State of cruelty

America is starting to catch on that something's happening in Arizona and that it matters. The New York Times has opened a Phoenix bureau and the LA Times reporting is such that it might as well. This isn't Idaho. This is the third or even second most populous state in the West, contains the nation's fifth most populous city and 13th largest metro. And it's insane.

The focus for now is the draconian anti-immigrant law passed by the Legislature and signed by the Kook-tool Gov. Jan Bewer. It will turn law enforcement into a baby border patrol and essentially require racial profiling and further marginalization of the Hispanic community. This is the capstone of the career of state Sen. Russell Pearce, the Mormon East Valley lawmaker who has gone from the lunatic fringe to the height of power. (And I mention Pearce's denomination to ask, where are the powerful LDS voices denouncing him for actions that go against Mormon values of compassion? I hear many LDS oppose this.). Beyond this, everything gets murky. Arizona can't deport people (they tried with me); it lacks the funding to operate its current prison-industrial complex, much less incarcerate a million illegal aliens. This is only the beginning of what's wrong here.

The measure, like the other anti-immigrant laws of recent years, is hypocritical. Arizona's low-wage, low-quality economy is built around the inexpensive labor of illegal immigrants. Construction, tourism and landscaping companies have made huge profits on the backs of workers making less than citizens and lacking even the minimal protections and safeguards that Arizona provides. Why do you think you "get so much house for the money"? The remains of the state's agriculture industry would die without illegals. Anglos from the toffs in north Scottsdale to working stiffs in Phoenix get housekeepers and yard care for a fraction of its real cost. As Phoenix, especially, became a narrower economy focused on house building, illegals became more important. The people in power sure as hell weren't going to pay competitive wages for citizens, much less allow unions.

In exchange for this exploitation, the illegals pay a disproportionate amount of their incomes in taxes because Arizona relies so heavily on regressive sales taxes. And, yes, they use hospital ERs — they work for companies that offer no benefits. These anti-immigrant laws are the state's gratitude. This, along with the "sweeps" by the Badged Ego of Maricopa County. Of course if one really wanted to attack illegal immigration, one would go after the employers that hire them. Arizona has rarely done so. And no wonder. How many degrees of separation are there between the immigrants toiling to improve the riches for the local economic elite and Sen. Pearce and his gang? Or wealthy Republican John Sidney McCain III? Don't dig too deep or look too far.

The measure is most of all cruel. It adds to the creeping apartheid and soft Jim Crow atmosphere in Arizona. This is already a harsh, hard-hearted state, especially for those without means. Poorly funded schools have been cut even more. Badly funded Medicaid, enacted only after a long and notorious lawsuit, has been decimated. Economic opportunity outside the low-wage growth machine was lacking even before the crash, especially for the immigrant community. Racism and callousness abound, from the airwaves of car radios to the salons of the very rich. The depredations of the coyotes, gun runners and criminals have fallen, with a few highly publicized exceptions, almost exclusively on the immigrant community. And now this law.

It will most assuredly not address drugs or smugglers of people and guns. First of all, the latter is sacrosanct, so Arizona gun dealers, the big enchilada of the problem, get a free ride. Beyond that, turning state law enforcement into immigration agents will not only take officers away from high-payoff work, but ensure that cooperation from the large immigrant community ceases. Really attacking these problems takes sustained and coordinated action that targets the power players, as happened with Attorney General Terry Goddard's measures against the wire services that profited from human smuggling. This law is just one more cudgel against the poor and powerless. They will retreat further into the shadows but they won't leave. The power elite doesn't want them to leave — that would be economic suicide. It just wants them ever more "in their place."

This shameful action couldn't happen without the angry, ignorant cohort of Anglos who perhaps make up the majority now. They are willing to give a pass to the powerful who have profited from illegals and keep even the wages of Anglos some of the lowest in the nation. They are too closed-minded to understand the complex nature of the immigration problem and the measures that would really stop it, such as better economic policies in Mexico and hard time for employers who hire illegals. "What part of illegal don't you understand?!?!" doesn't allow for the comprehension that the state has a large population of immigrants there now. And it's not going anywhere. That population can either be engaged, educated, elevated — allowed to rise in the classic and healthy American pattern. Or it can be demonized and attacked. But it's still going to be there. They don't seem to understand basic geography: Arizona borders Mexico. A poor nation with surplus labor abuts a rich one whose globalization policies destabilize local economies in those poor nations. And they apparently think Jesus was a white Protestant from the Midwest who promised salvation only to people who look like him.

No, these white-right followers have been convinced by the demagogues on the radio and in politics that all their problems are the fault of brown people. That Phoenix would be Des Moines in the desert without those Mexicans. (Funny, my problem is with the other huge migration — from the Midwest). Of course it doesn't make sense. But neither does "keep your government hands off my Medicare." Or screaming against taxes while driving on tax-funded highways. Or fulminating against unions while shopping at Wal-Mart and thinking your wages have been flat for a decade because a black man is in the White House. They are the followers that have been manipulated by the demagogues and economic elite, much as poor whites in the South were taught to vent their rage on blacks, even though the two groups actually had much in common. Divide and rule.

