Mobile version

Meanwhile In Nazizona: Show Me Your Papers

  

by: davidseth

Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 15:19:25 PDT


( - promoted by buhdydharma )

What an unbelievably ignorant and oppressive and probably illegal "immigration" law Arizona has just passed.  In its efforts to oppress the Mexican American and immigrant population within its borders, and anyone who might appear to be in that group (some Native Americans?) Arizona has enacted a law that facilitates prejudicial law enforcement and a blatant police state.  Put simply, this law is an outrage passed by and for the radical right, and it's designed to make life for brown people and those who aren't very white even more difficult.

The basic provisions of the law:

The law, which opponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in the country in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime. It would also give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have decried it as an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.

According to The New York Times

The Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles called the authorities' ability to demand documents Nazism. While police demands of documents are common on subways, highways and in public places in some countries, including France, Arizona is the first state to demand that immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil.

And President Obama isn't exactly thrilled either:

Even before ...the bill [was signed], President Obama strongly criticized it.

Speaking at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active-duty service members in the Rose Garden, he called for a federal overhaul of immigration laws - an overhaul that Congressional leaders signaled they were preparing to take up soon.

Saying the failure of officials in Washington to act on immigration would open the door to "irresponsibility by others," he said the Arizona bill threatened "to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe."

And the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF} notes:

"Governor Brewer caved to the radical fringe," said a statement by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, predicting that the law would create "a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions."

When is the last time you saw a new state law greeted with such an outcry?  Probably never.  This law is that bad and deserves all of this and more.

Join me below.  

davidseth :: Meanwhile In Nazizona: Show Me Your Papers
As frightening as the law is, and as likely to be abused by police, Governor Brewer's facile explanations are even more chilling.  She's obviously trying to rile up the base rightwing nutjobs, including the Minutemen.  Or she's completely clueless.  I think it's the former.

Governor Brewer acknowledged critics' concerns but sided with arguments from the law's sponsors that it provides an indispensable tool for the police in a border state that is a leading magnet of illegal immigration.

She said that racial profiling would not be tolerated, adding, "We have to trust our law enforcement."

I'll continue when you stop laughing.  Let's say that brown skinned man wearing a t-shirt waiting for a cross town bus in Tucson. He is reading a Spanish language newspaper while he waits.  It's early in the morning.  He might be trying to get to work.  Police see him.  They go over to him, and armed with the law, they say in English, "Are you legally in the U.S."  "Yes," he responds in English, "Funny you should ask. My family has been living in Arizona for the past 350 years.  Right here near Tucson.  I was born here.  I'm a citizen."  The police, who of course have not racially profiled him because of his skin or the paper he is reading or the fact that he's not wearing a blue uniform, decide that this story is at best improbable.  It, they think, simply cannot be true. 350 years?  In America?  None of their families has been in America that long.  The story must be false.  "Do you have any identification with you?"  "No, I left it at home, in my other pants.  All I have right now is my bus fare."  So they arrest the man.  For not having his immigration papers with him.  The new law says that's appropriate.  They also charge him with the new, Arizona, state law crime of not having his federal immigration papers with him.  After all, as the Governor says, we have to trust our police.  Really.  We have to.  After all, the Arizona police, including but not limited to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, have no issues as far as immigrants are concerned and have repeatedly demonstrated their fair mindedness.

What a disgrace this is.  This law is completely unacceptable.  It's no surprise that convention organizers are already talking about boycotting Arizona.  

It remains to be seen what pressure can be found to overturn this awful legislation.  That's where you come in.  Ideas are needed.

--------------
simulposted at The Dream Antilles

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Maybe everyone in Arizona should (4.00 / 16)
leave all of their papers at home.  No driver's license. No passport.  No immigration papers.  Nothing.

Thanks for reading.

Visit The Dream Antilles, a Lit Blog.


Unfortunately, (4.00 / 5)
it's not just brown people, and it's not just Arizona. Here is my rant from the other day about what Homeland Security now 'requires' of EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, to prove they are legal. State and federal governments no longer are allowed to take the accepted forms of identification listed in large type on their walls. If you weren't born in this country you have to have a court order declaring you a citizen, even if you have a certified Record of Birth (for child born abroad to American citizens, like say, military personnel or foreign service).

I think they should publicize this new requirement on all government websites and change the damned signs on their walls. Oh... and specify that we are now required to carry our birth certificates with us wherever we go so that when the pigs demand your papers, you've got them on you!

