The ones that will affect me
 

Thanks Jess for that link.

I find it helpful to make a list of Arizona based companies I might possibly use without even realizing it.

Go Daddy

PetSmart

US Airways

Mesa Airlines

Freedom Airlines

Dial Corporation (read your labels they are everywhere)

Checker Auto Parts, Schucks Auto Supply, Kragen Auto Parts, Murray's Discount Auto Stores (All part of CSK Auto based in Phoenix)

Best Western

and finally and most sadly...

Cold Stone Creamery

And it is also helpful and reinforcing to me to go ahead and call or email them to let them know you are taking your business elsewhere.

I'm far less sanguine about this law than you are. I'm far less sanguine about racial profiling than you are. I'll tell you why.

When I was 15 I was getting ready to do my paper route. My routine was this:

Fold the papers, load them in a bag, bring the bags to the front porch and then go to the backyard and get my bike, bring that around to the front porch, load the bags on the bike, put my shoulder bags on and then leave. This had been my routine for three or four years at this point. One cold December morning, a couple of weeks before Christmas, I was just finishing up that very last bit when one of Sacramento's Finest drove by and stopped at the stop sign (we lived on a corner lot). He saw a black kid in a neighborhood that was 99% white (there were three black families within about a square mile) and pops his light on me. He then gets out of his vehicle, tells me to approach the car slowly. I get to the edge of the lawn and notice he has his gun out and trained on me. He asked me "what are you doing in this neighborhood". I told him I lived here. He then said, "right. What are you doing out so early." I told him I was getting ready to deliver my papers. Now, this is important. I have bags on my shoulders with reflective material that spelled out 'Sacramento Bee'. There's a bike, with similar bags on the rack. He then asked if I had any idea. I said I was 15. He said "I didn't ask your age, I asked for your ID". I told him I had a bus pass, a student ID and a library card, all of which were upstairs. He asked if I had a key. I said I did. He asked to see it. I VERY SLOWLY pulled it out of my pocket. He then asked, "Does it fit THAT door?" At this point, I got pissed (which just shows how smart I wasn't at 15) and said "yes, officer. Perhaps we should wake my dad up and we can see if his key fits the door." I then dropped the name of one of my dad's friends who was a superior court judge and said perhaps we should drive to his house and see if his key fit his door.

At that point, I think this officer saw his career flash before his eyes and told me that he was just being cautious because there had been a string of robberies along our street. The thing is, my parents were head of the neighborhood watch! There hadn't been a burglary within 6 blocks of us in over two years! This man harassed me for one reason and one reason only, I was black in a white neighborhood. Now, it turned out okay but it did so because in the pinch of the moment, I had some serious juice I could borrow from the prominence of my parents in the community. One can easily imagine a whole lot of iterations of that scenario that don't turn out that well.

I have a modest proposal that I like to bring up in discussions of immigration because, given this nation's history I think it is *entirely* reasonable for people of color to be *highly* suspect of racial profiling and not at all out of touch for us to think that no small part of the immigration hysteria is about the color of the skin of the people. Here's my proposal.

For the next generation (20-25 years) no immigration, of anyone, from anywhere, for any reason *except* for people seeking political asylum. That means no H1Bs, no actors, baseball or football players, no one, period. Now, if you are really and truly worried about illegal immigration, then you should think this proposal sounds like a pretty good--if somewhat draconian--idea. It takes race out of the question and allows us to deal *solely* with the question of how to best allow immigrants in. If, however, you think "well, no, we needn't do that", then I submit to you that it may be worthwhile to consider that perhaps some of the energy driving the anti-immigration hysteria has less to do with people being here illegally and more to do with *brown people* being here illegally.

I suspect that if, instead of Juan and Rosa coming from south of the border, it were Seamus and Catherine, coming from England there would be far less outcry even IF the latter were coming in the same numbers.

Btw. I want to be clear, I'm not saying that YOU are racist, please don't have that reaction. I AM saying that I think that beneath the surface (and not that submerged at that) of the general weltanschung that 'they' are 'coming in droves' and want to 'change our culture' is a fear of brown people. One must admit that fear of brown people is as American as the apple pie, Chrevolet and invading nations filled with non-white people with names we have trouble pronouncing. Even the most cursory and superficial glance over American history shows that.

A few artists are already starting in the Protest, and those that aren't well informed are Looking into it directly..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100430/...o_ricky_martin

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100430/...on_enforcement

Btw...
About that Cold Stone Creamery?
:overreaction:

I do worry that this boycott will ultimately most hurt those people it is in support of. So much of Arizona's income is tourism and if it is boycotted then what about the taxi drivers, cooks, laundry people, hotel workers, bartenders,restaurant owners and workers, convention workers and all the people who make things happen?

Even more of them will lose their jobs.

This Governor was not elected by the people, she was next in line after the existing Governor was "promoted" to a Cabinet position by President Obama.

