Jackson Free Press

Jackson's Anti-Profiling Ordinance (PDF, 224 KB)
Also see: On the Anchor Baby Trail
Immigration: Myth v. Reality
Our National Family
Sanctuary City

Ward 1 Councilman Jeff Weill was the only council member to vote against a new city ordinance prohibiting police from inquiring about citizenship status during routine traffic stops and public interaction.

"Police in Jackson already do not make a habit of racially-profiling people, so I don't see the point of it," Weill said. The councilman, who is a candidate for Hinds County Circuit Court, said in earlier sessions that state and federal laws already existed that discouraged racial profiling.

Deputy City Attorney James Anderson echoed Weill's concerns. "(Police) are already complying with the laws of the United States and Mississippi, which basically forbids profiling," he said.

Mississippi Immigrants Rights Executive Director Bill Chandler and other MIRA members worked directly with council members to champion the ordinance. Ward 2 Councilman Chokwe Lumumba, a frequent participant at pro-immigrant rallies, said he submitted the ordinance to counter a controversial Arizona Law allowing members of law enforcement to pull over people who they suspect as undocumented immigrants. Chandler argued that the obvious grounds for pulling over a suspect under the Arizona law would have to be the color of the driver's skin.

Anderson assured council members that the ordinance would not likely bring legal liability to the city, and explained that any potential violation of the ordinance would amount to "professional misconduct." The ordinance outlines no specific penalties for violations.

While the ordinance prohibits police from inquiring about immigration status strictly for the sake of determining status, it does not restrict city officers from immigration inquiries when processing a suspect or when helping federal authorities with an investigation.

Chandler said the ordinance was not as strong as it could be, but nevertheless described its passage as a triumph.

"Immigrants will feel safer knowing they have a city ordinance protecting them," he said.

Lumumba also introduced the motion to shorten the amount of time it would take for the ordinance to go into effect from 90 days to 30, which Anderson countered saying police needed that time.

"The reason that it's 90 days is to give the police department time to implement training of police officers to make sure they're aware of it, to make sure that every interview (with the public) they conduct that would be affected by it ... so there would be no excuse by anyone to say they weren't trained on it," Anderson said.

Jackson Police Department Assistant Chief Lee Vance told the council that the department can incorporate the ordinance into its quarterly in-service training, adding that "racial profiling is something that is not done in the city right now."

Lumumba's motion passed with a 6-to-1 vote, with Weill voting against the amendment as well.

Previous Commentsshow

I don't expect any better from Ill Weill. He's a republican and if he weren't ill he wouldn't be one.

Walt

Sep 22 2010

Saying that police officers should not profile people asking for help as possibly-immigrants and asking anyone they suspect could be an immigrant for papers is not the same thing as refusing to enforce immigration laws, Damon. The only way this even would make sense constitutionally *for citizens* is for the police to constantly check all of our citizenship papers just in case even without probably cause of an actual crime. Also, I do always wonder how libertarians end up being pro-immigration laws. Seems illogical to me. It seems like libertarians would believe that the market will adjust, regardless. And Ron Paul notwithstanding, they're supposed to be against regulations that would restrict movement.

DonnaLadd

Sep 22 2010

Tom - I don't know for sure if Weill has ulterior motives, but he makes a good point that the ordinance is worthless if there are no teeth in the penalties for officers violating the ordinance. I don't think you pass laws just to make people feel good. You pass resolutions for things like that. As for the 90 day implementation period, I've never know the city to enact anything department or citywide in 30 days so 90 days isn't unheard of. Why do we need an anti-profiling ordinance? Has there been a long history of racial profiling by JPD? Since this has been in the news for he last few months, I don't remember seeing anything reported on the matter (or I haven't been paying attention). This reminds me of voter ID where folks use emotions and personal opinion to push the matter rather than hard evidence to support their stance.

maybob95

Sep 22 2010

Damon makes several good points. "for Jackson to prohibit police officers from using their common sense to enforce existing, constitutionally sound laws, such as federal immigration, is a violation of that very constitution & an exercise in political grandstanding for P.R. reasons rather than sound policing or actually working for the betterment of Jackson, MS." That hits the nail on the head. For the life of me, I cannot understand why some people think that having a butt load of undocumented people who work off the books and drive down wages is a good thing. The far left is just as irrational as the far right.

