Last week the state of Arizona recently passed an immigration law that will essentially permit racial profiling of Hispanics. This new law is wildly controversial and even the president has publicly challenged the state’s decision. This egregious piece of legislation hopes to clamp down on illegal immigration and help out local communities. Either way, this means whites, blacks, and Asians will be exempt from the law and only Hispanics will be subject to such profiling. Limiting illegal immigration should be a goal for every American, but is it appropriate for law enforcement to judge citizens by the color of their skin?
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Did we suddenly forget Dr. King’s words? The language of the law couldn’t be any clearer; pull over anyone who is suspected of being an illegal alien. But by what standards can someone be perceived as being an illegal immigrant? Georgetown professor, David Cole, wonders the same, “People don’t wear signs saying that they are illegal immigrants, nor do illegal immigrants engage in any particular behavior that distinguishes them from legal immigrants and citizens”. If you were in law enforcement, what would prompt your suspicion? A guy eating a burrito outside of a White Hen? The problem with this law is that it doesn’t specify where the suspicion comes from in the first place and it puts way too much discretion in the hands of law enforcement officers. It undeniably suggests that Hispanics will be judged not by the content of their character, not by their actions, but by the color of their skin. Would MLK be proud?
Oddly enough, laws like Affirmative Action, which claim to be the champion of equality, seem to inexorably reject MLK’s dream as well. While we can honestly debate the benefits that minorities might receive from Affirmative Action, it’s important to recognize that racial profiling and Affirmative Action are fundamentally alike. It’s explicit that racial profiling is wrong and counterproductive towards achieving MLK’s goal of equal justice. Though, it seems the Affirmative Action policy is no different than racial profiling as they both judge people by the color of their skin.
Does judging a student or job applicant based on the color of their skin sound like something MLK would be proud of? Well, after observing MLK’s words it appears a minority’s qualifications — the content of their character — should be prioritized ahead of the color of their skin. At the University of Michigan, being black automatically counts 20 points toward admission — significantly higher than any other achievement or qualification that judges an applicant by the content of their character. Is that a policy MLK would support?
While others claim this levels the playing field, the law inevitably creates a glaring double standard. If our goal as a society is to judge others by the content of their character there’s no reason why we should treat Affirmative Action any differently than racial profiling.
The fact of the matter is Dr. King’s dream was not to create an apologetic culture where we would make amends for our terrible oppression of the black race, but rather build a society around equal justice. Where race, ethnicity and creed are never used as a tool for judgment and people are not perceived as part of a group, but instead as a singular individual. While racial profiling and Affirmative Action laws seek to accomplish entirely different goals, one thing should be understood; neither of them turn Dr. King’s aspirations into reality.
