Yes you do....

You stated so in your original post...

You realize this whole thread is about A LOT more than just immigrations issues, that law is just more than that as well..

Kobi this law has given power to someone to pull over another human being cause their skin color makes them suspicious...

You really can't see how this is a civil rights violation?

What about the ethnic studies issue?

This is an A-OK thing with you as well???

at klan rallies.

I was listening to a podcast the other day from the Southern Poverty Law Center, and their latest report is that hate groups in the US have risen to almost 1000. Racist hate groups are focusing more on anti-immigrant stuff right now because it's an effective way of recruiting more mainstream white people during a bad economy, but racism is still at the heart of things for many of these groups.

A bit of timeline

And for those who prefer cartoons:

from the Southern Poverty Law Center (it's not *if* the law is unconstitutional, it is *how*)
 

Arizona Immigration Law Violates Constitution, Guarantees Racial Profiling

By Mary Bauer, SPLC Legal Director

Arizona’s newly adopted immigration law is brazenly unconstitutional and will undoubtedly trample upon the civil rights of residents caught in its path.

By requiring local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally, Arizona lawmakers have created a system that guarantees racial profiling. They also have usurped federal authority by attempting to enforce immigration law.

Quite simply, this law is a civil rights disaster and an insult to American values. No one in our country should be required to produce their “papers” on demand to prove their innocence. What kind of country are we becoming?

When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was asked what an undocumented immigrant looks like, she responded: “I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like. I can tell you that I think there are people in Arizona who assume that they know what an illegal immigrant looks like."

We all know what the outcome of all this double-talk will be. People with brown skin – regardless of whether they are U.S. citizens or legal residents – will be forced to prove their legal status to law enforcement officers time and again. One-third of Arizona’s population – those who are Latino – will be designated as second-class citizens, making anyone with brown skin a suspect even if their families have called Arizona home for generations.
Given the authors of this law, no one should be surprised about its intended targets. The law was drafted by a lawyer for the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), whose founder has warned of a “Latin onslaught” and complained about Latinos’ alleged low “educability.” FAIR has accepted $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund, a racist foundation that was set up by Nazi sympathizers to fund studies of eugenics, the science of selective breeding to produce a “better” race. The legislation was sponsored by state Senator Russell Pearce, who once e-mailed an anti-Semitic article from the neo-Nazi National Alliance website to supporters.

Making matters worse, lawmakers have allowed citizens to sue local law enforcement agencies that they believe are not adequately enforcing the new law. One can be sure that FAIR and its proxies are salivating at the prospects.

The law is not only unconstitutional, it’s bad public policy and will interfere with effective policing in Arizona’s communities. That’s why the legislation was opposed by the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police. As Latinos grow more fearful of law enforcement, they will be more reluctant to report crimes, and witnesses will be less likely to cooperate with police. Criminals will target the Latino community, confident their victims will keep quiet.

Lawmakers in other states are eager to replicate this ill-advised law. Their frustration with current immigration policy is understandable, but this system must be remedied by our Congress, which should enact fair immigration reform. The federal government must craft a policy that repairs our broken immigration system and, at the same time, protects our most cherished values. States that attempt to follow Arizona’s example will only succeed in sowing fear, discord and intolerance in our communities while undermining law enforcement and inviting costly constitutional challenges.

Learn more
The Tanton Files: Nativist Leader's Racist Past Exposed
The Teflon Nativists: FAIR Marked by Ties to White Supremacy

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...cial-profiling

:fireman:
The idea that a law that is unconstitutional in nature and allows US citizens with skin color other than white to be asked for documentation for entry into the US is just plain bigoted. This is not any way to begin any sort of immigration reform! Not even close! NADA!!!

Yes, there are problems with immigration policy and what goes on our borders. Drug trafficking, kidnapping and other crimes against people are not something I support at all. Yet, it is the job of the federal government to enact immigration law and enforce it. States (and other municipalities) doing this period is unconstitutional, period. There are reasons the constitution calls for this.

I have feelings for those immigrants that have done all of the necessary legal requirements to enter the US in all of this. Yet, it is so clear that corporate and big agri-business are the real culprits here. And frankly, they have a lot of blood on their hands with the treatment of illegal workers being brought here in inhumane ways to work for shit wages and no benefits.

