- 'An End to the Southern Strategy, But No Post-Racial America' says David Love
- "A Question of Place": An essay on the power of community
- Just Equally Speaking….
- Eagles owe Philadelphia the 8 million it needs to keep libraries open
- who would like to see Verizon offer cable TV in Phila?
- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
Blood on our hands: An immigrant's murder and Pennsylvania's hate
Submitted by HelenGym on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 9:47am.
On July 12th, Luis Ramirez, a 25-year-old undocumented Mexican immigrant, was beaten to death by a group of teenagers in Shenandoah, PA.
A few of the details that finally ran in Friday’s paper:
According to a police affidavit, the defendants and three 17-year-olds encountered Ramirez, 25, and a teenage girl in a park the night of July 12.
The youths goaded Ramirez and the girl, saying, "You should get out of this neighborhood" and "Get your Mexican boyfriend out of here," documents said. After Ramirez and the girl began walking away, someone yelled an ethnic slur at him, court documents said. He responded, "What's your problem?"
A fight ensued, during which police said Walsh punched Ramirez in the face. The victim fell and hit his head on the street, leaving him unconscious, after which Piekarsky kicked him in the head, police said.
All three suspects used ethnic slurs during the fight, which ended with Ramirez in convulsions and foaming at the mouth, authorities said. The attackers fled the scene; Ramirez underwent surgery but died July 14 of head injuries.
It’s important to note that this story didn’t hit the Inky until more than two weeks after the incident. In fact, only after Amy Goodman reported on Democracy Now two days ago that police had still failed to charge Luis Ramirez’s killers – despite having an eyewitness to the murder – did police bother to press charges a day later and the story began taking off (one more reason for independent media).
Goodman’s interview with the eyewitness, Arielle Garcia, was chilling not just in Garcia's telling of the night of the murder, but in expressing the general tenor of what it means to be a Mexican immigrant in certain parts of Pennsylvania these days.
AMY GOODMAN: So they were shouting racial epithets. They were—what is the atmosphere in Shenandoah? What is the attitude to Mexican immigrants?
ARIELLE GARCIA: I think it’s—most of the time, it’s OK. But there are times when there are racial slurs. I mean, with my husband, I’ve been with him four years, and like, I’m telling you, there are many times that I’ve heard people scream racial slurs to him. You know, like I was pregnant with my son, and they told me, “What’s that in your belly? Another person I’m going to have to pay for? Another Mexican on welfare?” Like stuff like that. It’s disgusting.
In a report last fall, the Southern Poverty Law Center, documented a significant link between anti-immigrant rhetoric and an increase in hate crimes, particularly against Latinos. Pennsylvania is obviously no slouch when it comes to that kind of rhetoric - we've received national attention for it. From Philly’s Joey Vento to Hazelton’s Lou Barletta to AG Democratic nominee Tom Morganelli to Superior Court Judge Correale Stevens (cited for attending Rep. Daryl Metcalfe’s hysteria-filled “Invasion PA” report last fall) to our own Convention Center Board (yes I am including them too). Even Sen. Arlen Specter has been on an anti-immigrant tear lately. It’s a hateful atmosphere replicated on CNN to talk radio that has obviously seeped down to our children.
Quite frankly, too few politicians and entities in this state are doing what’s necessary to slap down that kind of rhetoric, preferring to ignore and dismiss it. Luis Ramirez's murder must be a wake-up call.
Two years ago, I wrote an op-ed for the Inky when I was called a “rice n$#@” after some crazy driver verbally attacked me over a parking spot.
At the time, I wrote:
Turn on any cable channel or read any newspaper and you can see the likes of CNN's Lou Dobbs or politicians such as Rep. Thomas G. Tancredo (R., Colo.) nearly beside themselves with fury over immigrants. They exploit the word illegal to strip people of all manner of human and civil rights, even those recognized by our Constitution (Tancredo's effort to revoke birthright citizenship, for example).
