Why are you frustrated about what someone else knows or doesn't know that lives in a state you don't live in? It's their life; they have different priorities than you do. Why does that frustrate you? Do you believe everyone should have the same priorties as yours and think the same way you do and have your same opinions?

Well, I think that's where some of the miscommunication is then... because when you say "Arizona" is a racist state, you do imply that it is all citizens of Arizona that are racist, as so many others in this thread have also done. By not using the term "most" or "some" or just "voters who voted in Jan Brewer & Co", you do imply "all".

Ok,sure, but it's been said over and over that some of the posters voted AGAINST, so they weren't "silent", they just weren't part of the majority voters.


I understand you are upset by this and I'm not going to try to argue against that. My mother is Caucasian, my father is Hispanic; maybe that doesn't qualify me to have an opinion, but my Hispanic side wasn't offended by the words "that look", because taken in context, I completely understood what was being said, and it was NOT an attempt to be hateful or discriminatory or racist. The very discussion we are having is about racial profiling which does use a "look" to determine who falls under its grasp.



It absolutely IS different, because this analogy implies that people sat by and didn't vote and let Jan Brewer get into office. That isn't the case for some of the posters in this thread. They DID vote, they didn't however win the majority vote!

Wow

I don't have to live in Az to be affected. I'm affected because I am a daughter ofan illegal"
I am affected because this law targets my people.

So in a thread that is ABOUT a boycott I thought I could express that and I will wether you or anyfucking else like it or not.

Now if you aren't offended by Cody's colorful descriptors goody for you I am so I said it, like keeping it real.

It's really not all that hard to figure out why I reacted the way I did, I'm pretty clear, shrug it off if you'd like, that's on you.

Sometimes I post for the sheer sadistic heck of it and hit submit

I get bored this late at night:)

To me this is just a boycott by another name. As I said before, I do not think you or Cody or any other person posting on this thread supports SB 1070 or thinks that racial profiling is a great idea. That said, SB 1070 exists, the law in question puts a big 'racial profiling welcome here' sign at the border of Arizona and I do not think that it helps if there are NO consequences to be paid. If Arizona gets away with this and banning, for all practical purposes, the teaching of any form of ethnic studies then other states will be emboldened to do something similar.

As far as voting, only 46.49% of Arizonans who were eligible voted a month ago. What that means is that 53.51% of Arizonans, by not voting, voted for Brewer by default. Not voting is always a tacit vote for whomever ends up winning the election. Again, I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about you or Cody I'm talking about Arizona as a polity and the results of the choices that Arizona has made. A majority of eligible voters were comfortable enough with the prospect of Ms Brewer as governor to not vote.

That doesn't mean that I look down on Arizonans, I don't. It doesn't mean that I think that all Arizonans are racists or think that racial profiling is the best thing to happen since oxygen. It means simply that more than half of all eligible Arizona voters failed to exercise their right to vote and are thus responsible for what happens.

It is sad that you and other Arizonans of goodwill will be caught up in this.

Cheers
Aj

As a person who doesn't live in Arizona, SB1070 is concerning to me because

1. I live in Texas and if Arizona gets away with this sort of blatant, threatening and harmful discrimination, it's likely to spread.

2. I'm invested in this country's purported protection of civil rights, and Arizona's violation of those rights threatens the future of this country.

3. I am a human being and I care about human beings who are being violated, threatened and harmed by the government. It's not okay with me, and I don't know why it would be okay with anybody else either.

I understand why Latinos would be leaving Arizona, and I do hope Arizona suffers for the loss. I think I would leave too, because I would feel threatened, isolated, afraid and at risk.

To pick up and leave your home - it's a big deal. It's expensive, it's destabilizing. It means losing connections, support, friendships. For a person to feel the need to move, to uproot their family, to quit jobs in this terrible economy, in order to escape state-sanctioned racial discrimination - these people are making great sacrifices - not simply protesting something they disagree with. It's tragedy due to state-sponsored injustice, not simply protest.

