Immigration and Indigenous Theology -- Sightings

Immigration reform continues to be a contentious and divisive issue, which we have been unable and unwilling to tackle.  Ideology is part of the problem.  Knowing and understanding our history is another.  In this Sighting's essay, Unitarian Universalist Minister Chris Bossen shares his encounter with Indigenous Right's activist and theologian Tupac Enrique Acosta as they were incarcerated for protesting against the Arizona Immigration Law.  Included is a video of Tupac Enrique speaking at a session led by Cornel West.  Watch the video and then read Bossen's essay.  Ponder the contention that the debate is being influenced by a "Christian Doctrine of Discovery" that dates back to 1492.  Consider with me what this issue means for all of us who live within the borders of the nation called the United States of America.

Sightings 2/10/2011

Immigration and Indigenous Theology

-- Colin Bossen

I did not go to jail expecting to meet a theologian. But jail was where I met Tupac Enrique Acosta. Tupac, like me, was arrested in front of one of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s offices for protesting against Arizona's anti-immigrant law SB1070 on July 29, 2010. Unlike me, Tupac had an analysis of the bill's place in history that put it firmly within the context of the ongoing repression of the indigenous peoples of North America.

Tupac, who would probably reject the label theologian, is the leading figure behind the Phoenix-based Nahuacalli, an organization that describes itself as "A Cultural Embassy of the Indigenous Peoples." He is also closely linked with Puente, the grassroots organization behind many protests against SB1070 in Phoenix, and Puente's leader Salvador Reza. Understanding his views on SB1070 illuminates that, for some, the struggle over immigration is about something larger.

In Tupac's view the history of SB1070 does not begin in 2010. It begins in 1492 with Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Western Hemisphere. Columbus's "discovery" of the Americas prompted European political and religious leaders to develop what indigenous activists refer to as the "Christian Doctrine of Discovery." This is the belief that because the lands of the Western Hemisphere were without Christians prior to 1492 they were free for the taking upon "discovery." For activists like Tupac, the issues as stake in SB1070 are not so much political as theological.

Tupac shared his analysis with me as we waited to be processed through the legal system in holding cells and, later, when we were bunkmates in the cell block. More than once our conversations were interrupted when we were moved, it appeared arbitrarily, between cells. They were also interrupted when the Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio came into our cell to "talk" with us. Sheriff Arpaio, who is currently under investigation by the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, runs what he likes to call "America's toughest jail." He is known for his tactics of intimidating and dehumanizing prisoners, including trying to humiliate male prisoners by placing them in pink underwear and pink handcuffs.

Rather than intimidate us, Arpaio served as an unwitting example for our impromptu seminar on the Christian Doctrine of Discovery. Tupac suggested to me that the logical outcome of a legal system grounded in such a doctrine is laws like SB1070 and men like Sheriff Arpaio. SB1070 would not exist without the doctrine. Arpaio exists to enforce it.

As we sat together in jail Tupac traced the history of the Christian Doctrine of Discovery from its origin to its often unacknowledged presence in contemporary debates about immigration. He suggested that the doctrine was first articulated in Pope Alexander VI's 1493 Papal Bull "Inter Caetera" and the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas between Spain and Portugal. Together these documents created a theological and legal framework that justified the expropriation and division of indigenous lands by Spain and Portugal.

In the view of Tupac and many indigenous legal scholars the framework created to facilitate the seizure of indigenous lands continues to form the core of much of federal property law today. This is particularly true as it relates to indigenous property claims. The indigenous legal scholar Steven Newcomb, for example, has found traces of the Christian Doctrine of Discovery within U.S. Supreme Court cases as recently as 2001.

Tupac believes that the principles of the Christian Doctrine of Discovery are operative in SB1070 as well. As he told me, "the purpose of SB1070 was to consolidate the perceptions of some white Americans around the idea of an America that is white in a continent that belongs to them." In his view, SB1070 is just another attempt to assert non-indigenous dominance over the continent. After all, SB1070 is designed to enforce a border that divides not only the United States and Mexico but the indigenous peoples who belong to the Uto-Aztecan language group. They have been moving back and forth between what is now the U.S. and Mexico long before either country existed. SB1070 criminalizes their traditional freedom of movement.

