Andrea GM-Writing Sample

Andrea Gonzalez
Fall 2013
Stop and Harass: The Unwarranted Apprehension of Minorities in America
It is a warm and sunny day in May. A young man no older than twenty-four can be seen
around the corner in his fresh new suit and shiny new shoes. His bright smile is so illuminating
that it infects people with joy and a bit of hope. Suddenly, he is cornered against a brick wall in
the middle of his neighborhood. His eyes scream with fright as a police officer attacks, but the
young man remains silent. Panic begins to spread.OK what does <that sentence mean Kids who
were playing jump rope run away in fear of the sudden police outburst while parents hurry to
protect their children as they watch the officer from a distance. The young man’s frail mother
sees her only son getting a pat down for no apparent reason, violently pressed against the wall as
he is being interrogated for acting suspicious. What was so suspicious about him? His mother
bought him that pressed suit for being the first one in the family to attend college. He is a model
citizen to those who have taken the time to acknowledge his accomplishments and personality. If
he is not worthy of being left alone by the police, then who is safe in the neighborhood? Juan
was on his way to his college graduation at Arizona State, receiving his Masters degree in
Electrical Engineering, graduating first in his class, and securing a job before even walking the
stage. All the police officer saw was a threat walking down the street, ready to commit and
promote violence, or worse, walking the street undocumented.
Imagine walking down the street or driving a few miles across town only to be reported
for suspicious activity. While this may sound like the fifties and sixties in the United States, this
is actually modern-day America. The Civil Rights movement was successful in addressing some
of the inequalities that African-Americans faced, but to this day the struggle continues as

minorities still seek equality in the eyes of the law and from those that enact the law. In the
repeal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in June of 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States
(SCOTUS) stated that the racial issues that oppressed minorities no longer existed; however, this
has proved untrue in practice. “Stop and frisk” can be briefly explained as a police procedure that
has become a discriminatory practice against minorities . Although claiming to stop street
violence in New York, “stop and frisk” is unfairly targeting innocent Americans because they are
of Latino or African American descent. Similarly, Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 is an extension of
“stop and frisk” because a person can be stopped when “reasonable suspicion exists that the
person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States”. Through policy and narrative
analysis, this paper explores the unconstitutional conservative regulations that claim to protect
the “American way” from questionable activity and people.
Evaluation of “Stop and frisk”: Do Costs Outweigh the Benefits?
Many do not see the harm of New York’s “stop and frisk” policy, as they believe it is
essential in decreasing violence on the streets; what most do not realize is that “stop and frisk”
has a direct negative impact on minority communities. Conservative news outlets that are usually
supportive of “stop and frisk” have reported certain truths of the issue. For example, Fox News,
a news source with far-right conservative political opinions, has a tendency to construe the truth
about situations that are not in their favor. The ruling for “stop and frisk” caused an outrage at
Fox News as they claimed that Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S.D.J. was demonizing the New
York Police Department when ruling “stop and frisk” unconstitutional. The Young Turks, a
progressive news site, reported on Laura Ingram’s (a reporter for Fox News, thoughts about
Justice Scheindlin’s ruling. Ingram believed that Justice Scheindlin exaggerated the damage of
“stop and frisk”. Ingram’s outburst continued by stating that the “frisk” was more of a gentle tap

and the “stop” could not qualify as unlawful detainment because they were only stopped for a
few seconds. In attempts to further demonize the Justice, Ingram claimed that the people in those
neighborhoods approved of “stop and frisk” because they wanted to be able to live in safer
neighborhoods. Ingram ended her tirade by claiming that the Justice did not understand the need
for “stop and frisk” because she lived in a neighborhood with an extremely low crime rate.
Because the Justice does not fear a lack of safety in her neighborhood, Ingram makes the case
that the Justice does not have the capacity to understand the necessity of the “stop and frisk”
policy in relation to the people that it directly affects.
Ironically, Ingram and her fellow news reporters on Fox News also do not understand the
reality of “stop and frisk”. Ingram claims that the people living in these poor neighborhoods are
working hard to move out and want to remain safe by having the police patrolling their streets;
however, she and her colleagues are attempting to speak for these people without any testimony
or proof that a support from the neighborhood exists. Democracy Now, unlike Fox News, filmed
a documentary about the true opinions of stop and frisk from the people that actually live in
those poor neighborhoods (Young Turks, 2013). The people presented in that documentary were
terrified of police activity. A mother came to describe how she would have to monitor her son in
and out of the building to make sure that he would not get stopped by the police. Other residents
further claimed that “stop and frisk” was unnerving because it could happen at any time for any
reason, and embarrassing because one did not know how to react to being stopped without a
reason.
Fear from these neighborhoods and proof of unwarranted arrests led to Floyd et al Vs
City of New York, 2013. Floyd (2013) case determined that procedures taken by the NYPD were
in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiff class. The Fourteenth

