MALARKEY IN THE NEWS

Two stories making the headlines turn out to be nothing more than a lot of malarkey.
　
INJUNCTION AGAINST ARIZONA, BUT NOT ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS
　
A federal judge has issued an injunction that blocks key parts of Arizona’s new immigration law. She ruled that cops could not be required to stop a person to ascertain if he was an illegal and the state could not require people to carry papers showing they were here legally. She did not base her decision on constitutional grounds, but rather on the likelihood that enforcement of the new law would swamp the federal authorities with so many immigration cases that it would detract from their ability to fight crime and terrorism.
　
Arizona’s governor announced the state would immediately appeal that decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Lots of luck there. The 9th Circuit sits in San Fransicko and is the most liberal federal appeals court in the U.S. Arizona’s immigration law will eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Its ruling will be based strictly on constitutional grounds because of the nine justices, only four are liberals.
　
In the meantime the ACLU’s ‘rogue sheriff’ says SO WHAT. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s deputies have been arresting illegal immigrants for the past three years and the sheriff says they will continue to do so, the court’s injunction notwithstanding. Good for good old Sheriff Joe!

SENTENCING FOR CRACK COCAINE REDUCED BUT WILL NOT CHANGE THE DISPROPORTIONATE NUMER OF BLACKS IN PRISON
　
Congress has passed a bill - which the president most certainly will sign – that will change the disparity in the sentencing between the possession of crack cocaine and powder cocaine. For the past 25 years under federal law, if you got caught with five or more grams of crack, you faced a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison. The law was changed so that it will now take at least 28 grams (one ounce) of crack to get you those five years. And the new bill does away with mandatory minimum sentences.
　
The new law was passed because liberals and black civil rights groups screamed that the mandatory minimum five gram-five years law was the main cause for the disproportionate number of young black men in prison. Do those do-gooders really believe that the new law will reduce the disproportionate number of young black men in prison? I’ve got news for them – it ain’t!
　
And what about the distribution of crack cocaine? Is the result of the new law going to be that young black men will be peddling only 27 grams? No way Jose! They’re not dumb drug dealers. Minutes after they’ve sold out, they’ll be back on the same street corner with another 27 grams, etc., etc. They’ll be selling just as much crack as before - or maybe even more if they’re not sent to prison.
　
Blacks will continue to dominate the crack cocaine market. Whites aren’t going to be selling it. A disproportionate number of blacks will continue to populate our prisons, but not because of crack. It’s because they commit a disproportionate number of serious crimes. In 2009 for instance, based on reports filed by victims, blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crime in New York City, including 80 percent of shootings and 71 percent of robberies. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of reported gun assaults.
　
Non-Hispanic whites, on the other hand, committed only 5 percent of New York’s violent crimes in 2009, 1.4 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies. That’s why there are so many blacks in prison. Liberals and black civil rights groups are going to keep right on screaming because the new crack cocaine law is not going to change any of that.