Subscribe   Contact   

Twitter       Facebook  

About         Archives


Latest Entries
More News

Powered by Squarespace

Racist Suspect Watch
Racist Business Index
Support Justice!

free your mind!

Cress Welsing: The Definition of Racism White Supremacy

Dr. Blynd: The Definition of Racism

Anon: What is Racism/White Supremacy?

Dr. Bobby Wright: The Psychopathic Racial Personality

The Cress Theory of Color-Confrontation and Racism (White Supremacy)

What is the First Step in Counter Racism?

Genocide: a system of white survival

The Creation of the Negro

The Mysteries of Melanin

'Racism is a behavioral system for survival'

Fear of annihilation drives white racism

Dr. Blynd: The Definition of Caucasian

Where are all the Black Jurors? 

The War Against Black Males: Black on Black Violence Caused by White Supremacy/Racism

Brazen Police Officers and the Forfeiture of Freedom

White Domination, Black Criminality

Fear of a Colored Planet Fuels Racism: Global White Population Shrinking, Less than 10%

Race is Not Real but Racism is

The True Size of Africa

What is a Nigger? 

MLK and Imaginary Freedom: Chains, Plantations, Segregation, No Longer Necessary ['Our Condition is Getting Worse']

Chomsky on "Reserving the Right to Bomb Niggers." 

A Goal of the Media is to Make White Dominance and Control Over Everything Seem Natural

"TV is reversing the evolution of the human brain." Propaganda: How You Are Being Mind Controlled And Don't Know It.

Spike Lee's Mike Tyson and Don King

"Zapsters" - Keeping what real? "Non-white People are Actors. The Most Unrealistic People on the Planet"

Black Power in a White Supremacy System

Neely Fuller Jr.: "If you don't understand racism/white supremacy, everything else that you think you understand will only confuse you"

The Image and the Christian Concept of God as a White Man

'In order for this system to work, We have to feel most free and independent when we are most enslaved, in fact we have to take our enslavement as the ultimate sign of freedom'

Why do White Americans need to criminalize significant segments of the African American population?

Who Told You that you were Black or Latino or Hispanic or Asian? White People Did

Malcolm X: "We Have a Common Enemy"


Deeper than Atlantis

Pressure Mounts Against Bail System that Holds Poor People in Houston Jail


The CEO, district attorney and sheriff of Harris County, Texas, all agree its bail system needs to be reformed, siding with a federal class action that’s pushing to keep poor people accused of petty crimes out of its jail.

Harris County DA Kim Ogg, a Democrat, took office in January following a campaign in which she promised to focus tax dollars on prosecuting violent criminals instead of low-level offenders, especially marijuana possession cases.

Early this month, she rolled out at a diversion program in which people caught with less than four ounces of marijuana can take a four-hour drug education class to avoid being charged.

She estimates the program will keep 10,000 people annually out of Harris County Jail, which has been plagued in recent years by overcrowding that critics say is partly to blame for the deaths of 55 people in pretrial custody from 2009 to 2015.

The average jail population in January was 9,059 inmates, and an average of 6,920, or 76 percent, were awaiting adjudication of their cases, according to a county report.

Harris County, its sheriff, its 16 criminal court judges and five magistrate judges are facing a federal class action, accusing them of unconstitutionally jailing misdemeanor defendants solely because they can’t pay bail, which the plaintiffs argue violates their Eighth Amendment rights against excessive bail and 14th Amendment equal protection rights.

On Friday, Ogg joined a growing chorus of Harris County and Texas officials, some of whom are defendants in the case, who believe the county’s bail system should be reformed to grant more low-level defendants no-fee bonds, also called personal recognizance bonds.

“Holding unadjudicated misdemeanor offenders in the Harris County Jail solely because they lack the money or other means of posting bail is counterproductive to the goal of seeing that justice is done. We do not want to be complicit in a system that incentivizes presumptively innocent people to plead guilty merely to expedite their release from custody,” Ogg wrote Friday in an amicus brief for case.

Harris County Judge Ed Emmett – who is the county’s CEO, not a judicial officer – said at a recent county commissioners meeting, “I don’t think anybody in Harris County should stay in jail just because they can’t afford to pay bail.”

Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, who replaced his predecessor Ron Hickman as a defendant in the lawsuit when he took office in January, and will testify in the case, stated in an affidavit, “I believe that the current operation of the money bail system, including the sheriff’s active participation in that system, violates the United States Constitution.”

Texas State Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, who has held that office since 1983 and chairs the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, said in a joint letter also signed by Harris County Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis in February, “It is our position that the Harris County bail system blatantly violates the rights and freedoms protected under the U.S. Constitution by creating one system of justice for the wealthy and an unjust one for the poor.”

Harris County Criminal Judge Darrell Jordan, an African-American and former defense attorney, is also a defendant in the class action. The county assigned him his own defense attorney for the federal lawsuit due to his practice of not using the bail schedule approved by the county’s criminal judges that sets bail fees based on the charges.

“Judge Jordan believes the current bail bond system is broken and needs reform,” he wrote Monday in a response to the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, asking that he be excluded from any injunction.

Harris County is implementing reforms, but doesn’t believe its current bail system is unconstitutional. The county asked U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal to stay the case until after July 1 when it plans to implement a risk assessment tool to rate defendants on their eligibility for no-fee bonds without pretrial services having to interview them.

