Call it Arizona's Shock Doctrine.
And the children are the shock troops.
They dressed as firefighters, doctors, lawyers, police officers, pilots and scientists. They carried signs, including a 30-foot banner of colorful hand prints. They marched along the Arizona Capitol grounds, singing "This Little Light of Mine."
On the eve of the Arizona state legislature's historic vote today on a blockbuster array of radical new immigration bills, including a controversial legislative challenge to a US Supreme Court ruling for K-12 education access for undocumented students and 14th amendment birth rights, children from Tucson to Flagstaff held a symbolic sit-in on the Capitol lawn with a reminder that no one would suffer more from the draconian bills than state's youngest.
In a stunning defeat to Senate President Russell Pearce, every immigration bill was voted down by his own senate today, even though Pearce defiantly declared immigration was a state issue, not a federal one.
And for Pearce, he may have lost the battle, but the war over immigration in Arizona will continue to flourish. Despite the fact that Arizona has the lowest crime rates in 40 years, Gov. Jan Brewer has joined Pearce in turning immigration troubles into Arizona's own shock doctrine vehicle for their radical agenda.
"It took me a while on 1070, too," Pearce scolded his fellow senators, referring to last year's controversial immigration bill that is currently in the courts. "I introduced it in 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 and 2010 before we had a governor that would sign it. And we've become the envy of this nation with 25 states writing legislation modeled after 1070."
Pearce learned a lesson today, though.
"Real education should consist of drawing the goodness and the best out of our own students," Arizona native and labor leader Cesar Chavez once reminded the nation. "What better books can there be than the book of humanity?"
On the heels of an unforgiving year of outrageous state rebellion, children in Arizona have had to create their own book of humanity -- if only to defend their state's diverse heritage and basic human rights.
As part of the Repeal Coalition campaign in Arizona, a volunteer grassroots organization that is calling for the end to all hateful, anti-immigrant legislation and for the Repeal of SB1070 and other anti-immigrant laws, the children and youth opened a stunning new chapter in the on-going saga of an Arizona state legislature gone wild.
Last year's anti-immigrant bill earned Arizona's right-wing legislature the reputation as the "meth lab of democracy."
Just ask the kids: One banner simply asked, "Russell Pearce: Why do You Hate Arizona's Youth?"
Even some of Arizona's most conservative CEOs and Chamber of Commerce stalwarts wrote the legislature last week that they "strongly believe it is unwise for the Legislature to pass any additional immigration legislation, including any measures leaving the determination of citizenship to the state."
For Arizona Republic columnist E. J. Montini, the upcoming vote amounts to a "legislators wage war on children."
And not just undocumented children. Already ranked at the bottom of funding per pupil nationwide, Arizona's legislators singled out education for the deepest cuts in their budget yesterday, including a 26 percent reduction in university funding and a 7 percent reduction in K-12.
Catch your breath: Here's a brief rundown of the immigration bills from the Arizona Republic that failed in the Senate today:
- Senate Bill 1222 would require public-housing operators to evict anyone who allows an illegal immigrant to live with them, as well as require proof of legal status to receive any public benefits.
- SB 1012 would allow the Arizona Department of Public Safety to conduct fingerprint-background checks on only individuals who can prove that they are U.S. citizens or legally eligible to work in the state. The state-issued fingerprint-clearance cards are required for a variety of jobs and work permits.- Senate Concurrent Resolution 1035 would ask voters to change the state Constitution to prohibit any state official or agency from using a language other than English for official communications. Individuals could ask that communications be conducted in a second language, but the state doesn't have to adhere to the request.
The full Senate is also expected to vote in the coming days or weeks on broader immigration-related measures, including SB 1611, which makes several changes to immigration law, including preventing children not born in the U.S. from attending school, prohibiting illegal immigrants from driving or buying a car, and denying illegal immigrants the ability to obtain a marriage license in Arizona.
Other pending bills include SB 1405, which would require hospitals to check the legal status of a patient if he or she was unable to show proof of health insurance, and SB 1308 and SB 1309 - the "birthright citizenship" measures.
"These bills will be back again next year," one state senator warned.
The final showdown in Arizona has yet to come.
Illegal foreign nationals becoming naturalized U.S. Citizens
1.1 million foreign nationals enter the USA each year legally with the authorization of the U.S. Gov't ~ more that all the 192 other countries in the world combined
Cutting funding for the education of American children in American schools is going in the wrong direction, but the laws being discussed here don't do that.
