Hudlin Entertainment Forum

Politics => Vox Populi => Topic started by: Princesa on April 23, 2010, 10:03:25 am

Title: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Princesa on April 23, 2010, 10:03:25 am
 How do you get away with discriminatory legislation like they are trying to enact? I don't think I'd be too welcome there :(
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on April 23, 2010, 10:12:59 am
From their initial refusal to acknowledge the MLK holiday to this heinous piece of legislation, the state of Arizona needs to be on a permanent "whitelist", which is like a black list but since they are vilifying black and brown people enough, we don't need to add to it.  But they really need to be cut off from all convention dollars....how many other ways can we punish this state?
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Princesa on April 23, 2010, 10:27:45 am
Cutting off their convention dollars is certainly a start and I hope events boycott them as well. Here is the kicker, many of there towns depend on immigrant dollars. I don't get it, I don't get how you can be so unabashedly bigoted--but then this is the next phase of the "southern strategy" in GOP politics I suppose.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on April 23, 2010, 10:56:38 am
It's the same ol' play.  Which is why they lost the last election.  You can't win the presidency by just appealing to white men.  They continue to alienate the black and latin vote, and soccer moms ain't really checking for Sarah Palin either.  But their base craves this kind of nonsense.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: jefferson L.O.B. sergeant on April 23, 2010, 10:59:35 am
How do you get away with discriminatory legislation like they are trying to enact? I don't think I'd be too welcome there :(

How dark are you, Princessa?

According to the legislation( Which could be signed as I type this) there must be probable cause and one of the criteria is appearance.

Vanna White Latina- Safe

Eva Longoria Latina- Taking a chance

Salma Hayek Latina- PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR.. NOW!
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Hypestyle on April 23, 2010, 11:13:27 am
...didn't we have a HEF peep repping Phoenix, at one point? i'd like to hear their perspective..

if this passes, it will likely inspire other states with GOP governors and/or GOP-controlled state legislature, to try to adopt similar laws..
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Princesa on April 23, 2010, 11:25:23 am
How do you get away with discriminatory legislation like they are trying to enact? I don't think I'd be too welcome there :(

How dark are you, Princessa?

According to the legislation( Which could be signed as I type this) there must be probable cause and one of the criteria is appearance.

Vanna White Latina- Safe

Eva Longoria Latina- Taking a chance

Salma Hayek Latina- PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR.. NOW!


Mariah Carey-ish in the winter Alicia Keys-ish in the summer :o
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: jefferson L.O.B. sergeant on April 23, 2010, 11:42:18 am
How do you get away with discriminatory legislation like they are trying to enact? I don't think I'd be too welcome there :(

How dark are you, Princessa?

According to the legislation( Which could be signed as I type this) there must be probable cause and one of the criteria is appearance.

Vanna White Latina- Safe

Eva Longoria Latina- Taking a chance

Salma Hayek Latina- PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR.. NOW!


Mariah Carey-ish in the winter Alicia Keys-ish in the summer :o

Aaah, in that case you have until Memorial Day to leave Arizona without handcuffs. 8)
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Princesa on April 23, 2010, 12:47:19 pm
How do you get away with discriminatory legislation like they are trying to enact? I don't think I'd be too welcome there :(

How dark are you, Princessa?

According to the legislation( Which could be signed as I type this) there must be probable cause and one of the criteria is appearance.

Vanna White Latina- Safe

Eva Longoria Latina- Taking a chance

Salma Hayek Latina- PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR.. NOW!


Mariah Carey-ish in the winter Alicia Keys-ish in the summer :o

Aaah, in that case you have until Memorial Day to leave Arizona without handcuffs. 8)


lol, nope we all need to mass exodus now :o
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Vic Vega on April 23, 2010, 02:42:07 pm
It’ll be REALLLY interesting what happens the first time the Anti-Brown Brigade attempts to deport a swarthy Italian or Greek lacking papers by mistake.

Why does it never occur to these types to fine the businesses that HIRE illegals as opposed to looking for excuses to jail Brown folks? 

If they fined the businesses 5000 dollars a head for each illegal found on that business’ premises you will watch those hiring practices stop with the quickness. And if there is no work here they won’t come here (or stay).

As it is now, no business in Arizona is going to pay minimum wage to its dishwashers, I don’t care how many brown folk they try to frog-march across the border. So there is ALWAYS going to be a demand and therefore, there is ALWAYS going to be a supply.

Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: jefferson L.O.B. sergeant on April 23, 2010, 05:27:15 pm
How do you get away with discriminatory legislation like they are trying to enact? I don't think I'd be too welcome there :(

How dark are you, Princessa?

According to the legislation( Which could be signed as I type this) there must be probable cause and one of the criteria is appearance.

Vanna White Latina- Safe

Eva Longoria Latina- Taking a chance

Salma Hayek Latina- PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR.. NOW!


Mariah Carey-ish in the winter Alicia Keys-ish in the summer :o

Aaah, in that case you have until Memorial Day to leave Arizona without handcuffs. 8)


lol, nope we all need to mass exodus now :o

So I guess the special Arizona package I wanted to offer you from Travelocity is out now?
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Princesa on April 25, 2010, 08:40:02 am
How do you get away with discriminatory legislation like they are trying to enact? I don't think I'd be too welcome there :(

How dark are you, Princessa?

According to the legislation( Which could be signed as I type this) there must be probable cause and one of the criteria is appearance.

Vanna White Latina- Safe

Eva Longoria Latina- Taking a chance

Salma Hayek Latina- PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR.. NOW!


Mariah Carey-ish in the winter Alicia Keys-ish in the summer :o

Aaah, in that case you have until Memorial Day to leave Arizona without handcuffs. 8)


lol, nope we all need to mass exodus now :o

So I guess the special Arizona package I wanted to offer you from Travelocity is out now?

Nope my beige to black peoples will steer clear
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on April 26, 2010, 07:10:55 pm
Here is a summary of the Arizona law from the actual statute. Did any of you even bother to read it, before condemning it?  At a minimum, I would expect folks to look at the provisions of the Arizona legislation that is causing them to go into paroxysms.

I can tell you that in California, and in Los Angeles, the cost to the public arising from public and health services provided to “illegal aliens” or “illegal immigrants” or “undocumented workers” (whatever is vogue to call ‘em at the moment) is substantial.

This is not to say that that people illegally entering our country are bad folk. By in large, they most definitely are not. While some are involved in drug smuggling and gang banging, including those who apparently recently killed a rancher in Arizona, my impression is that the vast majority are hard working. People who harbor a work ethic and respect for family values greater than the average native-born American. So, just to eliminate any confusion, I am not in any way impugning the moral integrity of most people who are in our country illegally.

But, the fact remains, they are here illegally.

Unless the summary is off base, the providing of an Arizona drivers license will presumptively let someone picked up for a crime off the hook when it comes to immigration issues.

I have bolded the provisions:

House of Representatives
SB 1070
Safe neighborhoods; Immigration; Law Enforcement
SB 1070 makes changes to laws relating to the enforcement on immigration laws, failure to carry an alien registration document, day laborers, harboring or transporting illegal aliens and employer sanctions.
History
8 U.S.C. § 1373(c) requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to respond to inquiries by federal, state, or local government agencies seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

 [b]Enforcement of Immigration Law[/b]
•          Prohibits law enforcement officials and law enforcement agencies of this state or counties, municipalities and political subdivisions from restricting or limiting the enforcement of the federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
•          Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.
•          Stipulates that if the person is arrested, the person’s immigration status must be determined before the person is released and must be verified with the federal government.
•          Stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.
•         Specifies that a person is presumed to be lawfully present if the person provides any of the following:
        A valid Arizona driver license.
        A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
        A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
       A valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.

•        Requires that if a person is convicted of any state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation imposed, ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must be immediately notified.  
•        Authorizes a law enforcement agency to securely transport an unlawfully present alien to a federal facility.
•        Requires a law enforcement agency to obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an unlawfully present alien to a point of transfer that is outside of Arizona.

•         Prohibits, except as provided in federal law, officials and agencies of counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions from being prevented or restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, of any individual or exchanging that information with another governmental entity for the following official purposes:
        Determination of eligibility for any public benefit, service or license.  
        Verification of any claim of legal domicile if legal domicile is required by law or judicial order.
        If the person is an alien, determination of the person’s compliance with federal registration laws.
        Pursuant to federal laws regarding communication between government agencies and federal immigration agencies.

•         Stipulates that these provisions does not implement, authorize or establish and cannot be construed to implement authorize or establish the REAL ID Act of 2005, including the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID).

•          Allows a person who is a legal resident of this state to bring an action in superior court to challenge officials and agencies of the state, counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions that adopt or implement a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

•          Requires the court to order any that a violating entity pays a civil penalty of at least $1,000 and not to exceed $5,000 for each day that the policy has remained in effect after it has been found to be violating these provisions.  

•          States that the court will collect the penalty and transmit the collected monies to the state Treasurer for deposit in the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) Fund.

•          Authorizes the court to award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person or any official or agency that prevails in a case brought under these provisions.

•          Indemnifies officers against actions brought under these provisions, except if the officer has been adjudged to have acted in bad faith.

•          Stipulates that these provisions are to be implemented consistent with federal immigration law protecting the civil right of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of US citizens.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Princesa on April 27, 2010, 08:38:37 am
I wonder if halting all federal money to Arizona can be accomplished?
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Battle on April 27, 2010, 08:41:49 am
Wow.

Legally sanctioning racial profiling which is... illegal. :-\
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Vic Vega on April 27, 2010, 08:43:12 am
There is a BIG difference between illegal and criminal, Mike. When being an illegal alien becomes in itself a criminal activity, it allows Law Enforcement to act directly when there is no overtly criminal activity taking place. How would you like to be arrested for just standing on a streetcorner?

Quote
Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

If you can't see how open for abuse this is, I don't know what to tell you.

I know quite a few folks of the lighter skinned persuasions who came to this country on a student visa and forgot to go back. But none of them will ever be stopped behind this law because they aren't brown.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Princesa on April 27, 2010, 08:47:31 am
...and why am I not surprised the "state's rights" folks  teabaggers all in favor of this. Inbreds of feather... can Arizona qualify as a southern state...Mississippi West...
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Battle on April 27, 2010, 10:25:29 am
...can Arizona qualify as a southern state...Mississippi West...


Well...   ...that depends, Miss Princesa, ma'am...(http://i33.tinypic.com/mufjbm.jpg)

Ah reckon, ya might want to call Arizona...   the Wild, Wild West.  After all, it is the very location of the famous O.K. Corral (http://www.ok-corral.com/) where 125 years ago it was known to be where the most famous shoutouts occurred.
http://www.ok-corral.com/

Ever hear of Wyatt Earp? 

Well, he and his two brothers and a cowpoke named Doc Holliday confronted a gang of drunken outlaws, sparking a 30-second gun battle in the streets of Tombstone that killed Frank and Tom McLaury and Bill Clanton.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/4/22/1271950731088/GUNFIGHT-AT-THE-OK-CORRAL-001.jpg)
"Reach For The Sky!"


[deep southern drawl]...yep...[/deep southern drawl]   YEE-HAWWW!!!(http://i34.tinypic.com/1217rzp.jpg)
After the shooting was over, check out this story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/22/gunfight-ok-corral-inquest-document
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: BlackRodimus on April 27, 2010, 11:12:50 am
There is a BIG difference between illegal and criminal, Mike. When being an illegal alien becomes in itself a criminal activity, it allows Law Enforcement to act directly when there is no overtly criminal activity taking place. How would you like to be arrested for just standing on a streetcorner?

Quote
Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

If you can't see how open for abuse this is, I don't know what to tell you.

I know quite a few folks of the lighter skinned persuasions who came to this country on a student visa and forgot to go back. But none of them will ever be stopped behind this law because they aren't brown.

Basically. Not sure what else to add to this.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Hypestyle on April 27, 2010, 12:45:59 pm
I wonder how black talk radio is responding (if at all)... I hope progressive voices can get some airtime..
It’s all too bad that many in the black American community have fallen into an 'Afro-Saxonism' worldview. back in 2008 I attended a lecture by Felipe’ Luciano..  http://tinyurl.com/36zqbvy

He took the time out to point out the shared history of struggle with blacks and brown-latinos in the New World, North and South America..  He emphasized that blacks should support the immigration movement, and not succumb to the reactionary rhetoric that the neo-con culture likes to espouse.. For all the "jobs being lost", are people really talking about college-degree-related positions, management level, and certified/skilled-trade positions?  Or are they mainly talking about unskilled, entry-level, "grunt" labor?  The conservative culture says that they don't like labor unions; hiring undocumented folks is a typical way to get around existing labor standards of pay/compensation, so, from a certain POV, 'what's the beef'?

For all the “true Afrikan soldiers” out there, you cannot get mad at an undocumented Latino for being a day laborer at whatever job when your black brother/sister/etc. doesn’t want to get up before 11 a.m. because they’ve been balling at the club or playing videogames until 5 a.m., etc.
How many heads refuse to work at a restaurant or retail place, McDonald’s/Target, etc., because “they ain’t payin nothin’!” or "there's too many player haters up there", etc.? But when we shop at Wal-mart we get mad at how many Latinos are up in there pushing carts, stocking shelves or whatever.. How many heads get mad because it’s a group of Latinos cutting lawns in the neighborhood, but 'our folk' want to buy jewelry or a set of car rims instead of a mower & other equipment to start a business?
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Cage on April 27, 2010, 01:21:26 pm
"Did any of you even bother to read it, before condemning it?"

Michael this is why I don't read your posts.  Pretty damn condescending comment, as usual.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: jefferson L.O.B. sergeant on April 27, 2010, 05:55:53 pm
Here is a summary of the Arizona law from the actual statute. Did any of you even bother to read it, before condemning it?  At a minimum, I would expect folks to look at the provisions of the Arizona legislation that is causing them to go into paroxysms.

I can tell you that in California, and in Los Angeles, the cost to the public arising from public and health services provided to “illegal aliens” or “illegal immigrants” or “undocumented workers” (whatever is vogue to call ‘em at the moment) is substantial.

This is not to say that that people illegally entering our country are bad folk. By in large, they most definitely are not. While some are involved in drug smuggling and gang banging, including those who apparently recently killed a rancher in Arizona, my impression is that the vast majority are hard working. People who harbor a work ethic and respect for family values greater than the average native-born American. So, just to eliminate any confusion, I am not in any way impugning the moral integrity of most people who are in our country illegally.

But, the fact remains, they are here illegally.

Unless the summary is off base, the providing of an Arizona drivers license will presumptively let someone picked up for a crime off the hook when it comes to immigration issues.

I have bolded the provisions:

House of Representatives
SB 1070
Safe neighborhoods; Immigration; Law Enforcement
SB 1070 makes changes to laws relating to the enforcement on immigration laws, failure to carry an alien registration document, day laborers, harboring or transporting illegal aliens and employer sanctions.
History
8 U.S.C. § 1373(c) requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to respond to inquiries by federal, state, or local government agencies seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

 [b]Enforcement of Immigration Law[/b]
•          Prohibits law enforcement officials and law enforcement agencies of this state or counties, municipalities and political subdivisions from restricting or limiting the enforcement of the federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
•          Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.
•          Stipulates that if the person is arrested, the person’s immigration status must be determined before the person is released and must be verified with the federal government.
•          Stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.
•         Specifies that a person is presumed to be lawfully present if the person provides any of the following:
        A valid Arizona driver license.
        A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
        A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
       A valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.

•        Requires that if a person is convicted of any state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation imposed, ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must be immediately notified.  
•        Authorizes a law enforcement agency to securely transport an unlawfully present alien to a federal facility.
•        Requires a law enforcement agency to obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an unlawfully present alien to a point of transfer that is outside of Arizona.

•         Prohibits, except as provided in federal law, officials and agencies of counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions from being prevented or restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, of any individual or exchanging that information with another governmental entity for the following official purposes:
        Determination of eligibility for any public benefit, service or license.  
        Verification of any claim of legal domicile if legal domicile is required by law or judicial order.
        If the person is an alien, determination of the person’s compliance with federal registration laws.
        Pursuant to federal laws regarding communication between government agencies and federal immigration agencies.

•         Stipulates that these provisions does not implement, authorize or establish and cannot be construed to implement authorize or establish the REAL ID Act of 2005, including the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID).

•          Allows a person who is a legal resident of this state to bring an action in superior court to challenge officials and agencies of the state, counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions that adopt or implement a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

•          Requires the court to order any that a violating entity pays a civil penalty of at least $1,000 and not to exceed $5,000 for each day that the policy has remained in effect after it has been found to be violating these provisions.  

•          States that the court will collect the penalty and transmit the collected monies to the state Treasurer for deposit in the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) Fund.

•          Authorizes the court to award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person or any official or agency that prevails in a case brought under these provisions.

•          Indemnifies officers against actions brought under these provisions, except if the officer has been adjudged to have acted in bad faith.

•          Stipulates that these provisions are to be implemented consistent with federal immigration law protecting the civil right of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of US citizens.

Michael, I have but one question in the face of all this information.

What does an illegal alien look like?

Just to let you know, Princesa in the Summer doesn't count as an answer. 8)
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on April 27, 2010, 06:30:38 pm
"Don't ask, don't tell" was coined about gays in the military, but this is another example. 

Illegal immigrant labor is a core component of so many businesses, from agriculture to child care.  Without having a labor pool to accept wages no American would work for, our whole economy would be a mess. 

But I don't see anyone attacking businesses who hire them.

I see American angry at illegal immigrants because they use social services.  Because the discount they are getting because of their labor isn't enough. 

Of course, keeping that population in a state of fear is useful in keeping that labor pool controllable. 

Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Cage on April 27, 2010, 07:29:58 pm
I love how the original illegal aliens and creators and beneficiaries of the greatest most blatant welfare system known to man now find both inconvenient.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on April 27, 2010, 08:13:30 pm
"Did any of you even bother to read it, before condemning it?"

Michael this is why I don't read your posts.  Pretty damn condescending comment, as usual.

Did you read it?   ???
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on April 27, 2010, 08:23:44 pm
A person who is in the United States illegally is, by definition, engaged in illegal conduct.  That is what "illegal' means. Is this so difficult to understand?

Why should the citizens of the State of Arizona (or California, or any other state, for that matter) bear the costs of illegal aliens streaming across their border?  Why should they bear the cost of drug smuggling and the crime that goes along with it?  Why should they bear the cost, in human life, when citizens of their state are killed by persons whom the Federal Government should have taken the responsibility to prevent from coming here illegally in the first place?  In this context, it is worth noting that Arizona is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal aliens and is the nation's busiest gateway for people slipping into the country. Apparently, despite my personal positive view of most illegal aliens, this has resulted in a serious crime problem in Arizona. 

Do you contend that the states have no independent right to do anything about the problem.  Even though the citizens of the states are forced to bear the cost, in dollars, and in human life.

This entire problem is caused by our Federal immigration officials sitting on their thumbs, while our Federal Government officials (by providing inadequate funding to border enforcement) sit on their collective thumbs.

I do not blame the Obama Administration for the flood of illegal aliens into our country over the past two decades.  Bush, Clinton, and all their predecessors are also to blame.  But anyone who claims that the Administration’s reaction to the Arizona law is not politically motivated is, well, in denial.  ACORN, ACORN, register anyone to vote?

This is an interesting article on the Arizona law.  

Furor grows over Ariz. law against immigrants
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100426/D9FB0SHO0.html

One comment was particularly striking:

“People arrested by Arizona police would be turned over to federal immigration officers. Opponents said the federal government could thwart the law by refusing to accept them.”

So now, some are saying that our Federal Government under the Obama Administration should knowingly thwart the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws?  

What a wonderful message this sends, with regard to the obligation of every person residing in the United States to comply with the law.

If these laws are not enforced, why should anyone respect any laws?

And people wonder why some of us are concerned about the decline of the American civilization.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: BlackRodimus on April 27, 2010, 08:30:40 pm
Here is a summary of the Arizona law from the actual statute. Did any of you even bother to read it, before condemning it?  At a minimum, I would expect folks to look at the provisions of the Arizona legislation that is causing them to go into paroxysms.

I can tell you that in California, and in Los Angeles, the cost to the public arising from public and health services provided to “illegal aliens” or “illegal immigrants” or “undocumented workers” (whatever is vogue to call ‘em at the moment) is substantial.

This is not to say that that people illegally entering our country are bad folk. By in large, they most definitely are not. While some are involved in drug smuggling and gang banging, including those who apparently recently killed a rancher in Arizona, my impression is that the vast majority are hard working. People who harbor a work ethic and respect for family values greater than the average native-born American. So, just to eliminate any confusion, I am not in any way impugning the moral integrity of most people who are in our country illegally.

But, the fact remains, they are here illegally.

Unless the summary is off base, the providing of an Arizona drivers license will presumptively let someone picked up for a crime off the hook when it comes to immigration issues.

I have bolded the provisions:

House of Representatives
SB 1070
Safe neighborhoods; Immigration; Law Enforcement
SB 1070 makes changes to laws relating to the enforcement on immigration laws, failure to carry an alien registration document, day laborers, harboring or transporting illegal aliens and employer sanctions.
History
8 U.S.C. § 1373(c) requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to respond to inquiries by federal, state, or local government agencies seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

 [b]Enforcement of Immigration Law[/b]
•          Prohibits law enforcement officials and law enforcement agencies of this state or counties, municipalities and political subdivisions from restricting or limiting the enforcement of the federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
•          Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.
•          Stipulates that if the person is arrested, the person’s immigration status must be determined before the person is released and must be verified with the federal government.
•          Stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.
•         Specifies that a person is presumed to be lawfully present if the person provides any of the following:
        A valid Arizona driver license.
        A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
        A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
       A valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.

•        Requires that if a person is convicted of any state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation imposed, ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must be immediately notified.  
•        Authorizes a law enforcement agency to securely transport an unlawfully present alien to a federal facility.
•        Requires a law enforcement agency to obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an unlawfully present alien to a point of transfer that is outside of Arizona.

•         Prohibits, except as provided in federal law, officials and agencies of counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions from being prevented or restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, of any individual or exchanging that information with another governmental entity for the following official purposes:
        Determination of eligibility for any public benefit, service or license.  
        Verification of any claim of legal domicile if legal domicile is required by law or judicial order.
        If the person is an alien, determination of the person’s compliance with federal registration laws.
        Pursuant to federal laws regarding communication between government agencies and federal immigration agencies.

•         Stipulates that these provisions does not implement, authorize or establish and cannot be construed to implement authorize or establish the REAL ID Act of 2005, including the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID).

•          Allows a person who is a legal resident of this state to bring an action in superior court to challenge officials and agencies of the state, counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions that adopt or implement a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

•          Requires the court to order any that a violating entity pays a civil penalty of at least $1,000 and not to exceed $5,000 for each day that the policy has remained in effect after it has been found to be violating these provisions.  

•          States that the court will collect the penalty and transmit the collected monies to the state Treasurer for deposit in the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) Fund.

•          Authorizes the court to award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person or any official or agency that prevails in a case brought under these provisions.

•          Indemnifies officers against actions brought under these provisions, except if the officer has been adjudged to have acted in bad faith.