Rosenthal denied the stay motion, unwilling to put off the claims of the plaintiffs, who argue that every day hundreds of people are held in Harris County Jail only because they are poor. They say a preliminary injunction would prevent arrestees from getting booked into jail, possibly losing their jobs or pleading guilty to crimes they didn’t commit to be released sooner than if they had asked for a jury trial.

About 8.5 percent of misdemeanor arrestees were granted no-fee bonds when the class action was filed in May 2016, and that has increased to about 12 percent now, according to the county.

The county’s latest, and perhaps most substantial, reform measure was introduced last week, when its commissioners approved a pilot program for public defenders to advise misdemeanor defendants at probable cause hearings overseen by magistrates.

The program is set to launch July 1, the same day as the new risk-assessment tool.

Defendants currently do not get representation at the probable cause hearings and are often told not to talk by the magistrates to avoid incriminating themselves.

“This is a huge step for Harris County to have that public defender at the initial bail hearing and have access to the same information that the prosecutor has, this will put Harris County at the forefront of a nationwide trend. Harris County will be, along with El Paso County, one of only two in Texas that provide this service,” Harris County managing attorney Melissa Spinks told Judge Rosenthal on Monday, the first day of a preliminary injunction hearing.

“It has taken time but we’re very close to achieving what we believe is the gold standard in pretrial procedures,” Spinks said, adding that the county is increasing its use of “early presentments” at city jails and outlying county lockups, so misdemeanor defendants can bond out there before they are transported to the Harris County Jail in downtown Houston.

About three months after lead plaintiff Maranda ODonnell filed the class action, the county’s 16 criminal judges changed the “County Rules of Court” to make no-fee bonds “favored” for 12 misdemeanor charges, including public intoxication, prostitution and possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Harris County also recently hired two more magistrate hearing officers and revamped its pretrial-services form to collect more financial data about misdemeanor defendants earlier in the post-arrest process.

But ODonnell claims in court filings that the judges’ customs are too ingrained and that even after the August policy change, they continued to force magistrates to set predetermined bond amounts for people arrested on those 12 charges.

Changes can’t come soon enough for Harris County taxpayers, who will pick up the more than $1.2 million – and growing – tab that the county has paid private attorneys to fight the lawsuit.

One of ODonnell’s attorneys, Neal Manne with Susman Godfrey in Houston, told Rosenthal at Monday’s hearing that he’s concerned how the county’s new risk-assessment tool will be used because it already uses a similar tool that ranks people as more at risk of not appearing for future court hearings if they are poor.

Another named plaintiff, Robert Ryan Ford, could not pay his $5,000 preset bail after his arrest in May for misdemeanor theft. He pleaded guilty at his arraignment five days later, was sentenced to time served and released.

Manne said Ford is a good example of how the current risk-assessment tool works against poor people.

Manne, in a dark suit and red tie, his gray hair perfectly parted, said pretrial-services staff gave Ford a score of seven, meaning he’s high risk, with one being low risk, even though Ford had no prior failures to appear, despite an extensive criminal history.

“Ford had no prior failures to appear but he had a risk assessment score of seven because he’s indigent, he doesn’t have a landline phone and he lived in someone else’s home and he doesn’t own his own car. Oh and because he’s male you get a point against you for being male,” Manne said.

“That makes sense to me,” Rosenthal said, drawing laughs from some of the 40 spectators in the gallery of her 11th floor courtroom in the Bob Casey Federal Courthouse in downtown Houston, a wood-paneled room topped by skylights and lined with large portraits of her colleagues.

Rosenthal, a George H.W. Bush appointee, is chief judge of the Southern District of Texas.

She peppered attorneys with questions throughout a five-hour hearing on Monday, her highly developed legal mind on display with probing, rambling inquiries that sounded like she was reading from a law book, pushing the 20 attorneys before her to give her an idea of what kind of injunction she could tailor narrowly enough not to overstep her authority.

“I can’t order judges to reach specific outcomes in specific cases in which they are clearly operating as judges,” Rosenthal said, peering over her large red-framed glasses.

She asked Spinks for hard numbers on the number of people who the county denies bail to because they believe they are a risk to the community, noting that the Texas Constitution bans preventive detention of any misdemeanor arrestee.

Harris County argues in court filings there’s no constitutional right to affordable bail and paying a bond increases the likelihood a defendant will show up for future court hearings, arguments echoed by bail bondsmen who have filed their own brief in the case.

But Manne said he plans to call a witness to refute that claim: Truman Morrison, a judge from Washington D.C., where for the last 22 years there’s been a law that money bail can’t be set in an amount that a misdemeanor defendant can’t pay.

“Our point isn’t that Harris County should work like D.C. Our point is there are systems that don’t use money bail,” Manne said. “Judge Morrison will tell you it’s 99 percent of arrestees are released without financial conditions in D.C., but not withstanding that the failure to appear rate is extremely low. That’s because they do tailored things to try to get people back to court, text reminders, phone reminders, simple things that are more effective than money bail.”

The preliminary injunction hearing will continue Tuesday and Wednesday.


White Migrants are "Undocumented" but Brown or Black Migrants are illegal

From [IrishTimes] When are immigrants illegal and when are they undocumented? Answer: they are undocumented when they are Irish and illegal otherwise.

This is a crude generalisation. But if we take speeches in the Dáil and Seanad as a sample of official discourse, “illegal Irish” has been used 120 times and “undocumented Irish” 491 times – more than four times as often.