When will people take off the class blinders and get why people are so desperate to take these kinds of chances in order to feed their families? And that the millions of undocumented immigrants here today have really been indentured servants (remember this phrase from history?) based upon racism. Just the fact of the differences between the feelings US citizens have about the northern and southern borders of the US tell us it is racist!

Look at the parallels between indentured servant contracts during US colonial times (and other periods in our history) and what goes on now!

Immigration reform will have to grant amnesty and a path to citizenship for those already here that are undocumented. There is no way that over 12million people can be displaced and deported! Isn’t going to happen (and should not). It is just time to see this and do it! And develop sane immigration policies at the federal level that must be observed by every state. Then, the tax base widens, crime decreases, etc.


An indentured servant was a worker, typically a laborer or tradesman, under contract to an employer for a fixed period of time..........

Companies that hire illegals do this all of the time.... they are at the heart of this problem and have been getting away with this for many years! And we have paid less for produce and service off the backs of what are really people enslaved by a form of indentured service!!!


http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.c...migrants3.html


It just makes me crazy to hear that anything like the AZ law is in any form immigration reform. It isn't, it is racism in action and an insult to the Constitition of this country which many non-white people have lost their lioves fighting for along with whites. All of which have immigrant roots with one exception only- Native Americans. Oh, and there is a hell of a lot to discuss about this in terms of border states like CA that were part of Mexico at one time.

Take your blinders off!

Okay then, it would appear you are far more sanguine about American citizens being treated as criminals when they are not for no other reason than that their genetics make them stand out from the majority population than I am. The Arizona law is no more a good starting place as Plessey v. Ferguson was a good start in making America a place of more equal opportunity and for much the same reasons.

So you didn't say the following?

Both education and health care count as social services.

Okay then if it is a labor problem deal with it as a *labor* problem and not as an immigration problem. The issue of outsourcing and a race to the bottom as far as wages and benefits is an issue, deserving of concern, in its own right and has the benefit of being race-neutral as well.

Well, that is OUR fault. WE have created a society where the next worse thing you can be is an 'egghead' (Poindexter, nerd, geek). It is not because of foreigners that native-born Americans aren't majoring in the hard sciences, mathematics or engineering--it's because Americans think that the those subjects are *hard* and why spend the best part of a decade getting an advanced degree in, say, nuclear physics when you could get a degree that is far less work? The work still needs to be done and if we aren't pushing our kids to go into those fields then employers will look far afield for them.

No, not strange at all--unless, of course, you cannot make a useful separation between a national government, the nation and the people of that nation. It appears that Americans, on the whole, have a singular inability to do so. So, for Americans, the Iranian government, the Iranian people and Persian civilization are all the same thing functionally indistinguishable from one another. So if the Iranian government takes some action that is harmful to America or Americans, then from our point of view the Iranian PEOPLE did this and therefore Persian culture is irredeemably corrupt, violent, etc. So from that point of view it IS ironic that people would want to come to America because, from the point of view implied in your statement, what the American government does is what the American people has done which is what America is all about and therefore it WOULD look ironic for people to immigrate here. However, if you have a more subtle--let's call it--view of things then you can realize that there is what the American government does, there is what the American people do and there is what America stands for. America's government is not particularly popular around the globe and certainly not popular in South or Central America. The American people, on the other hand, are not particularly hated around the globe and the idea of America is positively loved! So it isn't ironic although, from a certain point of view, I can understand why it might appear so.

As a quick aside, this complicated view of America--as opposed to the simplistic view of either you think America is good or you think America is bad--is something I think that most people of color in this country have to develop to greater or lesser degrees. You see, it's impossible for someone like me to ignore what happened to my parents or grandparents no matter HOW convenient that might be for the majority if I were to develop historical amnesia. However, since I can't do that AND since America is my home I have to come to some form of peace with American history and the American present. It requires being very cold-eyed realistic about where we've come from and where we are. So I can be VERY critical of America while still being patriotic.

