Using people of color as an example is racist when said by a white person? So the reverse would be when a person of color uses any white person as an example it is what?

Sorry, this has gone from bad to worse in my book.

http://azgovernor.gov/contact.asp

Sorry Corkey, I just dont buy into this because it is bizarre.

I could send you copies of papers I did in grad school on racism but I quote a lot of people of color so I know it would offend you for me to do so.

Personally, I think ya'll just want to shut the white person up by adding more and more absolutely outrageous demands on what is appropriate and inappropriate for me as a white person to say and do.

Very true, but not in the direction you necessarily think.

Welcome to my world, Kobi. I have to be careful what I say and how I say it everywhere I go, every day of my life.

I have had to sit there and TAKE IT when a colleague at work asked me "were you raised by a white family". Why would they ask me that? Because of the way I speak. I sound educated and therefore I must have been raised by a white family. Now, of course, you're going to ask "why didn't I report that person to HR". I'll tell you why. Because the minute I do that, I'm a troublemaker, I'm whining, I'm trying to blame white people, I'm doing everything BUT making a report of a racist statement.

During hurricane Katrina I had to endure my co-workers making some of the most racist statements about "those people" who were "living like animals". I can't get angry, Kobi. I simply do not get to do that. Oh, at home I can but, just for instance, I have a buddy at work we call Ogre who will get frustrated and pound his fist on his desk. If I did that I would be an 'angry black woman' he does it and he's this big, overgrown frat boy with a heart of gold.
So, again, Kobi welcome to my world--except that here, if you say something impolitic nothing happens to your paycheque. If I say something impolitic I can forget the concept of raises or promotions because once 'angry black woman' is established, there's no getting out from under that label.

I'm curious, Kobi, have you read any Malcolm X OTHER than what you quoted here? Have you ever read DuBois in depth? The problem isn't you quoting a person of color, Kobi, the problem is you quoting a person of color in an attempt to try to tell other people of color how we should live in America. I said it before and I'll repeat it now--every single person of color participating in this discussion has forgotten more about what it is like to be a person of color in America then you will ever realize there is to know.

Don't you see that your inability to condemn something that was so manifestly wrong that the US Government (not known for being the first in line to say mea culpa) apologized is deeply problematic? It makes me--and perhaps others--wonder what you WOULD condemn. You have said, on a number of occasions, that it would be wrong to judge the prevailing ideas of, say, early 20th century America by early 21st century standards. You have said, in making this argument, that it is impossible to say if the pervasive racism that early 20th century blacks had to endure was wrong, or unjust or evil. You have even said that we cannot even say that the idea that blacks were inherently inferior was wrong because we don't know by whose standard to judge. I'm sorry Kobi, but I find that absolutely shocking. I have had a lot of conversations about race and I have to say that this is the only time I have had a conversation with someone who claims to not be a racist, who was not willing and able to say that the lynchings, the beatings, the daily humiliations, the fear, the terrorizing, the unequal treatment, the segregation, the exclusion were wrong, unjustified and a moral blemish on this nation. The only one. In, perhaps, three *decades* of talking to white people about race. Every other person who was unwilling to say so was a racist and wasn't going to condemn it. The truly astonishing thing to me is that you don't see that as at all problematic. You see this refusal to take a stand as somehow admirable or noble. I don't know what metric you are using but it is not one I would want to use.

No, Kobi, no one is saying a white person can't quote a person of color. You are, of course, free to interpret it that way but that's not what people are saying. It's not that you quoted a black man, it's that you deployed that quotation as some means of lecturing people of color about what it is like to be people of color as if you knew something about the subject we don't.
You invoked Malcolm X in a ham-handed fashion and you got called out on it.
You were trying to put me 'in my place' and tell me how I should think about being black in America. You did so by invoking black men because they are, as you put it, 'my leaders'. It is not quoting black men it is the way you went about deploying this as a means of putting a black woman in her place.

It backfired, of course, because this image that people have about black women is not even remotely related to my life. You've learned that now.

