Not Columbus Day, Short Form

Here:

What your Bloguero has been saying over and over and over again.

Actually, your Bloguero is astonished at how little understanding there is of the Original People. And what happened to them after 1492.

What your Bloguero has remembered today is the panoply of half baked rationalizations that seek to justify the conquest and the extermination of the Original People. There needs to be some education about this. Meanwhile, do NOT tell your Bloguero how history is full of conquests, that's what people do, and anyway the Original People died not so much by the sword, but because of disease, which was inadvertent (small pox blankets anyone?) Please do NOT.

Arizona: Neo Nazis Patrol Border

Is it chickens or is it eggs? Is it that Governor Brewer's immigration extremism gives cover to Nazis. Or is it that Neo Nazis give cover to the ugliness that is SB 1070. Is it that Joe Apraio was thought to be as extreme as anyone could be, but people have emerged in Arizona who are even further beyond the Pale?

Is Arizona a Petry Dish from growing more and more virulent forms of extremism? You pick.

This from AP:

Minutemen groups, a surge in Border Patrol agents, and a tough new immigration law aren't enough for a reputed neo-Nazi who's now leading a militia in the Arizona desert.

Jason "J.T." Ready is taking matters into his own hands, declaring war on "narco-terrorists" and keeping an eye out for illegal immigrants....

But local law enforcement are nervous given that Ready's group is heavily armed and identifies with the National Socialist Movement, an organization that believes only non-Jewish, white heterosexuals should be American citizens and that everyone who isn't white should leave the country "peacefully or by force."...snip

But Ready, a 37-year-old ex-Marine, ,,, and his friends are outfitted with military fatigues, body armor and gas masks, and carry assault rifles. Ready takes offense at the term "neo-Nazi," but admits he identifies with the National Socialist Movement.

"These are explicit Nazis," said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project. "These are people who wear swastikas on their sleeves."

And so, today, running around in the desert where it's dangerously hot are a bunch of heavily armed Nazis. And Sheriff Arpaio continues to humiliate immigrants while failing to prevent crime. And the Governor of Arizona continues to insist that SB1070 is not preempted. And not racist. And a waste of money.

Arizona is a hot, dry Petry Dish for growing extremism.

My revulsion overflows. I'm not advocating violence. I'm just noticing the strong, negative feelings all of these creeps evoke. I hope that the people of Arizona will find a way to be free of these demagogues.

Arizona Backs Down. Sorta Kinda.

Battered by the media tsunami caused by Arizona's "show us your papers" law and the resulting lawsuits and threats of boycotts, Arizona's legislature today sought cover by seeking to moderate provisions of SB 1070. Are these real changes or are they just cosmetic changes and an effort to save face? It's probably some of each. Put another way, those who oppose the law can know that their outrage is being heard and felt. But the changes don't eliminate the problem, they just provide cover for it.

The Arizona Daily Star reports:

State lawmakers voted late Thursday to repeal one of the more controversial provisions from the new law aimed at illegal immigration....

HB 2162, approved by the House and Senate, changes the law to specify that when deciding whom to question about immigration status, police may not use race, ethnicity or national origin as a factor.

That is a significant change from SB 1070 as it was approved by lawmakers and signed less than a week ago by Gov. Jan Brewer. That version of the law permits police to consider any of those factors when deciding if there is "reasonable suspicion" someone is not in this country legally, as long as it is not the only reason for investigating further.

There's more, of course:

As originally approved, SB 1070 requires police to determine the immigration status of those with whom they have "lawful contact" if there is reasonable suspicion the person is not here legally.

That "reasonable suspicion" language remains. But the language about "contact" is replaced with a reference to "stop, detention or arrest." Paul Senseman, the governor's spokesman, said the changes effectively reduce checking immigration status to "secondary enforcement."

"There have to be other steps, such as another law being broken first," he said, before an officer could, with reasonable suspicion, inquire if a person is a citizen or legal resident.

He compared it to Arizona's seat-belt laws: Police cannot stop a motorist solely because the person is unbuckled. But officers can issue a ticket for failing to buckle up if the driver is stopped for some other reason.

Join me in Nogales.

So there are two changes in the new law, HB 2162. Under the first, the cops aren't allowed to use race, ethnicity or national origin as a factor in deciding whether somebody should be approached while waiting for a bus, for example. Under the second, the cops aren't allowed to ask anybody about their immigration status unless the person is first a subject of a legal stop, detention or arrest.

