« Not buying Earth Day | Main | »

04/26/2010

Comments

kurtfawnigat

arizona succeeds from the union. great list but i strongly suggest that all non-whites leave the 48th immediately. the hunt is on.

ragnar

I agree. We should let the federal government enforce immigration laws. Whats that? The feds aren't enforcing the existing laws? Never mind.

bobshanbrom

I have to agree with reservations that this portion of the law is ill-advised, Laurie. However, I have yet to hear you give voice to the underlying problem of mass immigration, both illegal and legal to the US. It's the off-shoring of US jobs onshore. It bids down wages 3-7% according to Harvard's George, nee Jorge, Borjas. We spend many tens of billions of tax dollars a year in benefits for this hundreds of billions of dollar subsidy to Biz. You should know that. The US decimates millions of square miles of the Third World for rubber, oil, beef, timber, palm oil and on and on. We don't need legions of new consumers, we need a national commitment to live within our political, economic and ecological boundaries--sustainability. And that means reducing our population, reducing (really redefining) affluence and using better technologies (carbon tax, anyone?)
The AZ law contains provisions to go after illegal *employers*. What's fair for the "hookers" is fair for the "johns". Rather than joining in the knee-jerk progressive emoting on the issue of illegal immigration you should offer a Marxist analysis of how this thing works. Kudos to Republicans for standing up for working people and the environment (if only by accident) and for boldly taking on The Chamber of Commerce.
The law's text can be found by googling AZ new immigration law nyt. There's a hyperlink in the article. The employer section starts on page 6.

Laurie Essig

Bob- as always, I completely agree with your analysis of both the limits of global capital and the effects of global capital on the lives of real people. HOWEVER, responding to large structural problems that require a serious revisiting of everything from NAFTA to the fetishization of the market is not contained in this law.

Allowing the state/police to harass those who look Latino (that is, those who looks "suspicious") is not just a huge mistake, but a form of symbolic racism that progressives MUST respond to. I mean, they won't stop me in AZ, will they? How would this law read to you if they could stop people who looked Jewish or Black as potentially illegal? Or how about women of any race? Face it, this is more white nativism disguised as "people desperate to solve the illegal immigration problem." The same people who support this bill also BENEFIT from illegal immigration at another level- so they can have cheaper goods and services. It may depress the wages of Americans overall, but people employing illegal immigrants or paying less money because of illegally labor are individually benefitting from it.

jake brodsky

Gosh, *I* could qualify as an illegal under that silly list. I often eat outdoors, I keep a water bottle with me, I like ethnic foods of many kinds, I drive a beat up Chevy pickup, blah blah blah...

OK, your point is that one must act "white" --whatever that is. However, the fact is that these laws are on the books, and they're not being enforced. If you're trying to make the point that these laws are xenophobic nonsense, you haven't cited a single bit of data here.

If you're trying to make the point that states shouldn't enforce federal laws, you haven't cited a single law here.

All snarkiness aside, what are you trying to say?

brianwood

My forefather immigrated against the wishes of the then-current landholders in 1634. Mexicans, it seems to me, have every right to re-take Arizona, taken from them in a war Ulysses S. Grant said was nothing but naked aggression by a bigger power (something like Saddam invading Kuwait, or Hitler invading Poland).

Laurie Essig

I believe this law, SB!070- which I do mention and link above- is significantly different in its requirement that police stop anyone who they suspect might be in the US illegally and are given proof of legal residency or must arrest. Given that 1 in 4 TOURISTS to AZ are from Mexico, such a law will obviously have a huge impact on all sorts of legal visitors to AZ. Not to mention legal residents. As for illegal residents, they wouldn't be there if the rich weren't able to make profit by extracting their labor cheaply and also using the surplus of labor to lower the wages of legal workers.

All snarkiness aside, the law is a form of state-sanctioned racism and all people who believe in freedom from state tyranny should be opposed to it- including white Americans.

ragnar

OK, lets stipulate the law is flawed/bad/evil/etc.

Rather than rag on the law's failings, whats your plan to fix the immigration problems?

bobshanbrom

Apply Marxism to natural capital and the environment rather than to labor and you will reinvigorate it in a way that is meaningful and useful to human beings around the globe. Marx' analysis was dead-on. His solution, mandatory Christianity, was ridiculous.
But first, I was overwrought and forgot to say what an excellent classist analysis you offer. Now, back to being overwrought: No, the law doesn't address NAFTA, fetishization nor capitalism in general. Nor should it. It should address effective and Constitutional means of policing illegal immigration. Those means are fines/loss of business license/jail for illegal *employers.* Can you agree with that and support that idea in your writing? I think you would offer a great deal in making a case for that provision in the law rather than joining the knee-jerk liberal thrall and evading the issue of illegal immigration.
True it is largely white nativism that drives this law and, yes, militarizing an issue gives them a hard-on. But vegans and hunters, for example, can agree on habitat protection. And the law is driven by many other working class concerns: crime/gangsterism, fiscal impacts/taxes, congestion, overcrowding of schools, closing of emergency rooms, wages. I think you should say as much.
Republicans have succeeded wildly in getting working Americans to vote against their class interests. But fighting illegal immigration is truly in the interest of working Americans. Dems/progressives/liberals are ceding vast ground to Republicans in standing by the wayside and (rightly, I concede) shouting "civil rights" while Republicans are busily protecting wages and reducing unemployment, AND protecting the environments of the sending nations by making fewer new Americans. Progressives have a huge number of reasons to get busy on this issue rather than stand by singing Kum-ba-ya from the safety of their Priuses.
Let's not forget that liberals are easily characterized as the people who have been to China and decorate their homes in Third World chic but would only have a Chinese over for dinner as a token gesture. Republicans would say, " I don't think I could find Red China on a map but, hey, would you like to go for a ride on my yacht."
Americans are the scourge of the planet. Why make more of us?