I'm not sure that the CIA's involvement in opposition to the civil rights movement was particularly significant. I certainly can think of no instances where the CIA was implicated in the assassination of civil rights workers--unless, of course, you are going to argue that MLK, Medgar Evers or those freedom riders were killed by the CIA. It's one thing to have dirty tricks and black bag jobs carried out against your movement--it's another thing entirely to have people assassinated. For one thing, if your leadership is being assassinated they wind up being inconveniently dead which, to put it mildly, seriously reduces their leadership effectiveness.

I'm not arguing that people are helpless. I'm arguing that it is incomplete to put the blame for the state of Latin America solely or even primarily on people who are immigrating OUT of that region by saying that their nations would be far better off if they stayed at home. To say that, for instance, them staying in Nicaragua circa 1981 would have made Nicaragua a better place *despite* American-financed guerillas (the contras) and death squads making life in that nation a living hell is to actually ascribe to these immigrants superhuman powers. My reading of history--which may be wrong--is that the assassination of national leaders who are popularly elected has a dampening effect on the prospects of a nation. This is particularly true if it happens repeatedly whenever that popularly elected leader proposes some kind of reforms to make the nation in question better and more amenable to the locals instead of some US corporation or another. Your reading of history may, of course, vary.

It seems, actually, that you do adhere to the rhetoric on one side. You're correct, there is always another explanation or interpretation but that doesn't mean that this other explanation and/or interpretation is correct. There was another explanation and interpretation for segregation in America---that interpretation was that blacks were *inherently* inferior and Jim Crow was no worse treatment than what we deserved. I see no reason why I should give any credence to that interpretation but it IS another interpretation and explanation for why segregation lasted until the last third of the 20th century. There were studies done to support segregation that showed that blacks were inferior. One needn't do any studies, in fact, one could point to, for instance, elite schools and say "well, no black has ever gone to this or that university and therefore blacks are not capable of getting into that university". As a statement of evidence that would hold up well-enough. Let's say the university is a tier-1 school and getting into a tier-1 school as a non-legacy admit is a pretty good sign that someone has enough brain cells to rub together and generate high-quality heat. No blacks were enrolled at said school in some year. Therefore, blacks were not mentally capable of handling the work at that university. QED. Now, is that a legitimate viewpoint? No. Is it a reasonable interpretation of the data? No. But it WAS an alternative explanation to the idea that certain universities would not admit blacks.

We've gotten to a place in this country that just because someone CAN argue a contrary point we think both contrary points are legitimate and valid. I refuse to buy into this idea any longer and I also refuse to pretend to buy into it. If you argue that the dogs are fish and I argue that dogs are mammals one of us is wrong--is your argument a different point of view? Yes, but that doesn't mean it is a correct point of view.

Just having diverse ideas does not make a country great or strong. The ability to sift through diverse ideas and separate the good ideas from the bad ideas does but not merely the presence of different ideas.

votes to look out for in regards to AZ
 

Supreme Court to review Arizona law

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is
entering the nation's charged debate over
immigration, agreeing to hear a challenge
from business and civil liberties groups to
an Arizona law that cracks down on
employers who hire undocumented workers.

The justices on Monday accepted an appeal
from the Chamber of Commerce, American
Civil Liberties Union and others to a lower
court ruling that upheld Arizona's law. The
measure requires employers to verify the
eligibility of prospective employees through
a federal database called E-Verify and
imposes sanctions on companies that
knowingly hire undocumented workers.

Then-Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano signed
the measure into law in 2007. Napolitano
now is Homeland Security secretary.

The law is separate from the recently
adopted Arizona immigration law that is
intended to drive illegal immigrants out of
Arizona and also is being challenged as
unconstitutional.

In the case under high court review, the
chamber and ACLU argued that Arizona and
other states that have imposed similar laws
are overstepping their authority. Only
Congress, they said, may legislate about
immigration.

The Obama administration weighed in last
month on the side of the chamber and ACLU,
also arguing that federal immigration law
trumps state efforts.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld the law.

The federal law that created the E-Verify
system in 1996 made it voluntary and
sought to balance efforts to discourage
illegal immigration with concerns about
discrimination against all immigrants.

Argument will take place in the court term
that begins in October.