Effectively, that means that the new law, if signed by the Governor and followed by the police, will at least nominally stop the spectre of police approaching people who are doing nothing illegal and asking them to produce their papers. Cops will not be able to go up to people waiting at Tucson bus stops and after sizing up their shoes, or shirt, or hat, or newspaper ask them for papers. To do that, cops will first legally have to stop, detain or arrest the person. Once that threshold has been met, the immigration questions and demands for documents will ensue.

This doesn't mean what whacko Arizona legislators now understand the constitutional rights of people within the state's borders. Far from it. Look at this discussion of the provision eliminating race, ethnicity or national origin as a factor in deciding whether to approach someone:

Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, defended the original provision as being relevant, saying 90 percent of those in this country illegally are from Mexico and points south....

What the change does, Pearce said, is remove a target for foes, both those in court and those criticizing the measure in speeches and demonstrations.

"I'm just tired of the games played by the left," he said. Pearce said making the change and leaving pretty much everything else the same "strengthens the bill's ability of being enforced without letting the left leverage bad stuff."

Nice. Unconstitutionality is now the equivalent of "bad stuff" the "left leverage[s]." But Pearce, and I suppose other Arizona legislators remain unrepentant:

Pearce said he doesn't believe either change will make it harder for an officer to question someone who is suspected of being an illegal immigrant. "The reason we made these clarifications is to make it a stronger case in court," he said. "This is a tough bill. We didn't water it down."

Put another way, the legislators have called up a dog whistle to the cops. And statutory language be damned, they know what to do.

I'm not calling off my boycott.

Arizona: All Hail The Emerging Police State

Arizona has apparently decided to use its police force as an instrument to oppress and harass Mexican appearing people within its borders. And, as you might expect from a police state, it is doing so at the expense of protecting citizens and diverting law enforcement from its traditional functions, enforcing the penal laws.

Linda Greenhouse, who usually writes about the Supreme Court for the New York Times, had an op-ed yesterday, "Breathing While Undocumented," that captures Arizona as the emerging police state it truly is:

What would Arizona’s revered libertarian icon, Barry Goldwater, say about a law that requires the police to demand proof of legal residency from any person with whom they have made “any lawful contact” and about whom they have “reasonable suspicion” that “the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States?” Wasn’t the system of internal passports one of the most distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union and apartheid-era South Africa?

And in case the phrase “lawful contact” makes it appear as if the police are authorized to act only if they observe an undocumented-looking person actually committing a crime, another section strips the statute of even that fig leaf of reassurance. “A person is guilty of trespassing,” the law provides, by being “present on any public or private land in this state” while lacking authorization to be in the United States — a new crime of breathing while undocumented. The intent, according to the State Legislature, is “attrition through enforcement.”

The rest of the op-ed is definitely worth reading. But there's another point that deserves to be made about the Arizona statute.

What is the effect of this crazy state statute on law enforcement in Arizona and how law enforcement fulfills its usual role, not as an agent of BICE enforcing the federal immigration laws, but in investigating actual crimes and making arrests for them? The answer to that question: it's a complete, unmitigated disaster.

Let's suppose there is a robbery. Let's suppose the person who is robbed at gunpoint is undocumented. After the mugging, when the robber has disappeared with her purse and credit cards and other documents and her money, does the victim call the cops to report the robbery? Maybe not. After all, she's "trespassing" in the US. And the police who come to interview her about the robbery are clearly making a "lawful contact" with her. After she provides her name and address, might they stumble in their conversation with her upon a "reasonable suspicion" to ask her for her immigration documents? Maybe. And if you forget about the procedural niceties, as I'm sure the police will, isn't she inviting the double whammy: first she's mugged, and then she's arrested on suspicion of being undocumented because she called the cops.

But what if the victim of the mugging is legally in the US? If that victim is legally in the US, because she's a citizen or has obtained the right papers, will she be able to display her papers for the gendarmes investigating the robbery, to show that she shouldn't be arrested? Of course not. Don't be silly. They were supposed to be in her purse. And her purse is now gone. Knowing this, does she call the cops to report a robbery? I don't know the answer, but I note that there's a new, powerful disincentive for dialing 911. The disincentive is arrest and detention while notoriously slow BICE sorts out her status.

