Juan Cartagena2013-05-19T17:58:32-04:00Juan Cartagenahttp://www.voces.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=juan-cartagenaCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Juan CartagenaGood old fashioned elbow grease.The Other Big Voting Rights Case Before the U.S. Supreme Courttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.28966702013-03-20T14:55:34-04:002013-03-20T14:55:41-04:00Juan Cartagenahttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/juan-cartagena/
The NVRA established for the first time in history a government obligation to register voters by requiring agency-based registration. While simplified to its common name, the Motor Voter law because it includes motor vehicle agencies, the NVRA is unique in that it also requires the government to affirmatively register low-income voters who apply for traditional welfare, food stamp and Medicaid benefits.
In New York the state law implementing the NVRA also includes unemployment insurance agencies, for example. Finally, it completely changed the landscape on street voter registration by requiring all states to accept mail-in voter registration forms for federal elections, which in turn, was applied to registration for all elections. This also was a significant reform in states that previously required street registration campaigns to be attended by official state registrars, and on limited hours.
The case before the Supreme Court this week goes beyond the intricacies of voter registration in many ways. Arizona's clear and repeated attempts to suppress Latino communities is evident in this case when it included limitations on mail-in voter registration for newly naturalized citizens as part of its notorious anti-immigrant (read: anti-Latino) law, SB1070.
Contrary to the streamlined federal requirements of the NVRA, Arizona now requires newly naturalized citizens (the far bulk of them in Arizona, Latino) to attach documentation of "proof of citizenship" to their registration forms, including in some counties copies of their naturalization papers. Put aside that it's a federal crime to photocopy your naturalization papers, the law in Arizona engendered much confusion, again, I submit, by design. And its aim was clear: Arizona has effectively removed mail-in voter registration for newly naturalized citizens, and in doing so, removes a weapon Latinos have to vote out those representatives who passed SB1070 in the first place.
By attacking Congress' will as expressed in the NVRA, Arizona also retards the country's halting attempts to increase its international position as a leader in democracy. The NVRA finally places the U.S. on par with many Western democracies, such as our northern neighbor, Canada, by affirmatively requiring the government to encourage political participation by affirmatively offering to register voters.
Before the NVRA, citizens had to "earn" their right to vote by hurdling unnecessary state barriers to voter registration. While the NVRA has definitely helped, America's worldwide standing among democracies for both voter registration and turnout is still embarrassing.
For all of us who remember tuning to our televisions in 2000 to await the results of the election between George Bush and Al Gore we were all treated to a lesson in the intricacies of Florida election law. Why, it was reasonable to ask, did a national election turn on the nuances of a state election code? The answer is simple: Unbelievably, we still have no national norm for voting in federal elections.
The mantra of "states' rights" which perpetuated slavery as an economic engine for the country, then perpetuated Jim Crow laws after Reconstruction, and now preserves the outrageously discriminatory Electoral College system, is alive and well when it comes to voter registration. This explains the entrenched conservative resistance to the passage of the NVRA in the Clinton administration, and to its implementation thereafter.
Instead, we need the NVRA, and more legislation like it, exactly because it stops states from imposing politically-motivated legislation to suppress the vote of emerging communities in the country, like Latino neighborhoods. Until our government, at all levels, starts to look like the people who are governed, we will always need national, federal norms for registering, casting, and counting the vote.
The stakes before the Supreme Court are high. There is no doubt that the Latino community will be better off with increased access to voter registration. Similarly, there's no doubt that the lines of persons awaiting naturalization now, and those who are eligible once they apply, are decidedly Latino. If Arizona wins this case it will create a serious impediment to registering newly naturalized citizens -- and, no surprise here, an impediment for Latinos in particular. This is what Arizona is seeking to do when it incorporated this state law in SB1070. Arizona, and reactionary States like it, must be stopped.
