First it was legally-sanctioned racial profiling, with a touch of totalitarian "show me your papers" thrown in for good measure (SB 1070). Next we were delivered a new law banning Ethnic Studies programs or any teaching that promotes "ethnic solidarity" (HB 2281). Then the state's school superintendent announced a policy whereby teachers with "heavy accents" would be prevented from being in classrooms in which instruction was being given in English. Despite all of this, we're continually told by proponents that it's not about race but about upholding the laws and securing our borders. Wrong. Let's be clear and upfront about what's happening here: it's mainly about fear and hatred, and it appears that it's only just begun.
From a peace and conflict studies perspective, these laws promise to deepen divisions, drive a wedge through communities, separate family units, and undermine constructive dialogue. They pit working people against one another, and require neighbors to police one another. In this light, these laws will foster a climate of suspicion and antipathy, in which violence -- both rhetorical and physical -- can flourish. Indeed, on some level these laws themselves potentially constitute a form of "hate crimes" by persecuting and scapegoating a particular group based on that group's identity, and thus raise the specter of racially motivated violence in our communities. Heartbreakingly, it's more than just a mere specter of violence at this point for Juan Varela's family, as recently reported by the Associated Press:
"Tension surrounding the passage of Arizona 's tough new law cracking down on illegal immigration contributed to the slaying of an Hispanic man, allegedly shot by a white neighbor, a representative of the dead man's family said Friday. Police and the family said the arrested man, 50-year-old Gary Thomas Kelley, allegedly directed racial slurs at 44-year-old Juan Daniel Varela before the May 6 shooting near their homes.... 'When you have talk that becomes aggressive, it escalates the violence,' said Carlos Galindo, a Phoenix radio commentator acting as a spokesman for Varela's relatives at a state Capitol news conference."
A local television report added further details, including a moving call from the family for peace in the face of potential violence likely to surge in the climate created by SB 1070:
The alleged killer was yelling racial slurs seconds before he fired the shots that killed 44-year-old Juan Varela. Varela was a third-generation American, yet his family claims he was called a "wetback" who was going to be sent back to Mexico by the man who murdered him.... Varela's nephew and namesake says he hopes his uncles death will not be in vain. 'That's the reason why we're here today is ... to talk about hope and non-violence that we would not turn on one another, that we would not hate one another but that we would turn together with love.' The family feels the hysteria over illegal immigration contributed to Varela's death.
More broadly, and taken to their logical extent, these new laws targeting and profiling certain groups brush against the unconscionable practices of "
ethnic cleansing" that have been universally condemned under international law. If it can still be doubted that this is indeed the intent of SB 1070 in particular, the law's sponsor, State Senator Russell Pearce, affirmed the rationale of displacement and forced expulsion in a
recent statement defending its passage: "Our law is already working. One can just scan the newspapers and see dozens of headlines like 'Illegal Immigrants Leaving Arizona Over New Law: Tough, Controversial New Legislation Scares Many in Underground Workforce Out of State.'"
As in other conflict-ridden spheres where such draconian policies have taken hold -- including in South Africa where a young man named Mohandas Gandhi resisted racially-motivated identification laws and restrictions on the mobility of Indians -- these practices of displacement and induced fear devolve principally upon racial profiling and ethnic identification. When proponents tell you that it's not about race but about upholding the law, this is reminiscent of arguments put forth in the South in defense of poll taxes and literacy tests that plainly targeted African Americans. Such noxious racism is both legally and morally indefensible, and the demand that people produce their papers in the manner prescribed by SB 1070 smacks of a totalitarianism that has no place in a democracy. Driving the point home, a
video primer on how police can determine who may be here illegally (released by SB 1070 architect Kris Kobach of FAIR) includes these nuggets: "speaks English poorly," "appears to be in transit or traveled a significant distance," "abruptly exiting from the highway," "out of place or unusual in a specific locale," and "indications from dress, appearance and demeanor that the person is an 'illegal alien'." The potential for abuse and discrimination in such frameworks is indeed palpable.