bill_jackson

Sep 23 2010

maybob, apparently many Latinos here do fear calling the police for crimes because of the climate and, apparently, past experiences. I applaud this effort to send the right message. Damon, I see your point about not needing a law to enforce the current law, but I don't agree with it in the current climate where politicians are pushing anti-immigration hysteria, based on faulty reasoning and facts, and trying to get law enforcement to spend their stretched time to go door to door to round up "illegals." We need to do everything in our power to speak up about what is right and our priorities. If you want to tackle immigration policy, get serious about it (even Bush wanted to try to fix it in a more intelligent way). But don't try to create public hysteria and then get local police officers to do the dirty work that should not fall to them. Another reason for this resolution: It is good for business and the city's reputation on a larger stage. If you read any of the research about successful renaissances in cities, it always includes tolerance of "the other." I so, so wish I had lived in a Mississippi during my childhood where cities were getting together and passing laws/resolutions speaking out against the rhetoric and tactics of the Citizens Council, but it was not to be. Our city has the chance to find its voice now and do something that will live long in the history books, and make the entry for "Jackson, Mississippi" much more impressive to future generations. Hear, hear.

DonnaLadd

Sep 23 2010

For the life of me, I cannot understand why some people think that having a butt load of undocumented people who work off the books and drive down wages is a good thing. The far left is just as irrational as the far right. I would posit that rational people on both sides of this issue have attempted to take a serious look at immigration reform that would bring into the 21st century a reasonable immigration policy for the U.S. -- but such attempts are shouted down by the professional Right as all sorts of awful things like "amnesty" and "anchor baby." (Who is making the emotional argument, again?) This ordinance, if anything, seems to be an attempt by the city council to stake its claim on "de-demonizing" immigrants -- particularly those of color -- and setting a tone for the discussion. Sure, maybe it doesn't make that big of a difference, but for every wack-job Sheriff in Arizona perhaps one City of Jackson can take a stand. So, sure, the "far left" is irrational -- fine. Whatever. But look at which party in this country is actively trying to stop even having a *rational* discussion about immigration reform -- even when aspects of its leadership (like George W. Bush) champion it. If the modern GOP is going to make immigration the third rail of its politics then don't be surprised when it gets the bulk of the blame for being irrational and emotional on the issue. When the GOP won't listen to reason or studies or logic (where have we heard that before? #cough# global warming) and opt instead to be the Party of No on any sort of progress in this area then don't be surprised when other people decide to work around you and get stuff done anyway.

Todd Stauffer

Sep 23 2010

"So, sure, the "far left" is irrational -- fine. Whatever." That's like saying "our irrationality is far superior to theirs". Please tell me how you think people who illegally enter the country should be dealt with. During the health care debate it was often mentioned that the U.S. is the only industrialized country without some form of socialized medicine. Should we also be the only nation that does not actively enforce it's own immigration laws?

bill_jackson

Sep 23 2010

I am also still waiting to hear why the left wing folks so vehemently think that allowing illegal immigrants to come & go as they please is such a wonderful thing. There has to be some underlying reason.

bill_jackson

Sep 23 2010

"So, sure, the "far left" is irrational -- fine. Whatever." That's like saying "our irrationality is far superior to theirs". No, it's not. It's like saying "two wrongs don't make a right." I'm not disagreeing that something called the "far left" can be irrational. I'm just saying that conservatives planting their faces in the sand isn't any better and, arguably, considerably worse, particularly when it blocks rational people from having the discussion. If you're arguing that the "far left" is somehow blocking meaningful immigration reform in this country, then I have to respectfully disagree. Should we also be the only nation that does not actively enforce it's own immigration laws? There are really a few different ways to answer this question. Since entering the country illegally is a civil offense, I could respond with the question "Should we have zero tolerance for moving violations in automobiles? Should we criminalize speeding?" After all, which is more dangerous and potentially harmful to another person -- illegally entering the country or speeding down a two-lane road? Yes, we should enforce laws. And, we do. But that doesn't mean we haven't needed to address immigration reform and CHANGE these laws for quite some time. Maybe we need to fine people for being here illegally and send them "to the back of the line" for legal status. But maybe the line needs to be bigger, or more inclusive, or more efficient... etc. We should have this discussion. This country is tearing itself apart over issues like this because they become rallying cries for demagogues. We need to gather the facts -- not just the emotions -- and then craft solutions that address those facts -- good, bad, up, down.