If Texas experiences a mass exodus of Latinos due to a similar law, it won't be Texas anymore to me.

When people who have privilege stand by silently and shrug their shoulders when things like this happen to people with less privilege, they are lending their tacit agreement to these laws - which is all that's needed to turn this country into a much uglier place. I don't understand how any person could defend SB1070 or think it's okay that Latinos are leaving the state in droves because their safety is so threatened.

I think it's really ironic that the majority of Americans who talk about the threat of big government are largely the same people (mostly white people) who have no issues with government overstepping its bounds and violating the civil rights of people of color.

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

By the way, today's a great day to call your senators and voice your support of the DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) act to help young people at risk of deportation obtain temporary residency and have a chance for conditional permanent residency if they complete two years in the military or two years at a four year institution of higher learning. *

Http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

I already posted this in another thread, but I will post it here because the connection is meaningful to me. Today is the 55th anniversary of the day that Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white person. I am 48 years old. That means people slightly older than me went through a time, particularly in the South, where people of color were supposed to sit in the back of the buses and be segregated on what they could do and where they could go based on race- there were laws on the books (Jim Crow) that supported some of those things. What is happening in Arizona (and elsewhere) reminds me of those times.

Back when I lived in California, there was a ballot measure to eliminate affirmative action at both the level of state hiring, contracting and education. About a week before the vote, I was on the BART and listening to these two women going back and forth about how they couldn't understand why THEY had to be 'punished' because 'they never owned slaves' and all the other kinds of crap that white people feel justified to say when talking about civil rights and they're not talking about how much they admire Martin Luther King, Jr. When I could stand it no more I turned around, asked if they minded if I added some perspective and said the following:

"All of the following statements are true:

I am the first member of my immediate family to have never spent a day in segregated schooling.
I am the first member of my immediate family to have no memory of using a colored-only bathroom or water fountain (which doesn't mean I never did, just that I was too young to remember it ever happening).
I am the first member of my immediate family to have only lived in an integrated neighborhood.
I am the first member of my family to have never used a library or swimming pool on the 'coloreds-only' day.
I am not yet forty years old."

They were stopped in their tracks because I think they *genuinely* believed the picture of the history of black people in this country they were taught in high school which, more or less, goes like this:

1776 - America is founded. Black people are here but the less said about them the better. Except for Crispus Attucks.

Black people do nothing of much significance nor does anything of much significance happen to us until 1863.

1865 -- Slavery ends at the close of the Civil war
1865 - 1879 or so--Reconstruction. Not a whole lot of note happens here.

1955 -- For no adequately explored reason Rosa Parks refuses to move to the back of the bus.

1963 -- For no adequately explored reason, some preacher named King gives a speech on the Washington Mall. Every white person who will eventually run for public office after 1989 marches with him.

1964 -- Civil rights and voting rights acts pass. The reasons these laws are necessary is left somewhat vague leaving the impression that white people had simply failed to be nice to blacks.

1968 -- Martin Luther King, Jr. is assassinated.

One thing I'd love to change in this country is to reset our sense of history. I'm only half-joking when I say that for Americans history is like this:

History--anything that happened more than 48 hours ago.
Ancient history -- anything that happened more than a year ago
Antiquity -- anything that happened more than 5 years ago
Lost to the mists of time what no living person can remember -- anything that happened more than 10 years ago
The dinosaurs are the only witnesses -- Anything that happened 20 or more years ago.
You mean there was an Earth then? -- Anything that happened prior to 1970
You mean the Universe existed? -- Anything that happened prior to 1960
The Big Bang -- 1950


We act as if 1960 is a year no living person could remember but that's only 50 years ago.


Cheers
Aj

Speaking as a (formerly) "real homeless person" (though i preferred the term "houseless")

because none have come forth, I'll give you a first person account

I *DID* have: (and still do have, it's not a "home address" that legitimizes a person)

A post office box

A voter registration card

A valid driver's license

A healthier diet than some "housed" folks (heck, even myself right now -- I could afford better food then!)

