The Selma of Immigration Rights (Arizona/Sheriff Joe)

[marmar]

from In These Times:



Features > November 12, 2008
The Selma of Immigration Rights
In Arizona, immigrants protest Sheriff Joe’s nativist agenda

By Andrew Stelzer


The battle began in front of a furniture store.

Like hundreds of other street corners, the intersection at 36th Street and Thomas Road in Phoenix was where immigrant workers arrived before dawn, hoping that someone would pick them up for a day’s work in construction. But last October, the parking lot of Pruitt’s furniture became more than a pick-up spot. First, the store’s owner hired off-duty sheriff’s deputies to act as security guards, claiming that the laborers were causing a disturbance.

Later that month, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff in America,” decided to act on a handful of complaints he had received. He made Pruitt’s parking lot the centerpiece of a neighborhood sweep. Arpaio’s deputies began arresting undocumented immigrants in the neighborhood and turning them over to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation proceedings.

In response, civil and immigrants’ rights activists began gathering every Saturday outside the store, protesting what they believe were racially and ethnically motivated crackdowns. Soon, nativist groups from across the southwestern United States — with names like the Patriots Border Alliance and Mothers Against Illegal Aliens — arrived to counter-demonstrate. Waving American flags, the anti-immigrant crowd stood across the street, holding signs that declared support for the mass arrests, the closing of the Mexican border and the immediate deportation of all “illegal aliens.”

The circus-like scene made for good TV, and Arpaio, a media hound by most accounts, seemed egged on by the protests. In a Dec. 5 sheriff’s office press release, Arpaio said, “I will not give up. All the activists must stop their protest before I stop enforcing the law in that area.” ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3973/the_selma_of_immigration_rights

[JonQ]

1. "anti-immigrant " crowd?

Really, they're opposed to all forms of immigration, not just *illegal* immigration? Perhaps a bit of bias there.

That makes about as much sense as classifying anyone who protests rape as an "anti-sex" activist.

[Two Americas]

2. oh really?

Anti-people of color would perhaps be more accurate, yes. But the entire concept of "illegal aliens" is false right from the start.

[JonQ]

3. That's rather libelous

there is no indication from the article that they are "anti-people of color". They're anti-illegal immigration. The largest group of illegals in this country are from Mexico. The majority of Mexicans tend to be darker skinned than the average american, so yeah it follows that more "people of color" will be targeted for deportation, but that doesn't prove they are being targeted because they are darker. It's simply a matter of statistics.

And how exactly is "illegal alien" a false term? We have laws governing immigration to the United States, yes? So doesn't it follow that anyone who immigrates here contrary to those laws is an illegal immigrant?

Let's break that down:

il·le·gal
(-lgl)
adj.
1. Prohibited by law.
2. Prohibited by official rules

Being here illegally is by definition illegal, correct?

a·li·en
(l-n, lyn)
adj.
1. Owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign: alien residents.
2. Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange. See Synonyms at foreign.
3. Dissimilar, inconsistent, or opposed, as in nature: emotions alien to her temperament.
n.
1. An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.
2. A person from another and very different family, people, or place.
3. A person who is not included in a group; an outsider.

Hmm, so a foreign citizen in the US would be defined as an alien (ignore the whole ET thing).

So they're aliens, who are here illegally, but it's false to call them illegal aliens.

Explain your logic.

[Two Americas]

4. libelous?

To whom? Are you saying that the anti-immigrant movement is not permeated with racism?

People, by there very existence, cannot be considered "illegal" if we are to be consistent with the Bill of Rights. Approaching the issue that way implicitly suggests that all would need to be able to prove to law enforcement that they are "legal" upon demand, or else be treated as illegal. That shreds the Bill of Rights.