•          Stipulates that these provisions are to be implemented consistent with federal immigration law protecting the civil right of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of US citizens.

Michael, I have but one question in the face of all this information.

What does an illegal alien look like?

Just to let you know, Princesa in the Summer doesn't count as an answer. 8)

What bothers me is this: People from Mexico come in all shapes and colors, some as dark as me, some darker. Sooo....is this a thinly veiled excuse to start pulling black people too right along with people who LOOK like Juan Valdez? And how do you prove you're a US Citizen? Will a license suffice? Don't exactly carry my passport everywhere with me.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on April 27, 2010, 08:32:24 pm
"Did any of you even bother to read it, before condemning it?"

Michael this is why I don't read your posts.  Pretty damn condescending comment, as usual.

A person who is in the United States illegally is, by definition, engaged in illegal conduct.  That is what "illegal' means. Is this so difficult to understand?
That would be exhibit #2.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on April 27, 2010, 08:40:59 pm
Curtis, stop your nonsense.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on April 27, 2010, 08:50:35 pm
Not kidding. You never want to hear it but there it is.
I agreed with Cage but didn't say anything because you don't seem to even believe, much less value, others' perceptions.
You have a choice, you can believe Cage and me about how we perceived your posts or not.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Princesa on April 27, 2010, 08:52:56 pm

Michael, I have but one question in the face of all this information.

What does an illegal alien look like?

Just to let you know, Princesa in the Summer doesn't count as an answer. 8)

Lol, 24/7 365 I look like "a person of interest" to these clowns.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on April 27, 2010, 09:39:52 pm
There are supposedly cops who don't want to enforce the law because it will take time and resources away from more serious crimes.  Should that attitude also be blamed on the Obama administration, Mike?
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on April 28, 2010, 06:54:18 am
Reginald, my primary motivation was to demonstrate that this issue is not as simplistic or one-sided as a reader might think from reading the HEF before I posted my comments.

I don't really view this to be a partisan issue, except to the extent one might respond to the President's reaction to the Arizona law, and the speculation in the article that Federal Immigration Authorities would intentionally thwart the enforcement of our immigration laws.  

But fundamentally this is an issue that transcends partisanship: It is the issue of the rule of law being disrespected in our culture. This is a problem that long predates the present Administration. If you recall, Conservatives levied strong criticism against George Bush, as well as his predecessors, for failing to secure the borders.  Such criticism was even stronger after 9/11.

There are legal procedures for persons to immigrate to the United States, to become a permanent resident and eventually a citizen. My daughter-in-law has been following those procedures to the letter, as does every other person who comes into our country legally.  Those who do not are subject to deportation, because they are here illegally.  As a matter of moral and legal principle, anyone found residing in the United States illegally should be deported. The reason this is not being pursued vigorously is because our Federal Government, for decades, has failed to pursue its responsibility to enforce our immigration laws, and as a result the problem has spun way out of control.  Creating fiscal and criminal problems for states like Arizona, and particularly Arizona (which is the primary "gateway" for illegal aliens).

The issue here is whether, once the Federal Government has abnegated its responsibility to enforce our laws, do the people of the several states have the right to enact laws to protect their citizens and their fisc from people entering their states illegally.  No doubt the courts will now address this issue.  There are legal arguments on both sides.

I've made it very clear that I don't think folk that illegally sneak across our border to find work are bad people. People who want to work are, in my world view, by definition good people. I can't even blame a person who would want to come here to take advantage of our social welfare programs or medical care (which, even as restricted for illegal aliens, is probably better than what was available to them back home), or to take advantage of our generous citizenship standard that any child born in the United States, even if the child's parents are here illegally, is automatically a citizen. They are just responding to economic incentives, which is not inherently "bad." One can't say the same about those who come here to get involved in violent crime, drug smuggling, and the like. They, of course, are bad news.

But "good" or "bad" is not the issue.  The issue is that they are here illegally, and as such, should be subject to deportation if apprehended.  

What strikes me as odd is the notion that because most of those in Arizona illegally are "brown" that, as to them, it is racist to enforce the law.  For purposes of this discussion, I wish the influx of illegal aliens were white Canadians who were subject to deportation, because then I imagine none of us would be having this conversation, and most everyone would instead agree as a matter of moral principle that our laws should be enforced.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on April 28, 2010, 07:36:17 am
All laws are not inherently good.  Many crimes against humanity have been executed under the rule of law.  It's interesting that in this case, under this administration, you view the state law as the "real" law and not the federal position.

Our country lacks a realistic and coherent immigration policy.  You can't stand on a high horse and accuse these people of breaking the law when in fact large and small business employs these people without consequence.   Economically, they are welcome;  politically, they are resented.  
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on April 28, 2010, 08:01:54 am
Reginald, we are not talking about the Nuremberg Laws here.  It is not "immoral" for a nation to fail to have completely open borders. Every nation has a right to enact immigration laws, to restrict who can enter the country, and to enforce those laws. Every nation has the right to police its borders and deport those who are in the nation illegally.  Indeed, like national defense, this is one of the primary obligations of a central government. Every nation of the world does so.

If one wishes to advocate a change in those immigration laws, that is a discussion worth having, and if the majority of our elected officials in Congress agree, change the law.  In the meantime, however, the law as it stands should be enforced.  Failure to do so undermines respect for law generally, which is terribly destructive to the social fabric.  It would be better to have more lenient immigration policies, actually enforced, than immigration laws on the books that nobody respects and with a nod and a wink does everything in their power to skirt.  The problem is that even with more lenient laws, many cynics rightly believe that no matter what, there is not the will at the Federal level to secure the borders.  And without vigorous and effective border enforcement, we will continue to have a systemic problem.

I would suggest that any change in the law should not be crafted to reward those who have violated it.  That approach was already tried, and it failed miserably, in doing nothing but create incentives for further violation.

I wholly agree with your description of the economic incentives of business to collaborate in the violation of our immigration laws. This is wrong.  But, given how systemic the problem now is, because our immigration laws have not been enforced, many business owners claim they have to hire illegals at low wages because all of their competitors do so.

The flood of illegal aliens artificially increases the pool of low paid workers, who, here illegally, are often paid under the table at rates below what would be paid to U.S. citizens or legal immigrants.  Thus depressing the cost of labor, creating greater economic hardship for the poorest of the poor.  Paid under the table, many of these illegal workers also don't pay whatever taxes they might owe.  

What I find interesting here is the question of, where the Federal Government has miserably failed to fulfill its duty, do the states have the right to step in and apprehend foreign nationals who have entered the state illegally.  Because, as to Arizona, my understanding is that the flood of illegal aliens has created serious problems.  Or, alternatively, are the people of each state left at the mercy of politically motivated federal officials and politicians who have no interest in ever seriously enforcing our immigration laws?
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on April 28, 2010, 08:03:09 am
Hmmmm ... I would be interested to know what Redjack's view is of this issue.  A shame that he has been silent on this thread.  I'm not sure where he would come out.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Vic Vega on April 28, 2010, 08:05:41 am
Reginald, my primary motivation was to demonstrate that this issue is not as simplistic or one-sided as a reader might think from reading the HEF before I posted my comments.

I don't really view this to be a partisan issue, except to the extent one might respond to the President's reaction to the Arizona law, and the speculation in the article that Federal Immigration Authorities would intentionally thwart the enforcement of our immigration laws. 

But fundamentally this is an issue that transcends partisanship: It is the issue of the rule of law being disrespected in our culture. This is a problem that long predates the present Administration. If you recall, Conservatives levied strong criticism against George Bush, as well as his predecessors, for failing to secure the borders.  Such criticism was even stronger after 9/11.

There are legal procedures for persons to immigrate to the United States, to become a permanent resident and eventually a citizen. My daughter-in-law has been following those procedures to the letter, as does every other person who comes into our country legally.  Those who do not are subject to deportation, because they are here illegally.  As a matter of moral and legal principle, anyone found residing in the United States illegally should be deported. The reason this is not being pursued vigorously is because our Federal Government, for decades, has failed to pursue its responsibility to enforce the our immigration laws, and as a result the problem has spun way out of control.  Creating fiscal and criminal problems for states like Arizona, and particularly Arizona (which is the primary "gateway" for illegal aliens).

The issue here is whether, once the Federal Government has abnegated its responsibility to enforce our laws, do the people of the several states have the right to enact laws to protect their citizens and their fisc from people entering their states illegally.  No doubt the courts will now address this issue.  There are legal arguments on both sides.

I've made it very clear that I don't think folk that illegally sneak across our border to find work are bad people. People who want to work are, in my world view, by definition good people. I can't even blame a person who would want to come here to take advantage of our social welfare programs or medical care (which, even as restricted for illegal aliens, is probably better than what was available to them back home), or to take advantage of our generous citizenship standard that any child born in the United States, even if the child's parents are here illegally, is automatically a citizen. They are just responding to economic incentives, which is not inherently "bad." One can't say the same about those who come here to get involved in violent crime, drug smuggling, and the like. They, of course, are bad news.

But "good" or "bad" is not the issue.  The issue is that they are here illegally, and as such, should be subject to deportation if apprehended. 

What strikes me as odd is the notion that because most of those in Arizona illegally are "brown" that, as to them, it is racist to enforce the law.  For purposes of this discussion, I wish the influx of illegal aliens were white Canadians who were subject to deportation, because then I imagine none of us would be having this conversation, and most everyone would instead agree as a matter of moral principle that our laws should be enforced.

You seem to think folks here don't know exactly how this will play out in practice.

Last I checked, under the law both parties in a illegal transaction are criminally liable under the law. The hooker and the john. The drug dealer and the buyer. The arms dealer and the arms buyer.

EXCEPT when that transaction is between the employer of illegal aliens and the illegals themselves.

There is a MARKED reluctance to actually do anything to dissuade such employers from hiring illegals. However Beaner-baiting is just fine and dandy. That exemplary Canadian illegal of yours will remain untouched under the implementation of this law even if he were doing cartwheels in the county square.

The guy running the meat packing plant that hires illegal won't be touched by this law either.

Which is a lot like busting hookers exclusively but not johns.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on April 28, 2010, 08:09:48 am
The Arizona law is badly written with racist intent.  It doesn't solve problems, it does exactly what you said - forces people to ignore the law in search of justice.  

You are also right, there must be a federal resolution of his issue.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on April 28, 2010, 08:56:21 am
Reginald, your allegation of "racist intent" would be substantiated if you could establish that the flood of illegal aliens into Arizona (as the primary "gateway" to the United States) has NOT resulted in significant costs to the state and municipal governments, and has NOT resulted in a meaningful increase in violent crime, drug smuggling, and the like. If these charges were wholly fabricated, made up by white Arizonans to justify the harassment of Hispanics, I would agree with you.  However, my understanding is that the economic and social/criminal problems are very real, and that they are directly caused by the illegal immigrant situation.  To turn a blind eye to these significant problems, just because those causing them happen to be from nations south of the border, is itself arguably racist.

As to a "federal solution" ... good luck. There are too many factors, economic and political, that push away the likelihood of any real federal solution.  Which is why the people of Arizona, as the ones directly bearing the burden, felt compelled to enact their own solution.

My guess is that the law will be struck down, on the basis of Federal preemption. However, if it is not, it will be interesting to see if it has a meaningful impact on diverting the flow of illegal aliens from Arizona to other states (or actually reducing the flow).

Oh, and Vic, I thought that laws have been enacted to impose employer sanctions.  I've not researched the matter, but at least for major employers, are there not employer sanctions?  Educate me.  Maybe I'm confusing proposals with enacted law. But I could swear I've heard of companies getting hit with sanctions. Including meat packing plants, as a matter of fact. But maybe I'm suffering from false recollections. Help me out here.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Princesa on April 28, 2010, 08:56:36 am
It's the politics of fear, pandering of the lowest kind--to the xenophobic and racist elements.  It is a harassment tool to be used against anybody who seems 'other' to the dominant culture. Don't think other states are looking? In other places it will be if you look Haitian to them or Dominican or...whatever, imagine election day in South Carolina...
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Battle on April 28, 2010, 09:11:57 am
Quote
My guess is that the law will be struck down, on the basis of Federal preemption. However, if it is not, it would be interesting to see if it has a meaningful impact on diverting the flow of illegal aliens from Arizona to other states (or actually reducing the flow).  ---michaelintp


I would agree that your 'guess' is the only point I'd agree on. There is no way any sane, red-blooded human being in higher government nation-wide would ever agree on this unconstitutional act but y'know what?
In my opinion, I think this bill signed into law by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is part of much larger concern;   notice how President Obama finally gets the approval to start off-shore drilling on the east coast of the U.S., then suddenly there is a disasterous oil rig spill off the coast of Louisiana & Mexico or ever notice how earlier this year, there was a lot of chatter about the Obama Administration pursuing the issue of Immigration Reform/Amnesty, then suddenly a immigration enforcement bill is processed.  Just look at this distorted illustrated panel from michaelintp's 'point-of-view'.
(http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/1599/illegalisillegales7.jpg)
I Don't Get It, Either...



I don't believe street police can solve the immigration problem, if this were true, then the 'war on drugs' problem would be also solved but it isn't

---it worsened the problem.

Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: bluezulu on April 28, 2010, 09:16:04 am
most of those in Arizona illegally are "brown" that, as to them, it is racist to enforce the law.


When you get in Lawyer mode it is hard to follow your post Mike. You start to split words and just argue for the sake of arguing.


Bottom line. Arresting people for no probable cause other then how they look is dead wrong end of discussion. You may talk about the laws and politics that make a law like this even possible but come on man.

It will work its way out though. They will pull over and detain the wrong mofo watch.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Battle on April 28, 2010, 09:34:07 am
As to a "federal solution" ... good luck. There are too many factors, economic and political, that push away the likelihood of any real federal solution.  Which is why the people of Arizona, as the ones directly bearing the burden, felt compelled to enact their own solution.

I heard this issue discussed on a late night talk show over the radio a few nights ago and I liked this idea:

Maybe a more effective federal solution would be to build a series of military bases along the borders between Mexico and the U.S. instead of actually building a fence to keep people out (or in);  the appearance of a military base manned with specialized personnel that can substantially deal with the Mexican drug cartels, criminally illegal immigrants, etc.  
Meanwhile, Congress can simutaneously legislate bills into laws that are specific to the immigration issue.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: moor on April 28, 2010, 09:48:28 am
There is a BIG difference between illegal and criminal, Mike. When being an illegal alien becomes in itself a criminal activity, it allows Law Enforcement to act directly when there is no overtly criminal activity taking place. How would you like to be arrested for just standing on a streetcorner?

Quote
Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

If you can't see how open for abuse this is, I don't know what to tell you.

I know quite a few folks of the lighter skinned persuasions who came to this country on a student visa and forgot to go back. But none of them will ever be stopped behind this law because they aren't brown.

Strike that provision, and I don't think there would really be any problems constitutionally.  I don't actually see anything outside of that provision that isn't already currently in practice at the federal level anyway.

Anyone under arrest found to be in the country illegally is subject to federal deportation.

The hooker-john analogy is sadly on point, though.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Vic Vega on April 28, 2010, 11:14:12 am
Reginald, your allegation of "racist intent" would be substantiated if you could establish that the flood of illegal aliens into Arizona (as the primary "gateway" to the United States) has NOT resulted in significant costs to the state and municipal governments, and has NOT resulted in a meaningful increase in violent crime, drug smuggling, and the like. If these charges were wholly fabricated, made up by white Arizonans to justify the harassment of Hispanics, I would agree with you.  However, my understanding is that the economic and social/criminal problems are very real, and that they are directly caused by the illegal immigrant situation.  To turn a blind eye to these significant problems, just because those causing them happen to be from nations south of the border, is itself arguably racist.

As to a "federal solution" ... good luck. There are too many factors, economic and political, that push away the likelihood of any real federal solution.  Which is why the people of Arizona, as the ones directly bearing the burden, felt compelled to enact their own solution.

My guess is that the law will be struck down, on the basis of Federal preemption. However, if it is not, it will be interesting to see if it has a meaningful impact on diverting the flow of illegal aliens from Arizona to other states (or actually reducing the flow).

Oh, and Vic, I thought that laws have been enacted to impose employer sanctions.  I've not researched the matter, but at least for major employers, are there not employer sanctions?  Educate me.  Maybe I'm confusing proposals with enacted law. But I could swear I've heard of companies getting hit with sanctions. Including meat packing plants, as a matter of fact. But maybe I'm suffering from false recollections. Help me out here.


Quote
...It is unlawful to hire an alien, to recruit an alien, or to refer an alien for a fee, knowing the alien is unauthorized to work in the United States.1 It is equally unlawful to continue to employ an alien knowing that the alien is unauthorized to work.2 Employers may give preference in recruitment and hiring to a U.S. citizen over an alien with work authorization only where the U.S. citizen is equally or better qualified.3


Quote
...Conspiracy to commit the crimes of sheltering, harboring, or employing illegal aliens is a separate federal offense punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or five years imprisonment.


http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersbcdd (http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersbcdd)


Quote
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) -- Seventeen people were in federal custody Wednesday as part of an ongoing investigation of a Fremont meatpacking plant by immigration officials, authorities said.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Greg Palmore said the 17 were arrested Tuesday at Fremont Beef Company for immigration violations.

Immigration agents performed an "enforcement action" -- not a raid -- to determine whether Fremont Beef is complying with immigration laws, he said. No further information is available, he said.

Fremont Beef president Les Leech said in a statement issued Wednesday that his company was among a thousand nationwide that were randomly selected for immigration audits. The names of Fremont Beef workers were entered in the Federal Trade Commission's identity theft database, which showed 18 matches, he said. Those workers were taken in for questioning.
Palmore said he wasn't sure how many were questioned, but 17 were taken into custody.


http://www.manufacturing.net/News-17-Arrested-At-Nebraska-Meatpacking-Plant-031110.aspx (http://www.manufacturing.net/News-17-Arrested-At-Nebraska-Meatpacking-Plant-031110.aspx)

We don't yet know (or at least I don't know, anyway) if Freemont Beef is going to suffer any penalties or charges. Certainly Mr. Leech seems to be asserting that thier company wasn't knowingly employing illegals. He may very well be telling the truth. However, I know from my own work experiece that this is very often NOT the case.

While there are laws on the books that actually sanction employers, they are very rarely enforced.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: BlackRodimus on April 28, 2010, 11:24:18 am
Reginald, your allegation of "racist intent" would be substantiated if you could establish that the flood of illegal aliens into Arizona (as the primary "gateway" to the United States) has NOT resulted in significant costs to the state and municipal governments, and has NOT resulted in a meaningful increase in violent crime, drug smuggling, and the like. If these charges were wholly fabricated, made up by white Arizonans to justify the harassment of Hispanics, I would agree with you.  However, my understanding is that the economic and social/criminal problems are very real, and that they are directly caused by the illegal immigrant situation.  To turn a blind eye to these significant problems, just because those causing them happen to be from nations south of the border, is itself arguably racist.

As to a "federal solution" ... good luck. There are too many factors, economic and political, that push away the likelihood of any real federal solution.  Which is why the people of Arizona, as the ones directly bearing the burden, felt compelled to enact their own solution.

My guess is that the law will be struck down, on the basis of Federal preemption. However, if it is not, it will be interesting to see if it has a meaningful impact on diverting the flow of illegal aliens from Arizona to other states (or actually reducing the flow).

Oh, and Vic, I thought that laws have been enacted to impose employer sanctions.  I've not researched the matter, but at least for major employers, are there not employer sanctions?  Educate me.  Maybe I'm confusing proposals with enacted law. But I could swear I've heard of companies getting hit with sanctions. Including meat packing plants, as a matter of fact. But maybe I'm suffering from false recollections. Help me out here.


Quote
...It is unlawful to hire an alien, to recruit an alien, or to refer an alien for a fee, knowing the alien is unauthorized to work in the United States.1 It is equally unlawful to continue to employ an alien knowing that the alien is unauthorized to work.2 Employers may give preference in recruitment and hiring to a U.S. citizen over an alien with work authorization only where the U.S. citizen is equally or better qualified.3


Quote
...Conspiracy to commit the crimes of sheltering, harboring, or employing illegal aliens is a separate federal offense punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or five years imprisonment.


[url]http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersbcdd[/url] ([url]http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersbcdd[/url])


Quote
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) -- Seventeen people were in federal custody Wednesday as part of an ongoing investigation of a Fremont meatpacking plant by immigration officials, authorities said.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Greg Palmore said the 17 were arrested Tuesday at Fremont Beef Company for immigration violations.

Immigration agents performed an "enforcement action" -- not a raid -- to determine whether Fremont Beef is complying with immigration laws, he said. No further information is available, he said.

Fremont Beef president Les Leech said in a statement issued Wednesday that his company was among a thousand nationwide that were randomly selected for immigration audits. The names of Fremont Beef workers were entered in the Federal Trade Commission's identity theft database, which showed 18 matches, he said. Those workers were taken in for questioning.
Palmore said he wasn't sure how many were questioned, but 17 were taken into custody.


[url]http://www.manufacturing.net/News-17-Arrested-At-Nebraska-Meatpacking-Plant-031110.aspx[/url] ([url]http://www.manufacturing.net/News-17-Arrested-At-Nebraska-Meatpacking-Plant-031110.aspx[/url])

We don't yet know (or at least I don't know) in Freemont Beef is going to suffer any penalties or charges. Certainly Mr. Leech seems to be asserting that thier company wasn't knowingly employing illegals. He ay very well be telling the truth. However, I know from my own work experiece that this is very often NOT the case.

While there are laws on the books that actually sanction employers, they are very rarely enforced.



Every single job I've ever had has required me to have VERIFIABLE proof of identity, even when I was 16 working at Burger King. So I agree with you, while he may be telling the truth, I seriously doubted.

I remember Walmart a few years ago got raided for their 3rd shift employees, most of which were illegal. But that seems to be it. If there were harsh penalties for employers who hire illegals, which include JAIL TIME, this problem would evaporate almost immediately.

But there isn't. Only in this dichotomy is ignorance an excuse, any other time you're told you should have known or found out so here's your punishment anyway. And you can't have it both ways, hire illegals like hotcakes cause its profitable, but then get mad when illegals try to come here cause they know they can get work.

And honestly, this is beside the point of the article. Yes, something should be done about illegals, no, THIS isn't it. The way its written leaves it wide open to declare open season on brown folks. Period. It just does. THAT'S the issue, not whether illegals should be here at all, and frankly anyone confusing the two is doing so willfully. It's an "easy" solution that creates more problems than it solves, so no, back to the drawing board.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Vic Vega on April 28, 2010, 12:55:44 pm
Quote
The way its written leaves it wide open to declare open season on brown folks. Period. It just does. THAT'S the issue, not whether illegals should be here at all.

Quoted for truth.

You could be American as apple pie, but if you are Latino (or look Latino) the Arizona Police can eff with you at all times now. The fact of your existence is probable cause now.

After all how the hell can you tell a resident alien or naturalized Mexican from an illegal one? And do you think the Cops over there give a rat's ass about the difference anyway at this point? THIS is what I meant by ripe for abuse. Any Cop with a mind to do so can accost you as a Latino Citizen and ask you for your papers.  And if you as a Cop hated Latinos to begin with, this is like Christmas. Now the legal brown folk REALLY don't even have to be doing anything to get rolled up on anymore.