Aj

I, for one, would be fascinated to see this paper because I'm curious what you have to say about racism. Some of us have bent over *backward* in this conversation, Kobi, you just don't see it.

I find it bizarre that you wrote a paper on racism and managed to completely overlook how white privilege contributes to racism...especially in dialogues.


But Then, I'm Assuming You Have A Lot Of POC Friends Too,
Dylan

You might want to check out the Racism thread

This is one of the best examples of unexamined white privilege and racism I have read on b/f websites.

I believe that I read what you wrote correctly, Kobi. I am disappointed to see that your second post regarding the relocation and internment of citizens of the United States, of Japanese descent, was written incorrectly a second time. They were NOT Japanese, they were citizens of this country, and their constitutional rights were violated. It was wrong, just in case you are unsure, wrong on so many levels, and definitely not a good idea. Heart Mountain was built in Wyoming in order to provide labour for the sugar beet harvest, and that is not my opinion, but a fact.

I just perused the site for Heart Mountain. I am going to post a picture here, and give you the opinion that it was most definitely NOT a good idea at the time.

http://www.heartmountain.us/images/JapsMoving.jpg

I don't think you can get any more overtly racist than this.

Full historical facts about the internment.... other racial and ethnic groups such as Italian Americans were relocated. At that time in US history, Italians had not been racialized and were viewed as non-white.
Many were from the SF Bay Area, including relatives and family friends of mine. ALL WERE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY!

The Enemy Alien Acts as well as Chinese Exclusionary Laws in the US are birds of a feather... along with post-Civil War Jim Crowe legislation were quite racist! There are other examples of these kinds of legislation in our history that are eerily like the AZ law. Shall we go over the Native American experience? Or is that perspective as lost as their forgotten and unmarked graves behind almost every single California Mission as it is left out of CA history books for students? Gee, it seems Texas has this idea in mind....

Why do you think that Holocaust survivors as well as decedents of Black Slavery cry- We must never forget!??? I would settle for more factual historical research and understanding….

dread,

We were having a discussion about the development of ethics and of philosophy. You used race as an example. I kept the discussion to a level of the development of ethics and philosophy using the example you set forth. I did not offer any judgements, nor will I. It is not for me to judge what was appropriate or not appropriate in a different era with different prevailing truths when discussing the development of ethics and philosophy. It was not a discussion about race. Forgive me if sticking to the topic was offensive. It was perhaps, your interpretation of why I didnt say something as opposed to why I didnt.

You dont know me dread or my life or who my friends and lovers have been. I can tell you I am and have been involved with people of color and no one has ever spoken to me the way people here feel they can. Never. Ever.

Kobi,

Really

You really should just step back

Each post is more offensive than the last

You've finally landed on the, "I have POC friends/partners" trope


Dylan...selectively on ignore

I am quoting your post from way back there to maybe have a conversation with you about Undocumented Workers being selfish and self serving.

About the idea that they should stay put and pull themselves up by the boot straps in their own countries.

So I say to you: My grandpa came here to work a ranch in order to send money home to feed his family. The level of poverty in his country is something I doubt you have seen. No plumbing, electricity, jobs, or food. Living scared of the government.

One human being wanting to keep their family alive is not selfish. It's certainly not self serving. Coming here and doing jobs that truly, nobody else wants to do and living in conditions that you or I would never live in all to support their families at home.

They risk their life and limb to come here, usually assisted by Coyotes who are American and who have no problem taking large amounts of cash and leaving bodies in their wake.

Once here they work so hard. From sun up to sun down in triple digit weather with no breaks for less than minimum wage. Taxes taken out never to be filed for or returned.

They use American Services such as Western Union and American Express Moneygram and pay them money to send money home. They pay crazy prices for calling cards to maybe if they are lucky make a call. They buy food, and other things that require they pay sales tax. For the most part these are a good people who only want to keep their family alive.

Not every country is like America. You can't really pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you live in most South American Countries.