As Tupac understands it, the struggle against SB1070 is the continuing indigenous struggle against colonialism. As he said in a talk, "When we did that marching... we didn't come to legalize ourselves before the state of Arizona. We came to legalize Arizona... Now, let's get this clear, colonization is illegal... If we're going to legalize Arizona we have to decolonize Arizona." Elsewhere he has written that "SB1070 is not a law." He makes this claim because he believes that the entire framework of laws governing immigration rest upon the Christian Doctrine of Discovery. For him, the Mexican and Central American migrants are indigenous and those who would keep them from coming to the United States are the descendants of colonizers.

Tupac and I were briefly reunited when I travelled back to Arizona to stand trial. After a day-long trial which touched on none of these issues the judge ruled us not guilty. Then Tupac set to work again to educate people about the Christian Doctrine of Discovery and passed around a flyer titled "SB1070 is Not a Law."

References

Steven Newcomb, Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (Fulcrum Publishing, 2008).

Vine Deloria, Jr., God is Red: A Native View of Religion (Fulcrum Publishing, 1994).

Watch Tupac Enrique on a panel with Cornell West at North High School in Phoenix on October 2, 2010 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6t2esf1Hgk.

The Nahuacalli official website can be found at http://www.nahuacalli.org//.

Colin Bossen is minister of the Unitarian Universalist Society of Cleveland. He keeps a blog at http://infidelity.blogsome.com//.

----------

In this month's Religion and Culture Web Forum, Jessica DeCou offers a comic interpretation of the theology of Karl Barth, bringing his work into a surprising and fruitful dialogue with the comedy of Craig Ferguson. Both men, she contends, “employ similar forms of humor in their efforts to unmask the absurdity and irrationality of our submission to arbitrary human powers.” The humor of Barth and Ferguson alike stresses human limitation against illusory deification. DeCou argues for understanding both the humor and the famous combativeness of Barth's theology as part of this single project, carried out against modern Neo-Protestant theology. The Religion and Culture Web Forum is at: http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Meg Whitman Is a Symbol of Republican Hypocrisy on Immigration

Meg Whitman has been working overtime to explain away her maid problem.

But the story is larger than Whitman. It is a symbol of the Republican hypocrisy that is at the heart of the entire immigration debate. The irony is always in the background.

Migrants would not be pouring into the U.S. if there were no employers hiring them. Most of those who take advantage of undocumented workers are business owners - construction contractors, rural farmers, manufacturers, restaurant owners, etc. And the vast majority of them are Republican/Conservative.

They use undocumented immigrants as a way to maximize profits. It is part of the business model for some of these people. For them, it is a way to take advantage of defacto slave labor, with little risk of facing any consequences. Having undocumented workers allows these employers to avoid paying minimum wage, avoid dealing with the IRS (can pay workers under the table in cash), can avoid paying workers the exact amount they are owed for their work, can avoid paying workers compensation expenses, can avoid OSHA regulations, can avoid State and Federal labor regulations, etc. The result is that many of these migrants are in work environments where they are subject to all sorts of abuse.

When will the media start using the term "illegal employers"? When will the focus shift towards those who hire undocumented workers, despite available E-verify technology that can prevent the vast majority of the problem? One main reason is because Republicans in Congress, and their rich Conservative supporters in the business community, really don't want to see any kind of enforcement that targets employers. It is no coincidence that the Chamber of Commerce- basically a Republican group - supports the GOP. The business community wants to maintain the status-quo. I am amazed by the fact that this always seems to be left out of the discussion.

It is interesting to see Republicans on one hand using immigration to rally their base by stirring up xenophobia & racism against Latinos, but on the other hand not really tackling the problem in any meaningful way through immigration reform (obstructing anything Obama proposes on the issue) because what they really want to do is maintain the status quo. Republicans in Congress want to make sure that their benefactors in the business community can continue to reap the benefits from the defacto slavery that currently exists for migrants... because the savings (profits) are just too enticing for them.