Aside from breathing that is.

It is unconscionable that American citizens are going to get stopped every other day and get asked for their papers.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: moor on April 28, 2010, 02:04:01 pm
Quote
The way its written leaves it wide open to declare open season on brown folks. Period. It just does. THAT'S the issue, not whether illegals should be here at all.

Quoted for truth.

You could be American as apple pie, but if you are Latino (or look Latino) the Arizona Police can eff with you at all times now. The fact of your existence is probable cause now.

After all how the hell can you tell a resident alien or naturalized Mexican from an illegal one? And do you think the Cops over there give a rat's ass about the difference anyway at this point? THIS is what I meant by ripe for abuse. Any Cop with a mind to do so can accost you as a Latino Citizen and ask you for your papers.  And if you as a Cop hated Latinos to begin with, this is like Christmas. Now the legal brown folk REALLY don't even have to be doing anything to get rolled up on anymore.

Aside from breathing that is.

It is unconscionable that American citizens are going to get stopped every other day and get asked for their papers.

Who would've thought Arizona would ever start to resemble Russia.  And I bet Palin never saw this coming all the way from Alaska!
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on April 28, 2010, 04:41:35 pm
Vic, thanks for the info on the laws regarding employer sanctions. I didn't think I was totally daydreaming, haha.  ::)  I agree with all of you, that this hiring of illegal aliens is pretty widespread.  I don't know how widespread it is with most major corporations, that are subjected to greater Government scrutiny, but with small businesses, contractors, and the like, of course it is incredibly widespread (though I have some sympathy for 'em, as I've heard owners of small businesses who have tried to hire only U.S. citizens sincerely state that they found they just could not compete with the other folk in their industries who were regularly hiring illegals).  As to criminal sanctions, remember that in our judicial system a person (even a business owner, haha) is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a high burden to meet, particularly if the illegal aliens provide false documentation.

Please Think About This:  The question I would ask all of you is ... how is a border State that is being inundated with illegal aliens (with the corresponding increasing State and local costs, increases in crime, elimination of jobs for citizens, etc) supposed to deal with the problem, if the people of that State actually want to try to stem the tide? Particularly when, as is the case, the Federal Government is sitting on its collective thumb and "allowing" the border states to bear those financial and human costs?

It is not the States' fault that the vast majority of the foreign nationals who are illegally entering the State are "brown."  It just happens to be an unfortunate fact, in large part due to the terrible economies, corruption, etc., in nations south of the border.  And in part due to the lure of what America has to offer, both in terms of jobs, and (for the less scrupulous) profits from the drug trade (etc). Though again, I have to keep saying, I am not willing to paint all illegal aliens with a broad negative brush; by in large I respect 'em, and were I in their position, I would hope I would do exactly what they are doing, in trying to come here, support my family (here and back in the home country), work hard, etc.  But that does not take away from the significant costs that border States are forced to incur, and the increases in crime the people of those States are forced to suffer from the vermin who come along with the vast majority of decent folk who just wanna come here to make a better life for themselves.  And, while not disparaging the majority of illegal aliens, the fact remains that they are taking jobs away from U.S. citizens, driving down wages, fostering a black market in labor, etc.  Through no fault of their own.

Employer sanctions may be part of the solution (and they already exist).  But that won't stop the criminal element, the drug smugglers, the criminals who help foreign nationals get over the border, the gang bangers, etc.  Nor will sanctions stop the reality that folks here illegally, who are willing to work for less under the table, will depress wages paid to legal workers. No matter what sanctions exist.  The economics are just too compelling (even for employers who would like to do the right thing, and would like to only hire U.S. citizens and legal residents, but will be forced to go out of business if they do, because of the Government restrictions that are imposed on businesses, in terms of the minumum wage, federal withholding, state withholding, state insurance, now healthcare (?) [I'm not sure how this affects small employers] and the like).

What is to be done, by the affected States, to stem the tide of foreign nationals coming into their state illegally?  When the Federal Government does jack sh*t, and for the forseeable future, will do jack sh*t, for a number of political reasons.

Furthermore, what about the issue that the illegal aliens are flouting our immigration laws, by being here illegally?  Don't any of you see that by accepting this, by poo-pooing this, we (collectively) are undermining our culture's respect for the Rule of Law?  Don't any of you see how this is terribly destructive to the national psyche?

In terms of the issue of harassment, I understand the concern.  Of course, a driver's license will ward off any further inquiry. Usually, when someone is stopped for a crime, or on suspicion of committing a crime, the first thing the cops do is ask for the suspect's I.D. (and they will get it eventually, even if not provided immediately).  If this statute is sustained, and if it were then used by racist cops to harass U.S. citizens who were just minding their own business (not engaged in some other suspect activity), you can be sure that the lawsuits will start flying immediately.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Princesa on April 28, 2010, 06:44:42 pm
Quote
The way its written leaves it wide open to declare open season on brown folks. Period. It just does. THAT'S the issue, not whether illegals should be here at all.

Quoted for truth.

You could be American as apple pie, but if you are Latino (or look Latino) the Arizona Police can eff with you at all times now. The fact of your existence is probable cause now.

After all how the hell can you tell a resident alien or naturalized Mexican from an illegal one? And do you think the Cops over there give a rat's ass about the difference anyway at this point? THIS is what I meant by ripe for abuse. Any Cop with a mind to do so can accost you as a Latino Citizen and ask you for your papers.  And if you as a Cop hated Latinos to begin with, this is like Christmas. Now the legal brown folk REALLY don't even have to be doing anything to get rolled up on anymore.

Aside from breathing that is.

It is unconscionable that American citizens are going to get stopped every other day and get asked for their papers.


It's all about who is in the crosshairs. These folks don't even pretend anymore.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on April 28, 2010, 07:42:55 pm
Please Think About This:  The question I would ask all of you is ... how is a border State that is being inundated with illegal aliens (with the corresponding increasing State and local costs, increases in crime, elimination of jobs for citizens, etc) supposed to deal with the problem, if the people of that State actually want to try to stem the tide? Particularly when, as is the case, the Federal Government is sitting on its collective thumb and "allowing" the border states to bear those financial and human costs?
Fair question. I don't know. But not by stepping on the rights of brown American citizens to be left the f*ck alone. I think most of the concerns expressed center around the potential for abuse by law enforcement officials.

It seems to me that focusing on the demand side of the equation might be more effective. Prosecuting illegal employers of illegal aliens would reduce the economic incentive that draws folks across the borders, wouldn't it? After all, all Arizona can practically do is foist its illegal immigration issues off onto other states by making AZ relatively unappealing compared to other states.

Furthermore, what about the issue that the illegal aliens are flouting our immigration laws, by being here illegally?  Don't any of you see that by accepting this, by poo-pooing this, we (collectively) are undermining our culture's respect for the Rule of Law?  Don't any of you see how this is terribly destructive to the national psyche?
Theoretically, sure. But let's compare that effect to the daily differential application of the law to poor and minority folks that yields the horrible over-representation of those folks in our courts and prisons. <*close tangent*>

Back to the point, wouldn't actual enforcement of the law against hiring aliens unauthorized to work that Vic cited improve that respect for the Rule of Law?
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Battle on April 29, 2010, 07:56:37 am
Who would've thought Arizona would ever start to resemble Russia.  And I bet Palin never saw this coming all the way from Alaska!


I'm not surprised at all.  Not even a little bit.

I had an idea of what the general tone of what some Arizona guys were like 10 years ago at some 4th-rate computer gaming site located there; this site was populated shoulder-to-shoulder by hardcore gamers who played Quake all-day  bullying visitors with thier pyschotic brand of comments fueled by blatant racism, isolationism, hate and everything else not like them.  
The punk who ran that site expressed openly his disdain for people not like him and his pussycat friends and publicly announced that he was going to become a police officer so that he can 'exact some justice'.

Also, consider, Arizona's racist, violent history and the recent defeat of the state's 2008 presidential candidate, senator mc cain...
---this piece of legislation really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: BlackRodimus on April 29, 2010, 11:34:49 am
Please Think About This:  The question I would ask all of you is ... how is a border State that is being inundated with illegal aliens (with the corresponding increasing State and local costs, increases in crime, elimination of jobs for citizens, etc) supposed to deal with the problem, if the people of that State actually want to try to stem the tide? Particularly when, as is the case, the Federal Government is sitting on its collective thumb and "allowing" the border states to bear those financial and human costs?
Fair question. I don't know. But not by stepping on the rights of brown American citizens to be left the f*ck alone. I think most of the concerns expressed center around the potential for abuse by law enforcement officials.

It seems to me that focusing on the demand side of the equation might be more effective. Prosecuting illegal employers of illegal aliens would reduce the economic incentive that draws folks across the borders, wouldn't it? After all, all Arizona can practically do is foist its illegal immigration issues off onto other states by making AZ relatively unappealing compared to other states.

Furthermore, what about the issue that the illegal aliens are flouting our immigration laws, by being here illegally?  Don't any of you see that by accepting this, by poo-pooing this, we (collectively) are undermining our culture's respect for the Rule of Law?  Don't any of you see how this is terribly destructive to the national psyche?
Theoretically, sure. But let's compare that effect to the daily differential application of the law to poor and minority folks that yields the horrible over-representation of those folks in our courts and prisons. <*close tangent*>

Back to the point, wouldn't actual enforcement of the law against hiring aliens unauthorized to work that Vic cited improve that respect for the Rule of Law?

I...said the same thing regarding punishing employers.  ??? The answer shouldn't be left up to doubt or wonder, its a YES. JAIL. TIME. for the immediate hiring manager and this problem will solve itself. JAIL one or two and across the country managers will fire every illegal worker en masse for fear that they're next. The question isn't what, its how to make this happen. The why is simple, illegal workers are cost effective to the bottom line for businesses. Figure out a way around that, and it'll happen.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Mastrmynd on April 29, 2010, 02:21:48 pm
Please Think About This:  The question I would ask all of you is ... how is a border State that is being inundated with illegal aliens (with the corresponding increasing State and local costs, increases in crime, elimination of jobs for citizens, etc) supposed to deal with the problem, if the people of that State actually want to try to stem the tide? Particularly when, as is the case, the Federal Government is sitting on its collective thumb and "allowing" the border states to bear those financial and human costs?
Fair question. I don't know. But not by stepping on the rights of brown American citizens to be left the f*ck alone. I think most of the concerns expressed center around the potential for abuse by law enforcement officials.

It seems to me that focusing on the demand side of the equation might be more effective. Prosecuting illegal employers of illegal aliens would reduce the economic incentive that draws folks across the borders, wouldn't it? After all, all Arizona can practically do is foist its illegal immigration issues off onto other states by making AZ relatively unappealing compared to other states.

Furthermore, what about the issue that the illegal aliens are flouting our immigration laws, by being here illegally?  Don't any of you see that by accepting this, by poo-pooing this, we (collectively) are undermining our culture's respect for the Rule of Law?  Don't any of you see how this is terribly destructive to the national psyche?
Theoretically, sure. But let's compare that effect to the daily differential application of the law to poor and minority folks that yields the horrible over-representation of those folks in our courts and prisons. <*close tangent*>

Back to the point, wouldn't actual enforcement of the law against hiring aliens unauthorized to work that Vic cited improve that respect for the Rule of Law?

I...said the same thing regarding punishing employers.  ??? The answer shouldn't be left up to doubt or wonder, its a YES. JAIL. TIME. for the immediate hiring manager and this problem will solve itself. JAIL one or two and across the country managers will fire every illegal worker en masse for fear that they're next. The question isn't what, its how to make this happen. The why is simple, illegal workers are cost effective to the bottom line for businesses. Figure out a way around that, and it'll happen.

well stated!
it's not like these immigrants are just walkin' into the place of business and start working.

manager: I dont know how these people got here. I showed up and they were working...and they won't leave!
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: BlackRodimus on April 29, 2010, 03:12:29 pm
Please Think About This:  The question I would ask all of you is ... how is a border State that is being inundated with illegal aliens (with the corresponding increasing State and local costs, increases in crime, elimination of jobs for citizens, etc) supposed to deal with the problem, if the people of that State actually want to try to stem the tide? Particularly when, as is the case, the Federal Government is sitting on its collective thumb and "allowing" the border states to bear those financial and human costs?
Fair question. I don't know. But not by stepping on the rights of brown American citizens to be left the f*ck alone. I think most of the concerns expressed center around the potential for abuse by law enforcement officials.

It seems to me that focusing on the demand side of the equation might be more effective. Prosecuting illegal employers of illegal aliens would reduce the economic incentive that draws folks across the borders, wouldn't it? After all, all Arizona can practically do is foist its illegal immigration issues off onto other states by making AZ relatively unappealing compared to other states.

Furthermore, what about the issue that the illegal aliens are flouting our immigration laws, by being here illegally?  Don't any of you see that by accepting this, by poo-pooing this, we (collectively) are undermining our culture's respect for the Rule of Law?  Don't any of you see how this is terribly destructive to the national psyche?
Theoretically, sure. But let's compare that effect to the daily differential application of the law to poor and minority folks that yields the horrible over-representation of those folks in our courts and prisons. <*close tangent*>

Back to the point, wouldn't actual enforcement of the law against hiring aliens unauthorized to work that Vic cited improve that respect for the Rule of Law?

I...said the same thing regarding punishing employers.  ??? The answer shouldn't be left up to doubt or wonder, its a YES. JAIL. TIME. for the immediate hiring manager and this problem will solve itself. JAIL one or two and across the country managers will fire every illegal worker en masse for fear that they're next. The question isn't what, its how to make this happen. The why is simple, illegal workers are cost effective to the bottom line for businesses. Figure out a way around that, and it'll happen.

well stated!
it's not like these immigrants are just walkin' into the place of business and start working.

manager: I dont know how these people got here. I showed up and they were working...and they won't leave!

"And since they won't leave, well, I had to pay them!"

Mandatory jail sentences. Period. If they're coming here for water, dry up the well.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on April 29, 2010, 07:45:16 pm
As I mentioned above, employer sanctions may be part of the solution.  Though they already do exist.  The problem with employer sanctions is that even in a civil case the government must prevail by a preponderance of the evidence, and in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt.  I would trust nobody on the forum would advocate that persons charged with a potential fine, much less charged with a crime, should be denied their right to a fair trial.

The thing is, it is much easier to prove that a foreign national is in the United States (or in the State of Arizona) illegally than it is to prove that an employer knowingly hired illegal aliens, particularly with the availability of false documentation.

Also, your partial solution will at best move the inquiry back one level, with employers all over the state required to interrogate (and investigate?) anyone who is 'brown' to verify that he or she is a U.S. Citizen or legal resident.  At what lengths would you require the potential employer to go?  The police have ready means to verify the authenticity of a driver's license or similar documentation; a small contractor who needs to hire a couple of guys on a construction project does not.  What focusing only on employers might do is foster a greater demand for forged documents, funneling more funds into organized crime.

But it sounds like the Arizona law does address this issue you are raising.  Per an AP story that describes the intention of illegal aliens to leave Arizona to go to less restrictive states:  "Arizona's sweeping immigration bill allows police to arrest illegal immigrant day laborers seeking work on the street or anyone trying to hire them. It won't take effect until summer but it is already having an effect on the state's underground economy."

However you slice it, it is a difficult problem to tackle.  Obviously, the proponents of the Arizona statute feel that going after supply and demand is the only feasible solution.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Francisco on April 29, 2010, 07:49:25 pm
Why just investigate black and brown people? Why don't just investigate anyone who wants to work for you? Everyone.. Black, white, Asian, Latino male or female. If you can't prove you're a citizen or legal immigrant you can't have a job. The employers could be given a certain amount of time to make sure the person they hired isn't an illegal immigrant just in case fake documentation is provided. If after that certain amount of time the employer hasn't done anything in his power to make sure the new guy isn't an illegal immigrant he or she should be fined or jailed.

Oh I forgot that the only undesirable illegal immigration is that one practiced by non-whites. ::)
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on April 30, 2010, 07:39:52 am
Apr 30, 10:02 AM EDT

Lawsuits target AZ law amid calls for boycotts

BY JONATHAN J. COOPER and PAUL DAVENPORT
Associated Press Writers
 
PHOENIX (AP) -- Backlash against a new Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigration is broadening from the political arena as opponents file lawsuits, entertainers and other countries denounce the measure and protesters chant for a boycott of the state at an Arizona Diamondbacks baseball game in Chicago.

A lawsuit from 15-year Tucson police veteran Martin Escobar was one of three filed Thursday, less than a week after Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill that critics claim is unconstitutional and fear will lead to racial profiling.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the federal government may challenge the law, which requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

Brewer and other backers say the state law is necessary because of the federal government's failure to secure the border and growing anxiety over crime related to illegal immigration.

But chances the federal government will step in this year seemed slim. President Barack Obama, who has called the Arizona law misguided, said lawmakers may lack the "appetite" to take on immigration while many of them are up for re-election and while another big legislative issue - climate change - is already on their plate.

"I don't want us to do something just for the sake of politics that doesn't solve the problem," Obama told reporters Wednesday night aboard Air Force One.

Entertainers entered the fray Thursday, with Colombian singer Shakira visiting Phoenix to meet the city's police chief and mayor amid her concerns the measure would violate human and civil rights.

"It goes against all human dignity." she said of the law.

"Mexican-Americans are not going to take this lying down," singer Linda Ronstadt, a Tucson native, said at a news conference on a lawsuit planned by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the National Immigration Law Center.

And at the Billboard Latin Music Awards ceremony in Puerto Rico, singer Ricky Martin denounced the law, saying it "makes no sense."

About 40 immigrant rights activists gathered outside Wrigley Field in Chicago Thursday, chanting "Boycott Arizona" as the Cubs open a four-game series against the Diamondbacks. A small plane toting a banner criticizing the law circled the stadium. A Cubs spokesman declined to comment, while Arizona manager A.J. Hinch said the team was there to play baseball.

While debate over the law swirled nationwide, Arizona lawmakers Thursday approved modifications to the law. The changes include strengthening restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning by police and specifying that possible violations of local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.

The law's sponsor, Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, characterized those changes as clarifications "just to take away the silly arguments and the games, the dishonesty that's been played."

In Phoenix, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio launched his latest crime and immigration sweep Thursday, arresting 60 people, with 39 suspected of being illegal immigrants.

Arpaio, whose tough crackdowns have made him a hero in the anti-illegal immigration community, has conducted 14 of the sweeps since 2008. Critics allege Arpaio's deputies racially profiled Hispanics during the sweeps, but Arpaio says people were approached because deputies had probable cause to believe they had committed crimes. Arpaio has lauded the new law, saying it gives him new authority to detain undocumented migrants who aren't accused of committing any other crimes.

Some Latin nations also entered the debate.

In Mexico City, Mayor Marcelo Ebrard announced he would try to join lawsuits seeking to overturn the law, with a statement from his office calling the measure "a planned Apartheid against Mexicans."

Officials in El Salvador urged people to avoid traveling to Arizona, according to the Foreign Ministry. In Nicaragua, officials called on the Organization of American States and the United Nations "to take the necessary measures to safeguard the rights of the Hispanic population."

The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders also sued Thursday, and sought an injunction preventing authorities from enforcing the law. The group argued that federal law pre-empts state regulation of national borders, and that Arizona's law violates due process rights by letting police detain suspected illegal immigrants before they're convicted.

In his lawsuit, Escobar, the Phoenix police officer, argued he'll be sued whether he enforces the law or not, either for violating civil rights or for refusing to enforce it.Tucson police said Escobar acted on his own.

At least three Arizona cities - Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson - are considering legal action to block the law.

Politicians from around the country also weighed in. Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter said he would veto a new law like the one in Arizona, while Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry said such a law would be wrong for his state because it has a tradition of rejecting harsh anti-immigrant policies.

Supporters of the new law also were vocal outside Arizona.

A group of conservative state lawmakers in Oklahoma said they plan to introduce a bill similar to Arizona's. In Texas, Rep. Debbie Riddle, a Republican, said she will introduce a measure similar to the Arizona law in the January legislative session. And Republicans running for governor in Colorado and Minnesota expressed support for the crackdown.
 
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on April 30, 2010, 09:29:01 am
Why just investigate black and brown people? Why don't just investigate anyone who wants to work for you? Everyone.. Black, white, Asian, Latino male or female. If you can't prove you're a citizen or legal immigrant you can't have a job. The employers could be given a certain amount of time to make sure the person they hired isn't an illegal immigrant just in case fake documentation is provided. If after that certain amount of time the employer hasn't done anything in his power to make sure the new guy isn't an illegal immigrant he or she should be fined or jailed.

Oh I forgot that the only undesirable illegal immigration is that one practiced by non-whites. ::)

My only point was that since the vast majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic and employers concerned about severe civil and criminal sanctions will therefore be inclined to more closely scrutinize Hispanic employees and potential employees (as that is where their greatest exposure is), even while following the procedures for all employees. So there is the potential for engendering discrimination even in a pure "employer sanctions" regime. 

I don't think anyone would deny that focusing only on the demand side of the equation (by going only after employers) would be less effective in stemming illegal immigration that by focusing on both the demand and the supply sides (by also going after the illegal aliens as well).  It appears that the Arizona law does both.  The issue is whether this can be done in a manner that will not descend to harassment of Hispanic citizens and legal residents.  I imagine this would depend on the circumstances where persons are allowed to be "carded" by the police.  In normal arrests or citations, people are already required to provide their identification.

Of course any system of laws aimed at stemming the tide of illegal immigration will disproportionately impact Hispanics, given the demographics of most illegal aliens in Arizona.  That is just a statistical fact.  This does not mean that foreign nationals here illegally who are "brown" are inherently better or worse that illegal aliens who are of any other race.

An unspoken issue, not articulated on this thread so far, is that there are a lot of people (some in business and some in the Latino activist community, among others) who really do not want our immigration laws to be enforced at all. There is big money involved, for some businesses, for nations such as Mexico (which get remittances from their nationals), and (in the aggregate) for the illegal aliens themselves. Perhaps the primary concern here is not really "racism" but rather that Arizona is determined to see that our immigration laws are enforced.  Potentially drying up the $$$ well, for those here illegally and the busineses who hire them and those who benefit from their being here.  But of course phrasing the concern this way would not garner the same degree of sympathy, particularly when American workers are unemployed and struggling to make ends meet.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: BlackRodimus on April 30, 2010, 11:52:05 am
Why just investigate black and brown people? Why don't just investigate anyone who wants to work for you? Everyone.. Black, white, Asian, Latino male or female. If you can't prove you're a citizen or legal immigrant you can't have a job. The employers could be given a certain amount of time to make sure the person they hired isn't an illegal immigrant just in case fake documentation is provided. If after that certain amount of time the employer hasn't done anything in his power to make sure the new guy isn't an illegal immigrant he or she should be fined or jailed.

