Federal Government will not be Maricopa County's Savior

Across the nation, grassroots movements comparable to that in Maricopa County who are focusing on immigrants’ rights are organizing around raids and detention by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, or organizing against the construction of the border wall if geographically relevant, also a project of DHS. Immigration enforcement in the form of raids in particular, as well as the fear and discrimination caused by the laws, are the work of the federal government. Why then are people asking the federal government to solve the problem of our malevolent county sheriff Joe Arpaio?

Arpaio is extreme in his political/publicity stunts. In many ways he legitimizes the actions of the other law enforcement agencies and legislation. Why are the majority of people focusing solely on Arpaio, as though the actions of the Phoenix PD and other police departments do not matter? I have addressed this problem in Cop vs. Cop: Sheriff and Mesa Chief spar over sweeps and Phoenix Mayor Supports Change In Phx PD Immigration Policy. In addition, Arizona Senator Russell Pearce is concocting various methods to hit immigrants any way possible. He's trying to make it law that all undocumented immigrants can be arrested for trespassing anywhere in the state (automatic probable cause for stopping anyone who looks Mexican?), more penalties for not having a driver's license, make schools collect data on undocumented students and provide it to the government, and most significantly make it so all police have to enforce immigration law.

The latest news is that the House Judiciary Committee Presses Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano to Investigate Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Previous efforts involved an FBI investigation as well as various lawsuits.

Ever since Obama got elected, voices among local and non-local journalists, bloggers, organizers, and “leaders” interested in immigrants’ rights have been calling for the federal government (or particularly the new head of DHS and former Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, as well as the new head of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Eric Holder, as well as Obama himself, to do something about Arpaio.

A particular portion of a blog entry says a lot…

Frankly, however, the question before us is why this shoddy sheriff is getting away with “law enforcement” run amok. Where are the lawsuits against him? Where are the protests to shut him down? Where are the arrests for civil disobedience? Where are the incensed civic and religious leaders? Where are the civil and human rights advocates? Where is the national immigrant rights movement? Where are the politicians? Where is the federal government? Where?

What I see here is an expectation of one or more of these forces (which this author can’t see because he isn’t involved locally, but much of it does exist or has in some form) should be visible and effective. My sense of things is that the reason many of the more grassroots activities like the protests, civil disobedience, etc. aren’t happening or aren’t big/effective enough is because so many people are waiting for the federal government to swoop down and take care of it. Much of the activism is focused around getting people from the federal government to pay attention, although others also call on the federal government to stop the raids. The primary voice of immigrants’ rights advocacy in anglo media is Stephen Lemons who recently said, “The political reality of Cactus Country is this: Without intervention from the Obama administration, we are royally screwed.”

Napolitano was governor at least six years and didn’t even speak out against Arpaio’s practices. Yes, Eric Holder is the new head of the DOJ, so he can’t quite be held accountable for its previous practices, but likely will not do anything about the institutional racism upheld by his department through the vast prison industrial complex which is intimately tied with immigration enforcement and detention as well as the white supremacy that maintains both. Arpaio was once head of the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) Arizona branch and has friends in the federal government. He is likely playing a part in Operation Endgame created by DHS. We mustn't think of him as unconnected from the federal government.

Yes, i believe that laws have a strong impact on how people think- particularly laws that discriminate tend to shape people's ideas about the people the laws discriminate against. Laws and the government legitimize actions by civilians against people considered inferior. As an example, the actions of sheriff arpaio, county attorney thomas, and az senator russell pearce legitimize the hateful actions of organized white supremacists. As such, there is much value in opposing laws and the actions of officials. However, there are limitations to these efforts- or specifically how the efforts are framed.

One problem with appealing to the government is that to do so would require not being a threat. But any real just solution to the “immigration problem”, inevitably involving the dismantling of NAFTA and other neoliberal projects, as well as a serious change in social/political structure, is and always will be a threat to the government.

Another problem is that the government has an interest in appearing to be able and willing to deliver justice. But overall it is not in its interest to truly liberate the people from injustice and in fact its existence is actually antithetical to such an action. It would like to have people ask instead of demand changes, however, and would like us to think of it as a benevolent force in such cases when it’s actually worth the time to make reforms that benefit the people. Therefore, if we ask and they give, they are the heroes. If we demand and they give, they are still the heroes although we still have some sense of having played a part.

