The 2010 Arizona Immigration Law: SB 1070
On Gerrymandering, Racism and Common Sense
by James May
Copyright 2010 James May • All Rights Reserved
Other than the beginning and end of the Civil War and with it, the assassination of President Lincoln, April hasn't been a particularly contentious month in American history. With the signing into law of Senate Bill 1070 by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer as April, 2010 drew to a close, a rhetorical civil war erupted in America that reflects the cultural war brought about by the flood of illegal immigrants pouring into the United States in the past 15 years. Even the National Council of La Raza, a Latino advocacy group in the United States characterizes the number of illegal Latinos in the US as 12 million, an astounding figure by any reckoning. With the influx of millions of illegal Mexicans into the US has also come Mexican gang warfare, human trafficking, kidnappings and increased drug smuggling and an indisputable strain on the backs of US taxpayers as illegals cost Federal, state and local governments untold billions of dollars as well as serving to surpress wages. Also accompanying this tremendous influx of illegal Latinos has been a desire on the part of the Democratic Party in the United States to manipulate their very presence by way of gerrymandering votes in order to secure future power for Democrats. For United States politicians and Left leaning officials in government to use foreign nationals in order to magnify the practical effects of their own political beliefs is unprecedented in American history on this scale. What future vision of America the Democratic Party has is not known but I suspect that in the heady desire for power, that future has in fact not been thought all the way through; in fact, the Democratic Party seems to have no vision for the future of America other than a vague but persistant obssession with multiculturalism whose benefits are so obvious that they are not to be debated.
European Americans who have loved their way of life and already having to put up with the reality of urban war zones created by black and Latino gangs endemic to those communties are understandably worried about the future of this country in terms of having the peace to walk down the street at night without fear of crime. According to Wikipedia, "Homicide rates in Latin America are among the highest in the world. From the early 1980s through the mid-1990s, homicide rates increased by 50 percent." Those Americans who fear such a rise in crime have been rebuffed as bigots, xenophobes and racists by the Left and by minorities who themselves see no problem in having hundreds of advocacy organizations created around skin color and culture and so in that sense coming from a far less constitutional place than do European Americans, who routinely reject the idea of organization by skin color or ethnic political advocacy as do I; there is no such thing as an "Association of White Journalists" and the idea that there is not because such a thing already exists in a reality dominated by white America is ridiculous - such a thing doesn't exist because European Americans don't think like that and abhor such concepts.
And there is the terrible population explosion taking place in Latin America. As far back as 1990, Robert Fox wrote, "The population explosion that began in the 1950's and continues today is arguably Central America's most significant historical event, overriding in importance the Spanish Conquest and Independence Movement 270 years later. Never has the region experienced anything of this magnitude and force. Not only is the amount of growth of serious concern, but also the speed with which it is occurring. It is wreaking havoc on the region's cultures, the economies, social systems and on the natural resource base." This population explosion is creating people faster than the economies create jobs. The countrysides in much of Latin America that can sustain people are already mostly spoken for and so you see a population throughout Latin American that is increasingly urbanised with devastating results.
William G. Hollingsworth in a 1998 article in USA Today about America's projected population growth wrote, "More than 90% of that growth would be the result of immigration, assuring that U.S. immigration policy will remain a hot political issue." Accurate and disheartening and a concern over such things should not be written off as xenophobic racism.
The hypocrisy and racism on the part of black American and Latino groups is palpable when it comes to the question of who can advocate for whom. Having learned that news agencies eat up the 'racism' defense with a spoon, minorities and their advocates across the United States increasingly defend their criminal behaviour by simply blaming 'the system', laying the guilt where it will do the least good and where it doesn't belong. In the end, however, it will be the minority communities across America who will pay the ultimate price for what amounts to pranksterism as feel good rhetoric will inevitably give way to reality and burnt out value systems in play in minority communities cut a swath across their very future.