I won't even go into places like the Congo, Nigeria, Rhwanda....

So it is hard for me to make villains out of good people with no options who only want to feed their families. These are not greedy or selfish people. They are human beings. Who want the simplest things.

There is not even really a process in place to get here legally, other that the lottery system they have going on now. Meanwhile, families are dying and living in abject poverty. So their brain stem fires up and fight or flight mechanisms take over. Survival is one of the most basic human conditions.

Dollar bills are never more important than human lives, are they?

BINGO! :|
 

I think if any of my lovers spoke of me this way... I would have to punch them in the throat....

How belittling is this.....

"I am and have been involved with people of color"

Goody goody gum drops for you to speak of our experience because of who you fuck and share coffee with!!

Yipeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

Damn, you just don't know when to stop do ya?

No, Kobi, I don't know you. You don't know me. Well, it may not be for you to judge, Kobi, but *I* will judge what happened in a different era. My grandparents were born, lived and died as human beings--while the prevailing ethics of the era was that they weren't really human beings or if they were they were inferior sorts of same, I say that was wrong. I understand, to you maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But to me--my grandparents, my parents, my sibling, myself, my son and my granddaughter were all born human beings in every sense of that word. That is not negotiable, Kobi--not now. Not 100 years ago and not 100 years hence.

I'm glad, Kobi, that you have never had anyone speak to you the way you have been spoken to here. I would love to say the same but I can't. I have had white people tell me what I needed to do in order to deal with racism--and their sentences sounded very much like yours. I have had white people insist that 'you're really smart for a black girl' isn't a racist statement. The one thing you have done that has surprised me is your inability to condemn racism because you are unclear about whether or not the people who were harmed by racism were--I don't know what--human enough by the standards of the day to BE harmed by it. I have to say I've never had anyone take that stance. Other than that, nothing in this dialog has really been surprising or shocking to me. You see people do feel that they can speak to me the way you did earlier, Kobi. People do feel that they can dismiss racism--past and present--and that blacks just need to 'get over it' and 'stop blaming white people'. Now, I understand that you cannot and will not condemn even that because who is to say that 'you're really smart for a black girl' is wrong or insulting? Perhaps I'm just being sensitive. Perhaps the question "you speak so well, was one of your parents white" is also not a racist statement. Who is to say? I understand that you can't condemn that either.

I don't care who you have dated, Kobi. If I said that I am married to a white woman now, would that mean you would take me seriously then? Would it change a damn thing to know that? What you think telling me that you have deigned to associate with non-whites does to bolster your credibility in this discussion is beyond my comprehension. I didn't say you wouldn't date a (nominally human, at least in the present but not in the past) woman of color. It makes absolutely no difference in this discussion. I'm curious how negotiable the people of color in your life feel their humanity is.

I do want to thank you, though, for one thing you have done today. You have illustrated, *precisely* why I am passionate about freeing liberalism from this meme that has possessed it most of my adult life. I understand that to you, not condemning slavery, Jim Crow, segregation or even lynching is noble and admirable because you will not judge people of the past by the standards of today. The problem is, of course, that means that these things are up for grabs and not settled issues. All it would take is for the prevailing winds to change and there is no reason, at least none you have articulated, to believe that you would consider a return to segregation unjust. If, however, there is a bedrock ethic--that certain things should not be done to human beings and whenever they have happened an injustice has been done--then it does not matter what the prevailing winds do.

I believe that the ideas you express, while well intentioned, harm the cause of equality because it allows too much hedging. I believe that as a queer rights movement we have been fighting a battle with one-hand tied behind our backs precisely because this unwillingness, on our part, to truly condemn the prejudice and bigotry thrown our direction as moral and social evils which must stop. We have avoided doing so because not only did we not want to condemn bigotry in the past, we didn't want to condemn bigotry in the present! So this has given me an opportunity to see how this philosophy plays out in real-time. Largely, the conclusions I had reached about the ideas you have expressed about non-judgement, were hypothetical. I saw glimmers of it from time to time but this is the first time I have ever seen it play out so clearly and in unadulterated form. So I thank you for that. I wish that my hypothesis--that this inability to make reasoned judgements from first principals ineluctably would lead to an inability to condemn or even fight effectively against bigotry and injustice--had been proven incorrect. Unfortunately, you have proven it beyond what I would have thought possible a year ago.