Amendment states that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Cornell). Evidence from Floyd(2013) deemed that
the NYPD was “engaging in an unwritten policy of racial profiling” because they did not provide
enough specific proof that someone was committing a crime. Justice Scheindlin, the presiding
judge, was able to recognize that the benefits of police involvement did not outweigh the
oppression of the people in poor neighborhoods, which were usually filled with African-
American or Latino families. While the policy had good intentions, according to the judge,
reality resulted in an average of over eighty-five percent of innocent Americans being arrested in
a span of ten years (NYCLU). However, the judge noted that she did not want to stop “stop and
frisk” because she understood that “proactive policing” was necessary to better protect the
neighborhoods, as she does not want to “return to an earlier era of less effective police
practices”. As part of her remedy order for Floyd (2013), Justice Scheindlin has assigned a
monitor that will “detect non-compliance or barriers”, which will ultimately help with the reform
of the policy (Floyd, et al v City of New York, et al). Since she is not stopping the policy, she is
demanding its reform in the shape of better monitoring of stops, specific reasons for those stops,
and vast involvement of the minority community.
Evaluation of SB 1070: Drawing the Line between Immigrant and American Citizen
Although the state of New York understands that reform needs to take place, states like
Arizona are adamant on promoting negative attitudes towards minorities. Arizona’s Senate Bill
1070, for example, is a damaging attempt for immigration reform in the State of Arizona. Senate
Bill 1070 is meant to decrease illegal immigration in the state of Arizona by checking individuals

for documentation of citizenship or legal residency when reasonable suspicion is present. As the
“Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”, this bill insinuates and creates a
belief that immigrants are dangerous to communities, both economically and physically. When
an individual violates certain sections of the bill, fines are designated to go to “Gang and
Immigration Enforcement”, as if those groups were interchangeable. The bill has a heavy and
irrational bias that undocumented people are a threat to the community because they promote
violence while taking away economic benefits from state residents. Under this bill, “A
reasonable attempt shall be made…to determine the immigration status of the person” (State of
Arizona Senate), yet it would be difficult to determine immigration status without the
presumption of race.
One of the issues with Senate Bill 1070 is the flexibility of the context. Although trying
to justify its propositions by stating that enforcement of undocumented immigrants can only take
place if “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the
United States” (State of Arizona Senate), key terms in the legislation make it easy for law
enforcement to construe the legality of their actions. For example, what can truly be considered
as “reasonable suspicion” in the case of tracking down people without documentation? Walking
down the street, a White man in the distance can be seen and automatically be assumed to be
American or at least a citizen, however, this is not guaranteed. What are the reasonable
suspicions to stop that man and verify that he is in the country legally? As the United States has
become a melting pot of diversity with various rich cultures, it is difficult to identify those
families that have been here for generations and those that have been here for a few months. It is
impossible to have a policy like Senate Bill 1070 and not require law enforcement to racially
profile Americans because one cannot look undocumented. This clearly shows the probability of

illegal search and seizures because illegal immigration is not always evident in a daily routine.
Although adults are the main focus of this bill, they are not the only ones to feel pressure
from society to be as unsuspicious as possible in fear of persecution. This bill claims that
“procurement of transportation or use of property or real property by a person or an entity that
knows or has reason to know that person or persons transported or to be transported are not
United States citizens, permanent residents aliens or persons otherwise lawfully in this state or
have attempted to enter, entered or remained in the Unites States [are in] violation of law.” Due
to the flexibility of the context, children of recent immigrants born in the United States are
stripped from their birth-right citizenship in accordance with the constitution. When able to stay
in the country, a child should not be held responsible for being undocumented. As Jamullan
stated, the lack of protection from the constitution in Arizona would cause extensive fear to the
point where they would not be able to function in society. These people would have to be
cautious because they need to be able to fit into a society that refuses to accept them, even if they
are a part of it for many years.
Additionally, the Senate Bill 1070 encourages others to report undocumented immigrants
or get fined if one knows of an immigrant and not report it. It creates a tension between those
that are protected and those that are not. Tension from segregation will begin to emerge between
those that could be undocumented and those that are “obviously” not with further endorsement of
this bill. Similar to racial segregation in the 19th
and 20th
century, society could create an
opposing group (known as the immigrants) that can be seen as a threat because they bring
negative results for simply being associated with them.
This Senate Bill is unconstitutional like “stop and frisk” because it is in violation of the
fourteenth amendment, therefore violating many of the rights that are granted by the constitution.