White Americans are continually fended off on whatever issue they wish to self advocate by cries of past and present racism, imperialism, colonialism and genocide as well as a native desire to lord it over minorities. While defending themselves on these non-issues, the real issues become obfuscated and many liberal Americans, perhaps for reasons of national guilt and out of naiveté, fall into the trap of believing themselves and their culture to be corrupt and immoral. The fact that never before in the history of the United States has that history been more disliked by it's own population speaks to this. Apparently the fundamental racism and hypocrisy of believing that white people are diehard racists while people of color do not possess this dimension has not occurred to many or is simply ignored in favor of a political agenda. The ends justify the means in this instance and there have been examples on the liberal Left of cynical manipulation of facts and history in order to make the Left seem correct in all that it aspires to.
Vincent Gray in a Pajamas Media website article in November, 2009, wrote about the fraud perpetrated by scientists in regards to climate change. In order for global warming to seem more real, scientists were found to be manipulating facts and outright lying just to advance their political beliefs. The far Left group ACORN has been shameless in terms of vote fraud, once again apparently feeling that the end does indeed justify the means. It seems as if the Left in America, feeling they had learned a lesson by Al Gore's defeat in Florida in 2000, have decided to resort to manipulation by whatever means necessary to advance their cause. A war of culture and ethnicity has broken out in the United States and it's taking no prisoners. Common sense has been relegated to a position of being obselete and of no consequence when it comes to political rhetoric from the Left.
I take no sides when it comes to Liberals versus Conservatives in the Unites States; I pick and choose based on common sense pragmatism and not by a world view that says one side is always correct. I don't believe in demonizing cultures and individual's simply because they stand in my way because I have no way to be stood in front of and no agenda whatsoever unless you consider an America closer to the world of 'Leave It To Beaver" than urban ghettos to be an agenda. I think we all would like to live in peace and security. The problem comes when the racial dimension is spattered around wholesale in order to subvert reality itself that is the problem with one-in-all defenses on the Left of 'racism' at every turn with little facts following such accusations. The 'profiling' accusation over SB 1070 is a classic attempt by the Left in America to portray the entire controversy as a racist 'what if' without a debate about particulars on one side or the other. In this manner you have mountains of crime, worries over cultural subversion and economic considerations and a host of other issues on one side of the debate and the argument, if you can call it that, that the bill 'might' be abused by profiling Latino American ciitzens. Relegating SB 1070 to simple racism is a sign that the political Left in America has no cogent ideas about the issue to debate and reveals a mistrust in the power and honesty of their own position
In this scenario European Americans are pilloried as bigots for wanting their own productive and relatively peaceful culture to remain in ascendency while black and Latino Americans blithely maneuver for their own ascendancy in America, oblivious to the criminal endeavor and lack of achievement in their own communities, and simply write off this crime and failure as being the result of racism on the part of white America. In such a world what is in front of ones eyes means nothing next to a political and cultural agenda and every ill is magnified or mitigated as it best suits this purpose.
The culture of blame endemic to the political Left in the US has taken on overtones Orwellian in nature and with the passing into law of SB 1070 in the state of Arizona, the penchant of liberals to oppose common sense in a semantic deluge of verbal subversion has been as evident as it has ever been. According to the Left, anyone who is in favor of SB 1070 is by turns deluded, racist, xenophobic, intolerant, bigoted, ethnocentric and ignorant. This seems an awful lot of rhetorical and moral overkill for a country that simply wants to excercise control over it's own borders, something every country in the world aspires to and does. Subverting and transforming this desire into racism is foolish on the face of it and reveals the lengths liberals and minorities will go to to demonize anyone or any subject that gets in their way no matter how demonstrably innocent. Laws making it illegal to enter the Unites States have been on the books for decades and decades and they have not suddenly become racist simply because swaths of Latin America are an overpopulated and failed polity. What Latinos fail to realize is that you cannot have a good life at the expense of another culture's institutions. One must stay in one's failed nation and fight and give blood to make it the dream you wish for as have European Americans and this speaks to a moral fortitude that has been missing in Latin America - you cannot run away to a better place but must stay and fight; moving to another nation and attempting to exploit what another culture has done in this regard will never work. In that scenario, the foreign culture will never fully participate in the American dream because the Magna Carta is not something one can put on like a suit of clothes and respect is based on performance and not what you might do better on some future day. A culture must be fully steeped in positive values from the inside out and not the other way around. Democracy and being an American is just a little more than having citizenship papers, a nice car and a good job and a blackberry. Mexicans, by trying to bully their way across the border and into American life are doing themselves and this country an injustice. One cannot assimilate true democratic values by osmosis while using one's own racial bigotry to insult and demonize the very people responsible for the way of life America has.