An up-to-date auto insurance policy

A bank account

A life without debt



I did *NOT* ever:

Stay in a shelter

Stay in a halfway house

Make national or global current events my first stop on the information highway when availing myself of internet access

NEVER NEVER NEVER bought alcohol

NEVER NEVER NEVER bought cigarettes

NEVER NEVER NEVER bought illicit drugs of any kind

NEVER NEVER NEVER made assumptions about how "real homeless people" feel -- i.e., for me it did not HURT ME to be homeless in any way. What hurt at times was people making incredible assumptions about me, my life, and my feelings. But no, MY TRUTH did NOT hurt.

I would not feel ashamed if any of my "nots" had been "yesses" on the list, however. Hope I've dispelled some of the myths abounding about what kind of rights homeless folks have. Not everyone has *ACCESS* but no one is denied the *RIGHT* to vote, to drive, or to live without fear of being judged for living in less than what some consider "a proper home."



I'll be back after I marinate on my thoughts about how so many of you have suggested that my family and friends in arizona should suffer dire economic consequences (in other words, that my friends and family deserve to die?) because "their state" has adopted racist policies.

When anyone says "boycott a state" they are recommending bankrupting all of the residents. Bankrupt people starve to death. It's hard to move an entire family to make a political statement -- just as it is difficult for everyone HERE to move TO arizona to make a political statement.

hmm... but why *aren't* we ALL moving *TO* arizona to register to vote as arizonans to change things? How can anyone EXCEPT a privileged individual expect *others* to make sacrifices to make america better, instead of taking the bull by the horns ourselves? the ONLY pro-active measures are votes, according to this thread. So... if you're not a registered arizona voter, GET THERE AND REGISTER.

There was an article that came out a couple of days about about how next door in Nevada they are considering their own version of SB1070.

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/...ntProfile=1058 - "2 Nevada lawmakers to push for immigration law"

sooooo..... BOYCOTT ARIZONA and while you're at it, BOYCOTT NEVADA ... and BOYCOTT THE OTHER 20 STATES CONSIDERING SIMILAR MEASURES TO SB1070

http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/...s_sb_1070.html

in case everyone is unaware, the latest racist policies of arizona are driven by a rigged corporate game. I'll be back with details of that, too. early in the thread, someone named dean robert hit it on the head.

Actually no one has said or implied anything remotely like the idea that anyone should die. I will, however, reiterate that laws have consequences.

No, they are recommending putting pressure on the state of Arizona to change the law. The whole idea of a strike or a boycott isn't to ruin businesses, it is to put pressure on them. Right now, Arizona has a law that is explicitly racist and is an open invitation to racial profiling. It is meant to make a particular population feel unsafe and unwelcome and like second-class citizens. It is meant to intimidate citizens. That law must be repealed.

No one is suggesting that people move to 'make a political statement'. I do believe it would behoove Hispanics living in Arizona to find the exits but that is not about making a political statement, that is about making sure that they are safe. Whites living in Arizona have no reason to move. Let them stay. As I said last night, an exodus is a boycott by another name. I think that Hispanics should leave the state of Arizona and move somewhere they will be welcome.

Why should ANY person of color put themselves in harm's way? If it were *just* this law, maybe you would have a point but it isn't *just* this law. There's the 'no teaching ethnic studies in school' regulation with its attendant 'no teaching if you have a 'thick' accent' provision. There's the billboards showing a Hispanic family as "the biggest threat facing our nation". And then there's this gem; on 3 Oct 2009 an interracial couple was walking through a park and a man came up to them and asked the black man what he was doing with a white woman. They walked on, he got into a car, followed them and shot them. She died, he lived. In 2009. Over interracial dating. In Arizona.

Except that sword cuts both ways. It is always people of color who have to exercise infinite patience. At each step in the last century, black people were told we had to wait. ONE day, but not today, we could go to any school. ONE day, but not too soon, we could live in any neighborhood. ONE day, but wait for it to come, we will be able to marry anyone we love. And on and on and on. Even today, if someone says something offensive it is always and forever people of color who are supposed to be patient, forbearing and understanding.