This is the elephant in the room that the media never seems to focus on when it comes to immigration. The Republicans are playing the hell out of both sides, and they have been doing a pretty good job fooling the public on this for a long time.

Let the Negative Campaigning Begin! Constitutional Roll-backs?

There are two rather interesting issues that have emerged lately in the political debate, issues that to my mind strike at the very core of the American ethos.  Both seem to me to be rather blatant challenges to American freedoms and opportunities -- and no that issue here isn't the right to bear arms.  The issues though are related.  One has to do with immigration and the other with religious freedom.

It saddens me to watch as two Republican Senators, both of whom have stood at the head of the line in support of comprehensive immigration reform, back pedal and embrace the repeal of the 14th Amendment, which interestingly enough was engineered in the 1860s by leaders of the Republican party.  The 14th Amendment has several parts to it, but the section relating to the current conversation reads:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sen. Lindsey Graham has suggested that this provision be rolled back, because it provides opportunity for "anchor babies," a rather ugly term that suggests that women come to the US to "drop babies," another popular term -- so that they can have residency in the US.  It has been rare in American history to roll back constitutional protections.  The only amendment that has been passed and then repealed was Prohibition.  Supporting Graham is John McCain -- also in trouble politically in his home state -- which has led him to take up causes he once opposed.   Do we really want to undermine constitutional protections that make it possible for the children of immigrants to become citizens?  Oh, it might be politically popular, but do we really want to go there?   And let me remind readers that this Amendment was Republican sponsored and largely opposed by the Democrats of the day.  

The other issue is the proposed mosque in Manhattan (and other mosques around the country).  The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Constitution reads pretty clearly here -- Americans have a freedom to exercise their faiths.  This includes popular and unpopular ones.  Unless they are clearly breaking laws or impinging on zoning restrictions, people have the freedom to gather wherever they like.  Thus, the sponsors of the Manhattan mosque and community center have the right to build two blocks from "Ground Zero."   It may not be politically popular -- and apparently the Republican Party is ready to make this a "campaign issue" for the fall -- but its a Constitutional protection.  I continually hear Tea Party folks and others talking about the Constitution -- usually their right to bear arms -- but when the Constitution doesn't go their way, well then -- "the Constitution be damned!"   My hope is that the American people have a broader and more open vision of the world than to decide who should govern them on the basis of the President's remarks about the mosque in New York. 

So, here's my question -- not so much as a Christian (my faith calls for justice for all people and therefore my view is colored by that theology, but I think this time the question emerges from my being a citizen of this nation) as an America citizen:  Do we really want to undermine constitutional protections of religion and citizenship?

Why blacks must reject "anchor baby" fever: African-Americans and Latinos should be brothers-in-arms in fighting Republican extremism

A young mother has a baby in San Antonio, TX. Minutes later, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents swoop in and place the mother and baby under arrest. The mom goes to jail for “harboring an illegal” while the baby goes to jail for being in the country illegally. Later that day federal agents take them to the border and tell them not to come back.

Read the rest at The Loop.

American Immigration in Historical Perspective

Randall Stephens



On Sunday, August 1, Peter O'Dowd reported on NPR that "Arizona's controversial immigration law went into effect this week, or at least parts of it." In a summary that looked at the reaction of church groups and religious leaders, O'Dowd noted "Despite significant support for the bill in the state, critics have been loud and organized." This comes on the heals of a Federal Judge's blocking of the more controversial aspects of the law last Wednesday. Judge Susan Bolton issued a preliminary injunction on sections of the law that called for law enforcement officers to check a person's immigration status or require suspects to prove they were in the country legally.



Like abortion, gay marriage, or taxes, little divides Americans like the issue of immigration. And this historic conflict keeps repeating itself.



