On AZ SB 1070: Time To Act

NYTimes Editorial:

A fight is brewing over Arizona’s new law that turns all of the state’s Latinos, even legal immigrants and citizens, into criminal suspects. [. . .] President Obama has called the law “misguided” and promised to keep an eye on it. But when racial separation finds a foothold in any of the 50 states, the president needs to do more than mildly criticize. He should act. Here’s a partial but urgent to-do list:

DEFEND CIVIL RIGHTS The Justice Department needs to challenge this law forcefully in court. [. . .]

STOP ARIZONA COLD Arizona’s scheme will rely on federal databases to determine immigration status. It will also need the cooperation of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE, in accepting detainees. [. . .] In that case, ICE will deny Arizona authorities data, cooperation and scarce resources.

TAKE BACK IMMIGRATION POLICY The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that states cannot make their own immigration laws. The Arizona debacle gives the Obama administration another chance to make it clear that the nation’s immigration policy cannot be left to a ragged patchwork of state and local laws.

[. . . T]he federal government must react forcefully to the Arizona statute. Is our core belief still the welcome and assimilation of newcomers? Arizona has given one answer. It’s time for Mr. Obama to give the other.

(Emphasis supplied.)

< More On The Left Flank: Defining The Middle | Growing Up and In Pain at Gitmo: Omar Khadr Hearings >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh, oh. Bad NYT. And (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:43:58 AM EST
    after all the favoritism it has received from Obama.

    "Misguided"? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:50:29 AM EST
    That was the reaction?  Seems like that should be the reaction when you see someone wear a questionable fashion choice, not in reaction to this heinous policy.

    It's that empathy thing he's got (none / 0) (#4)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:59:19 AM EST
    going on . . . . not.

    I Remember (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 11:58:16 AM EST
    In Wisonsin when we refused to change the drinking law to 21, the Feds threatened to withhold all Transportation Funds.

    This seems a little more important, WI didn't want to change law, Arizona changed the law that is substantially subsidized by the Fed, who else is going to do the deportations, Sheriff Joe Arpaio ?

    Seems like I remember a certain President sending troops to enforce Federal law to Birmingham, a President this one is fond of quoting.

    yeah, good luck with that. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by cpinva on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 12:17:24 PM EST
    the obama administration has more important things to do, like issue subpoena's to the author of a book, published 3 years ago, that the bush administration failed to even try to enforce.

    you really have to choose your battles wisely.

    287 g ... I've mentioned that one on and off (none / 0) (#2)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:46:55 AM EST
     for months now. Time to end it immediately. defund it, do something.

    I wonder if the editorial writer... (none / 0) (#5)
    by EL seattle on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 11:32:59 AM EST
    ... expected anything like the REPAIR proposal to be released (or the president's apparent shifting of the subject to back-burner) when they wrote about "TAKE BACK IMMIGRATION POLICY".

    Time to shift attention to (none / 0) (#8)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 12:39:41 PM EST
    foreign policy...

    Damn... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 01:02:14 PM EST
    I guess Thomas Jefferson is outta any and all Arizona lesson plans...if all the provisions are followed to the letter.  

    Prohibits a school district or charter school from including in its program of instruction any courses or classes that:

    - Promote the overthrow of the United States government.

    Yep...the words of Jefferson are out, and many of the founding fathers.

    Where does it say you can't teach English (none / 0) (#16)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 02:05:27 PM EST
    if you have a distinct foreign accent?

    One of the problems in elementary schools in Hawaii is the use of pigin English by teachers.

    WRT ethnic studies, it looks like it bans the practice of promoting resentment toward other races or classes of people, not the teaching of ethnic studies itself. That's good policy.


    Quite telling though... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 02:18:14 PM EST
    that such a thing has to be banned at all...you'd think it assumed that promoting resentment of certain ethnic groups has no place in schools...no place anywhere.

    Uh, huh, and there's no anti-white (none / 0) (#24)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 02:54:46 PM EST
    sentiment in the schools either, right?

    As a parent and a volunteer in Hawaii's classrooms, I can attest to the fact that Hawaii's teachers speak pidgin in the classrooms whenever they feel like it.


