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."
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!
On July 8th, the Maricopa County Sheriff's department did a sweep on Mesa unannounced. Arpaio said they arrested 19 people in 5 hours and 18 of them were undocumented. The next day, they did a sweep in response to citizen (read racist) complaints in Cave Creek focusing in and around the Good Shepherd of the Hills Church, which was a location of a day labor center up until a few months ago.
People have been terrorized by police violence since, well, probably the the first police existed. The poorer you are, the darker your skin, the more likely you are to be effected by police brutality, whether directly or in your family. Because the police are viewed/portrayed as infallible and because their victim/survivors are portrayed as criminals, it is seen as okay. The treatment of undocumented people is also seen as okay because they are portrayed as criminals. The law enforcement terrorism brought against undocumented immigrants (and some who are not undocumented) include fear of deportation, separation of family members, bad conditions during detainment, and physical abuse. Getting justice for police brutality or other abuses is nearly hopeless for anyone, but must be so much worse for the undocumented who have rights, yet can just be deported.
While many understand this, somehow, many immigrants' rights advocates separate the issues in their mind. They celebrate politicians/cops who criticize sheriff joe's actions, but excuse the actions of the officers in their jurisdiction, no matter the abuses.
A while back, i commented on the amazing confusion about to whom the new employer sanctions law applies (WTF Just Happened? Employer Sanctions for new hires or not...). Today, while catching up on reading the local news, i found a casual acknowledgment that the legislature had worked it out and decided that it applied to those hired on/after January 1st. From what i could find (and i admit i hadn't had the time/access to be up on the news), there were no news stories that focussed only on this change. But considering the major confusion and the pure insanity of the fact that a law was passed and thousands of workers who were hired before january 1st didn't know if they could legally be fired, and businesses were firing people BEFORE the law went into effect so they wouldn't get in trouble, yet the law didn't even apply to the folks who were hired before january 1st. I can't believe the audacity of the people who left this in limbo until several months after the law went into effect. And no one makes a big deal out of it!
While searching for news articles on the change to the law, i found a number of articles about lawsuits, panels, etc. which may lead to another change to the law. The issue about whether E-verify is accurate enough, whether the state can force businesses to check legal status, etc. are up for debate. In addition, the sheriff's raid on golfland will apparently also "test" the law. And speaking of this raid, why did folks not make a big stink about this either?
Some good news: a couple ballot initiatives brought by racists pearce and goldwater (grassroots my ass) called L.A.W. and S.O.L.E. aren't going to the ballot. Not enough funding from Tanton's national organizations to go around anymore fellas? Another piece of good news is that a guest worker program failed to get a vote.
One of the news reporters stated that the drama surrounding the sheriff’s sweeps in Mesa was like “Cop vs. Cop”. The news was more about the disagreement between county sheriff joe arpaio and mesa police chief gascon. If you watched some of the video footage, you could see arpaio so pissed you figure any moment he’s going to snap. He claims that gascon tried to stop him from doing his sweeps, although it’s not clear exactly how. Gascon claims that the sheriff was putting the people of mesa and his officers in danger, which I think is an interesting assertion. The cop on cop action overshadowed the real injustices occurring, yet anytime the cops are brawling, it’s usually a good thing for the people.
Riot?
I was amazed at how convinced gascon was that a riot was going to break out due to the sheriff’s sweeps.
Mesa Police Chief George Gascón, citing growing concerns over possible civil unrest tied to anti-illegal immigration sweeps by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, is stepping up efforts to ensure public safety… [Sgt. Fabian] Cota said officers were recently told to make sure all their equipment was working properly including gas masks in the event of demonstrations. (Source).
The anxiety may in part have been due to how heated things got in Phoenix during the second round of sweeps, which included a mysterious man bringing a gun to the demonstration/counter-demonstration (gascon referenced Guadalupe as well, but there was hardly a protest, much less a riot there). I imagine it has to do with the fact that Gascon was an LAPD sergeant when the LA riots of 1992 broke out, which is also probably why he wanted so much to avoid a riot. Unless of course, he wasn't trying to avoid it. As one commentator on phoenixanarchist.org said, "For someone who doesn't want a riot, he sure does talk about it alot..."
Either way, I wouldn’t claim I could know whether or not a riot would happen, but I am surprised at how sure of it he was. I overheard an officer talking about the possibility of the vehicles near the protest site getting damaged.
There are several factors that could play into things getting heated again. That includes large numbers of racist counter-protesters. For the mesa sweeps, however, Riders USA, via immigrationbuzz.com, urged their members and members of other anti-immigrant groups not to show up, so the MCSO “can concentrate on performing their duties efficiently and most importantly safely”. It seems they also realize they contribute to an unsafe situation. A few anti-immigrant protesters showed up anyway. Back in April, Gascon also expressed his concern about a group of about 15 raucous pro-Arpaio demonstrators in early April, soon after Arpaio announced he’d be heading to Mesa.
Mesa PD are also in a unique position as far as information goes, because they had a Mesa PD officer undercover in white-supremacist groups.