But in the end, the talk isn't just about ascertaining someone's legal status. It's become as irrational as Dobbs' anger over what flags are waved at ethnic parades or whether someone speaks enough English.
This city has seen its fair share of similar rhetoric, whether in the high-profile debate over a South Philadelphia business owner's "speak English" sign or the story of a woman who miscarried twins following a deportation attempt in which she was denied requested food and medical attention.
Online, the anti-immigrant discussions of these stories have little to do with the people or issues involved. Rather, the "go back home" and "it's the law" sentiments are merely vehicles to scapegoat immigrants for everything from crime to disrespect for the American flag to pressing "1" for English while waiting for customer service.
Such comments seem ludicrous in print, but recently a colleague e-mailed that his organization, which works with a number of immigrants, has received hate mail and even threats.
Now, as the House and Senate crisscross the country for public hearings on the "value" of immigrants, I brace myself for the vitriol that is once again going to spew out over the media. Already I've heard radio ads for Senate candidates Bob Casey and Rick Santorum as they bash each other for not being "tougher" on immigration.I'd like to think I can turn off the TV, close the magazine, and shut down my computer. But I have no illusions that my fellow Philadelphians can or want to do the same - and sooner or later, we could all be feeling the hate in the streets.
We all need to mourn not only for Luis Ramirez and his family, but for what Pennsylvania has come to symbolize on the immigration front.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Yeah, I just read about
Yeah, I just read about this, and it's pretty horrifying. I wasn't aware about the delay in the Inky's coverage (or Democracy Now!'s role in spurring the coverage) - thanks Helen.
Pennsylvania's economically distressed towns have seen a fair amount of Latino/a immigration in recent years, and I've heard quite a number of long-time, primarily white residents - of all social classes - voice what to me are obviously racist views linking the immigration to the economic decline of the downtowns and factory areas. It's a variation on what happened to many larger rust-belt cities 40-50 years ago, when large numbers of African Americans migrated from the south to the industrial cities, just as manufacturing industry was leaving those cities. African American poverty became seen as a cause of urban decline in the public mind, when in fact it was more an effect of urban decline.
I think something similar is going on now. I hate to stir the hornet's nest of Obama's "Bittergate," but I think there's clearly a relationship between economic decline and the kind of scapegoating that fuels anti-immigrant and anti-Latino sentiment.
Lou Barletta named PA Mayor of the Year
Case in point: The Pennsylvania State Mayors Association has named Barletta its, yes, it's true, PA Mayor of the Year, based on his campaign against immigrants in Hazelton.
http://www.politickerpa.com/danh/952/barletta-named-pa-s-mayor-year
Selective outrage
Helen complains about the Inky taking two weeks before reporting a story about a Mexican immigrant's murder. It's been over two years since the Harvey family down in Richmond, VA had their throats slit along with those of their daughters' (9 and 4 years old) on New Year's Day 2006. Did you read anything about it in the Inky? I had to learn about it through a blog on the Internet. When it first happened there was a flurry of media interest until they discovered that the two suspects arrested were black. Where was all the outrage about racism then, folks? There seems to be a real double standard not only in Philly, but on this very site.
Helen, what is your parents group doing about the racism by black bigots within the Philadelphia School District? Do you think you're the only one that has been called racist names in this city? The only difference seems to be that you get to write an
op-ed piece while we're suppose to grin and bear it. There is a racist atmosphere on website and lopsided pieces like yours contributed to it.
realschoolreform, you wrote
realschoolreform, you wrote of the Harvey family murder: "When it first happened there was a flurry of media interest until they discovered that the two suspects arrested were black. "
My memory of the case (admittedly vague) is that the issue of race wasn't prominent in the Harvey case, because the perpetrators also killed an African-American couple (the parents of one of the perps' girlfriends I think). I also don't remember the coverage stopping when the press learned the identity of the perps. If I recall correctly, at that point the coverage surged again, as it usually does when suspects of an infamous crime get caught.