Some are born to weirdness, some attain weirdness and others have weirdness thrust upon them...
- OPOL


[ Parent ]
James da Kitteh (4.00 / 2)
must always look behind her for challenges to her passage...

[My Cat Jim]

Some are born to weirdness, some attain weirdness and others have weirdness thrust upon them...
- OPOL


[ Parent ]
I am so appalled at Arizona... (4.00 / 9)
I thought we had left this kind of stuff somewhere in the past, or at least in foreign countries.

I've watched and read about this all afternoon. The mind boggles and now the redneck, wingnut sheriffs have freedom to arrest for not being white.

Goddess help us all.


I notice an (4.00 / 3)
.... anomaly about the posting intervals of a certain diary author whom is frequently on the wreckomended list....  the 24 hold does not always seem to apply.  That and numerous interventions of the moderator in defending its behavior, use of language some in our culture find puzzling,  and enticing its comebacks after its repeated bouts of pied dedans bouche ......  

je souviens ugog.


these ex koskops are no different from the koskops they cynically rail against.  it's as if they are involved in producing scripted oppositions, while ensuring that any independent bloggers will be "stalked" with .... herd attacks.

Goddess aide tout, indeed.  


[ Parent ]
I've noticed but I think it's the midnight edt (4.00 / 1)
posting rule. One a day is based on the edt time.

I'm going to work on my willpower to stop drop turds in that particular punchbowl. Almost made the HC today! Woo Hoo - not sure I've ever been there, or at least not in years.

I'm getting a new reputation over there - as an in your face activist. For years I was quiet, not anymore, and it feels good to whack on people.


[ Parent ]
I was stopped and required to have papers... (4.00 / 9)
...twice in my hippie days:  in Florida and in Louisiana.  Arizona is joining in with some real losers.

When all is said and done, what really matters is whether or not you are happy.

Oh those were the days. (4.00 / 6)
I was stopped in Alabama.  The cops decided I was ok when I showed them a Mississippi driver's license.  Oy.

Visit The Dream Antilles, a Lit Blog.

[ Parent ]
In the Army our cab was stopped for having (4.00 / 8)
a white girl sitting next to a black cab driver. 1974, Columbia SC

I feel like I've stepped back in time and not in a good way.


[ Parent ]
You really aren't going to like the sponsor of the bill in (4.00 / 6)
.... the AZ state senate.

Before this heats up, I just wanted to say, I do not wish any person of any background any animosity, and am criticizing their actions.

People (the new ones)  slip sometimes here in wingnut Sierra terra, and say the most craptastic things in front of me, because I got the paleness genes out of the mix.  My maiden name "sounds" latino when pronounced as the family did it, and this gives me the creeps even with my built in cloaking device.

Can't imagine being in Arizona right now.  

Oy, is right, all my ancestors are rolling in their graves right now.  


[ Parent ]
The way I see it is that we're (4.00 / 6)
all members, citizens of the vast Mestizo nation that runs from Vancouver, B.C. to the Panama/Colombia border.  Making believe otherwise is just nonsense.

Visit The Dream Antilles, a Lit Blog.

[ Parent ]
yup , me too ... appalling (4.00 / 6)
and creeps.

Years ago I was with my ex and we were pulled over, okay long time ago. They took one look at him and said, very snide, "How long've YOU been out?" Nasty. Gave him a lot of attitude and also, to me, they were all, oh dearie, you poor thing, gee, how well do you know this guy? I was like, uh, he's my husband, you dweebs. And he was Italian heritage. It was a real eye opener for me. Very weird. If they'd had the slightest excuse, Im certain they'd've hauled him in.

This AZ law is real police state horseshit.



"When you realize how perfect everything is you will tilt your head back and laugh at the sky" Buddha


Thank you, davidseth! (4.00 / 9)
This is all too reminiscent of a history that we know too well.  Jews underwent just such treatment for supposedly "looking" like(?) a Jew in Nazi Germany.  How does this Arizonan law differ?  Or, maybe, it's just the private prisons looking for new "heads."  

Governor Brewer cannot hear herself, apparently

racial profiling would not be tolerated.
 Perhaps, she's on drugs and afraid she might be arrested!  

As you know (and I do think this plays a part), since Obama (and probably before) got in, the Republicans have been at work behind the scenes -- going after governorships, where they figure they can.  I make mention of this, because if this sick law is not quickly rescinded, then I suspect many of the Southern States would be the next to adopt such tactics.