This is where we come to one of the biggest fallacies and failings of the political Left in the United states and the great divide between the Republican and Democratic Party. White and minority liberals believe by and large that every culture in the world has the same potential, no matter evidence to the contrary or facts right in front of their eyes. With the Left, in regard to Third World populations, everything is imperialism equals coulda, woulda, shoulda and the Left is confident that no matter how many people from failed cultures enter the United States that they will also make their mark by way of achievement if just given the chance.
In the view of the Left, the only reason European and European American cultures have ever flourished and established hegemony is not through fundamental and superior values or through native intelligence but because of the lack of them; through lucky opportunism, racism, slavery, theft, genocide and generally corrupt behaviour against the innocent world around them the West has subjugated all cultures technologically inferior and thereafter kept them down in order to exploit their nations wealth and people. This retro view of history that is now painted as inevitable gives no credence to the real history of the West which is one of cultural and national violent competitions taking place alongside the slow and agonising rise of individual rights. Ironically, this view gives no credence to the idea that non-Europeans are just as capable of war, slavery, subjugation and murder as is anyone else - an odd sort of patronizing racism that is unwitting and uninformed. While conservatives in America seem to take it for granted in an odd reversal of racist charges, that any people anywhere are more or less the same morally, the Left takes the opposite for granted, a racist view while charging others of racism. This mad idea of attaching immorality to the idea of success itself is an example of Orwellian delusion that permeates the Left in American, a liberal position where reality and common sense are right out the door. On the right, one can see white supremacists, corrupt religious leaders and the whole panoply of ugly things that immoral and unethical people do. But on that conservative Right, these abhorrent practices are easily recognizible as simple hate, ignorance and thievery. On the Left, their particular faults have attained a type of delusional and overly complex madness, where overreaching philosophies are used to twist the simplest and most innocent human emotions and observations into immorality in direct proportion to how much the political Left disagrees with a stance; in that world, failed nations are moral in exact comparison to the immoral success of America and Europe.
Those who side with the Left therefore have no problem with demonizing, punishing and claiming moral ascendancy over an entire state of some 7 million people in Arizona. City councils in such cities as Austin, Texas and Los Angeles, California apparently had no trouble with the idea of authorizing an economic boycott of Arizona despite the fact that it violates the spirit if not the very letter of their oath of office or that they are in effect, immorally passing judgement on a law as if law itself is an ephemeral thing, to be obeyed or ignored at one's political whim. The idea that Austin and L.A. might put their own constituents in harm's way by exposing them to a counter boycott or that as officials of the United States, they are taking up a position in favor of the unlawful actions of foreign nationals against the long precedented lawful actions of their fellow Americans seems not to matter one whit to them such is the nature of their deluded and smug moralizing. One can now more easily see the Orwellian dimensions to the liberal debate over illegal immigration, the lengths to which people are willing to delude themselves and harm others simply to make a political point and the respect for law liberals have when it conflicts with their own tenets. The liberal left positions itself as champion's of law when it comes to profiling and ignores law when they disagree with policies having to do with illegal immigration; if this were not true there would be no such thing as sanctuary cities.
When one hears arguments that liberals hate themselves and America, it may be overblown but one can certainly see where such ideas come from given the odious and bludgeoning behaviour of the Left for years now. The same cannot be said for many in the black and Latino American communities who seem to have an increasing dislike of the very culture they cannot stay away from and cannot replicate without the very European Americans so many of them seem to resent and even despise; this scenario is Orwell 101 and 'doublethink' in all its glory. The success of America and the reasons why people love it so much are not in any way endemic to the elements of the black and Latino communties inside or outside America; there is coulda, woulda, shoulda and there is reality. Often one's discontent is in exact relation to the reality or lack of it in regard to one's own expectations of one's self. To whatever extent black and Latino Americans are not willing to be content with their own record of achievement as a true reflection of their own cultures and begin to blame that lack of achievement on others, then that is the extent to which jealousy and resentment will creep in as well as a sense of unreality that will blind those very cultures to the solutions they most need to see since the entire onus of their failure is placed on white America.