America allows millions of foreign nationals to immigrate here legally every year. The nation has a right and a responsibility to know who is here and immigration laws don't specify any particular race as not being allowed. They specify that if people came without permission they get sent home. It's not a matter of race; Nationality and permission is the question.
If the people of Arizona object to educating, feeding and caring for the people another nation then it should be their right to say "no". That most of the people there without permission are from mainly Latin nations does not make the laws prejudice against Latinos.
If there were twelve million Somalians here illegally and risking deportation, would they be trying to say that America was prejudiced against black people? Immigration laws apply to people who are not citizens. The color of their skin is not the issue at all.
This video prove that "race" and "rac.ism" have everything to do with this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilKUxWbGQj4
INCORRECT
1) Ford is not an expert on immigration or taxes
Ford's background
Ph.D., Economics, University of Michigan, 1965
M.A., Economics, U.Michigan, 1962
B.A., Economics, U.Texas, 1961
Stanford Grad, Senior Executive Program, 1983
http://labnt11.bizlab.mtsu.edu/fwpv3/facultyCSS.cfm?facultyID=85
A "taxes" expert would have:
+ Acctng degree, or
+ Juris Doctor degree in Tax, a Tax Lawyer
+ Even years at H.& R. Block might be impressive, but Ford did not
An "immigration" expert would have:
+ government degree, or
+ anthropology degree, or
+ sociology degree, or
+ Juris Doctor degree in immigration, an Immigration Lawyer
2) Fact of the matter, Ford has never held an immigration job, like an immigration lawyer, or worked within Immigration and Naturalization Services, ICE, Customs and Border Patrol, State Department, or anything close to a similar immigration job,
I looked into it Picaso, I suggest you do the same.
country, not less,"
3) ANYONE that works in the USA labor force contributes to the nation's GDP. Just because 8 million illegal immigrants work in the USA labor force, DOES NOT mean they did
something unique. The issue is that they are not authorized to be in the USA, we all know illegal aliens have taken jobs in the USA.
4) After reviewing Ford's analysis, he did not explain what makes an illegal immigrant superior than:
(a) Legal Permanent Resident Immigrant
(b) Naturalized US citizen LPR Immigrant
(c) US born citizen, or
(d) 4-5 million visa foreign nationals working in USA (2009)
So his commentary about illegal immigrants is irrelevant.
You quote, "especially with the baby b00mers retiring"
5) Baby B00m 'Echo' makes that a moot point
6) 50% of B00mers do not have enough saved to retire on. Ford just assumes every B00mer is rich and will retire from the labor force.
7) Many B00mers & Greatest Gen do not wish to sit on a rocking chair, HELLO...William F. Ford, author of this study, is not even a B00mer, but he is still working at age 71.
8) The USA has only had one labor shortage in the last 30+ years, and the reason was Y2K around 1998.
There is no reason, other than fear mongering, to presume a labor shortage will appear lightning fast. Until the USA begins to have repeated labor shortages evidencing a problem, we do not need to flood the USA labor market with foreign nationals.
9) Ford's analysis premise has the USA with chronic labor shortages. FALSE, the USA has had chronic prolonged labor surpluses.
Even in 2006, the year cited, the USA labor participation rate was at 1992 levels, and has declined for 11 straight years since 2000. That is NOT a labor market that can be described by any economist as a labor shortage. See for yourself:
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_year=2010&from_year=1948
It's really an old feud and an early Pot Headed plot to end cultural studies particularly at one school which invited a Cesar Chavez veteran to speak to students. She's a communist, so for political hay, Horne lit it up. Ever since, he's paired his hatred of the suave and savvy teachers who actually know somehting about the Mexican American War wiht Russell Pearce's mean spirited attacks on humans and the constitution. He'd rather kids not understand our relations before the border moved, and their culture, as long as American Indians and the oldest from European. They had a university in Mexico City by 1525.
Tom Horne is afraid of history. And he's gone from being teacher torturer to attorney general. Get ready for a absence of humanity in AZ for a while.
You wrote, "Mexican American Wor... rather kids not understand our relations before the border moved, and their culture, as long as American Indians and the oldest from European."
1) Before Spain arrived, 1521, to Mexico City, who was there? Aztec empire? Who "moved" or removed that Aztec border? Hernan Cortez, Spaniard from Spain in Europe? What language did the Aztecs speak? Spanish? Nope.