True, plus the simple
True, plus the simple journalist jurisdictional fact that a murder within PA falls under the Dinqy's purview more than murder in VA.
That said, "Blood on our Hands" rhetorically only works when preaching to the choir, and no website is ever perfectly in tune so realschoolreform's response isn't at all surprising. In fact, a bot could be programmed for that level of participation.
Yes, the murderers killed
Yes, the murderers killed the parents of one of their girlfriends and her as well. So that means they weren't racists? They didn't know the Harveys at all. There is a double standard in that the press is quick to holler racism whenever the accused is white, but dismiss it merely as a crime when the accused is not.
As for the coverage, most of what I learned about the case from the internet. The coverage was minimal in Philly.
Why do you think the case
Why do you think the case should have been covered in Philadelphia?
Poking around, it turns out
Poking around, it turns out the spree-killers who committed the Harvey, and other, murders were apprehended in Philadelphia. So, you know, the whole Helter Skelter African American Conspiracy to kill Whitey is based here, if only the liberal media would quit being complicit in this genocide. Please.
That said, correct me if I'm wrong, but two weeks to reach a murder charge when the death resulted from what the defense is calling a "street fight" isn't out of the ordinary. Maybe those with actual training in criminal law can speak up, but I'm guessing when a death results from blows dealt with hands and feet, investigators have to work harder than usual to prove exactly what the assailants' intent was, and also work beyond a witness intimate with the victim to make solid allegations that the attack was racially motivated (otherwise, we should just make realschoolreform a prosecutor).
Looks like the regional coverage of this was more on tempo, despite Democracy Now's claims. The Dinqy doesn't have the resources or interest in covering anything PA beyond Harrisburg and the immediate Delco vicinity unless the AP points it to them.
The frustrating issue is that the local police
have not yet classified this as a hate crime and seem resistant to doing so as well.
Oh come on
"criminal homicide, aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person, simple assault, and ethnic intimidation"
Those are the charges. What, is "ethnic intimidation" too Podunk for you and your mistrust of local yokel law enforcement agencies compel this to be made literally into a federal case? The charges acknowledge a murderous act founded on bigotry. Seriously, what else do you want?
The point of this post
is not that someone was murdered. That happens regularly unfortunately. The point of the post is that a Mexican man was murdered in a state which has become a posterchild for anti-immigrant sentiment in a nation fomenting anti-immigrant rhetoric, in a city with serious racial tensions and where it took a media effort by Democracy Now before cops even charged the kids involved. Sean outlines the legal reasons federal level charges matter below.
And for the record
calling a murder ethnic intimidation and leaving it at that is more than a little too "podunk" for me. It's a hate crime.
Under Pennsylvania law a
Under Pennsylvania law a hate crime is called "ethnic intimidation." Thus, they have been charged with a "hate crime."
Under federal law, there is nothing called a "hate crime." Rather, the feds can prosecute based on the exisiting civil rights law--where there a federally protected activity is involved--speach, voting, etc. This is my understanding, it could be incorrect.
Even at the FBI's website, related to hate crimes, they serve as "a backstop for state and local authorities, which handle the vast majority of hate crime cases."
I believe there is a federal statute that increases penalties where offenses are proven to be hate crimes--but it is not independently prosecuted.
Federal prosecutors will make their own determination of whether there is grounds to charge under the Federal Civil Rights Act.
one more question
Gaetano, is the "ethnic intimidation" legislation purely in place for the civil damage option it grants the victim or next of kin, or is it a sort of prosecution option similar to California's "special circumstances" which allows for sentences beyond what would normally be considered reasonable. In CA, as I remember it's used to make certain murder elligible as capital offenses. Under PA law, I don't know how murder could be "enhanced" at the penalty phase if a conviction is coupled with ethnic intimidation. I do see how it could be used to enhance simple assault or vandalism /destruction of property charges.