Todd Stauffer

Sep 23 2010

Just once I want someone to say why we should not be more diligent concerning illegal immigration.

bill_jackson

Sep 23 2010

Your problem is that you aren't even putting something out there for someone to have an opinion on: "illegal immigration" is a political non sequitur, as we've explained to y'all many times. But facts do not interest you.

DonnaLadd

Sep 23 2010

They are immigrants. They are here illegally. Hence, illegal immigrants. Nothing will change that no matter how much you wish to the contrary.

bill_jackson

Sep 23 2010

So, no room for conversation about the actual law? You seem very angry, Bill? Is that necessary on this topic? Why don't you want to allow a conversation on it beyond what you have decided is true? How does that help improve anything?

DonnaLadd

Sep 23 2010

You drive in an illegal fashion. You are an American. You, thus, are an "illegal American." Makes perfect sense. Or perhaps not.

DonnaLadd

Sep 23 2010

I'll try to explain this, Damon. There are a number of reasons for the city of Jackson to send this message, just as there are a number of reasons to oppose the Arizona law. For one thing, the laws you are asked to enforce as to hiring are not these same laws, so that is comparing apples and oranges (and is a different important conversation, though). One of the biggest issues in Arizona, that our city is wisely trying to avoid, is what happens to citizens and documented immigrants when police are allow to, or encouraged to, guess who might be "illegal," or not, and thus target people who should be left alone. I know I don't want to be asked for my passport every day just to walk down the street, even if Bubba thinks its a great idea. It is important to read all this closely enough (and not listen to the demagogues) to understand what actual federal laws the local police are supposed to enforce and those they aren't (which is really important to libertarians and those who lean that way, including myself, until it gets stupid. If it all gets lumped together, it will continue to be confusing, and intentionally miscast by those who hate immigrants. BTW, it might be helpful to click here and read this journalistic guide to immigration terms to understand the problem with "illegal immigrants" and some of the other hateful rhetoric out there so that we can all be on the same page. That is, the JFP doesn't reject the usage of "illegals" and "illegal immigrants" because we're a fan of open borders. We reject them because they are inaccurate and dehumanizing. And we don't want to live in the Mississippi of old where such terms were welcomed and used by white people to dehumanize other people. Not the way we roll.

DonnaLadd

Sep 23 2010

From that link: Illegal immigrant While many national news outlets use the term "illegal immigrant," this handbook calls for the discussion and re-evaluation of its use. Instead of using illegal immigrant, alternative labels recommended are "undocumented worker" or "undocumented immigrant." Illegal immigrant is a term used to describe the immigration status of people who do not have the federal documentation to show they are legally entitled to work, visit or live here. People who are undocumented according to federal authorities do not have the proper visas to be in the United States legally. Many enter the country illegally, but a large number of this group initially had valid visas, but did not return to their native countries when their visas expired. Some former students fall into the latter category. The term criminalizes the person rather than the actual act of illegally entering or residing in the United States without federal documents. Terms such as illegal alien or illegal immigrant can often be used pejoratively in common parlance and can pack a powerful emotional wallop for those on the receiving end. Instead, use undocumented immigrant or undocumented worker, both of which are terms that convey the same descriptive information without carrying the psychological baggage. Avoid using illegal(s) as a noun. Illegal Avoid. Alternative terms are "undocumented immigrant" or "undocumented worker." This term has been used to describe the immigration status of people who do not have the federal documentation to show they are legally entitled to work, visit or live here. The term criminalizes the person rather than the actual act of illegally entering, residing in the U.S. without documents. There's more. I suggest that everyone click and read it with an open mind. We can be a different kind of Mississippi. We just need to choose to, and this is a really good place to start. We can still debate immigration policy (and should) without resorting to hate labels..

