I Dissent — Perspectives

“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.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

Let me see if I‘ve got this straight.

If you live in Los Angeles, and you speak with a foreign accent or have brown skin or talk to your friends in Spanish or have a landscaping job, you can be picked up by ICE. That’s what the Supreme Court ruled Monday in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo. It was, predictably, a 6-3 decision, and since it was unsigned, it’s a little hard to know exactly what the majority was thinking. The three justices in the minority, however, left no doubt about their thoughts. “We should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish and appears to work a low-wage job,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”

Los Angeles is a Spanish name; it translates in English to the city of Angels. In fact, the six largest cities in California all have Spanish names: San Diego (Saint James), San Jose (Saint Joseph), San Francisco (Saint Francis), Fresno (ash tree), and Sacramento (sacrament). California is the most populous state in the nation, and its name is believed to derive from Calafia, the mythic queen in a 16th-century Spanish novel.

The Hispanic community has existed in California since 1683 and has long been the state’s largest ethnic group. In Los Angeles Latinos make up almost half the city’s population and are by far its largest group. This should not be surprising because California was part of Mexico until President James K. Polk invaded Mexico in 1846. Two years later he acquired California, as well as New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada – all Spanish names that will undoubtedly soon be changed. Gold was discovered at Sutter’s Mill in the Sierra Nevada foothills just as the war was ending, and the ensuing gold rush brought 300,000 prospectors from all over the world in search of hitting it big.

I recount this brief history, which will probably soon be stricken from the Smithsonian and future history books – but can still be found on Wikipedia – to illustrate the absurdity of declaring 47% of the population of Los Angeles (probably more if you count the well-tanned residents of Beverly Hills) fair game for federal arrest on their looks alone. Although racial profiling would seem to be barred by the Fourth Amendment, and is specifically prohibited by California law, the Supreme Court appears to have upended all that in in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo. Perhaps immigrant profiling is different from racial profiling.

While five justices were silent about their reasoning, Justice Kavanaugh offered a concurring opinion. (Concurring with what? you may ask, since there was no other opinion. I have no idea.) “To stop an individual for brief questioning about immigration status,” he wrote, “the Government must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the United States” – and while “apparent ethnicity alone” is not enough, it can be a “relevant factor.” He then cited as other corroborating factors the ones Justice Sotomayor listed in her dissent. As for his emphasis on “brief” stops, videos of encounters with ICE officers provide a chilling illustration of what that can mean. One commentator suggested that the reason no other justices signed on to Kavanaugh’s opinion was because they were too embarrassed to set their names to it.

Is this what has become of Dr. King’s dream?

I can think of many reasons to disagree with Charlie Kirk. I can think of no reason to kill him. This is a personal tragedy for his family and friends. It is also a tragedy for democracy.