So the haters and the crazies have finally overflowed the "fill" line enough to catch the nation's attention. You can be sure that this will prolong the Phoenix depression: illegals will be afraid to work outside the shadow economy, the underclass will become more of a drag and quality global companies don't invest in places ruled by extremism. It would be nice if it backfired. Remember how the racists were afraid after the big march in Phoenix a few years ago? Many in the crowd were Hispanic American citizens. But they didn't vote and so the Kookocracy has grown, a social, economic and moral cancer on the state. It would be fun, a la the movie A Day Without a Mexican, if the immigrants just left, a giant exodus that would cripple this brutish state for years. It would be right for Arizona to be labeled the new Mississippi, an international pariah, and face boycotts and national shame.

Yet none of that will probably happen. So fluid and dangerous is our moment, that the Arizona craziness may be catching.

Comments

[soleri]

I think the reaction against illegal immigrants is understandable. After all, continuity is a bedrock need for most mammals. We don't like sudden change for a reason, as evolutionary biology reminds us. When Arizona's ethnic demographic began to change, the political climate started polarizing along familiar lines. Whites felt beleaguered and stressed, responding instinctively to GOP dog whistles. As Hispanics took over much of west and central Phoenix, south Glendale, central Mesa and Chandler, Anglos either moved or adjusted. Most moved.

It's this reaction, while natural, that makes the situation with illegal immigrants doubly painful. They are largely hard-working and humble. They live mostly among the native and naturalized Hispanic population, however. It's here that Arizona's lack of investment in education and job creation has created a huge underclass. Depending on your viewpoint, it's either a burden (to Anglos whose American Dream is filmed in English) or a boon (to homebuilders, the prison-industrial complex, and various low-wage employers).

The tectonic plate Arizona abuts does not obey draconian laws or eliminationist fantasies. It exists independently of our need to feel comfortable. It's not going away even though our Boer-like nativists think they can legislate it out of existence. The tragedy here is that all these efforts will only serve to compound the fundamental problem. There's a first-world nation living next door to a third-world nation. There's prosperity, and next door, poverty. These are forces of nature we're trying to illegalize. It won't work.

[Donald Gillaspy]

Jon,
Remember that you wanted to let the "Kooks" play out their hand and make Arizona into some kind of a right wing utopia of their own making.
Well, we are well underway on that agenda with many unseen consequences as you predicted all too well.
I think we still have some way to go before the "Kooks" and their followers realize the danger of where we are heading.

[David]

I teach at a community college. Many students cannot read, or they can stare at books, but don't understand. How do you expect other people to fathom the complexity of social issues, such as immigration?

[PHXsunsFan]

I am Hispanic, I look "Mexican" to many especially those from the Midwest who are used to white America at its fullest in Iowa or Wisconsin. When my neighbor from Ann Arbor began a friendship with me, she did not understand that I literally meant I was 6th generation American but asked for almost a year about family life or stories about Mexico.

I think there is a deep misunderstanding of Hispanic culture which is especially gleaming in Mr. Talton's alignment of Mexicans sharing familiarity and friendliness amongst Chicanos/Mexican Americans/American of Mexican descent, etc freely and without its own strains and hate. Mexicans do not appreciate Mexican Americans because they are to "Gabachos" themselves often with younger generations not speaking Spanish (gasp, eyes roll) as if this makes of breaks culture in itself.

Many "rogue" readers may be surprised to read this from me but I actually have more in common with some whites (especially native Arizonans) than people (especially illegals) from Mexico! In fact those friendships I have with Mexicans (and yes, I do know a couple of illegals) often becomes strained because I don't own a Mexican flag or care to visit Mexico often which they insist I should call my homeland and stare when they discover my father a career soldier and myself having served PROUDLY in the military.

Many Mexicans, though claim strong allegiance to Mexico, view military service for their country as a burden: Probably because they really do not appreciate their country or more likely their government at any level. To me, many of these laws are "puff" pieces and something to tell the voting public that the government or politician is "trying to do something."

Honestly, I don't mind these laws all that much. I have to relatives who stayed in other countries illegal, one in Mexico and one in Italy, and had horrible experiences with breaking illegal immigration laws in those countries; incarceration (jails in those two countries are not civilized even compared to tent city but don't tell that to ultra liberal hippies in Seattle and Portland...ooops that's rogue's main audience), HUGE fines, horrible treatment, and a nice restriction which guarantees they can never return to those nations without even worse outcomes; serves them right? NO? They broke those countries laws so should they not have faced the consequences there? Or should they be allowed the privilege of a quasi "laissez passer" of sorts? The human condition calls for action when pressed and facing hardship. Here in Phoenix, although we have experienced tremendous drops in crimes (especially violent) we've seen the violence that remains in its depravity mostly from illegals dealing in the drug/gun and human trafficking trades.

Phoenix was dubbed the kidnapping capital of the U.S. and second in the world only to Mexico city because of the number of drop house human smuggling operations and drug related hostage situations that this type of reaction was not too unexpected. Even myself with a military background question "what can we do" and wonder "will the violence spill over and effect those of us not even involved in any of the aforementioned trades."

