than the Smith Act did), the third concern for the Court. In fact, using these three parameters, the Court created a future test for when states would not be allowed to supplement federal laws, which I will apply here to this case.
Firstly, we must address the question of whether immigration has generally been considered a mainly federal issue by the courts. Similar to Pennsylvania v. Nelson, Hines v. Davidowitz dealt with a Pennsylvania statute that regulated alien registration in conflict with a federal statute regulating the same subject. Again, the Court voided the Pennsylvania law. Justice Black, writing for the majority in the case, wrote the following: “…the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution, was pointed out by authors of The Federalist Papers and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court.” Furthermore, in Takahasi v. Fish and Game Comm’n, the Supreme Court held that states “can neither add to nor take from the conditions lawfully imposed by Congress upon admission, naturalization and residence of aliens in the United States or the several states.”
On the question of the pervasiveness of the federal laws regulating immigration, the decision reached in Plyler v. Doe states “The Constitution grants Congress the power to ‘establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.’ Art. I., 8, cl. 4. Drawing upon this power, upon its plenary authority with respect to foreign relations and international commerce, and upon the inherent power of a sovereign to close its borders, Congress has developed a complex scheme governing admission to our Nation and status within our borders.” In the case Gonzales v. City of Peoria decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, individuals of Mexican descent alleged that they had been unlawfully stopped, questioned and detained by city police without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and instead, solely on the basis of their race and appearance. The 9th Circuit held that they had standing to pursue damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, but more importantly, the opinion was willing to “assume that the civil provisions” of immigration law “constitute such a pervasive regulatory scheme” as to preempt state and local arrest authority. Thus, the Arizona statue would seem to be in conflict with the first stage of the test as laid out in Pennsylvania v. Nelson when looking at the decisions in cases on both the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court level.
Further evidence that a pervasive regulatory scheme is in place is exemplified in the fact that federal immigration laws currently reference when state and local authorities may act to enforce federal regulations. Given the inclusion of these provisions in the statutes, it is reasonable to argue that Congress intended to expressly give non-federal law enforcement this authority only in the specific ways that are laid out in the statutes, implicitly denying them the authority in areas not addressed. Even though Arizona authorities were acting pursuant to state law, the doctrine of preemption would hold that Arizona law could not give state and local authorities the power to control regulations outside the boundaries set by Congress. After all, they do not have such power to enforce federal laws in other issue areas as the Executive Branch has the clear Constitutional authority to do so.
Now that we have established that federal immigration laws are sufficiently pervasive, we must address whether or not immigration control is an issue where the federal interest is dominant. Though illegal immigration by Mexican citizens into the United States disproportionately affects states in the southwestern region of the country, when we consider the issue deals with the nation’s borders and a massive influx of people from other countries (with whom it is necessary for the federal government to deal with in regards to immigration policy), often unknown to authorities, one can only reasonably arrive to conclusion that there is an important national interest in regulating immigration. Given the potential socio-economic impact and national security implications for the whole country which are involved here, it is clear that the federal government has compelling reasons to construct such pervasive immigration laws and both explicitly and implicitly limit individual states from regulating immigration with their own laws.
This becomes even clearer when we consider how state regulations, if allowed to remain in place, could potentially undermine the objectives of federal statutes. Returning to Pennsylvania v. Nelson, a primary reason the federal government did not desire states to supplement the Smith Act with their own, harsher laws (and the third reason the Court struck down the Pennsylvania statute) was that they want federal authorities to be able to use the threat of prosecution to get information out of suspects (the threat being useless if they could be prosecuted under a state statute anyway). The Arizona statute we are considering here deals with human smuggling. Could not such laws be similar hurdles to the investigation and prosecution of human smuggling rings by federal authorities? Also, given the recent attention given to illegal immigration in the post-9/11 period, in regards to the potential danger to national security, it is also questionable that we would want conflicting federal and state laws on this issue.