Oh I forgot that the only undesirable illegal immigration is that one practiced by non-whites. ::)

Agree with every word you said. Bravo.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 01, 2010, 06:28:30 pm
If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem
 By FRANK RICH
Published: May 1, 2010

DON’T blame it all on Arizona. The Grand Canyon State simply happened to be in the right place at the right time to tilt over to the dark side. Its hysteria is but another symptom of a political virus that can’t be quarantined and whose cure is as yet unknown.

If many of Arizona’s defenders and critics hold one belief in common, it’s that the new “show me your papers” law is sui generis: it’s seen as one angry border state’s response to its outsized share of America’s illegal immigration crisis. But to label this development “Arizona’s folly” trivializes its import and reach. The more you examine the law’s provisions and proponents, the more you realize that it’s the latest and (so far) most vicious battle in a far broader movement that is not just about illegal immigrants — and that is steadily increasing its annexation of one of America’s two major political parties.

Arizonans, like all Americans, have every right to be furious about Washington’s protracted and bipartisan failure to address the immigration stalemate. To be angry about illegal immigration is hardly tantamount to being a bigot. But the Arizona law expressing that anger is bigoted, and in a very particular way. The law dovetails seamlessly with the national “Take Back America” crusade that has attended the rise of Barack Obama and the accelerating demographic shift our first African-American president represents.

The crowd that wants Latinos to show their papers if there’s a “reasonable suspicion” of illegality is often the same crowd still demanding that the president produce a document proving his own citizenship. Lest there be any doubt of that confluence, Rush Limbaugh hammered the point home after Obama criticized Arizona’s action. “I can understand Obama being touchy on the subject of producing your papers,” he said. “Maybe he’s afraid somebody’s going to ask him for his.” Or, as Glenn Beck chimed in about the president last week: “What has he said that sounds like American?”

To the “Take Back America” right, the illegitimate Obama is Illegal Alien No. 1. It’s no surprise that of the 35 members of the Arizona House who voted for the immigration law (the entire Republican caucus), 31 voted soon after for another new law that would require all presidential candidates to produce birth certificates to qualify for inclusion on the state’s 2012 ballot. With the whole country now watching Arizona, that “birther” bill was abruptly yanked Thursday.

The legislators who voted for both it and the immigration law were exclusively Republicans, but what happened in the Arizona G.O.P. is not staying in Arizona. Officials in at least 10 other states are now teeing up their own new immigration legislation. They are doing so even in un-Arizonan places like Ohio, Missouri, Maryland and Nebraska, none of them on the Department of Homeland Security’s 2009 list of the 10 states that contain three-quarters of America’s illegal immigrant population.

Outbreaks of nativist apoplexy are nothing new in American history. The last derailed George W. Bush’s apparently earnest effort to get a bipartisan immigration compromise through the Senate in 2007. At the time, the more egregious expressions of anti-immigrant rage — including Arizona’s self-appointed border-patrol militia, the Minutemen — were stigmatized as a fringe by the White House and much of the G.O.P. establishment. John McCain, though facing a tough fight for the Republican presidential nomination, signed on to the Bush reform effort despite being slimed by those in his party’s base who accused him of supporting “amnesty.”

What a difference the Tea Party makes. This time McCain endorsed his state’s new immigration law as “a good tool” and “a very important step forward,” and propagandized in favor of it with his widely ridiculed televised canard that illegal immigrants were “intentionally causing accidents on the freeway.” McCain, like other mainstream conservative Republicans facing primaries this year, is now fighting for his political life against a Tea Party-supported radical. His opponent, the former congressman and radio shock jock J. D. Hayworth, is an unabashed birther who frames the immigration debate as an opportunity to “stand up for our culture,” presumably against all immigrants, legal and illegal alike. In this political climate, he could well win.

McCain, like Arizona, shouldn’t be singled out for censure: He is far from alone in cowering before his party’s extremists. Neither Mitch McConnell, John Boehner nor Eric Cantor dared say a word against Arizona’s law. Mitt Romney, who was mocked during the 2008 campaign for having employed undocumented Guatemalan immigrants as landscapers on his Massachusetts estate, tried to deflect the issue by vacillating (as usual). So did Mike Huckabee, who told The Dallas Morning News last week that “it’s not my place to agree or disagree” with what happened in Arizona. If it’s not the place of a talk-show host and prospective presidential candidate to take a stand on an issue of this moment, whose place is it? There are few profiles in courage among the leaders in this G.O.P. — only a lot of guys hiding under their desks.

The one group of Republicans that has been forthright in criticizing the Arizona law is the Bush circle: Jeb Bush, the former speechwriter Michael Gerson, the Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge, the adviser Mark McKinnon and, with somewhat more equivocal language, Karl Rove. McKinnon and Rove know well that Latino-bashing will ultimately prove political suicide in a century when Hispanic Americans are well on their way to becoming the largest minority in the country and are already the swing voters in many critical states.

The Bushies, however, have no power and no juice in the new conservative order. The former president is nearly as reviled in some Tea Party circles as Obama is. Even conservatives as seemingly above reproach as Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina now invite the nastiest of blow-back if they fail Tea Party purity tests. When Graham had the gall to work with Chuck Schumer of New York on an immigration reform bill, the hard-line Americans for Legal Immigration punished him by spreading rumors about his private life as loudly as possible. Graham has been backing away from supporting the immigration bill ever since.

It’s harder and harder to cling to the conventional wisdom that the Tea Party is merely an element in the G.O.P., not the party’s controlling force — the tail that’s wagging the snarling dog. It’s also hard to maintain that the Tea Party’s nuttier elements are merely a fringe of a fringe. The first national Tea Party convention, in Nashville in February, chose as its kickoff speaker the former presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, a notorious nativist who surely was enlisted precisely because he runs around saying things like he has “no idea where Obama was born.” The Times/CBS poll of the Tea Party movement found that only 41 percent of its supporters believe that the president was born in the United States.

The angry right and its apologists also keep insisting that race has nothing to do with their political passions. Thus Sarah Palin explained that it’s Obama and the “lamestream media” that are responsible for “perpetuating this myth that racial profiling is a part” of Arizona’s law. So how does that profiling work without race or ethnicity, exactly? Brian Bilbray, a Republican Congressman from California and another supporter of the law, rode to the rescue by suggesting “they will look at the kind of dress you wear.” Wise Latinas better start shopping at Talbots!

In this Alice in Wonderland inversion of reality, it’s politically incorrect to entertain a reasonable suspicion that race may be at least a factor in what drives an action like the Arizona immigration law. Any racism in America, it turns out, is directed at whites. Beck called Obama a “racist.” Newt Gingrich called Sonia Sotomayor a “Latina woman racist.” When Obama put up a routine YouTube video calling for the Democratic base to mobilize last week — which he defined as “young people, African-Americans, Latinos and women” — the Republican National Committee attacked him for playing the race card. Presumably the best defense is a good offense when you’re a party boasting an all-white membership in both the House and the Senate and represented by governors who omit slavery from their proclamations of Confederate History Month.

In a development that can only be described as startling, the G.O.P.’s one visible black leader, the party chairman Michael Steele, went off message when appearing at DePaul University on April 20. He conceded that African-Americans “really don’t have a reason” to vote Republican, citing his party’s pursuit of a race-baiting “Southern strategy” since the Nixon-Agnew era. For this he was attacked by conservatives who denied there had ever been such a strategy. That bit of historical revisionism would require erasing, for starters, Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, not to mention the Willie Horton campaign that helped to propel Bush 41 into the White House in 1988.

The rage of 2010 is far more incendiary than anything that went down in 1988, and it will soon leap from illegal immigration to other issues in other states. Boycott the Diamondbacks and Phoenix’s convention hotels if you want to punish Arizona, but don’t for a second believe that it will stop the fire next time.

Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 02, 2010, 10:35:09 pm
Reginald, instead of discussing the substantive issues, be they the enforcement of our immigration laws, domestic economic policy, and the like, we just keeping going full circle, with the inevitable reemergence of the rants of Mr. Rich, the master of 'one word quotes' 'no context given' 'humor portrayed as solemnity' 'distortion' 'sweeping generalization' and 'name-calling.'  What better way to avoid talking about the issues, eh? While Rich may convince the choir he's preaching to, I'm sure a lotta folk hear his repetitive song as off key.  
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 02, 2010, 11:01:03 pm
My young cousin was visiting today.  He's got a black dad and a white mom, and is sometimes mistaken for Mexican.  He was talking about visiting some relatives in Arizona.  My mind went to him being stopped for looking too damn Mexican for his own good, and his attempts to explain his identity being taken as backtalk and his head being split open by a cop's billy club to teach him a lesson. 

Based on past comments, I would suspect you hear concerns like that and chalk it up to racial paranoia, then return to fretting over a nuclear armed Iran.  For brown Americans, we we don't have to look on the other side of the world for people who hate us for who we are. 

Latinos are now the largest minority in the United States. There's a black man who is the President of those United States.   We can't afford to ignore the racial backlash of insecure, racist Americans who are terrified of change.  They look around and feel the age of white privilege is ending and don't know how they will cope. 

Workers are worried about jobs going away...but I don't see white folks fighting to pick grapes.  Employers certainly don't want their cheap labor pool going away, which is why this law doesn't target them. 

It's a mean spirited, racist law designed to strike terror in the hearts of any brown person, legal or not, and pump up the Tea Party crowd who doesn't understand you can't elect a president if you only have the support of white men. 
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 03, 2010, 07:27:24 am
All these horrors, conveyed with vile race-based characterizations, prompted by ...?  Because a state legislature dares to suggest that our nation's immigration laws should be enforced?  That, since the Federal Government has totally dropped the ball, a state government is taking measures to see that those laws are enforced?  

Now gee, I wonder what is really motivating 60% to 70% of Arizonans to support this law?  Might it have something to do with the dramatic increase in violent crime and drug smuggling, in significant part attributable to the influx of foreign nationals entering Arizona illegally? What about the state's high unemployment rate? These are legitimate concerns, whether you wish to admit it or not.  My suspicion is that victims of violent crime and drug peddling come in all colors. The ranks of unemployed Americans come in all colors too.

As to your young cousin, I believe your fears to be unfounded.  Please report back to us after he visits Arizona.  ;)

Here is an article that presents perspectives pro and con:

April 30, 2010
Arizonans Say Immigration Law Will Reduce Crime
Supporters Say the Law is a Necessary Step for Law Enforcement; Anti-Law Rallies Planned for Weekend Nationwide


(CBS)  Recent polls show more than 60 percent of Arizonans support the state's tough new immigration law. If outsiders wonder why, Arizonans point to Rob Krentz. He was gunned down this month on his ranch near the border. Investigators think his killer was an illegal immigrant or drug smuggler.

Afterward, long simmering rage about border security became outrage, reports CBS News correspondent Bill Whitaker.

One Arizonan said, "When something like the murder of Rob Krentz happens it should be game on."

Since the federal government tightened up the California border 15 years ago, Arizona has become the new illegal gateway to the Unites States. One-hundred-five people were caught crossing from Mexico Wednesday, and almost 700,000 have crossed in the last two and a half years.

"Crime is that bad," said Sheriff of Pinal County Paul Babeu. Pinal County is just south of Phoenix.

"Assaults against police officers, officer-involved shootings, home invasions, carjackings, violent crimes. You ask, why is that? We can clearly point to the flow of illegal immigrants," said Babeu.

Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the United States, with most instances tied to Mexican drug smugglers.

"We're not going to tolerate it anymore," said Babeu.

That widespread sentiment spurs widespread support for the new immigration law.

"You certainly can't blame all the crime on the illegal immigrants, but it's not helping matters," said Mark Allen.

"This is our state," said Mark Zemel. "These are our borders."

Zemel had his vehicle stolen by smugglers ferrying immigrants across the border illegally.

"This bill will help Arizona," said Zemel. "This is a safe neighborhoods act and it's truly going to serve that purpose."

Protesters out again Friday say the atmosphere in Arizona casts all immigrants as criminals.

"We don't support the racism," said Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon.

Gordon plans to sue to overturn the law. He says the law will hurt the economy more than criminals.

"I've been really pleading with everyone not to boycott Arizona," he said.

Opponents like the mayor and supporters all say this would not be such a hot issue if the federal government took effective action to stop the illegal flow across the border.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Battle on May 03, 2010, 07:33:51 am
All these horrors, conveyed with vile race-based characterizations, prompted by ...?  Because a state legislature dares to suggest that our nation's immigration laws should be enforced?  

Now gee, I wonder what is really motivating 60% to 70% of Arizonans to support this law?  Might it have something to do with the dramatic increase in violent crime and drug smuggling, in part attributable to the influx of foreign nationals entering Arizona illegally? What about the state's high unemployment rate? These are legitimate concerns, whether you wish to admit it or not.  My suspicion is that victims of violent crime and drug peddling come in all colors. The ranks of unemployed Americans come in all colors too.

As to your young cousin, I believe your fears to be unfounded.  Please report back to us after he visits Arizona.  ;)

Here is an article that presents perspectives pro and con:

April 30, 2010
Arizonans Say Immigration Law Will Reduce Crime



Nien!


(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w184/Battle-D/arizona_01.jpg)
Nien!
Nien!
Nien!
Nien!
Nien!
Nien
Nien
Nien
Nien

That immigration law will probably cause and create more crime.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 03, 2010, 07:38:15 am
Battle, that is the dumbest comparison I have ever ever seen, on so many levels.  The cartoonist who made it clearly has no understanding of what Nazi Germany was all about.  If he did, he would realize there is no way to compare it to the state of Arizona.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Francisco on May 03, 2010, 07:44:18 am
Yeah, in Nazi Germany it was Jews the ones target. In Arizona they're Mexican.. Brown ones not Luis Miguel, Paulina Rubio types.  ::)

Besides Arizona has no plans for extermination Camps and such.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on May 03, 2010, 10:40:28 am
My young cousin was visiting today.  He's got a black dad and a white mom, and is sometimes mistaken for Mexican.  He was talking about visiting some relatives in Arizona.  My mind went to him being stopped for looking too damn Mexican for his own good, and his attempts to explain his identity being taken as backtalk and his head being split open by a cop's billy club to teach him a lesson. 

Based on past comments, I would suspect you hear concerns like that and chalk it up to racial paranoia... 

As to your young cousin, I believe your fears to be unfounded.  Please report back to us after he visits Arizona.  ;)

Prescient.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Kristopher on May 03, 2010, 07:45:53 pm
My young cousin was visiting today.  He's got a black dad and a white mom, and is sometimes mistaken for Mexican.  He was talking about visiting some relatives in Arizona.  My mind went to him being stopped for looking too damn Mexican for his own good, and his attempts to explain his identity being taken as backtalk and his head being split open by a cop's billy club to teach him a lesson. 

I have a younger cousin who recently passed on a visit to Arizona for pretty much the same reasons, only it's not just the "Mexican I.D. Mistake" he's worried about, but the "Muslim Terrorist I.D. Mistake" as well:
(http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj416/KRStyle/MarcusMosby.jpg)
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Cheirel on May 03, 2010, 10:01:39 pm
Guys this is NOT NEW for Arizona. We were stopped well over 20 years ago for my fiancee at that time to show his papers. He was not Hispanic. Fortunately for him he had military ID otherwise who knows what would have happened. He was sleep as we passed through the border they were ready for him I grabbed his id --NO PROBLEMS! Same thing just no T.V. coverage. My family is from Texas and I have made that drive from here to there more times that I care to remember and seen things that most of you only read about so this is really not more than a joke to me.  
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 03, 2010, 10:59:24 pm
As to your young cousin, I believe your fears to be unfounded.  Please report back to us after he visits Arizona.  ;)

Prescient.

Well, I did ask Reginald to report back after his young cousin visits Arizona. ;D
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 04, 2010, 06:52:51 am
Yeah, in Nazi Germany it was Jews the ones target. In Arizona they're Mexican.. Brown ones not Luis Miguel, Paulina Rubio types.  ::)

Besides Arizona has no plans for extermination Camps and such.

I'm sick and tired of the "Nazi" charge, leveled against anyone one disagrees with.  I hate it when Lefties do it, and I hate it when Righties do it.  If we have descended to the level that one can't tell the difference between a global campaign of Genocide vs. the enforcement of a nation's reasonable immigration laws (that the Left objects to) or the enactment of massive government programs (that the Right objects to), well, we have descended to a pretty pathetic state. 

On the immigration issue, I do not favor "targeting" legal residents or U.S. citizens, just because they happen to be of the same ethnic group as the vast majority of illegal aliens.  On the other hand, I have no problem with the police asking for ID when stopping anyone for a traffic ticket, or (obviously) for a more serious offense or a bust in connection with a more serious offense, and running that ID though the computer to see if it is legit (or if the person fails to provide any ID at all, taking him or her into custody pending verification of identity and legal status).   

The problems that Arizona is facing are very significant.  That Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the United States, caused by the same criminal element that is smuggling drugs from Mexico, is no joke.  This, and the broader problem of drug smuggling and violent crime significantly caused by the massive tide of people illegally crossing the border from Mexico into Arizona, is one of those 'inconvenient truths' that opponents of the law would rather just ignore.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 04, 2010, 09:23:32 am
To keep it fun, here's a blog entry from Bryon Crawford:

If you cross the US border...

From the comments section of a post on Prison Planet, i.e. the same place that guy got the idea to shoot those cops.


If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 years hard labor.

If you cross the Iranian border illegally, you are detained indefinitely.

If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot.

If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally, you will be jailed.

If you cross the Chinese border illegally, you may never be heard from again.

If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally, you will be branded a spy and your fate will be sealed.

If you cross the Mexican border illegally, you will be thrown into a political prison to rot.

If you cross the U.S. border illegally, you get:

1. A job,
2. a drivers license,
3. a social security card,
4. welfare,
5. food stamps,
6. credit cards,
7. subsidized rent or a loan to buy a house,
8. free education,
9. free health care,
10. a lobbyist in Washington,
11. billions of dollars worth of public documents printed in your language,
12. and the right to carry your country’s flag while you protest that you don’t get enough respect.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: BmoreAkuma on May 04, 2010, 11:01:07 am
Oh shat! That is a good one Reggie.


BTW I have plans to attend a wedding in Tucson, Az (ironically this month  :o). I may not look "Latino" but at the same time I'm willing to report back after I visit Arizona as well.


On to the topic

The panel has explained my problem with these laws more than once. (Employers hiring illegally) At times, I have flat out seen an ad that was in Spanish looking for employees on major bus stops. So for the employer, please spare the "oh I didn't know" or "it is too expensive" or "I need to compete since my competition is doing it too" The industries that is guilty of this are the construction, real estate, & hospitality industries. I shouldn't assume (and honestly It is borderline racist) but every morning when I'm on the bus one would see a group of individuals of Latino descent talking and conversing in Spanish about whatever. Once they reach their stop, they all get out of the bus and BEHOLD they are walking toward the construction of new houses in the area.  ::) That is nothing new. Shoot even Macy's may be under scrutiny of hiring illegals. I wouldn't be surprised that over 90% of all employers have some illegal worker.


Now my problem to add is that this entire country was founded upon illegal immigration. And numerous, Jewish, German, Russian, Serbian, Japanese & few other came to this country illegally as well for decades. Why it is a concern now regarding ones "south of the border" but not others from our northern cousins? Where were the concerns 20 years ago? (Maybe they were there but I'm unsure)
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: mayday on May 04, 2010, 11:51:23 am
Dang. I loved Arizona too, great food & BEAUTIFUL Latino/Hispanic/Mexican/AMERICAN women !
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Afro Samurai on May 04, 2010, 01:40:15 pm
Watch more latins start acknowledging their black race cause of this......
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Vic Vega on May 04, 2010, 02:07:57 pm
Why just investigate black and brown people? Why don't just investigate anyone who wants to work for you? Everyone.. Black, white, Asian, Latino male or female. If you can't prove you're a citizen or legal immigrant you can't have a job. The employers could be given a certain amount of time to make sure the person they hired isn't an illegal immigrant just in case fake documentation is provided. If after that certain amount of time the employer hasn't done anything in his power to make sure the new guy isn't an illegal immigrant he or she should be fined or jailed.

Oh I forgot that the only undesirable illegal immigration is that one practiced by non-whites. ::)

My only point was that since the vast majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic and employers concerned about severe civil and criminal sanctions will therefore be inclined to more closely scrutinize Hispanic employees and potential employees (as that is where their greatest exposure is), even while following the procedures for all employees. So there is the potential for engendering discrimination even in a pure "employer sanctions" regime.  

I don't think anyone would deny that focusing only on the demand side of the equation (by going only after employers) would be less effective in stemming illegal immigration that by focusing on both the demand and the supply sides (by also going after the illegal aliens as well).  It appears that the Arizona law does both.  The issue is whether this can be done in a manner that will not descend to harassment of Hispanic citizens and legal residents.  I imagine this would depend on the circumstances where persons are allowed to be "carded" by the police.  In normal arrests or citations, people are already required to provide their identification.

Of course any system of laws aimed at stemming the tide of illegal immigration will disproportionately impact Hispanics, given the demographics of most illegal aliens in Arizona.  That is just a statistical fact.  This does not mean that foreign nationals here illegally who are "brown" are inherently better or worse that illegal aliens who are of any other race.

An unspoken issue, not articulated on this thread so far, is that there are a lot of people (some in business and some in the Latino activist community, among others) who really do not want our immigration laws to be enforced at all. There is big money involved, for some businesses, for nations such as Mexico (which get remittances from their nationals), and (in the aggregate) for the illegal aliens themselves. Perhaps the primary concern here is not really "racism" but rather that Arizona is determined to see that our immigration laws are enforced.  Potentially drying up the $$$ well, for those here illegally and the busineses who hire them and those who benefit from their being here.  But of course phrasing the concern this way would not garner the same degree of sympathy, particularly when American workers are unemployed and struggling to make ends meet.

Well, look at it this way: There is no way in heck that say, produce farmers are going to start paying minimum wage to pick lettuce.

Watch more latins start acknowledging their black race cause of this......


It'll take quite a bit of deporting for that to happen in some cases. :-\
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: BlackRodimus on May 04, 2010, 02:22:53 pm
Watch more latins start acknowledging their black race cause of this......

It'll take quite a bit of deporting for that to happen in some cases. :-\

LOL Basically. Since some Latinos are as dark as black people, though, that's why I expect black people to be scooped up right along with this nonsense. And like Reggie predicts (and I'm sure he hopes he's wrong, as do I), "and his attempts to explain his identity being taken as backtalk and his head being split open by a cop's billy club to teach him a lesson" might start happening as well.

Again, going by looks is b.s. If Luis Miguel was a lettuce picker, he wouldn't get carded cause they'd assume he's white. LOT of Mexicans look white (surprise surprise), so what about them? That's what I meant by my "can't assume they all look like Juan Valdez comment". I hate the convo keeps getting shifted AWAY from that.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Cheirel on May 04, 2010, 02:45:43 pm
Well I think this might be a good summer to go check out the grand canyon. Didn't they build a new platform? no more having to ride a damn burro. >:(
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 05, 2010, 07:06:17 pm
As you may have heard, the Arizona law was revised to clarify: "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."

In a news release issued after signing the changes to the law, Gov. Brewer said, "These changes specifically answer legal questions raised by some who expressed fears that the original law would somehow allow or lead to racial profiling. These new amendments make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal, and will not be tolerated in Arizona. I am proud that the Arizona Legislature has listened carefully to everyone's concerns, and, in a gesture of statesmanship, acted swiftly and appropriately to lay to rest questions over the possibility of racial profiling."

