North America & Oceania

Supreme Court Split on Arizona’s Controversial Immigration Law

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States — The Supreme Court issued a split decision Monday on the controversial Arizona law aimed at deterring illegal immigration.

Reporters gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday. (Photo Courtesy of Reuters)

The court differed on three key provisions of the law.  In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy said those other portions of the Arizona law could not be enforced due to the federal government’s broad powers in setting immigration policy.

“The national government has significant power to regulate immigration,” Justice Kennedy wrote.  “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process (of the federal government figuring out how to best carry out its immigration power) continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”

Specifically, the three provisions required immigrants to always carry immigration papers, banned illegal immigrants from trying to get work in public places, and allowed police to arrest immigrants without warrants, so long as the officers believed the immigrants were committing crimes that would deport them.  The votes on these provisions were either 5-3 or 6-2 in favor of declaring them unconstitutional, with the more conservative justices dissenting.

The justices unanimously upheld, however, the so-called “show me your papers” provision at the core of the law.  It requires local law enforcement authorities to determine the immigration status of anyone who’s stopped or arrested, so long as there is “reasonable suspicion” the person is illegally in the United States.

“There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced,” Kennedy wrote, emphasizing that state officials must obey all federal laws in checking a person’s immigration status or face additional constitutional challenges.

Opponents fear this portion of the law would lead to racial profiling.

“I know they will not be using that kind of tactic on people with the last name Roberts, Romney, or Brewer, but if your name is something like Gutierrez or Chung or Obama, watch out,” Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois told CNN.  He is a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.  “The express goal of the authors of Arizona’s [immigration law] is to make life miserable for immigrants so that they will leave, and a key tool in that effort was upheld by the court.”

Arizona’s immigration law, passed in 2010, was the first of half a dozen states to adopt laws aimed at removing illegal immigrants.  Reuters reports that three percent of the country’s illegal immigrants, or about 360,000, live in Arizona.  Nevertheless, most of the state’s two million Hispanics are legal residents.

According to CNN, neither the Arizona Department of Public Safety nor the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police was clear on whether authorities would begin checking drivers’ immigration status while enforcing other laws.  Questions were referred to the state’s attorney general’s office.

Despite the split ruling, both parties declared the Court’s ruling a win.  President Obama was “pleased” the justices struck down the three key provisions of the law, while Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, called the decision “a victory for the rule of law.”  She also assured that police engaged in racial profiling would be punished.

Among those upset with the Court’s decision was Justice Antonin Scalia, who read an angry dissent from the bench.  He said he would have upheld the entire Arizona law.

“[T]o say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind,” Scalia said in reference to Obama’s recent executive order stopping deportation for certain young people in the United States illegally.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she had worked on it as Obama’s solicitor general.

For further information, please see:

The Supreme Court — Opinion, Arizona v. United States — 25 June 2012

The Associated Press — Court Hampers Romney’s Plea to Hispanics — 25 June 2012

CNN — Supreme Court Mostly Rejects Arizona Immigration Law; Gov says ‘Heart’ Remains — 25 June 2012

The New York Times — Blocking Parts of Arizona Law, Justices Allow its Centerpiece — 25 June 2012

Reuters — Supreme Court Has Split Verdict on Arizona Immigration Law — 25 June 2012

Puerto Rico Police Accused of Human Rights Violations, Police Brutality

By Stuart Smith
Impunity Watch, North America

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – The American Civil Liberties Union, in a June 2012 report, lambasted the Puerto Rico Police Department, the second-largest municipal police force in the United States, asserting that “the police force is plagued by a culture of violence and corruption.”

Puerto Rico Policia
Puerto Rican police clash with civilians. (Photo Courtesy of the Associated Press)

“These abuses do not represent isolated incidents or aberrant behavior by a few rogue officers. Such police brutality is pervasive and systematic, island-wide and ongoing,” the report stated. According to CNN and Fox News, the ACLU report alleged routine use of excessive force, failure by the PRPD to crack down on sexual assaults and violations of civil and human rights, particularly against low-income people, Puerto Ricans of African descent and Dominican immigrants.