Related, the government is not a just one. We cannot expect a government that has been built on racism and continues to practice it in various ways (much higher rates of incarceration of people of color than whites, lack of indigenous rights, wars, just to name some examples) to be a force against white supremacy. The operator of immigration detention centers (or the ones who outsource private detention facilities), the performer of raids, is not the one whose going to save us from the similar actions of the Sheriff. He is doing their work for them. He's just doing it in an extra "look how demeaning i can be to these people" way. If the federal government does anything about it, it will only be to legitimize and continue its own actions and those of other jurisdictions.

This brings up some questions which are not openly discussed. What does it take to really change things? If people power is necessary, how does that people power make a difference- voting, protest, social revolution, political revolution?

US economy and laws are cause of inhumane criminal activities against undocumented

I got an email calling for action against this candidate for city council. Included was this:

DiCiccio himself says Hispanic immigrants are bringing a "corrupt culture" to America. Here's what he wrote in The Arizona Republic in 2007:

"It is only a matter of time before a wave of violence will be coming our way. The gun battles with police; the beheadings of journalists, the kidnappings of families -- these are a line in the desert away from our country and state….It is here and more will come….Kidnappings are a way of life for the middle class in Mexico. The kidnappings that are occurring today are now isolated to illegals. They will soon be a way of life for the average American….Politicians talk about political solutions to the immigration debate. But it is not about politics. It's about the future of our families and how we want to live."

The quote above brings up an important issue that the immigrants' rights movement has sorely failed to address. Although the criminal activities described by DiCiccio are being committed by only a fringe element of people from Mexico, they are still happening and only increased law enforcement has been proposed as a solution. But in fact the law and in many ways the U.S.' influence on the Mexican economy are the reasons for these activities.

We can't deny the kidnappings, the drug trafficking, the slayings, the rape and femicide happening in Mexico, and we can't deny that some of this is touching immigrants in the U.S. as well. But is it happening because Mexicans are naturally corrupt? No. But we have conflicting opinion in the media. While the "rescue" by the police of immigrants held against their will at drop houses clearly distinguishes from victims from the victimizers (except they don't also include police as the victimizers), we also see the kidnappers and drug traffickers, and the tendency to corruption, lumped in with all undocumented immigrants, which we see in DiCiccio's quote.

Although i have limited understanding of what has created the situation in Mexico, i have no doubt in my mind that the activities mentioned above are caused by the economic situation that has been shaped by the U.S. U.S. elites have been interfering in many ways with Mexico's resources and politics. Mexican presidents have been trained through U.S. universities on neoliberal economics and have certainly been rewarded for allowing foreign (mostly U.S.) access to resources and investment (read privitization). NAFTA is a prime example of U.S./international meddling in Mexico which has caused, to only name one example of disaster, the millions of people who have had to abandon their corn farming because they could no longer survive on what they could earn. Our tax dollars help subsidize the mostly genetically modified U.S.-grown corn that then can be exported to Mexico at a much lower price. U.S. citizens have to take responsibility for this situation.

Drug trafficking is one of the few ways for people to make money in Mexico. Because it's illegal activity, they have to arm themselves and end up participating in turf wars and worse and worse brutal actions. Recently the U.S. government has handed over a million dollars to the Mexican government for a project called the Merida Initiative or "Plan Mexico" to fight the drug war. This, despite the fact that all efforts so far in the drug war have been failures. We all know power and money corrupts, and yet I suppose it's pretty much run of the mill for the U.S. to add more fuel to the corruption in Mexico.

So we understand that people are desperate to find work, but we also have to see that this desparation creates a lucrative market for people who can make money off them. Sure, undocumented immigrants don't have much money, but when there are so many, and when ransom can be acquired from other family members, kidnapping is quite profitable. Because the U.S. government and most of its people don't value the lives of undocumented immigrants, there are little efforts made to prevent this from happening. And those of us who do care feel so overwhelmed by it that we avoid addressing it.

Border security and law enforcement has created a situation where people have to travel through the harsh terrain of the desert instead of in urban areas, have to accept assistance from sketchy people to find their way, and are not deemed worthy of safety or dignity. So does it make sense for us to expect or ask the police to fix the problems DiCiccio mentions? Hell no. Because they create the problem. Arpaio and other police use the crimes against undocumented immigrants as an excuse to pull over and arrest all undocumented immigrants. There is no excuse for this.

We need to call for the decriminalization of immigrants (and many other people who are criminalized for being less valued in this society) as the only way to gain safety and dignity for the people. And this decriminalization is not the end-all solution. Major economic and foreign policy changes will have to occur. But if we ignore these problems, hope Obama will legalize everyone, or leave it to the police, we will not achieve anything.