As to whether this law will stand up in court, I've been doing some more thinking on the subject. Unlike laws that have been struck down in other states that attempted to add restrictions not found in Federal Law, the Arizona statute parallels Federal Immigration Law.  There is therefore a strong argument that the State has the inherent power and the right to enforce Federal Law and to work hand in hand with Federal Law Enforcement. This occurs in myriad contexts. The Arizona law adds nothing that is not already in Federal Law.  This includes, by the way, the requirement for legal immigrants to carry proof of their legal status.  So I believe that the opponents of the law will have some heavy legal hurdles to overcome.  Though, from what I'm reading now in the Media, it looks like the legal challenges, proposed referendum, etc ... may be more delaying tactics (to delay implementation of the law) rather than legitimate legal challenges.

Reginald, I found the little blurb you posted "just for fun" amusing.  The valid point it makes is that all nations have immigration laws and enforce those laws.  I find the hypocritical stance of the Mexican Government particularly amusing, given that to illegally enter Mexico is a felony punishable by jail time.  In the U.S., there isn't a significant down side for foreign nationals to enter the U.S. illegally.  At the very worst, they will be deported back to their home country, to start all over again.  On the other hand, the up side of illegal entry is significant.  And I'm talking about the people with the best, the most laudable, intentions (which are, of course, most of those who enter the country illegally).  Then, of course, there are the drug smugglers and criminals who have their own reasons for coming to the United States, and who are creating such problems.

On the point made above that the United States was "founded" by illegal immigrants -- I believe this to be untrue. Our nation is largely a "nation of immigrants" but ... most of those who came here historically were legal immigrants (indeed, some were involuntary "legal" immigrants, forced over as slaves, but were here legally from an immigration standpoint).  The other ethnic groups outlined by BmoreAkuma almost entirely came here legally.  As workers, for example, or to flee persecution overseas or just to find opportunity.  I found the citation of "Jews" as primarily being illegal immigrants particularly off base, as Jews were in fact excluded from entering the U.S. in any significant numbers in the 1930s and '40s, and were actively turned away. Those who did immigrate did not sneak over the border illegally, they went through the proper legal immigration channels.  The influx of immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries was legal immigration.  So yes, we are a "nation of immigrants" but we most certainly are NOT a nation of "illegal immigrants."

Regarding the Arizona statute, the view of the Latino citizens of Arizona would be interesting, but I've not found anything clearly laying this out. A Rasmussn poll of likely voters broke out responses by racial group but surprisingly did not identify Latinos as a distinct group. The racial demographics polled were white, black, and “other,” which presumably encompasses Latinos (30.1 percent of the state’s population as of 2008), Native Americans (4.9 percent), and Asians (2.5 percent). Here’s what he got when he asked respondents if they "favor or oppose legislation that authorizes police to stop and check immigration status" - 63% of the "other" category responded favorably. Given the demographics in the state, most of these non-white non-black respondents had to be Latino. It would not be surprising that Latino citizens, including those who were legally naturalized, would be inclined to have a greater respect for the law and be more concerned about the serious problems caused by illegal immigration, than the illegal immigrants themselves.
Title: $90 million at risk in boycott of Arizona
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 11, 2010, 08:32:37 am

$90 million at risk in boycott of Arizona
Phoenix assesses impact of law on convention business
by Jahna Berry - May. 11, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

Metropolitan Phoenix, which already has suffered convention cancellations because of Arizona's new immigration law, risks losing as much as $90 million in hotel and convention business over the next five years because of the controversy, according to city estimates.

The City Council will be briefed on the issue at 2 p.m. today.


The new immigration law requires police to ask for proof of citizenship if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The law has attracted international attention, as well as calls for tourists and businesses to boycott Arizona.

Phoenix city and tourism officials have compiled a "watch list" of about 20 events, said David Krietor, a deputy city manager tracking the issue.

The list consists of four organizations that have canceled events and more than a dozen others that have booked events but have expressed concerns about the new law.

Those watch-list events would affect city-run venues, such as the Phoenix Convention Center and the Sheraton Phoenix Downtown Hotel, as well as hotels and resorts around the Valley.

"We have an image and public-relations problem of what might be unprecedented proportions," Krietor said.

The $90 million figure represents the estimated amount that those groups' members would spend in the region. Some events are scheduled this year. Others are booked as far out as 2015.

People who attend Phoenix Convention Center events alone spend about $350 million each year, officials have said.

Recent cancellations include the oldest African-American Greek-lettered fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc., which was supposed to hold a July meeting at the Sheraton. The fraternity's annual convention was expected to draw about 5,000 attendees and as many as 10,000 visitors, a fraternity spokesman said.

Organizers will now hold that event in Las Vegas.

Other cancellations, all for 2012, are the National Association of Black Accountants, the International Communications Association and the National Urban League.

The city did not have attendance estimates for all of the groups, but they represent about 16,000 room nights in local hotels, Krietor said.


Host city?

At today's meeting, the city is likely to discuss strategies to help retain tourism, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon said.

But he worries that the impact of the immigration debate is already creating a ripple effect.

Some conventions that have decided to stay in Phoenix don't want to publicize that fact because they fear being boycotted themselves, Gordon said.

He also has heard that conventions that have decided to stay in Phoenix are getting fewer attendees and fewer sponsors.

"It's a near economic crisis," Gordon said.

The watch list does not include the Republican and Democratic national conventions in 2012. Phoenix is being considered for both, but both parties are under pressure to avoid metro Phoenix.

Democratic leaders were in Phoenix a few weeks ago, but are in the early stages of the selection process.

Phoenix is one of three finalists for the GOP gathering, along with Salt Lake City and Tampa.

Millions are at stake. The convention where President Barack Obama accepted the Democratic nomination generated $266 million in economic spending in the region, according to a Denver study.

On Wednesday, the 168-member Republican National Committee will hear the selection panel's recommendation, spokesman Jahan Wilcox said.



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/05/11/20100511phoenix-convention-center-boycott.html#ixzz0ndS1plr9
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Mastrmynd on May 11, 2010, 12:42:02 pm

If you cross the U.S. border illegally, you get:

1. A job,
2. a drivers license,
3. a social security card,
4. welfare,
5. food stamps,
6. credit cards,
7. subsidized rent or a loan to buy a house,
8. free education,
9. free health care,
10. a lobbyist in Washington,
11. billions of dollars worth of public documents printed in your language,
12. and the right to carry your country’s flag while you protest that you don’t get enough respect.


(sounding like Nelson from "The Simpson's")  Ha HA!
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 11, 2010, 08:02:41 pm
Reginald, as to the article you posted.  Lovely.  An economic Civil War, waged against those who are seeking to do nothing but enforce our existing immigration laws.  Seems just a little excessive. But the hype against Arizona has been enormous. So, sadly, it does not surprise me.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 11, 2010, 08:13:53 pm
Reginald, as to the article you posted.  Lovely.  An economic Civil War, waged against those who are seeking to do nothing but enforce our existing immigration laws.  Seems just a little excessive. But the hype against Arizona has been enormous. So, sadly, it does not surprise me.

When Arizona refused to observe the national Martin Luther King holiday, signed into law by Ronald Reagan, was that hype too? 
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 11, 2010, 08:36:31 pm
So that's what this is really all about?

Those who opposed MLK day were comprised of three groups: (1) racists/bigots; (2) those who objected to some of his extreme Leftist (some would say "anti-American") pronouncements later in his life before he was murdered; and (3) those who felt national holidays should be reserved for elected officials such as Presidents.

Fine, enjoy your new Civil War. Really, that's what folk on the Left have been itching for, for a long long time now. To tear our country apart.  :P
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 11, 2010, 08:40:31 pm
There was a Civil War over the humanity of black people already.  And they LOST.  They keep trying to fight it over and over again, but the results keep ending up the same.  And it's driving them so crazy they run around with tea bags on their hats.

And if you think MLK's comments in any point of his life were anti-American, I can only pity you.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 12, 2010, 06:47:34 am
There was a Civil War over the humanity of black people already.  And they LOST.  They keep trying to fight it over and over again, but the results keep ending up the same.  And it's driving them so crazy they run around with tea bags on their hats.

And if you think MLK's comments in any point of his life were anti-American, I can only pity you.

Reginald, many people disagreed with MLK when he diverged from civil rights and started placing greater emphasis on geopolitics and opposition to the Vietnam War, opposition to capitalism, favorably referring to Fidel Castro, advocacy of massive wealth redistribution, and the like. This does not in any way take away from his significant, indeed his unique, contribution in the arena of civil rights. I personally support MLK day, for that reason, and did at the time it was proposed.  But I can understand why, at the time the holiday was proposed, others might not have, for the reasons cited. So ... pity away, if you wish. 

Had King not been assassinated, but rather had died of natural causes as an older man, it is fair to speculate that we would not have a Martin Luther King Day.  In lieu of that, a "Civil Rights Day" would have been a proposal that I would have supported. Because it is the explicit endorsement of the Civil Rights Movement, by the creation of MLK Day, that motivates my support for the holiday. King was a man who accomplished a great deal, though he was not a saint, and reasonable men and women can and did disagree with his positions on matters unrelated to the Civil Rights Movement. That said, his accomplishments and galvanizing role in the Civil Rights Movement justify the holiday. Also, the fact that he was murdered for that role lends reason to honor the man and by so doing condemning that act of racist violence and hatred, as something anathema to American Values.

As to your other comments, they really don't merit a response, since as we have discussed for pages and pages, the Tea Party Movement is focused on economic issues, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, support for a strong national defense, and the like. Welcoming the participation of everyone who embraces those principles.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Battle on May 12, 2010, 07:36:58 am
Say, Mike...

Did you know that the original tea party protestors that dumped crates of tea in the Boston harbor wore blackface and dressed as Native Americans so that they could not be identified by the British?

Guess who took the punishment for their crimes when the British could not catch the culprits?
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on May 12, 2010, 07:47:34 am
Reginald, as to the article you posted.  Lovely.  An economic Civil War, waged against those who are seeking to do nothing but enforce our existing immigration laws.  Seems just a little excessive. But the hype against Arizona has been enormous. So, sadly, it does not surprise me.

So choosing to spend your money elsewhere is somehow equivalent to committing treason?  ::)
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 12, 2010, 07:48:36 am
Oh, OK, I see.  Now support for the Boston Tea Party and its opposition to taxation Without representation, and perhaps more broadly support for the American Revolution, is racist?  Sheesh. This really is nuts.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Lion on May 12, 2010, 09:05:31 am
Would you have made the same argument 160 years ago when the Fugitive Slave Act was passed?

Just sayin'...
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 12, 2010, 11:10:25 am
Oh, OK, I see.  Now support for the Boston Tea Party and its opposition to taxation Without representation, and perhaps more broadly support for the American Revolution, is racist?  Sheesh. This really is nuts.
No, it's an example of how race permeates the fabric of our country.  To you it's "besides the point" but it isn't a side issue to people getting lynched.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Catch22 on May 12, 2010, 11:14:02 am
Oh, OK, I see.  Now support for the Boston Tea Party and its opposition to taxation Without representation, and perhaps more broadly support for the American Revolution, is racist?  Sheesh. This really is nuts.


Only if you think telling the truth about how they did what they did is racist.  What if Tea Baggers Tea Party Protesters dressed in Black Masks like this guy (http://gawker.com/5521656/black-bank-robber-turns-out-to-be-white)and raided local IRS offices?  What would that be called?
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: BlackRodimus on May 12, 2010, 12:10:42 pm
Oh, OK, I see.  Now support for the Boston Tea Party and its opposition to taxation Without representation, and perhaps more broadly support for the American Revolution, is racist?  Sheesh. This really is nuts.


Only if you think telling the truth about how they did what they did is racist.  What if Tea Baggers Tea Party Protesters dressed in Black Masks like this guy ([url]http://gawker.com/5521656/black-bank-robber-turns-out-to-be-white[/url])and raided local IRS offices?  What would that be called?


He should be tried as if he was black, since he wanted to pretend to be one to rob a bank. Would love to see how that goes.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: moor on May 12, 2010, 12:55:16 pm
So that's what this is really all about?

Those who opposed MLK day were comprised of three groups: (1) racists/bigots; (2) those who objected to some of his extreme Leftist (some would say "anti-American") pronouncements later in his life before he was murdered; and (3) those who felt national holidays should be reserved for elected officials such as Presidents.

Fine, enjoy your new Civil War. Really, that's what folk on the Left have been itching for, for a long long time now. To tear our country apart.  :P

Please give specific examples of MLK's extreme Leftist/anti-American statements...  Are you referring to his speeches given during the garbage worker's strike? His comments regarding American involvement in Vietnam?  Exact quotes, please..
Title: Arizona gov. signs bill targeting ethnic studies
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 12, 2010, 01:58:58 pm
Arizona gov. signs bill targeting ethnic studies

Jonathan J. Cooper, Associated Press Writer – Wed May 12, 6:23 am ET

PHOENIX – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has signed a bill targeting a school district's ethnic studies program, hours after a report by United Nations human rights experts condemned the measure.

State schools chief Tom Horne, who has pushed the bill for years, said he believes the Tucson school district's Mexican-American studies program teaches Latino students that they are oppressed by white people.

Public schools should not be encouraging students to resent a particular race, he said.

"It's just like the old South, and it's long past time that we prohibited it," Horne said.

Brewer's signature on the bill Tuesday comes less than a month after she signed the nation's toughest crackdown on illegal immigration — a move that ignited international backlash amid charges the measure would encourage racial profiling of Hispanics. The governor has said profiling will not be tolerated.

The measure signed Tuesday prohibits classes that advocate ethnic solidarity, that are designed primarily for students of a particular race or that promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group.

The Tucson Unified School District program offers specialized courses in African-American, Mexican-American and Native-American studies that focus on history and literature and include information about the influence of a particular ethnic group.

For example, in the Mexican-American Studies program, an American history course explores the role of Hispanics in the Vietnam War, and a literature course emphasizes Latino authors.

Horne, a Republican running for attorney general, said the program promotes "ethnic chauvinism" and racial resentment toward whites while segregating students by race. He's been trying to restrict it ever since he learned that Hispanic civil rights activist Dolores Huerta told students in 2006 that "Republicans hate Latinos."

District officials said the program doesn't promote resentment, and they believe it would comply with the new law.

The measure doesn't prohibit classes that teach about the history of a particular ethnic group, as long as the course is open to all students and doesn't promote ethnic solidarity or resentment.

About 1,500 students at six high schools are enrolled in the Tucson district's program. Elementary and middle school students also are exposed to the ethnic studies curriculum. The district is 56 percent Hispanic, with nearly 31,000 Latino students.

Sean Arce, director of the district's Mexican-American Studies program, said last month that students perform better in school if they see in the curriculum people who look like them.

"It's a highly engaging program that we have, and it's unfortunate that the state Legislature would go so far as to censor these classes," he said.

Six UN human rights experts released a statement earlier Tuesday saying all people have the right to learn about their own cultural and linguistic heritage, they said.

Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman didn't directly address the UN criticism, but said Brewer supports the bill's goal.

"The governor believes ... public school students should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people," Senseman said.

Arce could not immediately be reached after Brewer signed the bill late Tuesday.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Catch22 on May 12, 2010, 02:10:04 pm
Basically a whitewashing of the History of the United States.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: BmoreAkuma on May 12, 2010, 03:18:07 pm
Hold up why cant these "public schools" just teach  ::) our kids everything when it comes to this county's history. ALL OF IT. The good, the neutral, the bad and the just plain ugly. No wonder a number of kids are so behind from other countries.
Title: Re: Arizona gov. signs bill targeting ethnic studies
Post by: Francisco on May 12, 2010, 03:54:20 pm
The measure doesn't prohibit classes that teach about the history of a particular ethnic group, as long as the course is open to all students and doesn't promote ethnic solidarity or resentment.

Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman didn't directly address the UN criticism, but said Brewer supports the bill's goal.

"The governor believes ... public school students should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people," Senseman said.

Call me crazy but with this I just can't disagree.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on May 12, 2010, 04:05:49 pm
Pro-Mexican-American does not equal anti-white.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 12, 2010, 05:01:14 pm
"ethnic solidarity or resentment"?  There's a vague description that could be abused. 

Does St. Patrick's Day celebrate ethnic solidarity?  Who decides? 
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: jefferson L.O.B. sergeant on May 12, 2010, 08:51:41 pm
Look out, Texas, it seems Arizona is coming for the Race to The Bottom title!
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 12, 2010, 11:01:54 pm
"ethnic solidarity or resentment"?  There's a vague description that could be abused. 

Does St. Patrick's Day celebrate ethnic solidarity?  Who decides? 


Reginald, ohhh c'mon. St. Patrick's day.  Last time I checked, that holiday wasn't focused on ethnic divisiveness.

But, hey, that gives me an idea. Give all the students from those cancelled segregated programs shamrocks and green derbies, and reward the best performers with a pint o' Guinness.  After all, on St. Patrick's day, everyone's Irish!

(http://www.beermatsrule.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Corona_St_Patricks_Day.jpg)
                                 ... Or maybe even a Corona.
                                                   ;D 
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 12, 2010, 11:35:36 pm
Exactly, St. Patrick's Day, an attempt to undermine the our cultural fabric by focusing on their tribal heritage instead of taking their place as proud Americans. And they want to all turn into Irishmen by encouraging us all to wear green, drink beer and eat corned beef. 

Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 13, 2010, 07:02:51 am
Exactly, St. Patrick's Day, an attempt to undermine the our cultural fabric by focusing on their tribal heritage instead of taking their place as proud Americans. And they want to all turn into Irishmen by encouraging us all to wear green, drink beer and eat corned beef. 

Hahahahaha! ;D

Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: moor on May 13, 2010, 07:14:25 am
Stop this silly thread now.

In what ignoramus-filled world does further study about the different cultures which make up our national fabric equal resentment, discrimination, or oppression of the majority??

This school official wants to shut down history classes that offend his own ethnocentrism.   And he's a teacher???

Even School House Rock paid appropriate tribute to the Great American Melting Pot.  Now we're actually debating whether learning about its "ingredients" is un-American?  Shameless.

Of course - making statements that "Republicans don't like Latinos" just fuels the flames of stupid...  Who cares??  The issue is whether Republicans and Democrats like kids learning...  If studying U.S. History engages a child in the learning process, keeps them in-school and excited about being there, then please let the moron who wants to stop that stand up and raise their hand.

Maybe if we stopped politicizing education for two seconds we could appreciate the fact that the children are actually excited about engaging in thoughtful discussion on what makes this country great.

That these cultural history courses aren't integrated into the maintstream US History curriculum is just plain criminal...


Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 13, 2010, 07:51:44 am
Moor, I agree with much of what you say, but not your conclusion.  In the public schools, if there is something worth teaching our kids, it is worth teaching them ALL, together, not in segregated ethnocentric programs that indoctrinate them with hostility against others. Let our kids celebrate diversity together, within the greater bond of unity. Our kids, as the citizens of tomorrow, need to learn to appreciate, not hate, one another.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 13, 2010, 08:25:17 am
Moor, I agree with much of what you say, but not your conclusion.  In the public schools, if there is something worth teaching our kids, it is worth teaching them ALL, together, not in segregated ethnocentric programs that indoctrinate them with hostility against others. Let our kids celebrate diversity together, within the greater bond of unity. Our kids, as the citizens of tomorrow, need to learn to appreciate, not hate, one another.
You just made that up, Michael.  The programs are not segregated, they are not full of hostility, that's all absurd.  As absurd as the St. Pat's example I gave.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on May 13, 2010, 08:32:20 am
On the immigration issue, I do not favor "targeting" legal residents or U.S. citizens, just because they happen to be of the same ethnic group as the vast majority of illegal aliens.  On the other hand, I have no problem with the police asking for ID when stopping anyone for a traffic ticket, or (obviously) for a more serious offense or a bust in connection with a more serious offense, and running that ID though the computer to see if it is legit (or if the person fails to provide any ID at all, taking him or her into custody pending verification of identity and legal status).   


Like this, right?
(http://c0389161.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/dyn/str_strip/319453.full.gif)
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: BmoreAkuma on May 13, 2010, 03:51:21 pm
Moor, I agree with much of what you say, but not your conclusion.  In the public schools, if there is something worth teaching our kids, it is worth teaching them ALL, together, not in segregated ethnocentric programs that indoctrinate them with hostility against others. Let our kids celebrate diversity together, within the greater bond of unity. Our kids, as the citizens of tomorrow, need to learn to appreciate, not hate, one another.
I don't think that was his conclusion. What he is saying is that (I'm unsure) these cultural history courses should be implemented into the core education element without the separate classes
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 13, 2010, 06:47:51 pm
Oh, OK, I see.  Now support for the Boston Tea Party and its opposition to taxation Without representation, and perhaps more broadly support for the American Revolution, is racist?  Sheesh. This really is nuts.

No, it's an example of how race permeates the fabric of our country.  To you it's "besides the point" but it isn't a side issue to people getting lynched.


The disparaging comments above, regarding the Boston Tea Party, got me to wondering if there was some fallout from the event that I had never heard of.  Some of you seemed to be suggesting that there were lynchings of Indians or blacks as a result of the event.  I had never heard of anything of the sort happening in response to the Boston Tea Party.  You made me curious.

There was no lynching or false blaming.  On the contrary, immediately after the event, John Adams publicized it as an act of protest. From the outset, even though some (not all) of the protestors were thinly disguised, everyone knew that the destruction of the tea was the act of Colonists, not Indians. 

So c’mon guys.  This isn’t some instance of something terrible that happened that “white people” are oblivious to or indifferent to. The truth is that nothing happened … other than the start of the American Revolution. 

Maybe, in this instance, you were just pulling my leg.  I've got to believe that.

Boston Tea Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

On December 16—the last day of the [ship that held the taxable tea] Dartmouth's deadline—about 7,000 people had gathered around the Old South Meeting House. After receiving a report that Governor Hutchinson had again refused to let the ships leave, [John] Adams announced that "This meeting can do nothing further to save the country." According to a popular story, Adams's statement was a prearranged signal for the "tea party" to begin. However, this claim did not appear in print until nearly a century after the event, in a biography of Adams written by his great-grandson, who apparently misinterpreted the evidence. According to eyewitness accounts, people did not leave the meeting until ten or fifteen minutes after Adams's alleged "signal", and Adams in fact tried to stop people from leaving because the meeting was not yet over.

Destruction of the tea

While Samuel Adams tried to reassert control of the meeting, people poured out of the Old South Meeting House and headed to Boston Harbor. That evening, a group of 30 to 130 men, some of them thinly disguised as Mohawk Indians, boarded the three vessels and, over the course of three hours, dumped all 342 chests of tea into the water.

Reaction

Whether or not Samuel Adams helped plan the Boston Tea Party is unknown, but he immediately worked to publicize and defend it. He argued that the Tea Party was not the act of a lawless mob, but was instead a principled protest and the only remaining option the people had to defend their constitutional rights.

