Tuesday, 04.15.08
Check Please
David McNew/Getty Images
Outsiders can be forgiven for imagining that LA's touchiest racial controversies follow the black versus white narrative of the Watts riots, the Rodney King beating or the O.J. Simpson trial. But locals know better -- ask the Korean grocers whose stores were torched in 1992 (a year after Ice Cube’s racist harangues against them), or the South Central blacks who federal prosecutors say were targeted by a Latino street gang bent on “cleansing” the neighborhood.
These tensions are under-covered even in Los Angeles, where violent crime matters to the paper of record more when it happens in white neighborhoods. The Jamiel Shaw story is getting its share of local press because it fuses fears about racial violence to the state’s ongoing debate about illegal immigration -- the accused, Pedro Espinoza, allegedly killed just hours after being released from serving time in Los Angeles County Jail on weapons charges.
The flashpoint of debate is Special Order 40, a rule that prohibits police from investigating the immigration status of criminal suspects or tipping off federal agents to the identity of illegal immigrant gang members. Populist sentiment is solidly against the policy -- 80 percent of Southern Californians surveyed by the Los Angeles Times say they want it overturned, while a powerful lobby of Latino organizations and some law enforcement officers want it maintained. Enter Jamiel Shaw Jr.'s father: "If you're a gang member who is suspected of committing a crime, why can't they check a database at the police station to see if you're here illegally? Why can't they check a database at the jail?"
A lot of Angelinos are wondering whether those questions -- posed by a black man on behalf of his murdered son -- have the power to overturn the policy, or to pit the black and Latino political establishments against one another, or both. Defenders of Special Order 40 claim, quite plausibly, that illegal immigrants won't cooperate as witnesses or report crimes if they perceive the LAPD to be enforcing immigration laws. But the status quo is untenable, not only because almost everyone misunderstands the policy, including police, but because if police and politicians are perceived to do nothing about illegal immigrant murderers, particularly those who specifically target black victims, Angelino history predicts an ugly backlash.
If just one policy change comes of Jamiel Shaw Jr.'s death it ought to be this: every Southern California jail should verify the legal status of inmates and deport those in the country illegally -- it matters little whether illegal immigrants trust their jailers. In Los Angeles County alone, the LA Times estimates that 40,000 illegal immigrants pass through the jails each year (among 170,000 total inmates). Multiply that by Southern California's five counties over multiple years and countless crimes can be averted. Latino advocacy organizations may object, but they shouldn't: if these convicts return to their country of origin rather than their ZIP code of residence, law-abiding illegal immigrants will benefit as much as anyone.
Sanctuary citiesHeather Mac Donald suggests a weapon that law enforcement should but doesn't use against illegal immigrant criminals -- their immigration status. |
LA's special problemThe Los Angeles Times editorializes that myths surrounding Special Order 40 may hinder criminal deportations. |
Hate crimeNewsweek reports on a Latino gang accused of racial "cleansing" against blacks in Los Angeles. |
A policy assessedA report to the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners on Special Order 40. |
The Rainbow Coalition evaporatesSteve Malanga argues that illegal immigration is straining the political alliance between blacks and Latinos. |
(24)
Special Order 40 is the #1 Reason that Los Angeles has become the ILLEGAL ALIEN and GANG Capital of the USA!! The Mayor a Mecha(Reconquista student organization) member and the L.A. City Council, mostly Anchor Babies are representing the more than 2 million ILLEGAL ALIENS in the city NOT Legal Residents and how did they get in office? Because no proof of citizenship is required to vote in Los Angeles!
The problem with deporting illegal immigrant criminals currently in prison has been highlighted in numerous publications, including the most recent issue of the Atlantic: gangs such as MS-13 have thrived as a reuslt of the de facto importation of American street-gang tactics to South and Central American countries that are not well equipped to deal with powerful organized crime. Upon gaining a toe-hold at home (in places like El Salvador and Guatemala), these gangs get in on the underground export economy (bringing people and drugs to the U.S.). This makes them a lot more powerful than they ever were in LA or Washington, DC. to close the circle, the gangs become international, operating both in their home countries and in the U.S., and become a much bigger problem than they were before the process of deportation began.
Face it: deportation doesn't work, and it alienates large (and largely legal) immigrant communities.
I feel terrible for Mr. Shaw, and for the awful agony he must be experiencing. But that does not mean that his policy recommendation is a good one.
Colin F.,
International gangs are a problem, but I find it hard to believe that Los Angeles residents should prefer the release of a violent gang member on its streets to his removal to a location thousands of miles away. It seems to me that the prohibition on drugs, and the resulting black market, is the root of the transnational gang problem, not the deportation of illegal immigrant ex cons.
