Connect with us


Read Now: End Racial Profiling in Immigration Enforcement – 101 Latest News



End Racial Profiling in Immigration Enforcement

#Racial #Profiling #Immigration #Enforcement

Reece Jones of the Texas Observer has a helpful article urging the Biden Administration to end racial profiling in immigration enforcement. Racial profiling is a serious problem in many aspects of law enforcement, state, local, and federal. But, as Jones explains, this virtually the only one where such discrimination is actually endorsed by policy, so long as the profiling occurs in a “border” area:

Despite a broad public consensus that law enforcement officers should not use racial profiling, efforts in Congress to ban the practice have failed for decades. The situation is even worse in the border zone, where racial profiling is explicitly allowed for the Border Patrol and other federal immigration police based on Supreme Court decisions and the Obama administration’s 2014 guidelines on race and policing, which are still in effect. The Biden administration should revise those guidelines to ban racial profiling for all federal police, including the Border Patrol, and should state explicitly that racial profiling is a violation of the Civil Rights Act [of 1964]….

In 2014, former Attorney General Eric Holder directed the Department of Justice to review federal guidelines for the use of race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity in policing. The review resulted in new guidance that banned racial profiling for most federal officers, but it does not apply to the Border Patrol. Buried in a footnote, it said “this guidance does not apply to interdiction activities in the vicinity of the border, or to protective, inspection, or screening activities.” At the time, a DHS official told the New York Times, “We can’t do our job without taking ethnicity into account. We are very dependent on that.”

The Trump and Biden administrations kept these guidelines on racial profiling in place.

The “border area” exception to rules against racial profiling is so broad that it effectively swallows the rule. As Reece notes, “the official border zone is defined as within 100 miles of borders and coastlines—a vast area that includes the homes of almost two-thirds of the United States population and many of the largest cities, including Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, D.C.”

You may not think that you live in a border area, but – as far as the Department of Homeland Security is concerned – you probably do. And if you belong to the same racial or ethnic group as suspected undocumented immigrants (or just look like you do), you are subject to racial profiling by law enforcement agencies seeking to catch and deport them.

The practical consequences of such profiling can be dire. Because of weak due process protections in the immigration detention and deportation system, the federal government routinely detains and deports large numbers of US citizens, before discovering its mistake. For obvious reasons, racial profiling increases the incidence of such errors. Victims of racial profiling are also sometimes physically abused by law enforcement. Even when (as in the vast majority of cases) racial profiling incidents end without anyone being detained or hurt, they still inflict needless suffering, and poison relations between law enforcement and minority communities.

In previous posts, I have explained why racial profiling in immigration enforcement is harmful and unjust, and also why racial profiling is a great evil more generally, and unconstitutional, too boot. Progressives, conservatives, and libertarians all have good reason to condemn the practice.

If you’re a conservative  – or anyone else – committed to color-blindness in government policy (a commitment I share), you cannot make an exception for law enforcement:

If you truly believe that it is wrong for government to discriminate on the basis of race, you cannot ignore that principle when it comes to those government officials who carry badges and guns and have the power to kill and injure people. Otherwise, your position is blatantly inconsistent. Cynics will understandably suspect that your supposed opposition to discrimination only arise when whites are the victims, as in the case of affirmative action preferences in education.

I don’t think I need to explain in detail why libertarians should be opposed to racial profiling in immigration enforcement, or law enforcement more generally. All our usual concerns about law enforcement abuses become even more pressing when racial discrimination enters the mix – especially if that discrimination is openly condoned by policy. And, of course, libertarians are no fans of immigration restrictions generally.

Finally, if you’re a progressive, and you believe ending racial discrimination in the criminal justice system is an important priority, you cannot make an exception for immigration enforcement in so-called “border” areas that actually encompass areas where the vast majority of Americans live. You especially should not do so, given the long history of racial and ethnic bias in immigration policy.

Both major political parties and all three branches of government deserve a share of the blame here. As Reece describes, the current immigration enforcement guidelines permitting racial profiling were developed by the Obama Administration, and then continued by Trump and Biden, even as Congress sat back and did little or nothing to curb them.