It is unfortunate that those who just wish to make some money by cutting grass, washing dishes, or picking our produce get caught in the middle but it is nearly impossible to separate or tell which among the illegal crossers are the "good ones." Many times the good ones get themselves in a bind with the bad ones and the line is crossed and no distinction remains. It is very easy calling "Anglos" racists (or that they are the only ones in support of illegal immigration laws)from afar.

That is far from the case and your simplification far to, well simple and does nothing but create more hate and division; shame on you Mr. Talton.

[Mike]

I know a number of Canadians and people from other countries who are now naturalized citizens that are beginning to wonder if they can 'prove' they are citizens if the police stop them. The truth is I do not carry my passport or birth certificate while I am driving around Phoenix. I guess I will have to be careful not to end a sentence with 'eh' while I am talking to an officer or be prepared to provide 'papers.'

I hear the members of the Legislature say the police will not be randomly checking people, but some of the police I know will really enjoy hassling people. This is such an easy hassle.

I recently was on a jury. One of the jurors was hispanic, spent a career in the military and was born in the United States. One sunday morning she was stopped in her van by MCSO while she was taking some ladies from a retirement to church. They looked at her license and noticed her last name was German, she married a German while she was in the military. The deputy questioned whether she was an American, but since she had a van full of little old anglo ladies, he gave her a pass....

Why would groups want to come to Arizona for conventions and other meetings when their members could be questioned on the citizenship?

[Jim Hamblin]

Jon touches on the impact of our "legal immigrants" from the Midwest. They tend to bring myopic and gospel-type bedrock conservative values that have produced a really scary tilt in our state. Where do the moderates and progressives go to play golf and retire? Does anyone know?

[Kevin]

Phxsunsfan writes:

"my neighbor from Ann Arbor began a friendship with me, she did not understand that I literally meant I was 6th generation American but asked for almost a year about family life or stories about Mexico.

it is nearly impossible to separate or tell which among the illegal crossers are the "good ones."

So I assume he is fine with now having to constantly prove his citizenship to law enforcement. After all, how are we supposed to tell if HE is an illegal?, let alone a "good" one. Maybe we should make all hispanics wear arm-badges with a star of dav, er, I mean statue of liberty on.

Jon - you nailed it here - I believe this is one of your best posts. A few basic things could be done immediately to hugely change the immigration problem.

1. Change agricultural subsidies so that cheap ("socialist") produce is not dumped on the Mexican market, putting their farmers out of business. Some 1.5 million local Mexican farmers have been put out of business since NAFTA - forcing them north for work.

2. Issue more work visas to match demand. Don't like illegals? Then allow them to come legally. The human trafficking trade would end literally over night.

3. Heavily enforce immigration law on employers. Jail time and draconian business-ending fines should be levied. This not only would lock illegals out of the formal economy, it would reward employers that provide wages and benefits at a level that citizens will accept.

4. Reform collective bargaining laws to promote unionization across all blue collar industries. This will create actual demand for much of the work illegals are now the only ones who will do.

Of course, non of this will happen as long as the Oligarchy remains in power and can effectively control our government and puppet master people like Phxsunsfan.

[CDT]

To the right wing in Arizona, cruelty is a feature, not a bug.

[AWinter]

So the "War Against Illegal Immigration" is getting into high gear. Has that term already been used? If so, it would be fully in line with all the other misbegotten wars: "War against Poverty", "War against Drugs", "War against Terror", ...
They have in common: Lashing out at the broad effects/symptoms which draws valuable resources from tackling felony and core problems. The little people in the end have to suffer excessively. The "war" goes on forever (when are we going to run out of poor people, drugs, addicts, dealers, terrorist, and illegal immigrants?) and it doesn't solve the problem. At best it ameliorates the symptoms just enough to keep things going, long enough for the "war" to chip away at democracy and personal freedom (yes, we 'hippies' care about that too).

It also speaks to a mentality shift that has happened over the decades. If nothing else works there is always the "War" metaphor of solving problems. It seems to have become a 'holy undertaking' in the public perception and therefore unquestionable. Which is naturally in accordance with a certain militarism, since the military --of which we are so PROUD of and support (except when we send them off to our war of choice)-- seems to be the only public institution that still works these days. But as Dimitry Orlov says "Delusions of grandeur prevent honest discussions of problems." Indeed, people only learn through pain.

[AZREBEL]

I'm Hispanic and I don't look "Mexican". I like to sit at the clubhouse or pool and listen to all the Midwesterners rant and rave about "those people". When I inform them of my status, it's fun to see them swallow their tongues and spend the next half hour back-tracking on all the things they just got through saying. I'm eighth generation in the area (pre-dates Arizona). To me, you whites are the illegals, just like Native Americans would have considered my ancestors the illegals. 150 years ago, whites killed Indians and Mexicans. Indians killed whites and Mexicans. Mexicans killed whites and Indians. Now we just argue and scream and yell at each other. I guess that's progress, eh??

[PHXsunsFan]

Mostly, AZREBEL, it is all overreaction. There really isn't difficulty in producing an ID and proving citizenship.