Governor Thomas Hutchinson had been urging London to take a hard line with the Sons of Liberty. If he had done what the other royal governors had done and let the ship owners and captains resolve the issue with the colonists, the Dartmouth, Eleanor and the Beaver would have left without unloading any tea.

In Britain, even those politicians considered friends of the colonies were appalled and this act united all parties there against the colonies. The Prime Minister Lord North said, "Whatever may be the consequence, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over". The British government felt this action could not remain unpunished, and responded by closing the port of Boston and putting in place other laws known as the "Coercive Acts".

Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 13, 2010, 07:00:20 pm
Moor, I agree with much of what you say, but not your conclusion.  In the public schools, if there is something worth teaching our kids, it is worth teaching them ALL, together, not in segregated ethnocentric programs that indoctrinate them with hostility against others. Let our kids celebrate diversity together, within the greater bond of unity. Our kids, as the citizens of tomorrow, need to learn to appreciate, not hate, one another.
You just made that up, Michael.  The programs are not segregated, they are not full of hostility, that's all absurd.  As absurd as the St. Pat's example I gave.

I wish you were correct.  For the good of our nation, and because it is just right, the focus of our public educational system should be on fostering racial unity, not racial division, not racial schism, and not racial separatism.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: moor on May 13, 2010, 07:59:58 pm
Moor, I agree with much of what you say, but not your conclusion.  In the public schools, if there is something worth teaching our kids, it is worth teaching them ALL, together, not in segregated ethnocentric programs that indoctrinate them with hostility against others. Let our kids celebrate diversity together, within the greater bond of unity. Our kids, as the citizens of tomorrow, need to learn to appreciate, not hate, one another.

Although Bmore stated my conclusion better than I did, I want to point out that if the Republican comment was made, then it was in very poor taste.. that type of proselytizing does no student any good and completely undermines the necessity for why we need these types of classes more closely integrated into the US History mainstream curriculum...
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 13, 2010, 08:41:41 pm
Moor, I think I misconstrued your conclusion, maybe because of some of the other comments in your post. Sorry 'bout that. Sounds like you too believe in public schools where students of all races learn together, not segregated by ethnicity. Then, on that point, we agree.

I hate the idea of people of different races feeling anything about people of other races, other than the "feeling" of indifference to race altogether.  Our kids must learn, at a young age, to think of people as people (and in the context of our country, as fellow Americans). I want to see them fall in love with each other, marry each other, have kids, teach their kids to feel the same way, from generation to generation. Children do have the innate ability to view the world in this way, if they are not corrupted by adults who are driven by bigotry or divisive agendas. Beyond the Three R's, this should be viewed as one of the primary missions of public education.

Of course in the teaching of history, for example, past evils and injustices cannot be ignored. Nor should it be ignored that people in our past recognized that those evils were evil, and that those injustices had to be remedied. That too is part of the story. This is not to say that there are not differences of opinion today on significant issues, including issues surrounding race; our discussions in this Forum demonstrate that. But those disagreements should be principled, not motivated by prejudice. That too is a topic worth exploring in our public educational system.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 13, 2010, 09:39:26 pm
Great, let's get rid of the social studies department because why should we learn about Asian or Latin American or Middle Eastern cultures.  Let's all just be people.  Let's not learn other languages because that separates people too.  After all, understanding other cultures NEVER brings people together.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: jefferson L.O.B. sergeant on May 13, 2010, 09:43:26 pm
I hope that they are no longer teaching about the impact of: Italians, Spaniards, Germans etc. on American society as well.

Perhaps DC editorial can create the diversity curriculum for Arizona?
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 13, 2010, 10:59:00 pm
Great, let's get rid of the social studies department because why should we learn about Asian or Latin American or Middle Eastern cultures.  Let's all just be people.  Let's not learn other languages because that separates people too.  After all, understanding other cultures NEVER brings people together.

You clearly are not responding to what I actually wrote. Who, then, are you talking to? Why do you feel the need to create some silly straw man, instead of responding to what I actually said. I expressly mentioned the study of history, and also contemporary issues including "racial" issues, and that list was clearly not meant to be exhaustive. I can't believe you are doing this, Reginald. Shame on you! :o

Sorry, but no, I'm not a big fan of racial segregation (whether it be imposed from the outside or imposed from the inside). I understand this is not what you expressly said above, all you mentioned is studying cultures and languages. However, my feeling on this issue is in part what has motivated some of my other comments, above. Also I believe that your denial that some of these "ethnic studies" programs (particularly those that are essentially segregated) foster animosity against others, does not comport with what we see in practice.

As to understanding "cultures" and "languages" there is no issue and no debate, so what are you talkin' about? There is a big difference in studying and understanding cultures (and sub-cultures), as opposed to getting so wrapped up in them that one denies the existence of the broader American Culture that we are all part of, that makes us one American People. Celebrating our diversity is good, but not when diversity becomes the be all and end all. Because then it becomes not diversity within a greater Whole, but rather just fragmentation and division. As I stated in another post, a nation divided cannot stand.  
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 13, 2010, 11:02:46 pm
Banning ethnic studies is there only solution proposed by these book burners, not amending the content of the courses or making sure that black and latin american history is integrated into the broader american studies courses.  Their intent is to ignore black and latin history and heritage.  Or at least ignore the "icky" parts that make them uncomfortable.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 13, 2010, 11:11:55 pm
Reginald, course content is amended and revised all the time. Look at any textbook today, compared to (say) one used in the 1950s.

In any event, I see you are not really interested in responding to what I posted, above. Which is fine.

Have a good night.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on May 14, 2010, 07:08:44 am
Reginald, course content is amended and revised all the time. Look at any textbook today, compared to (say) one used in the 1950s.


Not so much.
Here's a book recommendation for you:
Lies My Teacher Told Me - James W. Loewen (http://books.google.com/books?id=EtBV9_LRsWcC&dq=Lies+my+teacher+told+me&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=yVjtS6SbCIH6lwfFr421CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on May 14, 2010, 07:21:02 am
Here is a link to yesterday's Tell Me More on the subject: (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126797959)
Arizona has a new law that will closely regulate ethnic studies programs in state schools. Any school offering programs perceived to be galvanizing ethnic solidarity will have a portion of its public funding withheld. Guest host Allison Keyes speaks with Superintendent Tom Horne, of the Arizona Department of Education, who has been a leading backer of the law. She also speaks with Sean Arce, director of the Mexican-American Studies Program in the Tucson Unified School District, who calls the initiative racist, and is planning to participate in a legal challenge against it.

Excerpt:
Another new state law signed Tuesday targets ethnic studies programs in the state schools, and it's got more than a few educators, parents and students a little riled up. The law targets classes that, according to the state superintendent, encourage students to resent a particular race - namely, Caucasians. He cites as an example Tucson school district, which offers courses in Mexican-American, Native-American and African-American studies.

We've got both the Arizona school superintendent and Tucson's director of Mexican-American studies on the line to tell us what they think. Tom Horne is the state school's chief. He's also running as a Republican for attorney general in Arizona. Also, Sean Arce is with us from the Tucson Unified School District.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us.

Mr. TOM HORNE (State Superintendent, Arizona): Thank you for having us, Allison.

Mr. SEAN ARCE (Tucson Unified School District): Thank you for having us, Allison.

KEYES: Mr. Horne, let's focus on the Mexican-American studies classes, since that's kind of a focal point of the legislature. What is it that you've heard being taught that's either offensive or inappropriate for the ears of students?

Mr. HORNE: Well, we have testimony from a number of teachers and former teachers. One is Hector Ayala, who is a current teacher, was himself born in Mexico, but he's an excellent English teacher, teaches at a very high level. The former director of Raza studies taught next to him, and accused him of being the white man's agent because he accused - he opposed that thing. He was told by students that he taught a separate political agenda, and that students told him they were taught to not fall for the white man's traps.

We have another former teacher who says the whole inference and tone was anger. They taught students that the United States was and still is a fundamentally racist country to those Mexican-American kids. Individuals in this ethnic studies department are vehemently anti-Western culture. They are vehemently opposed to the United States and its power. They are telling students they are victims. They should be angry and rise up. By the time I left that class, I saw a change in the students, he said - an angry tone.

We have testimony from other teachers I can read to you if you want to, but that gives you a picture of it. One of their principle textbooks is called "The Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paulo Freire, who's a well-known Brazilian Marxist. I've read the book. His sources are Marx, Lenin, Engels, Che Guevara and the philosophers who influenced them.

KEYES: Mr. Arce, is that what's going on in the Mexican-American studies program?

Mr. ARCE: Not whatsoever. Not at all. We are about culturally relevant and curriculum. We're about engaging students, and we're about providing multiple perspectives for our students so they have a more comprehensive view and better understanding of the totality of the American experience and American history.

KEYES: What exactly is being taught? Is it Latin-American authors? Is it just history? I mean, what - briefly.

Mr. ARCE: Yes. We actually are in alignment with the Arizona State standards for both history, as well as language arts. So we covered the traditional standards for the state of Arizona for American history. But we also have a more inclusive outlook, and we highlight and insert more of the Mexican-American contributions to this great nation.

KEYES: So there's nothing as far as you know that is anti-white that's - or anti-USA that's being taught in those classes?

Mr. ARCE: Most definitely not. We are about upholding the Constitution of the United States. We're about highlighting, and the students are able to analyze -critically analyze history from multiple perspectives, so they have a more comprehensive outlook on how this country was formed and how Mexican-Americans and all people have contributed to the fabric of this great nation.

KEYES: And students of all colors are welcome in these classes? And people that are not of Hispanic descent are encouraged to enroll?

Mr. ARCE: Oh, most definitely. This class is not in any way limited to Latino students. All students are welcome to take this class. 
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Lion on May 14, 2010, 08:31:07 am
Reginald, course content is amended and revised all the time. Look at any textbook today, compared to (say) one used in the 1950s.

In any event, I see you are not really interested in responding to what I posted, above. Which is fine.

Have a good night.

Dude... The fact is that it is NOT being taught in "mainstream" social studies courses, even if a smidgen - and I do mean a smidgen - makes it into the history books. An American history teacher has one year to get from Plymouth Rock to the modern day. If it comes crunch time, stuff is going to be cut out.

Do you know the extent of "Mexican-American" history that a student is likely to get? The Mexican-American War and Pancho Villa. Maybe Father Hidalgo if they are lucky.

You're going to learn a HELL of a lot more about England/France wars and the Roman Empire.

Talk all you want about how it "should" be incorporated into the American curriculum at large, but the fact is that it ISN'T. It's never going to be as long as it is seen as "supplemental" rather than "core."

Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 14, 2010, 09:45:41 am
From Desmond Tutu's Huffpo piece on the Arizona law:

"Abominations such as apartheid do not start with an entire population suddenly becoming inhumane. They start here. . . .They start with trying to solve a problem by asserting superior force over a population.. . . . Not because it is right, but because you can. And because somehow, you think this is going to solve a problem."
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Battle on May 15, 2010, 09:09:06 am
(http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/spezial/Fool/gaz.gif)Here's a little debate between 2 university students I saw printed in today's local South Carolina newspaper.  Both are missing some essential points in thier arguement and contradict themselves more than once in their remarks and other statements are lifted directly from right-wing, conservative radio talk shows *cough*FOX!!!*cough* but I think this gives somewhat of an idea what people around my way are thinking:

Should Arizona be boycotted over illegal immigration crackdown?

YES

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.  Send these, the homeless, the tempesttost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

This quote from the Statue of Liberty is what this country was founded on.  We came from immigrants in search of a better life and freedom from oppression.  So why do we feel the need to keep others out of our country who are looking for the same opportunities?
Many United States citizens complain about immigrants coming in and taking away our jobs.  But when it really comes down to it, the jobs they take are the ones that most of these complainers feel are beneath them.  Yes, Yes we have high unemployment rates right now, but how many of the unemployed have tried to find work mowing lawns or washing dishes?  So instead of taking jobs like these, some states have decided to find other remedies.  Arizona has decided that they are going to put laws in place to prevent illegal immigration because of the negative economic effects it has had.
As Americans, we have the right to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment, which means that protestors have every right to boycott these laws.  In turn, these boycotts will cause more economic decline for Arizona.  So instead of helping the economy and “protecting the border”, this state has caused more hardship for its own citizens and for immigrants looking for a chance at a better life.

Mandi  Sordelet,  Senior @ the University of South Carolina





NO

When the Constitution was written back in 1787, the last of the original Bill of Rights was the 10th amendment, often, considered to be the most important amendment.  Essentially, the 10th  amendment states that all powers not given to the federal government are to be left up to the individual states.  Specifically when it comes to illegal immigration, neither the federal government nor the individual states have taken steps to prevent it.  Both levels of government have abdicated their duties and neglected their responsibilities across the board, allowing  illegal immigration to run out of control in the United States.  Arizona, however, has had to deal with the negative economic effects of rampant illegal immigration for decades, and as such passed immigration reform mandating that documentation of citizenship be carried at all times.  This is a very reasonable and appropriate measure for ensuring security and enforcing already-standing immigration laws.  However, activist groups have risen to protest this new mandate and even political leaders in California such as Senate President Darrell Steinberg have called for the elimination of all ties and contracts to Arizona.  National and international boycotts are being proposed against the state.  However, whether you agree with this new immigration law or not, the Constitution was designed so that each state pursue safety, security and prosperity in the ways it best saw fit provided they not intrude upon national responsibilities.  Arizona has been one of the hardest hit by the huge negative economic impact  by illegal immigration, and as such they can attempt to ensure their security in any way they see fir provided they not infringe upon Constitutional rights.  
If you don’t like it, move.

Matt Kneece,  Senior @ University of South Carolina    
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: BmoreAkuma on May 15, 2010, 10:23:41 am
If you don’t like it, move.

Matt Kneece,  Senior @ University of South Carolina    
Clown. His entire argument went to waste once he stated this.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on May 15, 2010, 10:45:47 am
(http://c0389161.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/dyn/str_strip/319455.full.gif)
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on May 16, 2010, 10:51:13 am
The Apartheid references (Reginald’s post) and the Nazi references (Curtis’s post above, reference to the famous poem that the Nazis took this group and that group, etc ..) are absurd.  By equating the Arizona law with either Apartheid or the Holocaust, they trivialize both.

So, a comic strip is absurd. Gee, really? You, humorless, Micheal? I'm shocked.

The Arizona immigration law does nothing but mandate that local police enforce existing Federal immigration law.  Nothing more.  It is not “Nazi-like” for a police officer to ask for I.D. when a person is stopped for an alleged crime.  Happens all the time.  The hype about “show me your papers” is pure distortion.  

The law says "reasonable suspicion" not "when a person is stopped for an alleged crime". So where did you get your formulation?

The issue being raised on the forum is the potential for harassment and extra scrutiny for citizens and legal immigrants who merely look like they might be illegal. If you don't care about that, fine. Many of us do not assess that risk the same way you do. You've probably never been stopped for DWB.

The Arizona law regarding ethnic studies is actually the antithesis of Apartheid or Nazism, as it demands an inclusive curriculum for all students, treating each student as an individual, rather than indoctrinating students along racial or ethnic lines as members of racial or ethnic blocks. Nothing could be less like Apartheid or Nazism. Arizona is expressly demanding that its educational system not segregate students on the basis of race or ethnicity, which is the real effect that many of these programs foster.

And you know "the real effect" how? So we should pay no attention to the head of the program who says that the intent and effect of the program is the opposite of your intimately held convictions. You must be sure to use this power only for good.

The inclusive uniformity you want to enforce is the status quo. I am in favor of a more inclusive approach to teaching history; I'd like it to go beyond the (white) hero worship orientation. Race and ethnicity is at the heart of the American story, is it not?

Arce claims the classes are "open to everyone." That raised my eyebrows. I can just imagine the grade a non-Chicano student could expect to get from some ideologically driven teacher, and the hostile response the kid would get from his or her classmates, if that student were to seriously critique and strongly disagree with the perspective purveyed in the classroom. As a matter of fact, I wonder how many non-Chicanos have opted to enroll is this alternative program? The practical effect is of course racial segregation of the public schools.

You can just imagine? Michael, that is simple prejudice. The situation you describe occurs every day except most of the time it is the brown and black student in a majority white class. If you listen to the interview, Mr. Arce also said that the ethnic profile of the students in the program is consistent with that of schools in which the classes are taught. So, again, you seem to making stuff up.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 16, 2010, 10:54:19 am
The Apartheid references (Reginald’s post) and the Nazi references (Curtis’s post above, reference to the famous poem that the Nazis took this group and that group, etc ..) are absurd.  By equating the Arizona law with either Apartheid or the Holocaust, they trivialize both.

The Arizona immigration law does nothing but mandate that local police enforce existing Federal immigration law.  Nothing more.  It is not “Nazi-like” for a police officer to ask for I.D. when a person is stopped for an alleged crime.  Happens all the time.  The hype about “show me your papers” is pure distortion.  If that conduct were Nazi-like, then every time the California Highway Patrol pulls someone over and asks for their driver’s license, one could claim the Highway Patrol officers are a bunch of Nazis.  Under California law, one is required to have with him at all times either a driver's license, state issued I.D. card, or other form of identification. Under Federal Law, since the 1940’s, all immigrants have been required to keep with them at all times proof of legal immigration status.  The Arizona law adds no new burden on immigrants that does not already exist under Federal law. Under the new Arizona law, if the person stopped does not have any form of I.D., that will create a reasonable suspicion that the person might be here illegally.  The police are now authorized to look into that person’s immigration status.  Which is the way it should be, if we are indeed a nation of laws.  What is shocking and irresponsible is the degree that local police in some jurisdictions have been unwilling to enforce the law, and unwilling to cooperate with Federal law enforcement (as is the case with so-called “amnesty” cities). 

United States law encourages immigration … legal immigration. We are not a racist nation. What opponents of the law are really advocating, though most don’t come right out and say it, is that the United States should have no borders whatsoever, or at least no borders vis a vis "some" immigrants.  However, if open borders were truly the “just and compassionate" standard to apply, there are people from all over the world who would flock to our nation, not just immigrants from nations south of the border. Whatever legal immigration standards we have, they should be applied to potential immigrants worldwide, from Latin America, from Africa, from Asia, and from Europe.  There is no moral justification for the de facto favoritism shown by those who demand that the law not be consistently enforced as to all immigrants.

The Arizona law regarding ethnic studies is actually the antithesis of Apartheid or Nazism, as it demands an inclusive curriculum for all students, treating each student as an individual, rather than indoctrinating students along racial or ethnic lines as members of racial or ethnic blocks. Nothing could be less like Apartheid or Nazism. Arizona is expressly demanding that its educational system not segregate students on the basis of race or ethnicity, which is the real effect that many of these programs foster. Programs that promote ethnic or racial chauvinism should not be encouraged, and should certainly not be supported with taxpayer dollars. That is all the Arizona law is preventing. The focus of our public educational system should be to foster unity and mutual respect. 

Furthermore, this has no bearing on freedom of speech. There is no "book burning" here (as Reginald alluded to). Any student or parent or private organization is free to purchase any books they please, and hold private study sessions if they wish. What we are discussing here is the official school curriculum, funded by the general public.  As noted above, there is a great deal of "core" material that needs to be covered by all students, and these courses should not be segregated by race or ethnicity. As to electives that may focus more heavily on the contributions to our nation of one or more ethnic groups , I am sure it is possible to craft courses that meet the criteria mandated by Arizona.  It is just that such courses won't serve the ends of bigoted ethnocentric chauvinists.

I did a quick search to get a sense of what is taught in some of these "ethnic studies" classes, as the description of the program provided above by Mr. Arce sounded like a bit of a whitewash.  You may wish to check this out: 
Arizona Ends Divisive Chicano Studies in Schools
http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doc_id=1321
Arce claims the classes are "open to everyone." That raised my eyebrows. I can just imagine the grade a non-Chicano student could expect to get from some ideologically driven teacher, and the hostile response the kid would get from his or her classmates, if that student were to seriously critique and strongly disagree with the perspective purveyed in the classroom. As a matter of fact, I wonder how many non-Chicanos have opted to enroll is this alternative program? The practical effect is of course racial segregation of the public schools. Anyone who denies that many of these programs foster ethnocentricism and racial division is, really, not being honest.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 17, 2010, 06:53:24 am
The Apartheid references (Reginald’s post) and the Nazi references (Curtis’s post above, reference to the famous poem that the Nazis took this group and that group, etc ..) are absurd.  By equating the Arizona law with either Apartheid or the Holocaust, they trivialize both.

So, a comic strip is absurd. Gee, really? You, humorless, Micheal? I'm shocked.

The Arizona immigration law does nothing but mandate that local police enforce existing Federal immigration law.  Nothing more.  It is not “Nazi-like” for a police officer to ask for I.D. when a person is stopped for an alleged crime.  Happens all the time.  The hype about “show me your papers” is pure distortion.   

The law says "reasonable suspicion" not "when a person is stopped for an alleged crime". So where did you get your formulation?

The issue being raised on the forum is the potential for harassment and extra scrutiny for citizens and legal immigrants who merely look like they might be illegal. If you don't care about that, fine. Many of us do not assess that risk the same way you do. You've probably never been stopped for DWB.

The Arizona law regarding ethnic studies is actually the antithesis of Apartheid or Nazism, as it demands an inclusive curriculum for all students, treating each student as an individual, rather than indoctrinating students along racial or ethnic lines as members of racial or ethnic blocks. Nothing could be less like Apartheid or Nazism. Arizona is expressly demanding that its educational system not segregate students on the basis of race or ethnicity, which is the real effect that many of these programs foster.

And you know "the real effect" how? So we should pay no attention to the head of the program who says that the intent and effect of the program is the opposite of your intimately held convictions. You must be sure to use this power only for good.

The inclusive uniformity you want to enforce is the status quo. I am in favor of a more inclusive approach to teaching history; I'd like it to go beyond the (white) hero worship orientation. Race and ethnicity is at the heart of the American story, is it not?

Arce claims the classes are "open to everyone." That raised my eyebrows. I can just imagine the grade a non-Chicano student could expect to get from some ideologically driven teacher, and the hostile response the kid would get from his or her classmates, if that student were to seriously critique and strongly disagree with the perspective purveyed in the classroom. As a matter of fact, I wonder how many non-Chicanos have opted to enroll is this alternative program? The practical effect is of course racial segregation of the public schools.

You can just imagine? Michael, that is simple prejudice. The situation you describe occurs every day except most of the time it is the brown and black student in a majority white class. If you listen to the interview, Mr. Arce also said that the ethnic profile of the students in the program is consistent with that of schools in which the classes are taught. So, again, you seem to making stuff up.

Sorry for the out of order thing above; I didn't think anyone was responding, so I added something and re-posted.  Anyone else on the forum will see that your post is a response to mine, above.  OK, quick reaction:

The cartoon was funny, but on the "Nazi name-calling" issue that doesn't mean that a political cartoonist can't advocate an absurd point of view if he does so.  As is the case here.

On illegal immigration, the tacit postion that opponents of the law are taking is that our immigration laws should not be enforced if the majority of the illegal aliens are of one ethnic/racial group, because enforcement might result in racial profiling.  I disagree and believe the law should be enforced irrespective of race or nationality.  The position that the law should not be enforced, that some violators of the law should be immune because of their race or national origin, is itself ... racist.  Look at the language of the statute, what it permits and what it does not. If the provisions of the statute are not applied as written, and there is instead abuse, then that will be have to be addressed.