Fred,
"Law abiding illegal immigrant" is no more an oxymoron than referring to anyone as "law abiding" who has at some time in their life broken a law. Surely the difference between illegal immigrants who come to the United States, work hard and behave as responsible residents, and those who come here illegally and commit crimes, is an important one.
M.A. Andrews,
LA's mayor won election quite handily -- by an 18 percent margin if memory serves. It is obviously inaccurate to imply that he won due only to non-citizens voting illegally. Also, it's wrong to say that Special Order 40 is the number one reason Los Angeles has many illegal immigrants -- for one thing, other American cities have sanctuary polices; for another, Special Order 40 was enacted only after the immigration patterns responsible for LA's demographics were established.
Finally a brief harangue against the term "anchor baby," which I've always disliked. I've spent a good chunk of time interviewing illegal immigrants during the course of my journalistic career. I've yet to meet one who had a child merely to take advantage of birthright citizenship; the term also obscures the fact that illegal immigrant parents aren't given citizenship when they give birth on American soil.
Conor, I probably agree with your analysis of the so-called war on drugs, but I won't debate the point with you in this forum. There are other issues beneath the surface here, too. If the Los Angeles and California authorities really had reason to believe that Pedro Espinoza posed a threat to society, he should not have been released. Was he released at the end of a sentence, or paroled? If there was no reason to believe that Espinoza was a danger, then the fact that he went on to kill only hours after his release is unfortunate but unavoidable. A legal American citizen could well have done the same thing that Espinoza did.
From a crime-prevention perspective, it only makes sense to deport Hispanic (and other) immigrants that are convicted of crimes if Hispanic (and other) immigrants commit more crimes than other communities. That is an empirical question. If deportation makes crime rates go down, then the policy makes sense.
Deportation doesn't make crime go down though. International gangs aren't just a problem in places outside of LA. The internationalization of the Maras has made the gangs stronger in places where they were already strong, like LA and DC. Thus, deportation has made gang crime more intractable at home.
Deportation does provide a convenient answer for frustrated Angelenos who are motivated by both exasperation with high crime rates and xenophobia. Again, given the power and influence of the legal Hispanic community in LA and elsewhere, however, I'd avoid a policy that has no social benefit, but serves to antagonize the Hispanic community and set them against other ethnic groups.
Conor F.
"Antagonize the Hispanic Community"?
Playing the RACE CARD is the only response from those who find the LAW and the FACTS are BOTH against them!
What about the LAW ABIDING COMMUNITY of LEGAL CITIZENS?
It can no longer be denied that Mexico is doing everything it can to create an ILLEGAL MEXICAN NATION within the borders of the USA! numbersusa.com
From a crime-prevention perspective, it only makes sense to deport Hispanic (and other) immigrants that are convicted of crimes if Hispanic (and other) immigrants commit more crimes than other communities. That is an empirical question.
But the relevant crime rate isn't that of Hispanic immigrants or immigrants generally -- rather it is the crime rate among immigrants who've been convicted of crimes and incarcerated. Among that population the crime rate is far higher than the overall crime rate for Los Angeles residents.
You're right, of course, that a legal American citizen could've done the same thing that Espinoza did. Indeed many American citizens have committed violent crimes shortly after being released from jail -- I don't mean to suggest that illegal immigrant ex-cons are any more or less inclined to recidivism than American ex-cons (I simply don't know the stats).
The difference is that we're hardly violating the rights of illegal immigrant ex-cons by deporting them, seeing as how they entered the country illegally and committed crimes here... whereas deporting American citizens upon their release from jail would be corrosive to core rights of citizenship (not to mention unconstitutional).
We are in disagreement about the social benefits of the policy. You think it will give rise to more powerful international gangs, ultimately making us worse off, whereas I think that in the worst case scenario it will make it much more costly for a deported convict to return and commit another crime, disrupt his criminal activity meanwhile and afford law enforcement an opportunity to charge him with an illegal re-entry felony merely for re-entering the country.
Finally, I wonder whether you would expect Mexico or Canada or Thailand or China or El Salvador to release an American who committed a rape or murder or assault back onto the streets of their country... or to deport him or her to the United States upon release. Would it be fair for Americans to feel "antagonized" by the latter response?