The constitution guarantees protection under the law to the people within its country, not just for
the people who were born within the borders of the United States. “Stop and frisk” and Senate
Bill 1070 take away from the diversity that makes up most of the United States by instilling fear
into minority groups. Both take away the security that most people once praised and cherished.
Overall, both of these policies take away a sense of unity, diminishing the idea of true social
equality that was once dreamed possible after the Civil Rights Era.
Ignorance in Modern Society: Results of Imposing SB 1070 and “Stop and Frisk”
The lives of people have changed due to the oppression of Senate Bill 1070 and “Stop
and Frisk”. Innocent youth live in fear because they know that they can be shoved against the
brick wall of their apartment complex for being Latino or African American or asked for
documentation on their way to school, regardless of economic or social security. Against
SCOTUS majority opinion, Senate Bill 1070 and “stop and frisk” policies have made it clear that
racial tension exists today. Conservatives like Bill O’Reilly and Fox News refuse to see the
bigger picture in the regulations.
Although Arizona and New York’s policies have good intentions, they are not good
policies as the benefits do not outweigh the cost of oppression for communities that are minority-
focused. As Carbado, Harris, and Crenshaw mention, Justice Scheindlin did not change the
standard for the “stop and frisk” policy. Although police procedures in “stop and frisk” were
deemed unconstitutional, it was not completely dismissed by Justice Scheindlin. She stated that
she wanted to reform “stop and frisk” because she believed that it was essentially a fantastic way
of channeling on suspicious activity. Even though Justice’s idea for reform is a great place to
start, she did nothing to ensure proper justification during a search and seizure in high-crime
neighborhoods, nor did it help individuals that were persecuted by this policy to feel secure from

future attacks.
Furthermore, Arizona is still pushing for some type of immigration reform, believing that
most Latinos that live within the state have something to hide. Jan Brewer of Arizona has stated
that although the Federal government has deemed that immigration is their issue, she will not
stop pushing until extreme measures of reform occur. This type of propaganda negatively affects
Mexican-Americans by creating societal tension and hate towards their heritage and their
physical appearance (Murphy Elfani, 2013). Governor Brewer insists that it is necessary to keep
the state of Arizona safe, yet she has failed to provide physical and rational evidence that illegal
immigration is hurting her state or endangering the safety of her neighborhoods. Governor
Brewer’s political agenda introduced racial profiling, which has made Arizona inhospitable to
visitors and minorities (Murphy Elfani, 2013).
It is amazing that oppression based on appearance still exists after the Civil Rights Era in
the United States. As Nye mentions, many states in this country still harbor feelings of racism
one-hundred years later, most of those being in the South. Prevalent misconception that racism
was addressed with the end of the Civil War and the Civil Rights Era masks the actuality of
modern racism and uprising trend of discrimination that has developed the new Jim Crow.
Because of this misconception, hundreds of New Yorkers and Arizonians are facing the reality
that complete societal equality is not the case today. Although Governor Brewer, Justice
Scheindlin, and conservative news outlets do not directly witness the full harm of these bills and
policies, the fear of persecution has been instilled in Latino and African-Americans as they feel
unsafe for being themselves.
References
Carbado, D. W., Harris, C. I., & Crenshaw, K. W. (2013, August 14). Racial profiling lives on.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/15/opinion/racial-profiling-lives-

on.html?_r=0
Cornell. (n.d.). Retrieved from website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Floyd et al. v. City of New York et al.(2013, August 12). Retrieved from
http://ccrjustice.org/files/Floyd-Remedy-Opinion-8-12-13.pdf
Jamullan. (2012, May 11). 2012 and 1070. Retrieved from http://pages.vassar.edu/children-of-
immigration/?tag=sb-1070
Murphy Elfani, J. A. (2013). Selling SB 1070: Anti-immigrant Rhetoric Harms Arizona’s Image
and Self-Interest. Retrieved from
http://www.metapress.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/content/71670j5q66644102/fulltext.pdf
NYCLU. (n.d.). Stop and frisk data. Retrieved from http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-
frisk-data
Nye, J. (2013, September 21). Map that Shows how Racism is Concentrated in Areas of the
South that had Most Slavery. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-
2428103/Majority-Americas-racists-live-areas-slavery-common-says-new-study.html
State of Arizona Senate , F. N. L. (2010). Retrieved from website:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Uygur, C. (Performer) (2013). Racism is over in America! Just ask Bill O'Reilly & Bobby
Jindal [Web]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/Wq6wPAz5b1U?t=4m31s
Young Turks. (n.d.). Fox News: Black People NEED Stop and Frisk. The Young Turks.
Retrieved October 25, 2013, from http://youtu.be/riVjExRhSJQ

Andrea GM-Writing Sample

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Andrea GM-Writing Sample

Semelhante a Andrea GM-Writing Sample (7)

Andrea GM-Writing Sample