Journalists tend to call anyone in Ireland without the proper papers an “illegal immigrant” while an Irish person in exactly the same situation in the United States is “undocumented”. Most of this is unconscious – but then racial prejudice usually is. And in the current climate we must honestly acknowledge that there is a tacit appeal to racial prejudice in the way we talk about this whole subject – and in the way the Taoiseach may well talk about it when he meets Donald Trump in the White House for St Patrick’s Day.

This use of language has always mattered because it exposes a double standard. The 50,000 or so “undocumented Irish” in the US are human beings. They have lives and families and friends. They phone home and our hearts lift at the sound of their voices. They work hard. They contribute to the economy and society. So what if they entered the US on a tourist visa or a student exchange and just forgot to leave? What harm are they doing anybody? They are Us. But all those other millions of shadow people? They are Them. At best, they are anonymous, interchangeable figures, seen out of the corner of the eye as they pick up leaves in a suburban garden, push trollies down hotel corridors, or gather our dirty dishes in diners. At worst, they are “bad hombres”.


This hypocrisy has long been at work in Ireland: the same politicians who weep for the plight of the “undocumented Irish” in the US like to talk tough about “illegal immigrants” violating the sanctity of our own borders. But it also operates in the US. It was best exemplified during the primary elections last year, when the egregious Bill O’Reilly of Fox News questioned Ted Cruz, then still very much in the running, about the plans he and Trump were putting forward to round up and deport “illegal immigrants”.

The hard case O’Reilly chose to put Cruz on the spot was not a fictional María Contreras or Fareed Zakaria. It was an imagined Tommy O’Malley: “So Tommy O’Malley from Co Cork in Ireland is over here and he overstays his visa and he has got a couple of kids and he has settled into Long Island, and you, President Cruz, are going to send the Feds to his house, take him out and put him on a plane back to Ireland?”

This exchange was telling: deporting Tommy O’Malley back to Cork is obviously much more troubling than deporting María Contreras back to Cancun. And why should that be? Let’s not kid ourselves, we all know the answer: Tommy is “white” and María isn’t.

Irish politicians have always done their share of dog-whistling: the undocumented Irish deserve special treatment because, well, we share a lot of “culture” and “history”. Nobody mentioned race because nobody had to. But we have to mention it now because it is no longer a subtle and silent presence. The dog whistle has been replaced on the political soundtrack by brazen, blaring trumpets. Undocumented migration is being racialised and criminalised. Trump has been relentless in associating it with brown people (Mexicans and Muslims) and with violent criminality. And the key architects and enablers of this policy are Irish-Americans: Trump’s advisers Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway (née Fitzgerald), spokesman Sean Spicer and homeland security secretary John Kelly.

Toxic duality

How can these products of mass migration justify to themselves a campaign of terror against migrant communities? By holding in their heads a toxic duality: white Irish migrants good; brown Mexican or Muslim migrants bad. Or, as the euphemisms go, undocumented Tommy O’Malley okay; illegal María Contreras a threat to our way of life.

As a nation, as human beings, as a society with pretensions to civilised standards, we have to decide: are we playing this game or not? We love ambiguities and we’re very good at exploiting them, but there’s no room for ambiguity anymore.

Enda Kenny has repeatedly said he’s going to the White House on St Patrick’s Day to “stand up for the undocumented Irish” and insist they be given the right to full US citizenship. So is he going to tell Bannon and Conway and Spicer and Kelly to lay off our people because the Irish are also their people: good white Americans? Or is he going to “stand up for the undocumented Irish” by standing up for all of those who share the Irish experience of having to overcome poverty and prejudice in order to make decent lives for our children?

This is a moment of truth about what it means to be Irish in the world. We either wink at a racism that affords most of us the privilege of a white skin. Or we honour the struggles of so many millions of Irish immigrants to be accepted as equal human beings.


NY is the most unionized state


New York's union ranks dropped by nearly 5 percent between 2015 and 2016, but the state remained the nation's leader in unionized workers.


The drop of about 96,000 union workers in New York erased a 58,000 increase in union employees made between 2014 and 2015, according to records released last week by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.


Still, New York's unionized workforce has remained fairly steady over the past decade -- giving the state by far the largest percentage of union members of any state and bucking national declines in union membership.


Union members accounted for 23.6 percent of wage and salaried workers in New York in 2016. Nationwide, the average was 10.6 percent.


So overall, New York had 1.9 million union members last year, second only to California with 2.6 million.


"We take great pride in continuing to lead the country in union membership, as well as a long and storied history of providing a strong voice for working men and women throughout our state," Mario Cilento, president of the New York AFL-CIO, the umbrella organization for the state's unions, said in a statement.


The decline in union membership across the nation has been stark. There were 14.6 million union workers nationally last year, down from 17.7 million in 1983, when 20 percent of the nation's workforce was unionized.


In New York, union membership hit a 10-year high in 2007 when 25.2 percent of the workforce belonged to a union. The lowest level of the past decade was in 2012, when 23.2 percent were in a union.


The power of the unions in New York is found in policy and lobbying in Albany. About half of the union workers are in state and local governments; 93 percent of the state workforce is unionized.


The 600,000-member teachers' union, the New York State United Teachers, is among the top lobbying groups each year as the Capitol, as is SEIU 1199, the health-care workers union.


Last year, SEIU helped lead a charge to increase the state's minimum wage to $15 an hour in downstate by 2021, which was backed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state Legislature.


Unions also were successful last year in getting a 12-week paid-family leave law.


This year, unions are aligned with Cuomo to keep higher taxes on millionaires -- a measure set to expire at year's end.


"Union membership continues to be the best way for working men and women to get ahead; particularly at a time when our economy is so out of balance," Cilento said.