One can see this resentment outside of the United States most clearly in the muslim middle east where overweening arrogance has come to suplant any idea of lack of capability. So some in the middle east, because of the unreality of their expectations of themselves have come to at once covet and dislike America because it is a polity they feel they should be able to create and they cannot reconcile themselves to the reality of their inability to do so with the view that they should be able to; in this view, America is a lucky country despite it's own decadence and not a competent one. This is a very similar view to the ones trundled about in Latino and black American rhetoric and which has become all too common. Expectations are one thing, expectations based on reality are another. If a person can do a thing they have probably done it and when this is extended to millions of people the idea that blacks and Latinos are somehow being kept down by forces outside their control is ludicrous; extended to include all of Africa and South and Central America it is even more so; it is their own cultural value system that is at fault and not 19th century European racism and imperialism. The Jews came out of concentration camps in 1945 with a thousand years of on again, off again European bigotry behind them and in 3 short years reached for the moon and created the state of Israel against all odds and with the help on no one; where was this generational hangover then? You can't keep a good man down and all this blame nonsense is just that, nonsense.
The problem here for all Americans is that reality will intrude itself, like it or not and no matter your politics and a great influx of people from Latin America, Africa and the middle east will not improve life in American but make it worse, both for those on the top and those on the bottom. This idea is another great divide between the Left and the Right in America which has unfortunately been typically dragged down to the level of racism or not racism rather than a common sense view of the performance of African and Latino dominated polities. Apparently the Left believes that Haiti, for example, is one of the most failed little nations on earth because it is someone else's fault while those on the Right believe that if Haiti were full of Greeks it would be a great place to live. The fact that Haitians share their island with the Domincan Republic which is nowhere near in as sorry straits as is Haiti is a reflection of simple reality and has no racist component to it; observing such a reality is not racist but the liberal Left has other ideas on such matters.
When one brings the middle east, Latin America and Africa to America, one is creating a failed underclass and not a group of cultures that will easily assimilate and be the next conveyors of the 'Uncertainty Principle', fractal geometry or string theory. In general terms, this view is considered racism on the Left and simple observation of past history on the Right. The more people who come from the Third World to America the more problems America will have and the more characteristics of a Third World state it will take on. A culture's innate brilliance cannot be transferred by close contact or that innate brilliance denied in the first place simply because one doesn't like the idea. This is nice, polite, political correctness but it is not reality which is often not nice and is harsh because it is uncaring; observing the uncaring nature of reality does not make one uncaring nor intolerant nor a racist. It is a basic tenet amongst the political Left in the United States that reality itself will somehow bend to the politically correct view that all people everywhere are equal but for opportunity. The problem is that European ascendancy did not result from mere opportunity and opportunity itself is not something that one finds in the dirt but is a creation of man and a reflection of his innate talent and values.
As black and Latino minority cultures have been ever more politicized in the United States, this politicization has reflected a growing dislike of the story of America. This has brought about the seeming contradiction on the part of the rhetoric in black and Latino communities that depicts a simultaneous resentment and de facto attachment to the culture of European Americans that is hard to credit. In this sense, there can be little doubt that it is the culture of European Americans and their acheivements in technology, infrastructure, the arts and social arenas that have drawn people all over the world to emigrate to the United States and not that of black or Latino cultures and yet these latter cultures commonly tear down mainstream America and its institutions as debauched while at the same time revelling in them in reality. A fair rhetorical question might be asked: what have black and Latino American cultures ever contributed to the United States that makes people from all over the world, including blacks and Latinos, want to come to live here? Make no mistake, merely asking such a question is considered racist on the Left and the Left's own answer would be that black and Latino Americans have never been given a chance to contribute to American institutions because of white America's racism. To a liberal, there seems to be a notion that people from failed cultures are failures because of Western racism and imperialism and so are in fact, Einsteins' in the making and one need only wait for the aftereffects of white racism to fade away and all will be revealed. Detractors of American European culture feel successful Western cultures built those cultures on slavery and dumb luck despite their inherent decadence. It is by no means uncommon to hear black rhetoricians proclaim that America was built on slavery and Africa debilitated from advancement by that same act. In their eyes, it is just as simple as that and they never heard the phrase, 'It's not about you'. The long and complex history of Western civilization and it's achievements are relegated to mere piracy in a few deft strokes. Neither is it uncommon for black Americans to seek to take a piece of that history by proclaiming that the pyramids were built by black folks and that Cleopatra and Hannibal were black. This reflects a desire on the part of some few black Americans to co-opt what is not theirs to have, so barren is the lack of achievement on the part of their cultures. Once again, the ability to reconcile desire and reality subverts reality to that very desire and so history itself changes at will.