Most of the violations are relatively minor paperwork infractions, ab out as serious as jaywalking, and certainly do not justify massive warrantless dragnets by paramilitary teams and the violation of all civil rights. Most have "status" violations - they have neither been denied nor granted clear status. The blame for that rests with the government, not the people who are being targeted. It is not clear who is and who is not in violation of anything - hearings and due process determine that - and all Latinos are being subject to arbitrary arrest and detention, until and unless they can prove their innocence to agents of the state, when and if given a chance to do so.

[JonQ]

5. . . . .

"To whom? Are you saying that the anti-immigrant movement is not permeated with racism?"

Generalizing a minority view point to cover the entire group is not very progressive, you should avoid such stereotypes in the future. Whether some in the movement believe incorrectly does not invalidate the perfectly legitimate, and legal, concerns of the others.

"People, by there very existence, cannot be considered "illegal" if we are to be consistent with the Bill of Rights. Approaching the issue that way implicitly suggests that all would need to be able to prove to law enforcement that they are "legal" upon demand, or else be treated as illegal. That shreds the Bill of Rights"

Completely untrue. Arresting people here illegally no more shreds the constitution than arresting criminals does. They are breaking the law, we have the right as a nation to create such laws, and enforce them at need. Unless you are arguing for a complete anarchy that is, in which case you'd be shredding the constitution. The people are not being declared illegal merely for existing, their actions are. Notice we aren't going down to Mexico to arrest all Mexicans. We are simply kicking out some of the ones here illegally. If I were to break in to your house illegally would you defend my "right" to be there, or ask the police to remove me?

"Most of the violations are relatively minor paperwork infractions, ab out as serious as jaywalking, and certainly do not justify massive warrantless dragnets by paramilitary teams and the violation of all civil rights."

No, most haven't filed any sort of paperwork, they crossed the border with no concern for our laws. And I'd hardly call that a minor crime, neither would our legal system. And the police are not "paramilitary teams". Nor are they violating civil rights by detaining criminals. You seem to be throwing out emotionally charged buzz words to elicit a reaction, hoping people don't think to much about the meaning.

"Most have "status" violations - they have neither been denied nor granted clear status."

Correct, because most haven't even bothered applying, you can't be denied if you haven't applied. By that logic my 12 year old cousin would be perfectly within her rights to start driving, because she hasn't been explicitly denied a drivers license yet, and thus wouldn't be violating any real laws.

"The blame for that rests with the government, not the people who are being targeted"

Again, she wasn't given a drivers license, so it's the governments fault if she drives without one. Absurd.

"It is not clear who is and who is not in violation of anything - hearings and due process determine that - and all Latinos are being subject to arbitrary arrest and detention, until and unless they can prove their innocence to agents of the state, when and if given a chance to do so."

No, those loitering in areas where the landowners protested their presence are being checked out. And they aren't being arrested, they're being turned over to the proper authorities if they turn out to be here illegally. It's not as if they were going door to door at night, pulling everyone with a slightly tan skin out of their homes and throwing them in to unmarked vans to disapear, as you seem to be insinuating.

I have to ask in all seriousness, is this a troll attempt?

[Two Americas]

6. all false and misleading

Should we spend the time going through each item, or is your mind made up?

Calling a person a troll is against the rules here. Defending immigrants on DU is now cause for suspicion of trolling? Or are you unaware of any point of view on this subject other than your own?

[JonQ]

7. I didn't call you a trol

I asked, because your comments were so out there and counter to common sense that I suspected you were screwing with me. But you actually believe all that, wow.

Quick question, do you think the US has any right whatsoever, to have a border?

[Two Americas]

9. right here

"I have to ask in all seriousness, is this a troll attempt?"

You may be new, or perhaps have somehow missed the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of discussions here on this subject. I can assure you that the position I am taking is not contrary to common sense, nor is it a minority opinion here.

I was brief - perhaps terse - because we have been over these issues so many times already. I apologize if it seemed discourteous.