Reece also explains how a series of misguided Supreme Court rulings from the 1970s sanctioned at least some racial profiling in immigration enforcement, even as the Court barred state-sponsored racial discrimination almost everywhere else. This is just one of many areas where the Court has endorsed pernicious double standards under which immigrant restrictions are often exempted from constitutional constraints that bind every other area of government policy.

Reece describes ways in which all three branches of government can begin to make up for their awful record in this field:

All three branches of government could act to end racial profiling in the United States. Congress should finally pass long-stalled bills to ban racial profiling. The Department of Justice should revise its guidance and remove the exception to the ban on racial profiling for the Border Patrol and immigration officers and should make clear that racial profiling violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Finally, the Supreme Court should revisit the racial aspects of the Brignoni-Ponce and Martinez-Fuerte decisions.

In the past, the court has corrected erroneous rulings, often in cases about race. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) reversed Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which had approved “separate but equal” public facilities for different races. Despite its current conservative composition, in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the court condemned its previous decision in Korematsu v. United States (1944), which had allowed the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and to be clear ‘has no place in law under the Constitution.'” Among those symbols of America’s racist past, Brignoni-Ponce and Martinez-Fuerte stand alone because they are still put into practice by the Border Patrol every day. It is time to correct those gravely wrong decisions and end racial profiling for the Texas DPS, the Border Patrol, and all police in the United States.

Sadly, though it repudiated the racial discrimination endorsed by Korematsu, the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii perpetuated some other pernicious aspects of that infamous decision, at least in the context of immigration restrictions. Nonetheless, there is much all three branches of government can do to end the unjust practice of racial profiling in immigration enforcement. At the very least, the Biden Administration could easily withdraw the Obama-era guidelines permitting this practice in “border” areas, and Congress could easily ban it.


Read Now: Libel Case Against Entertainers T.I. & Tiny (of VH1's T.I. & Tiny: The Family Hustle) Can Go Forward – 101 Latest News



Parents and Children

#Libel #Case #Entertainers #amp #Tiny #VH1039s #amp #Tiny #Family #Hustle

From Peterson v. Harris, decided Friday by the California Court of Appeal, in an opinion by L.A. Superior Court Judge Audra Mori, joined by Justice Audrey Collins and L.A. Superior Court Judge Helen Zukin:

In January 2021, plaintiff Sabrina Peterson posted a video and messages to her Instagram account accusing defendants Clifford and Tameka Harris (entertainers who perform under the stage names “TI” and “Tiny”) of various forms of sexual and physical abuse. Peterson also accused Clifford of previously threatening her with a handgun. Clifford, Tameka, and Tameka’s friend, codefendant Shekinah Jones Anderson, responded to Peterson through their social media accounts.

Peterson sued for libel, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (among other torts); the Harrises filed an anti-SLAPP motion, but the Court of Appeal concluded that Peterson’s claim can go forward. First, Peterson’s factual allegations:

Peterson is an award-winning business coach, entrepreneur, and founder of Glam University, a company designed to “coach women who are interested in entrepreneurship.” The Harrises are well-known musicians, producers, and television personalities. Codefendant Anderson is a reality television personality who has appeared on a television show covering the Harrises.

At some point during the parties’ friendship, Peterson got into an altercation with Clifford’s assistant. Responding to the altercation, Clifford placed a gun to Peterson’s head and said, “‘Bitch I’ll kill you.'” Peterson ceased communicating with Clifford but maintained her friendship with Tameka.

In January 2021, Peterson was the victim of a carjacking. To cope with this traumatic experience, on January 26, 2021, Peterson “shared her traumatic experience with [Clifford] to a group of her followers” on Instagram. As established by the evidentiary submissions discussed below, Peterson also posted messages she had received from other women accusing Clifford and Tameka of various forms of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse. Clifford, Tameka, and Anderson issued various statements responding to Peterson’s Instagram posts.