My military ID and/or Driver's License and/or Voter ID Card, etc will be sufficient. There are nifty things called computers in police cruisers that can look up information and help to shift through discrepancies. I travel often, overseas as well, and have been stopped by Customs, Border Partrol, etc and have never been detained or asked to be searched unreasonably. If I felt this was the case, I'd be extremely vocal about it.

Unfortunately those like Emil do not understand that there are people with differing views from himself and he instead chooses to name-call when he disagrees perhaps because he can not voice his dissension without a well constructed argument despite a thesaurus like vocabulary.

He asked how they will know without badges if a citizen is legal; it is called an ID. Simply a Driver's License can contain clues as to weather it is real, has been altered, etc. No one will need to carry their birth certificate or green card or papers if they have a valid state ID. That will be sufficient.

Those that are illegal that I know cannot obtain a VALID state ID because they do not have any of the above paperwork.

However, I believe that the far left is no different than the far right regarding fear mongering; it just happens to pull in the opposite direction. Luckily I can think for myself and shift through it easily.

[PHXsunsFan]

I wrote: "he can not voice his dissension without a well constructed argument despite a thesaurus like vocabulary."

Correction: He cannot voice his dissension with a well constructed argument...

[PHXsunsFan]

My sincere apologies to Emil!!! I was addressing the poster, Kevin, but stated Emil in my post on this topic.

[Emil Pulsifer]

PHXsunsFan wrote:

"My sincere apologies to Emil!!! I was addressing the poster, Kevin, but stated Emil in my post on this topic."

Good, thanks. I was scanning this thread for the first time and was a bit confused and annoyed to see a critical reference to me when I've yet to fully read, much less digest (much less comment upon) either the essay or any of the comments.

[PHXsunsFan]

In reference to: "Good, thanks. I was scanning this thread for the first time and was a bit confused and annoyed to see a critical reference to me when I've yet to fully read, much less digest (much less comment upon) either the essay or any of the comments."

Thank you for acknowledging you read the apology! I was reading your many brilliant posts and many of the others in this "thread" and others and just had a brain freeze and misstated the poster's name.

[Allen]

The Pearce/Arpaio/Thomas axis of evil has done an immense amount of damage to the Republican party in Arizona. And I point out that Jason Rose is functioning like a cornpone Goebbels.

The insane populist/fascist positions they have taken have the business community crawling under their desks, unless they make good money off of illegals. But then you watch Farrell Quinlan drink more kook aid in opposing Proposition 100, and you realize that a bunch of fanatics have taken control of the state and running it into the ground.

Quite frankly, the kookocracy is showing it face to be that of intolerance and idiocy. The RINO hunt of the far right is a sign that the party must be fully kookified.

Romley coming out and telling Brewer to veto the bill is a significant tell that the far right has gone too far. The really funny part is even McCain is calling a horse a horse: http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/04/birthers_horse_humpers_and_dra.php

The video is hilarious, because quite frankly, JD is a joke. But if the far right shows up at the primary (and if it is open, I imagine a fair number of dems will too) and votes for JD, Arizona could end up with a democratic senator.

Quite frankly, I think what we are seeing in Arizona is the future of the Republican party. The only question is how long business is going to hang with them and fund this lunacy. Sarah Palin the populist Huey Long of the 21st Century is leading them forth to "reload" their agenda.

I note the far right had better hope the economy in Arizona recovers quickly, or they are dead meat, with a state government teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and federalization of environmental quality and AHCCCS.

That would really make the rubes howl!!

Nothing left but for statehood to be revoked, and Janet Napolitano to be appointed Governor.

Which, as it looks right now, might be the most practical option.

[Emil Pulsifer]

I honestly don't know why any nativist would take Russell Pearce seriously, much less regard him as some kind of savior. Pearce's legislation shows him to be a politician, playing to his constituency. He's the "bad-cop" in the game of "good-cop / bad-cop" which the exploiters of immigrant labor need to keep the immigrants "in their place" -- working hard but not agitating for improvements or additional rights; just happy to have a job and keeping their heads down in the hope of avoiding The Man.

I'll get to Pearce's latest opus in a moment, but first consider his much ballyhooed employer sanctions legislation which was signed into law. Instead of being written to target an objective act (i.e., hiring an employee without conducting a specific series of background checks using various government databases, for the purpose of establishing the naturalization status of the applicant), he wrote a law whose enforcement depended on the mental state of the employer (i.e., "knowingly hire"); something so subjective and resistant to detection or measurement that even Andrew Thomas and Joe Arpaio only successfully brought a single enforcement action in the years that's it's been on the books.

At this point, there are three options:

(1) The prosecutor, Thomas, and the law enforcer, the MCSO, were both diligent and acted in good faith, but the law as written was nearly unenforceable;

(2) Thomas and Arpaio, like Pearce, are political poseurs;

(3) Both (1) and (2)

Pearce's employer sanctions legislation law was equally toothless on the penalty phase. Employers were required by statute to use E-verify, but no penalty was specified for the failure to use it. Employers convicted under the law faced only a 10-day suspension of their state business license for their first conviction. Theoretically, any employer stupid enough to get caught and successfully prosecuted twice could lose their state business license permanently. We'll never know because it has never occurred and is unlikely to.

