Immigration and Racial Profiling
We can view the current debates as providing a great opportunity to pass comprehensive federal reform
based not on “race,” nationality, ethnicity, religion, or other social identity categories, but rather, on
humane principles of fairness, compassion, and equity.
based not on “race,” nationality, ethnicity, religion, or other social identity categories, but rather, on
humane principles of fairness, compassion, and equity.
By Dr. Warren J. Blumenfeld - Editorial
May 16, 2010 - Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939 and Belgium, on May 10, 1940. Within
weeks, Nazis forced Jews, including many of my relatives, into restricted areas, and commanded them to
affix yellow Stars of David to their upper garments. Yellow to the Nazis symbolized “racial” impurity, and
Jews they considered to have derived from inferior “racial” stock. What the Nazis perpetrated onto Jews
throughout Europe was a form of what has come to be labeled as “racial profiling.” The Nazis killed my
Polish relatives in a mass grave in Krosno, and eventually shipped most of my Belgium family to
Auschwitz concentration camp where they murdered them.
We need to keep in mind that the notion of “race” is socially constructed. The concept of “race” arose
concurrently with the advent of European exploration as a justification and rationale for conquest and
domination of the globe beginning around the 15th century of the Common Era. “Race,” therefore, is an
historical, “scientific,” and biological myth. It is an idea. Geneticists tell us that there is often more
variability within a given so-called “race” than between “races,” and that there are no essential genetic
markers linked specifically to “race.”
Though “race” is a social construction, its implications are far reaching and impact individuals and groups
in profound ways.
The human rights organization, Amnesty International, states that “Racial profiling occurs when race is
used by law enforcement or private security officials, to any degree, as a basis for criminal suspicion in
non-suspect specific investigations.” Racial profiling constitutes a form of discrimination, based on race,
ethnicity, religion, nationality, and other identities, which, Amnesty International declares “undermines
the basic human rights and freedoms to which every person is entitled.”
While social realities between Nazi Germany to contemporary U.S.-America are not identical, some clear
parallels exist. This was brought to light last month as I was watching a CNN report of a demonstration
by opponents of a new Arizona bill signed into law by Governor Janice Brewer. One of the demonstrators,
a Jewish man, wore an armband with a Star of David.
The Arizona law mandates that police officers stop and question people about their immigration status if
they even suspect that they may be in this country illegally, and criminalizes undocumented workers who
do not possess an “alien registration document.” Other provisions allow citizens to file suits against
government agencies that do not enforce the law, and criminalizes employers who knowingly transport
or hire undocumented workers.
Last month speaking at a naturalization ceremony in the White House Rose Garden for 24 members of
the Armed Forces, President Obama called on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform while
making it clear that the Arizona law is “misguided” and that “the recent efforts in Arizona, [have]
threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust
between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe."
According to Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the civil rights organization, National Council of La
Raza, "By signing it, this bill, Governor Brewer has thrown the door wide open for racial profiling."
The Arizona action follows a series of discriminatory race- and nationality-based immigration laws passed
throughout our nation’s history. For example, back in 1790, the newly constituted United States
Congress passed the Naturalization Act, which excluded all nonwhites from citizenship, including Asians,
enslaved Africans, and Native Americans, the later whom they defined in oxymoronic terms as “domestic
foreigners,” even though they had inhabited this land for an estimated 35,000 years. The Congress did
not grant Native Americans rights of citizenship until 1924 with the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act,
though Asians continued to be denied naturalized citizenship status.
Congress passed the first law specifically to restrict or exclude immigrants on the basis of “race” and
nationality in 1882. In their attempts to eliminate entry of Chinese (and other Asian) workers who often
competed for jobs with U.S. citizens, especially in the western United States, Congress passed the
Chinese Exclusion Act to restrict their entry into the U.S. for a 10 year period, while denying citizenship to
Chinese people already on these shores. The Act also made it illegal for Chinese people to marry white
or black U.S.-Americans. The Immigration Act of 1917 further prohibited immigration from Asian countries,
in the terms of the law, the “barred zone,” including parts of China, India, Siam, Burma, Asiatic Russian,
the Polynesian Islands, and parts of Afghanistan.
Fearing a continued influx of immigrants, legislators in the U.S. Congress in 1924 enacted an anti-
immigration law (Origins Quota Act, or National Origins Act) setting restrictive quotas of immigrants from
Eastern and Southern Europe (groups viewed as representing Europe’s lower “races”), including Jews
(the later referred to as members of the so-called “Hebrew race”). The law, however, permitted large
allocations of immigrants from Great Britain and Germany. In addition, the law included a clause
prohibiting entry of “aliens ineligible to citizenship,” which was veiled language referring to Japanese and
other Asians dating back to the Naturalization Act of 1790 restricting citizenship to only “white” people
and affirmed by a 1922 United States Supreme Court ruling (Takao Ozawa v United States) in which
Takao Ozawa, a Japanese immigrant, was denied the right to become a naturalized citizen because he
“clearly” was “not Caucasian.”
Returning to today, if we learn anything from our immigration legislative history, we can view the current
debates as providing a great opportunity to pass comprehensive federal reform based not on “race,”
nationality, ethnicity, religion, or other social identity categories, but rather, on humane principles of
fairness, compassion, and equity. We have a wonderful chance now to avoid the mistakes of the past.
weeks, Nazis forced Jews, including many of my relatives, into restricted areas, and commanded them to
affix yellow Stars of David to their upper garments. Yellow to the Nazis symbolized “racial” impurity, and
Jews they considered to have derived from inferior “racial” stock. What the Nazis perpetrated onto Jews
throughout Europe was a form of what has come to be labeled as “racial profiling.” The Nazis killed my
Polish relatives in a mass grave in Krosno, and eventually shipped most of my Belgium family to
Auschwitz concentration camp where they murdered them.