Aj

Kobi,

With all due respect, I have to note that I am befuddled by this line of reasoning, and because it is so often used in arguments about immigration. There was a conversation about this in this thread pages below, and so I must say what I said to that poster (was it you? I apologize if it was and so am therefore repeating myself to you again) was this:

Some laws are stupid. Some laws are quite racist. Some laws are quite oppressive (down right evil, really), and so therefore are absolutely meant to be challenged and broken.

And with all due respect, some of us very much do pick and choose the laws we adhere to, and even further, sometimes, even our own lawmakers and law "enforcers," if you will, pay no mind to them either.

I am not going to argue what others have said very well already, and really have a feeling, you could care quite less what I have to say on the matter of immigration and racism anyway.

But I just can't, in my anally neurotic way, see any logic to the above, and even more so when it's used to defend oppressing one's human rights. And lastly, I happen to actually quite love the fact that those who come here, to the US, from where ever, come here, because they make the country more interesting, and well, a little bit more enjoyable, in the beauty of neat and diverse people that it is. I will pay taxes gleefully (hell, if I had ten billion I would pay that up front for completely open borders free from harassment and overzealous INS agents toting egos and guns) for the serenity and peace of people passing peacefully to and fro from nation to nation, because I don't want any one to suffer, I like a global party, and think there is enough here on the planet to easily go around, if rationed a little less selfishly.

The "we must follow the law" argument just doesn't fly in any way to me; however, because we break/ignore laws all the goddamn time:


In Ohio the following laws exist:

if you ignore an orator on Decoration Day to such an extent as to publicly play croquet or pitch horseshoes within one mile of the speakers stand, you can be fined $25.

it is illegal to get a fish drunk.

it is illegal to hunt for whales on Sunday. (Surely it's illegal to hunt whales full stop?)

In Alaska, the following laws apply to moose:

a moose may not be viewed from an aeroplane.

it is illegal to give alcoholic beverages to a moose.

it is an offence to push a live moose out of a moving aeroplane.

In Texas the following laws apply:

it is illegal to take more than three sips of beer whilst standing.

the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica is also banned, as it contains a formula for making beer at home.

a new anti crime law has been introduced, requiring criminals to give their intended victims 24 hour notice, either orally or in writing to explain the nature of the crime.

In Pennsylvania the following laws apply:

Because of the farmers Anti-automobile society, these are some of the rules of the road:

Automobiles travelling on country roads at night must send up an rocket every mile, then wait ten minutes for the road to clear.

If a driver sees a team of horses, they are to pull to the side of the road, and cover their machine with a blanket or dust cover that has been painted to blend into the scenery.

In the event that a horse refuses to pass a car on the road, the owner of the car must take their car apart and conceal the parts in nearby foliage.

In Alabama it is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church.

In Jasper, Alabama, it is illegal for a husband to beat his wife with a stick larger in diameter than his thumb.

In Arizone it is illegal for donkeys to sleep in bathtubs.

Also from Arizona, if a person is caught stealing soap, they must wash themselves until it is all used up.

In California, it is illegal to ride a bicycle in a swimming pool.

In L.A., it is an offence to lick a toad. Apparently, this is because people were getting high off them! (How!??)

In New England, fire engines are not allowed to exceed 25mph - strangely, this includes the journey to the fire!

In Devon (yes there is a place called Devon in the US), it is illegal to walk backwards after sunset.

In Hartford, it is considered an offense to cross the road on your hands.

In Cleveland it is illegal to drive whilst sitting on another persons lap.

In New Jersey you can be arrested for slurping soup in public.