On borders - capital, big money, which is to say those individuals who bare wealthy, move across the border with ease for the purpose of setting up plants in other countries. Poor desperate working people seeking to feed their families or escape tyranny should have the same rights and freedom. That is what I think about borders.

[JonQ]

12. So is that a no?

We don't have the right to have borders?

[Two Americas]

13. didn't say that

As I said below, I think the Rush-Bagot treaty represents the ideal way to manage an international border.

Borders happen. You are misrepresenting the issue as a choice between borders (and whatever it takes to "defend" them or whatever) or no borders at all. That is a false dichotomy. I don't see what difference it would make if any of us were "for" them or "against" them. Besides, this is about people not geography, isn't it?

[JonQ]

14. Rush-bagot treaty, according to the enclycopedia britannica:

(1817), exchange of notes between Richard Rush, acting U.S. secretary of state, and Charles Bagot, British minister to the United States, that provided for the limitation of naval forces on the Great Lakes in the wake of the War of 1812. Each country was allowed no more than one vessel on Lake Champlain, one on Lake Ontario, and two on the upper lakes. Each vessel was restricted to a maximum weight of 100 tons and one 18-pound cannon. The agreement was ratified unanimously by the Senate in 1818. With some modifications, it has remained in force to the present day and has formed the basis of peaceful border relations between the United States and Canada.

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

So you think the US-Mexico border should be patrolled by precisely one gunship with a maximum of one 18 pound cannon? I don't think that'll work.

It's about people, and geography. We have our country, they have theirs. And just as they should be free to regulate their country as they wish, we should be free to do with ours what we wish. And that includes regulating who may enter and under what conditions non-citizens can stay. We require everyone working here to either be a citizen, or get special permission from the government to work/study for a predetermined amount of time. I don't see how you can protest this as the alternative is to allow everyone to come in the US who chooses, with no regulation for criminal backgrounds, disease, or concern about our own workers status. I can think of few better ways to bust up unions and depress working wages than to allow in millions of illegals who are not subject to minimum wage or safety/health codes. I'm sure you don't want that to happen, so how do you propose dealing with the situation, if not creating a national border that can be regulated and a department to keep watch over immigration and keep accurate records, allow in those who should be here and deport those who shouldn't etc.

Besides which, any proposal you would come up with will be a deviation from what we have now. Right now people who enter the country illegally are breaking the law (pretty simple actually) and as such are subject to deportation when they are caught. They no more have a right to be here illegally than I have a right to trespass on private property.

[Two Americas]

15. understood

The argument that immigrants harm Labor is legitimate. However, many in the Labor movement are moving away from that position and union organizing within the immigrant community is growing exponentially. Also, the same workers will be working here, or there, and it is better for all of us to have them working here.

The point of the Rush-Bagot treaty is that there are fewer problems with a relatively open border than with a closed one. At the time of the Rush-Bagot treaty there were far more problems between the US and Canada, and far more justification for a closed border than there is today between Mexico and the US. Now it is easy to say that an open border works with Canada because we are at peace, but the opposite is actually true. We were not at peace, the border was not stable at the time of the treaty. It is the treaty that created peace and a stable border. Closed borders never has a good ending, and is associated with the most tyrannical and oppressive regimes throughout history.

The United States is not "private property." Were it, it would belong to the aboriginal inhabitants, if anyone.

The argument that "they have theirs and we have ours" is at best misleading. What does it mean to "have" a country? Most immigrants are indigenous people with little or no stake in the "countries" they come from, and little self-determination. Those countries are still subject to economic colonialism by US corporations, and those countries being to the wealthy few, not to the indigenous people leaving them in desperation.

The fears that immigrants are bring disease and crime with them is not supported by the data. Making people illegal - and that is what is happening - worsens those problems, it does not improve them.

Wealthy people easily move across borders, and poor people have the same right to do so.