Let's Say I Broke Into Your House- Bad Analogies for Immigration

I noticed the other day how prevalent the use of a particular analogy is among anti-immigrant folks. "Let's say I broke into your house" or "Would you let those immigrants live in your house?". Of course what they're getting at is that this country is like a house. And it's their/our house and the immigrants have broke in and insisted they have a right to stay.

I would love to hear a dialogue that goes something like this:
Anti-immigrant protester (AIP): How would you like it if I decided I wanted to live in your house?
Freedom of Movement Activist (FMA): Is this your house?
AIP: In a way, yes, this is my house.
FMA: Man, you must have thousands of dildos in your house. Why so many?

Humor aside, the analogy just doesn't work. That's why they have to ask, "Why can’t people see how ridiculous this is?!", in a message i found at immigrationbuzz.com to which the author also added, "If you agree, pass it on (in English)". Maybe i should email this out to my friends in Spanish just to be a jerk.

Anyway, obviously the analogy is used to make the audience feel invaded. Of course i wouldn't want random strangers in my house (this isn't the attitude of a few people i know), is the reaction. But this country is not a house. And it's not similar to a house, which is why most people don't feel that people are living in their house. They can, in many ways, be oblivious to most of the undocumented immigrants in this country.

The U.S. is not a house. It is land with man-made boundaries. It is, in fact, land taken by force (more than once if we're talking about the southwest). Thinking of this country as "ours" or "mine" like we do our houses (besides those of us who rent with other housemates) certainly serves to reinforce the white supremacist order, or at least nativism. But what makes someone feel that this country belong to them is just arrogance and stupid laws. Even most indigenous people believe that the land doesn't belong to them/us, they/we belong to the land. Of course most anti-immigrant folks don't care that this land was taken by force and that it doesn't belong to anyone even if it was acquired fairly.

Narco- and Human-Trafficking Violence and Cops' Hypocrisy

Below is an article about a contingency plan for if/when the drug trade related violence starts affecting the U.S. more. I say more because it apparently already is affecting the U.S., just not the people who matter. Instead undocumented immigrants are seeing the worst of it. I think immigrants' rights advocates are also quiet about it because they/we would have to admit that there are bad people from mexico. The government doesn't want to admit it because they want it to seem like things are under control. Plus they don't care that it's just hurting undocumented immigrants.

This is something i wrote in response to this article and particularly because Sheriff Joe went into Buckeye claiming he was trying to do something about the crime against immigrants there. I had been thinking a lot about how the violent crimes exist because of the illegal status of unauthorized immigration as well as the drug trade.

the article talks about the violence in border towns in mexico, but since it's also touching areas in the u.s. it also relates to the latest sheriff's sweeps.
it is so fucked up that the sheriff is justifying his sweep by talking about the violence people face due to human smuggling. it gets violent because it's illegal! if it wasn't illegal, if it wasn't so hard to cross the border and find work, if there wasn't a shit ton of money to make off vulnerable desperate people, there wouldn't be that violence involved. how dare they claim to care about this violence when they perpetuate it. not only do they allow it to happen, they do it themselves by terrorizing the immigrant communities, arresting people, putting them in detention centers, many of them run by private corporations for profit. of course when there's profit involved there's going to be bad conditions that cause health problems, violence, and death. the police and the detention centers are just as much to blame, if not more, for the violence that undocumented people face.

criminalizing people and activities makes it easier to paint certain types of people criminals. make it so the only way to make money is to get into the drug and/or human smuggling business, make it so people can be held for ransom with no hope for help from the police (except when the police wants to find them to throw them in detention centers and make themselves out as heroes), make it that profitable for a section of the population to get into organized crime and then allow it to reflect on everyone else in that population by stereotyping and scapegoating and use it as an excuse to terrorize everyone in that community.

if you really want to stop the violence, stop criminalizing immigrants. stop criminalizing drugs. stop criminalizing all people of color.

but we know they don't care about the violence because they are just as guilty. they kidnap people, kill people, make money off them.

(check out this video too: On the Edge - Part 6 of 10 - Narco-trafficking)

Feds have plan if Mexico drug violence spills over

If Mexican drug violence spills across the U.S. border, Homeland Security officials say they have a contingency plan to assist border areas that includes bringing in the military.
“It’s a common sense extension of our continued work with our state, local, and tribal partners in securing the southwest border,” DHS spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said Friday...
The plan includes federal homeland security agents helping local authorities and maybe even military assistance from the Department of Defense, possibly including aircraft, armored vehicles and special teams to go to areas overwhelmed with violence, authorities said...
In the last year, more than 5,000 people have been killed and police and military officials have become common targets for violent drug cartels who are fighting with each other and the government for control of lucrative drug and human smuggling routes across Mexico.
More than one-fifth of the deaths have occurred in Ciudad Juarez, the hardscrabble border city just across the Rio Grande from El Paso.

