Senate Profiles in Prolonging Racial Profiling Debate

March 3^rd, 2010 – Last Thursday the UCF student senate met to finally discuss topics that ventured outside the well-worn territory of spending money and into the realm of actually representing students on non-fiscal issues they’re concerned about. Although ignored by both the student paper of record and the noted campus tabloid, we feel it is our duty to relay to the student body this until now uncovered story. Members of the Progressive Caucus of the College Democrats introduced Resolution 43-23, authored by Senator Brittany Lane and caucus Representative Ali Kurnaz. The resolution debated that evening called for a referendum to be held during the presidential election. This referendum was to poll student opinion on legislation accused of promoting racial profiling in regards to immigration policy, based on two bills currently passing their way through the Florida legislature, Senate Bill 136 and House Bill 237.

These bills were modeled on last year’s highly controversial Arizona legislation, SB 1070. Passed by the Arizona Republican legislature and signed by Governor Jan Brewer, the law requires law enforcement officials to verify that all individuals who are legally stopped or arrested are U.S. citizens. Those without valid ID can be detained and ultimately deported. Also the bill contains a provision making it easier for people to sue any division of the state government if they feel that they are not doing enough to enforce immigration law. The problem with the legislation is that there are concerns, particularly among the Hispanic community, that the legislation would lead to an increase in racial profiling. Even though racial profiling is specifically banned in both the Arizona and Florida laws, a clause in the legislation requires law enforcement officers to verify immigration status of anyone they suspect to be in the country illegally, a condition that some commentators feel could easily lead to profiling based on race and/or socio-economic class. In addition, law enforcement faces potential fines for enforcement “…less than the full extent permitted by federal [immigration] law”. If found in non-compliance a division of the state can face a fine of no less than $500 to no more than $5,000, per day they were deemed by a court as not fully enforcing immigration law. As such, it has been argued that there is sufficient pressure to cause law enforcement to make racially motivated decisions on who to inspect.

However, the merit of the Florida copycat legislation was not the issue. In light of the controversy the progressive caucus was looking to elicit the opinion of the student body by having the following question on the ballot:

“Do you support or not support the State passing legislation that mandates local law enforcement agencies to detain individuals through techniques that have raised concerns of racial profiling in similar legislation, in order to verify immigration status?”

The debate over the resolution began at 20:30 and lasted for a little over forty minutes. Several members of the senate expressed concern over what they viewed as the biased nature of the question. This argument was advanced by Pro-Tempore Miller and Deputy Pro-Tempore Hardman, along with several other senators who argued against advancing the resolution in its present form. Pro-Tempore Miller also raised concern that this legislation was not appropriate as he felt it did not adequately affect the student population. The debate intensified when Senator Evans made a motion to amend the question removing any mention of concern over racial profiling.

This provoked a response from members of the progressive caucus and the Governmental Affairs Committee members, who worked together to author the legislation. These participants, including Chair Hellinger and Senator Lane, argued that the entire purpose of the referendum itself was to raise the concern over racial profiling, not the enforcement of immigration policy. They felt that removing any mention of racial profiling would completely miss the point of the legislation. The motion narrowly passed through senate despite the protest of the presenters. At this point the introducers of the bill noted that it no longer served any useful purpose as the language had so radically changed. After Senator Lane consulted with members of the progressive caucus, a motion was made to remand the resolution back to the Governmental Affairs Committee for rewording.

Despite concerns by some of the presenters over the possibility of passing the resolution in time for the presidential election, it appears that it would be possible for the resolution calling for the referendum to be passed through two readings on the next senate meeting on March 17^th. That is, if the senate finds the new language more palatable. Why is it that it’s so important to have the resolution passed before the presidential elections? The concern is that it costs several hundred dollars to run any election due to the cost of having to pay election commissioners. Since there would already be election commissioners being paid for the presidential election, there would be no need to pay for an additional election. Also, the greatest turnout is historically during the presidential elections, thus providing the largest possible sample size of UCF students.

According to Senator Lane of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Chair Hellinger is planning on convening an emergency meeting of the committee on Wednesday, March 16^th, the day before the next senate meeting. In the meantime, Mr. Kurnaz and the progressive caucus of the UCF College Democrats are organizing a petition campaign to show student support of the referendum at the re-introduction of the resolution to call for the referendum on racial profiling. You can view & sign the petition, and see the updated form of the question currently under consideration, at http://bit.ly/i8cpqs.

Although other campus news agencies consider this story of little import, the Vanguard Voice considers this to be an important issue. Our writers and editors feel that student representation is one of the most pertinent issues at the University. We will continue to keep you informed on this story as it develops.