E.J. McMahon, president of the fiscally conservative Empire Center, contended the state's unions have "a huge and very costly impact on public policy."


He said public salaries and benefits are "basically the tail that wags the public-sector dog. The other half are employed largely in either construction or in healthcare, both of which are heavily dependent on government subsidies."


After New York, the largest union membership rates were in Hawaii at 19.9 percent and Alaska at 18.5 percent.


Nine states had union membership rates below 5 percent last year -- with the lowest, 1.6 percent, in South Carolina, the federal data showed.



With Crime Rate Declining Racist Suspect Police Departments with their own DNA databases stir debate


Dozens of police departments around the U.S. are amassing their own DNA databases to track criminals, a move critics say is a way around regulations governing state and national databases that restrict who can provide genetic samples and how long that information is held.

The local agencies create the rules for their databases, in some cases allowing samples to be taken from children or from people never arrested for a crime. Police chiefs say having their own collections helps them solve cases faster because they can avoid the backlogs that plague state and federal repositories.

Frederick Harran, the public safety director in Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania, was an early adopter of a local database. Since it was created in 2010, he said robberies and burglaries have been gone down due to arrests made because of the DNA collection.

Harran said the Pennsylvania state lab takes up to 18 months to process DNA taken from a burglary scene but with the local database authorities go through a private lab and get results within a month. He said he uses money from assets seized from criminals to pay for the private lab work.

"If they are burglarizing and we don't get them identified in 18 to 24 months, they have two years to keep committing crimes," he said.

DNA is found in cells and provides a genetic blueprint unique to each person. Blood, saliva, semen, hair, and skin are among the biological clues a criminal might leave at a crime scene and investigators need only a few cells to create a profile.

Some police departments collect samples from people who are never arrested or convicted of crimes, though in all such cases the person is supposed to voluntarily comply and not be coerced or threatened.

State and federal authorities typically require a conviction, arrest or warrant before a sample is entered into their collections.

"The local databases have very, very little regulations and very few limits, and the law just hasn't caught up to them," said Jason Kreig, a law professor at the University of Arizona who has studied the issue. "Everything with the local DNA databases is skirting the spirit of the regulations." [MORE]


Supreme Court rules juror's racial bias may call for a new trial


The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-3 Monday in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado [SCOTUSblog materials] that a juror's racial bias creates an exception to the no-impeachment rule that limits the second-guessing of jury verdicts. The rule is designed to protect a jury's verdict from being questioned later due to comments expressed during jury voting. Miguel Peña-Rodriguez was convicted of harassment and unlawful sexual contact against two teenage sisters, but it was later revealed that a juror made racially biased statements during deliberation. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority:

where a juror makes a clear statement that indicates he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment [text] requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror's statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee.

Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion stating the jury deliberation is too important to be loomed over. He arguedthat although the instance of racial bias can cause great damage to the justice system, it is not so great of an issue to overcome the importance of confidentiality regarding jury decisions. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, in a separate dissent, that this rule "cannot be squared with the original understanding of the Sixth or Fourteenth Amendments. The Constitution does not require such a rule. Neither should we."


ACLU sues Cleveland, says panhandling laws are unconstitutional

The ACLU of Ohio has taken aim at the city of Cleveland's panhandling laws, saying the city's increased enforcement of already unlawful ordinances has caused problems with the city's homeless population.

The ACLU says in a lawsuit filed Tuesday that two ordinances, one that puts restrictions on asking for money on sidewalks and one that affects streets and highways, are unconstitutional because they infringe on free-speech rights. It is suing on behalf of John Mancini, a disabled Army veteran, and the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless.

The city's law affecting roadways has been in effect since 2002, while the one affecting sidewalks has been on the books since 2006. Joe Mead, an attorney working on the case for the ACLU, said the lawsuit was filed now because police officers ramped up enforcement of panhandling laws in the past few months by writing more tickets. Mead based this assertion on what he said Mancini and Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless clients have seen. [MORE]


ACLU of Nebraska says prison conditions led to deadly riot in Tecumseh


On Thursday, Tecumseh State Correctional Institution faced a second riot in recent years which led to the death of two individuals serving time.

The ACLU has documented experiences of hundreds of inmates who have been denied health care, access to rehabilitation programs, have been assaulted, or put into solitary confinement instead of receiving appropriate mental health care. Front line staff have shared publicly their difficult work conditions including low pay, low morale, forced overtime as well as fears about staff assaults. Nebraska’s prison system has been over emergency levels of 140% for nearly a decade.

ACLU of Nebraska Executive Director Danielle Conrad released the following statement in response to yesterday’s deadly riot at Tecumseh:

“Our first thoughts are to the safety of front line prison staff and those in state custody, particularly those injured and killed due to the conditions in our prison. The most recent riot is yet another painful reminder that Nebraska’s prison system is failing our state.

“The horrific conditions of confinement rampant in Nebraska prisons threaten public safety now and into the future. For years, Nebraska corrections officials and policy makers have been aware of the inhumane conditions under which thousands of inmates have been living. Our state has failed to invest the resources needed to remedy the situation or enact meaningful criminal justice reforms. The most recent riot is another unfortunate but expected result of a system that is failing our state.