Additionally, the Huffington Post reported that, from 2004 to 2010, nearly 27,400 complaints against police officers alleging misconduct were filed by civilian, causing the department to recommend the expulsion of 884 officers. And according to department statistics, 1,768 of those complaints alleged excessive or unjustified use of force.

Ruth Jimenez was among those who filed a complaint against the PRPD. When her son Jorge Polaco Jimenez was shot eight times by police officers, in October 2007, while unarmed, Ruth Jimenez filed a complaint with the PRPD, reported the Washington Post. Police maintain they acted in self-defense.

Yet, despite filing numerous complaints, she only recently obtained a received a copy of her son’s autopsy. “I have had zero answers. Zero,” she said in a phone interview. “I want the truth.”

In response to ACLU’s report, Fox News reported that Hector Pesquara, PRPD’s superintendent, in a radio interview, said that the report is not an accurate reflection of reality, proclaiming it to be incorrect and irresponsible.

However, reports of violence and corruption within the ranks of the PRPD are not new. The ACLU’s report comes nine months after a DOJ report describing similar abuses on the island and stating that “the path toward lasting reform will require nothing less than federal judicial intervention.”

Similarly, the ACLU report called on the PRPD to implement a series of reforms, including: developing and implementing policies on the use of force, creating comprehensive procedures for investigating allegations of police abuse and other civilian complaints, and taking measures to address the problems with policing of domestic and sexual violence.

The ACLU’s report, affirming the recommendation of the DOJ, also recommended that the Department of Justice, to ensure the full implementation of these reforms, take control of the PRPD.

Jennifer Turner, the ACLU human rights researcher who authored the report, explained, “there’s clearly no will by the police force there to change its ways,” reported Fox News. “There’s also no leadership in Puerto Rico that’s interested in effective and real reform. That’s why it’s so necessary for the Justice Department to act.”

For further information, please see:

Washington Post – ACLU accuses Puerto Rico police of excessive force and other abuses, urges US to take control – 19 June 2012

CNN – ACLU report blasts Puerto Rico Police Department – 19 June 2012

Fox News Latino – Puerto Rico Police Brutality Against Residents Remains Persistent, ACLU Says – 19 June 2012

Huffington Post – Puerto Rico Police Department Faces Human Rights Crisis Of ‘Epic Proportions’, According To ACLU – 19 June 2012

ACLU – Island of Impunity: Puerto Rico’s Outlaw Police Force Executive Summary – June 2012

Department of Justice – Investigation of the Puerto Rico Police Department Executive Summary – 5 September 2011

Human Rights Group Reports 423 Political Arrests in Cuba Last Month

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

HAVANA, Cuba — A Cuban human rights organization reported Thursday that the Cuban government arrested more than 400 people for political reasons during the month of May.

Cuban police released opposition leader Jorge Luis García Pérez after U.S. leaders denounced his arrest and beating. (Image Courtesy of The Miami Herald)

The opposition Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation said there were at least 423 arbitrary arrests last month, part of what it calls a “disturbing” trend.

“The Cuban government has among the highest number of prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants in the world,” said activist-leader Elizardo Sanchez in the commission’s monthly report, according to Fox News Latino.

The report came less than a day after police released Cuban opposition leader Jorge Luis García Pérez amid U.S. demands for his release.

Many dissidents believe Cuban authorities arrested García Pérez because of his testimony to a U.S. Senate subcommittee about recent harassment of oppositionists in Cuba.  Police arrested García Pérez within 48 hours of his testimony, which happened via teleconference from the U.S. Interests Section in Havana.