Unlike a variety of European nations, the US has had relatively open policies on citizenship. (Naturalization rates, as well, have remained high in Canada, the US, and Sweden.) Through much of the 19th century the new nation needed laborers and settlers. Still, the question of just who was or was not an American tended to exercise the masses and energize politicians. Sometimes the matter stirred up intense feelings.



Numerous Easterners in the 1850s and 1860s worried about the "wild Irish hordes" that descended on coastal cities. Millions would have agreed with English essayist and historian Thomas Carlyle, who wrote, "Ireland is like a half-starved rat that crosses the path of an elephant. What must the elephant do? Squelch it--by heavens--squelch it." Nativism and the Know-Nothing Party made great political hay of the "Papist Menace." Samuel F. B. Morse--who helped invent the telegraph and a code for transmitting words over vast distances and also crafted his own brand of virulent xenophobia--was particularly adamant on the subject. In 1835 he wrote: "O there is no danger to the Democracy; for those most devoted to the Pope, the Roman Catholics, especially the Irish Catholics, are all on the side of Democracy. Yes; to be sure they are on the side of Democracy. They are just where I should look for them. Judas Iscariot joined with the true disciples. . . . They feel themselves so strong, as to organize themselves even as foreigners into foreign bands, and this for the purpose of influencing our elections. . . . That they are men who having professed to become Americans, by accepting our terms of naturalization, do yet, in direct contradiction to their professions, clan together as a separate interest, and retain their foreign appellation."



In the 1880s anti-Chinese legislation gained wide support in the American West and fueled the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The law read, in part: "That the master of any vessel who shall knowingly bring within the United States on such vessel, and land or permit to be landed, any Chinese laborer, from any foreign port or place, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars for each and every such Chinese laborer so brought, and maybe also imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year."



Most famously, though, the Immigration Act of 1924 raised the bar so that undesirable immigrants would have a difficult time entering the country. One stipulation ensured that old-stock white immigrants would receive special preference. "The annual quota of any nationality shall be 2 per centum of the number of foreign-born individuals of such nationality resident in continental United States as determined by the Untied States census of 1890, but the minimum quota of any nationality shall be 100."



Many of the exclusionary policies were changed for good when President Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, supported heavily by the late Senator Ted Kennedy. That landmark legislation did not end the debate or the ongoing contest over immigration.



The Arizona Law may or may by like or unlike earlier immigration laws. But it certainly lends itself to significant historical questions of legal matters, national identity, ethnicity, class, and more. Plenty for the general public and for students of history to consider.



For more on the history of immigration and the changing shape of the law, see the following helpful sites:



On the Arizona Law

Randal C. Archibold, "Judge Blocks Arizona’s Immigration Law," New York Times, July 28, 2010.



John Davis, "History Repeated: Arizona Immigration Law No Different from the Past," Texas Tech Today, June 4, 2010.



Chris Bray, "Light Tea, Heavy on the Milk," Cliopatria: A Group Blog, April 29, 2010.



Larry McMurtry, "The Trouble with Arizona," NYR Blog, June 24, 2010.

Immigration: General History, Legal History, Etc

Aspiration, Acculturation, and Impact: Immigration to the United States, 1789-1930. Harvard University Library Open Collections Program.



United States Historical Census Browser, University of Virginia Library.



Immigration Law: An Overview. Cornell University Law School.



Milestones: 1921-1936. The Office of the Historian, US State Department.



Immigration Legislation On-line, University of Washington-Bothell.



Who Was Shut Out?: Immigration Quotas, 1925-1927. History Matters, George Mason University.

Arizona, Immigration, and the Law

We heard just the other day that a Federal Court judge had put a stay on implementation of  much of the Arizona iimmigration law.  This stay is based upon the judge's belief that these aspects of the law overstepped constitutional boundaries, and intruded in federal jurisdictions.  It is a decision that is seemingly unpopular with many, one the Arizona governor Jan Brewer has appealed, and one the local sheriff apparently plans to flout.  But it is one applauded by many religious leaders, especially within the Roman Catholic Church.   

