babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
So ET did you do blood tests at the border to determine that these are indigenous people and not settlers?
The political right has its single issue drones as well. Buzz buzz buzz. I don't think ET's obtuse reply deserves a response.
I should, however, take this opportunity to flesh out my idea a little more. Of course the subsidized corn dumped into Mexico by the US is having a huge effect on Mexicans of all ethnicities. Then there are the maquiladoras along the border with the US that also play a role in draining the population from the interior of Mexico. Capitalism, wherever it is, has created a propertyless class that must sell its labour power in order to live. So the driving of Mexican farmers from the land is all part of the modus operandi of capitalism and has been so since the early 19th century in England.
Maybe I'll be the last person Oldgoat bans or the second person Catchfie bans and everyone will get a good laugh but sorry take away this posters agressive attitde and some of the racist comments (many of the illegals are criminals) and they still raise some good points I've indicated above.I'm often hit with some mean racial profiling and I know first hand how much it sucks. I'm not saying this stuff justifies it but the above points seem like some fairly serious issues and not just a little bitty thing like some posters here pass it off as. Am I a racist for not wanting my taxes to go towards someone that snuck into Canada? I can barely put food on my table, how is that fair?
Lets not just single out the illegal aliens but the companies that use them for cheap dispsable labour too!And what exactly is the warning system here? Some people get multiple warnings and others are banned for their first infraction?
The indiginous peoples of Mexico are being forced out by violence and genocide. The settler Mexicans are leaving due to economic reasons (imposed by the USSA). I ask you, which is worse? Hint: It's the violence and genocide. I wonder why N.Beltov can't see that...
Anyone referring to economic refugees, human beings who flee the ravages of global capitalism in search of survival as 'illegal' and 'alien' have frankly given over all sense of their own humanity to a system that spoon feeds these wretched views into their willing and gaping maw.
Moderators! Calling other babblers names is against the board policy. I was censored for a way milder form of this( "some posters here are delusional" is what I said. ) Will you maintain your high standards against this form of abuse?
Down with N. Beltov!! Buzzkill.
lol.
N Beltov, don't call E.Tamaran obtuse, or refer to ET's posts as droning.
E.T. I will ask you to post to the topic. You too Slumberjack.
As to the issue of the racist troll Image, aka Snowbird, anyone who wants to read unchallenged racist talking points from rightwing scaremongers please see any comments section on any major network news website.
mea culpa. I look forward to future debate with ET in which I float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.
I guess my problem is I can't tell the difference by looking at pictures of the people streaming across the border whether they are pure blood indigenous people or mixed race settlers. Which is exactly the reason I have a problem with your analysis.
And since you asked I must tell you I have this world view that all humans are siblings. I don't differentiate between oppressed groups and say that some peoples suffering is worse because they are of one race and not another. The people of Mexico are being screwed and I think it is a tragedy for ALL not just some. Given my limited knowledge of aboriginal culture what tradition are you following that uses race as a determination of anything?
kropotkin, it would be great if you stopped going after E.Tamaran and also try to stick with the topic of the thread.
Well, by definition those points are unchallenged when we aren't able to answer them.
One of the enduring goals of babble, Yiwah, is to offer a discussion space where core principals aren't rehashed and refought over again and again in an effort to raise the level of debate (ha!). So we try to take as our starting point the idea that no one is "illegal," that laws like Arizona's Immigration law are racist (in fact, you yourself took this for granted in the OP!) and that recurring tropes like "illegal immigrants are taking away jobs from the working classes" represent attempts by the ruling classes to forge divides and schisms between groups that should be allies. By taking such values for granted, hopefully we can elevate the conversation to how we stop bills like this instead of should we stop bills like this. That's the idea, anyway.
I agree that conflict can be kind of an engine for discussion because it really gets the juices flowing. But conflict posts like Snowbird's invite is not the kind of conflict we want, or have ever wanted, on babble.
I should also add that Snowbird's evident contempt for this board and its posters was a key factor in his early exit--if there were any doubt as to whether he came here in good faith, that ended it.