In conclusion, the application of this statute clearly puts the state in a position of regulating immigration, and federal law also clearly preempts efforts by the states to do so. Policy and law dictate federal authority over this issue area and the Arizona statute is not able to maneuver around the three-prong test given to us by the U.S. Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Nelson. Thusly, the Arizona law can not be used to prosecute immigrants in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
Irving's immigration woes continue
In case you missed the story thus far, Irving's Hispanics are afraid of discriminatory law enforcement since they found out that Irving's deportations of illegal immigrants are the highest in the nation since Irving began participating in the Criminal Alien Program last year. Furthermore, rumors are running rampant in the community about police asking citizens their immigration status and staking out Hispanic gathering places.
The situation has not abated and according to Irving ISD has prompted the withdrawal of 90 children from Irving schools. Whether the threat is real or not, the fear sure is.
Speaking of whether it's real or not (story):
300 people taken to jail for traffic violations? I'm really not sure if that figure is too high or not for 10 months' time. It sounds too high, but it's still too early to accuse anybody without knowing whether the proportion of Hispanics taken to jail for traffic violations was higher than that of any other racial or ethnic group. Generally though, even if you're driving without a license the police don't take you to jail. There's usually little interest in hauling people in for a civil offense like driving without a license or running a red light or speeding. So I'd have to say it seems a bit suspicious.
I'd like to say that the City Manager will be fair and impartial no matter what the council wants. The City Manager is a man named Tommy Gonzalez, and while he does work for the City, he's not elected so he doen't have to worry about what the voters think. And given that there are a lot of older white folk in Irving, that's saying quite a bit.
Never fear though, the Hispanic community of Dallas will respond. Lest you think the fireworks are over, leaders in the community are only now starting to really get together and make plans.
Expect more fireworks to go off soon. I never thought I would say this, but it sure is an interesting time to live in Irving.
The situation has not abated and according to Irving ISD has prompted the withdrawal of 90 children from Irving schools. Whether the threat is real or not, the fear sure is.
Speaking of whether it's real or not (story):
In a meeting held Wednesday, a group of Hispanic pastors said the Irving city manager told them 300 of the 1,600 deported individuals were only stopped for traffic violations.
300 people taken to jail for traffic violations? I'm really not sure if that figure is too high or not for 10 months' time. It sounds too high, but it's still too early to accuse anybody without knowing whether the proportion of Hispanics taken to jail for traffic violations was higher than that of any other racial or ethnic group. Generally though, even if you're driving without a license the police don't take you to jail. There's usually little interest in hauling people in for a civil offense like driving without a license or running a red light or speeding. So I'd have to say it seems a bit suspicious.
I'd like to say that the City Manager will be fair and impartial no matter what the council wants. The City Manager is a man named Tommy Gonzalez, and while he does work for the City, he's not elected so he doen't have to worry about what the voters think. And given that there are a lot of older white folk in Irving, that's saying quite a bit.
Never fear though, the Hispanic community of Dallas will respond. Lest you think the fireworks are over, leaders in the community are only now starting to really get together and make plans.
Garcia says he plans in the coming days to demand an injunction halting the national Criminal Alien Program that allows police to hand illegal immigrants over to federal authorities.
“We gotta get our evidence together,” Garcia says. “We’ve had six or seven people -- legal U.S. residents or citizens -- who have come forward and said they’ve been asked for their immigration status.”
Expect more fireworks to go off soon. I never thought I would say this, but it sure is an interesting time to live in Irving.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Update on Irving racism
Okay, it's not actually an update on whether Irving is racist or not, I just put that up there because it's bound to annoy some of those same people who've set themselves up as champions of America and all things American.
I have heard first-hand some of the rumors going around Irving's Hispanic community about the supposed discriminatory enforcement. I say supposed because as yet there is no direct evidence of it, all the skyrocketing number of deportations is circumstantial evidence that cops are being discriminatory. However that may be, Hispanics in the community, both legal and illegal, have become highly fearful of the police. Reflecting that, there are rumors and stories going around about some of the supposed incidents that have ocurred.