Republicans have long, long had a sense and self-deemed notion of being the "elite," the "entitled," the "real" Americans -- WASPS.  But the Bush Adm. succeeded in attempting to imbue that same sense in the "bible belt" and elsewhere.  Thus, we have seen increased racism, religious intolerance in some areas, an attempt to put "religion" back into the State, an attack on hard-working immigrants -- who, more often than not, have had false promises made to them by unscrupulous employers and, then become subject to further abuse as a result.

Now, with the advent of a "black" President, the foundation for "hatred" that was lain down before his Presidency, has now gained great momentum -- as what we have seen continuously onward is increasing, rampant hatred in this country, permeating just about every fibre of our existence.

Just think, for a moment, about the existent hatred that has been spewed, via media, via "Teabaggers," via the rampant hate-mongering just about everywhere you can think of, including our "hate-mongering" of citizens in other countries. "Killing, maiming, torturing is O.K."  Because they just might become terrorists.

NO, the fact is that the goals -- set out before the Bush Adm., and the "gas pedal" hit to the floor by Bush, Cheney, et al., were simply the foundations of which are being "lived" and "realized" today.*

Frightening "patterns" before our eyes!

*Make no mistake, the complicit or "weak-knee" Democrats have their fair share of the blame for not "fighting" these efforts.  


"At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst."--Aristotle


While it's WASP (4.00 / 2)
for folks like Bush/Cheney and their gang, that's not what is true for the judicial branch of government - which is strongly Catholic (and not all that white Anglo-Saxon).

Some are born to weirdness, some attain weirdness and others have weirdness thrust upon them...
- OPOL


[ Parent ]
Hadn't really thought about it from that vantage, Joy B. (0.00 / 0)
But, yeh, you're right -- but, you know, abortion, the right to choose the "end of life," etc. -- makes sense from that standpoint.

But, en largesse, I think of it all as a much more Bush orientation and goes way back (as you say).

Thanks, Joy B.

"At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst."--Aristotle


[ Parent ]
David----From Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. Hermanos somos todos! (4.00 / 6)
Let's see how America responds. My fingers are crossed.

You are already required to carry papers (4.00 / 7)
legitimizing your existence to the cops.  If you don't have them, the cops make up some kind of stuff about what you've been doing.  

The Arizona law merely displays the police state which has already arrived.

"Mientras el trabajo sea una comodidad, un mecanismo de extracción de plusvalía y un arma de alienación, el sistema y sus miserias sobrevivirán."  -Peter McLaren


Yes, absolutely, cassiodorus! (4.00 / 5)
Accident all of this?  Hardly!

All well planned out from a quite a way back.

"Police State?" or the following by the Bush Family of Nazism, or is there any difference?  

"At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst."--Aristotle


[ Parent ]
It's older than Bush. (4.00 / 3)
Only under Obama are we starting to notice.

Some are born to weirdness, some attain weirdness and others have weirdness thrust upon them...
- OPOL


[ Parent ]
Oh, yes, I agree, it began long before (4.00 / 1)
Bush, but it was all happening in "tiny" sort of increments, then, the "gas pedal hit the floor" with Bush, Cheney, et al.

Strange, too, that people are catching on during the first "black" Presidency -- how weird is that?

"At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst."--Aristotle


[ Parent ]
How we can be flying around on this cosmic speck of dust in an (4.00 / 5)
unfathomly vast universe and then have the nerve to call our fellow humans alien or illegal? It is hard for a sapient being to grasp.

Planet Earth is where protoplasm has been slowly stewing  for the last four billion years; and as far as I know, there isn't any special organism that has an exclusive claim to where sunlight hits the earth. And I don't know any people who are trees (other than myself).

I wonder if the lizards and other critters who go back and forth over the border can prove who they are? Anybody checking for birds or pollen? I certainly recognize the border violence caused by drug organizations and the need to eradicate it. But using it as a tool of fear in order to justify a discriminatory law that subjects anyone to a police search is wrong.

The notion that it requires the police to merely suspect somebody of not "being" legal is too Kafkaesque for me. It is likely constitutionally too broad and, from what I've heard from its supporters, may violate the 1st and 4th Amendments e.g. if your suspicions are based upon clothing and/or behaviour, it may be a violation of the 1st Amendment. And if a person is detained for being suspected of a crime, it certainly violates the 4th Amendment.

It also probably violates the 14th Amendment: I don't see how two people similarly situated (say waiters in a restaurant doing the same work)can be treated differently based on clothing, language, acquaintances etc. (meanwhile cleverly pretending that race is irrelevant).