These are legitimate fears that reporting a crime will end up badly for the victim. Faced with these possibilities, do crime victims report crimes against them? Do they report crimes to which they are witnesses? Do they dial 911 to ask for help when there's a crime, or an accident, or an injury? If you dial 911, you think that the police will respond to your call. And when they do, aren't you, whether you're documented or not, going to be having "lawful contact" with them? Is this exercise of civic responsibility going to turn out badly for you?

This is why local cops shouldn't be working on the immigration issue. Ever. This is why they shouldn't be asking about immigration status. Society in general needs victims of crimes and witnesses to their occurrence to be able freely to call the cops. To dial 911. When you introduce incentives not to call, not to get involved, not to see what happened, not to talk to cops, everyone in society is that much less safe.

Do the Arizona legislators and the Governor care about this? Evidently not. They'd rather go on a vendetta against the Latino population of their state than think for a nanosecond about the consequences of their racism. They've made everyone in Arizona less safe. They should take responsibility for that.

Arizona: A Picture's Worth 1000 Words

Arizona: Enough Is Enough

I love these posters and the concept behind them. This entire continent had no borders until 1492, when Columbus landed in Baracoa, Cuba, and "claimed" the hemisphere not for Spain, but for Christendom. That launched the conquests and the extermination of many of those who lived here. Those not killed in battle often fell to small pox and other diseases. Those who lived here were routinely killed, enslaved, brutalized. Until they submitted. And now the most recent arrivals assert their right to demand proof that someone is here legally. Que ironia. What an utter disgrace.

Arizona really deserves a boycott for this latest law. And a filing cabinet full of lawsuits. All of which Arizona will soon receive.

h/t and credit to ProtestArizona.com

Papers Please/Papeles Por Favor

Please add the following update to your travel guides about visiting Arizona. It may be of assistance in avoiding discussions with Arizona law enforcement, arrest and detention, and harassment. If you already live in Arizona, something I wish on no one, you already know everything I am about to say. I am writing this so that others may reflect on your situation.

This is a bus stop in Tucson, Arizona. I know it doesn't look like a bus stop in New York, or Chicago, or New Orleans. This is an Arizona bus stop:



There are some things that are very important if you are waiting for the bus at such a stop in Arizona. These are not listed in order of importance. One of these things is not to wear shoes that look like Huaraches. This is a huarache:



If you wear this kind of foot gear, foot gear that was worn in Arizona and Mexico before 1500, police might think they should approach you.

Another thing not to do is wear a guayabera. This is a guayabera:



Guayaberas are incredibly comfortable and stylish wear in warm places. Like Arizona. Guayaberas probably come originally from Cuba, but they are popular throughout Central America. And Mexico. And some people think they originated in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. If you wear this kind of shirt, a shirt that has been worn throughout this hemisphere for more than 100 years, and was worn in Arizona before it became a state, police might think they should approach you.

Another thing not to do is read newspapers in Spanish. This is what a Spanish language newspaper looks like:



Spanish language newspapers are really helpful if you're trying to learn Spanish, a language which will soon be spoken by more than half of the people in the US. Some Spanish language newspapers have wonderful local coverage and fantastic sports coverage. If you want that information, you can read the paper. And of course, there are a lot of people who just find it easier to read a Spanish language paper than an English one. Because Spanish is their original language. Nevertheless, if you read this kind of newspaper while you're waiting for a bus, the police might think they should approach you.

A burrito is a flour tortilla wrapped or folded around a filling. The important part of the burrito is that it is made with a tortilla, and it looks like this:



If you are eating tortillas in any form-- burrito, tacos, enchiladas, totopos-- while waiting for a bus, the police might think they should approach you.

There is one other thing that will probably make the police think they should approach you. This is probably the most important, though some Arizona officials deny it. You probably know what this is. If you are brown skinned, or the police think you appear to be stereotypically Mexican, the police might think they should approach you. It does not matter to them that you are a US citizen and that your family has been in Arizona for 350 years, or that you are a US citizen who was naturalized more recently, or that you are legally in the US, or that you are a Sephardic Jew, or Pakistani or Indian or an Arab or an Original American. It doesn't matter to the the police whether you are part of the vast Mestizo race that has lived in North America from Vancouver to Panama City for 5 centuries. They will think they can approach you and ask you for proof that you are legally waiting for the bus.