We need to keep in mind that the notion of “race” is socially constructed. The concept of “race” arose
concurrently with the advent of European exploration as a justification and rationale for conquest and
domination of the globe beginning around the 15th century of the Common Era. “Race,” therefore, is an
historical, “scientific,” and biological myth. It is an idea. Geneticists tell us that there is often more
variability within a given so-called “race” than between “races,” and that there are no essential genetic
markers linked specifically to “race.”
Though “race” is a social construction, its implications are far reaching and impact individuals and groups
in profound ways.
The human rights organization, Amnesty International, states that “Racial profiling occurs when race is
used by law enforcement or private security officials, to any degree, as a basis for criminal suspicion in
non-suspect specific investigations.” Racial profiling constitutes a form of discrimination, based on race,
ethnicity, religion, nationality, and other identities, which, Amnesty International declares “undermines
the basic human rights and freedoms to which every person is entitled.”
While social realities between Nazi Germany to contemporary U.S.-America are not identical, some clear
parallels exist. This was brought to light last month as I was watching a CNN report of a demonstration
by opponents of a new Arizona bill signed into law by Governor Janice Brewer. One of the demonstrators,
a Jewish man, wore an armband with a Star of David.
The Arizona law mandates that police officers stop and question people about their immigration status if
they even suspect that they may be in this country illegally, and criminalizes undocumented workers who
do not possess an “alien registration document.” Other provisions allow citizens to file suits against
government agencies that do not enforce the law, and criminalizes employers who knowingly transport
or hire undocumented workers.
Last month speaking at a naturalization ceremony in the White House Rose Garden for 24 members of
the Armed Forces, President Obama called on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform while
making it clear that the Arizona law is “misguided” and that “the recent efforts in Arizona, [have]
threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust
between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe."
According to Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the civil rights organization, National Council of La
Raza, "By signing it, this bill, Governor Brewer has thrown the door wide open for racial profiling."
The Arizona action follows a series of discriminatory race- and nationality-based immigration laws passed
throughout our nation’s history. For example, back in 1790, the newly constituted United States
Congress passed the Naturalization Act, which excluded all nonwhites from citizenship, including Asians,
enslaved Africans, and Native Americans, the later whom they defined in oxymoronic terms as “domestic
foreigners,” even though they had inhabited this land for an estimated 35,000 years. The Congress did
not grant Native Americans rights of citizenship until 1924 with the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act,
though Asians continued to be denied naturalized citizenship status.
Congress passed the first law specifically to restrict or exclude immigrants on the basis of “race” and
nationality in 1882. In their attempts to eliminate entry of Chinese (and other Asian) workers who often
competed for jobs with U.S. citizens, especially in the western United States, Congress passed the
Chinese Exclusion Act to restrict their entry into the U.S. for a 10 year period, while denying citizenship to
Chinese people already on these shores. The Act also made it illegal for Chinese people to marry white
or black U.S.-Americans. The Immigration Act of 1917 further prohibited immigration from Asian countries,
in the terms of the law, the “barred zone,” including parts of China, India, Siam, Burma, Asiatic Russian,
the Polynesian Islands, and parts of Afghanistan.
Fearing a continued influx of immigrants, legislators in the U.S. Congress in 1924 enacted an anti-
immigration law (Origins Quota Act, or National Origins Act) setting restrictive quotas of immigrants from
Eastern and Southern Europe (groups viewed as representing Europe’s lower “races”), including Jews
(the later referred to as members of the so-called “Hebrew race”). The law, however, permitted large
allocations of immigrants from Great Britain and Germany. In addition, the law included a clause
prohibiting entry of “aliens ineligible to citizenship,” which was veiled language referring to Japanese and
other Asians dating back to the Naturalization Act of 1790 restricting citizenship to only “white” people
and affirmed by a 1922 United States Supreme Court ruling (Takao Ozawa v United States) in which
Takao Ozawa, a Japanese immigrant, was denied the right to become a naturalized citizen because he
“clearly” was “not Caucasian.”
Returning to today, if we learn anything from our immigration legislative history, we can view the current
debates as providing a great opportunity to pass comprehensive federal reform based not on “race,”
nationality, ethnicity, religion, or other social identity categories, but rather, on humane principles of
fairness, compassion, and equity. We have a wonderful chance now to avoid the mistakes of the past.
PARALLELISM "While social
realities between Nazi Germany to
contemporary U.S.-America are not
identical, some clear parallels exist,"
points out Professior Blumenfeld.
The image shows a demonstrator
outisde the Arizona State Capitol
holding a sign that reads "End the
Rise of the Fourth Reich," to protest
SB 1070.
Photo by Eduardo Barraza/Barriozona
realities between Nazi Germany to
contemporary U.S.-America are not
identical, some clear parallels exist,"
points out Professior Blumenfeld.
The image shows a demonstrator
outisde the Arizona State Capitol
holding a sign that reads "End the
Rise of the Fourth Reich," to protest
SB 1070.
Photo by Eduardo Barraza/Barriozona
Dr. Warren J. Blumenfeld, Associate Professor of Multicultural and International Curriculum
Studies at Iowa State University. He is co-editor of Readings for Diversity and Social Justice and
Investigating Christian Privilege and Religious Oppression in the United States.
E-mail: wblumen@iastate.edu
Studies at Iowa State University. He is co-editor of Readings for Diversity and Social Justice and
Investigating Christian Privilege and Religious Oppression in the United States.
E-mail: wblumen@iastate.edu
| ADVERTISEMENT |
Published by the Hispanic Institute of Social Issues in Phoenix, Arizona
|
| HISTORY IS ABOUT TO CHANGE Grassroots Journalism |