Votes have consequences or they should have. Arizona, a state in a democratic republic, elected people who passed a law that in 2010 makes a segment of the population second-class citizens. The state, by its democratic behavior, made a choice and yes it absolutely sucks that people who made another choice will feel pain because of it. They don't deserve it. But neither does the Hispanic mother deserve to have to fear being pulled over by a cop when she was just running down to get a few items at the grocery store and so doesn't have her birth cert on her. For that matter, neither does the Hispanic father who may have to hold it together while he is humiliated by some cop who asks him questions along the "so how long have you been in this country" line. You have not truly tasted of life's bittersweet tragedy until you have had to watch your father hold it in while his very dignity is assaulted in front of his family. They don't deserve it either.

I'm not talking about people in the country without proper documents or people who have overstayed their visa. I'm talking about people whose bloodlines have lived on the same patch of land since not long after the last ice age ended. They are citizens. I'm talking about people born here. They, too, are citizens. After the Civil Rights movement, I and many others thought, it would appear incorrectly, that we had at long last settled the issue in this country of whether you could make laws designed to make a group of people second-class citizens based upon race. Since Arizona has chosen to take a step backward, I think two things should happen until the state comes to its senses:

1) Every Hispanic person who *can* leave the state should give very serious consideration to finding a new zip code.

2) People should not vacation in Arizona, organizations should not have their conventions in Arizona.

The people who *own* the businesses in Arizona want to continue doing so. If they begin to feel the pressure, they *will* pressure their government to repeal the bill. That's how strikes and boycotts work. That's why they are used.

Any state that passes a similar law should have to fear the exact same set of consequences. Perhaps that would give them a moment of pause.

They may be driven by that and I think that a number of us are aware of it. However, that does not change, substantially, the effects on the ground. Racist laws should have consequences for states that pass them and NOT just the sole consequence that the ethnic minority targeted by them gets to live in fear.

Cheers
Aj

There were two more points I wanted to make on this subject.

1) A number of posters have suggested that anyone upset about SB 1070 should move to Arizona so that they can vote against the bill. There's only one problem: SB stands for Senate Bill. This was a bill passed by the Arizona legislature not by popular referendum. The critique several of us have leveled at the voters of Arizona has to do with them electing a governor and a number of state representatives who supported the bill and, in doing so, giving their explicit approval of that bill. Which leads to the core point: why on Earth should people not living in Arizona move there when 53.51% of Arizonans didn't bother to vote! The numbers I'm working with aren't something I pulled out of the thin air, those numbers are available on the web.

The numbers I used came from here: http://www.azprogress.org/content/vo...lowest-yuma-co

So it seems to me that the people who should be pushed to the polls aren't those of us who live outside of Arizona and have no interest in relocating but those who live INSIDE Arizona who were comfortable enough with the prospect of Ms Brewer being elected (she was appointed governor when Napolitano left for Washington) that they stayed home. Which is, as has been said a number of times now, a vote for whomever wins by default.

2) This idea that boycotts are bad. If you really believe that then you need to seriously question any reflexive admiration you might express for Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King, Jr. The reason why you know the name of Parks is BECAUSE her action of asserting her dignity and being arrested for it, precipitated the Birmingham Bus Boycott. Was the Birmingham Bus Boycott an attempt, as one poster has characterized the Arizona boycott, an attempt to kill the families of Birmingham Bus company workers? Martin Luther King came to national prominence *because* of the boycott. As I said a few days ago, I'm sure that if you had polled the workers and families connected to the Birmingham bus company in 1955 you would have heard that they were opposed to the boycott even if they thought that blacks should be able to sit anywhere. They would have said that there must be some OTHER way to get the bus company to change policy (without actually saying what that might be) and if blacks were just a little more patient one day, in the full measure of time, justice would be had.