Of course, the chances, if you are illegally in the US from China, Canada, England, Ireland, Germany or Sweden, that you will be asked to show your papers is incredibly small.

The key salient factor in having conversations with the police and being asked to show your papers is skin tone. Please mark you travel guide accordingly.

Meanwhile In Nazizona: Show Me Your Papers

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

The basic provisions of the law:

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

According to The New York Times

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

And President Obama isn't exactly thrilled either:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feliz Dia de San Patricio!!

Listen to the classic “Canción Mixteca,” sung in Spanish by the Mexican supergroup Los Tigres del Norte, accompanied by [Irish] accordion, bajo sexto, tin whistle and uilleann pipes.

“How far I am from the land where I was born! Immense longing invades my thoughts, and when I see myself as alone and sad as a leaf in the wind, I want to cry. I want to die of sorrow.”

The New York Times writes:

What brings this juxtaposition to mind is “San Patricio,” a new album from Paddy Moloney of the great Irish traditionalist band the Chieftains. It commemorates a historical footnote: the San Patricio battalion of Irish-immigrant soldiers who deserted the United States Army and fought for Mexico in the Mexican-American War of 1846-48. They picked the losing side, were captured, executed or branded as traitors, and then forgotten, except by Mexicans.

Mr. Moloney, a musician of restless curiosity, saw it as a tale of tragedy and loss, but also a chance for creative collision. “If the Irish were there, there would most certainly have been music,” he says. The same goes for the Mexicans. He invited Irish, Mexican and American musicians to play and sing, to see what would happen.

What happened was not all dolorous lamentation, though there is some of that. The rest is joy, thoroughly Mexican yet utterly Irish, carried aloft by tin whistles, skin drums, pipes, harps, guitars and stomping feet. It’s a mix you’ve never heard, but eerily familiar. ...

Th[is] old song, woven into the Mexican soul, is as Irish as it gets. And it’s an American song, too. We are all people who have lost our land in one sad way and found another. Whether we lament and celebrate in a pub or cantina, whether our tricolor flag has a cactus on it or not, we are closer to one another than we remember.

So today we are all Irish. And Mexican. And everything else. Salud!

------------------------
simulposted at docuDharma and dailyKos

1,800 Lose Their Jobs At American Apparel

Does this make any sense? I don't think so. But then again, I'm sympathetic to workers, whether or not they have the right papers.

The New York Times reports:

A clothing maker with a vast garment factory in downtown Los Angeles is firing about 1,800 immigrant employees in the coming days — more than a quarter of its work force — after a federal investigation turned up irregularities in the identity documents the workers presented when they were hired.

Join me in LA.

The firings at the company, American Apparel, have become a showcase for the Obama administration’s effort to reduce illegal immigration by forcing employers to dismiss unauthorized workers rather than by using workplace raids. The firings, however, have divided opinion in California over the effects of the new approach, especially at a time of high joblessness in the state and with a major, well-regarded employer as a target.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat, called the dismissals “devastating,” and his office has insisted that the federal government should focus on employers that exploit their workers. American Apparel has been lauded by city officials and business leaders for paying well above the garment industry standard, offering health benefits and not long ago giving $18 million in stock to its workers.

But opponents of illegal immigration, including Representative Brian P. Bilbray, a Republican from San Diego who is chairman of a House caucus that opposes efforts to extend legal status to illegal immigrants, back the enforcement effort. They say American Apparel is typical of many companies that, in Mr. Bilbray’s words, have “become addicted to illegal labor.”

If this is the Obama Administration's plan, it's going to devastate thousands of workers and their families. And it's going to devastate an already stuggling economy.

Is the idea of the policy to make existence in this country so difficult for immigrants that they leave? Is the idea to have all 15 million immigrants suffer until they pull up roots, if they can, and leave? What a heartless policy.

At Last, A Corrido For Joe Arpaio

The NY Times gives us the words of Saul Linares's corrido for Joe Arpaio:

Voy a cantarles un corrido a los presentes,
que le compuse a Joe Arpaio de Arizona,
un sinverguenza, desgraciado, anti-inmigrante,
que se ha ganado el repudio de toda la gente.

Es un sheriff que está gastando mucha plata,
mucho dinero que paga el contribuyente,
Arpaio mete preso al inmigrante
porque el dice que son unos delicuentes,
pero tan sólo buscan un trabajo decente
que en su pais ellos no lo han encontrado
y sin sentido y sin razón aparente
por una calle encandenados los paseaba

Ya los latinos de Arpaio están cansados,
Ya los latinos están muy organizados
no tienen miedo ni al sheriff, ni policía,
a Joe Arpaio le dicen y le repiten
sos criminal deberías estar preso.

•

I will sing a corrido to all those present
that I wrote for Joe Arpaio from Arizona,
a shameless, disgraceful immigrant hater
who has earned the repudiation of the people.

Arpaio puts the immigrants in jail
because he says that they are crooks
but they are only looking for a decent job
that they haven’t found in their own country
And without any apparent sense or reason
he paraded them in chains down the street

Latinos are tired
Immigrants, who are very organized,
don’t fear the sheriff or the police.
They say to Joe Arpaio and they say it again:
You’re a criminal and should be in jail.

— Translated by Eduardo Porter.

Saul Linares, according to The Times is a factor worker from Hempstead, who comes not from Mexico but from El Salvador. Doesn't matter. He knew what to do:

“In the left hand I was eating, and with my right hand I was writing it down,” he said. He was done in 20 minutes.

Mr. Linares was on a weekend retreat for immigrant-rights organizers in Rye, N.Y. After work on Saturday they took a break for a “cultural night” of poems, songs and stories.

Mr. Linares, 30, had never written a corrido before.

No, the corrido isn't on youtube. Not yet. But keep a sharp eye out for it. It's gonna be viral.

Ersatz Corridos. Washington Can't Carry A Tune.

Today Nezua at Unapologetic Mexican reports that the US government, you know, those people in Washington, are producing fake corridos to be played on the radio near the US Mexico border. Why? Because they are supposed to deter border crossings from Mexico to the US by undocumented people.

Why does this make me so angry? Is it because it's just another, dishonest trick, another lie from Washington? Is it because it's a complete waste of taxpayer money? Is it because of the arrogance of the trick and its assumption that the audience for ersatz corridos is just plain stooopid? Is it because its so lame?

Unfortunately, I haven't heard the corridos yet. I'm wondering why I suspect that they suck as badly as the idea behind them. And that the program is another $400 toilet seat.

Bushco Bullies Immigrants In Iowa

The New York Times reports that 270 undocumented workers who were arrested at a meat plant in Iowa in March, instead of being swiftly deported back to Guatemala, have instead been convicted of federal misdemeanors, sentenced to 5 months incarceration, and then will be immediately deported. This marks a lamentable, new, harsher policy toward punishing defenseless undocumented workers who are selected for this special treatment. And, let me say it, it's a show designed to frighten and threaten and disrupt the other almost 15 million undocumented workers now in the US.

In temporary courtrooms at a fairgrounds here, 270 illegal immigrants were sentenced this week to five months in prison for working at a meatpacking plant with false documents.

The prosecutions, which ended Friday, signal a sharp escalation in the Bush administration’s crackdown on illegal workers, with prosecutors bringing tough federal criminal charges against most of the immigrants arrested in a May 12 raid. Until now, unauthorized workers have generally been detained by immigration officials for civil violations and rapidly deported.

The convicted immigrants were among 389 workers detained at the Agriprocessors Inc. plant in nearby Postville in a raid that federal officials called the largest criminal enforcement operation ever carried out by immigration authorities at a workplace.

Isn't that efficient and fast. The poultry workers were arrested on March 12, they pleaded guilty in record time, and they were sentenced in short order. How, you might inquire, did this happen so swiftly? Where was their relentless, publicly funded defense? Where were their trials, their juries, their appeals, the recognition by the defense that these kinds of proceedings need to be fought and fought hard? Answer: none of that happened because the government used threats to cow the accused into pleading guilty.

The unusually swift proceedings, in which 297 immigrants pleaded guilty and were sentenced in four days, were criticized by criminal defense lawyers, who warned of violations of due process. /snip

The illegal immigrants, most from Guatemala, filed into the courtrooms in groups of 10, their hands and feet shackled. One by one, they entered guilty pleas through a Spanish interpreter, admitting they had taken jobs using fraudulent Social Security cards or immigration documents. Moments later, they moved to another courtroom for sentencing.

The pleas were part of a deal worked out with prosecutors to avoid even more serious charges. Most immigrants agreed to immediate deportation after they serve five months in prison.

The hearings took place on the grounds of the National Cattle Congress in Waterloo, in mobile trailers and in a dance hall modified with black curtains, beginning at 8 a.m. and continuing several nights until 10. On Wednesday alone, 94 immigrants pleaded guilty and were sentenced, the most sentences in a single day in this northern Iowa district, according to Robert L. Phelps, the clerk of court.

Mr. Arnold, the immigration agent, said the criticism of the proceedings was “the usual spate of false allegations and baseless rumors.”

The US Supreme Court decided many years ago that threatening the accused with much worse punishment and prosecution of much more severe crimes was a permitted tactic of US federal prosecutors. So there was nothing illegal about telling the workers that if they didn't plead to the misdemeanor and go to jail for 5 months they'd be prosecuted for felonies and go to prison for two years. Either way, the prosecutors said, they'd be deported afterwards.

What's surprising, though, is that apparently not one of the workers elected to tell prosecutors to shove it, to have a jury trial for the threatened felony in an effort to slow down the greased railroad the feds set up for all of those seized in this case. Put simply, no one resisted, no one called the prosecutor's bluff. All of those arrested apparently folded quickly.

Now the feds now have a "success", and you can be sure that they'll try it again, over and over again, across the country. If a chicken plant in Iowa was the first target, who knows what will be next:

Matt M. Dummermuth, the United States attorney for northern Iowa, who oversaw the prosecutions, called the operation an “astonishing success.”

Claude Arnold, a special agent in charge of investigations for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said it showed that federal officials were “committed to enforcing the nation’s immigration laws in the workplace to maintain the integrity of the immigration system.”

How cynical, how frightening this tactic is. The government's beating up on Guatemalan poultry workers in Iowa doesn't show that federal officials are "committed to enforcing the nation's immigration laws...to maintain the integrity of the immigration system." It shows that the government has launched a campaign of fear and intimidation against the weakest undocumented workers. So much for long forgotten, "compassionate conservatism," so much for immigration reform. Tell me this draconian policy doesn't have anything to do with the November election.

Going To the UEFA Final In Moscow, I Wish

Chelsea's Didier Drogpa With Manchester United Defenders


Big football/soccer news. Apparently, people with tickets to the UEFA Final on May 21 in Moscow can get into the country without a visa. This just in from UEFA:

All ticket holders attending the UEFA Champions League final in Moscow on 21 May will be able to use their match ticket as a visa entry to the Russian Federation for a 72-hour period.

High-level discussions
UEFA made the announcement on Monday. It said the decision had been made in order to organise the 2007/08 UEFA Champions League final in Moscow in the most efficient and enjoyable way, and following high-level discussions involving the UEFA President, Michel Platini, the Russian Government and UEFA. /snip

Exceptional gesture
"This is great news for football fans travelling to watch this year's UEFA Champions League final in Moscow," said Mr Platini. "Our job is to make sure that they are able to get to and from Moscow as easily as possible. I am therefore extremely pleased that, at my request, all fans travelling with a valid match ticket can use this to enter Russian territory, and for this I must thank wholeheartedly the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, the Russian Government, the City of Moscow and the Football Union of Russia for this exceptional and unprecedented gesture.

Football diplomacy. Meanwhile, I cannot imagine the US saying to people across the world, "We'll be happy to let you into the country without a visa, just show us your Super Bowl ticket." Similarly, I don't think China will open its borders to every Olympic ticket holder who shows up.

The game in Moscow, if you're not paying attention, is between the two most powerful English sides, Chelsea and Manchester United. Chelsea won a match between the two on April 27 2-1. This is going to be a great game between two remarkable teams who are tied at the top of the English Premier League.

Oh how I wish, I wish, I wish I could be at this game. I know. I hear you saying, "Yeah, you say that all the time about River Plate and Boca Juniors, about Barcelona and Madrid, about..." OK, it's true. But that, I remind you, doesn't mean that I don't want to go to all of these games. A lot.

Tears On Opening Day In Condado Del Diablo

The beautiful game

This isn't about America's so-called pastime, major league baseball, which begins tonight with the Braves playing the Nats and Commander Codpiece McFlyboy throwing out the ceremonial first ball. No. This is about something smaller, more intimate, and in many ways, much more a game of the People. It's about futbol, soccer, and how anti-immigrant local legislation in Northern Virginia has destroyed the local leagues.

It's an infuriating story. I'm angered not just because I love to play this game, but because of the important role it plays in the community. I doubt you've heard about this before.