sirnate

Except Geneva rules occurred just slightly after 1634. Actually wasn't it Spanish territory back then. Mexican independence wasn't till 1821. And the land was not "taken"; it was purchased in two treaties for 25 million. Technically it should have been purchased from Apache. So based on your accusation, Mexico should give their land back to Apache.

Your history grade: F

bobshanbrom

Brian, They aren't trying to reconquer the SW in the name of Mexico, they are trying to become the same genocidal Americans that your forefathers became and that we remain, overtly in Afghanistan and Iraq and less directly in the economic subjugation and decimation of vast tracts of the Third World. We used to hunt buffalo to near-extinction, now we economically develop to near-extinction of great apes, of tigers, of thousands of other species.
I believe in reparations to native Americans, to Afro-Americans, to Mexico and to many other entities we have harmed. But turning peasant peoples into genocidal, ecocidal apex-consuming Americans is not the way to do it. Committing to sustainability is.

kurtfawnigat

Hope yall are ready for Governor Arpaio: shit's a done deal. Boycott AZ! It's the only American thing to do.

The ghetto of Alexandra is a one-square-mile pit covered in a heavy blanket of smog that is (was) called home by nearly 600,000 black South Africans. Under South Africa's former system of legalized segregation known as apartheid, the black South Africans living in this shantytown of tiny run-down shacks were subjected to brutal beatings and arrests during police raids for "crimes" such as unemployment or failure to pay taxes using income that clearly does not exist. Under the pass laws, all blacks were required to carry around a passbook. Passbooks had to be kept in order by all black South Africans.

REAL ID? I smell vertical integration.

Joseppe Huffel

"As for illegal residents, they wouldn’t be there if the rich weren’t able to make profit by extracting their labor cheaply and also using the surplus of labor to lower the wages of legal workers."

No, the ILLEGALS wouldn't be there if they hadn't come to America ILLEGALLY.

What part of ILLEGAL is it that you fail to comprehend. You come off as sympathetic to criminals because, well, they're here ILLEGALLY. What message does it send to law abiding immigrants who follow the LAW? If they're here illegally SEND THEM BACK WHERE THEY CAME FROM.

Joseppe Huffel

LAURIE,
ITS NOT ALL THAT COMPLEX.

Anyone needs only to do ONE thing, be legally in the country, period, case closed.

You do TAKE ISSUE WITH LAWS OF THE LAND DON'T YOU? I bet you worship Anarchy too.

sirnate

You've twisted this law. It FIRST has to be a suspicion on another act then identification can be asked. Which is NO different than other laws. The key is that they can now determine inadequate identification. Then process the person to ice. There's still plenty of beaurocracy in the process. If you're a citizen the police will be able to identify you even without holding an ID. So your premise is false and is completely based on police not following the law and are racist. Which we all know is not true. Clearly you have no respect for them like immigrants that have been throwing objects at the police since the passage.

No where in the law does it specify race. Should we change the murder laws in Michigan since they disproportionately affect minorities?

rockyinlaw

Tongue in cheek or not, I really find a great deal of truth in the way you have identified "whiteness" and I especially appreciate your use of the term "white nativism." My hope is that it's picked up and used more often elsewhere. It is not as highly charged as the word "racist' and could (lordy I hope) allow some at least a moment of reflection ... could do us all some good.

RenZoB

Or US invading Iraq, taking North America, bombing Vietnam, "invading" Grenada, can I stop now?

RenZoB

What is the "immigration" problem?
What am I missing?
Is this Weimarization?
Do you believe Jews caused WWII?

Do you believe that the illegal immigrants are responsible for the collapse of the middle class in this otherwise perfect society?

If we put them all in concentration camps, would America be better off, would you have a job again? Would the middle class pop back into existence?

If we exported them to Mexico, would that solve the problem here? Your job?
Is their presence here the cause of the deficit? The reason we are in two wars? The reason the oil is flooding the Gulf? The reason climate is changing?

Should we build a wall? Both north and south? Shoot on site?

Emotions are powerful, but not reason to act. Reason is a powerful reason to act. So......? Reasons.