The case is Chamber of Commerce v.
Candelaria, 09-115.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...sanctions.html

I was a little shocked and disappointed when I first read this. Isn't the diversity of our ideas the cornerstone of our intellectual development? Isn't our lively debate over issues appropriately rife with diverse ideas? It would seem to me that if we subscribe to a few relatively homogeneous ideas, we're gunna be in deep doo doo. I appreciate all of the research and the posting of detail after detail after detail, but quantity does not necessarily outstrip other voices or their validity.




Who exactly would we appoint as the arbiter of what is good and bad? Should I expect someone to sift for me or should I rely on my own ability to do that? I'd rather do it myself, thankyouverymuch. I read, digest and take away what I find valuable. I expect everyone else to do the same. I can't fathom squashing other diverse viewpoints simply because I have questions. There is certainly no shortage of folks willing to challenge and debate the validity and the views so I'm not sure what you are advocating for here.

critical thinking, at least that was my read.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying we should have homogenous ideas. I AM saying that there is a difference--a qualitative difference--between good ideas and bad ideas. Not every diverse idea was or is a good one. For example, please explain to me every single benefit that was gained by America--as a whole--by the ideology behind segregation. How was America made stronger by the idea--just to take one example--that black men were inherently dangerous and that for the protection of white women there needed to be social rules *seriously* proscribing the interactions between black men and white women. Not how we were made stronger by getting over that idea or proscribing its inaction. How did the mere *presence* of this idea make America stronger? The argument that Kobi and, it would appear you, are making is that merely having diverse ideas--regardless of what those ideas might be--is the strength of America. It doesn't matter if those ideas promote beneficial social attitudes or baleful ones, just the diversity of those ideas is strong enough. By that light, according to this argument, an America without active racist ideology is LESS strong, vibrant, healthy than an America *with* active racist ideology. I strenuously disagree unless and until someone can explain to me what, to take another example, the mere presence of anti-miscegenation laws, codes and social sanction did to make America stronger. (Again, please don't say that we became stronger because we had to overcome those things because that would be saying that the suffering of the people who actually had to live under the system of Jim Crow was justified so that we could say we got rid of Jim Crow. I would argue, in case anyone is tempted to make that argument, that we would have been better off without a system of segregation to get over.)




One can have the idea that there are bad ideas without having to have an arbiter of what is good or bad. If, for instance, you hold to the belief that, to stay in the ballpark of what we're discussing here, black people are simultaneously unqualified affirmative action hires, drug dealers and welfare cheats and there is no *actual* empirical evidence to sustain that belief I'm going to call that a bad idea. Beliefs about how the world works--the world all of us live in--that are not empirically supported are probably not good ideas. Let me also be clear, I'm not saying we should make these ideas illegal--I think that good information can drive out bad information if allowed to do so. However, good information cannot do so if we decide that 'all human beings are and should be equal before the law' and 'all white people should be equal before the law but no black people should be equal before the law in the same way that whites are' are both good ideas, both of which are worthy of consideration and neither of which there is any metric by which we can distinguish what is preferable. The argument you appear to be making here, is that there is no way to distinguish those two beliefs and no basis upon which a society could choose which is preferable. I disagree.

Quote:

I read, digest and take away what I find valuable. I expect everyone else to do the same. I can't fathom squashing other diverse viewpoints simply because I have questions. There is certainly no shortage of folks willing to challenge and debate the validity and the views so I'm not sure what you are advocating for here.

Why on Earth is it that people consider arguing a point vigorously is considered squashing of other viewpoints? I can't, for the life of me, see why that should be the case. What I am saying is this:

For most all of my adult life and probably going back a little further than that, Americans--my parochial interest here--have behaved as if the only way to have social harmony is to treat every idea as being equally valid, all opinions as being equally correct, and all ideologies as being equally fair. We have behaved as if there is no *actual* reason to choose an ideology that promotes tolerance and equal justice over one that promotes intolerance and favoring the majority at the expense of the minority. Now, I want to be clear I am NOT saying that either you or Kobi or anyone else in this discussion or reading these words is a racist. I AM saying that the ideology you are espousing, that all ideas--regardless of what they are, how sound they are, how well they map to the real world or what their effects are--add to the diversity and strength of America. So in that construction, the ideas of the Klan or the neo-Nazis add to the strength of America and there is, in fact, no way to decide whether or not we should prefer the views of George Wallace or Martin Luther King, Jr. circa 1965. What's more we have taken the absolutely insane (to me) position that any views that anyone holds are valid for no better reason than that someone holds them. I hate to break this to you but George Wallace and Martin Luther King, Jr. held fundamentally different views in 1965--diametrically opposed views, in fact. One of them was wrong. I would argue that it was George Wallace who was wrong and that America would have been better off if his ideas about segregation and the necessity of it had never taken root in this country.

What I am saying is that I have grown weary of pretending that opinions that are born out of incorrect information are as good (read useful/valid/comporting well with reality) as opinions born out of correct information. I'm not going to play that game anymore. I'm not going to pretend that there aren't ideas that are wrong--like segregation.

One practical consequence of this cognitive corner we've painted ourselves into is that we now have a generation of people who *reflexively* say that they are not racist because they know being a racist is something they shouldn't want to be but they cannot articulate WHY racism is wrong. They just know that the socially acceptable attitude is that racism is wrong. Thus, you can have laws or statements that are blatantly racist and the people pushing the laws or propounding these statements genuinely believe that they aren't racists because they aren't using, for instance, the 'n-word' or the 's-word'.

Yes, apretty, critical thinking is *precisely* what I'm advocating for.

I am, pretty much, a free speech fundamentalist. Outside of advocating immediate violent action (we hate group X, we have bats and knives, they don't, there's a group of them over there let's go get 'em!) and child pornography I'm pretty content to let anyone say, print, write, speak, sing, publish, broadcast or post any damn thing the spirit moves them to do. That does NOT, however, mean that I have to give credence to that idea or treat it as if, on its face, it must be true or valid or worthwhile just because someone else believes that to be the case.

Again, taking segregation and anti-miscegenation as my examples. Firstly, I have to say that one thing I find, ironic, is that people who will reflexively praise Martin Luther King, Jr. for his vision don't understand something very core about his vision (or the vision of my parents). It is this (and it is my vision as well): black people are human beings and deserving of the full package of rights, responsibilities, duties and obligations of any citizen. No matter how many people might say that I am not, I am not obliged to give those ideas any kind of quarter. Just because person X thinks that the only reason I am where I am is because I'm an affirmative action hire who is unqualified for their job does not mean that I, at any point, need to sit down and think "maybe their right". I see nothing in Martin Luther King's speeches that ever led me to believe that he thought that Bull Connor or George Wallace might have a point and that he thought SNCC or any other civil rights group should perhaps consider that maybe segregation and anti-miscegenation was correct and best for all parties concerned. King's vision was uncompromising on that point. Today many would call King closed-minded because he wasn't willing to ever grant "well, maybe Buckley is right when he writes that blacks shouldn't have the vote". I don't call that closed-minded, I call it having clarity of vision and the courage of his convictions.

I am really advocating three things--clarity of vision and communication, courage of our conviction, and critical thinking.

I am not interested in pretending that Fred Phelps might just have a point that queers are hell bound. So I won't.

I am not interested in pretending that the ideas that queers are more likely to be child molesters and that this myth (which is wrong) is as valid a point of view as the reality that queers are no more likely to abuse children then anyone else in the population. So I won't.

I am SO convinced that I am a full human being--capable of both good and evil, kindness and malice, member of a species that is, at once, the most beautiful and the ugliest creature on this planet--that I will not give credence to any ideology that states otherwise.

Lastly, I think that ideas are important. If ideas don't matter then it really shouldn't concern us if good ideas are drowned out by bad ideas. We needn't go to the trouble of taking ideas seriously if they don't matter. This idea that having contradictory ideas out there seems, to me, to be a way of not taking ideas seriously. If Fred Phelps' ideas don't matter then what do I care what he says as long as he isn't saying it to me? Who cares how many people listen to Phelps and believes what he says, his ideas don't matter anyway and they're just his opinion to boot. If, on the other hand, ideas matter, if they impact what happens in the real world then we should take ideas seriously and put some kind of care into both choosing ideas and developing criteria upon which to choose them.