One Supreme Court term; two significant voting rights cases, especially for Latinos. The stakes for Latinos in both cases are huge. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, at issue in the Shelby County v. Holder case argued last month, covers jurisdictions in the top four Latino states in the country: California, Texas, New York and Florida. If those protections fail, Latino voting strength is imperiled. Similarly, given what we know about Arizona's record on respecting Latino civil rights, if it succeeds in impeding the registration of naturalized citizens, Latino voting strength will also be imperiled, nationwide.]]>No Time to Diminish Voting Rightstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27533722013-02-28T12:14:57-05:002013-04-30T05:12:01-04:00Juan Cartagenahttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/juan-cartagena/
The case is Shelby County v. Holder and it concerns the one provision that has helped hundreds of thousands of latino voters to exercise their right to vote, and to have their collective votes counted, without discrimination. The provision is Section 5. It applies only to certain parts of the country that have had a history of discrimination against black, latino, Asian-American or Native-American voters and it forces those jurisdictions to get federal permission in advance of changing their election laws and policies. By forcing this preclearance the Voting Rights Act ensures that there's a check on potential discrimination before it happens. Jurisdictions that can prove no discrimination for 10 years can bail out, jurisdictions that have been found to intentionally discriminate against minority voters can be added by court order.
Latinos need to pay attention. The four states with the largest latino populations, California, Texas, Florida and New York, all have Section 5 jurisdictions. And all of them have a history and a present-day record of discrimination against latino voters. All of them have had success in electing Latino representatives. Those two phenomena are connected. The Voting Rights Act is considered the most effective piece of civil rights legislation in history precisely because it has racially and ethnically integrated our legislative bodies.
In 2006 Congress reauthorized Section 5 and the bilingual assistance provisions of the Act for 25 years with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was passed 99 to 0 in the Senate and was signed by a Republican president, George W. Bush. This exercise in enforcing the promises of the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution in federal elections may be for naught if the Supreme Court upholds "states rights" over the establishment of national norms for voting.
In New York City three boroughs are covered under the Act, Bronx, New York and Brooklyn, and lawyers and activists have used Section 5 repeatedly to stop discriminatory redistricting plans, efforts to halt bilingual polling materials, and efforts to change the ways votes are counted. Today, both city and state officials recognize the efficiency of Section 5 preclearance and Attorney General Eric Schneiderman supports the Voting Rights Act in this case.
Nationally, less than 2 percent of all elected officials are latino, when they are by far the largest minority in the country at 16 percent. Every time latinos flex their political strength there's a backlash, like voter ID laws, criminalization of third-party voter registration, curtailing of early election days, etc. Now with comprehensive immigration reform on the horizon because latino voters came out in force in November Section 5 should be upheld Voting Rights Act. Now more than ever.]]>We Come To Civilize the Big Playerstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19102832012-09-27T14:38:40-04:002012-11-27T05:12:01-05:00Juan Cartagenahttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/juan-cartagena/
Fancy that. Latin American nations are demanding an end to the very war that has devastated the hemisphere on both sides of the Rio Grande. Latinos in the U.S. have the highest proportion of incarceration due to non-violent drug crimes. Thousands of years of lives lost within Latino families all due to a mass incarceration punishment industry that is fueled by this selective war on drugs. While in Central and South America, and the Caribbean, the death toll attributable to the drug trade is unfathomable. Tens of thousands of guns, made in the U.S.A., make their way to Mexico and its drug warriors and exacerbate a deadly and violent way of life that is out of control yet barely mentioned in this country.
We've come to civilize the big players noted poet Javier Sicilia a leader of the movement Caravan for Peace that traversed 6,000 miles and 20 plus U.S. cities before ending in Washington D.C. this week.
In New York City, the marijuana arrest capital of the world, the Mexican delegation was denied an official, mayoral welcome. Their request for an audience was ignored. Instead, they were received on the steps of City Hall by an enthusiastic crowd of U.S. supporters who have courageously questioned our drug policies.
I say courageous because it is nearly impossible in the U.S. these days to question the efficacy of the trillion dollar drug war without being stereotyped as a drug user on a mission. You're not on drugs, are you? whispered one audience member to me in Queens after hearing my own call for revisiting the criminalization paradigm and its pernicious effects on Latino communities. No, I'm not. And nor are the multitude of policy makers, editorial writers, and humanitarians that seriously question the country's shift in the 1930's on drug use from a medical treatment framework to a law enforcement priority. And all without a shred of evidence to demonstrate that criminalization cures the insatiable American appetite for illicit drugs, then or now.
At City Hall the narratives of the Mexican mothers was especially powerful. It is the dead, the innocent ones caught in the cross-fire, that demand an end to this war, they intoned. Behind them the imagery was equally potent: photos of their loved ones with details of their last day on earth, banners that read "we need poets, not machine guns," and "until the day that peace and justice kiss."