The general fear is that police are staking out areas where they know there are likely to be more Hispanic people. Some people expressed fear of going to the ESL classes at the Irving Public Library's East Branch because they thought INS (actually Immigration and Customs Enforcement) would have people waiting there to pick them up. Obviously there's some confusion and a conflation between what local police are doing and Federal enforcement.
To make it perfectly clear, the process whereby illegals are deported from Irving is that first they have to be arrested on some legitimate basis other than "suspicion of being illegal". For one, random search and seizure is still illegal in this country, despite 7 years of Bush rule. For two, local municipalities do not have the authority to enforce federal law. The courts have been clear on that. So they pick someone up on speeding, expired inspection, public drunkenness, etc. Then that person is taken to jail, where Irving PD jailkeepers call a number ICE has set up for the purpose of determining whether a prisoner is illegal or not. Then ICE does the research, and if that is an illegal they tell IPD and come pick them up for deportation.
The area of contention all along has been whether or not IPD is now focusing on Hispanics and whether they're taking Hispanics in for things that they wouldn't be if they were white.
Anyway, another rumor has been that ICE has been staking out the local clubs 2001 and 2009 (which aren't in Irving but close by in Dallas). These are huge clubs where tons of Hispanics go every Friday and Saturday night.
I've heard (although I haven't witnessed) that Hispanics are avoiding the Wal-Mart on 183 in Irving because they're afraid of going there. Two witnesses have informed me that this Wal-Mart has been practically empty for a couple of days.
Another story is that people who were grilling in front of their apartments have been rounded up for some completely fictitious or entirely innocuous charge (such as drinking in public, as if nobody ever hangs around outside their apartment drinking beer).
And this last rumor actually involves in Irving council member. Supposedly Beth Van Duyne was talking about putting up cameras at all intersections that would scan all plates and if the car was unregistered a warrant would be put out for it. I don't even know how that's supposed to work.
I don't think there's much substance to any of these rumors, as they are conflicting, confusing, and just don't make any sense. The point is that the Hispanics of Irving are very fearful right now, and are angry that their own city won't deign to give them straight answers as to what this extra enforcement against illegals is all about.
I have heard first-hand some of the rumors going around Irving's Hispanic community about the supposed discriminatory enforcement. I say supposed because as yet there is no direct evidence of it, all the skyrocketing number of deportations is circumstantial evidence that cops are being discriminatory. However that may be, Hispanics in the community, both legal and illegal, have become highly fearful of the police. Reflecting that, there are rumors and stories going around about some of the supposed incidents that have ocurred.
The general fear is that police are staking out areas where they know there are likely to be more Hispanic people. Some people expressed fear of going to the ESL classes at the Irving Public Library's East Branch because they thought INS (actually Immigration and Customs Enforcement) would have people waiting there to pick them up. Obviously there's some confusion and a conflation between what local police are doing and Federal enforcement.
To make it perfectly clear, the process whereby illegals are deported from Irving is that first they have to be arrested on some legitimate basis other than "suspicion of being illegal". For one, random search and seizure is still illegal in this country, despite 7 years of Bush rule. For two, local municipalities do not have the authority to enforce federal law. The courts have been clear on that. So they pick someone up on speeding, expired inspection, public drunkenness, etc. Then that person is taken to jail, where Irving PD jailkeepers call a number ICE has set up for the purpose of determining whether a prisoner is illegal or not. Then ICE does the research, and if that is an illegal they tell IPD and come pick them up for deportation.
The area of contention all along has been whether or not IPD is now focusing on Hispanics and whether they're taking Hispanics in for things that they wouldn't be if they were white.
Anyway, another rumor has been that ICE has been staking out the local clubs 2001 and 2009 (which aren't in Irving but close by in Dallas). These are huge clubs where tons of Hispanics go every Friday and Saturday night.
