Despite the anti-discriminatory stipulations included as part of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, President Obama has repeatedly joined with foreign leaders and ethnic pressure groups to condemn the statute as an affront to human rights that enables and encourages racial profiling.
However, Obama’s criticisms of the Arizona legislature are in direct conflict with the actions of his own administration, which has enshrined preferential policies into new federal laws, civil rights activists point out. By contrast, the state lawmakers who have been on the receiving end of White House rebukes have placed on the ballot for voter approval this November an unheralded anti-quota initiative that explicitly outlaws race and gender preferences, the activists point out.
In a joint White House news conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon this past May, Obama characterized Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, SB 1070, as a “misdirected expression of frustration” that would subject law abiding individuals to unfair racially motivated scrutiny.
Other administration officials, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder, have also invoked the specter of racial profiling as a way to delegitimize and discredit state efforts to enforce federal immigration law.
Meanwhile, critics note, Team Obama is advancing race conscious policies on the sly.
Government agencies and private contractors must incorporate racial and gender preferences into their employment practices under Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank finance bill, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute, says. This key provision calls for the creation of at least 20 new Offices of Minority and Women inclusion.
The affected agencies include: The Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks, the Board of Governors of the Fed, the National Credit Union Administration, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Federal agents would be responsible for ensuring that an appropriate mix of women and minorities were operating not only in government but also within the workforces of contractors and subcontractors.
“Section 324’s provisions are broad and vague and are certain to increase inefficiency in federal agencies,” Furchtgott-Roth noted. “To comply, federal agencies are likely to find it easier to employ and contract with less-qualified women and minorities, merely in order to avoid regulatory trouble. This would in turn decrease the agencies’ efficiency, productivity and output, while increasing their costs.”
The bill also calls for employment tests to be applied against “financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants and providers of legal services.”
Additionally, racial preferences have been incorporated into the health care bill in a section beginning on page 879 that Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (ACRI) blogger Allan Favish has analyzed and exposed.
This section directs the Health and Human Services secretary to “make grants to, or enter into contracts with, eligible entities . . . to operate a professional training program in the field of family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, or geriatrics, to provide financial assistance and traineeships and fellowships to those students, interns, residents or physicians who plan to work in or teach in the field of family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, or geriatrics.”
Continuing on pg. 881 the bill further declares:
“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”
NEXT: The Obama administration’s political calculus