Once SB 1070 was signed into law all hell broke loose as the bill was criticized by the political left for being racist, undermining the US constitution and an example of racial profiling. People on the left and in the Latino community made remarks about the bill that were consistently inaccurate in order to up the ante and one might say, create an air of hysteria. The bill was commonly called the 'Show me your papers' bill, or portrayed as one in which the Arizona police force would 'profile' everyone with brown skin, as if being asked for your ID is somehow a traumatic and freedom destroying act. 'Xenophobic' was a term often used by opponents of the bill on websites and on television and the dangers of an illegal interrogation were compared to reasons for America's cold war.
United States Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Assistant Secretary of State, P.J. Crowley all denounced SB 1070 as discriminatory early on and then later admitted they hadn't read the bill. This shows pretty clearly what is going on with the pollitical left and their desire to gerrymander the illegal Latino vote; the objection of the Left has nothing to do with human rights since there is no discriminatory dimension to the Arizona bill. In fact, I have read the bill and it specifically prohibits discrimination. Naysayers to this on the Left and amid Latinos should admit that any problem therefore is not with the bill itself but with anyone who violates the wording of the bill and this can be true of any law.
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann were all over the Arizona law from the beginning. The problem for them is that their arguments are weak on what's shown and even weaker when one considers what is left out of the dialogue which at times, as in the case of the SB 1070 Bill, is more substantive than what MSNBC actually reported on; this may account for why Keith Olbermann's show has had weaker ratings than Nancy Grace's primetime murder/gossip show as the average American does not consider debate to be preaching to the choir.
What is really amazing to me as I have read and watched interview after interview from those against this bill is how much traction their arguments have gained among Americans since the Left actually has not said one true thing about this bill, only what 'might' happen or the bill's potential for abuse while citing nothing in the realm of reality to back this up and ignoring the bill's specificaly anti-discrimnation wording. The magnitude of disengenous comments regarding the nature of the bill and its implementation have been monumental from the political Left in America. How people like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann can interview their choir night after night with a straight face is difficult to contemplate; either they are huge liars or they are into politics which are way above their heads. Sitting in a TV or radio studio for night after night for years on end is not something that is going to put you in touch with America or with the true nature of the population explosion occurring in the Third World. What you have are basically academics who have no real world knowledge of what they are talking about.
On the other side I have been struck by the comments to stories on the web about SB 1070; they seem to be enormously in favor of the bill while polls in the media at the time reported only 60-65% of Americans are in favor.
One of the first things that happened with the signing into law of SB 1070 was a small rash of bureaucratic entities approving official boycotts against the state of Arizona followed by calls among individuals on the other side of the argument to organize counter boycotts. This is a list of some who have called for a boycott of Arizona from a Facebook site called, "Boycott Those Who Boycott Arizona" : "Janice Hahn - L.A. City Council, Ed Reyes - L.A. City Council, U.S. Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Darrell Steinberg California State Senator, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, Tony Herrera, 'Boycott Arizona 2010', San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, American Immigration Lawyers Association, U.S. Representative Joe Baca (D-Calif.), La Opinion, Janet Murguia, head of the National Council of La Raza, Gallup, NM, New York, NY Washington D.C., St. Paul, MN, Los Angeles, CA, Albany, NY, Boston, MA, Boulder, CO, El Paso, TX, Oakland, CA, Portland, OR, San Diego, CA, San Francisco, CA, W. Hollywood, CA"
There were 2 Facebook pages comprising some 600 people calling for the boycott of Austin, TX because of it's call for a boycott against Arizona. Another on Facebook calling itself, "1,000,000 Strong SUPPORTING Arizona Immigration Law SB1070", had over 65,000 friends. The Facebook group on the other side of that calling itself, "1 Million Strong Against the Arizona Immigration Law SB1070" had a million and a half friends.