Reports quickly surfaced that García Pérez was beaten by Cuban authorities.  According to the Wall Street Journal, “An activist who was with (García Pérez) at the jail said that police pumped pepper spray into his mouth until he lost consciousness.  He was later taken away to a detention center, and his wife was not allowed to see him for more than three days.”

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was among those denouncing the beating of García Pérez and accusing Cuba of retaliation.

“I want to be crystal clear that I strongly condemn any efforts to intimidate Mr. Perez or any other Cuban citizen into silence,” Kerry was quoted as saying in the Charlotte Observer.  “I echo the calls of my Senate colleagues, demanding an end to repression in Cuba and urging international observers to conduct and investigation into his detention.”

The Miami Herald reports criticism has grown in recent days because President Raúl Castro has increased efforts to block opposition plans to honor political prisoners on Father’s Day this Sunday.  The government has reportedly blocked cell phones of several dissidents so they cannot communicate with supporters or journalists.

“These actions highlight once again the repressive nature of the Cuban government,” said U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, “particularly with regard to citizens who peacefully express opposite points of view.”

For the opposition Commission on Human Rights, however, they continue to speak out.  The group also said Thursday that the government released data on Cuba’s prison population for the first time in 50 years.  The official number of inmates stands at 57,337, but the commission estimates the total may reach 70,000.

Sanchez and his organization are calling on Cuba to open its jails to inspection by international organizations, including the Red Cross.

For further information, please see:

Fox News Latino — Commission Reports 423 Political Arrests in Cuba Last May — 14 June 2012

The Miami Herald — Speaking Truth to Cuba’s Despots — 14 June 2012

The Miami Herald — Cuban Opposition Leader Jorge Luis García Pérez Released by Police — 13 June 2012

The Wall Street Journal — Cuban Payback — 13 June 2012

The Charlotte Observer — Dissidents, US Denounce Cuba on Man’s Beating — 12 June 2012

Scouts Challenge Boy Scouts’ Ban on Gays

By Stuart Smith
Impunity Watch, North America

WASHINGTON, United States — Although Scouts for Equality isn’t the first group to challenge the Boy Scouts of America 102-year long policy banning gay Scouts and troop leaders, it is the first group composed entirely of Eagle Scouts to do so.

Zach Wahls delivers petitions to the Boy Scouts of America national annual meeting in Orlando, Florida on May 30, 2012. (Image Courtesy of MSNBC)

“Scouts for Equality will lead a respectful, honest dialogue with current and former Scouts and Scout leaders about ending this outdated policy,” says Scouts for Equality. Zach Wahls is the group’s co-founder and an Eagle Scout from Iowa with lesbian mothers. “When I was earning my  Citizenship in the Community merit badge, I learned the importance of standing up for what you believe to be right,” he wrote on the group’s website.

And, recently reported the L.A. Times, he did just that. Wahls helped spearhead a petition aimed at ending the BSA’s ban. The resolution, presented last week at the group’s national annual meeting, proposed to allow each Scouting’s charted group to determine whether or not they will accept gay Scouts and leaders.

The organization, according to Time, in a statement released June 7, 2012, reiterated its support for the ban: “While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.”

“While we’ll carefully consider the resolution, there are no plans to change this policy,” said Boy Scouts of America spokesman Devon Smith, remarking that similar resolutions and petitions challenging the ban occurred as early as 2000, when the Supreme Court upheld the discriminatory policy, reported MSNBC. The Scouts also maintain a long-standing tradition of excluding atheists and agnostics from their membership rolls, according to the Associated Press.

“Up to the day they end this policy, they’ll be saying they have no plans to do so,” said Wahls in an interview with the AP, but, he said, the ban is having a negative impact on membership and public support. If the resolution fails to pass, Wahls plans to file a lawsuit.

The petition originated when Jennifer Tyrrell was fired in April from her volunteer position as a Cub Scout leader because she is a lesbian, reported the L.A. Times.  The only discussion of Tyrrell’s sexual orientation happened when some of the children of her Tiger Scout troop asked why her partner was a woman, she answered that her son had two moms.