I recognize that the Arizona law is in part a reflection of frustration with the inability of the Federal Government to come to grips with immigration.  There have been attempts to rectify the situation, but there hasn't been the political will to accomplish reform, in part because there is no consensus on what  to do, as well as conflicting agendas.  There are business leaders who are largely Republican that want to broaden access for migrant workers, because they need these workers.  These are also the folks who are hiring undocumented workers.  On the other hand there are Democrats who are concerned about civil rights, and thus concerned about the civil rights issues involved, and yet they have constituents concerned about loss of jobs.  Then mix into this a growing nativism, and you have the foundations of a stalemate.

As for the law itself, it simply goes way to far.  Not only does it step on the toes of  the federal government, but it creates untold numbers of problems, including potential for abuse of civil rights.  Proponents of the law say they don't understand why there is all the fuss about producing documents.  But, most of these proponents are white and unlikely to ever be asked to produce such documents such as a birth certificate.  How many of us carry proof of citizenship?   Few if any.  But, if you're Latino, well that's different.  Why?  Because you fit the profile of someone who society believes might be here illegally.    Therefore, one could be a Brit living here illegally, probably having overstayed one's visa, or maybe even a Canadian, but no one would ask for documents, but one could be Latino, having lived here legally one's life, but be required to produce documents -- because they fit the profile.  Suspicions are based on profiles.  You can train the cops and mean well, but the pressure is on in Arizona to show results.  And so rights will be abused.     

Now, what would be best would be for Congress to get behind a reform measure that is realistic and that provides needed security.  I realize in today's political climate that's not likely, but this would be helpful.  It is also time for a broader discussion about immigration.  Why people have come here to the US, and why they continue to come.  Its time w reflect on the benefits that immigration provides to the nation.  After all we are a nation of immigrants.  Even Native Americans migrated here from Asia thousands of years ago.  We also need to recognize that migrants aren't the cause of drug related crimes.  Yes some are involved, but they're not the cause.  The cause is the insatiable appetite on the part of Americans for cocaine and other drugs, signs that the American "war on drugs" has been a failure.

My hope is that the Supreme Court will throw this law out so that we can get on with resolving the real problems.

More Undocumented Sent Home Under Obama

This runs contrary to the Conservative argument that Obama has been doing nothing and wants to open the borders.

Did Congressman Gutierrez Fail Government 101?

Disclaimer: I fully support immigration reform...and have supported it since this latest debate started (under George W. Bush).

However, I have been extremely annoyed recently by Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) and his verbal attacks aimed at President Obama. Gutierrez and his supporters have been lobbying the President hard to magically make comprehensive immigration reform a reality. But really....what exactly do they want Obama to do? Am I missing something here?

The President can't create and pass legislation. That's the job of the Congress. Obama can't sign into law what doesn't exist. And even if Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid & others were to craft some sort of legislation...it would barely get through the House, and would be dead on arrival in the Senate. The math simply doesn't work and everyone knows it (at least everyone except for Gutierrez). I wrote several months ago that the part of Obama's agenda that dealt with immigration reform was probably unachievable and would likely have to be dropped from his list of goals. It's a lost cause. I never believed it should have been something that President Obama should even try...especially after seeing what happened to George W. Bush (by his own Party). It would be a huge waste of political capital, after he already wasted vast amounts of political capital in his first year, fighting for what ended up being a bad health care reform bill in my view. Obama could waste another year on immigration reform and be left with nothing to show for it in the end. Meanwhile, he would be so weakened by it that he wouldn't be able to get anything else accomplished. If that's not bad enough, his efforts would simply be used as a basis for Republicans to energize their supporters going into the midterm elections... creating even bigger losses for Democrats than would have been the case otherwise.

A Republican President wasn't able to do it with a Republican Congress... Republicans blocked the effort. They are going to be even more aggressive in blocking Obama. Obviously nothing can be done before the mid-terms, and Gutierrez has to know this. Most members of Congress are worried about re-election and aren't going to touch the taboo subject (made taboo by Republicans/Tea Partiers). It's radioactive. There are just certain political and mathematical realities that cannot be ignored.