RenZoB

The anti-immigrant invective serves the same purpose as the “moslem terrorist” propaganda. As in all sleight of hand illusions (a.k.a. magic tricks) that succeed, there must be misdirection of the onlookers’ attention. Blaming (Iraqi-)terrorists for 9/11 covered the shock , awe, invasion, destruction and occupation of Iraq. Making al-Qaeda sound like a serious threat to the existence of the USA (and all of Western “civilization”) hid the occupation and continued bombing of AfghaniPakistan. Blaming the immigrants for all the US internal economic problems is misdirection to cover the fact that our middle class (the source and repository of traditional values, conscientious voters and much productivity, in the past) is going away. It is not being chased away by the immigrants; indeed they came here to share in it. Jobs are leaving the country, not being stolen by the greedy wetbacks. American investment bankers are stealing our money and retirements, not the underpaid angry latina housekeepers, and our own friendly banks are burning our mortgaged houses, not the humble illegal gardeners.

The middle class used to be big enough to accommodate 12 million more, but no more (anymore). Just imagine they sneaked through the border to share in the American dream, the middle class for everyone, and it disappeared in front of them. More sleight of hand. The jobs in Mexico are disappearing too. Who would have thought they made too much money there.

Misdirection serves only the magicians, and they own the stage on which the performance is unraveling, the props that are used in the play, the script, the lighting, the director and increasingly the players themselves. Do you really need to have me tell you the finale? Which god will come out of the machinery just before the audience claps and leaves and the curtain falls?

Laurie Essig

Hmm, worship is a strong word for my relationship to anarchy. Have an affinity for, perhaps, as a political philosophy and a lifestyle, perhaps.

bobshanbrom

Renzo, the reasons to enforce out immigration laws are pretty obvious:
1) It's the law.
2) It makes our society safer.
3) Growing the US population is the most harmful way to add population to the world. The average American needs 24 acres of land to support their lifestyle. The average Mexican or Chinese, 5 acres. Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, 2 acres or less.
4) It's costly to absorb immigrants. Perhaps in the realm of $50,000 per immigrant.
5) Immigration reduces US wages by 7% on the low end and 3% on the high end. (see Harvard's George nee Jorge Borjas).
6) America uses twice its own land mass to fuel its lifestyle. This excess demand is made up by economic imperialism and ecological decimation of foreign lands, particularly tropical rainforest.
7) The US and each nation of the world needs to commit to living within its own sustainable economy. We will never do that unless we commit to stabilizing our population.
8) High level of immigration creates a permanent underclass and is rapidly impoverishing the middle class. We are becoming a highly-stratified, classist society, essentially an apartheid nation without the need to create bantustans.

bradmos4

I really wish I was sent this earlier so I can respond to those of you who posted comments. I am going to make some extreme comments regarding the illegal immigration issue but in favor of the new bill in AZ. A comment which should seem extremely basic to you all is that it is against the law to enter the country illegaly, whether it be from Canada, Mexico, Cuba, wherever. According to you all we should not even have immigration laws, or at least not enforce them.
I am all for searching for a better life for your family and I think the US is the best place to do that, but just because I want to better my life does not mean I can rob a bank to have more money. It's against the law. I can't steal a shopping cart full of food to feed my family, it's against the law. Immigration is great when it is done properly and through the correct avenues. As of right now AZ pays over 300 million dollars a year just in medical expenses due to illegal immigrants receiving health care. That's just health care. Not to mention shcools and prisons.

If you lived next to someone who was stealing money to take care of his family, maybe not from you, but from another neighbor, would you turn your cheek. Are you the type that see's a hit and run and doesn't say anything. Sure they don't directly affect you, but both are against the law.

Ultimately you have to enforce laws. A broken law is a broken law no matter which way you slice it and it has to be enforced. Sure I've broken laws before and if I were caught I would have to pay the consequences for my actions. But Illegal immigrants don't? I don't see your logic. Fact of the matter is, is that there is a correct way to enter the country and become a citizen. If you do it any other way it's illegal. Much like the rest of our laws, there are plenty of ways to make money or have a car or food, but if it's against the law and you get caught, there's no one there with picket signs and protests saying, Yes let that man/woman steal what they need.

It has nothing to do with whites hating browns like some of you like to state. Laws are laws you either enforce them or get rid of them altogether.

PS. Hopefully all of you actually live in AZ or CA where the imigration is bad. Making comments based off of what you see on TV is not a good idea.

Adrienne Hughes

Your list is ridiculous. The law is just re-iterating laws that are already in place so that law enforcement can hold the illegals accountable for crimes that they commit. This is not just about Mexicans. A lot of the terrorists from 9/11 came through that border and probably more still coming. If you don't recall some living there and learning to fly planes at a flight school in Scottsdale, AZ. People who see this as racist are actually the TRUE racist. To see racism in a law that is to keep people safe is not only racist of you, but ignorance as well. We do not need ILLEGALS working our low paying jobs (i.e. fast food, lawn work) that is what HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS are for.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad