It's Time to Boycott Arizona

[BornBronson]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

Bronson, if you were stopped by a cop every time you drove your car and asked to produce papers, or a cop came to your door twice a week under the premise of you having some minor lawn violation and asked you to produce papers, or a cop wandered over in the middle of a romantic dinner and asked you to produce papers, would you still be "fine with that"? If you walked down the block to grab a soda from the local store and forgot your papers and ended up in jail or fined because you forgot your papers, would you still be "fine with that"? I'm just trying to gauge where you stand on pesky little things like civil liberties and such.

I wouldn't like it,but I know my civil rights and do get very loud in public if my rights are violated in anyway or form in America..my mamma taught me to be like that.


Serious question for you MsDemeanor,my posts are talking about protecting American borders.What do you suppose we do about illegals coming across into America and not getting themselves documented?.That's not too much to ask in my opinion.I mean,when I travel over to other countries I need to carry my 'papers' and show them on demand.When that happens,I don't feel like my civil liberties have been taken away.

Do you suppose we do nothing,like maybe if we ignore all the drug killings,and rapes,kidnappings taking place it will just fix itself..go away perhaps.No,I feel we need to do something about it.

Passing this law was a good start.

My eyes are tired,I am going to bed now y'all.

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by BornBronson

I wouldn't like it,but I know my civil rights and do get very loud in public if my rights are violated in anyway or form in America..my mamma taught me to be like that.

Yeah, that'll get you tossed in to jail, too.

Serious question for you MsDemeanor,my posts are talking about protecting American borders.What do you suppose we do about illegals coming across into America and not getting themselves documented?.

Your posts aren't about protecting borders (and as I said, it's border, just the one), they're about people and papers. How does demanding papers from a US citizen with Hispanic features in Flagstaff protect our southern border? We're still wondering what you feel that we're protecting our border from.

What we do about the people already here is complex. Perhaps we could start by prosecuting the employers who give them jobs? There's a firm that handles mail-in rebates for companies, you know, send in three proofs of purchase for a five dollar check sort of thing. For years and years and years, I addressed those envelopes to Young America, MN. A few years ago the address changed - to El Paso, TX. Gee, I wonder who they hire now.

Industries in country it has been dependent upon these laborers for too many years to just tell them to all leave. And "getting themselves documented" isn't an easy process, especially since the government currently doesn't have a way for them to do that.

That's not too much to ask in my opinion.I mean,when I travel over to other countries I need to carry my 'papers' and show them on demand.When that happens,I don't feel like my civil liberties have been taken away.

This isn't showing your passport to the desk clerk at a hotel in Paris or the porter at a train station in Milan, this is showing a stack of immigration documents to every cop at the 7-11.

Do you suppose we do nothing,like maybe if we ignore all the drug killings,and rapes,kidnappings taking place it will just fix itself..go away perhaps.No,I feel we need to do something about it.

Wait, wait, wait, are we discussing people who come to this country and stay so that they can have jobs, or are we talking about drug runners and gun smugglers? Two different things. We could probably cut down quite a bit on the gun smuggling if we could get rid of all the damn gun shops along the border and enforce federal wait periods at gun shows, and we could cut down quite a bit on the smuggled drugs if we'd just drop the puritanical bullshit and legalize them.

Passing this law was a good start.

My eyes are tired,I am going to bed now y'all.

My responses in red.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by BornBronson

I wouldn't like it,but I know my civil rights and do get very loud in public if my rights are violated in anyway or form in America..my mamma taught me to be like that.

Bronson:

Have you ever had a gun pulled on you by a police officer for being in the wrong neighborhood? I have. Have you ever had a cop get behind you on a surface street and then follow you for five miles even though you were obeying every traffic law and the only thing that might have gotten his notice is that you are brown-skinned with dreadlocks and driving a luxury car? I have. If you have been tailed, were you afraid--I don't mean in the "oh crap, he's going to give me a ticket" sense but in the "oh shit, let me get on the phone so at least if he pulls me over and this goes badly, there's a recording of the incident".