In every cause of action, the complaint alleged that Clifford, Tameka, and Anderson “posted certain statements on the public internet site Instagram to their more than 23.6 million followers” and sought to hold all three liable for the statements. The complaint identifies the posts or public statements as follows:

[1.] The Posts on the Harrises’ Instagram Accounts

On January 26, 2021 (the same day Peterson revealed the prior incident involving Clifford), Tameka posted to her Instagram account a photograph of Clifford standing alongside Peterson’s eight-year-old son. Attached to the photograph was the following message:

“‘Hold up… So you want your abuser to train your sons? He was just uncle 2 years ago … now when did you say my husband assaulted you? Did you change your mind or change it back? What’s up wit you today Pooh? … You strange. Everybody know you been special….”

Tameka’s Instagram account has 6.6 million followers.

In a statement released to the public January 29, 2021, the Harrises “’emphatically den[ied] in the strongest way possible the egregiously appalling allegations being made against them by [ ] Peterson.” The same day, Clifford posted a video to his Instagram account in which he stated:

“‘Whatever we ever have done has been done with consensual adults …. [¶] We ain’t never forced nobody, we ain’t never drugged nobody against their will. We ain’t never held nobody against their will. We never made nobody do anything. We never [sexually] trafficked any[body]…. [¶] I also want you to know there’s evil at play…. We’ve had a history in dealing with the particular individual in question.'”

Clifford’s Instagram account has 13.5 million followers.

[2.] The Post on Anderson’s Instagram Account

Also on January 29, 2021, Anderson posted a video to her Instagram account. In the video, Anderson stated:

“‘She’s looking for fucking attention. She wants [Tameka]. She has sex with [Tameka], she wants [Tameka] to be her girlfriend. Now listen, this is my thing, [s]he came out and [Clifford] pulled a gun on her….

“‘She has a problem. But she ain’t talking about how she fucked Tamika [sic] too. I said what I said. Why she ain’t talking about she done sucked his dick and fucked her in her pussy…. I’m trying to figure out why she ain’t tell ya’ll about how much pussy she ate? Why she didn’t tell ya’ll about she wanted the women who used to go recruit the bitches for him to fuck?

“‘What’s up? … Go ask her why [she] ain’t tell you she didn’t get fucked and she went to the apartment? Why she didn’t tell ya’ll if she done had somebody that did too?'”

Anderson’s Instagram account has 3.5 million followers….

[In response to the anti-SLAPP motion, the Harrises submitted] court records from a criminal matter involving Peterson in 2011. Those records reflected a guilty plea [to a federal false statements charge] in which Peterson admitted she had “denied know[ing] an individual named ‘P. Denis,’ when in fact she knew of and had lived with [this] individual.” …

The court concluded that Peterson’s speech was on a matter of public interest, so the anti-SLAPP statute potentially applied:

Clifford and Tameka are accomplished musicians and producers, and both have a television show covering their lives. Peterson herself is a successful entrepreneur and business coach who has been featured in well-known publications. The controversy under which this case arose directly concerns gun violence and sexual abuse by those in the entertainment industry. The many articles covering this controversy clearly establish the public’s interest in it.

Even assuming the statements did not implicate a public issue or issue of public interest, they are still protected as activity encouraging participation “in the context of an ongoing controversy.” Peterson voluntarily thrust herself into the public eye by accusing Clifford of gun violence and the Harrises of various forms of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse. All of the statements appearing in the complaint were responsive to Peterson’s own public revelations against the Harrises. As such, Peterson has “subjected herself to inevitable scrutiny … by the public and the media.”

Finally, the activity of Clifford, Tameka, and Anderson all occurred in a public forum for purposes of section 425.16, subdivision (e)(3). With one exception, all of their statements were published on Instagram and could be readily accessed by 3.5 to 13.5 million followers.