All of the arguments you are using were used against the Irish, the Italians, the Greeks, Eastern Europeans and many other people. All of the fears expressed then proved to be false, and the situation today is precisely parallel to the situation when other groups of people came here. The US is strengthened, and so are the home countries. People send money home, upgrade the infrastructure in the home villages, and that lessens the pressure on our border.

The solution to all of the problems you cite is to legalize people, not make them illegal. That brings them into the system. You cannot stop people from trying to survive and feed their families. Fear and terror used against any segment of the population threatens all of us.

Immigration rules and regulations and enforcement are being applied in one way to Latino immigrants, and another way to Hungarian, Polish and Russian immigrants. This is the source of the problem, not the immigrants themselves.

Morally, politically, legally and practically the round them up and deport them strategy is unsupportable. You are creating an illusion of some "them" and ascribing evil motives to them. Historically, all other things being equal, no one ever gets worked up about hordes of northern Europeans arriving. In Detroit when I was younger, tens of thousands of Canadians came "illegally" to work in the auto industry. No one became alarmed. When people came the same way and did the same things, but happened to be people of color, then suddenly we heard that we had a "problem" with "them." It is difficult to escape the conclusion that racism plays a significant role in this manufactured controversy.

It is un-Constitutional to round people up and force them to prove that they are NOT "illegal." That is opening the door to Hell, because it gives total power over us to law enforcement and agents of the state.

Are all plants being raided? No. Those with brown people are being raided. Why? Allowing the government to presume criminality based on race is clearly and obviously a very bad idea.

If we had swat teams raid every place of employment and investigate everyone, no doubt many would be captured for various offenses - all criminals would be caught, in theory. A certain percentage of the population at any time has parking tickets if nothing else. We don't do that. Why? Because we are soft on criminals?

If we don't resort to police state tactics and ignore the Constitution in order to round up murderers and thieves, why would we do it to catch people trying to work and feed their families?

What sort of governments historically have placed the entire population under suspicion and subject to paramilitary raids, arbitrary arrests and detentions? What sort of governments historically have targeted certain ethnic groups for that sort of suspicion and mistreatment?

Arresting people because they cannot prove that they are NOT a criminal is the very definition of an arbitrary arrest, and the Constitution forbids that sort of behavior by the government. The fact that a few criminals are caught in the process does not justify it.

[Blue_in_Mass]

8. I would like to reiterate JonQ's question ..

Do you think the USA has a right to enforce its borders?

[Two Americas]

10. different question

I answered JonQ's question above.

I think the Rush-Bagot treaty is the ideal model for managing borders.

[Blue_in_Mass]

16. A demilitarized Mexico-USA border?

According to what I've investigated, the USA Coast Guard is now patrolling certain lakes (Eire and Huron, I think), with mounted 7.62 MM machine guns on the cutters. This does not violate the Rush-Bagot treaty because they are there for police enforcement duties, not military ones.

Now, despite the fact that there is no 'Rush - Bagot' Treaty with Mexico, at the very least the USA should aggressively enforce the legal aspect of its border with Mexico, using police action, and not military action.

Do you agree?

[Two Americas]

11. children

This is but one of hundreds of similar stories over the last few years...

Illegal immigrant children mistreated in custody

Source: AP

DALLAS — Children caught trying to slip illegally into the U.S. are mistreated while in custody, transported home unsafely and denied access to representation, a study released Thursday contends.

The Austin-based think tank Center for Public Policy Priorities outlined a series of shortcomings by the federal government in dealing with unaccompanied illegal immigrant children taken into custody.

According to the study, inadequate policies lead to the maltreatment, including children going without water at U.S. Border Patrol stations, being handcuffed, having their requests for medical attention ignored, and getting struck and knocked down by agents.

Calls seeking comment from the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection were not immediately returned Thursday.

According to the study, many children faced complicated immigration proceedings without legal representation. Some 50 to 70 percent of detained unaccompanied minors went before an immigration judge without a lawyer, the study said.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6111020.html