Will the constitutional law professor president stand up?
He's allowed to talk, there's no criminal trial. The statute is fair game. So what does the executive really have to say? He loves these teachable moments, doesn't he?


well said. (4.00 / 5)
and... what does an illegal look like anyway?

Photobucket

.

Custer

.

Mirabeau Buonaparte Lamar

Mirabeau Buonaparte Lamar (1798-1859) was a Texas politician, diplomat and soldier who was a leading Texas political figure during the Texas Republic era. He was the second President of the Republic of Texas... In his first formal address to the Texas Congress several weeks later, Lamar urged that the Cherokee and Comanche tribes be driven from their lands in Texas, even if the tribes must be destroyed. He also proposed to create a national bank and to secure a loan from either the United States or Europe. Finally, he opposed annexation to the United States and wished to entice European countries to recognize the Republic of Texas.[4] His first actions were against the Indian tribes. In 1839 his troops drove the Cherokee tribes from Texas. The battle resulted in the death of Houston's friend Chief Bowles, leaving Houston angry at Lamar. A similar campaign was fought against the Comanche. Although many lives were lost, the Comanches could not be forced from the area.[4] Lamar believed


"When you realize how perfect everything is you will tilt your head back and laugh at the sky" Buddha

[ Parent ]
Texas is still its own Republic. Shit, we even have a handful (4.00 / 3)
theocracies; Tennesse and Oklahoma just to name a few.
All Arizona is doing is writing its own federal version of the constitution, no big deal. Wall St. is making its own Vatican State right here in New York.

Whoa, I think it's time for me to garden-----------


[ Parent ]
heh (4.00 / 4)
well Im not from here, I just live here. ;-/

I really should try to pay more attention to my kid's homework, this year its Texas History. (her teachers are pretty cool, she's in the SmartyPants batch, Teacher even taught some Zinn stuff).

"When you realize how perfect everything is you will tilt your head back and laugh at the sky" Buddha


[ Parent ]
Alas, my tree-like friend, (4.00 / 3)
the 4th Amendment disappeared into judicial ether many years ago. That is why challenges to unwarranted spying are going nowhere. You'll never see an allowed Congressional challenge either. Everybody excoriates Obama for not moving on warrantless wiretapping, but that corner of the Constitution went away years ago.

I know this because while we were pursuing a civil case in FL, Harry Connick [Sr.] seized our legal files from our investigative lawyer in New Orleans. And held them for six months so we had to put off a court date we'd worked seven years to finally obtain. While trying to get our files back in time for that court date, I complained to the chief justice of the LA Supreme Court (signed the "fill in the blank" warrant against the lawyer), The AGs of LA, FL and here in NC, plus Janet Reno (US AG at the time). Every single one of them responded that our legal papers and effects - with a helluva lot of very personal information including voluminous medical records, correspondence, investigation files and reports, and general legal papers including copies of birth and death certificates - were not protected from unreasonable search and seizure because we were not named on the warrant and had not been suspected of or charged with any crime.

The way it stands and has stood for awhile, the 4th amendment doesn't apply (this was also explained, with precedent citations) unless you are CONVICTED of a crime upon evidence your lawyer can demonstrate was illegally obtained, on appeal. This means they can seize and search your effects at will during investigation and prosecution phases - of anyone, for any suspicion of any crime. If YOU are the one charged with a crime, they just can't use illegally obtained evidence against you. The poison fruit principle just stipulates that the illegal evidence be used directly against you in court to obtain conviction. That only happens if the prosecution can't get around the first (illegal) step of that line of evidence in its presentation to the court. Whatever they develop from illegal evidence during the investigative stage can generally be introduced on its own and pass muster. If the prosecutor and his investigators are any good.

The right to be secure in your papers, effects and/or person against unreasonable search and seizure can only be asserted on appeal of a criminal conviction obtained via illegally obtained evidence. You won't see public advertisement that explains this to the casual observer. Most people, like me, would simply presume their legal files are protected. Just like they presume their on-line activities, email, phone conversations, etc. are protected under the 4th. It is not so, and has not been so since before Dubby took over in 2001.

Some are born to weirdness, some attain weirdness and others have weirdness thrust upon them...
- OPOL


[ Parent ]
Actually (4.00 / 3)
the security and privacy at the heart of the 4th Amendment is violated when there's an illegal seizure or illegal search.  The remedy in criminal cases is suppression of the illegally seized items and the fruit of those items (if you can prove it was fruit).  Unfortunately, the courts despise the suppression rule and the idea that "the guilty go free because the constable bungled," and they've done everything they possibly can to devalue the 4th Amendment.