While we're on that subject, boycotts and strikes work because business owners want to keep making money. They will change unjust policies or, in this case, lobby the government to do so. If Nevada passes such a law (and I hope that the Nevada legislature will learn from the lesson of Arizona) let them. And let Nevada face a tourism boycott. Nevada's economy rises or falls on tourism and tourism alone. Suck the tourism out and you've sucked all of the oxygen out of the Nevada economy. I think that as hotels in Vegas and Reno saw their bookings dry up and particularly as conferences moved from Vegas to other cities in, say, California or Utah or Oregon that the chamber of commerce would make their displeasure known to the legislature in a heartbeat. The bill wouldn't survive the ink drying.

There is a reason why plutocrats hate strikes and boycotts--they can be *very* effective. I realize that after 40 years of labor being decimated in America, we no longer realize what the Europeans do--that striking is an effective way to get business to behave itself--but perhaps we need to relearn that lesson.

Good lord!!


Why would any Latina/o move to a state where being one makes you a TARGET???

I don't understand your logic on this, the boycott SHOULD put a pinch on a State that is and has been allowing it to happen. They are slowly trying to white wash AWAY our cultures with this bill, their ugly no ethnic studies people NADA!

No one has said:

"die Arizonians die"

Now, should they suffer some consequences? Yes, this law is one step closer to ethic cleansing. That's where the frustration lies for me, how you can not see this is odd to me.

I know this is going to be a screwed up mess quote wise, because I do not understand the multi quote function. I may have to delete it if it's too messy, or there's always that ignore button for those who find it too cumbersome, aj i may pm you if you please
*****
---End Quote---
Actually no one has said or implied anything remotely like the idea that anyone should die. I will, however, reiterate that laws have consequences.


the consequences you mentioned, could cost lives. there is no need for casualties. how much acceptable collateral damage will you allow?

*****
---Quote---
When anyone says "boycott a state" they are recommending bankrupting all of the residents.
---End Quote---
No, they are recommending putting pressure on the state of Arizona to change the law. The whole idea of a strike or a boycott isn't to ruin businesses, it is to put pressure on them. Right now, Arizona has a law that is explicitly racist and is an open invitation to racial profiling. It is meant to make a particular population feel unsafe and unwelcome and like second-class citizens. It is meant to intimidate citizens. That law must be repealed.


how do 'THEY' recommend putting pressure on a state? it's the state legislature that needs to make the changes, not the innocent citizens, second class, third class, steerage, everyone went down on the titanic, too. i understand the racist laws and their intended target, but everyone will get blood spatter on them before this boycott is through. no one here is saying that anyone deserves to feel unsafe or unwelcome. but a boycott, intimidates ALL of the inhabitants of the state. how does that resolve the situation? 6 million wrongs make a right? the laws must be repealed, yes i agree wholeheartedly. but 'THEY' won't do it successfully by boycotting anything/everything associated with arizona. people i know and love in the state, regardless of their color or immigration status, will be impacted negatively and unnecessarily.

*****
---Quote---
Bankrupt people starve to death. It's hard to move an entire family to make a political statement -- just as it is difficult for everyone HERE to move TO arizona to make a political statement.
---End Quote---
No one is suggesting that people move to 'make a political statement'. I do believe it would behoove Hispanics living in Arizona to find the exits but that is not about making a political statement, that is about making sure that they are safe. Whites living in Arizona have no reason to move. Let them stay. As I said last night, an exodus is a boycott by another name. I think that Hispanics should leave the state of Arizona and move somewhere they will be welcome.

You said earlier in post #921, this:

"I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that the good people of the Birmingham Bus Company did not think that the Birmingham Bus Boycott was the answer for the problem of blacks sitting in the back of the bus. I'm going to also suggest that the good people of the Woolworth's company didn't think that a boycott of the Woolworth's lunch counter was the right way to deal with that manifestation of segregation. The targets of a boycott NEVER think that it's a good idea--that's kind of the whole point of a boycott is to motivate people to change the conditions that precipitate the boycott.

However, I'm all ears. If a boycott isn't the answer and a mass exodus of Hispanics isn't the answer, what is?"