I've heard (although I haven't witnessed) that Hispanics are avoiding the Wal-Mart on 183 in Irving because they're afraid of going there. Two witnesses have informed me that this Wal-Mart has been practically empty for a couple of days.
Another story is that people who were grilling in front of their apartments have been rounded up for some completely fictitious or entirely innocuous charge (such as drinking in public, as if nobody ever hangs around outside their apartment drinking beer).
And this last rumor actually involves in Irving council member. Supposedly Beth Van Duyne was talking about putting up cameras at all intersections that would scan all plates and if the car was unregistered a warrant would be put out for it. I don't even know how that's supposed to work.
I don't think there's much substance to any of these rumors, as they are conflicting, confusing, and just don't make any sense. The point is that the Hispanics of Irving are very fearful right now, and are angry that their own city won't deign to give them straight answers as to what this extra enforcement against illegals is all about.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Is the city of Irving practicing racist law enforcement?
Tonight hundreds of people gathered at Irving's City Hall to protest what they see as discriminatory policing. Irving participates in the Criminal Alien Program, a program to catch any illegal immigrants who've been picked up by the police. This is an automatic screen, so police don't have to specially request it when they take someone to jail. The protesters came together because they're afraid that Irving police are deliberately targeting Hispanic communities and gathering places.
To some protesters, the issue is that people are being deported. Unfortunately, they won't find much sympathy on that since most people are still of the opinion that illegal immigrants are criminals already (equating someone who crosses the border in search of a better life with someone who robs 7-11). However, I think we can all agree that discriminatory policing is illegal and un-American. Now what makes us think that this action against illegal aliens is in any way discriminatory against Hispanics?
From another DMN article:
Ok, if you can't figure out why that's suspicious, I'll lay it out straight: crime hasn't risen in Irving. So this is not the product of simply catching more criminals. The way this is enforced, immigration status will be examined only after the suspect is taken to jail. The police aren't picking anybody because they're illegal aliens. So why are they arresting more Hispanics? Has there been a sudden increase in crimes committed by Hispanics but offset by a decrease in crimes committed by whites and blacks? Somehow I doubt it.
Is the city of Irving practicing a racist policy by focusing on Hispanic residents in hopes to catch more illegal immigrants? The answer to this question is behind closed doors, but we'll keep asking.
Irving police have turned over at least 1,600 people to Immigration and Customs Enforcement since June 2006. In response, the Mexican Consul Enrique Hubbard Urrea last week warned immigrants from his country to avoid Irving. And community leader Carlos Quintanilla said he would begin organizing a boycott of Irving businesses if the city persisted.
To some protesters, the issue is that people are being deported. Unfortunately, they won't find much sympathy on that since most people are still of the opinion that illegal immigrants are criminals already (equating someone who crosses the border in search of a better life with someone who robs 7-11). However, I think we can all agree that discriminatory policing is illegal and un-American. Now what makes us think that this action against illegal aliens is in any way discriminatory against Hispanics?
From another DMN article:
Deportations in this city have skyrocketed in the last several months – from 262 in all of 2006 to 1,338 through mid-September.
"In this city, one has to be extra careful," he told Al Día . "And if possible, avoid going through there, because we suspect, and with good reason, that people are being detained simply because of their appearance."
Ok, if you can't figure out why that's suspicious, I'll lay it out straight: crime hasn't risen in Irving. So this is not the product of simply catching more criminals. The way this is enforced, immigration status will be examined only after the suspect is taken to jail. The police aren't picking anybody because they're illegal aliens. So why are they arresting more Hispanics? Has there been a sudden increase in crimes committed by Hispanics but offset by a decrease in crimes committed by whites and blacks? Somehow I doubt it.
Is the city of Irving practicing a racist policy by focusing on Hispanic residents in hopes to catch more illegal immigrants? The answer to this question is behind closed doors, but we'll keep asking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
