Do undocumented aliens merit protection against police harassment and discrimination? “Yes,” said a New York Federal District Judge.

District Court Judge Colleen McMahon, in her decision dated Nov. 26, 2006, found both officials and police of Mamaroneck, New York guilty of harassment and discrimination against six immigrant day laborers because they were Hispanic.

A settlement subsequently entered into between the day laborers and the town of Mamaroneck provided, among other things, for (a) the payment of $550, 000 of attorney’s fees to the Plaintiff’s lawyers; (b) specific prohibitions on police misconduct and discriminatory behavior towards day laborers, including a prohibition against routine police inquiry into the immigration status of day laborers; and (c) a court-appointed monitor who will ensure that Mamaroneck complies with the terms of the settlement.

The protagonists are Mamaroneck and its police department on the one side, and the immigrant Hispanic day laborers on the other. For half a century or more, Mamaroneck has been a haven for immigrant day laborers who gathered daily at Columbus park for purpose of finding employment from contractors.

Yet, in a sudden 360-degree reversal, Mamaroneck announced that the day laborers would no longer be allowed to gather in Columbus Park. Instead, they were instead herded into a commuter parking area, where they were watched and monitored by the Mamaroneck police.

An aggressive law enforcement policy by the police ensued; namely, traffic checkpoints were set up, and policemen ticketed contractors as they were about to pick up day laborers or immediately after they picked up the day laborers.

Police discouraged contractors from picking up workers. Those who resisted were hauled off by the police to the DMV for so-called “safety inspection” check-ups. As a result, many contractors would quickly turn around as soon as they saw the police nearby, not daring to pick up any laborers at all. The campaign was so successful that the mayor subsequently declared that Mamaroneck was finally rid of its day laborers, who were sometimes referred to as “locusts.”

What caused the sudden change of policy by Mamaroneck? The day laborers of the past were all Caucasian whereas, in the present, the day laborers are not. In Mamaroneck, the day laborers were practically all Hispanic. How did Mamaroneck and its police department justify their actions? Citing so-called “quality of life” issues, they both blamed the day laborers for the sudden rise in the incidence of prostitution, drug-dealing, public intoxication, urination and defecation, and criminal activity.

Was there any basis for the purported justification of Mamaroneck’s “quality of life” campaign against the day laborers? None whatsoever. The court, in trial proceedings, found that (a) “the so-called quality of life issues that existed in (this) area around this time did not relate to day laborers or to the day laborer site a Columbus Park; (b) the records of the police department do not reflect any complaints about criminal activities by day laborers. According to the police log, between Jan. 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, Mamaroneck only received one complaint of public urination during the said six-month period, and this single incident occurred at night, five blocks away from Columbus Park.

The court stated that “plaintiffs (day laborers) correctly point out that [Mamaroneck] officials stigmatized the day laborers in repeated public pronouncements, grossly exaggerating their numbers, asserting – again without any basis in fact – that they were not residents of [Mamaroneck], and accusing them of engaging in criminal and disorderly conduct.”

Was there evidence of racism against the day laborers? “Yes,” pronounced Judge McMahon.

“Viewed as a whole, the findings of fact support the conclusion that defendant’s (Mamaroneck and the police) application of this policy in the case of the day laborers was infected with intentional racial discrimination.” The judge went on to say that the day laborers met the burden of proof with evidence that the campaign of aggressive law enforcement instigated by Mamaroneck and the police was aimed at and disproportionately affected Latino day laborers and the contractors who sought to hire them. More particularly, the police department was found to have intentionally discriminated against the Latino day laborers by refusing to leave them alone.

The victory of the day laborers in Mamaroneck is significant in that no less than a federal court has upheld the fact that immigrants have protection from harassment and discrimination.

However, Mamaroneck is not the only town that has passed discriminatory laws or ordinances against immigrants. Other local communities nation-wide have likewise targeted immigrants in Hazleton, Pennsylvania; Riverside, New Jersey; Avalon Park, Florida; and Farmers Branch, Texas. All immigrants, regardless of ethnicity, should fight against racial discrimination and harassment, especially in these post-9/11 era.