When will we listen? Not anytime soon if the two U.S. presidential candidates have any say. Actually, the problem is what they did not say. Both candidates presented acceptance speeches that failed to address this multi-billion dollar investment in the drug war - one of the most egregious failures of domestic policy of our times.
Their silence speaks volumes. But it is dwarfed by the silence of the Mexican dead which along with American lives lost, ask us collectively, when will we listen?]]>Vinimos para civilizar a los grandestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19103602012-09-26T10:16:53-04:002012-11-26T05:12:02-05:00Juan Cartagenahttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/juan-cartagena/
Cuando el presidente de Guatemala, Otto Pérez Molina, reclamó de nuevo a los países centroamericanos a descriminalizar el uso de drogas este año lo hizo con el propósito de eliminar la ola de violencia que amenaza la región. De esta manera hizo eco a sus colegas anteriores como el presidente mexicano Vicente Fox en 2001, el primer ministro mexicano Jorge Castañeda y el presidente uruguayo Jorge Battle, cada uno exigiendo el fin de la guerra contra las drogas por razones humanitarias.
Fox notó que un día la humanidad lo verá como la mejor alternativa. La semana pasada llegó a Nueva York el reclamo a nivel de pueblo - el pueblo mexicano que encarna el sufrimiento de la pérdida de seres humanos por causa de esta guerra. Fue la Caravana por la Justicia y la Paz que unió activistas y familias de las víctimas de la violencia causado por el narcotráfico. Ya son 60 mil muertos en México. Y ya es tiempo según la caravana para terminar esta guerra y el tráfico de armas y la violencia que lo acompaña. Es necesario considerar alternativas en EEUU, el líder mundial en el consumo de drogas ilegales. Es decir, es tiempo para considerar la legalización del mundo narco.
¡Imaginasen!
Es Latinoamérica que encabeza este movimiento progresista que exige un fin a la guerra devastadora que apeligra el hemisferio a cada lado del Río Grande. En EE.UU. latinos tienen la tasa más alta de encarcelación por delitos de narcotráfico no violentos. Miles de años de vidas latinas se desperdician en la encarcelación masiva y la industria castigadora que se nutre de esta guerra selectiva y discriminatoria contra las drogas. En Centro y Suramérica y el Caribe los muertos suman a cantidades inconcebibles. Miles y miles de armas hechas en EEUU cruzan a México para empeorar un ambiente ya lleno de una violencia irrazonable que ni siquiera llama la atención de los medios en este país.
Vinimos para civilizar a los grandes, notó el poeta y activista Javier Sicilia el líder de la Caravana por la Paz y Justicia. La caravana viajó más de 6,000 millas y llegó a más de 20 ciudades antes de culminar en el capitolio estadounidense esta semana.
En Nueva York la capital mundial de arrestos marihuaneros la Caravana de México no logró una audiencia con la alcaldía. Fueron ignorados, y la administración ni siquiera contestó. La recepción oficial en la alcaldía se la dieron un grupo nutrido de activistas americanos que han cuestionado la lógica de la política americana en este campo.
Los que cuestionan esta política son los valientes porque es casi imposible en este país criticar todo que tenga que ver con la política del uso de drogas sin que te sospechan ser tecato. ¿Estás endrogado?, me preguntó en Queens, NY, una mujer que acaba de oír mi pedido a re-examinar esta locura de criminalizar cada aspecto del uso de drogas por sus consecuencias devastadoras en la comunidad latina. No, le contesté. Ni tampoco son la multitud de analistas, escritores de editoriales, y activistas humanitarios que cuestionan debidamente el cambio sísmico en los 1930s en este país de tratar el uso de drogas con la mano dura de la criminalización en vez de un asunto médico. Y eso que el cambio se efectuó sin ninguna evidencia que la criminalización iba curar el hambre insaciable que tienen los americanos para las drogas ilegales - ni ahora, ni en ese entonces.
En la alcaldía era imposible no sentir la emoción palpable de las madres mejicanas cuando narraron sus experiencias. Los muertos exigen que le demos una oportunidad por la paz, nos contaron. Son ellos, los inocentes, que demandan un fin a esta guerra. De tras de ellas las imágenes llenaron nuestras vistas y nuestra percepción del evento con retratos de sus familiares queridos, junto con detalles de sus últimos días en la tierra. También hubo carteles impresionantes con llamativos que decían "Necesitamos poetas, no metralletas" y "hasta que la justicia y la paz se besen".