So there she is making draconian laws because, you know, God told her to. People all over the country boycott Arizona and who is hurt? The Governor?
No, not the Governor, the workers are hurt, as usual. The workers who did not elect her.

So not only will people (even kids) have to carry their "papers", but many more jobs will be lost in an area already heavily hit by the recession.

So yes the new laws are terrible, but is boycott the answer?

i think a boycott is only PART of the answer. but i am ALL for a boycott, as are my local and like-minded friends.

I wondered how people who actually live in AZ felt about this.

I hope this will go away as unconstitutional quickly.

I wonder if there is a plan to help the people who will lose their jobs becasue of the boycott? The regular people who do laundry, clean rooms, cook food. There needs to be, because they will bear the brunt.

It seem to be a Catch 22.

Either way, the workers will be the ones who pay.

Not that idiot Governor.

*rant*

very true and...
 

Boycotting a state for a law still does not address the problem. This reminds me of the breed laws against pit bulls to address (a perceived) rise in dog attacks (actually balloons kill more people in America and there is no panic to ban balloons).

This law, and this boycott is still not addressing the real problem. Just like the Health Care Bill did not address the real problem (the big corporate money in medicine). The problem we, as a country are having, is a race to the bottom line, to pay the absolute lowest wage possible to workers in America. "They say" that Mexicans take jobs that Americans don't want to do, that is not accurate. Mexicans take jobs that Americans won't do for a non-living wage. Pay someone 12-15 bucks and hour, and your fields will be filled with American workers, especially during the harvest season. High school and college students would snap those jobs us so fast...

We Americans need to demand living wages for all workers in America. And we need to boycott all companies who do not pay a living wage. It is a viscous cycle, people making less than living wages can't afford to shop anywhere that pays living wages, so their precious few dollars go to fatten the wallets of the pariah corporate fascists driving wages as low as they can go. and on and on it goes.

Poor people need to stop fighting amongst themselves black, white, brown or otherwise, and ban together to change this broken capitalist system. Tea Partiers and Tree Huggers Unite! Look beyond your own personal struggles and see that, as Ben Franklin said (paraphrased), we must all work together or we shall all perish separately.

Stand UP against Pariah Capitalists with no loyalty to this country, only to their bottom line.

I agree.

Until we all expect a living wage for everyone and healthcare for everyone nothing is going to change.

This country was built on the backs of salves and people who had no other choice than to work for below a "living wage".

ps. I do want to be clear that I am for finding a way to make immigrants feel welcome and a part of the "American" dream.

Speaking of idiots,who are these entertainers coming on CNN,HLN fueling the fires between the races.Seems to me there are two issues being fought here.One is a law passing to protect an American border and the other about protecting 'brown' people.That law in Arizona will benefit both Americans and illegals,regardless if you come over from Russia,China,or Mexico.If you have your "green card",that means you have certain rights like an American.Without them,you're pretty much left to the wolves,and believe me,we have plenty of them just waiting to take advantage of people without their papers in this country.There's nothing more evil to me then pitting Americans against each other,specially for political gain..that's just plain evil y'all.

The Chef/Cook that gets stopped in his/her chevette by an AZ cop under Suspicion of illegal status, regardless if they are citizens will probably think "Racist fucker" because of this Law....
Same for Laundry lady, housekeeper, and the occasional Latino Doctor, Lawyer, Contractor in their Beemer {Lord knows Latinos can't even afford a Lexus, unless doing sneaky stuff, like POC}
Mind you, if ....IF their salary is affected, based on federal minimum wage laws, they can and should legally challenge it.

The protest, IMO, is just a small way to let these "small potatoes" workers know we're supporting them, and voicing our opposition, vocally & visibly demanding change that should be heard & seen, on pain of financial strain that yes indeed the local government will feel on next elections{lack of donations/votes/support}.

There's a lot of things that need to be fixed first, true, but at the moment? We might wanna pay attention to an issue that can be solved sooner than the others..Kinda like a Finals exam, deal with the easy questions first, get them out of the way, then tackle the hard ones...

[I'm still depressed about cold stone creamery...but, I got ben & jerry's as consolation]
:blink:

shakira speaks out, talks with phoenix mayor (who is against the racist law):

love it!
 

did everyone see this? jon stewart calls arizona, 'the meth lab of democracy'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_553157.html

Can you explain to me, because perhaps I'm dense, how this law will protect brown people? It seems to me that this law targets brown people. Let me try to explain why:

The law, as written, says that police officers can (and are required to) stop anyone they have a 'reasonable suspicion' is in the country illegally. Please note that this is *different* than saying that if in the course of, say, a routine traffic the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person might be in the country illegally (driver's license seems fake, something along those lines). It is saying 'if you see someone who *looks like* they are here illegally'.