2) Before Aztecs arrived in Mexico City, who was there? Toltec empire? Who "moved" the Toltec, Olmec, Zapotec, & Maya "borders?" Was it the Chichimec? The Chichimec that came from a territory which today is encompassed by the modern Mexican states of Jalisco, Aguascalientes, Nayarit, Guanajuato and Zacatecas? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Gran_Chichimeca) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichimeca_War)
Those Mexican states are not even close to what we call the USA today.
In fact, the Navajo, Anasazi, Pueblo-Pauite, Hohokam, Patayan-Yuman, Mogollon, Hopi, would have stopped any Chichimec from entering territory we call the Southwestern USA today.
http://www.nevadarockart.info/hintspart3.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anasazi-en.svg
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010202073801.htm
3) Did Aztec "borders" extend into the USA? No
http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/01/3601-004-CADE9109.gif
This one is Aztec cities, Aztec era 1200-1521 AD, not even close to the USA
http://www.famsi.org/maps/chronology/late_post_classic.html
This is what EVEN the MiddleEast teaches their people
http://www.marefa.org/index.php/%D8%A2%D8%B2%D8%AA%D9%83
4) In 1580 Franciscan Friars & Spaniards marched north into what we call the USA today, which Friar, Spaniard, Me$tizo purchased the land from the following tribes after "moving" their tribal "borders?"
(http://dnn.epcc.edu/nwlibrary/borderlands/18_apache.htm)
Navajo, Hopi, Pueblo, Yavapais, Sinaguas, Apache, Zuni, Lipan, Yuman, Maricopa, Achomawi, Havasupai, Atsugewi, Miwok, Moquis, Ute, Hualapai, Paiute, Comanches [Many of them are still there today.]
Those tribes are not descendants of Maya, Olmec, Toltec, Aztec, & Zapotec (MOTAZ going forward)
MOTAZ never lived in what we call the USA today.
quote:
The Aztecs and other Náhuatl-speaking indigenous peoples of Mexico belong to the Uto-Aztecan Linguistic Group. Spoken in many regions of western U.S. and Mexico, the Uto-Aztecan languages include a wide range of languages, stretching from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming all the way down to El Salvador in Central America. And Aztecs represent a small - but significant - part of this linguistic group.
While the Aztecs of the Sixteenth Century lived in south central part of present-day Mexican Republic, a wide scattering of peoples who presently live in the United States could probably be described as "distant cousins" to Aztecs. If you belong to the Shoshone, Ute, Paiute, or Gabrielino Indians, you may very well share common roots with the famous Aztecs of central Mexico.
How is it that we can conclude these relationships exist? Studies in historical linguistics have analyzed the Uto-Aztecan tongues - and the Náhuatl language in particular - have determined that Náhuatl was actually not native to central Mexico. Instead, it was carried south from lands that are believed to have been in the northwestern region of the present-day Mexican Republic and - before that - the United States.
The northern Uto-Aztecans occupied a large section of the American Southwest. Among them were Hopi and Zuni Indians of New Mexico and Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles Basin. It is reasonable to assume that where there is linguistic relationship there is most likely also a genetic relationship.
http://www.houstonculture.org/mexico/aztec.html
@ Picosa
1) I gave you 9 supporting links that show you where those people were.
Your ONE link does not do that. Try again.
2) In terms of language, You cannot go by language Picosa.
Anthropologists have language groupings in an effort to have a family of languages, not because it defines a single tribe, or a single nation.
Anthropologists use one language to group everybody on earth.
That one language is called the Indo-European language.
That does not mean that there is no India
That does not mean that there is no Europe
In fact the next 2 families after the Indo-European languages are
1) Proto-European, and
2) Indo (c. 5,000 B.C.)
Then after that they break into 13 families
1) Balto-Slavic
2) Germanic
3) Celtic
4) Italic
5) Illyrian
6) Albanian
7) Thracian
8) Hellenic
9) Armenian
10) Phrygian
11) Anatolian
12) Indo-Iranian
13) Tocharian
Nice try with the languages Picosa.
Why don't you try to look up the Aztec-Chichimec (or even the links I gave you about them)
Why don't you try to look up the Toltec
Why don't you try to look up the Olmec, Maya, and Zapotec?
Why do you avoid the learning Picosa?
The other tribes I listed are not related to the MOTAZ.
I have spoken with the Navajo, Pueblo, and others they are not happy with people like you that do that.