As I said, having read the bill there is something else going on that has not been brought up by either side that I have seen in the media. Since the bill is basically the same as the Federal statute and many state statutes, including states with cities now boycotting the state of Arizona, what's really going on are two things: number one - the authors of the bill want to embarrass the Federal government for not enforcing the same law already on the books. But where SB 1070 really wants to have an effect is in its desire to do away with sanctuary cities and individuals in state and local public office who have simply refused to obey the Federal Laws against illegal aliens.
Here is the teeth of the bill in this regard which is at the very beginning: ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
At the end of that section is this which I am sure was bookended as a coda to make a point: F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING, RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES: . DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE. 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE. 3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED. 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT. G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES. 2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND 20 DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND SUBSECTION. H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR DEPOSIT IN THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724. I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH. J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
So, what SB 1070 is really about is preventing state officials from protecting illegal aliens by ignoring the law and also exposing any official who does so to a lawsuit. This part of the bill succinctly depicts the frustration on the part of Americans towards city mayors, city councils, police chiefs and other entities who simply refuse to enforce laws already on the books because of their political agenda. This bill is not only a law it is a message of frustration.
The idea that this bill is in any way racist or profiling is absurd since it specifically states, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin." The bill also states: "The terms of this act regarding immigration shall be construed to have the meanings given to them under federal immigration law. C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens." Not being a constitutional lawyer or knowing anything about such matters I will say this; I wouldn't be surprised if the bill was meant as a challenge to the Federal Government and the State of Arizona - a bill meant to be challenged to bring out into the open the illegal nature of sanctuary activities by state and local officials who have taken it on themselves to ignore Federal and State law and therefore to make law and not to follow their sworn oaths and follow the law.
While the boycotts gain momentum one against the other, any expression on the part of European Americans to love their culture themselves and keep it intact are derided by the American political left and by many among minorities in the United States; for a European American to conjure up any 'Leave It To Beaver' nostalgia for an America free of gang violence and illegal immigrants marching in American streets with Mexican flags brings about instant criticism. That criticism from the Left and minorities tends to portray any such nostalgia as a racist desire of white America to return to the days of Jim Crow. Pundits and leadership from the Left and minorities use racism as a sort of catch-all criticism of anything they do not agree with when it comes to any subject the Left can in any way attach to race in America; in this manner, any who disagree with the Left, the Democratic Party and it's platform and policies are shouted down with quietly hysterical claims of bigotry that have little debate or substance to them. Racism, disingenousness, mischaracterization and demonization of any who disagree with the Left in America is distressingly common in the United States in the first decade of the 21st century.
While mountains of 'people of color' from around the world are banging down the doors legally and illegally to enter the United States, increasing complaints and stridency on the part of black and Latino Americans and first generation immigrants themselves about the still present racism they claim is prevalent among Americans as individuals and also its institutions is commonplace. There seems less and less desire not only on the part of new immigrants but among American minorities themselves to assimilate to what they see as an American culture devoted to white privilege and institutional racism. Any sense among new immigrants of being grateful for being allowed to live in the United States is increasingly being replaced by the notion that America is a type of airport for everyone in the world and that no one culture should be allowed to dominate it. Certainly the argument runs in some circles that European Americans stole the land from indigenous pre-Columbian cultures in the first place and so European Americans can have no claim of a type of indigenous hegemony from having made America into the country it is today and ironically, the country so many people of color want to live in.