DonnaLadd

Sep 23 2010

More important facts from that link: NAHJ is concerned with the increasing use of pejorative terms to describe the estimated 11 million undocumented people living in the United States. NAHJ is particularly troubled with the growing trend of the news media to use the word “illegals” as a noun, shorthand for "illegal aliens". Using the word in this way is grammatically incorrect and crosses the line by criminalizing the person, not the action they are purported to have committed. NAHJ calls on the media to never use “illegals” in headlines. Shortening the term in this way also stereotypes undocumented people who are in the United States as having committed a crime. Under current U.S. immigration law, being an undocumented immigrant is not a crime, it is a civil violation. Furthermore, an estimated 40 percent of all undocumented people living in the U.S. are visa overstayers, meaning they did not illegally cross the U.S. border.

DonnaLadd

Sep 23 2010

I just attached a PDF of the ordinance to the story as it was passed. keep it mind that the council voted to amend the effective date from 90 days to 30 days from the date of passage.

Lacey McLaughlin

Sep 23 2010

Bill, you should provide evidence that undocumented workers drive down wages. See the cover story for evidence to the contrary. You wrote, "I am also still waiting to hear why the left wing folks so vehemently think that allowing illegal immigrants to come & go as they please is such a wonderful thing." No one has argued any such thing. It's nothing but a straw-man argument.

Brian C Johnson

Sep 23 2010

Good point, Brian. Everyone here really should read the cover story this issue: On the Anchor Baby Trail. The rhetoric and facts are just not the same. And I can't for the life of me understand why people even want or try to have an argument without knowing all the facts. Damon, I think you misunderstood my point. This ordinance is not about the employment laws -- mixing up two different laws in a discussion is comparing apples and oranges by definition. And it really has nothing to do with "liberal" beliefs; that's another straw man. If you want to call it "liberal" to actually want actual facts in the conversation, then that is your right, but it doesn't make it true and it doesn't help the conversation. Please at least read the ordinance; it's hard to talk about this otherwise. I am also not one to believe that we never question "the law," as you called it. In the 1960s, the argument was much the same: Jim Crow laws were "the law," and must be enforced no matter how awful. But that didn't make them right or even enforceable. And it took people standing up to them in order to get them changed. We've said it many times before: If you really want to deal with the issue of immigration and reform the laws in a way that makes sense all the way around (to citizens, the economy, to human beings, to businesses), then let's have that conversation. But all the rhetoric and bad facts just make that impossible to do. We really can do better, but we must all decide to. And for the record, I believe that businesses are getting screwed under current immigration law in many ways. But we can't get to that conversation if we conflate different laws and try to turn human beings into "illegals"—at the moment you do that, you show that you're not interested in actually solving this problem.

DonnaLadd

Sep 23 2010

Related links and stories, btw: Jackson's Anti-Profiling Ordinance (PDF, 224 KB) - On the Anchor Baby Trail - Immigration: Myth v. Reality - Our National Family - Sanctuary City

DonnaLadd

Sep 23 2010

No, the JFP does not hire undocumented workers. But you're still conflating the point, Damon, and the difference between this ordinance and workplace immigration laws so I'm not sure where to go on that. I bring up Jim Crow laws *exactly* because they are a good analogy for the people who proclaim that we should bend over backward to enforce current immigration policies, federal and state, without taking time to question whether or not they make sense or are constitutional *to U.S. citizens*, which so many people refuse to see in the whole Arizona debate. (That is probably the most important point, and certainly should be to Libertarians.) You also bring up a good point re libertarianism: Why would a real libertarian logically be in favor of laws that (a) allow or encourage profiling of U.S. citizens just in case you catch "illegals" in the net and (b) why would a real, true libertarian support immigration policy in the first place (not saying I don't, by the way; I'm not libertarian enough to be that laissez-faire). Seriously, though, maybe a pause away from your emotion on the issue to get into the philosophy behind your libertarianism would be informative. By the way, I think it is a travesty to not enforce the smoking ban, and that it hurts businesses such as yours that are. We are about to bring pressure big time over enforcing the smoking ban equally, and not just against the prominent local establishments. But that is the job of the city under its ordinance; it's apples and oranges (sorry) with what we're talking about on this thread. I do want Jackson to be known as a "Sanctuary City" -- but the kind that I define in my column, not the kind that Republicans are making up right now to use to scare people. I want it to be a sanctuary from hate and ignorance, and I will fight tooth and nail to help make it that way, just as I will continue to go to the carpet for local businesses.