Civil damages are available
Civil damages are available for "ethnic intimidation."
Ethnic intimidation is also a crime that can be prosecuted. It is not a crime on its own, however. It must be matched with an underlying offense. The two elements are a proper underlying offense AND proof that the motivation was a crime of hate related to the Statute's protected groupings.
If these elements are met, the perpetrator is subject to more severe sanctions.
Examples of the underlying criminal offenses are harrassment, assault, trespass, crimes against property, arson, etc.
Right
So aside from the civil claims options opened up, "ethnic intimidation" enhances an underlying offense.
Corrected and humbled
Thanks Gaetano for clarifying the distinctions around the federal and state statutes and thanks "cheesesteak.the" for extensively pointing out my error in not specifically saying that the local police seem to resist going to the level of federal hate crime, not that they didn't classify it as a hate crime (my original intent). Initial reports on the story said that police a few days out refused to call it a hate crime despite the eyewitness accounts.
I was pointing out that only after Amy Goodman's story ran, did police charge the youth with ethnic intimidation (and yes, as I said, I was unclear about the different language on hate crimes at the state and federal levels)
ADL also has a good description of how federal hate crime statutes are used. In talking with Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, it's necessary for the local police to report the murder as a hate crime for the federal stats. As Sean points out, it's an important record. Furthermore, it's leverage so that in case there is a problem with the case that might be related to bias issues, it improves the grounds for feds to charge under the Civil Rights Act.
There is no reason to be
There is no reason to be humbled. The gist of your post still rings true--that we should all be outraged at this seemingly race-based killing.
I am and thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Agreed
I agree.
The main point of the post that I take away is a stark reminder that all the xenophobic, racist BS that is happening in our State, emanating from Barletta and Joey Vento on down, besides being repulsive, has a direct connection to violent acts.
Thank you for letting us know about the story.
Please, people can read.
"calling a murder ethnic intimidation and leaving it at that is more than a little too "podunk" for me. It's a hate crime."
That's why there's a litany of charges besides ethnic intimidation. Clearly it was not "left at that."
Looking at Sean's explanation of the "ethnic intimidation" charge, it looks to me like it was precisely added to the litany of murder and assault charges so that the victim's next of kin can receive civil damages, whether the defendants are convicted of murder or a lesser charge (which happens in so-called "street fight" cases regardless of a community's racial politics). So, again, what else is there to be done? Are hate crime statutes that much easier to prosecute at the federal level? Since PA isn't the only state, or level of government with convoluted legislation, my guess is no.
And it looks like Gaetamo just beat me to that point. But again, what do you want here? Aside from the state of PA bowing down in shame because of our bloodstained hands. It seems you're outrage is more a result of the media not tracking the investigation very closely, whereas the local media closer to the scene of the crime seems pretty clear that law enforcement was investigating both the murder and racial prejudice as a cause for that murder. In short, other than pointing out an ugly effect of the state's racial politics, to me it looks like you're tilting at windmills.
It means something to acknowledge the prevasiveness of hate
If you called generations of lynching "fatal mob attacks" - regardless of any change in civil damages or criminal charges - many would feel it was deliberately mistating the systematic nature of the attacks. Just that attacks are motivated by hate get acknowledged officially as such is viewed as meaningful by groups that are historically persecuted.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Again, Sean, unless I'm
Again, Sean, unless I'm reading an entirely different news outlet, the "hate" nature of this crime is included in the charges. "Special circumstances" are attached to this crime to enhance the possible penalty for a higher degree of wickedness. As Gaetamo pointed out there is no such thing as being charged with "hatred" (that would be a bit cartoonish, guess what Nazi's and latter day war criminals aren't charged with "evil" either). Rather than simply informing us that this crime occurred, Helen's soapbox implies (via Democracy Now and personal conjecture) that the media is inadequately covering the racial motives of the assailants and seems to imply that the law enforcement community and prosecutors are somehow covering up this crime's racist motives. Neither is the case. The Philadelphia media is certainly behind the ball, but the local TV news seems to have followed the course of the investigation since Ruiz's injuries resulted in death and investigators began creating a racially motivated murder case.