Serious question for you MsDemeanor,my posts are talking about protecting American borders.What do you suppose we do about illegals coming across into America and not getting themselves documented?.That's not too much to ask in my opinion.I mean,when I travel over to other countries I need to carry my 'papers' and show them on demand.When that happens,I don't feel like my civil liberties have been taken away.

You are a VISITOR in that country. We're talking about American citizens being detained and asked to show their papers. I'm sorry to tell you this, Bronson, but my wife--who is white, hazel eyed with red-hair--being stopped by the police is a completely different experience than me being stopped by the police. She is going to be treated as "Ma'am" while I'll be treated as "criminal until proven otherwise". That's just the reality of life in America for brown-skinned people. While you may be sanguine about some American citizen being stopped because she happens to share a phenotypic trait with someone from Mexico, that doesn't mean that we *should* be sanguine about that.

Do you suppose we do nothing,like maybe if we ignore all the drug killings,and rapes,kidnappings taking place it will just fix itself..go away perhaps.No,I feel we need to do something about it.

Straw man argument. Unless I was mistaken, murder, rape and kidnapping are *already* against the law in Arizona and if they are not, Federal law prohibits all of those and supercedes Arizona law. No one is saying that those crimes should not be prosecuted, but that's not what this law is about. It is about targeting a group of people who all share a particular phenotype.

I'm curious if you can answer this question for me. How is that an officer of the law is supposed to be able to tell, by looking at someone, whether or not his person's family was in Arizona for longer than whites knew that this continent existed (there's been human habitation in Arizona since *at least* 9000 BCE) and someone who is from ten miles south of the Arizona-Mexico border and who just got here last Wednesday? That's the concern. The population of the border area--the *indigenous* population--will look very similar because there's not enough of a gap for the two gene pools to have diverged. Given this reality, how do you propose the police in Arizona discern the American citizens (the descendants of the people who came across the land bridge 13K years ago, settled in Arizona around 9K years ago and have stayed put) and those who are descended from the same stock but kept going south into what became Mexico?

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by BornBronson

I wouldn't like it,but I know my civil rights and do get very loud in public if my rights are violated in anyway or form in America..my mamma taught me to be like that.

The fact that you 'get loud' if your civil rights are violated tells me that, despite your Native American card you are not treated--on a day-to-day basis--as anything other than white in this society. Why do I know that? Let's compare three circumstances---your hypothetical having your civil rights violated, my *actually* having my civil rights violated and a prominent non-white person having HIS civil rights violated.

So you would 'get very loud' in public.

Now, I was standing on the lawn of my parents house, getting ready to do my paper route--as wholesome a bit of Americana as you can imagine in the early 80's--when a cop pulled his weapon on me and demanded to see my identification to establish "what I was doing in this neighborhood". We'd lived in that neighborhood for 14 years at that point. It was the only *other* house I'd lived in. The only reason it didn't go really hard on me (I didn't have an ID on me because I was 15 and my ID consisted of a bus pass, a library card and a student ID card--all upstairs) was that I was able to name drop a superior court judges' name because of the prominence of my family in Sacramento.

Henry Louis Gates was *in his own home*, was insulted by a police officer demanding that he provide some proof that this was his own home and he got arrested!

Now, one of these incidents is not like the other. One of these incidents isn't the same. What do you think the difference could be? When I have to talk to the police I don't 'get loud'. No matter *how* scared I am, I stay calm, my tone of voice is measured, reassuring the officer that I am not getting angry no matter how pissed off I am, I keep my hands in plain view and restrain my tendency to gesticulate when I talk. Why? Because any other behavior is a fantastic way of, if I’m lucky, spending the night in jail and if I'm not lucky being late--as in the late Adrienne Davis.

Now, this might come as a surprise to you but the experience of Hispanics with the police is closer to my or Skip Gates experience than it is to yours or my wife's experience.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by BornBronson

Do you suppose we do nothing,like maybe if we ignore all the drug killings,and rapes,kidnappings taking place it will just fix itself..go away perhaps.No,I feel we need to do something about it.

Passing this law was a good start.