DonnaLadd

Sep 24 2010

By the way, you asked what an officer is to do. Our police officers should not be turned into selective immigration officers. They should do what they can to help our city be safer and get criminals off the street. That is *exactly* what this ordinance is trying to do.

DonnaLadd

Sep 24 2010

In reality, what is the officer going to do? Throw you in jail for being an illegal immigrant? Not likely, the jails are already too full, the feds are too slow to come & deport the individual, & Jackson would not want to pay the money it costs to jail illegal immigrants. Actually, I think you're making the point for them here, Damon. The council is giving instructions, via ordinance, about how police offers should handle this *civil* matter that happens to be a hot-button issue politically right now -- one that cops who watch a little too much Fox News might accidentally confuse with a *criminal* matter and try to act on accordingly. While it's against the law to enter the country without appropriate documentation -- and, separately, it's against the law to work in this country without appropriate documentation -- there is a very legitimate question as to whether or not a police officer should involve himself or herself in the dispensation of a civil matter during -- for instance -- traffic stops. It's against the law not to file your income tax return by April 15. Should the police ask you questions about your federal taxes during routine traffic stops? I also think you're being emotional about the words "sanctuary city" -- which is a phrase that applied very broadly and does not mean "come here and live illegally" but rather "we take special pains not to racially profile people." Political or not, there's no point in overblowing what's really happening. How many people are going to be "caught" by cops who attempt to determine immigration status during routine traffic stops -- particularly in situations where nothing else illegal is going on (e.g. driving without a license, driving without insurance, etc.) From a practical POV I don't think this ordinance is much to get worked up about. Put your money where your fingers are. Does the JFP hire undocumented workers to deliver their papers? Or do you follow the labor laws that are, oh so removed from the immigration laws as apples are to oranges? You're still conflating two different things. (a.) It is possible to be in this country legally and not have work status. The two are not the same. (b.) It is illegal to hire someone who doesn't have legal work status. But that doesn't have anything to do with this ordinance. Because it is now considered wrong for a police officer to ask someone their immigration status until after they’ve already been charged with another crime under this ordinance when we know that there is nothing wrong with asking someone who has been caught breaking one law, whether they’ve broken another… So are you arguing that police officers should ask EVERYONE in routine traffic stops "are you currently employing undocumented workers"? Or perhaps they should profile people that they suspect might be the "type" who employs undocumented workers? Otherwise I simply don't see how this ordinance effects hiring practices and requirements; I apologize if I'm missing something.

Todd Stauffer

Sep 24 2010

It comes down to my belief that I do not think we should be passing laws that explicitly say, we encourage you to come to our "sanctuary city" if you are only breaking this law or that law. Damon, I see no way that the Jackson ordinance does this. And glad to see you back. Should we also pass a law saying that we will not ask you about your tax filing status, your speeding ticket history, your preferred sexual position (you know what MS state law says about that, right?), or your immigration status? Unclear on y our point. But, no, the police should never ask you about your tax filing status or your preferred sexual position! And I don't actually think police officers ask you about your speeding ticket history, although they probably can call it up on a computer -- and that makes sense as part of their jobs if they are on traffic duty. BTW, I am also an owner. Todd and I co-own. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Sep 30 2010