I gave you my best solution, to fill the state with a majority of card-totin registered voters who could put the legislature's feet to the fire. It's not a bus company that's writing bad laws in AZ, it's not Woolworth's doing it either. If you say boycott the state, it sounds too large and too vague for people to grasp. But how does one boycott a legislature? Well, there are a couple of ways. Ringing the hook off the legislator's desk has usually proved fruitless -- but people can try that. What COULD work is already being done, which is involving the Department Of Justice and the US Supreme court to decide a couple of matters pertaining to the issue.

A boycott is defined as "a form of consumer activism involving the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for political reasons."

An exodus is defined as "a journey by a large group to escape from a hostile environment"

I can't find any references showing the two are linked or any way similar. But for the sake of argument, if you do advocate hispanics finding the exits, what's to say they would be any safer in another state? i mean no disrespect, but i cannot figure out what state of the US, if any, has rolled out the welcome mat for hispanics, whether they are in the US legally or not. this is why i suggest to fill the state up with a majority of fair minded people who can push a recall of Brewer, for one who could strike down what she signed -- but I suspect her replacement would be a similar clone. if all hispanics leave Arizona, do they get to come back after the smoke has all cleared? if you say they are welcome in one of the 50 states, would it not be similar to the ghettos of WWII?

*****
---Quote---
hmm... but why *aren't* we ALL moving *TO* arizona to register to vote as arizonans to change things?
---End Quote---
Why should ANY person of color put themselves in harm's way? If it were *just* this law, maybe you would have a point but it isn't *just* this law. There's the 'no teaching ethnic studies in school' regulation with its attendant 'no teaching if you have a 'thick' accent' provision. There's the billboards showing a Hispanic family as "the biggest threat facing our nation". And then there's this gem; on 3 Oct 2009 an interracial couple was walking through a park and a man came up to them and asked the black man what he was doing with a white woman. They walked on, he got into a car, followed them and shot them. She died, he lived. In 2009. Over interracial dating. In Arizona.

no one should be put in harm's way. i'm not saying people of a specific color should move to arizona and register to vote. i'm saying everyone eligible to vote regardless of color COULD move to arizona, to work to change the laws that need to be changed. by keeping a white moneyed elite majority, arizona will *never* be safe for people of color. or for anyone except the moneyed elite, really. just as school busing did not improve racial relations, neither will promotion of the busing of hispanics OUT (or however you propose to move them out) of arizona. the billboard you mentioned is meant to pander to the worst kind of fear, and that is the fear that the "HAVES" could lose the value of their property or their supposed 'supremacy'. the incident in october 2009, has been re-enacted in almost every state of the union in the past decade (or longer). those stories are told to instill fear. to keep people of color down. yes, sadly they are true. but if everyone of color leaves arizona in 2010, it's a win-win for the white supremacists of arizona, and a lose-lose proposition for every other state in the union, because the copy-cat laws will really get rolling across the country.

*****

---Quote---
How can anyone EXCEPT a privileged individual expect *others* to make sacrifices to make america better, instead of taking the bull by the horns ourselves? the ONLY pro-active measures are votes, according to this thread. So... if you're not a registered arizona voter, GET THERE AND REGISTER.
---End Quote---
Except that sword cuts both ways. It is always people of color who have to exercise infinite patience. At each step in the last century, black people were told we had to wait. ONE day, but not today, we could go to any school. ONE day, but not too soon, we could live in any neighborhood. ONE day, but wait for it to come, we will be able to marry anyone we love. And on and on and on. Even today, if someone says something offensive it is always and forever people of color who are supposed to be patient, forbearing and understanding.

i hear you. i think the only thing african american people never hear is accusations that they are illegal immigrants. these days, it seems like everywhere i go, people complain about illegal immigrants. undocumented, workers and otherwise. surprisingly, some people who have made some of those comments to me were people of color other than hispanic. millions of americans are now out of work, and they point to everyone for blame -- but first, the ones who "took their jobs." When logic shows them that it's overwhelmingly true that corporations are opting out of using american workers and choose overseas labor instead, they still don't get it. there is a blind spot. i'm not asking anyone to have infinite patience. if (A) votes are the answer to changing arizona's laws, then (B) the fastest way to do that is to fill the state with residents who will vote to do the right thing.