    Yeah, but you haven't worked in the (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 05:08:59 PM EST
    state house leadership... or whatever.

    lol.... Come on Donald, people are always on their best behavior when they are in public...


    getting popcorn (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 03:08:50 PM EST

    Haole (none / 0) (#28)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 03:16:44 PM EST
    is a racist invective that minimizes an entire group of people to a pejorative status in Hawaiian culture.

    Shame on you Donald for name calling.


    since he is choosing to ignore you (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 03:30:32 PM EST
    and I am waiting for a meeting

    Letter to the Editor
    The Maui News
    Thursday, December 13, 2001

        In response to Jacob Fewx (Letters, Dec. 5) and his mistaken belief that the Hawaiian word haole "is a racial epithet" and his challenge that "there is no one who can use it in a sentence and make it a positive word," I would like to say that I am a proud, positive haole man.
    My beautiful Hawaiian wife is happily married to her loving haole husband. My 6th-grade students at Lahaina Intermediate School love their big haole teacher. In fact, most of the haole people on Maui don't consider haole to be a "racist" word at all.
    I never thought I'd say this, but if you are offended because you are referred to as a haole, then you don't belong in Hawaii.
    I challenge any haole to prove that they have been a victim of racism in Hawaii. Racism is a systematic, institutionalized set of laws that discriminate against a certain group of people based on race. Prejudice is not racism. And Hawaiians aren't prejudiced against haoles anyway.
    As an example of Hawaii's acceptance of haole people, Honolulu has a haole mayor running for our state's highest office - in fact, all four major candidates for governor are haole. One of Hawaii's U.S. congressmen is haole. One of Maui's state senators is haole. Two of Maui's state representatives are haole. Two of Maui's council members are haole.
    Maui chief of police is haole. Our last district school superintendent was haole, and so was his deputy. Our last mayor was haole. I could go on and on.
    So stop complaining and embrace the multicultural Hawaiian experience where everyone has a name. Haole and proud of it!
    Mark Kana'e Smith


    Hate is wrong, (none / 0) (#39)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 03:47:15 PM EST
    even when it's directed at white people.  More.  More

    Calling someone a haole derogatorily is still name calling. That's what makes the word n!gger an insult when black is not. It's the attitude and intent when the word is spoken. When you've been called a f@cking haole or have had to protect your kids from people at public parks and beaches who assume you're the "bad guy" because your skin color matches that of some men in the 1800's who overthrew the monarchy, you start to understand the misplaced hatred of whites.

    Haven't we learned yet that stereotyping is wrong? Obviously contemporary racism needs to be stopped, but implying that all whites are simply exacerbates racial tensions. Should white ancestors of Americans who fought to end slavery have to pay restitution to blacks? Should Europeans living in Hawaii have to pay taxes to help native Hawaiian citizens go to college? What if those native Hawaiians own million dollar properties, should they still get more financial aid than other students? What about poor Filipino and other Pacific Islander students, should they have to pay taxes to support programs that exclude everyone except people with even minor percentages of Hawaiian blood? How long will these programs have to last? How many more generations?

    The attitudes that perpetuate blanket, anti-white sentiment need to stop.


    for some reason (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 03:54:47 PM EST
    I am flashing on something I saw on fail blog the other day.  it went something like

    The Alzheimer's Presents A Night To Remember


    Got money Donald? (none / 0) (#47)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 04:26:49 PM EST
    Did your kids go to a good school? Were they treated with respect as the children of a big, important man who worked in the government?

    I'm not painting a bad picture of Hawaii, I'm saying in spite of the Aloha spirit and the wonderful people populating the islands, the anti-white attitudes are naïve and destructive, to the extent of even causing violence toward people who have nothing to do with historical injustices (eg, white kids).

    We can't stop contemporary racism while we're mired in white guilt over problems we had nothing to do with.


    First you call me a na haole, (none / 0) (#60)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 06:22:17 PM EST
    as if I shouldn't express opinions about racial harmony if I'm from the mainland, then you tell me to move away if I'm not willing to accept that whites are put down and even attacked in Hawaii. What makes aggression toward people of color bad, but aggression toward whites acceptable?