¿Cuándo vamos a escucharlos? Si nos llevamos por las ponencias de los candidatos a la presidencia Americana, no será pronto. El problema no es lo que dijeron, es lo que fallaron a decir. Ningunos de los dos candidatos hablaron de esta inversión de miles de millones de dólares en la guerra contra las drogas - fácilmente uno de los más fracasados programas domésticos que hemos vistos en nuestros tiempos.
Su silencio lo dice todo. Pero es un silencio que ni llega a los codos al silencio de nuestros difuntos mexicanos. Juntos con los miles de vidas americanas que se han perdido, estos difuntos nos preguntan, colectivamente.
]]>Arizona Scorecard: 3 Down, 1 To Gotag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16257632012-07-01T08:36:58-04:002012-08-31T05:12:07-04:00Juan Cartagenahttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/juan-cartagena/
At issue in Arizona v. U.S. was a narrow set of claims. The case addresses the constitutional concepts of preemption and the Supremacy Clause. In short, since the Constitution grants exclusive control over immigration and naturalization to Congress, all States are preempted from enacting laws that interfere with the federal role in this important area. Only four provisions from the law, SB 1070, were on appeal: Section 2(B),the "show me your papers" provision, authorizes local law enforcement to determine the immigration status of any person lawfully stopped on "reasonable suspicion" that they're in Arizona illegally; Section 3 criminalized the federal civil violation of being present in the country without registration documents; Section 5(C) criminalized any person without federal work authorization from seeking work or working in Arizona; and Section 6 authorizes local law enforcement to arrest without a warrant any person they have probable cause to believe committed an offense punishable by deportation.
In a 5 to 3 decision Justice Kennedy exalted the importance of speaking about immigration from the perspective of "one national sovereign, not the 50 separate states." The court struck down 3 portions of Arizona's encroaching law: criminalizing the failure to register; authorizing local police to arrest without a warrant; and criminalizing those unauthorized immigrants from soliciting or working in the state. The importance of rejecting this last provision, Section 5 (c), cannot be gainsaid: Day laborers throughout the country have been harassed and criminally profiled for the simple act of looking for work. LatinoJustice has represented many of them in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania and now in Alabama and South Carolina. Only the federal government can strike a careful balance between the competing needs of the country when it comes to the employment undocumented workers. This is a major victory for Latino communities.
But there is still one to go. The Court refused to categorically reject the "show me your papers" provision of SB 1070 by deferring until the courts below can learn if it would be implemented in a way that would interfere with federal immigration policy. In short, they demurred. And in doing so they have yet to see the consequences of a state law that could easily feed the insatiable appetite of law enforcement to racially profile Latino communities. As President Obama noted after reading the opinion: "No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like." We couldn't agree more. Luckily, the Supreme Court left the door open to the next challenge to Section 2 (B). So its pronouncement is not the final word on the wisdom or constitutionality of Section 2 (B). And in this regard LatinoJustice PRLDEF will be vigilantly monitoring all the states we work in to ensure that law enforcement does not engage in racial profiling against Latinos. We applaud Attorney General Holder's promise to step up civil rights enforcement in any state that abuses Latino rights based on this decision. It is what we expect and demand from this administration.
The rash of anti-immigrant, read: anti-Latino, state laws are not going away with this important decision from the Supreme Court - although they have been dealt a serious blow. These laws promote racial profiling, deny equal justice and run counter to our economic interests at a time when our economic recovery is fragile. Many states are turning towards a commonsense approach to these legislative proposals once they appreciate the negative impact that the loss of immigrant labor has on local economies. Professional law enforcement associations know full well that their departments are not equipped to learn the intricacies of immigration law and that by focusing on these new tasks that divert law enforcement resources, public safety could be imperiled.
Arizona's "show me your papers" provision represents the wrong approach to the challenges America faces at present. It diverts us from our real priorities and sends a message that targeting Latino residents, immigrants and citizens is fair game. LatinoJustice PRLDEF stands ready to join our resources to combat the worse aspects of these anti-Latino laws.
Three down, one to go. This will not be the last word on this issue.]]>Y a veces sigues...tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16258472012-06-25T17:59:42-04:002012-08-25T05:12:04-04:00Juan Cartagenahttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/juan-cartagena/
Pero la victoria es trascendental no sólo por ser un resultado justo y humano, sino porque fue el fruto de un movimiento de liderazgo estudiantil. En mis treinta años de práctica como activista y abogado de derechos civiles, a veces eres el líder y a veces sigues.