Now flash forward to his latest masterpiece. Originally it made picking up day laborers illegal, until some adult came forward and pointed out that you can't pass laws arbitrarily impeding private commerce simply because one of the parties involved MIGHT be undocumented. So, the final version makes it against the law to disrupt traffic while doing so; but disrupting traffic to pick up a pedestrian (of ANY sort and for ANY purpose) was already illegal, making this feature toothless and politically self-indulgent.

Another portion of the bill makes it a state crime to be in Arizona without documentation of one's naturalization status: but naturalization status is a national (i.e., federal) concern and thus the state lacks legal standing to pass such a law. This portion will be struck down in the courts.

The new bill also requires police to check the naturalization status of anyone about whom they have "reasonable doubt", but only when "practicable". The bill also includes a provision allowing citizens to sue law enforcement if they don't think that this section of the bill is being enforced, though the loser must pay court costs; but by making this provision dependent upon the existence or absence of "doubt" on the part of the officer, it guarantees that no third party will be in a position to successfully challenge the officer's own statement as to his putative mental state at the time. Certainly, one can be Hispanic, speak Spanish, and even function as a day laborer without this being prima facie evidence of illegal presence. Also, the term "practicable" is undefined and covers whatever the officer wishes it to, from community relations to patrol time constraints.

The new bill simply gives legislative cover to those inclined to racially profile (whether citizen or non-citizen Hispanics): but that cover is illusory since racial profiling is a violation of federal law and it is up to the federal authorities with whom a complaint is filed, to decide if the accusations have merit or deserve further investigation. So, in effect the bill encourages actions which open state law enforcement agencies up to a raft of civil rights lawsuits of various kinds.

[Emil Pulsifer]

Regarding the comment about sometimes strained relations between Hispanic-Americans and Mexicans, I think it's important to remember that there can be more than one reason for this.

When it's a simple matter of being more comfortable around those sharing a common language and culture, that's OK.

On the other hand, there are historical precedents for hierarchies of a more unhealthy sort, based on oppression and the desire of the oppressed, in turn, to be "better" than someone, anyone else, even as their social "superiors" claim to be better than they.

For example, Whites once regarded Blacks as inferior, and during the time of slavery, it was not uncommon for slaves in domestic positions to regard themselves as similarly superior to the fieldhands. My personal belief is that use of the term "niggah" by young Black men today, when used to disparage one another in argument, comes directly from the mouth of the slavemaster, relayed over generations, with the original reason lost over time.

Similarly, today, in states where some Whites seem to regard Mexicans as inferior (culturally or otherwise) -- a judgment which tends to bleed over onto Hispanic-Americans because of ethnic similarities -- it can be tempting to Hispanic-Americans to try to distance themselves from "those Mexicans" by emulating the attitudes of Whites.

This is bad for everyone involved: it reinforces White stereotypes by justifying them ("see, even our own Hispanics agree"); it demeans the Hispanic-Americans who stoop to such mimicry in order to prove their own cultural assimilation; and it oppresses the Mexicans who have done nothing more than be born elsewhere and speak another language.

[PHXsunsFan]

Emil, I understand your distant observations and oversimplification of the issues of Chicanos vs Mexican nationals but find your rationale and comparisons rather comical.

The differences and hate between these two groups, of which I belong to one stem from reasons that predate Arizona statehood and to root the Hispanic-Americans attitudes "toward those Mexicans" taking on white attitudes is showcasing your deep misunderstanding of the historical significance of differing Hispanic cultures even if they border one another for centuries.

You seem very intelligent and I'd ask you to learn about the different movements, dating back before 1912, in Hispanic culture before naming such ridiculous ideas for cultural identity. I think it is much more simple for for whites, and evidently Emil to say they are all the same people but some just view themselves "better" or whatever nonsense one wishes to dismiss historical going-ons with.

If you note, I've also written of myself, a brown skinned individual, having been called a "gabacho" which is just as bad as "gringo" by Mexican nations because I do not call Mexico my homeland or because of cultural differences in speech, cooking, and familial and cultural beliefs that arise from having generation after generation of American born relatives.

The splits and dissension among Hispanics, particularly of Mexican, descent go beyond who has the better job, whose skin happens to be lighter, or who has less of an accent.

[PHXsunsFan]

Another historical aspect I'd point you, Emil, to consider is the time before the Mexican-American War of 1848. During the time predating this period General Santa Ana, the victorious and gallant general who wished to seize control of all of Mexico from the civilian government, taxed heavily the Mexicans of Northern Mexico (present day California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas to name the largest areas) for his civil war in Central Mexico and Mexico City, D.F.

This caused much dissension and frustrations leading to a rift and effectively ensured many Mexicans would align themselves with Americans in the Westward Expansion plot of America's Manifest Destiny; including the Gadsden Purchase and later to rebel against the Mexican army in Texas. The Texan rebels were not mainly whites from the colonies...read your history please.

[PHXsunsFan]

In last statement, I wrote the events in reverse as the Gadsden Purchase occurred AFTER the Texas "Revolution" and after the Mexican-American War. The Gadsden Purchase is when many of my relatives generations ago became American citizens as they were living in Mesilla and the Mesilla Valley at the time.