“While public safety impacts each and every Nebraskan, we must not forget that Nebraska’s prison population does not reflect our state. People of color, particularly Black Americans, Latino Americans, and Native Americans, as well as people living with mental illness, are dramatically overrepresented in our prison population. [MORE]


Tump Deportation Plans of Non-Whites in Support of White Supremacy System 

From [HERE] A rowdy segment of the American electorate is hell-bent on banning a specific group of immigrants from entering the United States. Thousands upon thousands of other people—citizens and immigrants, alike—oppose them, choosing to go to court rather than fulfill the electorate’s narrow vision of what America should look like: white, middle-class and Christian.

Soon a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings could grant unrestrained power to Congress and the president over immigration control. More than 50 million people could be deported. Countless others might be barred from entering. Most of them would be poor, nonwhite and non-Christian.

This may sound like wild speculation about what is to come in President Donald Trump’s America. It is not. It is the history of U.S. immigration control, which is the focus of my work in the books Migra! A History of the U.S. Border Patrol and City of Inmates: Conquest, Rebellion, and the Rise of Human Caging in Los Angeles.

Historically speaking, immigration control is one of the least constitutional and most racist realms of governance in U.S. law and life.

Made in the American West

The modern system of U.S. immigration control began in the 19th-century American West. Between the 1840s and 1880s, the United States government warred with indigenous peoples and Mexico to lay claim to the region. Droves of Anglo-American families soon followed, believing it was their manifest destiny to dominate land, law and life in the region.

But indigenous peoples never disappeared (see Standing Rock) and nonwhite migrants arrived (see the state of California). Chinese immigrants, in particular, arrived in large numbers during the 19th century. A travel writer who was popular at the time, Bayard Taylor, expressed the sentiment settlers felt toward Chinese immigrants in one of his books:

“The Chinese are, morally, the most debased people on the face of the earth… their touch is pollution… They should not be allowed to settle on our soil.”

When discriminatory laws and settler violence failed to expel them from the region, the settlers pounded Congress to develop a system of federal immigration control.

In response to their demands, Congress passed the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited Chinese laborers from entering the country for 10 years. The law focused on Chinese laborers, the single largest sector of the Chinese immigrant community. In 1884, Congress required all Chinese laborers admitted before the Exclusion Act was passed to secure a certificate of reentry if they wanted to leave and return. But, in 1888, Congress banned even those with certificates from re-entering.

Then, when the Chinese Exclusion Act was set to expire in 1892, Congress passed the Geary Act, which again banned all Chinese laborers and required all Chinese immigrants to verify their lawful presence by registering with the federal government. The federal authorities were empowered by the law to find, imprison and deport all Chinese immigrants who failed to register by May 1893.

Together, these laws banned a nationally targeted population from entering the United States and invented the first system of mass deportation. Nothing quite like this had ever before been tried in the United States.

Chinese immigrants rebelled against the new laws. In 1888, a laborer named Chae Chan Ping was denied the right of return despite having a reentry certificate and was subsequently confined on a steamship. The Chinese immigrant community hired lawyers to fight his case. The lawyers argued the case up to the U.S. Supreme Court but lost when the court ruled that “the power of exclusion of foreigners [is an] incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States” and “cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of anyone.”

Simply put, Chae Chan Ping v. U.S. established that Congress and the president hold “absolute” and “unqualified” authority over immigrant entry and exclusion at U.S. borders.

Chinese exclusion cases

Despite this loss, Chinese immigrants refused to comply with the 1892 Geary Act, submitting themselves for arrest and risking both imprisonment and deportation rather than registering with the federal government.

They also hired some of the nation’s best constitutional lawyers. Together, they swarmed the courts with challenges to the Geary Act. In May 1893, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear its first deportation case, Fong Yue Ting v. U.S. and quickly ruled that deportation is also a realm of “absolute” authority held by Congress and the president. The court wrote:

“The provisions of the Constitution, securing the right of trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, and cruel and unusual punishments, have no application.”

In other words, the U.S. Constitution did not apply to deportation. Immigration authorities could develop practices to identify, round up and deport noncitizens without constitutional review.

It was a stunning ruling even by 19th-century standards. So stunning that three of the justices issued scathing dissents, arguing that the U.S. Constitution applies to every law enforced within the United States. As Justice Brewer put it:

But such dissent held no sway. Six years later, the U.S. Supreme Court tripled down on immigration control as exempt from judicial review. In that 1896 ruling, Wong Wing v. U.S., which was issued on the same day as the court upheld racial segregation laws in its infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision, the court held that the Constitution does not apply to the conditions of immigrant detention.

By 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court had granted Congress and the president nearly unrestrained power over excluding, deporting and detaining noncitizens, both at U.S. borders and within the national territory. To date, they have used that authority to deport and forcibly remove more than 50 million people and ban countless others from entering the country. Most of them are nonwhite, many of them poor and a disproportionate share non-Christian.

Making America great again

Over time, Congress and the courts placed several limits on what is allowable in immigration control. For example, the 1965 Immigration Reform Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of “race, gender, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” And several court rulings have added a measure of constitutional protections to deportation proceedings and detention conditions.

But, in recent weeks, Trump and his advisers have tapped into the foundational architecture of U.S. immigration control to argue that the president’s executive orders on immigration control are “unreviewable” by the courts. As Trump’s senior advisor Stephen Miller put it: The president’s executive powers over immigration control “will not be questioned.”

On Feb. 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit turned down the administration’s “unreviewable” argument regarding the so-called Muslim ban. But Trump’s immigration enforcement order still stands. This includes a provision that subjects even those unauthorized immigrants who are simply suspected of crime to immediate removal. It also denies many of the immigrants who unlawfully cross our borders the due process protections recently added to deportation proceedings.