Convencer a esta administración a frenar su apetito por las deportaciones fue un tiro largo para los Soñadores independientemente de los pronunciamientos de la administración que al seguir la mano dura y las deportaciones traería la reforma migratoria comprehensiva. Si no fuera por el excelente récord de demandas del Departamento de Justicia contra la media docena de estados que pretenden usurpar el oficio del Congreso en la política de inmigración, la administración de Obama tendría mucho que explicar.
Pero eso nunca detuvo a los estudiantes que siguieron soñando gran cosas. Su estrategia de reunirse en la Casa Blanca junto con la acción de desobediencia civil en la oficina de la campaña de Obama en Denver el mes pasado, no tiene precio. Fue estupendo. Las promesas huecas de la administración no los detuvieron. Disidencia, protesta y desobediencia civil nunca fueron ignorados en su arsenal. Los Soñadores no tenían miedo y dieron la cara frente y centro a la necesidad de los medios de comunicación de poner un rostro humano a los conflictos. Y todos sabemos que hay cientos de miles de historias potentes y humanitarias por ahí. América llegará a conocerlos muy pronto como evidencia de su compromiso a nuestro país al solicitar la acción diferida que ha ofrecido la administración de Obama.
Hace años me uní a un equipo de abogados para desafiar una práctica perniciosa en este país en el campo del derecho al voto - el conjunto de las leyes estatales que eliminan el derecho más importante de la ciudadanía, el derecho al voto, por el solo hecho de cometer un delito grave. Desde mi perspectiva, acondicionar el voto basado en consecuencias del sistema criminal tiene un impacto racial dado que nuestro sistema de justicia penal esta reventado y crea una industria de castigo excesivo y encarcelamiento compuesto desproporcionadamente de ciudadanos negros y latinos. En el apogeo de este movimiento hubo cinco litigios simultáneos en Washington, Florida, Nueva York, Nueva Jersey y Massachusetts. Todos menos uno fueron iniciados por encarcelados que radicaron demandas pro se - representándose ellos mismos sin la ayuda de un abogado. En Nueva York, uno de mis clientes, Joseph Hayden, comenzó su demanda federal mientras estaba encarcelado y continuó aun cuando estaba en libertad condicional. Fueron los presos que treparon la agenda de derechos civiles sobre el muro de la prisión. Y fueron los abogados que los seguimos.
Hoy el movimiento de DREAMers celebra una victoria pero el premio más grande recién se visualiza en el horizonte. La noticia de que el colegio de abogados del estado de California apoya la solicitud de admisión a la abogacía por Sergio García, un indocumentado, le da impulso al movimiento para cambiar este régimen de inmigración y permitir un camino permanente hacia la naturalización para todos los merecidos Soñadores.
Y cuando esto sucede, estaré entre los primeros en felicitar a nuestros nuevos líderes en la lucha para los derechos civiles.]]>Sobre vigilancia policial a la juventud latina en Nueva Yorktag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15466152012-05-26T07:30:00-04:002012-07-26T05:12:15-04:00Juan Cartagenahttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/juan-cartagena/
Ahora, décadas después de la destrucción causado por la "guerra" contra las drogas de Nixon, nuestros policías urbanas se modelan bajo un programa de prevención a lo ex vicepresidente Cheney. Este programa se trata de la detención y registración de la gente sin tener causa probable ni sospecha razonable, o mejor conocida como "Stop & Frisk."
Este programa es parte de una política titulada "Cero Tolerancia" (CT), que como la guerra contra las drogas, opera bajo un enfoque racial. CT no se activa en los prostíbulos de la clase alta en Manhattan, porque la mayoría de esas personas son de color blanco, ni es desplegado en Wall Street, donde el tráfico de cocaína es legendario. Del mismo modo, la llamada "guerra contra las drogas" no es una guerra verdadera en los malls de los Estados Unidos aún cuando el perfil de un consumidor típico de drogas en los Estados Unidos es de un hombre blanco.
Ni tampoco se manifiesta la política de CT en términos raciales exclusivamente blanco y negro. No señores, los latinos también están desproporcionadamente detenidos por una fuerza policiaca bajo un régimen que utiliza cuotas para arrestos en nuestros barrios.
