It's Time to Boycott Arizona

[dreadgeek]

Kobi:

You say kudos to the Arizona law. Okay. I think you continue to miss the problem that a lot of us have with the Arizona law so I will take a crack at explaining to you. The text of the law was amended from reading "may not solely consider race..." to reading "may not consider race". The reality is that the people here who are citizens and whose genetics run back some 9000 years in the area now called Arizona are genetically identical to the population living 10 miles south of the border. In other words, they will look exactly alike. The practical upshot of this is that if the only thing a law enforcement officer needs is 'reasonable suspicion' that the person is not a citizen and the two populations look precisely alike, the real-world affect is that citizens will be stopped unreasonably. I am against this law because while the words 'may not consider...' are nice and an improvement over "may not solely consider", it is still an invitation to racial profiling.

This country has a history of racial profiling and that history isn't ancient history.

Now, of course, one might make the argument that Sven from Sweden and Mary Katherine from Ireland also have much to fear from this law. The reality is that no one is going to pull Sven and MK over and ask to see their license because of how they look. It is entirely reasonable, given this nation's recent history, that Javier and Rosa have reason to worry that they will be pulled over even though their genes are from the L.A. basin and have been there since long before anyone remotely from the lands of Sven or MK even knew this continent existed.

I would love to say I live in an America where American citizens who happen to not be white need not worry about racial profiling. I would even be happy with an America where no non-white person need worry about it because it had been so long since those ideas had any real force in our society that no one alive can even remember when they did. Unfortunately, I don't live in that America.

No one is saying we shouldn't deal with immigration issues, least of all me. I think that the way immigration is being dealt with is, at its best, misguided and wrong and, at its worst, dangerous and playing with fire given this country's recent history. If this immigration law struck fear into the very heart of every employer in Arizona such that they wouldn't dream of not verifying the citizenship status of a person before hiring them, I would be okay with that. If the law imposed penalties that were draconian on businesses that hired workers who were not citizens, that would be okay. But that's not what this law does. Tossing a sop to the idea that businesses should verify, the main thrust of this law is targeting individuals. A guest-worker program would be a sane start. But we don't want that.

Then there's the issue of 'they're taking our jobs and eating up all the welfare'. I am a member of the last group of Americans who were taking all the good jobs, sucking up all the welfare and, while we were at it, running vast criminal enterprises selling drugs. In other words, I'm black. In the seventies it was us who were the problem. As manufacturing jobs were sent overseas--which really started in the late-sixties/early-seventies--blacks were also being given larger access to employment. Affirmative action, in this instance, was the reason why whites couldn't get jobs because all the jobs were going to 'the blacks to meet the quota'. At the same time, we were sucking up all the welfare because, apparently, we didn't want to work. So while we were simultaneously taking jobs that we were not qualified for and proudly telling our white colleagues that we weren't qualified for the job and were getting over on whitey (a popular story at the time) we were also sucking up all the social services, proudly telling OTHER white people (possibly the ones who couldn't get jobs) that we were going to pop out yet another baby so we could increase the welfare payments and, you guessed it, stick it to whitey. Then as if we weren't busy enough taking every good job in sight and simultaneously draining the public coffers with our indolent ways, we decided to take up the drug trade. So now, we were spending our workdays at jobs we weren't qualified for, would hit up the welfare office on the way home driving our 'welfare Cadillac' and then have an evening of selling drugs and engaging in some light drive-by shooting.

Any of this ringing any bells circa 1971 - 1995 or so? Now, it's the turn of Hispanics. You notice the same rhetoric (taking our jobs, sucking up social services, turning otherwise bucolic American cities into Fallujah)? Now, was it true that black Americans were simultaneously doing ALL of those things? No. But the rhetoric sounds very similar so you'll forgive me if I'm a tiny bit skeptical that this law is as race-neutral as you would have us believe it is.