So let me ask everyone here these questions:

Do you think that a world in which it is commonly believed that queer people are a threat to children is the same as one in which queer people are not believed to be a threat?

Do you think that a country in which Hispanics are thought to illegal aliens invading 'our' country is the same kind of country in which Hispanics aren't thought of in that manner?

If you don't believe they are equivalent then you have *some* kind of criteria for telling the difference between a bad idea and a good idea. If you do believe that they are the same then why should any person, any community, any nation choose one set of ideas over the other set?

Sabine:

If it doesn't matter what the idea is, if the only thing that really matters is that there's a diversity of ideas, can you give me a reason why any given person shouldn't hold racist ideas? Can you give me a reason why we should prefer a society that does not have racial segregation over one that does? Not what the *law* proscribes but what we might want to prefer as a society even IF the law did not state it expressly? Can you give me a reason why we should promote tolerance over racism if what is important is that there is diversity of ideas? Because if what matters is that there is a lively debate over ideas then we should want a society where racist ideology is given a foothold. We should make certain that we balance out the teaching of tolerance with the teaching of racism so people here 'both sides'. We should, in our teaching, make certain that we do not favor either side--we should treat the ideas that all people should be treated fairly and the idea that some people should be treated unfairly as being functionally equivalent for one another.

I'm taking you at your word, Sabine, that the words you use mean what they mean--that what we should want is the maximum amount of diversity of ideas without giving much consideration as to whether those ideas are good or bad, true or false, factual or non-factual. So should we choose between tolerance and racism? If so, why?

Cheers
Aj

Some questions I really hope get answered...
 

I'm curious. What WOULD it take for what is happening in Arizona to raise the hackles of people who are sanguine about it? If you think this is a good law, if you think that the directive that came down from Governor Brewer that ethnic studies programs will be eliminated was a good idea and that neither of those are any more racially charged as, say, a law against driving 100mph in a school zone is, what would make it take for you to say "okay, THIS is racially charged".

I ask because the combination of the immigration law, the ethnic studies law and an elementary school lightening the faces of children in a mural because there were too many brown faces even though the mural is of children attending the school sets off all kinds of racial red flags for me.

It seems to me that Arizona is targeting Hispanics. It seems to me that a lot of the anti-immigration rhetoric is either racially charged or walks right up to the line of it. There are clear tracks from white supremacist groups to the law, to the banning of ethnic studies and the lightening of the faces on the mural. All of that taken together should, I think, give us a moment of pause.

I would also like an explanation from anyone who cares to give one what it is about racist ideas that has made America stronger. The statement has been made and defended by at least two posters that the strength of America is the diversity of ideas with no qualifiers. I presume, then, that this applies even to ideas that are as abhorrent as racism. So if, in the name of diversity, we should want all ideas to be treated as equal such that we should not even try to argue *down* ideas that we find odious--and part of what I was called to task on by Sabine seems to be my willingness to argue down a position I disagree with--what are the strengths that America has gained from racist ideas such that we should not want those ideas eliminated and should, in fact, possibly even want them disseminated widely. Surely, no one is saying that we should have a diversity if ideas as long as some ideas aren't spread far and wide.

Now, if you are going to answer please keep in mind that the argument "America was made better by racist ideas because we overcame them" is both insulting AND callous. It is insulting because it basically takes all those who were beaten or killed in the cause of civil rights were just so many eggs that had to be broken. It is callous because it would be like saying to the woman who has lost her family, her vision and her ability to walk in a terrible car accident "you are SO lucky that this happened to you because now you have adversity to overcome". Would it not be better for that woman if her family were still alive, she could still see and still walk even if that meant she was somewhat less of an inspiring person? I would argue that her life would be better being less inspiring with her family, her eyesight and her legs. In the same vein, I would argue that although we are rightfully proud that America made slavery illegal and eventually got around to the idea that non-white citizens were ALSO citizens before the law, it would have been better for all parties concerned over the last 230 years if those issues hadn't been there for us to get over.

If anyone takes up my questions, I thank them for it in advance. I really want to know what you think America gains from racism such that an America without racism would be a weaker nation than one with it.

