Deconstructing Stith

I posted Thomas Stith's open letter to the community attempting to justify his actions over the past few days, below.

Now it's time to take a look at Stith's letter and the circumstances surrounding its publication.

For starters, the letter appeared on the Partners Against Crime, District 2 listserv this afternoon at around 4:10 pm. It was forwarded to the list with the following information appended at the beginning:

Fwd: Please forward to your PAC listserv.


I am forwarded this, since it does refer to criminal activity.

Robert H. Appleby (Bob)
P. O. Box XXXXX
Durham, NC 27702

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Thomas Stith"
Date: September 18, 2007 12:51:18 PM EDT
To: "Bob Appleby"
Subject: Please forward to your PAC listserv

==================================

Let's start our analysis right here. First of all, Mr. Stith emailed his letter to someone with the request to forward it to your PAC listserv. And this person did, with the only addition that "it does refer to criminal activity." (For those of you unfamiliar with PACs in this incarnation, they refer to Partners Against Crime. There are 5 of them in Durham, one for each of the police districts in our city. They are generally considered to be beyond the reach of partisan or electoral politics. Mr. Appleby knows that this post probably breached that protocol, so he attempted to justify it with the claim that it referred to criminal activity.)

But might Mr. Appleby have another motivation for posting Stith's letter? Let's have a look.



Well, it turns out that Robert Appleby was an early, $500 donor to the Stith for Mayor campaign. How about that.

(FULL DISCLOSURE: I have contributed $40 to Bill Bell's campaign)

So, Stith emails his campaign contributors, asking them to distribute information that can legitimately be considered campaign material to an inappropriate list. And they follow through, in an inappropriate forum without acknowledging that they're Stith campaign contributors. Lovely.

Now, follow me back a couple of days to review the phone call in question. Starting last Thursday, and continuing through Saturday, an unknown number of Durham residents reported receiving this automated phone message from Thomas Stith.

Hello, this is Thomas Stith.

Did you know that Durham is a sanctuary city, a city where illegal immigrants commit crimes without fear of being deported? That's right, our local police can't inquire about the citizenship of people who commit a crime in our city.

We can change that with your help.

In Monday's city Council meeting, I'm going to introduce a resolution that ends the policy that makes Durham a safe haven for illegal immigrants. Call members of the City Council, and attend the City Council meeting on Monday to show your support. I'm Thomas Stith. Thanks for your time.

The first thing we should notice, although i have to admit that it slipped by me, is that this is not a campaign phone call. At no point does Mr. Stith say, "my name is Thomas Stith, and I'm running for mayor of Durham." Nor does the phone call include any information about who paid for the call. Yet, i have to admit, in fourteen years of living in Durham, i've not heard of a Council member calling residents to encourage turnout at a Council meeting in support of a resolution.

Let's take a brief look at what Stith does say.
"Did you know that Durham is a sanctuary city, a city where illegal immigrants commit crimes without fear of being deported?

That's a pretty bold declaration, don't you think? Do we have any examples of this actually happening in Durham?

Here's the guidelines of enforcing the city's policy as put forth under order #4073, issued by former chief Steve Chalmers:

it is the policy of this department that officers will respect the stated objectives and enforcement guidelines of the DHS and will not make a routine effort to direct efforts at individual violations of immigration status.

If upon investigation probable cause to arrest exists unrelated to a person’s individual immigration status, officers may arrest for an offense, using discretionary guidelines set forth in General Order 1005, Limits of Accountability, Authority and Discretion. Verifying the undocumented status of any person and processing prisoners appropriately will be the responsibility of the detention facility.

In other words, according to police guidelines, Durham police offers will investigate crimes and persons suspected of committing them without taking into account the immigration status of the suspect. But once taken into custody, if the person is in the country illegally, they have no special protection against being having their status determined or being deported.

How does this jibe with the original resolution passed by Council 4 years ago? Let's have a look.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF DURHAM:

Section 1. It is the policy of the City of Durham not to violate the constitutional or statutory rights of any person, including any such rights protecting persons from discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, race, national origin and immigration status.

Section 2. Unless otherwise required as part of a City officer or employee's duties, by law, or by court order, no Durham City officer or employee, during the course and scope of their employment, shall inquire into the immigration status of any person, or engage in activities designed to ascertain the immigration status of any person. This policy shall not be construed to prohibit any Durham City officer or employee from cooperating and sharing information with federal or state authorities and other governmental entities as required by law.

Section 3. In the event of conflict between federal law, regulations or any other requirement and this City resolution, the Federal law, regulations or any other requirement shall control and supersede any conflicting provision of this resolution.

Section 4. This resolution shall take effect upon adoption.

So, section 2, which tells Durham officers not to "inquire into the immigration status of any person, or engage in activities designed to ascertain the immigration status of any person," also provides three circumstances under which they can, namely if there's a court order, or a law, or if it's "part of a City officer or employee's duties."

I highlight this last clause because, to me, it's seems like a pretty blanket exception that is wide open to interpretation. And it's the responsibility of the chief to determine what the duties of his officers are.

So what's the big deal here?

Why does Thomas Stith write in his open letter:

The police currently determine status when they are investigating a criminal act. Our council policy states they should not do this.

Reading above, it appears that not only the Council resolution, but also the guidelines issued by Chief Chalmers state this should not be done. If anything, police seeking to determine immigration status during an investigation would be violating both the Council's resolution and the Chief's guidelines. So that would be an issue for the new Chief to take up, no? If both the resolution and the guidelines say the same thing, which it appears to me they do, and the police are not following those guidelines, that's an internal police matter.

Of course, there's that big out, and if the Chief should determine that it's part of the officer's duties to perform that investigation, then that could happen without violating the Council's resolution.

Stith goes on to state in his letter:

I agree that some people have characterized this
issue in a negative manner and that is unfortunate.

Well, let me be blunt. That is a steaming load of disingenuous bullshit which a candidate for citywide office should be ashamed of putting out before the public. It is not the "issue" which is being "characterized" in a "negative manner."

It was Thomas Stith who stated in a misleading phone call to many Durham residents that "In Monday's city Council meeting, I'm going to introduce a resolution that ends the policy that makes Durham a safe haven for illegal immigrants." There is nothing in either the resolution or the guidelines, even if followed to the letter, that makes Durham a "safe haven." Stith's phone call can only be characterized as a piece of fear-mongering, and it's he who has to bear the burden of bringing this negativity to the campaign, not "some people."

Stith closes by saying:

I would hope that we would not let the real issue of providing our department with the proper guidance become lost in the current misinformation that is curculating (sic).

But did his now infamous robo-call even once mention the issue of "providing our department with the proper guidance?" It did not. For Stith, the real issue in his call was "end(ing) the policy that makes Durham a safe haven for illegal immigrants."
Too bad for him that it backfired so spectacularly. And his transparently lame attempt to recast his water-carrying for Art Pope and the John Locke Foundation as a simple administrative procedure is not going to be a winner either.