Lastly, to the larger issue of immigration. I think that this country would do itself a favor if, for a generation, it simply closed the border. No one. From anywhere. For any reason other than political asylum. The reason why is that it would then allow us to deracialize the discussion. Right now, it is entirely reasonable--given this nation's track record--to presume that the problem is not that there are large numbers of immigrants it is who those immigrants are. I suspect that now (not 100 years ago but now), Irish or Scottish or Danish or English immigrants could come across in such numbers that if they all stood on the Atlantic you could walk from New York to Wales without getting your feet wet. I suspect that we would hear moving and poetic paeans to how immigration is the strength of America and how our ancestors braved this and that to come here and these new people who we are just so happy to have amongst us show, once again, that America is a beacon to the world. However, if people are coming from south of the border in any kind of significant numbers then it's not so much with the poetry and more with the invective. Suddenly, the paeans to immigration become more pro forma and less feeling.

Do I know, for a certainty, that I'm correct about that? No. But my take on it is *entirely* reasonable given American history as lived JUST by people I have met personally (covering people born between 1903 and now). None of the people I'm thinking of are alive, but none of them shuffled off this mortal coil more than a quarter century ago so we are not talking ancient history.

Actually, one last thing. Your point regarding what 'those people could do if they put their energies to work in changing the conditions in their own countries'. This statement shows a kind of geopolitical naivete that, quite honestly, I'm rather surprised at with you, Kobi. I figured that you were savvy enough to know that American corporations have a *disproportionate* amount of sway south of the border. I also figured you knew that the America is the 800 lb gorilla of the hemisphere. Just things that this nation has done in the last 50 years have had large impact on the lives of 'those people'.

1954 -- US Government, because the democratically elected president of Nicaragua instituted inconvenient (for an American fruit company), land reforms engineers a coup d' etat. The CIA replaces the rightfully elected leader with a puppet who then goes on to eliminate democracy and impose the death penalty on strikers. This strongman, Carlos Castillo Armas, rules Nicaragua for 30 years.

1960 -- Government of El Salvador falls. New ruling junta promises new elections. American president, not liking where this might go, orders the state department not to recognize the new government. It falls three months later to a right-wing government which is recognized.

1960 -- Guatemalan military attempt to stage a coup. It is put down by the local government. However, US military warships with 2000 Marines on alert take up station off the coast to lend support if needed.

1961 -- Bay of Pigs. 'nuff said.

1961 -- CIA backed coup overthrows government of Ecuador

1964 -- CIA overthrows government of Brazil

1973 -- US backs military overthrow of Salvedor Allende in Chile bringing to power Augusto Pinochet. 'nuff said.

1973 -- US backs military coup in Uruguay

1980 -- Right-wing junta takes power (again) in El Salvador backed by US

1981 -- US government backs the contras in Nicaragua to overthrow the left-leaning government using Honduras as a base.

I could go on but I won't belabor the point. So are you going to tell me that nations that, just a generation ago, were playing host-nation to American Great Game machinations and CIA dirty tricks would be in much better shape if only people who are leaving those areas for various reasons--most of them very, very good--would just stay home? And when they elect another government and that government talks to Cuba or that government has the audacity to suggest that the rich ALSO should pay taxes, what do you think that the US will do? Sit idly by or go with what has proven to work time and time again? If you believe that US foreign policy would NOT follow the historical pattern I have just one phrase for you: Hamas is the legitimately elected government of Palestine and the US government refuses to deal directly with it.

Originally Posted by Kobi

From what I read in this thread, I think I am the only one who doesnt have a problem with the Arizona attempt to curb illegal immigration. I say kudos for having the gonads to tackle a problem no one else has the guts to deal with.

It is easy to say we shouldnt deal with immigration issues because there are other more pressing problems affecting the country. Unfortunately, we use this excuse to avoid dealing with many issues because no one wants to be seen as the bad guy about any issue.

Illegal immigrations costs us taxpayers billions and billions a year in services i.e. education and health care plus immigration costs of housing illegals awaiting deportation hearings and providing them with legal representation to name just a few.

With the downturn in the economy and Americans struggling to find work, my allegiance is with the people who belong here, not with those who deliberately circumvented the laws because they wanted to do so. That type of selfish, self serving behavior is insulting.

One can only wonder what these people might be able to achieve if they put their energy to work in changing the conditions in their own countries rather than invading others.