    Obviously most people in Hawaii are accepting, considerate folks. It's the few that aren't that create a bad environment, insulting whites by calling them haoles (which some say literally means without spirit or breath/life force). Regardless of the word's etymology or how often it's used in a pleasant way, Hawaiians deliberately use it as an insult. In the same way n!gger could have been a simple description of skin color, since it's been historically used to insult black skinned people, it's pejorative. It doesn't matter that African Americans routinely use it among themselves, it's still an insult. So call yourself a haole if you wish, no one's stopping you. But when people angrily attack whites just because of their skin color, it's wrong. Period. Racism is racism, and if you don't think reverse racism exists, try to get a job with the City and County of Honolulu or with some of the local law firms.

    Perpetuating the myth that contemporary white people are all one race that is oppressive of all other races is what I'm questioning. Categorizing people because their skin color matches that of someone who did you wrong is just silly. Re-ingraining for generation after generation the idea that whites are bad is just not good for racial harmony. Whites are not inherently bad people. Some are racist, most are not. Local people casually insult whites by calling the haoles, but these attitudes lead to extreme anti-white aggression such as the Feb 2007 attack of a Caucasian serviceman just returned from his second tour in Iraq and his wife who were severely beaten in front of their 3 year old child. The attacker called the serviceman a f@cking haole since he and his wife were white.

    Now, please don't go off saying how rare that kind of event is, or how anti-white violence is not as bad as, say, what has happened to blacks in this country. My point isn't to compare, it's to say all racism is bad, and perpetuating anti-white sentiment just perpetuates ongoing racial tension.


    Hey, it could have been (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 05:10:06 PM EST
    worse. It could have been Coast Haloe.

    Let's change that a little bit (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 05:12:54 PM EST
    you don't like being a X and thus part of an ethnic minority, then I suggest that you move to someplace else in the country where you'll be more comfortable and your attitude is more accepted.....

    X - Insert your ethnic minority of choice.


    kdog (none / 0) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 02:26:17 PM EST
    The more obvious question I have when reading their school policy is wrote it, a 5th grader.  I have read through it a couple times and it's written horribly.  I am no wordsmith, but that is beyond pathetic, especially for something that is written for educational policy.

    And how are they promoting race harmony when they state just declared war on a race.  "Sorry Jose, it's illegal for my mother to give you a lift unless you have your papers, oh you don't have them, well then she is obligated to call the police, sorry bro."

    Essentially any school function that requires students to be transported is going to make driver responsible for checking residency status.  Ya, that should work real well in pursuing racial harmony.  "Football team some of you will be required to show your residency status paperwork on our next away game, some of you won't, but remember there is no 'I' in team"


    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 02:32:57 PM EST
    the link almost looks like a sloppy cut and paste job...hastily put together to slap on a state website to try and improve Arizona's toxic image perhaps?

    I can see almost see the pro-AZ side of the splitscreen on Fox News now..."We just prohibited the fostering of ethnic resentment in Arizona, we're down with the brown, honest we are."


    Actually the law doesn't say that (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 05:18:32 PM EST
    and I think you know that.

    But nice rant. It'll keep you in good standing with your buds.


    thank god (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 05:21:17 PM EST
    we have you around to explain this stuff to us.

    The sad part (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 06:58:47 PM EST
    is that you need it explained.

    Technically (none / 0) (#21)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 02:48:54 PM EST
    Jefferson never promoted the overthrow of the United States government.

    I think this law might help reduce the generalization that white = bad. Again, good policy. That's another problem in Hawaii today, the assumption that Caucasians are responsible for the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and are, as a group, wealthy oppressors of darker skinned people in the state. Absolute nonsense.


    I beg to differ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 03:28:56 PM EST
    the wise words of Jefferson are practically an infomercial for armed revolt.

    I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

    I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

    In defense of our persons and properties under actual violation, we took up arms. When that violence shall be removed, when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, hostilities shall cease on our part also.

    It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.

    Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people.

    The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.