If implemented as promised—that is, with a focus on “bad hombres” and the U.S.-Mexico border—Trump’s immigration plan will exacerbate the already disproportionate impact of U.S. immigration control on Latino immigrants, namely Mexicans and Central Americans. U.S. immigration may no longer target Chinese immigrants, but it remains one of the most highly racialized police projects within the United States.

Trump’s executive orders are pulling U.S. immigration control back to its roots, absolute and racial. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pushed back against this interpretation, affirming the reviewability of the seven-country ban. But the decisions made during the Chinese exclusion era are likely to protect many of the president’s other orders from judicial review. That is, unless we overturn the settler mentality of U.S. immigration control.


UN rights expert urges US to create indigenous land policy


UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz [official website] called [press release] Friday for the US to adopt a consistent approach to indigenous land rights in pipeline projects. The Special Rapporteur was concerned [transcript] about how indigenous peoples were not fully consulted on the Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL), leaving them with disruptions to their land. She said that she was encouraged by how indigenous people were trying to engage new technologies to utilize their property as well as a recent report that lays out how the government should try to approach similar pipelines in the future. However, she was concerned about how current projects are being pushed through with harrowing consequences for indigenous peoples without their meaningful inclusion in the decision making process.

But challenges remain. The contemporary executive action that provides the most direct guidance on consultation with tribes, Executive Order 13175, while well intentioned, has developed into a confusing and disjointed framework that suffers from loopholes, ambiguity, and a general lack of accountability. The regulatory regime has failed to ensure effective and informed consultations with tribal governments. The breakdown of communication and lack of good faith involvement in the review of federal projects has left tribal governments functionally unable to participate in consequential dialogue with the United States on projects affecting their lands, territories, and resources.

The Special Rapporteur called on the US government to develop stronger relationships with the tribes and create specific standards for future interactions.


The pipeline project has created a legal battle between the government and the indigenous nations. A judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia in February turned down a request [JURIST report] to stop construction on the final stretch of the DAPL. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe had filed [JURIST report] a legal challenge in an attempt to stop the construction. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) granted [JURIST report] the final permit for the DAPL after an order from President Donald Trump to expedite the process.


Three members of the Central Park Five spoke at the Fashion Institute of Technology in Manhattan on 2/15


NAACP Files Lawsuit to Block Milwaukee Interstate Project

Courthouse News

The NAACP and Sierra Club filed a federal lawsuit to block a $1 billion project to rebuild and expand I-94 in Milwaukee, claiming it will exacerbate racial segregation and increase air pollution.

The NAACP’s Milwaukee branch, Sierra Club John Muir Chapter and Milwaukee Inner-City Congregations Allied for Home, or MICAH, sued state and federal transportation officials in Milwaukee federal court Wednesday, hoping to stop construction of the project.

According to the complaint, the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration approved the Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s $1 billion project that would reconstruct and add travel lanes to a portion of I-94 from 16th to 70th streets in Milwaukee.

But the groups say the project does not address the growing need of public transit in the city and will likely exacerbate regional racial segregation. Air quality and water resources would also be negatively impacted if the project proceeds, they say.

“In metropolitan Milwaukee, freeway construction both destroyed neighborhoods – many populated by communities of color – and facilitated urban sprawl, which was overlaid with, and related to, racial segregation in housing. Racially disparate forms of residential relocations caused by freeway construction compounded the problem, while sprawl quite literally paved the way for white flight from the city,” the complaint states. “The project’s capacity expansion elements alone, and especially those elements when combined with other recent and planned highway capacity expansion projects in the region, will contribute to and exacerbate this suburban sprawl. That sprawl will also perpetuate or exacerbate racial segregation.”

According to the lawsuit, the interstate project does not include any public transportation element despite a documented need for public transit expansion.

The metropolitan statistical area that includes Milwaukee, Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington counties was ranked in 1990, 2000 and 2010 as the most racially segregated region in the U.S. for blacks, according to the lawsuit, and there is also significant segregation of Latinos.

The NAACP, Sierra Club and MICAH say there are racial disparities in transit dependence in the region.

“Only about 75 percent of Milwaukee County/Black African American households indicated they have an automobile available for travel, and only an estimated 60 percent of Black/African American adults have a driver’s license. Only about 85 percent of Milwaukee County Hispanic households indicate they have an automobile available for travel, and only an estimated 50 percent of Hispanic adults have a driver’s license,” according to a Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission reported cited in the lawsuit.

By comparison, 90 percent of white households say they have a vehicle, and 80 percent of whites have driver’s licenses, the complaint states.

Pastor Marilyn Miller, president of MICAH, said in a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin that her group is concerned about “the extreme and unacceptable rate of joblessness in the central city, for persons of color in general and African-American men in particular.”

“We all know that people of color depend on transit to get to work at all.  We need more transit – to more places where the jobs are – not just highways that don’t help these members of our community get to work,” Miller said.

The NAACP, Sierra Club and MICAH claim the interstate project will also have a negative impact on the environment and residents’ health.

“Traffic-related air emissions resulting from the expansion of this freeway would likely contribute to an increase in asthma attacks to adults and children in the adjacent neighborhoods,” the lawsuit states. “Increased air pollution would also be a significant contributor to increased heart disease incidence, premature death and adverse birth outcomes that have life-long impacts.”

Bill Davis, director of the Sierra Club John Muir Chapter, said, “Expanding highways while support for transit declines also hurts our air quality, which is a health and environmental justice issue that concerns the Sierra Club.”