In an absolute sense, probably not. But the fabric of our society--especially in a place like LA--is porous and diverse. Hispanics may be right or wrong in feeling antagonized by a policy of local assistance with federal immigration policing. (Of course, I recognize that not all Hispanics do feel this way. In LA, surely some do.) But their feelings must be regarded, for the most part, as those of fellow Americans, not as outsiders. The majority of Hispanic people in LA are legal citizens. A lot of these legal citizens would probably like to see much more liberal immigration policy, and much less enforcement against those who are here illegally. These folks don't like to see local authorities getting in bed with DHS and ICE (the agencies that are the current heirs to the INS). It's not just illegal immigrants that are bothered by this.
To the extent that legal citizens feel this is an affront, they will fight back against their fellow citizens that they see as responsible. This fighting could take place in the ballot box, and it could also take place on the streets. Either way, it leads to an ugly politics of racial and ethnic division.
So, put aside our empirical disagreement for a moment (i.e., whether or not the net benefit of deporting illegal immigrants who commit crimes outweighs the net cost of strengthening international criminal organizations that bring drugs and more illegal immigrants into the U.S.).
To clarify the balance of my position, I'm not arguing that the U.S. and LA need to worry about the feelings of illegal immigrants as such. These political entities do need to worry about the feelings of their own citizens, however, and the health of the public discourse between their citizens of different ethnicities. So there is another cost/benefit analysis to be run here: does the political benefit of throwing some red meat to proponents of deportation outweigh the cost of alienating another group that is active in the polity, Hispanic immigrants and natives?
I'm not arguing that the U.S. and LA need to worry about the feelings of illegal immigrants as such. These political entities do need to worry about the feelings of their own citizens, however, and the health of the public discourse between their citizens of different ethnicities. So there is another cost/benefit analysis to be run here: does the political benefit of throwing some red meat to proponents of deportation outweigh the cost of alienating another group that is active in the polity, Hispanic immigrants and natives?
We agree in principle that political entities should consider the cohesion of a multi-ethnic constituency when formulating public policy, as should we all when discussing issues like illegal immigration -- it's for this very reason that I'm a consistent opponent of language that dehumanizes illegal immigrants by stripping them of their noun ("deport the illegals") or falsely implying that they're motivated to have children so that they've got an "anchor" in the United States.
In this case, however, I disagree with your analysis for several reasons:
1) among all the possible measures that impact illegal immigrants deporting the ones who are convicted of crimes and sent to jail seems like the least controversial one possible, and the one that least impacts life for the rest of the legal Hispanic community, as there can be no fears of racial profiling as an unintended consequence. In this case a Canadian or Irish illegal immigrant would get the same treatment as a Salvadoran or Guatemalan illegal immigrant, and a jailed American born white guy would get the same treatment as a jailed American born Hispanic guy.
2) It isn't as though pacifying those Hispanics who object to deporting illegal immigrants is the same as pacifying multi-ethnic Los Angeles, particularly since in this case legal Hispanics aren't being targeted by illegal immigrant gangs like black Angelenos are. All things considered, a drop in the crime rate -- and particularly the rate of violent crime where one group attacks another -- would be a huge boon for race relations in Los Angeles, and it would address a cause of racial tension most likely to boil over into more violence.
3) Public opinion is so heavily in favor of deporting illegal immigrant criminals that the failure to do it amounts to a failure of elected officials to carry out the legitimately expressed will of the people. In other words, it is a failure of democracy itself. That is a recipe for disaster -- the last thing we want Angelenos upset by illegal immigration to conclude is that their energies are best exerted outside the political process because working inside it does no good even when they win.
You just can't stay away from those illegals, can you Conor?
Conor: As always, great job articulating a position I might not agree with (I take Colin F.'s view on the Pandora's box that is deporting gang members) in a fashion that doesn't demonize or USES CAPITAL LETTERS.
Capital letters really are the scourge of the immigration debate. Sometimes I wonder, given the recurring nature of this conversation in American history, whether ee cummings wasn't driven to his peculiar punctuation by it.
The illegal hispanics are doing us all a favor by getting rid of blacks....
I think the LAPD has already started cracking down on illegal alien gang members. See the most recent additions to their "most wanted" list by Googling "lapd most wanted recent additions."
Conor, thanks for your thoughtful and thought-provoking post. I really enjoy discussing the issues it raises.
A little off-topic: M.A.'s comments were borderline, because they used certain offensive terms. Steve's comment (10:16 p.m.) is off the charts, though. Does The Current have a policy of deleting/policing comments like this?
I need an education by blacks in regard to the following article:
What’s One Life Worth When It Comes to the Politics of Immigration (Jamiel Shaw)?
this is a very important political article...it asks the question, where is the black outrage at the death of Jamiel Shaw, in the perspective of illegal immigration.