The reason I bring this up, Born, is because--well, let me put it to you like this. I am more or less cinnamon-colored and have shoulder-length dreadlocks. My wife is, pale, red-haired, hazel-eyed. When this law was passed and we were discussing it, I asked her (because I knew that at some point I'd need the information) how many times she had been asked if she was from Ireland or Scotland. She said no one had ever asked her that. She'd been asked if she was of Irish descent but not if she was from Ireland (those ARE different questions). Now, I can't count the number of times people have asked me if I was from Jamaica or, more generically, where I am from. Now, if I had an accent, perhaps that would be understandable but any accent I have is a West Coast accent (I think I have that midwestern newscaster accent, but that's a different story). So what's the difference? While it's empirically true that 'American' isn't a race, most people treat 'American' as a synonym for 'white' on a day-to-day, ad hoc basis. So even though my wife could just as easily be from Ireland, looking like she does, and I could, perhaps, be from Jamaica looking like I do, she is never asked if she is from a foreign country while I am. The difference? She has white skin and I have brown skin. That's it.

So let's return to this law: how is it that this is NOT an open invitation to racial profiling and how is it that this law HELPS brown people, precisely?

more local news, this is the guy (russell pearce, R-Mesa) who actually drafted the bill and he wants the police to ask about your citizenship on your own property. (i thought you'd need a search warrant to be on someone's property, but guess not)

http://www.kpho.com/video/23315330/index.html

additionally, the guy who drafted this bill (and wants to cease funding for any school offering chicano studies), russell pearce, has ties to well-known NEO-NAZIS.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiw...slator-russell

A quick tour through American history--POC style
 

I thought it would be helpful, since Americans seem to have a rather ahistorical view of ourselves, to take a little trip down history lane vis a vis America and race and immigration. Supporters of the Arizona law keep pretending that there just *couldn't* be any hint of racial bias or any danger of the law being applied in a racially biased way as if America had a clean slate on race. We don't. So, let me put on my Mr. Peabody costume for the moment and we'll just hop in the way-back machine:

Mid-16th century to Mid-18th century: Europeans begin arriving to the Western Hemisphere in earnest. They find indigenous populations living here who they immediately set to killing and stealing their land. (As an aside, one can only imagine that the indigenous populations living in the interior of the country might have had some rather strong words for the East Coast populations along the lines of: "ya know, if y'all had just driven them back into the sea the minute they got here, we'd have all been appreciative of that".

Mid-18th century to the early 19th century: European settlement of the Western hemisphere carries on apace. At the same time, Europeans and Middle Eastern empires descend upon Western Africa and start grabbing the inhabitants there who, it must be noted, were completely out of EVERYONE'S way, and begin transporting them across the Atlantic as slaves. Yes, it is true that slavery existed in Africa. Yes, it is also true that tribal chieftains would sell off people they had conquered or who were problematic to slavers. However, this is one of those 'is it the supply side or the demand side' problems and we needn't spend too much time here because, for our purposes, it does not matter. What is germane here is that Africans were taken from Africa and brought to the Americas as property--livestock if you will. In the meantime, what started as a trickle becomes full-blown expansion and a genocide begins.

Early to Mid-19th century: Expansion of Americas continues. Slavery continues. Trans-Atlantic slave trade ends in 1809 (for comparison by this point England is *paying* other nations to either ban slavery or ban the slave trade or both). Mid-century, North America is completely and utterly under the control of the descendants of Europeans. The indigenous population is coming to the horrifying conclusion that they have lost and that their civilization is coming to a quick end. The US Supreme court decides Dred Scott stating that blacks in America have no rights that whites are bound by law or custom to respect. A war is fought over slavery. The 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution are ratified. One might think that universal brotherhood now rules in America. One would be wrong.

Mid-19th to Early 20th century: The transcontinental railroad is built, with large numbers of Chinese immigrants who die in truly astounding numbers. In the meantime, the indigenous population has dwindled to less than a tenth of their original estimated numbers (largely, it should be said, because of smallpox). In the Deep South, blacks come under the rule of Jim Crow laws. At the same time there is an influx of Polish, Irish, Italian and East European Jews into America. Each one is greeted by some strain of "we don't want you here you dirty <insert slur here>".

Early to Mid-20th century: The indigenous population is now a mere shadow of what it was. The black population is largely concentrated in the South (60%+) and are citizens in as much as they are subject to American law but the law, as it were, is not applicable to *them* equally. In other words, they are not equally protected by the law. WW I breaks out. Interestingly, Germans aren't rounded up in large numbers, even though America is at war (for a year) with the Germans. WW II breaks out, America enters the war in 1941 and Japanese citizens are rounded up. Again, interestingly, German and Italian Americans are not rounded up *unless* they commit an act that is actually treasonous. Japanese citizens are rounded up without having done anything at all. The war ends, the military is desegregated, then baseball is desegregated, large numbers of blacks who left the South stay gone settling in places like Oakland (Kaiser shipyards) or Detroit (the auto industry). Brown v. Board is passed and whites in the South lose their minds. Bricks are thrown at children going to school--it should be noted here that the brick throwers were white and the throwees (call them targets) were black *children*.

