Civilrights.org

FBI Report Finds Hate Crime at Highest Level since 2001

Following a slight drop in 2007, the number of reported hate crimes in United States rose in 2008, according to latest figures from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

In its annual report, "Hate Crime Statistics 2008", the FBI documented 7,783 hate crimes in 2008, up from the 7,624 reported in 2007. The 2008 report shows the highest number of crimes directed at Blacks, Jews, and gay men and lesbians since 2001.

While the uptick in reported hate crimes is a disturbing trend, it may also reflect the fact that a higher number of law enforcement agencies are participating in the FBI's annual data collection effort. The FBI reported that 13,690 law enforcement agencies in the United States participated in the 2008 report – the largest number of police agencies in the 18-year history of the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. 

Each year, tens of thousands of people enter the United States seeking refuge from poverty, war, political or religious persecution, or human rights abuses. Among the most vulnerable of these immigrants are children who enter the country without a parent.  

In 2007, more than 8,000 unaccompanied children were held in U.S. custody, according to the Women's Refuge Commission.

The United States has long made it a priority of immigration policy to reunite families.  The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 ended earlier policies that prioritized immigrants from Europe and replaced them with a system that prioritized family immigration.

However, current immigration enforcement has had devastating effects on families.  Once detained, children are held in border patrol stations for weeks, often without blankets, showers or adequate nutrition. Furthermore, children are often forced to navigate through the immigration system alone, with about 50 percent appearing in court without an attorney.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has become harmfully politicized and has strayed from its mission to protect the civil rights of Americans. That was the message that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the ACLU, and a coalition other civil and human rights groups presented at a November 18 congressional briefing.

The groups called for reforms that would broaden the commission's mandate so that it can better investigate and address civil rights issues and work to strengthen U.S. commitments on human rights.  In particular, they are seeking a change in the way that members are appointed to the commission to ensure that commissioners remain independent. Currently, members are appointed by Congress and the president and are not required to undergo a confirmation process.

The commission was created with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as an independent fact-finding body charged with investigating and reporting on civil rights and making recommendations to the federal government on how to fix the problems it uncovered.  Through its fact-finding work, it helped lay the foundation for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Over the past few years, however, the commission has taken positions hostile to civil rights issues, such as opposing the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in 2006.

Civil rights and progressive organizations, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, the AFL-CIO, and the Center for Community Change, have joined the Economic Policy Institute in calling attention to the urgent need to address the current jobs crisis in light of new unemployment data released for October 2009. 

The national jobs crisis has become a major barrier to progress in our country. Without job security, families will continue to lose their homes and will stop saving for their own retirement or their children's education.  Job security is also essential because the decisions and sacrifices made by the families hit the hardest today will have lasting repercussions for years to come.  For example, young adults who must work to support their families instead of attending school will find themselves disadvantaged when competing for work in the future.

The U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote tomorrow on the confirmation of President Obama's first nominee to the federal courts, Judge David Hamilton, who was nominated eight months ago for a seat on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Hamilton's nomination was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 4, but his confirmation vote has been delayed unnecessarily since then.

Despite a distinguished record and bipartisan support, Judge Hamilton may face a Republican filibuster. Senators James Inhofe, R. Okla., and Jeff Sessions, R. Ala., have pledged to vote against taking up Hamilton's confirmation and have urged their colleagues to do the same. 

The delaying tactics used against Judge Hamilton's nomination are one example of the obstructionist tactics that have been used to block President Obama's judicial and executive nominees this year.  Civil rights groups argue that it is particularly troubling that these tactics are being applied to Judge Hamilton, who has proven to be an uncontroversial jurist earning high praise and a wide range of support throughout his career.  Judge Hamilton has served for 15 years as a federal district judge in his home state of Indiana where he has earned the support of both of his state's senators, Democrat Evan Bayh and Republican Richard Lugar. 

In a floor statement today in support of Judge Hamilton's nomination, Sen. Lugar said, "I believe our confirmation decisions should not be based on partisan considerations, much less on how we hope or predict a given judicial nominee will rule on particular issues of public moment or controversy. I have instead tried to evaluate judicial candidates on whether they have the requisite intellect, experience, character and temperament that Americans deserve from their judges, and also on whether they indeed appreciate the vital, and yet vitally limited, role of the federal judiciary faithfully to interpret and apply our laws, rather than seeking to impose their own policy views. I support Judge Hamilton's nomination because he is superbly qualified under both sets of criteria."