The racialized nature of Arizona 's policies becomes immediately apparent when considering the message sent by passing SB 1070 and HB 2281 in succession, and apparently the ruling rightwing regime isn't done yet with their spate of hate bills. In the queue now are additional measures, including one (
SB 1097) that would "
compel teachers and administrators to determine the legal status of students and their families" and require annual reporting by schools on the "adverse impact of the enrollment of students who cannot prove lawful residence in the United States ." (Note that only "adverse" impacts are to be reported, and not any positive impacts of such students.) A Phoenix news station obtained emails sent and received by Pearce, including some that detail his
stated intention to circumvent the 14th Amendment by "push[ing] for an Arizona bill that would refuse to accept or issue a birth certificate that recognizes citizenship to those born to illegal aliens, unless one parent is a citizen." In these messages, Pearce validates the use of the pejorative term "
anchor babies" -- which is unsurprising given that in recent years he "has proposed equally odious legislation, such as only allowing Americans to wed Americans, sanctioning landlords who knowingly rent to illegal aliens, and so forth."
All of this militates strongly against the arguments alleging that the gist of Arizona's intentions are merely about upholding the law, as
Sarah Palin argued in a recent visit to the state. If it's about the law and not invidious racism, then we should remedy the situation by providing a clear and workable path to legality for millions of hard-working people who contribute enormously to both our economy and culture. If it's about the law, then the U.S. Constitution must be upheld as well, including the 4th and 14th Amendments which guarantee freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, and equal protection under the law. We should never put police officers in an impossible situation where they are forced to choose between ethically doing their duty and following the laws of the land. And in fact, many of them have spoken out against SB 1070, and some have even sued to block its implementation.
Political wedge issues such as those raised by what's happening now in Arizona are intended to divide us, but the path to peace will be found by working together to resolve conflicts and address the important issues of the day. We ought to strive to turn this crisis into an opportunity to overcome fear and hatred. Palin did get one thing right in her speech here endorsing SB 1070: "We're all Arizonans now." Obviously she meant to exclude a number of constituencies from this calculus, but ironically she stumbled upon a deeper truth in this unfolding jeremiad. Just as the Danish scuttled the Nazis' plans by standing in solidarity with Jews and others being persecuted, so too can people of good conscience everywhere stand with Arizonans as we work to undo the hatred and repression in our midst.
We are quite likely in the throes of a
new civil rights movement in America. The forces of hatred and fear have fomented the dilemma for public debate, and in that we may be grateful on some level for the opportunity to openly confront certain values that have been at work more covertly since the advent of laws prohibiting express racism in America. Extremism presents many dangers, and yet also possibilities, as Martin Luther King, Jr. observed in his poignant and still relevant
Letter from a Birmingham Jail: "So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?" In charting our course, we would do well to heed this reminder of the choice placed squarely before us today.
Follow Randall Amster on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/randallamster
I'm not refering to amnesty/pathway to citizenship/coming out of the shadows/comprehensive immigration reform.
After the last big amensty in 1986 (at that time they at least called it what it was) amnesty was promised in return for laws that addressed "some" of the incentives and rewards that draw illegals into the US. But once the amnesty was granted the very same folks who oppose this plan as racist and sy we ned to target employers fought every attempt to target employers. When a wall was proposed the same people fought it. When we talked about eleminating social programs for non-citizens the same groups fought it. When we talked about ending the misguided birthright citizenship policy under the 14th they fought.
Tell us something they won't fight? You can't because there isn't anything!
The open borders groups are very hypocritical. We tried it their way once and the enforcement never happened so the problem grew. As Roger Daltry would say "We won't be fooled again".
The more pertinent solutions are twofold: first, we need to reconcile and remedy the fact that our desire for cheap goods and cheap labor fuels much of this dynamic, and second we need to rein in the abuses on the Mexican side that we are partly responsible for through policies such as NAFTA. Until we move the debate to this level, it'll just be the same sort of failed "blame the victim" approach that gets us nowhere.
A border between a wealthier nation and a poorer one will always have its obvious issues, but if people have decent opportunities and hope for the future they will in most cases stay on their traditional lands rather than risk death by crossing the desert. At a minimum, people should be given the same rights of mobility and/or stability that goods are afforded in the systems we have created in recent decades.
1) new immigration laws that make it easier to immigrate legally, including special laws that make short term migrant workers crossing the border possible. Remove the economic incentive to be illegal, and remove the incentive to hire illegal workers. You also eliminate the whole "they're stealing our jobs" angle, as legal workers will have to be paid above the table.
2) Build a really big wall. I've seen some drawings of a glass wall that is breathtaking, inpenentrable, and could run the entire course of the border, not just small portions. No more people dying in the desert, no more illegals at the crossings.