Mid to late 20th Century: Various civil rights laws are passed. Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act into law and then makes the most prescient statement in American political history "with this, we just lost the South for a generation". The Republican party adopts that 'Southern Strategy' on the strength of the writing of Kevin Phillips (who, to his credit, has spent most of his post-Watergate years trying to make up for the monster he helped unleash on America). Large numbers of immigrants from Mexico and Central America arrive.

Late 20th century to Early 21st: The millennium begins with, quite literally, a bang as 19 enterprising young men from Saudi Arabia hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Suddenly being Middle Eastern in America is far *less* comfortable than it was (and it wasn't precisely peaches and cream before). In the meantime, more immigration comes in from south of the border and an anti-immigration movement is born. America gets two black secretaries of state in a row and then, to a lot of people's surprise, a black president.

(continued next post)

A quick tour through American history--POC style Part 2
 

So, let's look at what we have.

From the 16th century until the middle of the 20th century it would be fairly generous grading to give America a D- on the whole. I mean, objectively, the record doesn't even *begin* to look decent until the Civil War and then it only really looks decent in comparison to what came before it. It isn't until the first quarter of the 20th century that the majority, European descended population, decides that it is willing to play nice with OTHER European descended populations and even that grudgingly. It isn't until the middle of the 20th century that the European descended majority decides that it's willing to contemplate something that resembles fair play for it's non-white citizens and even *then* there's still lots of racist language and 'jokes' that are tossed around.

So, by the time most of us here left our mother's wombs, we could reasonably say that, perhaps, America had improved its grade (but not it's GPA) to a high C or low-B. It's only in the last 20 years that one could fairly say that America has moved into a solid B with moments of A-minus. That actually doesn't bode well for America's overall GPA.

Let's call the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries Fs. Let's call the 19th and the first part of the 20th century a D-. Let's call everything after 1950 but before 1990 a C-. We'll call the last 20 years a B. So the GPA is probably around a 2.5 or so.

Now, given all of that--and I doubt there is anyone here who could seriously dispute the overall shape of what I have laid out historically since it's all a matter of record--how likely is it, given the history of this country, that there is NO racism involved in this law? I'd say not bloody likely. How likely is it that race is not a significant driver of this law? I'd say vanishingly improbable.

And yet, we're supposed to treat this law as if it happened in a nation that has no history of bigotry against either immigrants or non-white people? You might recall that in part one I accused Americans of thinking ahistorically, I think you can now see what I mean.

Cheers
Aj

While I agree that people who want to emmigrate to the USA are often victimized by the very people they trust to bring them here, I do not agree that they should be kept out.

No one travels to the US in a shipping container from SE Asia beacsue they have a good life at home. No one leaves their home and family in Honduras to WALK to the US becasue they just feel like it.

The USA was set up by immigrants and has always been horrible to it's most recent immigrans.

Since you say this, I want to clarify a comment I made earlier. While, quite honestly, I think that the United States should seriously consider a 20 year ban on all immigration except for political asylum my *reasons* for it should be stated explicitly.

I believe that no small amount of this hysteria is about race. I am fairly convinced--although I might be wrong--that if it were Seamus and Mary from Gloucester coming over instead of Juan and Maria, there wouldn't be nearly as much noise even if the former were coming in the same numbers. Because of that and because of America's history, I think that we should be willing to bend over backwards to demonstrate that it's *not* about race. Now, that's not fair--it's absolutely true but as my grandmother used to say, there's much in life that is neither right, pretty or fair.

It's like being non-white and a woman in my field. My buddy Ogre (not his real name, obviously) gets loud or bangs his hand against his desk because an end-user isn't listening to him, he's just a big emphatic guy with a booming voice. If I do the same thing, I'm an angry black woman. If a man raises his voice, he's passionate. If a woman raises her voice, she's shrill. So in corporate America, as a black woman, I have learned to bend over backward to comport myself in such a way that only someone who *wants* to see me as "angry black woman" can see me that way. It's not fair but it beats the hell out of being passed over for promotion or being first to be laid off.

America has a regrettable history on race and, as such, we as a nation have to bend over backward. So by banning ALL immigration for 20 years, it takes race out of the question. I would think that those who are most exercised about what they see as a tide of immigrants coming over the border would leap at the opportunity to ban all immigration and NOT be called out for racism. Strangely, though, in the last 15 years of proposing this kind of thing to people on the other side of the immigration issue to me, I've had maybe one or two bites. That's not necessarily indication of racism but it does cause one to question why.
Cheers
Aj