Nueva York es un ejemplo clásico, de hecho, es el centro mundial de la sobre-vigilancia policiaca. En el año 2002 al inicio de la administración del alcalde Bloomberg alrededor de 97.000 personas fueron sujetos a la política de Detener y Registrar. Ahora ese número ha subido, con más de 685.000 personas detenidas en el 2011.
Los latinos han definitivamente sentido el impacto. El primer estudio serio sobre la política de Stop & Frisk fue por el entonces fiscal general Elliot Spitzer, cuyo innovador informe de 1999 analizó más de 175,000 incidentes y confirmó las experiencias de nuestros residentes latinos: incluso cuando controlan el factor de la delincuencia, los hispanos eran más probable en ser detenidos que los blancos. Peor aún, la detención de afro-americanos y latinos resultaban en menos probabilidades de efectuar arrestos comparados con la detención de los blancos. Es decir, la detención de blancos era más eficaz, sin embargo, la policía continuaba su enfoque racial contra latinos y afro-americanos.
Ahora en el 2012, el programa de "Stop & Frisk" continúa sin cesar, y parece que entre más nos quejamos más el comisionado Ray Kelly y la policía usan esta táctica contra nuestra comunidad. Seguimos desproporcionadamente encontrándonos dentro de su telaraña. El informe más reciente de "Stop & Frisk" por la Unión de Nueva York de los Libertades Civiles (NYCLU) concluyó que no sólo son negros y latinos desproporcionadamente sujetos a estas prácticas, sino que también que 90% de los jóvenes negros y latinos que fueron detenidos eran inocentes de cualquier infracción criminal.
Hay mucho en juego ahora que las posiciones se han endurecido a favor y en contra de "Stop & Frisk." El comisionado Kelly todavía camina sobre el agua en Nueva York, como el Mesía. Diz que los asesinatos han bajado, así que ¿por qué parar Stop & Frisk? El alcalde Bloomberg - quien admitió fumar marihuana y con gusto - todavía preside sobre la capital mundial de arrestos por el uso de marihuana en un Estado, fíjense en esto, que despenalizó la posesión de marihuana hace décadas. En el 2011, más de 50,000 personas fueron arrestadas por poseer cantidades mínimas de marihuana, el segundo nivel más alto de tal arrestos en la historia de Nueva York.
Muchos legisladores negros y latinos de la ciudad tienen su propia experiencia personal donde narran de haber sido detenidos innecesariamente por la policía de Nueva York en algún momento de su pasado. Pero convertir esas narrativas en una reforma de la policía en la capital en Albany es inútil porque sus quejas caen en oídos blancos y sordos.
Afortunadamente, parece que este programa por fin se convertirá en parte del debate para las elecciones de la alcaldía en 2013. Más datos e información está llegando al luz de día bajo las leyes de acceso a la información pública. También oficiales actuales y ex miembros de la policía de Nueva York están revelando la inmensa presión que sufrieron para inventar los pretextos para "legalmente" detener y registrar a la gente.
Las demandas en contra de "Stop and Frisk" siguen aumentando: demandas para terminar el programa completamente; demandas para que la policía pare de arrestar a la gente que se ubica en proyectos de vivienda públicos; demandas retando
detenciones ilegales que generan daños y perjuicios monetarios; y la demanda de el mes pasado por parte de LatinoJustice PRLDEF y otros para poner un fin a los arrestos de los residentes en sus propios edificios de apartamentos privados apodado "hallway stop and frisk."
Si usted se pregunta ¿qué tipo de comportamiento justifica que la policía detenga y registre a un residente negro o latino de Nueva York? La documentada razón numero una es incomprensible- "el movimiento furtivo." Por este comportamiento ambiguo cientos de miles de residentes de zonas urbanas son detenidos y acosadas a diario por la policía.
Encima de todo esta actividad esta una marejada de resistencia. Protestas de desobediencia civil han llamado la atención de líderes como Cornell West, Reverendo Al Sharpton, George Gresham y Ben Jealous. Ahora se ha formado un contingente latino que está informando a la comunidad de las consecuencias de esta política, así como el sindicalista Héctor Figueroa, Secretario-Tesorero de SEIU, la concejal Melissa Mark Viverito de East Harlem, y este servidor.
El 17 de junio a la 1 pm en Harlem estaremos en una Marcha silenciosa para el Día del Padre para combatir este programa que afecta a nuestras comunidades. Los invitamos a caminar con nosotros y para enviarle un mensaje a la policía de Nueva York. Estén atentos para el contragolpe.