Zoin city, Illinois, has a law that states that you cannot make faces at anyone.

A Kentucky law states that burglary can only be committed at night.

Fishing from the back of any animal is illegal in Idaho.

In Sheridan, Wyoming, a policeman can bite a barking dog, in order to quiet him.

Citizens in New York may not greet each other by putting ones thumb to the nose and wriggling the fingers.

When you pass a cow in Pine Island, Minnesota it is illegal not to tip your hat.

Georgia has a law prohibiting people from saying ‘oh boy’ in public.

In Atlanta its illegal to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole or lamppost.

In Hawaii it is illegal to insert pennies into your ear.

It is illegal in Idaho for a man to give his sweetheart a box of chocolates that weighs less than 50 pounds.

Women in Joliet, Illinois, can be arrested for trying on more than six dresses in one store.

In Chicago it is illegal to eat in an establishment that is on fire.

In Winnetka, Illinois, theatre managers can kick out any patron who has ‘odorous feet’.

In Lawrence, Kansas, it is forbidden for anyone to carry bees in their hat, whilst on the city streets.

In McLough, Kansas, it is against the law to wash your false teeth in a public drinking fountain.

In Natoma, Kansas, it is illegal to practise knife throwing at men wearing striped suits.

In Lexington, Kentucky, it is against the law to carry an ice cream cone in your pocket.

In Owensboro, Kentucky, it is illegal for a woman to buy a new hat without her husband trying it on first.

In Canton, Mississippi, it is illegal to kill a squirrel with a gun whilst in a courtroom.

Any city in Missouri can levy a tax to support a band, as long as the mayor plays piccolo and each band member can eat peas with a knife.

In Greene, New York, it is illegal to eat peanuts and walk backwards down a street, whilst a concert is on.

In North Carolina it is illegal to use elephants to plough cotton fields.

It’s illegal in Oklahoma to get a fish drunk.

In Seattle, goldfish can ride the city buses in bowls, but only if they keep still.

It is illegal in Maine to step out of a plane, whilst it is in flight.

In Florida, you can be fined to fall asleep under a hair dryer, and so can the salon owner.

Also in Florida, if an elephant is left tied to an parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid, just as it would be for a vehicle.

Again in Florida, it is illegal to have sexual relations with a porcupine.

In New York, you need a license to use a clothesline outdoors.

In Minnesota, you may not cross state lines with a duck on top of your head.

In Carmel, New York, it is illegal for a man to go outside if his jacket and trousers do not match.

In Baltimore, it is illegal to throw bales of hay out of a second storey window, within the city limits.

Also in Baltimore, it is illegal to take a lion to the movies.

The state of Washington has passed a law stating that it is illegal to paint polka dots on the American flag.

In Conneticut, for a pickle to be officially be considered a pickle, it must bounce.

In Bexley, Ohio, it is prohibited to install or use slot machines in outhouses.

In Harthahorne city, Oklahoma, it is unlawful to put any hypnotised person I an display window.

In Clawson, Michigan, there is a law that makes it LEGAL for a farmer to sleep with his animals.

In Gary, Indiana, persons are prohibited from attending a movie theatre or riding an street car within four hours of eating garlic.

In California, animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500ft of a pub, school or place of worship.

In Kentucky, no female is allowed to appear in a bathing suit on a highway unless she is escorted by at least two police officers, or armed with a club.

In Russel, Kansas, it is against the law to have an musical car horn.

It is illegal to hum in public on Sundays in Cicero, Illinois.

In Clinton county, Ohio, there is a fine for anyone caught leaning against an public building.

In Kenosha , Wisconsin it is illegal to have an erection in public. Even if you have clothes on.

In Kansas it is illegal to swim with a polka dotted bathing suit before 12:00 noon.

I even put my zip code in, so not a constituent.
 

Dear Constituent,

Thank you for your message and for taking the time to contact the Arizona Governor's Office.

We appreciate you sharing your thoughts and your comments will be passed on to Governor Brewer.