3) Make illegal immigration a criminal offense.
4) Randall can get a break from being beat up (because he's right) about the issue because it will be solved.
So why hasn't it happened? Because lots of corporations benefit from illegal workers, and lots of politicians benefit from having something to shout about.
2. A wall is needed but nothing so grand, only the removal of the rewards will ever stop the draw. No jobs, welfare, amnesty, housing, and a lifetime ban on travel/legal immigration for all caught here illegally will remove about 80-90%. Drug laws account for the other 10-20% and relaxing them will stop most.
3. Yes
When people say our immigration system is "broken" what they are really saying is because we don't allow all the illegals to become legal it's OUR fault and we need to allow as many who want in to have access - not ever gonna happen.
The truth is irrelevant.
Obama’s rise to the presidency triggered a fear always held inherently by some sections of the population against others. Never in their wildest and privileged dreams did they expect “a minority person” to rise to the heights that Obama did – and it scares them badly. They want “their” country back(wards). And so they lash out.
Naturally, the easiest to victimize are those most vulnerable to attack, those unable to protect themselves. In Arizona, its brown people because, like Obama, brown people couldn’t possibly be born here and cannot have the rights and entitlements they believe are reserved just for their group.
Right thinking people must be aware that this raci$t fear is an underlying principle for some anti-immigrant activists.
How ironic that the erosion of human and civil rights is getting worse under an African-American president of the United States.
The problem here is the "Race". I am an American citizen, born here. My children are; military, teacher, nurse...all brown skinned just like I am, and also born here. The new law allows racial profiing. Our law enforcement themselves, have confirmed this (white and hispanic). I have no problem showing my birth certificate, if and when I am exiting/entering the Country I was born in, but when driving up my street, I have a problem. You may say, like hundreds of White Americans, "what's the big deal?". So before you say that, write the Governor and ask her to revise the law AGAIN, making it mandatory that EVERYONE be prepared to show their birth certificate if asked.
I respect your opinion, because thats what a true AMERICAN does, but as a true American, I will not speak for people who I do not know, in a state in which I do not live. Also, your remark on illegals getting social subsides, again, you are wrong. Research the stats, education empowers oneself. Thank you.
Sherrilyn Ifill Professor of Law, U. Md. :
This new habit of "polling" in place of a focus on legality has become a dangerous habit. If a nationwide poll were conducted in 1953, no doubt a majority of Americans would have supported segregated schools. It's doubtful that many of the provisions of our Bill of Rights would survive an up or down vote in most of the country. That's why we have a Constitution - something that can survive the prejudices, exigencies and ignorance of the day and set the parameters of legality for our country.
Polls like this are irrelevant to the question of whether the Arizona immigration law (and Arizona's latest attack on ethnic studies) is legal or even whether it's offensive to minorities.
I shudder to think where this country would be if questions of civil rights and constitutional legality were decided by public opinion poll.
This poll only shows how far off the grid many Americans are when they think that a president who advances health care reform is "shredding the Constitution," but have no problem with a state law that gives law enforcement officers blanket discretion to stop individuals anywhere and demand proof of legitimacy.
In late April, the law was supported by 64% of the state’s voters and opposed by 30%.
Nationally, 55% of voters favor passage of such a law in their state.
Would you mind viewing the You Tube video of this political rally in Atlanta and tell me what kind of hate do you see? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LHRzxgAxRo
Warm regards,
Michael Winters
"secular stupidest"
I have family that has imigrated to the US legally.
Having committed a felony, they are NOT eligible for any legal residency under ANY program.
The thing is that I just can't understand while that legal Hispanic population doesn't stop the harboring, encouraging and supporting the illegal immigrants who harm them, their image and their ablility to be taken as Americans, not illegals themselves.
Minorities are the hardest hit by the millions pooring over the borders. The generally unskilled labor jobs are traditionally held by minorities and new immigrants at a higher rate then whites. The ilelgals drive down wages and make unemployment very high in these job catagories.
The Hispanic population needs to stand up for THIS country, stop hiding cousin Jose, stop pushing for amnesty (and a new wave of illegals) and they will be far better off as a whole.
If we don't put a stop to it now, we'll have the lawless wild west in 10 - 20 years.
Bush & Obama are both guilty of failing to uphold this country's laws.
Not climb through the window with their hands out.