Among minorities and the Left in America, there seems to be a disconnect between the 'right' of American whites to have America as it was when European Americans had more cultural hegemony and the 'fact' of European cultural hegemony based on its social, economic and technological institutions and its own cultural qualities. This disconnect, particularly among minorities, naturally creates a resentment based on the fact of living in a country they increasingly dislike but cannot live without and cannot make important contributions to. Despite claims among minorities of pervasive racism in America, there is no banging down of doors to go back to any nations where their own cultures and ethnicity is predominant. The feeling seems to be that Latinos, blacks and muslims can have an increasing share of the American pie, the 'Leave It To Beaver" pie they decry with rhetoric and adore by voting with their feet. The idea that American cultural institutions will survive the influx of minorities and remain intact is problematic since the endemic qualities which make America such a desirable place to live in the first place are nowhere in evidence in any Third World country in the 21st century.
The language of ethnicity and culture has been politicized in America in such a way that it is strictly reserved for minorities. While black and Latino Americans call for their cultures to advance forward and even dominate certain areas of America, the right of white Americans to even hold onto their own culture is not only questioned but depicted as a kind of moral bankruptcy if not outright racism and immediately associated with the KKK or Hitler; there have been plenty of swastikas floating around the web from those opposed the Arizona immigration law. Groups like MEChA, which stands for "Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan" or "Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan", even have a dream of the Southwestern United States being turned into the Latino nation of Aztlan, an idea that supposes that the Southwestern US was taken unfairly from the peoples in the region. In "La Voz de Aztlan Editorial Los Angeles, Alta California May 22, 2001" on Aztlan.net, there is even a comparison drawn between the occupation of Palestine and the occupation of the Southwest US. During that same month, the National Council of La Raza issued a statement on its site disassociating itself from "La Voz de Aztlan" because of concerns of its racist overtones. The NCLR is often confused with such groups to its own chagrin.
The National Council of La Raza takes quite a bit of heat from Americans who are concerned about illegal immigration coming in its millions from Mexico. When it comes to the NCLR, semantics and their circumvention and subversion come into full play starting with the name of the organization itself. In particular, anti-illegal immigrant groups have pointed to the words "La Raza" which in plain spanish mean 'the race" and therefore has an attendant overtone of racism. However the NCLR has different views on this matter of the meaning of La Raza. On the National Council of La Raza website it is explained, "Many people incorrectly translate our name, 'La Raza,' as 'the race.' While it is true that one meaning of 'raza' in Spanish is indeed 'race,' in Spanish, as in English and any other language, words can and do have multiple meanings. As noted in several online dictionaries, 'La Raza' means 'the people' or 'the community.' Translating our name as 'the race' is not only inaccurate, it is factually incorrect. 'Hispanic' is an ethnicity, not a race."
Whatever the name, the NCLR is in support of a measure its site describes as the following, "The 'DREAM Act' is federal legislation that would facilitate state efforts to offer in-state tuition to undocumented students and provide certain students with a path to U.S. citizenship." "Undocumented students" are illegal aliens, no matter the name. To use taxpayer money to fund the education of students who are in the country illegally is neither fair, ethical or moral and it is here that I part ways with the NCLR and also where the NCLR reveals its true colors. No matter what 'La Raza' means in its exact title, no matter how carefully you parse the exact syntax of the word race, race is certainly what the organization stands up for. What its ultimate goal is is pretty transparent and it is the same goal as the political left in America when it comes to illegal Latino immigration. What both the NCLR and the American Left are indulging in is nothing more than vote gerrymandering and in the case of the NCLR, an obssession with anyone who has a Latino last name. Like all ethnic organizations that are political in nature, justice in their eyes is not a US constitution style of justice but a justice for those of the same race and culture; race or 'ethnicity', it amounts to the same thing and splitting semantic hairs hides nothing. Racism is at the foot of it no matter how cleaned up the semantics or quiet the tone. There is a difference between cultural or ethnic advocacy and denying equal footing to others and the NCLR crosses this line by doing nothing whatever for any who are not Latino despite claims on its website to the contrary.