The lawsuit names as defendants Wisconsin Department of Transportation Secretary Dave Ross, the Federal Highway Administration, its Acting Deputy Administrator Walter Waidelich Jr., Wisconsin Division Administrator Michael Davies, the U.S. Department of Transportation and its leader, Elaine Chao.

The NAACP, Sierra Club and MICAH seek a declaration that the transportation officials violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by not preparing an adequate environmental impact statement for the interstate project. They also seek an order vacating records and notices related to the project.

The groups are represented by Dennis Grzezinski in Milwaukee, and by Karyn Rotker with the ACLU of Wisconsin.


White Nevada Judge Who Handcuffed An Indian Public Defender Now Banned From Ever Having The Job Again


A former Las Vegas justice of the peace who ordered a public defender to be handcuffed while arguing in court last year has been banned from ever serving as a judge in Nevada again, according to court documents filed by the state’s Commission on Judicial Discipline. 

Conrad Hafen agreed to public censure and admitted to violating state judicial code of conduct in four separate cases after complaints were filed against him, according to the judicial discipline committee’s order made public this week.

According to the court record, Hafen admitted that he he did not “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary”; failed to “uphold the law” and perform his duties “fairly and impartially”; and failed to be “patient, dignified and courteous to jurors, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, court officials and others.”

The order cites four incidents wherein Hafen violated judicial code of conduct. The most prominent was when he placed Clark County Deputy Public Defender Zohra Bakhtary in handcuffs as she defended a client who faced jail for violating probation, a move that was widely condemned.

As Bakhtary tried to speak, Hafen told her to “be quiet“ and then ordered a court marshal to handcuff her and seat her in the jury box next to inmates. Hafen said he did it to teach Bakhtary “a lesson” about courtroom etiquette. Hafen then sentenced Bakhtary’s client to six months in jail.

Hafen filed a contempt order against Bakhtary about a week after having her handcuffed, but it was later overturned.

In addition, Hafen failed to file written contempt orders against three different defendants he had ordered to jail on contempt charges between 2014 and 2016. 

The discipline committee said Hafen had “abused his judicial authority by engaging in” such actions. 

A group of Nevada defense attorneys called for sanctions against Hafen shortly after the handcuffing incident, saying he has a “complete disregard for the law” and that he “demeaned and humiliated” Bakhtary in court. The Clark County Defenders Union, which represents about 100 public defenders in the county, including Bakhtary, also denounced Hafen’s actions, calling them “unreasonable and unprecedented.”

Then, just weeks after the handcuffing incident, Hafen ran for re-election and lost to criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor Amy Chelini


Fabricating Evidence: Orlando fingerprint examiner suspended - 2,600 cases possibly affected in latest police lab scandal


Add Orlando to the list of jurisdictions plagued by potential misdeeds in the crime lab. A fingerprint examiner for the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, who worked more than 2,600 cases dating to 2001, has been removed from duty for reasons that aren’t totally clear. After prosecutors discovered that he was no longer working fingerprints, they also found that he’d been removed five months earlier and that the sheriff’s office hadn’t notified them.

The possible problems in Orlando join a growing number of forensic lab problems being exposed nationwide, including: faulty DNA testing at a crime lab in Austin; the dual drug lab scandals created by two miscreant analysts involving perhaps 50,000 cases at separate testing facilities in Massachusetts; allegations of slanting evidence at the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation; misconduct by a drug tester at the Oregon crime lab; nearly 15,000 faked drug tests at the New Jersey crime lab; more drug theft from the police-run crime lab in San Francisco; and the FBI’s admission in 2015 that its hair examiners gave flawed testimony in 95 percent of their cases before 2000. [MORE]


Kris Kobach: Wizard of Crosscheck Voter Purge Program, Border Wall, Muslim Ban & More Racist Nonsense


Bored Memphis Cops Accused of Spying on Black Protesters


Portland jury awards $750,000 to Black Man in Lawsuit Against Daimler Trucks for racial harassment

From [HERE] - A jury awarded $750,000 to a black man who said he felt intimidated by racial harassment at Daimler Trucks North America's manufacturing plant.

The Oregonian/OregonLive reports ( ) the jury found Wednesday that 59-year-old Victor Pierce had been subjected to a racially hostile work environment at the company's Western Star manufacturing plant in Portland.

Pierce worked there assembling heavy duty commercial trucks.

In one instance, Pierce saw a noose hanging in the cab of a truck moving down the assembly line.

Daimler's attorneys contended that Pierce exaggerated some of the encounters over the years and that when racism was involved, the company acted swiftly and effectively to end it.

Pierce said he felt vindicated by the verdict.

He is among at least 12 workers who have filed lawsuits or settled with the company over racial harassment complaints in recent years.


White Supremacy = The Cause For Achievement Gap Between White & Latino Students


A new study administered by the Child Trends Hispanic Institute found that the racial achievement gap between Latinx and white students begins at kindergarten, Fusion reports.

The study, “Making Math Count More For Young Latino Children,” examined specifically the two group performances on math scores. The research proved that Latinx children’s math skills were behind those of their white counterparts by a span of three months. This means that if a white and Latinx student both start school at the same time, it would take the Latinx kindergartner three months to catch up to where the white student stands academically.

The data stems from a national sample and concludes that poverty is one of the main factors that influence the inequality. It’s estimated that at least half of the study’s Latinx participants live in poverty. Therefore, they were twice than likely to be poor than their white classmates. Yet after counting income level as a factor, researchers found that Latinx and white students learn math within the same juncture.