*** Juan Cartagena es el Presidente y Consejero General de LatinoJustice PRLDEF. Él es un abogado de derechos civiles y constitucionales que tiene experiencia litigando casos en nombre de las comunidades latinas y afroamericanas sobre los derechos de voto, la discriminación de empleo, los derechos lingüísticos, el acceso a la educación pública para los niños pobres y de minorías lingüísticas, y la vivienda.]]>Latino Stop & Frisktag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15228932012-05-18T07:50:57-04:002012-07-18T05:12:06-04:00Juan Cartagenahttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/juan-cartagena/
Now decades after the havoc created by Nixon's ill-fated but still perpetual War on Drugs our urban police are modeled under a Cheneyesque paradigm of prevention. It's called Zero Tolerance Policing (ZTP) and like the War on Drugs it operates under a racial construct. ZTP is never activated in the business class brothels of Manhattan because most of the Johns are white, nor is it deployed on Wall Street where cocaine trafficking is legendary. Similarly, the so-called War on Drugs is never a real war in America's malls even as the profile of a typical drug user in America is a white male.
Nor is ZTP played out in a black-white binary in urban America. No señores, Latinos are also disproportionately targeted by an overzealous, quota-driven police force in many of our cities.
New York City is the classic example; indeed, it is the ground zero of over-policing. In 2002 at the start of the Bloomberg administration about 97,000 persons were subject to the Stop & Frisk effort. That's now increased seven times with over 685,000 persons ensnared in 2011.
Latinos have definitely felt the impact. The first serious study of Stop & Frisk was by then Attorney General Elliot Spitzer whose groundbreaking 1999 report, analyzing over 175,000 incidents, confirmed what our Latino residents experienced day in and day out: even when you control for crime, Latinos were more likely than whites to be stopped. Even worse, stops of Blacks and Latinos were less likely to result in arrests than concomitant stops of Whites. None of these unsettling conclusions have eroded even with today's data.
In 2012, with Stop & Frisk continuing unabated, it seems like the more we complain the more Commissioner Ray Kelly and his occupying forces conduct Stop & Frisk. And Latinos are disproportionately found within its web. The most recent Stop & Frisk report by the NYCLU concludes that not only are Blacks and Latinos disproportionately subject to these practices but 90% of young Black and Latino men stopped were innocent.
The stakes are higher now as the positions have hardened for and against Stop & Frisk. Commissioner Kelly still walks on water in NYC - murders are down, so why stop Stop & Frisk? Outgoing Mayor Bloomberg - who admitted to inhaling marijuana and liking it - still presides over the marijuana arrest capital of the world in a State - get this - that decriminalized marijuana possession decades ago. That's over 50,000 low-level pot busts in 2011, second-highest in NYC history.
On the other side Black, Latino and progressive White elected officials have increased the volume of their critiques. Many Black and Latino electeds have their own personal narrative here, having been picked up unnecessarily by the NYPD sometime in their own past. Trying to channel those real lived experiences into police reform in Albany is so far ringing on deaf (White) ears, however.
Fortunately, it appears that the NYPD practices are finally going to be a mayoral election issue in 2013. More data is being released under public information access laws. Current and former officers of the NYPD are revealing the pressure they underwent to concoct the pretexts for "lawful" stops and frisks. Lawsuits are continuously filed: suits to stop the practice outright; suits to force the disclosure of data; suits to stop the subset of unwarranted trespass arrests in public housing projects; wrongful arrest suits that generate money damages; and last month's suit to stop trespass arrests of residents in their own private apartment buildings dubbed "hallway stop and frisk" (where LatinoJusice PRLDEF is part of the team of lawyers challenging the practice).
Ever wonder what behavior would justify the Stop & Frisk of a Black or Latino resident of NYC? The number one reason? The incomprehensible "furtive movement." For that behavior hundreds of thousands of inner city residents are harassed daily.
On top of all this activity is a groundswell of resistance. Civil disobedience protests garner the involvement of folk like Cornell West at the behest of leaders like the Rev. Al Sharpton, George Gresham and Ben Jealous. Now the makings of a serious Latino contingent is making headway as well including Hector Figueroa, Secretary-Treasurer of SEIU, Councilwoman Melissa Mark Viverito from East Harlem, and the undersigned.
A Father's Day Silent March is in the works on June 17 at 1 p.m. in Harlem. Stay tuned for the backlash.]]>