Navajo, Anasazi, Pueblo-Pauite, Hohokam, Patayan-Yuman, Mogollon, Hopi are not related to MOTAZ they are their own people. They have been in the Southwest for more than 1,000, arguably 2,000 + years.
You wrote, "Mexican American Wor... rather kids not understand our relations before the border moved, and their culture, as long as American Indians and the oldest from European."
5) France controlled what is called Texas today before Spain did. Who "moved that border?"
6) In 1821, who "moved" or removed the New Spain "border?" If it was OK for Mexico to end the New Spain colonialism and the Peninsulares & Criollo casta that governed it from across the Atlantic, it was OK for Texas to end the legacy of that Colonial-type rule 15 years later in 1836.
The Mexican-American wor began over the dispute of the Texas "border," not the annexation itself. The USA Southwest is part of the US as ceded under the treaties of Velasco, Guadalupe Hidalgo, and finally superseded by the Gadsden Purchase treaty.
Stolen Birthright: The U.S. Conquest and Exploitation of the Mexican People
The U.S. War on Mexico was inevitable because Mexican officials absolutely refused to sell their northern territory despite repeated offers by the United States to buy it. Once leaders of the U.S. finally understood that the Mexican people would never sell their birthright in North America, they were committed to war and sought a pretext to justify their aggression. Just as disastrous as the loss of land, the U.S. conquest subordinated Mexico to the interests of the United States, a condition that continues to present day.
The United States War on Mexico of 1846-1848 was the first U.S. war of aggression against a sovereign nation and the defining event in U.S.-Mexico relations. The ruthlessness of the U.S. invasion shocked even the European nations that had been at war with their neighbors for centuries. Ulysses S. Grant, who served in Mexico under both Generals Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott, commanded the Union forces in the American Civil War, and later became the eighteenth President of the United States, unconditionally condemned the war in his Personal Memoirs. He denounced it, "...as one of the most unjust wars ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory."
http://www.houstonculture.org/hispanic/conquest3.html
The following talk was given by Mahtowin Munro, a member of the Lakota Nation and co-leader of United American Indians of New England (UAINE), at a Nov. 18 Boston Workers World Party forum entitled “The Struggle for Indigenous sovereignty and immigrant rights.”
http://www.workers.org/2006/us/native-immigration-1130/
Did you see the Republican Senate in AZ tell Russell Pearce to put his recent barage of anti-immigrant fire where the sun don't shine? NOT IN AZ! See? There are STILL a few Republicans who are tuned into the human side of government. They can see the recall petitions flying and want to save their own skin.
But you're right, besides the fabulous weather, beautiful environment, laid back life style and cultural diversity, you don't want to come here if you can't fight the long fair fight, Illin' Noiser.
I was in Arizona for vacation about 20 years ago, not a big fan of deserts and hot weather, but considered moving there about 10 years for my rheumatiz.
From the comment I quoted, I got the impression the speaker didn't understand the negative light the well known Brewster immigrant law has many of us viewing the state. Like most states with very extreme right wing, there is probably a large percent of the population that is progressive or moderate as well. I'm sure they suffer mightily in such a political environment.
The 's' is silent in Illinois.
In fact, the group most vocal about enforcing our immigration laws, the so-called Tea Partiers got its name from an event that defied an unjust legal law.
In 1773, a group of colonists in Boston boarded three English merchant ships and dumped the tea they carried into the harbor, the so-called "Boston Tea Party."
This was certainly an illegal act. However, the protest was about opposing a series of laws that the colonists felt were unjust. Furthermore, the colonists had no legal pathway to challenge the laws, as they were denied representation in the English government.
Another piece of illegal law breaking which we revere today was perpetrated by British citizens who openly disobeyed the laws of Parliament and king, refused to pay taxes, and formed an insurgent army in 1776. Ironically, today’s self-styled patriots who have taken it upon themselves to protect our borders from the illegal hordes call themselves The Minutemen.
Throughout U.S. history, the men who made the laws reflected the dominant prejudices of their day, passing laws that became the infrastructure for slavery, Jim Crow segregation and the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II. Haven't we learned anything from our stupidity and racism.
I understand that illegal immigration has become a problem for America, but by deciding to turn the immigrants into the evil bogeyman that's taking jobs away from the citizens (while conveniently forgetting the citizens don't want the jobs the immigrants are doing) the politicians are just compounding the problem.