On the other side of the midterms, Republicans are expected to win back one, if not both Houses of Congress...making the passage of any legislation on comprehensive immigration reform impossible. Even under assessments friendly to the Democrats, Republicans are expected to gain so many seats...that even if they come up short on regaining the majority in the House or Senate, they will still be able to block legislation. So I just don't understand what Gutierrez, and his supporters, are so upset about. Why are they upset with Obama? Do they really believe he is Superman or some sort of political MacGyver? President Obama cannot make a proclamation and declare something to be law. Congressman Gutierrez and his supporters should be lobbying the other members of Congress.... not just the President (and perhaps they shouldn't be focused on the President at all in this case). Gutierrez should target Congressional Republicans in particular. That's where he should focus his anger. Not at the President.

Arizona Threatens To Cut Off L.A.'s Electricity

This would be in retaliation to the L.A. boycott of Arizona's racist immigration law.

What The ***k?!!!!

See for yourself.

I say let em secede. Cut off Federal funding to these jackasses. As a matter of fact. They can have the South if they want it. Can't stand the South. Never liked it. (although I am not ready to give up Florida or Texas.... two of my adoptive home States). I would be ready to fight for Texas or Florida. But the rest, they can have. lol

Both Sides of The Loop Podcast

On this week's episode, Marvin King and Lenny McAllister cover minorities getting the frisk from NYC cops, Arizona's immigration law and civil rights, the anti-incumbent mood in American politics and Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court.

Arizona Quickly Modifies Immigration Law To Get Around Legal Challenges

The Arizona legislature modified their racist and unconstitutional immigration law earlier this month because they knew that the original law wouldn't hold up in Federal court. The move was made in anticipation of a mountain of lawsuits that would have likely made the legislation null and void in the Federal appeals courts.

The original law would have allowed (and in many cases required) police in Arizona to use an immigration check as the reason to make initial contact with an individual. Now the law states that officers can check immigration status as a consequence of some other violation of the law or some other contact, which could be just about anything. The provisions in the modification, for the most part, always existed. This is currently part of normal police practice across the country. Police officers already contact immigration authorities to report suspects who may be undocumented, when the issue comes up as a consequence of other violations of the law. So if that's the case, why have a law that codifies what is already the normal practice? Because that was not the original intent of the law. Arizona is trying to be slick with this move.

The changes will help the State defend against legal challenges, and will make the law tougher to kill in the courts. However, the law is still racist and unconstitutional. The law will still require some level of racial profiling. It still violates equal protection rights. It would still require a certain segment of the population to show proof of citizenship, while not requiring the same from others. The only way that this law could be constitutional, would be if everyone in Arizona were required to carry proof of citizenship and all were scrutinized equally. Gov. Brewer herself tried to claim that she didn't know what an immigrant looked like (in an attempt to blunt criticism.... and to try to show that the law would be applied to everyone....of course that's a lie. Of course this whole issue is about Mexicans). It is inherently racist...even with the changes....the changes only lessen the degree of the racism. The law also tries to trump Federal laws and Federal jurisdiction, another problem for Arizona as it tries to come up with a defense. Unfortunately those who want to challenge the law will have a steeper hill to climb.

The modifications were aimed at fixing some of the 4th amendment problems. But the problems with the 14th amendment are still there. Fortunately, this law was so horribly bad to begin with, that there are a number of routes to kill it. The modifications only plug one hole in the dam. This is why I believe the law was never really meant to be practical. I think it had more to do with Arizona wanting to send a message to Washington.

Read the Text of the Actual Law with the Modifications

Sometimes, you read things and go 'WOW'. Marco Rubio has made me do that.

hat tip-djchefron

I have to admit, I didn't believe it could be true.

But, the headline confirmed it:

Marco Rubio says deport all the immigrants

Yes, you read right.