Thanks for the props Damon. As for the notion that "libertarianism" would somehow be far removed from whatever my politics are, I'd be curious to learn what you're defining as libertarianism. I think an ordinance that protects you from undue harassment over citizenship paperwork fits the very definition of *civil* libertarianism, in the sense that it's actually limiting a government official's ability to pry into your affairs. I'm big on civil libertarianism and friendly to many other aspects of it. (I'm not as big on some form of "libertarianism" that says we'd be better off if no one paid any taxes and corporations could do any damn thing they like. :-) In fact, you go on to note a number of things you wouldn't want Kenny Stokes to force cops to ask you about -- and yet the ordinance itself is about things that the police are forbidden to ask you about. That's the definition of civil libertarianism. (Note, for the record, that the full ordinance (PDF, 224kb) is not only about immigration status, but includes things like race, ethnicity, gender-identity, religious beliefs and sexual orientation.) I'd argue that the ordinance itself is almost a rather complete expression of the idea of civil libertarianism. From Wikipedia: Civil libertarianism is a strain of political thought that supports civil liberties, or who emphasizes the supremacy of individual rights and personal freedoms over and against any kind of authority (such as a state, a corporation, social norms imposed through peer pressure, etc).[84] Civil libertarianism is not a complete ideology; rather, it is a collection of views on the specific issues of civil liberties and civil rights. Because of this, a civil libertarian outlook is compatible with many other political philosophies, and civil libertarianism is found on both the right and left of modern politics,[85] although it is often associated with social liberals in the United States. It might be worth noting that the driving force behind such an ordinance would not be to protect people who are here without proper INS authorization, but to protect citizens and resident aliens from being harassed about their status (and forced to prove it) in a way that I, for one, would consider un-American. "Papers, please!" in a phrase I prefer not to hear uttered in an American dialect; let's reserve that line of dialog for German officers in period pieces set in WWII.

Todd Stauffer

Sep 30 2010

And to me, this ordinance could be the beginning of getting down to the level where an officer will have to have a 20 page checklist to make sure that he follows all appropriate laws when he pulls someone over. We could go ahead and write them a script for traffic stops. I really dislike "slippery slope" arguments (aka "the sky is falling" arguments). They always begin and end in the mind of the person crafting the argument helped along with a big dose of paranoia. So you go from "don't ask for citizenship papers" to "don't ask for anything not specified by the law and never answer questions without a scripted answer." Not being blessed with a crystal ball, there's no way to argue with your line of thinking. The only thing I would suggest is that it ain't necessarily so. You made up that scenario. You can just as well make up a different one. Until we become perfect (and perfectly rational) human beings, we need laws that protect us from overzealous and overly powerful entities. The police have tremendous power in their hands, and sometimes they need to be told what they can and can't do. Before Miranda vs. Arizona (1966), for example, police were not required to tell people that they had the right to remain silent and had a right to counsel. Not having to tell people those things made the police and prosecutor's jobs a lot simpler. I suspect it also put a lot of innocent people behind bars. It's not that the laws weren't on the books, but a whole lot of folks didn't think it was important to let others in on them. The law is full of those examples. This is just one more. Don't ask for citizenship papers Mr. Policeman. First, it's not your job and second, there's no fair way to figure out who to ask. Make a law that says everyone has to carry proof of citizenship or let it go. You have drawn some overly simplified threads through your history lesson and made some, well, "interesting" turns and loops, conflating government and industry and pretty much everything in between, ending up with religion and morality. Not sure how you leap from unions to legislating morality and making working people the villains in the piece. Suffice to say you might have missed a few salient details, such as the fact that most working people have little to do with crafting laws beyond casting a vote. As to your final question, I suggest we actually have to define "center" before try to get there. We are a country of laws. I suggest that many of the laws you consider "morality" are actually ideological in nature. Morality is concerned with right and wrong. Ideology adds a big fat layer of ego to the conversation, where one group's *ideas* of right and wrong trumps another's. That's sort of been a problem with society since time immemorial. But in America someone always eventually disagrees when one group's ideas infringe on their life, pushing the pendulum back again. Every era has laws, which, in retrospect, seem awfully silly if not downright onerous. How bad they are is a matter of which side of the pendulum you're on ... being pushed or pushing. Would that we could have one law on the books: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, your mother or your children. Humans just haven't quite gotten there.

Ronni_Mott

Sep 30 2010