Or, "vote early and vote often" as they once used to say in Chicago. I'm really surprised no one has suspected Brewer of having a 'fix' in the registrar's office, counting her ballots twice for every one of Goddard's.

*****


Votes have consequences or they should have. Arizona, a state in a democratic republic, elected people who passed a law that in 2010 makes a segment of the population second-class citizens. The state, by its democratic behavior, made a choice and yes it absolutely sucks that people who made another choice will feel pain because of it. They don't deserve it. But neither does the Hispanic mother deserve to have to fear being pulled over by a cop when she was just running down to get a few items at the grocery store and so doesn't have her birth cert on her. For that matter, neither does the Hispanic father who may have to hold it together while he is humiliated by some cop who asks him questions along the "so how long have you been in this country" line. You have not truly tasted of life's bittersweet tragedy until you have had to watch your father hold it in while his very dignity is assaulted in front of his family. They don't deserve it either.


i understand that this is a very emotional issue, and is the crux of the matter. no one in america is so superior that they have the right, just because they wear a badge, to speak condescendingly to a fellow human being. the state's democratic behavior voted a buffoon into office, she is a pawn who was put into office by big moneyed interests. but the state's democratic behavior has no say on sb1070. it's not a ballot initiative. every person who I know personally in Arizona is against SB1070 -- and they cannot undo it. Every one of them did not vote for Brewer, but she's there sitting in the governor's chair.

*****

I'm not talking about people in the country without proper documents or people who have overstayed their visa. I'm talking about people whose bloodlines have lived on the same patch of land since not long after the last ice age ended. They are citizens. I'm talking about people born here. They, too, are citizens. After the Civil Rights movement, I and many others thought, it would appear incorrectly, that we had at long last settled the issue in this country of whether you could make laws designed to make a group of people second-class citizens based upon race. Since Arizona has chosen to take a step backward, I think two things should happen until the state comes to its senses:

1) Every Hispanic person who *can* leave the state should give very serious consideration to finding a new zip code.

2) People should not vacation in Arizona, organizations should not have their conventions in Arizona.

The people who *own* the businesses in Arizona want to continue doing so. If they begin to feel the pressure, they *will* pressure their government to repeal the bill. That's how strikes and boycotts work. That's why they are used.



I really hear what you're saying. It's a huge step backwards. I understand too, about harrassing people of color simply because of their color. It has happened to members of my own family who live in Arizona and elsewhere. They are citizens too, some of them for generations and some of them are first generation, they all have 'papers' and now they have an added burden of having to carry a shitload of paper around but even larger than the wad of paper is the pervasive fear. This pressure you say business owners should put on the government to change the laws, how does one go about pressuring the government when the legislature is being driven by a corporate machine?

*****

---Quote---
There was an article that came out a couple of days about about how next door in Nevada they are considering their own version of SB1070.

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/...ntProfile=1058 - "2 Nevada lawmakers to push for immigration law"

sooooo..... BOYCOTT ARIZONA and while you're at it, BOYCOTT NEVADA ... and BOYCOTT THE OTHER 20 STATES CONSIDERING SIMILAR MEASURES TO SB1070
---End Quote---
Any state that passes a similar law should have to fear the exact same set of consequences. Perhaps that would give them a moment of pause.


I'm afraid that the results of that could be widespread panic, not a moment of pause.


*****

---Quote---
in case everyone is unaware, the latest racist policies of arizona are driven by a rigged corporate game. I'll be back with details of that, too. early in the thread, someone named dean robert hit it on the head.
---End Quote---
They may be driven by that and I think that a number of us are aware of it. However, that does not change, substantially, the effects on the ground. Racist laws should have consequences for states that pass them and NOT just the sole consequence that the ethnic minority targeted by them gets to live in fear.