    The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

    To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Huh ?? (none / 0) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 04:00:58 PM EST
    Jefferson is famous for his distrust of government. First Brittan, the later the US.

    The guy was almost obsessive in his hatred and distrust of government, enough that quote after quote he is either talking about how to keep government on a leash or overthrowing it.

    "Every generation needs a new revolution."


    I wonder how they are going to approach the civil war.  Presumably Arizonians and their current make-up would push the south's view, which was overthrowing the Fed, at least in their states, which I don't believe Arizona was a state at the time.

    Either way, you can't talk about our history without discussing people's need/want to overthrow our government.  Just seems like one of those idiotic laws they will make a dog and pony show when some teacher mentions it in passing or by mistake.

    I just don't believe it was a problem that neded addressing.  And if you are going to address it, address it properly, not a couple words that can be constrewed in many ways.

    Seems more like this 'policy' was written to put people on alert, rather then accomplish anything meaningful.  The racism they discuss, that can easily be used in it's reversed nature, and I am positive it will be applied that way more then what they are trying to pretend.  "You say Chavez, your fire, MLK, see ya... and on and on"

    At least that is what I am reading into it.  


    What a ridiculous assumption you've made (none / 0) (#61)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 06:29:35 PM EST
    Then why do you live here... if you don't like local people?

    I love local people. I hate racism. Every citizen deserves equal opportunity, regardless of whether their ancestors were the first people at that location.

    BTW, we do NOT owe other people (none / 0) (#62)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 06:41:15 PM EST
    for events that occurred in the past. We need to ensure contemporary racism does not continue, but we are not responsible for every wrong that has occurred throughout history. If we are, then millions of white Americans should start demanding restitution for our ancestors that were abused and kicked around Europe before immigrating to this country. Ethnically based programs are counterproductive because they continue the Us vs Them mentality that perpetuates ethnic self victimization. And it's not just whites that are asked to pay for Hawaiian-only programs. Every taxpayer has to foot the bill. Why should a poor Filipino immigrant who works two jobs to pay his rent and lives in an apartment with six adults and 10+ children have to pay for tax supported programs that aid only kanaka maoli? What has he ever done to them, and how many generations should his children have to pay the bill?

    I don't like telling teachers they can't (none / 0) (#11)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 01:07:59 PM EST
    encourage the overthrowing of government, since doing so is built into the framework of our nation and clearly needs to be accomplished before we turn into a full blown plutocracy. But HB 2281 also prohibits schools from promoting resentment toward a race or class of people. That's a good thing.

    Prohibits a school district or charter school from including in its program of instruction any courses or classes that:
    Ø Promote the overthrow of the United States government.
    Ø Promote resentment toward a race or class of people.
    Ø Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.
    Ø Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.

    As a person of Jewish ancestry, I feel strongly that we should stop trying to isolate and promote the Us vs Them mentality. It only exacerbates society's innate tribal tendencies.

    I guess the state... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 01:18:28 PM EST
    doesn't want the schools intruding on their "promoting resentment" action...leave that to us in the statehouse.

    And the first provision, that... (none / 0) (#14)
    by EL seattle on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 01:28:57 PM EST
    States that the Legislature finds and declares that public school pupils should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people.

    ...isn't too regressive either, I think.


    from FOX news (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 02:43:27 PM EST
    of all places

    After making national headlines for a new law on illegal immigrants, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill Thursday that would ban ethnic studies programs in the state that critics say currently advocate separatism and racial preferences.

    Fox News? Yeah, they're a great (none / 0) (#23)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 02:50:47 PM EST
    source to quote. Did they even read it before their presented their faux news? It specifically says the law doesn't ban the teaching of ethnic studies:

    States that this act cannot be construed to restrict or prohibit:
      Courses or classes that include the history of any ethnic group and that are open to all students, unless the course or class violates this act.

    um, yeah (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 03:19:49 PM EST
    actually the point was it was FOX news.

    Major League Baseball Player's Association (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 01:46:27 PM EST
    weighs in.

    Hint: they are against it.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 02:59:04 PM EST
    What if all the teams refused to play there and didn't come for spring training?  That would be TONS of money the state loses in tax revenue!