Detective Matt Browning of the Mesa Police Department said he spent 12 years working undercover with three border militia groups and six White-supremacist organizations in Arizona, who he said are some of the "most violent, racist skinheads in the nation."
"Every meeting revolved around immigration," Browning said. (Source).
Yet, more amazing is how the Mesa PD talked about the possibility of violence being the sheriff’s fault. A man from the Mesa Police Association said, “Lives are in jeopardy, and MPA wants to prevent acts of violence and accidents from occurring. The Sheriff is creating a dangerous situation when emotions run high and weapons are involved.” Arpaio's Mesa crime suppression begins in new location. I have seen several clear examples of the cops initiating violence at mass gatherings, but usually it’s the people who are blamed for starting scuffles that are called “riots”. And despite the blow to Mesa PD’s ego caused by arpaio stepping on their turf and claiming they’re not doing their job, it’s really in the cops’ interest to maintain the concept that criminals start riots, not cops.
Although the media mostly makes it appear that Gascon prevented violence by causing the Sheriff to move out of the original location, Gascon’s preparation for the event was quite heavy-handed. Dozens of cops surrounded the medium-sized demonstration at the original site of the sheriff’s command unit. Police were equipped with pepper spray, riot gear, and there were SWAT units in hidden places. It seems that because nothing dramatic happened at the protest, that Gascon and/or the media purposely focused on Gascon’s preparation as it related to Arpaio. However, before the sweeps began, Gascon had a clear focus on demonstrators, as he said, in Gascon: Mesa ready if protesters turn out for crime sweep, “We had a group of people who have already been trained to deal with civil disobedience in handling crowd control. We've added some more people to that number and we have done some recent training…”
It is very interesting to check out the media coverage, especially video, of the sweeps that took place thursday and friday (likely not continuing today, but we'll see), if only to see how pissed off arpaio is. It is also interesting to hear the discussion of the reasoning behind mesa pd's chief gascon talking about why he responded the way he did to arpaio's sweeps. I plan to comment on that in the future. Also check out the coverage of the people who copwatched.
(Sorry for not posting in a while. Hopefully that'll change soon.)
There have been a series of protests against Sheriff Arpaio since his immigration sweeps. Arpaio's last sweep was in Fountain Hills on May 6th. In the month and a half before that, the MCSO hit Guadalupe, Bell Road, starting with the area around 25th St. and Thomas (these events were "crime suppression operations" in specific places which seemed to be arranged for media attention. MCSO has also been making arrests of "smugglers" as well). MCSO also recently did a raid on a waterpark.
Many people have come out to protest the sweeps. Since the MCSO took a break from the sweeps, people have become a bit more proactive, going after him at his personal events. The first protest of this sort was on May 12 at an event where he spoke to an anti-immigrant audience. With less than a day's notice, close to 100 people showed up to the protest outside the building. The book-signings have involved questions being asked on film that the mainstream media don't ask, a request to have a book signed for Scott Norberg, a man who was killed by officers in Arpaio's jail, and disruptions at a speech portion of the book-signing event, in addition to a visible group of protesters outside the store holding signs. Over 300 people showed up to protest Arpaio at the County Board of Supervisor's meeting.
from Houston Indymedia Today (4/11) at Rice University, Rice For Peace and Justice hosted a teach-in on the border wall featuring Houston Environmental Lawyer Charles Irvine and Brownsville Teacher and Activist Elizabeth Stephens.
The Teach in lasted for an hour in a full classroom for more than 50 students and faculty. Both presenters gave powerpoint presentations that exposed the environmental, cultural and economic damage a fence would cause, as well as the stealing of land from property owners and the unconstitutional process taking place, where the Department of Homeland Security is waiving more than 30 laws designed to protect the environment, wildlife and Texas history.
This is the third week of immigration sweeps by the maricopa county illegal sheriff's office. This time, they invaded the town of guadalupe, which is a really small town just south of tempe. The town mostly consists of yaqui and mexican migrant residents.
There's another video of what happened in guadalupe here. You will see that people were being pulled over for ridiculous things like "improper use of the horn" when they honked at the protesters in support.
Back in 2002, i believe, the sheriff's office invaded guadalupe after someone shot at either a deputy or the person the deputy was dealing with. Either way, the sheriff's office took it as an assault against the deputy, didn't catch the guy, but proceeded to bring their mobile command unit out to guadalupe and pull over nearly every single person. This past weekend was nearly a repeat, except there were many protesters, and because obviously shooting at someone is more of a crime than not having documents, the residents could get behind an opposition to the police.
Friday differed from thursday in that the police did not set up their command center in town on friday, but rather brought their arrestees to a station in mesa. They also didn't pull as many people over. There were also less protesters, partly because there was a big church service, and probably also because there were less people being arrested.
Signs at the protests and left on the streets included, "Arpaio, stop using guadalupe", "Our people deserve respect," "You're on indian land. The only illegal here is arpaio."
from 
