from Zmag
By Joseph Nevins

In a November 13 speech to the Center for American Progress in Washington, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano made clear that President Obama's administration intends to move forward soon on legislation that would bring about "an immigration system that works." The administration, she promised, "will pursue reforms" true to an American identity as "both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws." In this way, Napolitano asserted, Congress and the White House would avoid the pitfalls of the "one-sided" reforms of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. "The enforcement part of the equation was promised," she said, referring to portrayals of the 1986 legislation by its proponents, "but it didn't materialize."[1]

Napolitano's announcement seems to have countered much of the conventional wisdom, and even the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who let it be known that immigration reform—what he has called the "third rail" of American politics—would be off the table during Obama's first four years. According to this view, the administration would likely wait at least until after the midterm elections, if not until a second Obama term, before moving on the matter for fear that the political fallout would hurt the electoral prospects of Democrats.

The administration's apparent new willingness to take on immigration reform might seem like a ray of light in an increasingly bleak landscape for immigrants, especially of the unauthorized variety. But at a time of a deep economic downturn, and with anti-immigrant sentiment strongly in the air, the challenges are daunting, to say the least, in terms of Congress passing legislation aimed at easing the repressive laws and exclusion endured by immigrants.

More...

"Not since the days of Bull Connor has this country seen a public official abuse his authority in order to terrorize and intimidate communities based on the color of their skin," states a call for the big January 16th march in Phoenix against Arpaio. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is often compared to Bull Connor, the police official in Birmingham who fought civil rights activists with attack dogs, and strong water hoses back in the 1960's. He acted above the law, although some could argue that his actions were not contrary to the general orientation of the rule of law then or even today. He was more blatant about abusing protesters and disregarding federal law than most law enforcement officials, which is why Arpaio is compared to him.

During the civil rights movement, there were no marches against Bull Connor, but there were efforts to produce situations in which he would show the world what he was willing to do to fight integration. The horrible treatment of marchers drew the attention of the nation and encouraged John F. Kennedy to initiate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To some, the Civil Rights Act was a victory, and the story somewhat ends there. This perspective makes it seem that Bull Connor was an important catalyst and therefore target (although he wasn't quite a target in the way Arpaio is today). Yet if this was the case, why do stories that focus on a wider black liberation movement rather a focus on aspects of what's called the civil rights movement that often focus on the federal government's benevolence or Martin Luther King's heroism not really mention Bull Connor at all?

More...

So many people are thinking it: Arpaio and his collaborators are putting the law into question, especially with the latest lawsuits and the disproportionate ways in which the laws have been enforced. After the stories on the singing protest of Arpaio that caused him to walk out on an interview, a news search for Arpaio will give you these stories: Arpaio and County Attorney Andrew Thomas are suing several judges and other county officials, and an MCSO officer recently got jail time for contempt of court for not apologizing for stealing files from a defense lawyers folder (and the resulting chaos involving a walk-out and a bomb threat, and the likelihood that the officer is in Arpaio's fancy jail for his allies).

When you hear statement after statement from the sheriff and county attorney and others that they're enforcing the law- that undocumented people are stopped/jailed because they're breaking the law, and then on top of that they all seem confused about what is actually legal or illegal and law-breaking cops get different treatment, you can't help but find that they are amazingly hypocritical.

What I'm getting at certainly isn't that we should be concerned that the sheriff and county attorney and others are making a mockery of law enforcement or the rule of law in general. The purpose of bringing these things up in relation to immigration is to point out that the rule of law is and always has been used to work in certain people's favor- those in power and with money, and to work against anyone who is a threat to holding onto that power and money. It's not quite as simple as that when you have a local sheriff giving a big middle finger to the federal and local governments- certainly they don't all work together.

More...