If you require assistance, someone from the Governor's Office will respond to you as soon as possible.

NOTICE:
This is an auto-reply to the email you have submitted to the Arizona Governor’s Office.
Please DO NOT respond to this email. This is an automated message only and any replies to this email are not processed.

Thank you,
Governor's Office of Constituent Services
1700 W Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602-542-1318
602-542-1381 (fax)
www.azgovernor.gov

Kobi,

What you seem to equate with ethics and philosophy.......hedging your bets and maybe it's right and maybe it's wrong..........actually has nothing to do with what I know about ethics and philosophy.

I have been on a couple of Institutional Review Boards (Ethics Review Board).....actually I was Chair of one. An IRB is set up to protect the welfare and rights of persons who volunteer for clinical trials and medical research. Incidentally, IRBs are the direct result of the 40 year Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments that ended in 1972. If you don't know about it.............try that google thang.....It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

We made judgments about every trial. We decided what was right or wrong. We approved or disapproved recruitment, retention, monitoring, design, and implementation of clinical trials. If we decided it was not ethical, then it had to be changed or that trial would not be conducted at our institution.

That IS what ethics are about. Making judgments about what is good for the individual and good for the community.

I am appalled that you will not condemn the fucked up racist shit that has happened and continues to happen in this country. As Aj pointed out........if you will not condemn racism, then I know I cannot count on you to condemn bigotry against the queer community. I cannot count on you to stand up and demand we queer folk be treated equally under the law.

It's not bizarre, it's just you. I didn't do papers on racism in grad school or any other school, and I don't have a sufficient background or education in race history in this country, and I haven't done a whole lot of self-examination and bag unpacking on issues of race, and I have lived and continue to live my life of white privilege. Yet, even I'm able to read and listen to what folks here and elsewhere are saying, and pay attention, and learn, and understand a little bit better, and respect the viewpoints of people who have lived what you and I can only read about. Nothing here is about shutting up the white person, it's about one white person who's too stubborn to listen.

As for what's appropriate and not appropriate - listening and trying to learn something is appropriate. Educating POC about their lives is not.

Besides the obvious issue of everything AZ is doing recently being racist, there's another issue that I don't recall being discussed yet here (correct me if I'm wrong, there's a lot in life that I don't recall).

In the news that I've seen, the primary argument in favor of this law seems to be centered around the drug trade, that the intention of the law is to stop the crime associated with that trade.

So, please explain to me, how does a cop asking someone in Flagstaff for their papers stop the flow of drugs and guns back and forth across the border?

When is someone in this country - politician, activist, anyone? - going to bother to point out that the US brought this on itself. We use more illegal drugs than any other nation, and we have lax gun laws and a ton of gun dealers near the southern border. The entrepreneurial spirit of "find a need and fill it" is held up as a god in this country. Well gee, a bunch of folks found that us Americans really like our drugs, so they're filling the need. Can't blame them for that any more than we can blame someone who risks their life to get in to this country because they can make more money here working for the poultry processors in the south who want to hire undocumented workers that they can pay less (sorry, that sentence got away from me). This country created the need, and people from other countries are filling that need. God Bless America, right?

This, exactly. Refusing to condemn actions which are clearly wrong in every way denotes nothing so much as a complete *lack* of any kind of ethics. I feel that I have a very strong sense of ethics, and those ethics mean that I absolutely will stand up and say "No, there is definitely a difference between right and wrong. Slavery was wrong. Jim Crow laws were wrong. Apartheid is wrong. There is nothing redeeming or debatable about any of these things. They're just wrong. Always, in any era, at any time, always wrong." Kobi, you say "who am I to judge?" I don't. I, as a person with ethics, am an excellent judge of right and wrong. I, a person with ethics, am absolutely *obligated* to judge right from wrong. I find it incredibly disturbing that anyone could claim otherwise. I'm horrified that anyone could actually say that they can't judge the actions of the past. If you can't judge the past, then why should any of us trust you to make good decisions in the future? If you can't say whether or not slavery was wrong, why should any of us think that you'd stand against it happening again?

sounds like the success of NAFTA, to me.