This essay begins in July, 2007. The Christian Science Monitor reported then that local communities, including Prince William County, Virginia, which has about 40,000 undocumented residents, had decided to enforce immigration laws, something formerly thought to be a federal function, because Congress couldn't pass an immigration bill:

In the past, cities that welcomed diversity and new immigrants made a point of refusing to let their police officers help federal agents identify people who might be in the US illegally. Others worried that their departments would be slapped with harassment or racial-profiling lawsuits if they became involved in enforcing US immigration laws.

But when political leaders in Prince William County saw national reform legislation falter last month in the Senate, they approved their own immigration-reform resolution that, among other things, would give local police a shot at enforcement.

To that end, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on July 10 to allow county police officers the authority to check the citizenship status of anyone they've stopped or arrested whom they have "probable cause" to believe is in the US illegally. The county board has yet to define "probable cause," but board chairman Corey Stewart says it may be based on whether a person has a driver's license.

The county "has reached a boiling point," says Mr. Stewart. An influx of illegal immigrants over the past four years has led to overcrowded houses and schools, overstretched public services, and a rising problem with gangs, he says.

The Washington Times reported at the same time in July:

Board Chairman Corey A. Stewart, at-large Republican, commended his colleagues for "stepping up to the plate" and taking action on immigration enforcement when the federal government has failed to do so.

"We're going to do what we can," he said prior to the vote, which came after nearly four hours of impassioned testimony from people for and against the tough policies. "We know this is a federal issue, but I think the citizens have a right to expect that their local government and the state government are going to do whatever they can to address the problem."

The resolution, introduced last month by Supervisor John T. Stirrup Jr., Gainesville Republican, was amended before the meeting yesterday to clarify the circumstances under which county staff — including police — should ask about immigration status.

The resolution calls for the police department to establish standards of probable cause and methods by which officers can determine lawful presence, then report back to the board within 60 days.

There don't appear to be any recent news reports about the standards for probable cause.

And now, let's pick up the story in March, 2008. The law is still on the books. The law is still being enforced. There has been no reported litigation to end local enforcement of this law. And the WaPO reports that the "crackdown on illegal immigration [has] quieted" Prince William County's soccer fields:

As Prince William proceeds with its crackdown on illegal immigrants, one result is a shake-up and shrinking of the area's entrenched Hispanic soccer leagues. The reason is simple, organizers say: Players and fans, among them many illegal immigrants, are so worried about being detained by authorities en route to or at games that they are avoiding local fields. Legal immigrants are also wary, for themselves or their illegal relatives, organizers say.

"I have never felt as good as I felt in Manassas," said Hector Bardales, 26, a Sterling mechanic who plays in four of the region's leagues but most loved the crowds who cheered him on when he donned his Honduras de Manassas uniform. But he is in the country illegally, so Manassas is now no man's land, he said. "I would play in any county except Prince William."

Officials have said the policy is not meant to intimidate but to remove illegal immigrants, particularly those who commit crimes. The imperiled leagues draw little sympathy from backers of the county's enforcement program.

"I would hope that the soccer leagues didn't depend on illegal aliens to make them viable," said Greg Letiecq, president of Help Save Manassas, an anti-illegal-immigration group. "It just doesn't seem like a valid reason for overturning the rule-of-law resolution: because without the illegal aliens, the soccer clubs will all fall apart."

And so ends an important feature of community life in Northern Virginia. Some teams are moving to other, safer counties, and some are not playing. The four main Latino leagues in Prince William County had 80 teams last season; there are fewer than 50 this year. The biggest and oldest league, the Liga de Manassas, is skipping the season entirely because it has fewer than half its teams playing. In other words, the legislation has destroyed the league, and it's destroyed the games.

Games used to be played on weekends from April through October at various fields and they used to attract crowds who could hear bands play, eat ethnic food (pupusas, if you're Honduran), and let their kids play. Security guards curbed rowdiness and crews cleaned the fields after the games. Matches could be heard on Spanish-language radio. You can wave good by to all of that now. Adios.

To try to allay fears, league owners have hosted team meetings at which police have explained the county's policy, which took effect [at the start of March] and requires officers to check the immigration status of crime suspects who they think might be in the country illegally. There are to be no immigration checkpoints, racial profiling or sidelines raids, the teams were told. The meetings have had little impact, league owners said.

