SB1070 and Special Order 40

The recent state bill from Arizona, SB 1070, is yet another reminder that in order to preserve democracy, one must behave in a vigilant, proactive, and progressive manner. Too often do the whims of the moment ignore the precedent of the past. The current flap over immigration reminded me of an unpublished piece I wrote back in 2007, which seems all too pertinent today.

Never Again

The day I graduated high school, my Aunt Annie gave me a piece of advice about learning from one’s mistakes. She said, “Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame on me.” The point being that an initial trespass is nearly not as bad as a second trespass done by that same individual. The current attack on Special Order 40 aims to do exactly that to the citizens of Los Angeles at the hands of the LAPD.

In 2000, the Los Angeles City Council voted 10-2 to allow a federal judge to oversee of reforming the LAPD after multiple excessive force complaints. In exchange, the Justice Department agreed to drop its civil rights suit against the department. The deal, initially opposed by then-mayor Richard Riorden and then-Chief of Police Bernard Parks, paved the way for a mending period following a tumultuous decade of police-citizen relations during the 1990s. Eventually, the former mayor and former chief of police accepted the arrangement, however humbling, and Justice Department began its five-year oversight term. A new lawsuit, recently filed by private citizens of Los Angeles, endorsed by Federal Immigration Reform Enforcement Coalition and, purportedly, by many rank and file police officers, aims to undermine nearly a decade of rebuilt trust between the LAPD and the citizens of Los Angeles by dancing around Special Order 40 with a myopic interpretation and application of legalese.

The main proponent of the attack on Special Order 40 comes from a group called the Federal Immigration Reform Enforcement Coalition (FIRE Coalition). The FIRE Coalition are supporters of the controversial MinuteMen, a vigilante-style organization which admits to hunting down illegal immigrants crossing the border in states like Arizona and Texas. In 2005 the FIRE Coalition started a website called WeHireAliens.com which seeks to “out” businesses who hire undocumented workers. In the San Fernando Valley most-notably, a recent city census places the foreign-born population as high as 40 percent with non-English speaking households as high as 80 percent. Given the immigrant heavy population of California, it is abundantly clear that the goals, values, and agendas of the FIRE Coalition are not in-sync with the majority of the Southern Californians. California has long-established a rich history of progressive political thinking, which in addition to a robust economy, has also earned California a much-deserved nod as being, along with New York state, a vocal leader in state’s rights.

Current mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Chief of Police William Bratton continue to support Special Order 40, first codified 28 years ago into the LAPD manual, as a progressive and beneficial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward immigration status with respect to citywide policing. In 1979, Los Angeles was the first large city to enact such a city code, which was seen as an organic extension of the Equal Protection laws of the US Constitution. Prior to 1979, Los Angeles police officers were required to ask the immigration status of detainees, even if they were not formally charged with a crime. Ironically, it was embattled then-Chief of Police Daryl Gates who approved Special Order 40. Since then, Special Order 40 was the subject of focus in the Rafael Perez scandal, during 2001 whose fellow CRASH anti-gang officers reportedly engaged in frequent violations of the Special Order to serve their own personal and illegal agendas.

Like many other national issues currently in the political crosshairs, including privacy rights, the death penalty, gay marriage, assisted suicide and medical marijuana, the possible revocation of Special Order 40 is tantamount to denying progressive states like California the right to enact more practical and functional interpretations of the Constitution for the benefit of its entire citizenry. The population of California owes its economic strength and cultural diversity to such protections. California is perhaps the best and most vocal demonstration of the power of state’s rights.

Given the past isolated incidences of Gestapo-like tactics by the Los Angeles Police Department, which led to federal take-over in 2000, the LAPD would be wise to shrug off the politicking of groups, like the FIRE Coalition, and look further down the political road at the effect that lack of Equal Protection will have between the LAPD and its citizenry. Such previous violations have left the reputation of the department mired in controversy. The pending lawsuit makes use of an obscure 35-year old clause in the state Health and Safety code that requires local police to notify the federal government if illegal immigrants are arrested for drug possession or trafficking. The implications of this interpretation would effectively turn every LAPD officer into a double-agent, who also reports to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It does not take a domestic policy expert to realize that this would be a gross misappropriation of valuable civic resources.

That the lawsuit does not attempt to bring attention to the detention of violent offenders, who might be illegal immigrants, demonstrates that the suit is a superficial attempt to exploit a supposed loophole in state law, rather than to “safe-guard our jobs, communities, [and] way-of-life” as the FIRE Coalition’s website claims. The Los Angeles Police Department cannot afford to further jeopardize its on-the-mend relationship with local civilians in order to carry out the agenda of a questionable political organization.

Although a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the economics of immigration has yet to be initiated here in the United States, other such analyses in immigrant heavy countries like England, has demonstrated that immigrants provide an elixir to local economies by infusing them with tax revenue on dollars spent and a robust job market for positions that middle class citizens would be wary to fill. The robust economies of states like California and New York stand as proof positive to this notion. To shun the influx of immigrants into sanctuaries like California would be to cut us off from the very wellspring of our diverse economic success.

Rather than further erosion of state’s rights at the behest of national politics, the city of Los Angeles must reject the argument of opponents of Special Order 40, and embrace practical policing policies. Failure to do so would gradually place the LAPD in a position where they would effectively make the same mistake twice. Aunt Annie would not approve.