Complexity of the Border Patrol Agents' Sentence not so Complex

In December of '07, i wrote up a blog entry about border patrol agents, Ramos and Campeon getting prison sentences for shooting at an undocumented immigrant. I explained that this was a rather unusual turn of events since it sort of breaks the pattern as far as whose lives/dignity are more important in this society. Well, now we see that Bush commuted their sentences and so they will go free.

Here's the bit i wrote: The Complexity of the Border Patrol Agents' Sentence

Employer Sanctions or Employee Sanctions?

A perfect example of the nativists and capitalists both getting their way (not to say they're mutually exclusive) is in today's Arizona Republic.

When the state's employer-sanctions law took effect nearly a year ago, it threatened to shut down businesses that hired illegal workers.

But not a single employer has been taken to court in Arizona, mainly because the landmark law is too difficult to enforce, authorities say.

In Maricopa County, where the law led to raids on a dozen businesses and the arrest of 159 workers and a manager, investigators have not been able to assemble enough evidence showing that employers actually knew the arrested workers were illegal, which the sanctions law requires.

The racist motives of the nativists often run counter to those who wish to profit off of the otherwise unwelcome laborers. Business groups did what they could to prevent the employer sanctions law from going into effect, but the nativists pushed it through. I've written previously about how the employer sanctions law was obviously just a way to target employees, not employers, and sure enough, even the local newspapers are noticing... well, at least they're noticing that the original intent of the law is not taking place.

Authorities have obtained records up to now with criminal search warrants, allowed because the raids were carried out as a probe into immigrants' criminal identity theft. But Thomas said officers need subpoena power to make a civil case directly against an employer and prove intentional hiring of illegal workers. Employers in violation can have business licenses suspended or revoked.

Business groups oppose the change, saying the sanctions law is already the toughest in the nation and most employers are complying. Giving law enforcement more powers would lead to further harassment of businesses when the state's economy is already suffering, they say...

The law applies only to hires made after Dec. 31, 2007, and many of the 151 illegal immigrants arrested in the 12 raids had been hired earlier, authorities say.

Still, supporters say the law is fulfilling its purpose of turning off the job magnet that draws illegal immigrants to Arizona. Employers fearful of losing their business licenses are taking extra steps to make sure they aren't employing illegal workers, which in turn has driven many undocumented immigrants and their families to leave the state, officials said...

Critics, however, contend that the Legal Arizona Workers Act is being used as an excuse to target only illegal workers, not employers, an ineffective way to fight illegal immigration.

"It (raises) the question: After all the expense and resources put into this law, were the employers the real target?" said Phoenix immigration lawyer Gerald Burns. "Probably not. It was to instill fear and to vet out suspected undocumented workers or drive them out of the state."

Hypocrisy of a law-breaking anti-immigrant legislator

It's good that the Bird (New Times) brought up that Russell Pearce (AZ Representative) had been fired from the Motor Vehicle Department for tampering with someone's record (to remove a DUI as a favor). Not only has Pearce been outed as associating with neo-nazis and forwarding white supremacist literature (OOPS! Racist AZ politician "accidentally" sent out article from National Alliance and see this video), and that he has a violent temper and has abused his wife (see this video, but we are also informed (or reminded if we already had heard) that Pearce had broken the law to help someone who had broken the law.

So, it's okay for him to break the law, and for his friends to break the law, but it's not okay for people to take desperate measures to survive, that just happen to be illegal. This is just blatant hypocrisy and it's just ridiculous that people don't get that.

You might say, well, he wasn't charged with anything. He did get fired, though, but most of us know that people with political connections often get away with committing crimes without punishment.

There is a double standard when it comes to which crimes are acceptable and which are not, and which criminals are acceptable, and which are not.

Another thing that i think is interesting is that anti-immigrant folks regard the law as infallible and not something to be questioned or changed but pretty much only when they're talking about immigration law. People like Pearce obviously think the law in not perfect and should be changed, otherwise he wouldn't be in the legislature making up all sorts of new laws and changing existing ones. How about those people who say that they're okay with legal immigration and legal immigrants, as though access to legal immigration is easy and the people who don't do it legally choose that route when they could do it legally. You and i know (whether you agree with me on these issue or not) that if it really was easy for all these people to be "legal" immigrants, all the anti-immigrant people would be screaming about how easy it is for so many people to get into (and stay in) the country legally!