Back in the old days, when Mishei and Dr. Conway were around, "obtuse" was a frequently-used term of endearment in these here parts.
*pwit.......ping!*
That's so acute.
This is an interesting perspective on why lawsuits against 1070 would likely fail:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/How-Obama-could-lose-Arizona-...
This was Obama's former position on such legislation:
http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-obama-argues-for-rule-of-law-in-deport...
This is what Mexico does to 'undocumented immigrants':
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2010/0428/Mexicans-slam-Arizona-...
This is the text of 1070:
http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/EO_201009.pdf
At any rate, challenges by the Federal government, against what is essentially the Feds own legislation, will have an explosive effect on the mood of people in Arizona, 70% of whom supported this bill (even over the objections of many Republicans). Like it, or not, this was populist legislation, enacted through the democratic process. If the Feds do try to have it quashed (and Obama's Administration probably won't), expect a Tenth Amendment challenge. Obama is clearly facing a bit of a Gordon Brown moment, here.
Yes, well people often seem to misunderstand the role of "rights" in the scheme of democratic process. "Rights" as adjudicated by courts are intended to enshrine protections for all, even if the will of the majority in a democratic process might desire otherwise. So, for example, if 70% of people in Arizona voted for legislation to have all Jews wear little yellow stars on their clothes so that the police could identify them, in a democractic society this could be overturned by the courts. In fact, it is very doubtful, that any "democractic process" that allowed for the majority to impose legislation that contravened constitutionally enshrined rights of persons on the basis of a simple majority could actually be called "democratic", since democracy is usually construed to mean a whole set of institutions that guide social discourse. In the USA they used to call these "checks and balances".
Interesting that you mentioned the 10th Amendment. Isn't that the one that is coloquially associated with "states rights", that formed the legal basis for rejecting the abolition of slavery and the secession that led to the American Civil War?
Again, this law merely requires police to enforce existing legislation, something which certain local governments have actually forbidden their police from doing. Do you remember the 55mph Federal Highway law? Imagine if state troopers never were allowed to issue speeding tickets. Or, take bank robberies--a Federal offence: pretend, for a second, that city mayors didn't allow cops to arrest bank robbers. Silly hyperbole, I know, but this is what is happening in major cities, like Phoenix, with immigration law. I suspect the Tenth Amendment argument could be used to argue that the State of Arizona has the right to tell its own police forces to enforce the law.
If 1070 is 'unconstitutional' (many experts, even ones who don't like the law, seem to think it isn't), then Federal immigration law is, too. And 1070 was the product of a functional representative democracy, responding to overwhelming popular support, whether you, or 'Nooneisillegal', or Shakira like it, or not. The Federal Government also has the temerity to criticize Arizona for enforcing Federal law, while at the same time downloading the costs of 'undocumented immigrant' healthcare onto Arizona and other border states via Obamacare. (As I've said before, Obamacare cuts Federal subsidies to hospitals, used to cover bad debt from treating illegal residents who are uninsured.)
Being in the country illegally (i.e., without proper authorization, like a visa) is illegal, just like entering a property without the owner's permission is trespassing. 'Undocumented' is a silly, politically-correct euphemism for 'illegal', plain and simple. And please respect the fact that this law was crafted in response to the valid concerns the people of Arizona have for their economic and physical well-being. Do spend some time actually reading the text of the law, as well as not dismissing the concerns of ordinary people out of hand. In other words, don't pull a Gordon Brown... ;)
I don't recall suggesting that the United States was particularly democractic. It was you who got confused and started believing that a majority vote that overturned fundamental rights and freedoms, or one where no such fundamental rights were actionable, could somehow be equated with a "democratic process".
Cueball,
The U.S. has no coercion of voters and generally fraud-free (except for the odd non-citizen, repeat, or deceased voter) and error-free (when those dastardly Diebold machines work properly) elections. Referenda on major issues are frequent, and most Judges, Prosecutors and even Sheriffs are elected. This is a pretty good score. By comparison, Canada is better in the vote security (mandatory voter-ID and paper ballots) and campaign finance departments, but worse in terms of elected judges and whatnot. I'm really curious about what your gold standard for 'particularilly democratic' is--Switzerland? Oh, but they had that minaret referendum...