As to ethnic studies: The link I provided gives a sample of the sort of thing that is disseminated in the Chicano Studies program. It does not appear to foster mutual respect, appreciation of other racial groups, or unity.  This is not speculation on my part, it is based on what has been reported to the Arizona State Superintendent, and from the materials themselves (and there are other samples in the Internet, emulated by the students at the schools today).  So actually, Curtis, what I am expressing is not prejudice, but rather a simple observation based on reports and materials. 

As to the Arca interview, you evidently did not post the entire text of the interview of both individuals. Why not? Because in what you posted he did not say what you say he said. Mr. Arca has an interest in justifying his program, so what he says, directed to a public audience, must be understood in that context. If you or he are saying that a majority of the kids at one school are Hispanic, and most of those take the Chicano studies program, does that mean there is a separate "Chicano" program and a separate "all others" program? Any way you slice it, this smacks of segregation to me. Fostering division, not unity.

It is not prejudice to speculate that an ideologically-driven left-wing or right-wing or ethnocentric teacher might evidence bias in his grading.  We see this all the time (on the left-wing front) at universities. I don't see why high school would be any different. Again, this is not prejudice on my part, it is just the common sense observation that teachers and professors can themselves be prejudiced.

Let me share with you a very simple vision: A vision of a world without racial or ethnic prejudice. That means respecting others of all races and ethnicities. Respecting each person, as an Individual. If an individual has not harmed you, and wishes you no harm, view him favorably. If he embraces an ideology of hate or purveys prejudice against others, judge that person accordingly. Otherwise, judge him or her favorably, as you would like others to judge you. In applying these simple standards, race is entirely irrelevant. Unless the purveyor of prejudice makes it relevant.

Because, truly, even with all of our differences, we are One Nation and One People. That is what must be taught to our children in our public schools.

I apply the same standard to Jews as to any other ethnic group.  I would not support a separate course of study for Jewish students in our public schools, to replace the core curriculum, notwithstanding the significant contributions that Jews have made to our country, and notwithstanding the fact that there has been antisemtism in America. That is not the function of our public schools, which is to educate our young to become adult American citizens. On the other hand, I would have no problem with an elective course being offered, provided that it did not foster animosity broadly directed against any other ethnic or racial group in the United States (including, of course, "Gentiles" collectively).  Any elective course that would meet my criteria would certainly meet Arizona's.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Battle on May 17, 2010, 07:04:10 am
Apparently, there was a Miss USA beauty pageant over the weekend and the winner was a 24-year old of Arab-American descent, Ms. Rima Fakih straight outta  Dearborn, Michigan.
(http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID12837/images/resized_Miss_USA.jpg)
As-Salāmu `Alaykum, America!

As reported in a local newspaper today, during the program actor Oscar Nunez ("The Office") asked one of the other contestants, Miss Oklahoma USA  Morgan Elizabeth Woolard about Arizona's new immigration law.  Woolard said she supported the law.  She said she's against illegal immigration but is also against racial profiling.

"I'm a huge believer in states' rights. I think that's wonderful about America. So I think it's perfectly fine for Arizona to create the law."


---------------

Now you know why she didn't become Miss USA! ;D
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 17, 2010, 08:06:51 am
We've seen in the past how this pageant uses left-of-center political litmus tests to exclude contestants.  I certainly hope this was not what was going on here.  I respect a contestant who is willing to express her sincere point of view, probably knowing that by honestly answering she will get dinged by the biased judges.

However, at least from the appearance of Rima Fakih, she certainly looks deserving. I can't imagine a more attractive contestant.  ;)

If she is of Muslim background, I hope a fatwa is not pronounced against her by some influential radical cleric, on the grounds that she is (1) violating sharia in her public displays and (2) collaborating with the enemy.  I would hope that the radicals have bigger fish to fry. If of Muslim descent, my hat's off to Ms. Fakih, as no doubt she did know that she will get some negative blow-back from extremists. On the other hand, maybe she's Christian. I've no idea (though your caption suggests the Muslim Faith).

Either way ... congratulations to her.   

Though I think beauty contests are kinda silly, her winning the pageant does typify what America and being an American is all about. Not that all of us need to hurry up and enter beauty contests, hahaha.  ;D
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Vic Vega on May 17, 2010, 11:34:46 am
She's a champion thru and thru. ;D

http://ontheflix.com/2010/05/17/miss-usas-rima-fakih-spotted-strip-pole-dancing-for-a-radio-show/ (http://ontheflix.com/2010/05/17/miss-usas-rima-fakih-spotted-strip-pole-dancing-for-a-radio-show/)
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on May 17, 2010, 11:57:10 am
As to the Arca interview, you evidently did not post the entire text of the interview of both individuals. Why not? Because in what you posted he did not say what you say he said. Mr. Arca has an interest in justifying his program, so what he says, directed to a public audience, must be understood in that context. If you or he are saying that a majority of the kids at one school are Hispanic, and most of those take the Chicano studies program, does that mean there is a separate "Chicano" program and a separate "all others" program? Any way you slice it, this smacks of segregation to me. Fostering division, not unity.

If you follow the link provided, the complete interview transcript is there. What Mr. Arce said is that the ethnic demographics of students in the Mexican-American Studies Program resembles that in the school overall.

It is not prejudice to speculate that an ideologically-driven left-wing or right-wing or ethnocentric teacher might evidence bias in his grading.  We see this all the time (on the left-wing front) at universities. I don't see why high school would be any different. Again, this is not prejudice on my part, it is just the common sense observation that teachers and professors can themselves be prejudiced.

And what is the reason you bring that kind of bias up as regards the Mexican-American Studies Program (MASP)?
Obviously, grading bias of any sort in any program including the core curriculum would be wrong, right? So how is that charge relevant to this discussion? Unless you think it's more likely to occur in the MASP. And why would you think that?

Let me share with you a very simple vision: A vision of a world without racial or ethnic prejudice. That means respecting others of all races and ethnicities. Respecting each person, as an Individual. If an individual has not harmed you, and wishes you no harm, view him favorably. If he embraces an ideology of hate or purveys prejudice against others, judge that person accordingly. Otherwise, judge him or her favorably, as you would like others to judge you. In applying these simple standards, race is entirely irrelevant. Unless the purveyor of prejudice makes it relevant.

Well, ethnicity might be relevant. Embracing cultural diversity is a good thing. Pretending there are no differences is a fail.

Because, truly, even with all of our differences, we are One Nation and One People. That is what must be taught to our children in our public schools.

I apply the same standard to Jews as to any other ethnic group.  I would not support a separate course of study for Jewish students in our public schools, to replace the core curriculum, notwithstanding the significant contributions that Jews have made to our country, and notwithstanding the fact that there has been antisemtism in America. That is not the function of our public schools, which is to educate our young to become adult American citizens. On the other hand, I would have no problem with an elective course being offered, provided that it did not foster animosity broadly directed against any other ethnic or racial group in the United States (including, of course, "Gentiles" collectively).  Any elective course that would meet my criteria would certainly meet Arizona's.


What do you know, the Tucson Unified School District Mexican-American Studies Department has a website (http://www.tusd1.org/contents/depart/mexicanam/index.asp):
Quote
Our Vision

The Mexican American Studies Department is dedicated to the empowerment and strengthening of our community of learners.
Students will attain an understanding and appreciation of historic and contemporary Mexican American contributions.
Students will be prepared for dynamic, confident leadership in the 21st Century.

Our Goals

The department is firmly committed to the following with an academic focus:
    * Advocating for and providing culturally relevant curriculum for grades K-12.
    * Advocating for and providing curriculum that is centered within the pursuit of social justice.
    * Advocating for and providing curriculum that is centered within the Mexican American/Chicano cultural and historical experience.
    * Working towards the invoking of a critical consciousness within each and every student.
    * Providing and promoting teacher education that is centered within Critical Pedagogy, Latino Critical Race Pedagogy, and Authentic Caring.
    * Promoting and advocating for social and educational transformation.
    * Promoting and advocating for the demonstration of respect, understanding, appreciation, inclusion, and love at every level of service.

Sounds like their classes would meet your criteria as well.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 18, 2010, 07:00:28 am
Curtis, a curriculum that is ethnically focused is more likely to attract an agenda-driven teacher than is the "general studies" version of the core curriculum, which is not ethnically focused on one group.  A curriculum that has a left-wing agenda is more likely to attract a leftist ideologue than the more balanced "general studies" program. Often such folk are not tolerent of alternative points of view. That's why I think it more likely that a student who might be inclined to strongly disagree with the tenor and content of the "Chicano Studies" program might run the risk of a lower grade. I'm not saying this would always be the case, no doubt this would vary from teacher to teacher, but logic would dictate an increased risk. In the same way that we see biased grading in universities. Do you seriously disagree? 

As to whether the Tuscon "Mexican American Studies" alternative program would meet my criteria would depend on the actual content of the courses and the way the teachers teach them. Not on general platitudes on a website.  I'm not sure what the last item really means: "Promoting and advocating for the demonstration of respect, understanding, appreciation, inclusion, and love at every level of service" ... is this directed at members of other races or ethnic groups, including those of European descent, or something else? What does this mean in the context of "Latino Critical Race Pedagogy" and "invoking of a critical consciousness" and "pursuit of social justice" (which, depending on who is using the phrase, can mean various things, and I am totally in favor of true social justice, but often that phrase is used to only mean advocacy of a Left-wing agenda including massive income transfers and increased Government growth and increased Government economic power and domination).  The link I provided, to some of the texts used, didn't seem consistent with multi-ethnic respect and unity of the American People as One People.  There seemed to be a rather divisive separatist orientation. One would not expect this to be proclaimed on the official Program website.

Seriously, I think the only solution is to drop General Studies and Chicano/Black studies and replace them all with ...

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01638/miss-usa_1638697f.jpg)
   Lebanese-American Studies
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on May 18, 2010, 07:35:20 am
Curtis, a curriculum that is ethnically focused is more likely to attract an agenda-driven teacher than is the "general studies" version of the core curriculum, which is not ethnically focused on one group.  A curriculum that has a left-wing agenda is more likely to attract a leftist ideologue than the more balanced "general studies" program. Often such folk are not tolerent of alternative points of view. That's why I think it more likely that a student who might be inclined to strongly disagree with the tenor and content of the "Chicano Studies" program might run the risk of a lower grade. I'm not saying this would always be the case, no doubt this would vary from teacher to teacher, but logic would dictate an increased risk. In the same way that we see biased grading in universities. Do you seriously disagree? 

Let's see: a questionable assumption followed by specious reasoning along with another implicit assumption that there would be no oversight of unprofessional teachers issuing grades based on anything other than academic achievement and then the leap that differently ethnic students face the prospect of punishment for participating in the program. How could anyone disagree with all that?

As to whether the Tuscon "Mexican American Studies" alternative program would meet my criteria would depend on the actual content of the courses and the way the teachers teach them.

Ding, ding, ding. But that didn't stop you from jumping to the conclusion that they don't meet your criteria. In the interview, Mr. Arce was adamant that the program does not violate the law in spite of Superintendent Horne's assertions. I heard little in the way of evidence put forth by Mr. Horne. Maybe he's got other stuff that he has not yet revealed. Sounds like there will be an effort to stop the program that will follow its due process. Until that time, I will consider that the burden of proof lies with Mr. Horne.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 18, 2010, 07:58:59 am
Fine, Curtis, so long as professors or teachers agree with you, they evidence no bias.  I get it.  Like the African-American studies professor whom we were exposed to on the HEF some time ago.  Right?  You know, the guy who kept bitching that I should be kicked off the forum.  Because I disagreed with him and cited facts to support my position, and outed his dissemination of only partial facts and studies that only supported his point of view.

As to whether the "Mexican-American Studies Program" meets the criteria of the Arizona law, I agree with you that the matter will need to be examined in a detailed fashion.  The only point I made, which you seem to reject, is that one should not rely on platitudes set forth on a website.  You disregarded references to textbooks, because you are so inclined.  But our bickering amounts to nothing; it will be examined in depth in the future and a decision will be made.  If the program does not violate the reasonable standards set forth in the new Arizona law, and the negative information disseminated about it is inaccurate, then I have no problem with it.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on May 18, 2010, 08:56:02 am
Fine, Curtis, so long as professors or teachers agree with you, they evidence no bias.  I get it.  Like the African-American studies professor whom we were exposed to on the HEF some time ago.  Right?  You know, the guy who kept bitching that I should be kicked off the forum.  Because I disagreed with him and cited facts to support my position, and outed his dissemination of only partial facts and studies that only supported his point of view.
I honestly don't know how you come to the conclusion underlined. Didn't I say that bias in grading of any kind would be wrong? What I disagree with is your baseless speculation that bias would be more likely in the MASP than anywhere else.

As for the professor you mentioned, come on now, Michael. He is no longer here and you are. You may safely conclude that the right to civilly express one's perspective is the value that was upheld by HEF management.

As to whether the "Mexican-American Studies Program" meets the criteria of the Arizona law, I agree with you that the matter will need to be examined in a detailed fashion.  The only point I made, which you seem to reject, is that one should not rely on platitudes set forth on a website.  You disregarded references to textbooks, because you are so inclined.  But our bickering amounts to nothing; it will be examined in depth in the future and a decision will be made.  If the program does not violate the reasonable standards set forth in the new Arizona law, and the negative information disseminated about it is inaccurate, then I have no problem with it.
The underlined is certainly correct. As for what I "disregarded", it was a website expressing an opinion about textbooks that may or may not be a part of the MASP. Further, I didn't disregard it, I just don't consider it necessarily authoritative nor conclusive as perhaps you do. I think it should merely be registered as a piece of information to consider.

Now, as to the law, I suppose the criteria might be reasonable but they may also be wholly unnecessary. If the Superintendent feels that strongly about his position, (and one may wonder why that is), isn't he ideally located to work towards integrating the concerns of one of his largest constituencies into the mainstream curriculum? Isn't that the solution you say you prefer?
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 18, 2010, 06:44:49 pm
I read the entire interview. The Director of the Mexican-American Studies Program, Sean Arce, said almost nothing specific.  His entire response was one platitude after the next. The guy repeated the phrase “this great nation” three times the in the course of this short interview, assured the audience that he is upholding the “Constitution of the United States” etc etc.  Do you really believe that’s the way the guy always talks, to his friends, to students, to others generally?  He provided no specific factual rebuttal to anything that School Superintendent Tom Horn said.  He didn’t claim that the testimony of other teachers, or eyewitness accounts, were fabricated.  He didn’t deny use of a Marxist text.  He admitted that 90% of the kids who take the “La Raza” or “Mexican-American” studies classes are Latino.  He tried to explain this on the ground that this comports with the demographics of the Tucson schools where such classes are offered.  I would like to see the actual data, to see the demographics of all schools where such programs are offered and what the demographic is of those who enroll in the classes.  However, even assuming for purposes of discussion that what Mr. Arce says were accurate, what we are talking about is the racial targeting of the program to certain schools to assure that the overwhelming majority of those taking the classes will be from the targeted racial group.  Resulting in de facto segregation of the school curriculum.   

Given the nonspecific tone and tenor of Mr. Arce’s comments, Tom Horn may be right when he observes: “We have a very different picture presented by the department to the outside world, and then testimony of teachers and ex-teachers as to what's really going on there.”

Perhaps upon investigation all of Mr. Horn’s allegations, all the testimony and eye-witness accounts, all the references to specific textbooks used, will be proven to be unfounded, fabricated, all lies.  Or maybe not.  It will all come out when the Tucson program is formally evaluated and the matter is litigated (though my guess is that it will be settled before we hear any testimony in court).  In any event, we are not going to resolve it here. 

Here are some more highlights:

Mr. HORNE: Well, we have testimony from a number of teachers and former teachers. One is Hector Ayala, who is a current teacher, was himself born in Mexico, but he's an excellent English teacher, teaches at a very high level. The former director of Raza studies taught next to him, and accused him of being the white man's agent because he accused - he opposed that thing. He was told by students that he taught a separate political agenda, and that students told him they were taught to not fall for the white man's traps.

We have another former teacher who says the whole inference and tone was anger. They taught students that the United States was and still is a fundamentally racist country to those Mexican-American kids. Individuals in this ethnic studies department are vehemently anti-Western culture. They are vehemently opposed to the United States and its power. They are telling students they are victims. They should be angry and rise up. By the time I left that class, I saw a change in the students, he said - an angry tone.

We have testimony from other teachers I can read to you if you want to, but that gives you a picture of it. One of their principle textbooks is called "The Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paulo Freire, who's a well-known Brazilian Marxist. I've read the book. His sources are Marx, Lenin, Engels, Che Guevara and the philosophers who influenced them.

KEYES: Superintendent Horne, is it wrong to highlight the contributions of specific ethnicities that you might not have heard about before? I mean, when I was growing up in Chicago, they didn't focus a whole lot about the history and culture of people of color. I realize that has changed in many ways, but is that not something important that kids need to know?

Mr. HORNE: Absolutely. And the standards that my department promulgates, we require in the social studies classes that the students learn about contributions of all different cultures. We think that's very important. But what we're against is ghettoizing students. Raza studies for the Mexican kids. African-American studies for the African-American kids. Asian studies for the Asian kids. Indian studies for the Native-American kids - and then just teach them about the contributions of the group that they happen to have been born into.

We think kids should be taught together. They should be taught to treat each other as individuals, that what race they happened to have been born into is irrelevant. What's relevant is what you know, what you can do, what's your character, not what race you happened to have been born into. And we teach the contributions of different groups together in a social studies class for all kids.

The job of the public schools is to bring kids from different backgrounds together and teach them to treat each other as individuals. I'll read to you a brief sentence from a third teacher. She's overheard the Raza studies teacher tell students that they need to go to college so they can gain the power to take back the stolen land and give it back to Mexico. He personally told me that he teaches his students that Republicans hate Latinos, and he has the legislation to prove it. When he asked him about Mexican-American Republicans who are against illegal immigration, he said this is an example of self-racism.

We have a very different picture presented by the department to the outside world, and then testimony of teachers and ex-teachers as to what's really going on there.

KEYES: Superintendent, if you are a member of a particular ethnic background, is there not some right or reason for you to learn something about your ethnic and cultural background?

Mr. HORNE: Certainly. But that shouldn't be the only thing you learn. You need to learn about all different backgrounds and all different cultures. School should be a place that broadens your horizon. The word education comes from the word ex, which is from educo, which is Latin, to lead. So it's to lead out - to lead out from the narrowness of learning only about your background, to learn about all different backgrounds. And that's what we strive to do in our standards for our social studies classes.

It's contrary, I believe, to American values to divide kids by race and teach each race only about its own contributions. We want to teach all kids about all different contributions.

KEYES: Mr. Arce, are the children divided by race in these classes? Or is this kids of all colors that are, like, hey, I'm going to take African-American studies. That sounds interesting.

Mr. ARCE: The kids aren't divided by race whatsoever. That's a fallacy that Mr. Horne has been expounding for years. These classes are developed for all students in Tucson Unified School District. His rationale is the equivalent to stating that our AP European history classes in the state of Arizona, which are steeped in the history and culture of Europe, are only for European heritage students. And we know that's false.

KEYES: I've got to ask you, how many kids of other races are in those classes?

Mr. ARCE: About 90 percent of the students that do take our classes at the high school level are Mexican-American and Latino, and the remaining 10 percent are white Anglo, African-America, Native American.

KEYES: If the classes are 90 percent Mexican, why aren't more kids of other ethnicities taking them?

Mr. ARCE: Because many of these schools that we do have, these courses where we do provide this coursework, it's very much reflective and consistent with the demographics of the school.

KEYES: So most of - the school is mostly Mexican-American, is what you're saying.

Mr. ARCE: That is correct.

KEYES: Okay. And let me ask you to respond to Mr. Arce's political charge. I mean, you are running for attorney general in Arizona. Is this at all campaign-related? Is this good politics?

Mr. HORNE: No. I think I've been on this issue for four years now. First two years I was trying to persuade Tucson to change their ways, and then the last two years getting the bill through the legislature. This is among my most deeply held beliefs that we are to be treated as individuals and not on the basis of race.
In the summer of 1963, when I just graduated from high school, I participated in the march on Washington, where Martin Luther King gave his famous speech where he said people should be judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

KEYES: So if Tucson doesn't change its classes, are you going to go after them?

Mr. HORNE: Without doubt. We have substantial testimony that what's occurring is not only dividing students by race and teaching them separately by race and teaching them only about their own culture and not about other cultures, but that there's a revolutionary curriculum going on where kids are taught -they're taught from a book called "The Pedagogy of the Oppressed."

You know, these kids, parents and grandparents came to this country, most of them legally, because this is the land of opportunity. And they trust their children to our schools. And we should be teaching these kids that this is the land of opportunity and if they work hard, they can achieve their dreams. And we should not be teaching them that they're oppressed and creating an atmosphere which, as some of the teachers testify, they become resentful toward the country, they've become resentful toward the government. They should be looking at our country hopefully as a land of opportunity, where they can achieve success.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Battle on May 19, 2010, 09:04:19 am
Quote
You know, these kids, parents and grandparents came to this country, most of them legally, because this is the land of opportunity. And they trust their children to our schools. And we should be teaching these kids that this is the land of opportunity and if they work hard, they can achieve their dreams. And we should not be teaching them that they're oppressed and creating an atmosphere which, as some of the teachers testify, they become resentful toward the country, they've become resentful toward the government. They should be looking at our country hopefully as a land of opportunity, where they can achieve success.




'Land of opportunity' is a very subjective description.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: BlackRodimus on May 19, 2010, 11:09:54 am
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/17/texas-latino-immigration/

Do as I say, not as I do?
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Battle on May 19, 2010, 12:20:07 pm
[url]http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/17/texas-latino-immigration/[/url]

Do as I say, not as I do?




Sometimes, I like to read the comments section of any debate, article or topic online.  The comments at that link are no exception.  Check this one out:





20. Peashooter says:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KEEP THE MEXICANS OUT!

We don’t need their corruption and backward culture here.

Mexicans DO want handouts.












75. Hoodathunk(sponsored by the FSM, Noodles for Freedom!) says:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mexicans always want handouts?

When did they move Wall Street to Mexico?

May 17th, 2010 at 5:26 pm




 ;D
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: BlackRodimus on May 19, 2010, 01:00:17 pm
[url]http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/17/texas-latino-immigration/[/url]

Do as I say, not as I do?




Sometimes, I like to read the comments section of any debate, article or topic online.  The comments at that link are no exception.  Check this one out:





20. Peashooter says:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KEEP THE MEXICANS OUT!

We don’t need their corruption and backward culture here.

Mexicans DO want handouts.












75. Hoodathunk(sponsored by the FSM, Noodles for Freedom!) says:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mexicans always want handouts?

When did they move Wall Street to Mexico?

May 17th, 2010 at 5:26 pm




 ;D


LOL Awesome, good sir! Awesome!
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: michaelintp on May 20, 2010, 10:24:21 pm
What I disagree with is your baseless speculation that bias would be more likely in the MASP than anywhere else.