“This isn’t about my sexuality; this isn’t about anybody’s sexuality,” Tyrrell told CNN. “It’s about teaching children to be better adults, and we aren’t doing that by teaching them to hate or discriminate.”

For further information, please see:

MSNBC – Boy Scouts review controversial anti-gay policy – 12 June 2012

L.A. Times – Boy Scouts’ ban gays is fought from the inside – 8 June 2012

CNN – Boy Scouts to study ban on gay leaders — 7 June 2012

Time – Will the Boy Scouts Reverse Its Anti-Gay Policy? – 7 June 2012

Scouts for Equality Website – Our Message

Muslims Sue to End NYPD Surveillance

By Stuart Smith
Impunity Watch, North America

WASHINGTON, United States — On June 6, 2012, New Jersey Muslims filed suit in federal court to force the New York Police Department to end its surveillance activities targeting American Muslims.

New York University students at a town hall in February to discuss the NYPD's surveillance of Muslim communities.
New York University students at a town hall in February to discuss the NYPD's surveillance of Muslim communities. (Photo Courtesy of CNN)

According to Muslim Advocates, the national legal advocacy group dedicated to defending the civil liberties of American Muslims who filed the suit, Hassan, et al. v. City of New York is the first lawsuit to challenge the NYPD’s surveillance activities because they focused on people’s religious affiliation. “The NYPD program is founded upon a false and constitutionally impermissible premise: that Muslim religious identity is a legitimate criterion for selection of law-enforcement surveillance targets,” states the complaint.

Farhana Khera, president and executive director of Muslim Advocates, in article delivered to CNN, wrote, “Muslims in America are viewed as suspect and legitimate targets for surveillance by the New York Police Department because of their faith. This is not the America I know, and it is time for the courts to weigh in and ban discriminatory policing by the NYPD. Let me be clear: Anyone who engages in criminal acts should be stopped and brought to justice. But the NYPD can do that without targeting an entire community for blanket surveillance.”

The NYPD, according to the Associated Press and the lawsuit, conducted surveillance of numerous Muslim communities both inside New York and communities, such as those in New Jersey, which are beyond its jurisdiction. Surveillance activities in these communities included: infiltrating university student groups, video-taping mosque goers, eavesdropping in Muslim cafes, and photographing an elementary school for Muslim girls.

The result of this surveillance, wrote Khera, is that “living freely as a Muslim in America today has become increasingly difficult.” Worshipers worry that their conversations are being recorded, store owners worry that customers may be undercover officers, and students are cautious about participating in Muslim student group activities.

Syed Farhaj Hassan, a specialist in the U.S. Army Reserves and one of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, stopped attending a New Jersey Mosque after he learned it was listed in an NYPD file, despite not being linked to terrorism, reported the AP. Hassan worries that if his name appeared in police intelligence dossier it could jeopardize his military security clearance or future job prospects. “Guilt by association is a career stopper,” he said. “What happens when that name comes up when you’re looking for a job?”

Yet, despite public outrage, government officials approve of the NYPD’s surveillance practices, the AP reported. A three-month investigation led by the New Jersey Attorney General concluded that the NYPD did not violate New Jersey law. And President Obama’s counterterrorism advisor has said the NYPD does not appear to be breaking any laws.

However, because “their only ‘crime’ is that they are Muslim in America,” wrote Khera,” American Muslims are now raising their voices and knocking on the courthouse door, determined that our system of justice will protect the rights of all Americans.”

For further information, please see:

CNN – Muslims in America, it’s time to demand justice – 6 June 2012

Associated Press – NJ Muslims file federal suit to stop NYPD spying – 6 June 2012

Muslim Advocates – Victims of Invasive Spying by NYPD Take Courageous Stand, File Lawsuit to End Program – 6 June 2012

Associated Press – NJ Official: NYPD Muslim Surveillance Legal – 24 May 2012