As smarter people than me, schooled in the subtleties of U.S. law, have said, for 1070 to violate the Bill of Rights, so to would Federal immigration law. People are only annoyed because that Federal legislation is now going to be enforced. Those, 'people', BTW, aren't just advocates for 'the undocumented', but also money-grubbing business lobbyists who like cheap labor, real estate speculators who want to boost housing demand and politicians who count on non-citizen voters to deliver them victory through the insecure U.S. voting system.
I am sorry. You just don't understand democratic process. "Voting" is probably about 1/10th of what makes up a "democratic process".
You forgot to mention the 100s of millions of corporate dollars it takes these days per candidate to even register in the consciousness of an electorate that has their eyes glued to corporate propaganda squawk boxes. The entire endeavour is free from any semblance of honesty, beyond even Don Corleone's wildest dreams, where the end result produces minions who immediately set to work on behalf of the ones who brung em, not the voters. The voters are merely befuddled pawns to be stepped on and over. The elected justice system on the other hand produces outcomes such as life sentences after having been found guilty three times for smoking grass, or stealing food. Justice can't actually be said to be blind if one has to continually look over their shoulder at a confused and fear mongered electorate to determine sentencing ranges. It isn't surprising that such a fundamentally corrupt system of kleptocracy, where root and branch corruption is considered as 'fraud-free' by a nation of no nothings, considers the rounding up of poor men women and children in the street as a just solution to the problem of migrant wage slavery by criminals who operate trans-national agriculture conglomerates.
I'd imagine that as many as half of the payers for the Diamandbacks are Hispanic.
I just saw yesterday that the beverage company called "Arizona" which makes iced teas and juices held a press conference to tell people that, despite the name, they actually are based in New York. They were scared of a boycott.
Cactus why are you here spewing tea bag talking points. What I love is all these Libertarian americans who want a police state for everyone but themselves. Sort of like good Aryans who need protection from the masses of lesser beings who surround their borders in places like Poland.
"Your papers please has no place," in a democratic country. One of the reasons this is so insidious is that it leaves the police with the ability to demand papers from anyone on "reasonable suspicion" of being in the country illegal. So your latino citizens have just been put in to the hands of the police forces who can demand papers of them merely for being of Mexican American descent. ANd the kicker is if you are an american you can be arrested for not carrying papers. Did you get that your government can arrest people citizens for not carrying their travel papers. If it looks like a totalitarian government then you might want to check you enthusiasm since you seem to think that democracy is a good thin
Last weekon Saturday Night Live, the host of Weekend Update joked that "Every time someone says 'show me your papers', Hitler's family gets a residual check." And added "This is fascism. I know, Arizona, it's a dry fascism. But it's still fascism."
This 'show me your papers' business is nonsense. If you want to equate things with the Nazis, how about gun control (a Nazi policy), vegetarianism (advocated by Hitler), public smoking bans and anti-smoking campaigns (brought in by the Nazis), Europe's first animal cruelty and anti-vivisection laws (you guessed it, the Nazis)--all nice, 'progressive' stuff. I mean, you have to give a password and username to post on Babble...
Just as the owners of private property have a right to control access to their property, so to do sovereign countries have a right--as a compact of citizens--to determine who is in, or out of their country. Polling on this law indicates that over 70% support it in Arizona, with 65% support nationwide. And, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the U.S. is a 'democracy'. Not perfect, clearly (Diebold machines, non-citizen voters and Obama/Bush-style corporate-funded zillion-dollar campaigns), but it is a representative democracy. The people wanted this legislation and they got it...even if Jeb Bush and other 'conservatives' didn't.
Maybe the solution to this is severely punishing businesses who hire 'undocumented workers', by seizing and disposing of their assets. Also, suing the Federal government, to recover the costs (hospitals, schools) of absorbing so many border-hoppers.