Marco Rubio says deport all the immigrants

Are there words?

Here is a quote from Rubio:

Then Rubio explained that he is against letting illegals become legal:

Rubio also rejected the notion of a "path to citizenship" or "amnesty," despite "the human stories."

"There are going to be stories of very young kids that were brought to this country at a very young age who don't even speak Spanish that are going to be sent back to Nicaragua or some other place. And it's gonna feel weird and I understand that," he said, suggesting that those hardships would be a price worth paying.

Hah! That's a quote from Marco Rubio, son of Cuban refugees. Cubans were, for decades, welcome to settle in America without visas or papers or anything, and they are still allowed to enter the the U.S. via Mexico without fear of being deported.

But Nicaraguans? Ugh, no. Marco Rubio says GO HOME.

Ain't that a bitch?

IFFFFF they were from any other country (cough, Haiti, double cough), Cubans would be considered ILLEGAL and SHIPPED BACK.

They aren't here through legal channels.

But, HE and HIS have made it, and the rest of you can go f-yourselves.

All the Latinos in Florida who are thinking of giving Rubio a chance in part because of ' Latino Pride'...

well......

when the chips are down, and he needed to take a stand...

look what stand he took.

Look who he sucked up to.

Look whose ass he kissed...

He's showing you who he is....

we have a term for folks like Rubio in the Black community....one of my current favorite terms is Slave Catcher.

may your vision be clear as you look at Rubio.

Rachel Maddow takes on the architect of the' If you ain't White, you better have papers' Law

hat tip-SouthernGirl2

Rachel Maddow interviews the president of the Federation of American Immigration Reform

Rachel ripped Dan Stein to shreds

from Political Carnival

The president of FAIR (Federation of American Immigration Reform), Dan Stein, was on the Rachel Maddow Show. It was brutal.

Because of this interview (read: tussle; read: battle; read: slaughter), we have a new word: "Steined"... as in, "You've been Steined by Rachel Maddow".

Witness the peerless Rachel "Stein" Stein:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Down on the Border -- Wrestling with Arizona's Inhumane Anti-Immigrant Law

I was hoping to get Robin Hoover to write something up for the blog about the situation in Arizona.  Robin is a Disciples pastor in Tuscon, AZ and a tireless worker on behalf of migrants who founded a ministry more than a decade ago called Humane Borders.  I said, I hoped to get a piece from him.  But all he had time for was this brief statement sent via his Blackberry:

No time to write. Get goups down here. Protest where you are. Send resources for migrants, dollars for advocacy.

Maybe that's all that needs to be said, but of course more needs to be said.

It is interesting that right now, as Arizona seeks to clamp down on migration from the south by requiring the police to stop and question anyone who seems suspicious -- a law that, despite the promises by the governor that such a thing won't happen, is bound to lead to racial profiling and infringement on civil rights, efforts are underway to delay discussion on immigration reform.   It is our unwillingness to deal with immigration reform, including making provisions for guest workers, family unity, and paths to citizenship, that has led us to this point. 

In an earlier post I quoted scripture, but today I quote the words found on the Statue of Liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"   (Emma Lazarus)

Of course, we've never truly embraced this motto, and our immigration laws have rarely reflected the realities that confront us.  The reason why migration is happening, is the same reason that it's always occurred.  Changes in global economic, social, cultural, and religious conditions.  Workers come north in search of jobs and the opportunity for a new life.  The trek is dangerous and often ends in tragedy.  Migration makes major impacts on communities, and they are often unable to handle the realities.  It is time for Congress to act, but already we're seeing efforts to delay and bury such things.  But if we do this, then Arizona will be just the first of many.

Robin Hoover is working on a plan that would, if enacted, bring fairness and justice to the conversation.  It's extensive and deals with economic and social issues.  It involves with providing migrants with legal ways of coming into the country, that would end the chaos at the border and make the nation safer.  I think it has promise -- but it will take political will not yet shown by our government.  Let us use this new law to stir the conversation in Washington, demanding that they deal with the issue now.