The NCLR has officially joined the boycott against the state of Arizona. To me this shows how little they or the Hispanics for whom they advocate really understand in terms of what it means to be an American; most organizations will at least admit the basic requirement for citizenship is to have some kind of citizenship papers but NCLR doesn't even require this; to them, a de facto presence in America makes one an American and bestows rights, their quibbling about 'amnesty' not withstanding. The NCLR is not a radical organization in it's usual sense but it is an organzation full of smoke screens and careful semantics; one doesn't have to be a genius to read between the lines of what is in the end just another group of racists who think everyone else is a racist, especially the European people of the culture who's constitutional institutions protects them and which they parrot but cannot produce themselves. The fact that the NCLR cannot itself produce the nuance necessary to really be the type of American organization it can never be speaks to the lack of any real understanding of what it is to be a republic and why one must put aside personal or racial agendas for the greater good. For the most part, there is no concept of greater good in Latino culture in the United States - if there were, they would not be so wholeheartedly against a law that is meant to protect America from invasion by overpopulated republic's that cannot serve there own people and so the United States is criticized for not serving them. Hypocrisy in this instance is at a very high level.
Since the NCLR has publicly stated that it wants all of what it numbers as 12 million illegal Mexicans in America as of 2010 to be made into US citizens, its statement that it is not for 'amnesty' becomes an exercise in Orwellian style semantics; one is effectively the same as the other. The NCLR is not an organization concerned with justice in the true American use of the term. However imperfectly implemented in the past, the United States Constitution has shown itself to be an eminently flexible document whose goals are ultimately colorblind; one cannot say this about the NCLR and in this sense, it is not an organization that is American in its outlook. The National Council of La Raza is a despicable organization whose nature reflects why there have been so many dictatorships in Latin America's past because they have no true understanding of the tolerance they accuse white America of not possessing, they have no true understanding of personal responsibility, no understanding of why your own skin color can be wrong sometimes or that it doesn't really matter in the first place, no understanding of self-denial or true sacrifice in blood for the good of a country. In the eyes of the NCLR, the legally constituted state of Arizona is wrong and the illegally present 12 million Latinos in the US are right and this is not a philosophical debate but merely self interest based on skin color and dressed up as social justice. No one who is a real American and who follows American tradition would institute a boycott over a law that is so just and so harmless and which has been there all along. Hysteria over 'profiling' as if Latino Americans really understand a thing like the US constitution from within their own cultural traditions is ridiculous; the NCLR has no interest in the US constitution as such except for how its image and words can be manipulated to favor a Latino. Latinos don't endow libraries for the community at large they endow libraries in the Latino community and it is the same with everything they do from rape crisis counseling to education while also taking advantage of institutions in the larger community that have been put in place for all. When Latinos stop thinking of themselves and start thinking of America, that is the day they will become Americans. However imperfectly it has been implemented in the past the United States Constitution works because it is flexible and applied equally to all - the founding charter of NCLR is the opposite of this.
It is this blind advocacy of Latinos for Latinos and black Americans for black Americans while rhetorically denying that same right to European Americans that is what some Americans are so angry about. Such a fundamental lack of understanding of what it means to actually be an American is not welcome in this country in many circles and they are sick of seeing the US Constitution manipulated and seen only as a document that enables law suits or illegal entry into the US or favors one ethnic group over another. This is 2010 and crying about how the constitution was used 200 years ago does not matter; that is history and it is in the past and cannot be changed, but the fact that the constitution itself has undergone a change should be recognized rather than behaving as if this is 1780. The truth of the matter is that the United States, in all its complexity, is a culture not easy to compete in at many levels and Latin Americans are showing themselves, with the boycott of Arizona, to be out of their depth. In the same way that black America showed how out of its depth it is by blindly voting by skin color for President Obama to the tune of 95%, so it is with Latinos in the US and their blind advocacy for everything Latino; in the eyes of Latinos when it comes to politics, Latinos are never wrong.
Black and Latino Americans, by their blind self advocacy and constant accusations of racism against white Americans, are setting an example to those white Americans who never really thought of themselves as white that maybe they should start thinking of themselves as well; it seems never to be thought of that racial advocacy is divisive and not making many friends in the white community who otherwise would be and not a thing to be hoped for or practiced; in this sense, the NAACP and NCLR are making arguments they cannot afford to win. If the 12 million Latinos presently living in this country illegally are allowed to stay it will be a de facto victory for Latino advocates but at what price for their future in terms of resentment and the sacrifice of good will on the part of the rest of America?