My eyes are tired,I am going to bed now y'all.

Oh, perfect border security is easy enough. Once we achieved it we wouldn't be recognizable as the same nation, but achieving perfect border security is simple.

Step 1) Build a large wall along the border.

Step 2) Put a mine field on both sides of the wall.

Step 3) Every 200 yards or so, put a weapons system based on the Phalanx ship-defense system (rotary cannon, auto-firing) using an FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared) targeting system tuned to shoot at anything with a heat signature larger than, say, a coyote. To be 'humane' have warning signs in several languages 1000 feet from the wall warning that anything trespassing into this are will be shot by an automatic system. Lights and sirens here might help.

Step 4) Have routine, 24 hour, aerial surveillance using either predator drones or satellites (probably the former, the physics of doing the latter in a very low orbit (which is what you would want for this kind of application) ). The drones could be armed or unarmed, take your pick.

There you go, perfect border security and defense in depth. Anything that makes it through all the layers is an army.

We can already control the ports of entry so that's not the problem. You take the ports of entry down to a very small number (no more than half a dozen) and there you have it. You have achieved a level of border security that would be the envy of the East German Stasi. Congrats!

Now, who or what you'll blame when there are still murders, still theft, still drug trafficking in Arizona after we have achieved perfect border security I don't know.

[apretty]

more from phoenix:

link: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2010-...or-jan-brewer/

excerpt from:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Reign of Terror Becomes State Policy, Thanks to State Senator Russell Pearce and Governor Jan Brewer

...We know precisely what the impact of Senate Bill 1070 will be upon the streets of Arizona because of a little-noticed settlement in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

In 2001, Flagstaff attorney Lee Brooke Phillips and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona sued the state, charging that the Department of Public Safety — the highway patrol — engaged in rampant racial profiling.

John Lamberth, a Temple University professor with expertise in racial-profiling research, produced data in 2000 that showed African Americans made up fewer than 3 percent of traffic offenders but 43 percent of all stops by the DPS.

Based upon this study, the court ordered the highway patrol to turn over all data on traffic stops in northern Arizona for a one-year period.

What happened next made seasoned observers blink.

Instead of turning over records, records were destroyed.

"Look, the judge ordered the state to turn over a year's worth of records, and the state's prosecutor's office refused to turn them over," noted Phillips in an interview at the time with an advocacy group. "We learned they weren't turning them over because half of them have been destroyed."

Arnold vs. Department of Public Safety reached a historic settlement in 2006 with a federal court's approval.

The settlement, among other provisions, required the DPS to collect information on all traffic stops between July 1, 2006, and June 30, 2007.

Of the 200,000 traffic stops made on Arizona's interstates during this period, 13,271 ended with a vehicle search.

According to the study: "On average, Native Americans stopped by DPS officers were 3.25 times more likely to be searched than whites stopped by DPS officers. African Americans and Hispanics were 2.5 times more likely than whites to be searched by the DPS...

more from the same article:

"Higher search rates for minorities were not justified by higher rates of transporting contraband. In fact, on average, whites were more likely to be carrying contraband than Native Americans, Middle Easterners, Hispanics, and Asians on all major Arizona highways. African Americans were at least twice as likely as whites to be searched on all six interstate segments, despite the fact that the rate of contraband seizures for African Americans and whites was similar."

[apretty]

"sheriff joe" does the arrests and roundups of people he deems "illegal"--It would seem that he's insanely fucked up, and 'rounding up' people from a place of utter racism and hatred:

from phoenix new times:

Last year, Arpaio informed the GQ magazine that Mexicans are contagious.

"All these people that come over, they come with disease. There's no control. No health checks or anything. They check fruits and vegetables. How come they don't check people? No one talks about that!

"They're all dirty."

please know that there's a huge difference between 'phoenix' politics and the 'state' politics of racists like jan brewer, russell pearce (the guy with nazi affiliations), and sheriff joe arpaio--i still think boycotting is going to prove effective; i'm hoping that the all-star game is MOVED!

all-star game/arizona, la times:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may...-line-20100509