 |
 |
 |
We, the undersigned, who represent a broad cross-section of South Asian lawyers working in the United States and Canada, believe that actions taken by the North American South Asian Bar Association (NASABA) with regards to “Operation Meth Merchant” in North Georgia neither represents our interests as a South Asian community nor reflects our collective professional voice as attorneys.
Last summer, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and local law enforcement targeted South Asian convenience storeowners and workers for allegedly knowingly selling products that would be used to create methamphetamines (meth). Substantial evidence shows that the individuals were unfairly targeted because of their race, immigration status, and limited English proficiency. Defendants face mandatory federal drug sentences of up to 25 years in prison, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and potential lengthy civil detention followed by eventual deportation back to India.
Despite the fact that hundreds of multi-racial and community-based organizations, including the North American Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (a consortium of over 200 civil rights organizations), have signed letters of solidarity with the Racial Justice Campaign Against “Operation Meth Merchant”, NASABA has refused to do so and has even refused to publicly acknowledge that racial profiling took place.
NASABA had originally planned to work with the DEA to “educate the community” about the law that had been used to target them. Several South Asian civil rights advocates and representatives from the Racial Justice Campaign Against “Operation Meth Merchant” spent countless hours over seven months providing information to NASABA’s leadership about why it is a bad idea to partner with the same government agencies that targeted your community. Although NASABA decided to forgo its partnership with the DEA, it continues to unnecessarily put the community at risk by inviting state prosecutors to participate in its latest "community education" program in Chicago.
NASABA’s actions have resulted in the following:
1) Legitimizing Operation Meth Merchant as sound law enforcement, even as multi-racial national, regional, and local organizations presented strong evidence (both in legal pleadings and in the media) of racial targeting
2) Providing a way for government agencies to show that they are “partnering” with the South Asian community
3) Potentially harming future South Asian victims of such law enforcement tactics by establishing that the community had “constructive knowledge” of such laws.
While community education is always a noble goal, there is simply no reason to go forth with such sessions in light of the evidence of racial targeting and other unlawful police practices and the profound risk to community members who might be targeted in the future.
A host of national, regional, and local civil rights organizations and advocates from around the country echo our sentiments. NASABA claims to “represent the national unified voice for South Asian attorneys in the United States and Canada.” However, the current and future detrimental effects of their actions have proven that they far from represent OUR collective voices as South Asian attorneys.
We make this statement to raise awareness among South Asian lawyers in North America about the important issues involved in Operation Meth Merchant, to reject the wrongheaded and harmful actions of NASABA and to stand in solidarity with the local South Asian community organizing for social justice by saying that NASABA DOES NOT REPRESENT US! |
 |
|
(fields marked with * are required)
|
|
|
|
A group of South Asian attorneys who oppose the North American South Asian Bar Association's harmful actions surrounding "Operation Meth Merchant." |
|
The views expressed in this petition are solely those of the petition's
sponsor and do not in any way reflect the views of iPetitions.
iPetitions is solely a provider of technical services to the petition
sponsor and cannot be held liable for any damages or injury or other
harm arising from this petition. In the event no adequate sponsor is
named, iPetitions will consider the individual account holder with which
the petition was created as the lawful sponsor.
|
|
|