That's no surprise that the talks haven't changed anything. With such obvious and outspoken animus against immigrants, only a fool can take the assurances at face value that there will be no raids. You have to be crazy to drive to the game. You have to be nuts to sit in the stands. "This is what they have nicknamed this county: the Devil's County. They call it Condado del Diablo." Because here, a game, in particular a lovely and fun game, futbol, can get you harassed, land you in jail, get you deported, and split up your family. It's just not worth the risk.

Would we see this kind of fear, this kind of jackbooted enforcement if our congresspersons would do their jobs and tend to the immigration issue? Would we see this kind of erosion in the community? Would we see this kind of pervading fear? Would this kind of "enforcement" be permitted? I doubt it. I'd like to think that our congresspersons were busy with other things, so they couldn't quite reach this issue, but to be frank, this is just another example of their fecklessness, their cowardice, and their inability to come to grips with important issues, their being neglectful and their letting our communities rot.

I'm too old to play effective defense any more. I get tired and winded. My agility has faded. I find myself more and more grabbing onto the shirts of offensive players, slowing them down however I can, evading the referees' eyes, pushing them away from the goal. This in itself is beautiful. It makes me feel ageless. If I didn't love the game, would I still be trying to do this?

I just cannot believe that our politics has found a way to destroy even these leagues, even this game. I shed a tear for the beautiful game that won't be played. And I'm so very sorry and sad that my companeros in Prince William County, to whom these games are so important and so much a passion, are having to stay home this Spring.

Mexican Farmers Protest NAFTA

The Megamarch Yesterday In Mexico City

Chanting "Sin maiz, No hay pais" (Without Corn, the country doesn't exist), Mexican farmers by the tens of thousands demonstrated in Mexico City against NAFTA.

AP reports:

Led by a column of tractors, tens of thousands of demonstrators marched through downtown Mexico City on Thursday to protest recent trade openings that removed the last tariff protections for ancestral Mexican crops like corn and beans.

Chanting "Without corn, the country doesn't exist!" farmers and farm activists from across the nation demanded the Mexican government renegotiate the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, to reinstate protection for basic crops.

Farmers here say they can't compete with bigger U.S. farms which receive more government support. Under the terms of NAFTA, Mexico got a 15-year protection period to improve its farms, but that phase-in period ended Jan. 1, and Mexican farms — mostly tiny plots of 12 acres or less — still lag behind.

"The truth is, we can't compete, that is why we're demonstrating ... because we're really getting hit hard," said Telespor Andrade, 44, a weather-beaten farmer from central Mexico who grows corn and beans on about 7 acres of land.

Andrade is typical of Mexican farmers who grow corn for subsistence. I've written about this extensively here and the inescapable conclusion is that NAFTA is making Mexican farmers leave their homes and emigrate the the US. That's right. US economic policy is directly forcing farmers to leave their homes and migrate to the US, with or without documents.

The demonstrations, about which you will probably not read in your local newspaper, are reported all over the Mexican press. Here's Proceso and El Universal, for example. And for good reason:

Protesters pastured their cows outside the Mexican Stock Exchange on the city's main boulevard, and burned a tractor at a nearby monument to the 1910 Mexican Revolution.

Mexican officials say farmers are getting help, and that Mexico's corn production is rising. But activists say farm policies have benefited mainly big producers, not small producers who make up the vast majority of farmers here. U.S. farmers, they say, have much better transport and distribution systems, lower costs and bigger subsidies.

"We're up against all the might of the developed countries," said Martin Perez Santiago, 60, a farmer from the Gulf coast state of Veracruz. "We can't compete because of a lack of support, a lack of subsides, technology, better seed varieties."

When Santiago mentions "better seed varieties," the sound you hear is the door in Mexico opening for genetically modified seed from the US rather than the indigenous species that have been doing quite well for centuries. In other words, not only is NAFTA a disaster in terms of immigration from Mexican family farms, it's an ecological disaster in the making.

This is an extremely important story. NAFTA has created consequences that are disastrous for Mexico. It's forcing subsistence farmers to flee to the US. It's pressuring them to introduce GMA corn. It's already requiring Mexico, the birthplace of corn, to purchase animal corn from the US. It's creating an ecological disaster.

This is an important story, but I don't expect it to be discussed in the presidential race in the US, and I don't expect it to have much of a life in the traditional US press.