[Jim Hamblin]

So, the 1070 bill is now law and the pundits and pontificators will have a fine time slicing and dicing. The intellectuals and the historians may offer their insights. But the bottom line is that our state (once again) has presented itself as the land of birthers, guns in bars and systematic environmental degradation. The long view is that maybe the Kooks will shoot themselves in their orthopedic oxfords! We can only hope . . .

[CDT]

Emil may or may not need to bone up on his understanding of Hispanic cultural history -- goodness knows I do -- but there's no basis for questioning his good faith or intentions.

[AZREBEL]

First, I am ready to abandon posting on AZcentral, the anger, lack of civility and the outright mean-spirited comments of most posters is too much to take.

Second, I commend everyone on this site for your insightful, eductional and enlightening posts, which you offer up on a regular basis. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Third, Sunsfan, we must be related, I have many relatives in Mesilla. If you have a handsome branch of your family, that would be me.

Fourth, both you and Emil touched on this: It is almost a taboo subject. As a thirty year resident of Mesa, I propose to you that the underlying criteria for "layering" of the people of Phoenix, Scottsdale, Mesa, ie: the whole valley: The main criteria is primarily $$$$$ and not race. If you have the $$$ and know where to live and how to act, it will be the area where you are most comfortable and where the area will be most comfortable with you. AND, please allow me to add another important criteria; level of education. $$$$ and education will set you free. Lack of $$$$ and education will enslave you. During my years of working with families in south Phoenix, I used to advise them, "If you want your children to be able to live in Scottsdale, educate them and have them learn to speak clear english". Their bilingual ability will make them invaluable. I'm sorry to report, they ignored my advice. Too bad for them.

[PHXsunsFan]

AZREBEL, I wholeheartedly agree, except I live in Central Phoenix where intermingling of race and socioeconomic status happen much more freely than in Scottsdale. It is not rare to have a doctor living in a condo next to 6 artist sharing a loft and the rent in downtown! Which is the diversity I crave and not all those artist are white mind you. Scottsdale, Chandler, North Phoenix, Ahwatukee (an area of S. Phoenix) is a different story. Race in Phoenix and Arizona for that matter takes the furthest back seat as money and education here are of utmost importance. I think this allows most to brush off these laws.

I may be ignorant of the hardships facing some illegal immigrants with the enactment of this bill, that I will admit, but I believe this law will be challenged and struck down. There are just too much state meddling in federal affairs to withstand judicial scrutiny. To me, this law isn't about racism, discrimination, hatred, bigotry, or any of those issues as much as it is in response to the fear of the violence that threatens to spread across our borders and from the violence we see everyday; I've been caught in the crossfire more than once through my credit and social security # being used 14 times, thus far (hopefully LifeLock works) to actually passing by when rival Mexican gangs fired at one another near a freeway! This is not unusual and yes, the cars had MEXICAN license plates and Mexican nationals.

Although these laws may be reactionary and an overzealous reaction, it is nonetheless SOMETHING trying to be done.

AZREBEL, I consider myself the handsome branch of my family ;-)! Indeed we may be related...

[mark sanchez]

Jon,

I won't talk history, or add to the earnest chatter about the clash of race and socioeconomic factors. A lot of good that has done on this issue. This is our xenophobic underbelly exposed to all.

I just know I'll raise a royal stink when I'm pulled over for DRIVING WHILE BROWN.

Shame on the state of Arizona. My parents are rolling in their graves at St.Francis cemetery.

-Mark Sanchez

[terry dudas]

This has been a most instructive stream; the sort of dialogue too little explored. Thanks to all, especially the insights of PHXSUNFAN, AZREBEL & Mark Sanchez.

[Emil Pulsifer]

I wrote:

"...it can be tempting to Hispanic-Americans to try to distance themselves from "those Mexicans" by emulating the attitudes of Whites."

This is not a theory but describes behavior which I have personally observed. More than once in casual conversations with Hispanic-Americans, they take one attitude (anti-illegal immigrant) when they think I'm a typical Arizona Anglo (I also look "conservative"), parroting nativist cant as if eager to demonstrate to me that they are "real Americans". When they find out that I'm not an immigration kook they relax and moderate their attitude significantly.

I've also observed this same behavior in conversations to which I'm an observer but not a party (e.g., two old men, one White and the other Hispanic-American, talking at McDonalds about current events (immigration issues)).

So, it's a real phenomenon, and not uncommon.

PHXsunsFan wrote:

"The differences and hate between these two groups, of which I belong to one stem from reasons that predate Arizona statehood..."

First, you're seriously overstating the degree of friction. Most Hispanic-American families came to Arizona within three generations, still have relations in Mexico, and get along quite well with recent immigrants (regardless of naturalization status).

Second, most people (both Americans and Mexicans) are not hyper-patriots and would not have a falling out (much less develop hatred for one another) over the question of flags.

Third, the notion that fundamental social attitudes of current-day Arizona residents derive from the Gadsden Purchase or the tax policies of General Santa Anna is, to say the least, eccentric.