David Murphery, one of the report’s authors, says that placing a stereotype on the less privileged for their backgrounds and social-economical statuses holds them back.

“We know that when teachers, parents, communities, and the culture at large hold negative stereotypes (including low academic expectations) of minority-group members and don’t positively affirm cultural diversity, their performance suffers,” Murphey told The Atlantic. “This sort of bias has a long historical legacy and will not be quickly undone.”

This is why it’s important to address these issues, but also become proactive in helping to bridge the gap. The researchers also found that Latinx children who have more access to books tend to progress more in a academic setting.

Additionally, back in 2014, the Pew Research Center reported that, one in four American kindergarteners are Latinx—especially in states like New York, Massachusetts, Florida, Texas, Washington and California.

That said, the Child Trends researchers predict that, “Achievement gaps will no longer be issues solely of equity and justice, but will threaten our nation’s ability to maintain our position as a global leader.”

More needs to be done.


NAACP launches national economic boycott of NC


Claiming people are being paid to riot Arizona Republican Run Senate votes to seize assets of those who plan, participate in protests that turn violent


Claiming people are being paid to riot, Republican state senators voted Wednesday to give police new power to arrest anyone who is involved in a peaceful demonstration that may turn bad — even before anything actually happened.

SB1142 expands the state’s racketeering laws, now aimed at organized crime, to also include rioting. And it redefines what constitutes rioting to include actions that result in damage to the property of others.

But the real heart of the legislation is what Democrats say is the guilt by association — and giving the government the right to criminally prosecute and seize the assets of everyone who planned a protest and everyone who participated. And what’s worse, said Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, is that the person who may have broken a window, triggering the claim there was a riot, might actually not be a member of the group but someone from the other side.

Sen. Martin Quezada, D-Phoenix, acknowledged that sometimes what’s planned as a peaceful demonstration can go south.

“When people want to express themselves as a group during a time of turmoil, during a time of controversy, during a time of high emotions, that’s exactly when people gather as a community,’’ he said. “Sometimes they yell, sometimes they scream, sometimes they do go too far.’’

Quezada said, though, that everything that constitutes rioting already is a crime, ranging from assault to criminal damage, and those responsible can be individually prosecuted. He said the purpose of this bill appears to be designed to chill the First Amendment rights of people to decide to demonstrate in the first place for fear something could wrong.

But Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said that chilling effect is aimed at a very specific group of protesters.

“You now have a situation where you have full-time, almost professional agent-provocateurs that attempt to create public disorder,’’ he said.

“A lot of them are ideologues, some of them are anarchists,’’ Kavanagh continued. “But this stuff is all planned.’’

There’s something else: By including rioting in racketeering laws, it actually permits police to arrest those who are planning events. And Kavanagh, a former police officer, said if there are organized groups, “I should certainly hope that our law enforcement people have some undercover people there.’’

“Wouldn’t you rather stop a riot before it starts?’’ Kavanagh asked colleagues during debate. “Do you really want to wait until people are injuring each other, throwing Molotov cocktails, picking up barricades and smashing them through businesses in downtown Phoenix?’’

Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the new criminal laws are necessary.

“I have been heartsick with what’s been going on in our country, what young people are being encouraged to do,’’ she said.

She agreed with Quezada that there already are laws that cover overt acts. But Allen said they don’t work.

“If they get thrown in jail, somebody pays to get them out,’’ she said. “There has to be something to deter them from that.’’

Farley, however, said the legislation does far more than simply going after those who might incite people to riot, something which actually already is a crime. And he warned Republicans that such a broad law could end up being used against some of their allies.

For example, he said, a “Tea Party’’ group wanting to protest a property tax hike might get permits, publicize the event and have a peaceful demonstration.

“And one person, possibly from the other side, starts breaking the windows of a car,’’ Farley said.

“And all of a sudden the organizers of that march, the local Tea Party, are going to be under indictment from the county attorney in the county that raised those property taxes,’’ he said. “That will have a chilling effect on anybody, right or left, who wants to protest something the government has done.’’

Sen. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, said the whole legislation is based on a false premise of how disturbances happen.

“This idea that people are being paid to come out and do that?’’ she said. “I’m sorry, but I think that is fake news.’’

Sen. Andrea Dalessandro, D-Green Valley, had her own concerns.

“I’m fearful that ‘riot’ is in the eyes of the beholder and that this bill will apply more strictly to minorities and people trying to have their voice heard,’’ she said.

The 17-13 party-line vote sends the bill to the House.


Water Protectors Vow Continued Resistance to #DAPL as Main Camp Is Evicted

Democracy Now

In North Dakota, the main resistance camp set up by Lakota water protectors fighting the $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline has been largely vacated after protesters were ordered to leave the camp on Wednesday. Police arrested around 10 people. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the North Dakota governor had imposed a noon eviction deadline for the hundreds of water protectors still living at the resistance camp. Prayers ceremonies were held on Wednesday, and part of the camp was set on fire before the eviction began. Water protectors say the resistance camp sits on unceded Sioux territory under the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie and that they have a right to remain on their ancestral land. A couple dozen people remain at the camp. The ongoing encampments in North Dakota were the largest gathering of Native Americans in decades. At its peak, more than 10,000 people were at the resistance camp. Earlier this month, construction crews resumed work on the final section of the pipeline, after the Trump administration granted an easement to allow Energy Transfer Partners to drill beneath the Missouri River. We go to Standing Rock to speak with LaDonna Brave Bull Allard and Linda Black Elk.