Instead of hounding these immigrants who are just trying to get a little bit of the American Dream, they should be trying to integrate them into society and make the lawful tax paying citizens. Not only would you increase the state’s wealth, you could also free law enforcement officials wasted on the immigration issue to try and tackle more important problems such as the illegal drug trade.
Food for thought.
INCORRECT
1) Spain, France, and Britain did MOST if not more than 90% of the conflicts with the "American Indians"
Like between the Seminole in Florida and Spain for decade after decade.
Most conflicts, not all, with "American Indians" occurred before the 1789 U.S. Constitution of the United States of America
AND... It is just plain dishonest to assert that "American Indians" never had a conflict between tribes, much less any newcomers.
2) Support how the USA built the foundation of this county on illegal immigration?
I bet you cannot support that, but I will wait.
I want to see the codified written law that states how the USA did that.
3) I bet you do not even know what the p0pulation of California was in 1850 or Arizona in 1870?
CALIFORNIA in 1850
P0pulation of California in 1850 was 92,597
California had the lowest density per square mile of the whole USA
Pdf pg4, report pg 40
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1850c-03.pdf
ARIZONA in 1870
P0pulation of Arizona in 1870 was 9,658
PDFpg 2 bottom
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1870a-03.pdf
You wrote, "In 1773, a group of colonists in Boston boarded three English merchant ships and dumped the tea they carried into the harbor, the so-called "Boston Tea Party"
A conflict between British citizens and the British Crown
is
much
different
Than foreign nationals, non-citizens, entering the USA without authorization, demanding citizenship.
Picosa...your analogy failed
And once again, your finish is a Red Herring.
Of all the races on earth, there is not one race named illegal.
Illegal is not a race.
The USA has the same right of any country on earth to have immigration laws and enforcement.
Illegal aliens do not have a USA Constitutional right to be admitted into the USA.
White Europeans illegally invaded both North and South America and completely wiped out millions indigenous peoples and seriously decimated the populations of others to steal natural resources and land. Ditto with Australia.
White Europeans travelled to the Far East and illegally subjugated the locals to gain access to resources and forced the Chinese and Japanese to open their ports for trade using the threat of a gun.
Some of those people you are calling illegal aliens are actually Native Americans on their own continent. They have every right to be here. They are migrating across their land in search of a better life for their children as they have done for millennium. Laws and boundaries created by illegal European invaders have not taken their welfare into consideration, so they must do it themselves. You would too if left in the same situation.
Three cheers for the teachers and parents brave enough to let them state their views.
get real immediately.
Professional careers i.e. Doctors, teachers, etc, etc licenses require valid SSN & background check
SSA does not issue SSN to illegal foreign nationals
Most illegal foreign national students quoted in the news media state ~ they were unaware of their non-citizenship status ~ their parents never told them the truth, until they applied for college entrance
It is incredibly unfortunate too. These people contribute tax dollars, hard work and observance of the law (besides the one they broke entering here illegally, of course) but all of that is IRRELEVENT. Objectivity, people!
Would be nice if some would stop conflating illegal immigrants with legal immigrants
Especially when they attempt to make arguments about why the USA needs illegal immigrants.
The demographic profile of the two are very different, and most LEGAL immigrants get paid very well, not needing taxpayer benefits from the states to live by, otherwise known as a subsidy to every employer in the USA that hires illegal immigrants and pays them wages too low for both Americans or anyone else to live on.
When big. ots can accept that FACT maybe we can all live in peace.
All noncitizens—including those here illegally—are guaranteed almost all the same rights as citizens. In fact, only three constitutional rights—voting in elections, holding certain political offices, and the absolute ability to enter and remain in the country—are denied noncitizens outright. Otherwise, the Constitution grants to “the people” or “persons”—not just to citizens—the rights to due process and equal protection of the law, to freedom of speech and assembly, and to freedom from arbitrary detention or cruel and unusual punishments.
On paper, constitutionally and internationally, Americans respect the rights of noncitizens. But inspiring words on a statue in New York Harbor notwithstanding, unadulterated welcome has never been our actual stance.
From mid-19th-century attacks on Irish and German immigrant workers to legislated xenophobia in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to Japanese internment during World War II, the targets and expressions of hostility have shifted with the times. Since September 11, it is the 5.5 million persons of Arab or south Asian descent who are living under a pall of suspicion and resentment. Today the United States, which once motivated the world to take human rights seriously, must turn to the world’s human-rights treaties to correct the mistreatment of the immigrants in our midst.