PHXsunsFan wrote:

"I've been caught in the crossfire more than once through my credit and social security # being used 14 times, thus far (hopefully LifeLock works) to actually passing by when rival Mexican gangs fired at one another near a freeway! This is not unusual and yes, the cars had MEXICAN license plates and Mexican nationals."

Actually, it IS unusual to be caught in the crossfire of gang warfare. It's also unusual to be the victim of identity theft 14 times. One also supposes that criminals of other nationalities and races (including White Americans) conduct gang warfare; one reads about drug-dealing biker clubs, for example, having shoot-outs. Why the outrage specifically about Mexicans?

Pardon me for being skeptical. It's not unusual for White nativists to pose as Hispanics in order to legitimize their claims and attitudes.

[Emil Pulsifer]

Dear Mr. MacEachern,

I wanted to post a comment correcting some of the myths you've spread in your latest opus, but the online version of your op-ed piece on Pearce and the new immigration law doesn't have a comments section, so I'll have to settle for a private email rebuttal -- not nearly so satisfying.

You wrote:

"The reason Arizona today is the raging headwaters of the immigration debate is because other sectors no longer are headwaters. More or less, they have been "sealed," more so at least than Arizona.

"It leads one to wonder: Do they not sell 51-foot ladders across the border from California? From Texas? Or has the flow in those areas been stanched because, in those regions, border enforcement is being taken seriously while Arizonans are left to the harsh notions of Russell Pearce?"

According to the Congressional Research Service, California sectors of the border now account for nearly 30 percent of U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions, up from about 15 percent in 2005. Apprehensions in San Diego, have been rising since 2001. Arizona, by contrast, has been stable at about 48 percent of apprehensions for the last several years.

"This suggests that the increasing enforement along the Arizona border has begun to shift the pattern of unauthorized immigration back to California". Oops. That doen't sound like California is "sealed" or even "staunched"; nor does it suggests that the feds have been sitting on their duffs in Arizona. Incidentally, Texas accounts for about 25 percent of the apprehensions, down from 35 percent in 2005. See especially Figure 5, page 21:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL32562.pdf

The claim that the federal government isn't doing anything is absurd in the face of Figure 12 of the CRS report (p. 39), which shows that the total number of Border Patrol agents increased from about 11,000 in 2005 to nearly 18,000 in 2008. (Currently there are more than 20,000, with over 17,000 assigned to the southern border.) About 4,000 of these are assigned to Arizona. That's roughly 11 agents per mile along the 370 mile Arizona-Mexico border.

It isn't only ladders. Drug smugglers routinely use trucks to crash through portions of border walls. Presumbly they could employ bulldozers or even explosives if they wanted to. They also use something less obvious: tunnels.

"Tunnel passages across an international border into the United States have become a real problem. One tunnel running from San Diego to Tijuana was marked by inordinate sophistication. It was a half mile long. It went 60 to 80 feet deep, 8 feet tall. It had a concrete floor. It was wired for electricity. It had drainage. At one end, 300 pounds of marijuana were found, and at the other end, 300 pounds of marijuana. What was interesting is that the California entry into the tunnel was a very modern warehouse, a huge warehouse compartmented but empty and kept empty for a year. In one office there was a hatch in the floor. It looked much like the hatch which Saddam had secreted himself in. But lifting that hatch disclosed a very sophisticated tunnel. It went under other buildings all the way across the double fence into Mexico and up in Mexico in a building as well."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm

Note that anything which went through that (or any other) tunnel was never counted as interdicted or apprehended, be it drugs or illegal aliens.

I would imagine that coyotes, who charge $1,500 to $2,000 a head, and many of whom have connections with Mexican drug cartels, might be motivated to use a few trucks (perhaps stolen and therefore cheap) or a stick or two of TNT to demolish a section of wall to assist human smuggling.

Another point: every year more than 24 million legal tourists visit Arizona from Mexico, many of them visiting Tucson to shop. It's easy to get a "laser visa" for a short visit: and though the application does require visitors to demonstrate that they have a reason to return to Mexico (e.g., family, job) there is no way to conduct background checks on 24 million tourists a year; so that anyone who isn't a complete idiot can fill in the "right" answers on the form and enter the country, bringing with them cash (anything less than $10,000 doesn't have to be declared), or the equivalent in gift cards or other plastic money (smarter, since the amount on the card isn't easily checked), as well as a new set of false ID with which to start a new existence. Then they don't even have to enter the country illegally. They just have to overstay their visa, which is a civil, not a criminal violation of federal law.

Even if the 2,000 mile border were sealable, unless the United States is prepared to end all tourist traffic, there is no way to stop a few hundred thousand illegals per year from blending in with the tourists and disappearing.

I honestly don't understand why this isn't more common. Or, maybe it already is, but nobody keeps track of how many tourists do or don't return. Why risk your life crossing the burning desert if you can stroll across at a checkpoint? Can you give me a detailed and accurate answer to this question? (I'd be grateful!)