Blacks need to educate us on this. I don't at all understand why blacks are not outraged at illegal immigrants invading our country, as most of the rest of us are. After all, if any race suffers as a result of this invasion; is it not the blacks?; not only in job loss, but there is only so much money available for assistance to the poor, and impoverished, among us, and the illegal immigrants have their talons deep into that money, even though they are supposed to be inelgible for it.
The article:
Nothing illustrates the all-consuming desire of the segment of the political left that seeks to transform America through immigration than the reaction, of lack thereof, to the murder of Jamiel Shaw Jr. While people like Rodney King and Tawana Brawley have had their moments in the national spotlight for being victims of real and imagined crimes, few outside of Jamiel’s hometown of Los Angeles have ever heard of him.
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/IraMehlman/2008/04/15/what%e2%80%99sonelifeworthwhenitcomestothepoliticsof_immigration
"Face it: deportation doesn't work, and it alienates large (and largely legal) immigrant communities."
Face it. Ignoring illegal alien criminals doesn't work either. They're then free to engage in a reign of terror not only in their own ethnic communities, but in others as well. What kind of "cooperation" do you think police will get when even legal immigrants are afraid of gang members? What might work is international cooperation among nations on tracking and breaking gangs. California has already started, from what I've heard, by having several of its police work with some from El Salvador. Given the gang violence in N. Mexico, we'd better work out something with them. They're using their military to deal with the drug and people smuggling gangs. I'd hate to see us come to that.
"Face it: deportation doesn't work, and it alienates large (and largely legal) immigrant communities".
That's right Mr Shaw just wring you hands some more. Who gives a damn if it "alienates large (and largely legal) immigrant communities". Why does it? Are you saying that race matters?
Right Ernest, race matters. Everyone knows it intuitively, whether they agree with it or not. The fact the multiculturalists push massive immigration in a short period of time, shows they are,1) either clueless,or 2)want the nation to collapse. Most immigration in the past worked because it was slow, with small numbers, giving people time to assimilate and giving the economy time to absorb it. This isn't rocket science. Immigration used to be set at about one-hundred fifty thousand people a year while the ecomomy was growing, now it is at over one-million people a year in a recession. How incompetent are the people governing this nation? How incompetent are politicians who, with a smile on their faces, a proud of this policy that is ruinous to the nation as a whole?
I would concur with Bobby's point, although I would say that the legal immigration of 1 million per year we have been running under Ted Kennedy's 1965 program, although detrimental to our nation in my opinion, has nevertheless been a level that has been possible to sustain without collapsing the economy.
With the added burden of illegal immigration on a comparable scale, I would say the above no longer the case and has led to what is indeed a ruinous situation.
And in light of that it is absolutely insane that the political establishment wants to radically ACCELERATE the already dangerously destablilzing level of migration into the United States.
And, they still want to do that in the face of an economic downturn. The combined effect of an accelerated flow of millions of workers into the country per year at the same time that millions of jobs will be evaporating in the second great depression that I believe we are entering, will result in unemployment rates of 10, 15, 20, 25%, who knows what the limit will be.
Can our nation survive such a calamity? If it leads to the perpetrators of "comprehensive" immigration reform being voted out of office en masse, and their being replace by those who have a much firmer grip on reality, perhaps there is a chance to salvage a nation that still stands for liberty.
But there is a huge risk that the public reaction to the anarchy will lead to the suspension of our constitution and the imposition of a right-wing strong-arm dictator in the White House.
I would really hope that open-borders advocates consider this scenario and think again about whether their views on immigration are truly "compassionate".
LAPD chief vows to clarify policy on immigrants
Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton said Wednesday that the department's controversial policy on dealing with illegal immigrants was widely misunderstood by the public and some of his own officers, and he would clarify the rule in the next couple of weeks. Bratton strongly defended the basic intent of the policy -- known as Special Order 40 -- which prohibits officers from initiating contact with individuals for the sole purpose of determining whether they are illegal immigrants.
Councilman Dennis Zine -- citing Shaw's slaying -- introduced a motion last week calling for Bratton and the department's civilian oversight commission to require officers to check on the immigration status of gang members who are suspected of being in the country illegally -- even if the suspects are not under arrest.
Bratton lashed out at Zine, saying the proposal amounts to "racial profiling." He said that Zine is a reserve officer and "should be very up to speed on this and apparently is not." When police get retrained on the policy, Bratton said, "the first person we will put in the class will be Councilman Dennis Zine."