    Inaccuracy (none / 0) (#27)
    by DaveCal on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 03:10:08 PM EST
    I used to expect more form the NY Times.  

    BTD left this part out of his excerpt (and NO I'm not insinuating that he intended to deceive anyone or hide anything).  

    "The statute requires police officers to stop and question anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant."

    The statute doesn't do anything of the sort.  I really wish we could discuss important issues a little more dispassionately, and certainly without absolute falsehoods that stoke more passion.  

    I use to expect more from the NY Times.  Now, sadly, it seems commonplace.  

    um (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 03:18:27 PM EST
    I am not a lawyer but

    1.      Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.


    C'mon... (none / 0) (#31)
    by DaveCal on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 03:28:55 PM EST
    I don't think you need to be a lawyer.

    What part of your quote requires police officers to stop and question anyone ?  Let alone anyone who "looks like" an illegal immigrant?  

    Is it really too much to ask for a little intellectual honesty from a major news organization such as the NY Times?  


    Abstract Thinking, Much? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 03:38:47 PM EST
    The same part of the law that this law officer is suing against because he refuses to follow the law:
    In one of the suits filed Thursday, a Tucson police officer, Martin Escobar, 45, a 15-year veteran, claims the law, which requires officers "when practicable" to stop and check the legal status of people they reasonably suspect may be illegal immigrants, would compel him to racially profile.

    Mr. Escobar argues that the law does not specify what criteria to use in deciding who might be in the country illegally, and that Tucson's heavily Hispanic population and proximity to the Mexican border would force him to question people based on their ethnicity, exposing him to civil suits.

    And of course we know that people in Sheriff Arpaio's mold, have been looking to question everyone who looks hispanic, and this bill is their Green Light.

    Sheriff Joe Arpaio's "crime suppression operation" will start up again Friday afternoon as deputies flood a vast area of west Phoenix in an effort to root out illegal immigrants.

    It's the 15th operation Arpaio's deputies have conducted in the Valley, but the first since Gov. Jan Brewer signed an illegal-immigration enforcement bill last week that has become the source of national controversy.



    Im sorry (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 03:31:48 PM EST
    you can read, right?

    Quit being a jerk (none / 0) (#36)
    by DaveCal on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 03:34:44 PM EST
    You want to discuss the substance intelligently or just poke fun at people?  

    This is what passes for political discourse these days?



    Im sorry I just dont get it (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 03:45:24 PM EST
    the very first word is "requires"

    and who the hell exactly is going to define what this

    any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county,



    You really don't get it? (none / 0) (#45)
    by DaveCal on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 04:19:32 PM EST
    Yes, the first word is "requires".  

    What does it require?  It doesn't require the police officer to stop anyone.  

    It requires, during an otherwise legitimate contact, that the officer attempt to determine the legal/illegal status, if there is reasonable suspicion about the status.  

    Nothing requires a stop be made.

    Now, are you just arguing to argue, or do you really not understand that nothing requires any officer to make any stop.  


    no (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 04:42:50 PM EST
    I am not

    and this

    any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county,

    is defined how?


    Its ok to admit you are wrong (none / 0) (#50)
    by DaveCal on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 04:51:18 PM EST
    Go ahead, say it out loud, "I was wrong.  The statute does not require the cops to stop people if they look illegal."

    the truth is (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 05:18:16 PM EST
    I think it is probably carefully worded in a way that allows people like yourself to make that argument.

    His argument happens to be right. (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 05:23:14 PM EST
    The way I read the AZ governor's ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by EL seattle on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 05:41:41 PM EST
    ... Executive Order, the definition of "any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county" will be part of the statewide practices that will be developed the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board, and altered or appoved by the state gov't by the end of this year.

    A .PDF of the Executive Order is at the top of the page HERE


    False premise again (none / 0) (#64)
    by diogenes on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:37:15 PM EST
    "...when racial separation finds a foothold in any of the 50 states, the president needs to do more than mildly criticize..."
    Since when is seeking to have illegal aliens deported (which the federal government should be doing by current law, at least) "racial separation"?