That all this is a result of PA being a "national symbol" of anti-Mexican sentiment implicitly encouraged or capitalized upon by PA municipalities is the more debatable part of Helen's argument, but I find that debate hard to have when the trajectory she took into that overall claim seems so factually skewed. Personally, I think Helen's over-estimating the singularly "PA" role in nationwide anti-Mexican sentiment. If anything, I think PA gets more attention because the communities are more conflicted than say communities in Colorado who forget where the name of their state comes from in the first place.
Descriptions of the incident indicate bias was a motivator
As such even if you feel that the "underlying crime" is sufficient in terms of punishment why are you insistent on denying the victims of a crime the chance to get it down on the official record that hate played a part in why they were targeted? Isn't there a general public interest in having an accurate record of how many violent incidents in the state are motivated by hate and bias?
Stats from public interest groups on bias-motivated crimes don't carry the same weight in influencing future policy that official police stats do. So yes whether something is officially designated as a "hate crime" has meaning and real social and political significance whether it changes the perp's sentence one iota or not.
It strikes me that because you take issue for whatever reason with Helen's tone that you are saying you are OK with erasing from the public record a factor that appears to me to be a deciding factor in this incident - afactor that many of us would argue is important to understanding where we are as a society. Its like you are saying that calling something a "hate crime" makes it "too political" but the argument goes both ways - denying that "hate crimes" exist is also an emphatically political decision. In fact every law on the books was decided by an political process - its why we call our elected officials "law makers". The entire criminal code is "political" in a sense.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Where are you coming from, Sean?
First of all, I am all for the "ethnic intimidation" charge being used here. It is, and show me where I disagree with that charge being applied. That will require you to read, and not relexively defend your friend (sometimes friends can be wrong). My problem is this: Helen has been implying since this story 'broke' that there is some insensitivity on the investigators' part toward that person, apparently derived from Democracy Now's coverage of the event. That is simply not the case if you read the coverage. It seems she wants to pre-emptively declare this a miscarriage of justice when the powers that be in Shenandoah are behaving exactly as we progressives who also respect due process would expect them to. So again, what else should the powers that be do besides prosecute the murder with the ethnic intimidation enhancement?
Pardon my error
Since you are talking about an incident where the charges can be upgraded and changed over time, perhaps it would be smarter to ground your explanation of "the coverage" with concrete dates and stories. When she posted originally on this topic, she believed that the "ethnic intimidation" had not been included in the charges - I think she was correct actually. Its not enough to cite "the coverage" and assume we all know exactly which coverage you are talking about or that the charges were frozen forever in time. When Helen posted the charges did not include a recognition of the bias-factor I believe (but could be mistaken) and now you say it is. Maybe I missed a specific reference to specific coverage where that changed since your posts emphasized taking umbrage at her tone.
If your disagreement with Helen's post was merely factual - that "ethnic intimidation" upgrades are included - the simplest path to pointing it out is clearly cite it has changed, not refer to an amorphous "coverage". It also might be worthwhile to ask if the charges changed and when the changed as compared to when she first posted before charging at her at misrepresenting the Shenandoah officials. It could save a lot of confusion.
I honestly read you as putting across a very familiar argument I have read dozens of conservatives make against "hate crimes" being included in the law at all. I must have misunderstood.