Where you and I differ on "the ground" aspect is that to me, the first order of business is do everything possible to reverse the law. Not engage in fear-mongering and telling people to leave the state and boycott anything/everything Arizonan. Unfortunately, reversing bad law takes time. But hasty decisions such as moving away, or wishing ill consequences on 6 million people is not the answer, for *me*. I understand you have your reasons, and I read them several times to really understand them and know there are no pat answers to a challenge of monumental proportions.

These links tell a little bit about who drove the campaign money machine for brewer, and why:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...igrants-profit

http://mydd.com/users/restore-fairne...mmigration-law

The states that are eyeing SB1070 are not doing it because they hate illegal immigrants, the Pollyanna in me believes it in my soul. But since they have learned that a majority of "white americans" have this knee jerk reaction to immigration, they go for the lowest common denominator which in this case, also happens to be the largest voting bloc. Whether it's a state bill or a voter initiative, the copy cats know their game better than we do. I can't remember what the statistic is, but in not too many years, whites will be in the minority in the US. During Clinton's presidency (when it looked like queers might actually gain the right to legally wed in a few states), we were blindsided with DOMA. This latest attempt to put people in their place is driven by the same thing: MONEY and PROPERTY RIGHTS.

The other states are probably being wooed by the same corporate interests that are cozy with Jan Brewer. It's all about $$$! I know there is much more truth to come out, and it will be too late for some people :(


******

Who decides the consequences? How severe? For whom?

I'm not saying anyone should suffer. In fact, I am saying no one should suffer. No one should have to feel targeted, or feel fear walking or driving or even being seen. Neither should anyone feel superior to anyone else.

I *do* see the frustration on everyone's part.

The most frustrating thing to me is, if all Latino/a's leave Arizona, and all the people of color leave... then that leaves a white only state. Isn't that ethnic cleansing too? Maybe I'm just seeing that completely wrong?

Truth is until all the tentacles of systematic racism or any other ism are deeply embedded in white culture, oppressing POC will NEVER stop. So with that being the case this boycott is a voice, each protest is a voice keeping the fight for equality going.

Nothing when it comes to human and civil rights comes without some battle wounds be they economical or not.

Staying silent only kills us off faster.

Everything has a price, in the end. No one is advocating to kill anyone off faster than someone else, or to silence any one. At least, not me. I have to go for today, but thanks for your thoughts.

This law clearly marks a group of people for racial profiling, not a far cry for other monstracities to follow.

Make sense?

Here is a link to the Los Angeles Times which has an entire series dedicated to the drug wars in Mexico, "Mexico Under Seige." The series began in 2008. I have not read every article.

I struggle with what is the answer, remedy to the current global economy and it's impact on humanity. Is there a remedy? Whatever it may be, I am convinced economics are tainted with beliefs that do not play fair. Is human nature capable of consistently playing fair? Can we really shed our fear and judgement?

I suspect that many of us believe we cannot make a huge differance in matters playing across the world stage. I refuse to accept that notion. One thought and action at a time. If nothing else, I can at least pause and extend myself beyond my own personal circumstances at times.

This LA Times series is graphic. You may choose to ignore what is happening right here in North America. I think it is at our collective peril to do so.


http://projects.latimes.com/mexico-drug-war/#/its-a-war

15 years ago …
 

* bump bump *

This forum thread on immigration concerns was once the hottest forum thread to read and participate in. Some of the members who posted here might not be around anymore but by commonly held knowledge on immigration concerns and such, one (myself included) can see how there has been literally not much progress toward fixing immigration policy.

I’m bumping this thread for others to read so people can map out and connect the proverbial dots, best as one can, concerning immigration concerns today— which is at best, the biggest flaw in policies affecting humans in our country and for others across the globe.


I myself mourn the loss of particular members, in the membership here, who no longer participate in very important conversations about policies affecting not only the LGBTQ+ family but also families of non-white composition.