But the court also held that Peterson’s case could move forward, because her allegations were legally adequate (their factual accuracy may end up being a matter for the jury). As to defamation, the court reasoned:

Peterson marshaled evidence suggesting both statements were provably false. As to the implied statement Peterson had lied about the gun incident, Peterson averred she had endured the “traumatic experience” involving Clifford placing a gun to her head, and she stated the Harrises’ denials were “false.” The Harrises offered no evidence contradicting these averments. Viewed in context, the Harrises’ statements implied a provably true or false statement that Peterson had lied about the gun incident.

The Harrises do not discuss any of this evidence and instead argue that their statements that Peterson had lied were in fact true. Citing Peterson’s prior criminal matter in 2011, the Harrises contend Peterson “is, in fact, a proven liar.” But while Peterson’s criminal records may establish Peterson lied about something in 2011, they do not conclusively establish that she lied about Clifford threatening her with a gun.

Regarding the salacious sexual accusations, Peterson declared she had “never engaged in sexual acts with either of the Harrises nor have I ever recruited woman [sic] to engage in sexual acts with the Harrises.” These allegations are also capable of being proven true or false….

We also conclude that, contrary to the Harrises’ arguments, Peterson made the requisite showing of actual malice as a limited public figure….

The court concluded that the false light claims were merely “cumulative [of her defamation claim] and will add nothing to her claims for relief.” But the court also concluded that her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim can continue, as to the allegations of her sexual conduct with the Harrises:

[W]e agree with the Harrises that the implied statement Peterson had lied about the gun incident, even if insulting or unflattering, did not constitute extreme or outrageous conduct. However, the salacious sexual accusations against Peterson, made in graphic detail, may properly be considered extreme and outrageous by a factfinder.

Congratulations to Rodney S. Diggs (Ivie McNeill Wyatt Purcell & Diggs), who represents plaintiff.

Continue Reading


Read Now: Trump Gets Some Brutal Feedback From GOP Iowa Voters – 101 Latest News



Trump Gets Some Brutal Feedback From GOP Iowa Voters

#Trump #Brutal #Feedback #GOP #Iowa #Voters

Some voters at Sen. Joni Ernst’s Ride and Roast showed why Donald Trump may have an Iowa problem in 2024.


One voter told MSNBC, “We’re not big Trump fans. There’s a lot of bluster good ideas, but a lot of bluster. I like Mr. Scott. We share the same faith. He has a really arduous road ahead of him. Being black and a Republican.”

Another Republican voter in Iowa, “I’ve talked to Mike Pence a few times. I like Mike. He’s a good, moderate conservative. Religious family man. I’m not 100 percent Trumper this time. He did some great things. I like what he did when he was in office. I just didn’t like all of the bantering in the background.”

The Republicans MSNBC spoke to voiced a couple of realities about the Republican Party. Tim Scott is going to struggle as a candidate because he is black. Second, the Republican Party has moved so far to the right that Mike Pence could be viewed as a moderate.

Trump didn’t show up for Ernst’s Ride and Roast, so it makes sense that the audience would be composed more of Iowans looking for someone other than Trump.

However, the reason why these voters seemed to be turned off is because of Trump’s personality. It isn’t the legal problems, the criminal indictments, or the corruption.

Some Republicans are sick of Trump’s personality and drama.

The more he campaigns, the more Trump might be costing himself votes.

The MAGA contingent within the Republican primary is so large that it is unlikely that anyone else will be able to beat Trump in a primary, but Donald Trump definitely has an Iowa problem as he heads into 2024.

Continue Reading


Read Now: Biden and McCarthy Both Improved Their Political Standing – 101 Latest News



Quote of the Day

#Biden #McCarthy #Improved #Political #Standing

Playbook: “Somehow, both McCarthy and Biden emerged from the potential economic debacle in better political shape. Politics is often zero sum, but the FRA accomplished the chief political goals of both men.”

“McCarthy, who faced a humiliating path to the speakership, needed to strengthen his position within the House GOP conference.”

“Biden, whose job approval trendline has veered uncomfortably close to sinking below 40%, needed to strengthen his position with American voters.”

LoadingSave to Favorites

Continue Reading