Some people are categorically opposed to the idea "hate crimes" at all because they rightly fear that recording violence and acts of intimidation of groups will "prove" discrimination is real and present in our society. Its one of those classic Foucauldian knowledge / power nexus's.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
The crime is considered more serious, civil actions possible
http://www.stopbias.org/hate_crime.htm
It should be noted that hate crimes against the disability, sexual preference, gender and gender identity used to be covered by state law but the courts recently turned those over based on an interpretation of how the bill was passed.
http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2008/07/25/6
Advocates for hate crime law also tend to feel its important for crimes to be recorded as such officially so that crime statistics for bias motivated crimes are recorded and tabulated accurately, regardless of any impact on the severity of the punishment. They want the facts of bias to be accurately reflected in official statistics.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
As an FYI regarding the
As an FYI regarding the Ethnic Intimidation Law, a portion of it was recently found unconstitutional--specifically regarding sexual orientation, ancestory and mental or physical disability.
Race, color, religion and national origin, I believe, remain intact.
This was due to procedural reasons related to the passage of the bill--not its substance.
Really?
I seem to recall a number of midnight bills with strange attachments all over the place that don't somehow get challenged. I think the legislature was all too happy to find every way possible to strike the amendament. I don't exactly see the anti-gay crowd working the good government angle too often either.
A court can't rule on a bill
A court can't rule on a bill that hasn't been challenged. Someone has to bring a lawsuit.
You are absolutely right
Unrelated bills get mish-moshed together all the time in Harrisburg. The strict constitutionalist interpretation was because of critics of protection of gays and lesbians pressing it as a point. See Gaetano above.
Everybody's favorite local loudmouth "Christian" who many feel needs to come to terms with his own identity Michael Marcavage was one of the lead plaintiffs.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/25930749.html
One other debateable side issue is that Marcavage got the idea to go after hate crimes legislation because our DA Lynn Abraham decided to go after him for it which was probably the wrong call in the first place, as I understand it. Marcavage's views are hateful and ignorant but he does have the same First Amendment rights to express them peacefully as the rest of us do. By taking a shortcut on the Constitution, some might suggest Abraham inadvertently set the stage for stripping away meaningful legal protections for a huge swath of PA citizens.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Corrected again
You're right that I was conflating the perpetrators of the lawsuit with the court's legal opinion to rule in their favor because of procedural violations. And I was wrong to imply that the legislature as a broad entity (as Rep. Cohen points out below) was definitively homophobic - I'm looking forward to seeing the legislature move on reviving the protections. However, as Sean says above, I was trying to express that it wasn't entirely accurate to say that it was solely a procedural issue either (otherwise many more laws ought to have been thrown out long ago) without taking into consideration the targeted efforts of the bill's critics.
Helen, Thanks for the post.
Helen,
Thanks for the post.
In terms of the link between rhetoric and violence- it is pretty scary is that in a Democratic friendly year, Paul Kanjorski might be beaten by Lou Barletta...
On unconstitutionality and the Ethnic Intimidation Law
The Jewish Social Policy Action Network (JSPAN, a group Alex UA, Adam Bonin, and I are involved with) is sending a letter to Senator Williams and to Representative Shapiro, asking that a clean, single-purpose bill be drafted as soon as possible, given that the court's ruling was not based on the substance of the law but rather the technical deficiency that the bill containing the Law as an amendment was altered from its original purpose.
I'll post the letter's text once public.
This Makes Good Sense
The Republican leadership of the Senate told then-Democratic Senator Allan Kukovich (currently Governor Rendell's Regional Representative for Western Pennsylvania) in 2001 or 2002 that they would back his bill extending hate crimes to crimes against gays only if he would stick it on as an amendment to the bill he used; he followed their suggestion and now we have his effort being nullified.
But the legislature has become more empathetic towards gays over the past six years, and it should be easier to get this enacted than it was in 2002. The parade of horribles predicted by the opponents of this legislation simply did not happen, and we should be able to get these protections re-enacted this year or next year.
MALDEF vigil for Luis Ramirez
Contrary to some reference to this being my personal soapbox and outrage, MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund) is one of a host of groups sponsoring this vigil tomorrow to draw attention to the case, and encourage federal level oversight.
Disgusting
Absolutely digusting.