Why baseless?  I stated the general principle that any program that is more ideological in nature is more likely to attract teachers and professors with a personal ideological agenda, who may be more likely to push that agenda, and penalize those who do not embrace it or dare to challenge it. This it certainly not limited to MASP Program, but it is more likely there than in the more ideologically neutral and more broadly focused "general studies" program. Same can be said for any number of more ideologically-based classes, most notably in the social sciences and history, found in universities.

Not that this happens all the time, or with every teacher or professor.  The risk is just greater, that's all.

As for the professor you mentioned, come on now, Michael. He is no longer here and you are. You may safely conclude that the right to civilly express one's perspective is the value that was upheld by HEF management.


My reference to the African-American Studies Professor had nothing to do with "HEF Management" and everything to do with teachers and professors with an ideological axe to grind who display prejudice against, and seek to penalize, those they disagree with (or who dare to disagree with "the professor").  I simply cited him as a case in point, of what we are discussing.

Now, as to the law, I suppose the criteria might be reasonable but they may also be wholly unnecessary. If the Superintendent feels that strongly about his position, (and one may wonder why that is), isn't he ideally located to work towards integrating the concerns of one of his largest constituencies into the mainstream curriculum? Isn't that the solution you say you prefer?


Superintendent Horn stated that he tried through persuasion and his efforts were unsuccessful. He described his objectives, his point of view, and what he sees as the role of the general curriculum for all students.

One thing that interests me about this discussion is that those involved on both sides believe that they are the ones fighting against prejudice. 

[url]http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/17/texas-latino-immigration/[/url]
Do as I say, not as I do?

Sometimes, I like to read the comments section of any debate, article or topic online.  The comments at that link are no exception.  Check this one out:


Battle: The problem with Internet comments is that you never know who really made 'em. There is no accountability. The comments could just as easily have been written by an activist who actually is supportive of ethnic studies who intentionally posts a racist comment to "slander" his opponents (by portraying them as racists), as someone who is against such programs.  Or the post could have been written been some racist piece of crap.  You'll never know.

BPStorm4ever:  It is notable, however, that regarding the English teacher who made the prejudiced comments, "Once the school’s principal learned of the incident, administrators removed the teacher and launched an investigation."  Was the teacher of the Mexican-American Studies class, who made disparaging racist references against Latino Republicans, similarly removed? (See Tom Horn's comments, above). Or is there a double-standard at work here?
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on May 21, 2010, 07:04:42 am
What I disagree with is your baseless speculation that bias would be more likely in the MASP than anywhere else.

Why baseless?  I stated the general principle that any program that is more ideological in nature is more likely to attract teachers and professors with a personal ideological agenda, who may be more likely to push that agenda, and penalize those who do not embrace it or dare to challenge it. This it certainly not limited to MASP Program, but it is more likely there than in the more ideologically neutral and more broadly focused "general studies" program. Same can be said for any number of more ideologically-based classes, most notably in the social sciences and history, found in universities.

Not that this happens all the time, or with every teacher or professor.  The risk is just greater, that's all.
If you assume your conclusion, you can "prove" anything. Is the MASP ideological? Isn't that the crux of the question? Perhaps baseless speculation is overly harsh; I'll take back the baseless part. It's just regular speculation.

As for the professor you mentioned, come on now, Michael. He is no longer here and you are. You may safely conclude that the right to civilly express one's perspective is the value that was upheld by HEF management.

My reference to the African-American Studies Professor had nothing to do with "HEF Management" and everything to do with teachers and professors with an ideological axe to grind who display prejudice against, and seek to penalize, those they disagree with (or who dare to disagree with "the professor").  I simply cited him as a case in point, of what we are discussing.
And he's just like those MASP teachers. You know how they are.  ::)

Now, as to the law, I suppose the criteria might be reasonable but they may also be wholly unnecessary. If the Superintendent feels that strongly about his position, (and one may wonder why that is), isn't he ideally located to work towards integrating the concerns of one of his largest constituencies into the mainstream curriculum? Isn't that the solution you say you prefer?

Superintendent Horn stated that he tried through persuasion and his efforts were unsuccessful. He described his objectives, his point of view, and what he sees as the role of the general curriculum for all students.

One thing that interests me about this discussion is that those involved on both sides believe that they are the ones fighting against prejudice. 
I find that interesting also. Maybe they are both reasonable people with different perspectives.

Aside from them, do you think that a MASP or similar programs are inherently divisive? Or do you think it depends on how it is done?
Title: Lawmen Threaten to Deport Puerto Rican Guy to Mexico
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 25, 2010, 01:59:23 pm
Lawmen Threaten to Deport Puerto Rican Guy to Mexico

Puerto Rican-born US citizen Eduardo Caraballo was arrested in Illinois and threatened with deportation—back to Mexico. Once officials got his birth certificate, it only took them three days to figure out he wasn't Mexican. Uh.

Just consider this a dry run for the resounding success that will be Arizona's immigration law! [Guanabee]
Title: Re: Lawmen Threaten to Deport Puerto Rican Guy to Mexico
Post by: Kristopher on May 25, 2010, 06:12:17 pm
Lawmen Threaten to Deport Puerto Rican Guy to Mexico

Puerto Rican-born US citizen Eduardo Caraballo was arrested in Illinois and threatened with deportation—back to Mexico. Once officials got his birth certificate, it only took them three days to figure out he wasn't Mexican. Uh.

Just consider this a dry run for the resounding success that will be Arizona's immigration law! [Guanabee]



More:
Eduardo Caraballo, a U.S. citizen born in the United States, was detained for over three days on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant.

Despite presenting identifying documents and even his birth certificate, Caraballo was held by federal immigration authorities over the weekend and threatened with deportation, according to an NBC Chicago report. He was only released when his congressman, Luis Gutierrez -- a vocal supporter of immigration reform -- intervened on his behalf.

Caraballo was born in Puerto Rico, making him a natural-born citizen of the United States. He moved to the mainland as an infant, and now lives in Chicago.

Last week, NBC reports that he was arrested in connection with a stolen car in Berwyn. Caraballo maintains his innocence. In any case, when his mother posted bail on Friday, he was not freed.

"Instead of being released, he was told by authorities that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was detaining him because he was an illegal immigrant," NBC reports.

Caraballo spent the weekend in the custody of federal immigration agents. When he presented them with ID and his birth certificate, he says officials were skeptical: "Because of the way I look, I have Mexican features, they pretty much assumed that my papers were fake."

Only after his congressman interceded was Caraballo set free.

Rep. Gutierrez, a Chicagoan who is himself of Puerto Rican descent, is a long-time advocate of immigration reform. He was one of the first and loudest voices on the Hill to speak out against the Arizona immigration law, and he was recently arrested at a protest demanding fairer treatment for immigrants and their families.

"It gets worse," Gutierrez said in an interview. "We know of instances in which young people in his same situation are actually taken to the border and deported from the United States.

Not surprisingly, the nine-term Democratic congressman saw a disturbing connection to the situation in the Grand Canyon State.

"In Arizona, they want everybody to be able to prove they're legally in the country. They want everybody to prove that they're an American citizen. Here we had an American citizen, that the federal government... could not determine, for more than three days, his status as an American citizen. It's very, very, very dangerous ground to tread."

According to NBC Chicago, Caraballo "is considering legal action." Meanwhile, he and his congressman hope the incident will open people's eyes to the dangers of profiling.
(http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/78/MPW-39328)
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: BmoreAkuma on May 29, 2010, 07:09:27 pm
As stated I was going to post and well things are str8. No cops but at the same time I dont have a rental to drive around in. BTW there is a huge rally of pro and con of the bill. Of course some of the ones that are PRO have confederate flags up. Or unless they are from South Carolina  ::) Arizona is beatiful. If you are a person that like to date interracially, you're good and a number of the white women are eating something nice rofl. But actually all of the women are nice. Decent party life. But I also kinda felt old since im 30 out there and about.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: moor on June 01, 2010, 09:31:06 am
As stated I was going to post and well things are str8. No cops but at the same time I dont have a rental to drive around in. BTW there is a huge rally of pro and con of the bill. Of course some of the ones that are PRO have confederate flags up. Or unless they are from South Carolina  ::) Arizona is beatiful. If you are a person that like to date interracially, you're good and a number of the white women are eating something nice rofl. But actually all of the women are nice. Decent party life. But I also kinda felt old since im 30 out there and about.

What city did you visit?
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: BmoreAkuma on June 01, 2010, 10:11:56 am
What city did you visit?
Tempe
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos... especially dark ones.
Post by: Lion on June 04, 2010, 07:00:57 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100604/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2425

Prescott, Ariz., elementary school to 'whiten' image of child in mural
2 hrs 44 mins ago

An artist's decision to prominently feature a non-white child on an elementary-school mural in Prescott, Ariz., sparked so much controversy that school administrators asked him to "lighten" the child's face after a city councilman launched a campaign against the mural, according to the Arizona Republic.

The Prescott episode isn't likely to help Arizona's growing reputation as a battleground of racial and ethnic confrontation, as the state faces a widespread boycott campaign over its harsh new immigration law.

The mural, which was funded by a state grant, features the faces of four actual students at the school and is intended to promote biking and other environmentally sustainable modes of transportation. The most prominent face on it belongs to a Latino student.

Steve Blair didn't like that. Blair, local city councilman and talk-radio host, inveighed against the mural on his show last month, according to the New York Daily News:

"I am not a racist individual," Blair said on a radio show last month, "but I will tell you depicting a black guy in the middle of that mural, based upon who's President of the United States today and based upon the history of this community, when I grew up we had four black families — who I have been very good friends with for years — to depict the biggest picture on that building as a black person, I would have to ask the question, 'Why?' "

Good question, to which there are two answers: 1) The boy in question is of Latino heritage (but it's hard to tell them all apart sometimes, right?), and 2) because the boy in question is of Latino heritage. It is suspicious, though, seeing as how only 42 percent of Arizonans aren't white.

R.E. Wall, a Prescott artist who worked on the mural along with several other members of the city's Downtown Mural Project, told the Republic that local residents driving by the mural as they were painting it — sometimes with children helping — shouted ethnic slurs. Wall claimed the school's principal asked him to make the child's skin tone lighter in response to the pushback. The principal acknowledged receiving three complaints about the child's race but insisted that the lightening was an "artistic" decision.

The important thing to remember here is that Steve Blair is not a racist individual and that he has been very good friends with Prescott's four black families for years. Blair didn't immediately return a phone call from Yahoo! News.

— John Cook is a senior national reporter/blogger for Yahoo! News.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: BlackRodimus on June 05, 2010, 08:49:13 am
Wow. As a person of color I keep seeing more and more reason to never visit this state. Or East Arizona (South Carolina) for that matter.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on June 05, 2010, 08:55:22 am
The Civil War has become a Cold War.  All this is an insane reaction to their local immigration problems and the browning of America in general, and our President specificially.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Kristopher on June 05, 2010, 11:38:37 am
Or East Arizona (South Carolina) for that matter.
:D
Title: Steve Blair fired by radio station for racist remarks about school mural
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on June 06, 2010, 08:21:04 am
from CROOKS AND LIARS:

If only it were this easy for FOX News to fire Glenn Beck. Still, I'll take progress wherever I can get it.

Arizona FOX affiliate KYCA fired Steve Blair today over the mural controversy painted on a wall at Miller Valley School. Actually, he wasn't fired over the controversy. He was fired for creating the controversy.

When asked about what his objections were to the mural, he replied:

"Number one, it was defacing a public building of a historic nature on one of the most heavily traveled roadways in Prescott, Arizona without any edification of what the mural was supposed to be, what it stood for, and it's a piece of public art that I don't support. Not there. Somewhere else, maybe yes, but not there.

And based upon the fact that nobody bothered to let the community know what that mural was supposed to depict made it very difficult to buy in on -- um -- what the mission statement of that mural was supposed to be. Plus it was too big, too in-your-face, wrong place, wrong time."

Defacing? Really? That particular verb, especially when taken in concert with what he says about the school mural project in general, really exposes him clearly.

It's difficult to transcribe everything he said, but at some point he listed the other three murals that, with the school mural, make up the Prescott Mural Project as being perfectly acceptable. The site is down under heavy traffic right now, but if it comes back up, you can see all the murals at http://www.prescottmurals.com/. The Miller School project was the last of four.

During the conversation about his confusion on what the Miller school mural is supposed to represent, he said:

"[It] looks like a guy black guy brown guy holding a stick and a big flowers and stuff, what was it supposed to mean? I don't know what it's supposed to mean, I really don't. If it means going green, what does that mean?

Not everything is okay, and not everything should be looked at as "I have to be politically correct...If I don't like public art like the mural, I have the right to say I don't like it...The hard part is where do people draw the line of standing up to what's right or wrong."

"I want somebody to tell me why I should like that. I like that one at the library. I like the one on the parking garage..."

The mural at the library depicts Prescott history from ancient times through modern. The one at the parking garage is entitled "Art for All". You can see some of it here.

Not content to leave it there, Blair continues his rant:

"Should we be able to paint Kumbaya on the side of the Elks theater now instead of renovating it? Put kids and jackals on the side of that building? Should we just unilaterally deface that building without talking to the guys that own it?"

"Why because I don't like it am I being painted as a racist?"

(For reference, the Elks Theater renovation project is another downtown project to restore a historical theater to its halcyon days. )

When asked if he would take back his comments regarding the mural he replied with a flat "No."

He sums it up this way:

Why are we allowing people to deface historic buildings with murals?

That's twice now with the word "deface". While he doesn't seem to have any problem with "defacing" any other building or wall in Prescott, this one alone gives him heartburn. The one with "the black guy brown guy, sticks and flowers."

Prescott started this project in 2001 as part of an overall downtown renovation effort. The murals are funded with money granted by the Prescott Alternative Transportation Center. The mural at the school was selected by the students and faculty and features student's faces in the artwork.

All reactions to art come from the heart. Steve Blair shows his heart as clearly as the children of that school do. I'll answer Blair's question about racism this way: When it's the color of the people on the historic building that you object to, when the message of the mural is as clear and consistent as those who paid to have it painted, you're kidding yourself if you think this is about "defacing public property."

I love our Los Angeles murals. They were painted for the 1984 Olympics and brighten the smoggy landscape of concrete and glass in the city. These murals are a wonderful way to brighten and renovate an aging downtown area. Prescott citizens should question whether this city councilman has their interests or his prejudices at heart.

Update: From a comment by azmtdog:

The Principal of the school and the Superintendent of Prescott Unified School District admitted "We made a mistake". The mural will not be 'lightened'. Some things work out.

Good job, parents, teachers, Principal and Superintendent. That's a big win.
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Hypestyle on July 03, 2010, 12:50:23 pm
White House forum on the immigration debate- http://tinyurl.com/34cjdds
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Battle on June 25, 2012, 08:55:18 am
High court strikes down key parts of Arizona immigration law

Washington, DC - The Supreme Court upheld one part of the Arizona immigration law but struck down other sections.

The part of the law the justices upheld requires police officers stopping someone to make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government.
However...
The justices struck down three other parts of the law:


The decision was a partial victory for President Obama who had criticized the Arizona law, saying it “threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.”

Would you Like to Know More?
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/25/12398271-high-court-strikes-down-key-parts-of-arizona-immigration-law#comments
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: moor on June 25, 2012, 02:18:17 pm
Surprisingly,  Roberts sided with Kennedy in the majority decision, along with Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer.

Kagan recused due to her conflict as former solicitor general.

Guess who dissented?
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Battle on June 25, 2012, 04:02:30 pm
Surprisingly,  Roberts sided with Kennedy in the majority decision, along with Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer.

Kagan recused due to her conflict as former solicitor general.

Guess who dissented?






Does it rhymes with 'Funkle-Parents-Damus'?
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Battle on July 13, 2019, 07:06:14 pm
Saturday, 13th July 2019
Top Puerto Rican officials resign over profanity-laced chat
by Danica Coto of Associated Press

(https://i.imgur.com/PCnvRvZ.jpg)


(SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico) — Puerto Rico's Gov. Ricardo Rosselló announced Saturday that his chief financial officer and secretary of state will step down following their participation in a private chat that used profanities to describe an ex-New York City official and a federal control board overseeing the island's finances.

The U.S. territory's CFO Christian Sobrino, who is also the governor's representative to the control board, announced he was stepping down via Twitter on Saturday. Its Secretary of State Luis G. Rivera Marín also offered his resignation.

Rosselló later released a statement saying he would let go members of his administration who participated in the chat on a messaging system used by government officials. The release of the chat's contents in local media had led to calls for the governor's resignation.

Rosselló apologized for the comments late Thursday, saying he'd been working 18-hour days and releasing tensions when he called former New York City Council speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito the Spanish word for "whore" and in English told the oversight board to "go f--- yourself" followed by a string of emojis with the middle finger raised.

"Aware that the current environment cannot be maintained, I have communicated to all the other public officials involved in the chat that I will have to dispense with their services and/or their advice," he said in the statement.

He said he would ask Ricardo Llerandi to remain as Puerto Rico's secretary of the interior and Anthony Maceira to stay as secretary of Public Affairs.

"This is a very painful situation for me, as Governor, as a human being and as a Puerto Rican," Rosselló said.

"But I recognize there is no other way out and there is no worthwhile forgiveness on my part that does not include corrections and clear signs of intent to change."

The comments had drawn the ire of many Puerto Ricans who said they were ashamed of his language and of how this might affect the reputation of the U.S. territory, which had already come under scrutiny earlier this week with the arrests of former government officials including the island's education secretary.

Rosselló said late Thursday that he had not yet spoken to Mark-Viverito, who posted a lengthy statement on Twitter that read in part, "A person who uses that language against a woman, whether a public figure or not, should not govern Puerto Rico ...this type of behavior is completely unacceptable."

In the chat, Rosselló wrote that he was upset Mark-Viverito had criticized Tom Perez, chair of the Democratic National Committee, for supporting statehood for Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rican pop star Ricky Martin, who was mentioned in the chat with a homophobic comment, urged Rosselló to step down.

Martin tweeted that the governor "lacks the abilities of a true leader, who inspires, stimulates and guides by example so that our people attain a higher level of life."

Rosselló, who faces other troubles, has said he will not resign.

Days earlier, FBI agents arrested Julia Keleher, Puerto Rico's former education secretary, and five others on charges of steering federal money to unqualified, politically connected contractors.

Officials said the alleged fraud involves $15.5 million worth of federal funding issued between 2017 and 2019.

They said $13 million was spent by Puerto Rico's Department of Education while Keleher was secretary and another $2.5 million spent by Ángela Ávila Marrero when she was director of Puerto Rico's Health Insurance Administration.

Ávila Marrero was charged along with businessmen Fernando Scherrer-Caillet and Alberto Velázquez-Piñol, and education contractors Glenda E. Ponce-Mendoza and Mayra Ponce-Mendoza, who are sisters.

Officials said there was no evidence that Keleher or Ávila-Marrero had personally benefited from the scheme.

On Thursday, a group of protesters had gathered at Puerto Rico's main international airport to received Rosselló as he cut a European vacation short to address the arrests and the leaked chat.

The protesters then traveled to the governor's seaside mansion where Rosselló spoke late Thursday and demanded his resignation.







Would You Like To Know More?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/top-puerto-rican-officials-resign-over-profanity-laced-chat/ar-AAEhvOV?ocid=spartandhp (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/top-puerto-rican-officials-resign-over-profanity-laced-chat/ar-AAEhvOV?ocid=spartandhp)
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Battle on August 18, 2019, 11:45:38 am
Sunday, 18th August 2019
Appeals court narrows injunction blocking puppetine asylum restrictions
by Daniella Silva






A federal appeals court ruled Friday that an injunction barring the Trump administration from enacting new sweeping asylum restrictions for migrants only applies to a portion of the southern border and not the entire country.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said in a ruling that it denied the government’s broader request to reverse a previous decision blocking the policy, but granted it for parts of the southern border outside of the court's jurisdiction.

The decision means the injunction would apply only to California and Arizona along the U.S.-Mexico border, allowing the Trump administration to begin to impose the asylum restrictions in other states.

The court said the government has not made a strong enough case that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their argument, but the lower court that issued the injunction did not establish the need for a nationwide injunction.

The appeals court said that the lower court “failed to discuss whether a nationwide injunction is necessary to remedy the Plaintiff’s alleged harm” and that “based on the limited record before us, we do not believe a nationwide injunction is justified."

While the appeal proceeds, the district court can "further develop the record in support of a preliminary injunction extending beyond the Ninth Court," the court said.

(https://i.imgur.com/BS4MV3a.jpg)

The policy, announced by the Trump administration last month, would broadly end asylum eligibility for migrants who pass through another country on their journey to the United States' southern border with Mexico, but do not attempt to seek protection in those other countries first.

Several advocacy organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, challenged the rule in court.

In the past, federal judges have blocked other attempts by the administration to change the asylum policy.

(https://i.imgur.com/Lhb0qO7.jpg)

"The court properly refused to let the new asylum ban go into effect, though currently limited to the Ninth Circuit. We will continue fighting to end the ban fully and permanently," said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the Immigrants' Rights Project at the ACLU.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to request for comment.

(https://i.imgur.com/vJxVcOh.jpg)

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in California issued the preliminary injunction blocking the restrictions at the end of July and the Trump administration had appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court, seeking a stay pending appeal of the case.

(https://i.imgur.com/QN5inBs.jpg)





Would You Like To Know More?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/appeals-court-narrows-injunction-blocking-trump-asylum-restrictions-n1043146?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_lw (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/appeals-court-narrows-injunction-blocking-trump-asylum-restrictions-n1043146?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_lw)
Title: Re: Arizona no like Latinos
Post by: Battle on September 11, 2019, 06:54:20 pm
Wednesday, 11th September 2019
Supreme Court backs puppetine on asylum crackdown
by Lawrence Hurley and Daniel Trotta


(https://i.imgur.com/pgJ6F0B.jpg)


 
The U.S. Supreme Court granted a request by puppetine's administration to fully enforce a new rule that would curtail asylum applications by immigrants at the U.S.- Mexico border, a key element of his hardline immigration policies.

The court said the rule, which requires most immigrants who want asylum to first seek safe haven in a third country through which they had traveled on their way to the United States, could go into effect as litigation challenging its legality continues.

(https://i.imgur.com/iHq3CTX.jpg)

Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

(https://i.imgur.com/xBMoQQk.jpg)

The rule, unveiled on July 15, requires most immigrants who want U.S. asylum to first seek asylum in a third country they had traveled through on their way to the United States.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 16 limited a federal judge's injunction blocking the rule to the nine Western states over which it has jurisdiction including the border states of California and Arizona.

That had left open the possibility that the rule could be applied in the two other border states, Texas and New Mexico.

The American Civil Liberties Union and others who challenged the administration's policy in federal court said it violates U.S. immigration law and accused the administration of failing to follow the correct legal process in issuing the rule.


















Would You Like To Know More?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-allows-full-enforcement-of-asylum-crackdown/ar-AAH9xgF?ocid=spartanntp (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-allows-full-enforcement-of-asylum-crackdown/ar-AAH9xgF?ocid=spartanntp)