This should actually be a rant and essay of its own: the hostility of the judiciary and the police to the 4th Amendment and the unwillingness of the citizenry generally to fight for it's vitality.  This might because the "only ones" who benefit from enforcement of the 4th Amendment through suppression are people who have something to suppress, i.e. drugs, guns, money, etc.  If the cops illegally search you and find nothing, yes, you can sue them for a civil rights violation.  But they are "armed" with a host of immunity and "good faith" arguments that are there to protect them (and their abuse of citizens).

Visit The Dream Antilles, a Lit Blog.


[ Parent ]
What got me (4.00 / 2)
about all that was the fact that as long as we (via our legal files) were not a target of the investigation, we had no expectation that our legal files would count as personal papers and/or effects. This is the precedent that is used to justify warrantless wiretapping of just about everybody, all the time. Bush made it "official," but it was there all along.

The lawyer was accused of comingling of funds. We had never paid him a dime, thus our files weren't relevant to the investigation of HIS alleged crimes (the charges were eventually dropped, he was never convicted of anything). Thus we had no rights we could assert to get our legal files back in time for court date. Think about that. If you've got a lawyer, think about what's in his or her files at his/her office. Think about whether or not you'd like it if those were held and rifled by any kind of investigators looking for evidence of crimes someone else may have committed.

THAT is real, and perfectly legal in this country. Since before GWB.

Some are born to weirdness, some attain weirdness and others have weirdness thrust upon them...
- OPOL


[ Parent ]
addendum... (4.00 / 1)
Yes, the violation occurs when the violation occurs. It's just that you cannot assert it in court unless your lawyer can prove it occurred and that you were convicted of a crime based on the violation. There are ten ways to sideways to get around that. Any decent lawyer could do it.

IOW, I could not assert my 4th amendment rights in order to retrieve our legal files intact from the New Orleans DA, because so long as I'm not a criminal appealing a conviction, I have no 4th amendment rights.

Some are born to weirdness, some attain weirdness and others have weirdness thrust upon them...
- OPOL


[ Parent ]
I had a thought tonight and just maybe, it could be the start (4.00 / 5)
of a real "progressive" movement.  

What do I mean?  Well, you know, the Teabaggers have their thing, the hate symbols, signs, language, you name it.

I think it's time to start wearing "black armbands" on a regular basis.  No words, no signs, just "black armbands" -- to be worn daily (we can get a movement going in this way).  Easy to do.  Buy a small piece of black felt, measure the girth of your upper arm muscle, cut a piece of felt about 3" by your arm measurement girth and add an inch or so.  Add Velco, and voila, you have a black armband.  Wear it daily -- wear it proudly! When people ask you why you are wearing this black armband, you respond, "I'm mourning the death of America."

I really think something like this would really work -- no rhetoric, no hatred, just a silent expression, with a terrific response, if asked why the black armband!  Yes?

"At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst."--Aristotle


I didn't realize that a reference to the 4th Amendment would stimulate (4.00 / 4)
such a passionate discussion. However, as a lawyer, I would do everthing possible to attack and destroy the Arizona statute. In referencing the 1st, 4th and 14th Amendments, I was brainstorming. I haven't even read the law, but I think I have the rotten core of its principles understood: It allows the police to use a different standard, less than probable cause, to detain and possibly restrain. And I would also argue that being in the U.S. without legal papers is not even a crime.  

Anyhow, the best argument is probably that the law is too broad and would cast a large discriminatory net over innocent people, thus inviting violations of equal protection.
To tell you the truth, I don't much like law anymore. I prefer art and poetry. In fact, I don't even know why I became a lawyer in the first place. I was most active in law during the late 80's trying to legalize immigrants in our county under IRCA. But I spent most of my career as a bilingual teacher, ending the last 8 years teaching high school English and History.

I have the same spirit I did in the 60's, but my old, sore body is definitely not the same.    


I would think that is the entire purpose behind this sick law: (4.00 / 1)
the best argument is probably that the law is too broad and would cast a large discriminatory net over innocent people, thus inviting violations of equal protection.

Yep, too broad, making possible "a large net over innocent people."  The stocks of private prisons would undoubtedly increase two-fold, as well.

"At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst."--Aristotle


[ Parent ]
 

Menu

- Create New Account
- Lost password
- Contact Us

Username:

Password:




- Mission Statement
- FAQ
- YouTube Posting
- HTML Help

Seek




Advanced Search


Contribute to Docudharma
 

 
     

 

Action

WikiLeaks Mirror Sites
 

Powered by: SoapBlox