Not to mention that we (read corporate and government interests) like to keep that little fire fueled and so propel that activity quite a bit because that need is indeed quite the money maker for the US too. I can provide more information if this isn't an obvious thing to folks, but here is an interesting article on US bank involvement: link.

Also, ETA: Talk about people following the law! Way to go banks for picking and choosing what laws not to follow!

Actually they were able to bring this law to the forefront when a rancher in Southern AZ was supposedly killed by immigrant criminals doing drug trade on his land.

What they DIDN'T tell the public is that they were wrong. The people who killed this rancher were not immigrants, and in fact they shifted the focus of their investigation to somebody in northern AZ. Without, of course, telling the general public. In fact, they are still touting this story of immigrant drug smuggling killers being responsible. LIES.

Here is a link to what is one of many many articles that use this murder as a rallying cry for the new immigration law:

http://www.mashget.com/2010/03/30/il...izona-rancher/

Here is a link to a law enforcement source saying that the suspect is in America and that the nationality of the alleged murderer is not known.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/bord...97ee2f0d5.html

guess which story was harder to find?

are we all so gullible as to think that all Mexican nationals are drug smugglers and/or drug mules? really? is it perhaps possible that people are fleeing Mexico because of the violence?

border patrol agents are sometimes the ones involved in drug trafficking themselves. nobody talks about that though.

I think we also need to remember there are some good cops in AZ.............the Sheriff of Pima County (Tuscon). He is a shining light in all this.

agreed. that one sheriff is such a nightmare that he overshadows all the good guys who do not want to have their officers involved in this crap.

the city of phoenix (the capital) is also against enforcing these new 'laws' as well.

Lawmakers in 28 states, including Utah, fight spread of Arizona immigration law

June 30th, 2010 @ 8:44am

By Lee Davidson, Deseret News

SALT LAKE CITY -- State legislators from around the nation — including Utah Sen. Luz Robles — have formed a group seeking to stop the spread of the new Arizona immigration law by offering alternatives that they say would reward and integrate newcomers who play by the rules.

Robles, D-Salt Lake, spoke during a national conference call to reporters announcing the formation of "State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy," which claims as initial members 53 legislators in 28 states.

She said that copying the Arizona law — which the Utah Legislature is expected to consider next year — would be expensive because of likely legal challenges. Such a law would not by itself stop illegal immigration and would cause "a lot of dissonance and divisiveness among communities," she said.

The Arizona law requires local police to question a person's immigration status if they have reason to suspect the person is in the country illegally.
As an alternative, the new group hopes to offer government health insurance to poor legal immigrants, pass tougher laws against employers who steal wages from workers, and to strengthen laws against racial profiling.

"We will be rewarding people who play by the rules," Robles said.
For example, she said she will again push a bill that would remove a five-year waiting period before children of legal immigrants or pregnant women who are legal immigrants can qualify for Medicaid or State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) coverage.

Besides rewarding legal immigrants, she said, "it's always more cost effective to provide adequate, affordable health care for the children" than to try later after years without care "to deal with more complicated medical conditions."

Iowa Sen. Joe Bolkcom said he wants to make it tougher for employers to exploit workers there. While recent immigrants may benefit the most from such a measure, he said, it would help all workers in his state protect themselves against employers who face only light fines if they fail to pay their workers.

Pennsylvania Sen. Daylin Leach said he is pushing to beef up laws there to ban any racial profiling — which he said would help Hispanics be more cooperative with police in solving street crime and would calm fears arising from the new Arizona law.

Robles said states are sending messages with bills — from the tough Arizona law to friendlier alternatives her group is pushing — that the federal government really needs to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
"There is no way we can fix our immigration system in a Band-Aid, statewide solution," she said.

But Jonathan Blazer with the National Immigration Law Center said on the conference call that is what will happen in the short term until Congress acts.