If a less abstract question would help here it is: imagine your son or daughter or your lover consistently made racist statements. Would you try to discourage them or would you accept those statements without criticism because those are diverse ideas? If the former, why would you discourage those ideas and try to convince your loved one that they were wrong? If the latter, then on what basis can you say that racism--even racism codified into law--is wrong? Why is it wrong?

Since the Presidential Election it seems to me that racism is coming out of the shadows in this country.

It frightens me. In a big way. I am often incredulous that the American people are okay with what they are seeing and hearing.

The very same people who use the constitution as a catch all for bad behaviors are willing to just undo the fourteenth amendment? What about section 3?

As a mother, there have been times my children have come home with some very upsetting comments. We have to sit down and hash out the WHY'S of it all. This past year proved particularly difficult, because we now live in a very white, very christian and very Republican area. My son came home with lots of thoughts from his class mates. One time he told me how the boys in his class had said that the one POC in the class was a thief because of her skin color. He'd argued and gotten in a fight and consequently was mad at ME. Luckily we were able to sit him down and work it out.

How could I not? I am often times in company that feels ok with making racial slurs/jokes whatever. I have light skin, so when the wetback jokes start flying I am often met with shock and embarassment when I call it out. Mind you something shifts, and those people don't invite me to have lunch with them or make prolonged eye contact anymore.

So why is it wrong? Because no human being deserves bad treatment based on the color of their skin. Or hair. Or religion. No one person is ever "better" than another.

Aj..........this is what it would take:

Sally gets stopped for not using a turn signal. Sally gets all nervous and cop gets suspicious that Sally might be without papers because she averted her eyes and fumbled around in her purse and looked around nervously. Cop decides that Sally's driver's license doesn't look authentic....it looks like a forgery. Cop asks Sally for her proof of citizenship.....her birth certificate. Sally of course does not carry her birth certificate on her person....she was born in this country, so was her mother and her grandmother and her great-grandmother....she don't need no stinking papers.

Cop then arrests Sally and takes her to jail....her car goes to the impound lot. It's Friday evening at 7:00pm. Sally actually gets her phone call...........she calls Mom.....Mom does not have a copy of said birth certificate and can't get one before Tuesday morning because all government offices are closed until Tuesday (Monday is a holiday....Labor Day).

Long story short............Sally sits her ass in jail until Tuesday......well maybe longer depending on how fast Mom can get birth certificate or until the DA decides she really is a citizen. Then it's gonna cost her 200-300+ bucks to get her car out of impound. And if she was supposed to be at work she may well lose her job.

Sally is a white girl and now Sally is beyond pissed at the 'papers please' laws.

The above scenario has happened to brown folks in AZ who are born in this country, whose parents and grandparents and great grandparents were born in this country.

SF:

And this right there is why I am so passionate about this. Ideas have consequences. This is why I think it matters if we are able to say "no, these ideas are wrong and here is why." It's why I can no longer pretend that ideas are neutral in their effects. Ideas have consequences and we should evaluate ideas on a number of criteria--including what those consequences are. I also believe that there are inviolate ideals--like peaceful tolerance as much as is humanly possible and without jeopardizing the lives of others. But with that comes the responsibility to defend tolerance and the tolerant society against those who would advocate for intolerance.

Ideas matter because people matter. The minute we decide that all ideas, (even the idea that not all people matter) are equally valid, equally worthy of consideration and just part of the diversity of ideas we have set up the tolerant society to fail. There are ideas we should be on the lookout for and prepared to argue against with all our passion. Like many others here, I believe that there is a non-trivial element of racism in the Arizona law. This doesn't mean I believe that anyone arguing here has racist reasons for supporting it. I believe that racism is one such idea that we should be prepared to say loudly and repeatedly, 'This idea is wrong. Here is why it is wrong. Here is why it is invalid. Here is why it is dangerous.'

I am willing to tolerate anything this side of the advocacy of intolerance. Neither democracy nor tolerance are suicide pacts.

Thank you for having the courage to call out bad ideas when they are spoken to you. I'm sorry that it costs you community but thank you nonetheless.