Zine rejected the chief's suggestion that the proposal would unfairly profile minorities, saying officers would check someone's immigration status only after confirming they were an active gang member. "With all due respect to the chief, I've been around this department a lot longer than he has -- before Special Order 40 and after it. And I can tell you that there is a lot of confusion about what can be done and what cannot," Zine said. "I am concerned that there is all this resistance from the chief of police about what we're trying to do here."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-specialorder17apr17,1,1129367.story
Zine's proposal - check on the immigration status of gang members who are suspected of being in the country illegally -- even if the suspects are not under arrest.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa District 1 - Ed Reyes District 2 - Wendy Greuel District 3 - Dennis P. Zine District 4 - Tom LaBonge District 5 - Jack Weiss District 6 - Tony Cardenas District 7 - Richard Alarcón District 8 - Bernard Parks District 9 - Jan Perry District 10 - Herb J. Wesson, Jr. District 11 - Bill Rosendahl District 12 - Greig Smith District 13 - Eric Garcetti District 14 - José Huizar District 15 - Janice Hahn Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton Police Commision President Anthony Pacheco Police Commision Vice President John Mack Police Commisioner Andrea Ordin Police Commisioner Robert M. Saltzman Police Commisioner Alan J. Skobin
mayor@lacity.org; councilmember.reyes@lacity.org; councilmember.greuel@lacity.org; councilmember.zine@lacity.org; councilmember.labonge@lacity.org; councilmember.weiss@lacity.org; councilmember.cardenas@lacity.org; councilmember.Alarcon@lacity.org; councilmember.Parks@lacity.org; councilmember.Perry@lacity.org; councilmember.Wesson@lacity.org; councilmember.Rosendahl@lacity.org; councilmember.Smith@lacity.org; councilmember.Garcetti@lacity.org; councilmember.Huizar@lacity.org; councilmember.Hahn@lacity.org; contact@lapdonline.org; V8834@lapd.lacity.org; skobina@lapd.lacity.org
This story was a good read even though it has its facts mixed up. I was encouraged to see that California Latinos are sticking up for themselves against black criminal violence. As for local jails checking the immigration status of Latino inmates that sounds racist to me and it sounds like racial profiling. If we're not going to apply racial profiling to blacks then we shouldn't do it to Latinos.
What also angers me is that this Jamiel Shaw has been called "victim." No way. Shaw tried to victimize the wrong Latino, and that Latino fought back.
As for Shaw's pappy going public - it's just typical whining.
Lyn, please, you don't know how you sound. The kid is dead, other kids both Latino and black in the inner city have been killed by foreign national illegal alien scum bag gangs, and all you can talk about is racial profiling in prisons. What ethical position are you coming from exactly?
The immigration policy (over use of visas based on LIES, and lack of enforcement of our border and immigration laws) of both political extremes, has not been good for our economy. It has chopped the underpinnings of our economy out from under us. There is no healthy economy without a large and thriving middle class, without the means for poor citizens to lift themselves up through good paying manufacturing, and other jobs like those in the construction industry. Those who believe it's lead to an economic boom are deluding themselves.. killing time while they wait for their turn at the chop.
What both the far right and far left advocate, a tiny group of wealthy elites running roughshod over a large oppressed peasant class, is slavery.
Illegal aliens have no place in our society, they are bleeding our country dry. While the most affluent get tax breaks, the working poor and middle class are burdened by large increases in their state and local taxes to subsidize illegal aliens extra low wages. It's another form of corporate welfare.
Our public education systems are breaking because budgets are strained increasingly more each year to pay for the unfunded mandate that ESL has become. What was supposed to be a year of teaching coursework in their native languages while they learn English, has morphed into teaching everything in those languages for the student's entire school career. It forces districts to cut vital educational programs, less money for textbooks and supplies.
If you ever wonder why most public schools no longer provide arts and music education, courses that have been proven to increase science and math grades, look no further than the ever burgeoning ESL costs that within a decade had devoured so much funding that cuts had to come somewhere.
Look at what is happening to our rights and freedoms. They are being bludgeoned in favor of those who demand illegal aliens being given preference. The corporate and academic elites are tag teaming to exploit the opportunity to vanquish our once strong nation.
Our health, food and product safety and environmental standards are now being degraded to those of third world nations. No one is safe, not even those who imagine their affluence protects them. It is foolish, short sighted to ignore these facts. If you continue to allow this, there will be no one left to stand with you when you can no longer afford to ignore it.
This black-Latino friction is old news to anyone who's been reading Steve Sailer's blog.
"if these convicts return to their country of origin rather than their ZIP code of residence, law-abiding illegal immigrants will benefit as much as anyone."
"law-abiding illegal immigrants" sounds like an oxymoron.
Posted by Fred | April 15, 2008 11:48 AM