"The Arizona model is really a 'race to the bottom' model to see just how onerous life can be made for immigrants," he said. The new group's alternatives are instead "a rising tide that's intended to lift all boats and make sure no one group of workers is pitted against another group," he said.



http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11380224

you've got to be kidding me?
 

Arizona immigration law backer politician Barry Wong wants to cut power from illegal immigrant homes

One Arizona politician has made a vow to make illegal immigrants powerless -- literally.

Republican Barry Wong, a candidate for the Arizona Corporation Commission, an elected body that decides public utility issues, says he would require the utilities to check the immigration status of customers, he told the Arizona Republic.

"I'm sure there will be criticism about human-rights violations," said Wong, who held a temporary spot on the five-person Commission in 2006. "Is power or natural gas or any type of utility we regulate, is that a right that people have? It is not a right. It is a service."

Cutting electricity, water, natural gas, even telephone lines at the homes of illegal immigrants, he said, would lower costs for the rest of the state's customers. He believes the population spike caused by illegal immigrants forces the state to build new power plants and then raise rates for customers.

Since 2000, Arizona's population has jumped nearly 29% to almost 6.6 million people. In roughly that same time, the number of the state's Hispanic residents increased and now composes more than 30% of Arizona's population, according to the U.S. Census.

This isn't the first time electricity surged into the immigration debate.
In May, after Los Angeles' City Council voted to boycott Arizona over its controversial anti-illegal immigration law, SB 1070, Gary Pierce, who sits on the Commission, suggested L.A. stop using his state's power.
Pierce, also a Republican, dismissed Wong's idea.

"That's not an argument I think we'll involve ourselves in," he said.
Critics, however, charge Wong with simply using a hot-button issue to gain notoriety and votes.

"Everyone is seeing the polls that are so anti-immigrant, and everyone is jumping on the bandwagon to target immigrants," said Julie Pace, a lawyer currently suing the state over a law punishing businesses that hire illegal immigrant help.

"They all are coming up with novel ideas how they can get elected. They say, 'Target immigrants, and it helps me win an election.'"
Wong believes his idea deserves further study.

"The question is: Is it the right thing to do in terms of rates?" Wong, a former four-term member of the state's House of Representatives, told the paper.

Arizona has come under fire for months for its efforts to battle illegal immigration, which was put under the national spotlight with the passage of SB 1070, which would allow law enforcement to ask suspects about their immigration status. However, the law which goes into effect July 29, has its supporters.

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 71% of Arizona backs it, an increase from when Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill in April.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati..._from_ill.html

WTF is up with people over there?


Jesus H Christ,
Dylan

And where's the feds? What the fuck is Obama doing between this and the oil spill?

here is the latest: http://www.fox11az.com/news/local/Ob...-97400129.html

eta: CA, AZ, TX and NM are all getting National Guard Troops. Oh goody. I can't wait to see how this pans out.

SF, thanks for the articles. It does make me wonder how long, given the increased support/drive towards anti-immigration stance, before we see mob mentality and rule happening. As the frothing continues to increase to demonize the undocumented worker it won't be long until we see the worst results on the front page. Some may say this is defense and just action for the US and other nations to discourage others from coming into a nation illegally but it's the ripple effect that can happen as society sees this.

Politicians often forget the power and impact of their words -- what is said, what is not said but heard, how it's said, when it's said -- has on society and those listening in. We don't speak in a vacuum nor do we live in one. Removing simple and basic human rights -- and finding it acceptable to do so -- is not, IMO, the sign of a nation that has evolved.

This whole exercise strikes me not as solving the true issue but just attempting to win brownie points in a time when one cannot provide real answers to economic challenges (i.e., don't spend money we don't have but don't find ways to create jobs either). As I read a variety of news sources about this issue I cannot help but wonder if this is a class sleight of hand (e.g., Ignore the man in the background and just watch the shiny balls in the front) to focus us away from problems that we really need to face and address with harsh reality.