One final point: unlike California and Texas, Arizona has a seeming aversion to permanent checkpoints and other infrastructure used to check highways for vehicles packed with illegal aliens, who have to get from the border to their destination and at some point must be transported vehicularly unless they plan to walk to Tucson or Phoenix. This is why neighboring states hate us: we allow easy transport, not only into Arizona, but also into other states via routes which bypass those states' checkpoints. Permanent checkpoints, unlike those which must be closed down and moved periodically, are less easy to get past: you can't wait until they close every few weeks. The checkpoint at Tubac is once again on hold.

http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=12353726

Regards,

E. Pulsifer

[Jim Hamblin]

Not trying to get the last word, but McCain's quote has a ring of truth, considering that he wasn't running for President yet. It focuses needed attention on something other than laws and guns and badges . . . .

John McCain in Senate testimony May 25, 2007: “We need to come up with a humane, moral way to deal with those people who are here, most of whom are not going anywhere. No matter how much we improve border security, no matter the penalties we impose on their employers, no matter how seriously they are threatened with punishment, we will not find most of them, and we will not find most of their employers.”

[terry dudas]

Emil - I went thru the Tubac checkpoint three-weeks ago; it was up & running just as it has been for the past 10-plus-years. The wasteful permanent structure has not been built, not should it. For whatever benefit this checkpoint gives, changing its location, unannounced, is the better strategy, in my opinion. Agents do manage to intercept a bit of pot here & there, and every once in awhile, a van of illegals, but for the most part, detection can be avoided in a number of other ways as the tsunami of law breakers far exceeds the monitors.

[Emil Pulsifer]

Here's the answer to the "tourist" question, according to National Public Radio:

"Many immigrants who are in the United States illegally never jumped a fence, hiked through the desert or paid anyone to help them sneak into the country. According to a recent study, 45 percent of illegal immigrants came here on a legal visa, and then overstayed that visa."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5485917

So, I was right: and not only is it possible, it's common.

[Emil Pulsifer]

Terry Dudas, I said that the permanent checkpoint at Tubac has been put on hold. You agree that it was never built. I don't see where we disagree or why you preface your comment with a remark about an entirely different beastie -- a temporary checkpoint that moves every few weeks (or however often it is in that particular case).

If you're a smuggler, you have intelligence, including surveillance of moving checkpoints. If you need to get through an area that has a checkpoint, all you need to do is wait until it moves: there is a window of opportunity.

There is a place for temporary checkpoints in the system, but there is also a place for permanent checkpoints. They complement each other. Arizona, unlike neighboring states, has a traditional aversion to permanent checkpoints. I believe that is a contributing factor.

[Emil Pulsifer]

" Arizona is the only state along the Southwest Border that does not have U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) checkpoints. As a result, traffickers often exploit Arizona roadways when transporting illicit drugs to and through the state." (see End Note #3)

http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs22/22934/transpor.htm#text4

And this, from a July, 2005, General Accounting Office report, fleshing it out still further:

"A third type of checkpoint operates in the Tucson, Ariz., sector, where the Patrol has been legislatively prohibited from funding construction of checkpoints since fiscal year 1999. This restriction has prevented checkpoint construction. The Patrol also began closing or relocating checkpoints in the sector every 7 days at the instruction of congressional staff...Three of six checkpoints in the sector had to close for 7/14 days, as safety considerations made it too hazardous to relocate them.

"...The result of these legislative restrictions in the Tucson sector has been that the Border Patrol operates what we refer to as nonpermanent checkpoints that are hybrids of permanent and tactical but that lack the logistical, communication, and other capabilities provided by the physical infrastructure of permanent checkpoints or the flexibility of tactical checkpoints. In the Tucson sector, according to Border Patrol officials, the lack of permanent infrastructure, in combination with the mandated relocation on a regular basis, results in closure at 3 of 6 sector checkpoints because of an inability to find an alternate location that meets safety requirements for adequate shoulder areas and advance notice to vehicles that they are approaching a checkpoint."

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05435.html

[PHXsunsFan]

Not to hijack this topic again, but Emil I would seriously reconsider your stance on Hispanic cultures and culture clashes. Being Hispanic I have run head on to the anti-"paisano" sentiment from Mexican Nationals quite frequently and it isn't kind many times. I am not against immigrations, and even hope for the federal government to step in and correct some of the bureaucratic mess that leads many "illegals" into that status in the first place. However, the divisions between Hispanics is ever clear especially if you are a member of our community.

And honestly, it is not a "Hispanic" phenomenon but often those with similar backgrounds and shared elasticities often develop distaste for one another for a variety of reasons. Even having taken a criminology class for an elective, I learned that in prisons and jails in Arizona there are two Hispanic groups that self-segregate because of difficulty communicating and because of lack of identity among those groups that does reflect the community at large; be it the law abiding community on both cultures. I learned that in "the system" the two Hispanic groups are the "Chicanos" which are the "American born" Hispanics and the "paisas" which is a label they instilled to signify "countrymen" as in countrymen of Mexico.

While there is not enough time of space to delve into this in depth, what I hope to get out with my posts is that many of those "Anglos" who are pegged as kooks and xenophobes are anything but those things yet the few vocal to are give a bad name to anyone who would support "new" laws that already exist. I believe that most Arizonans approve of this law, not because they dislike brown people, but because they do wish for reform and more order at the border and in our cities. To dismiss the crime that occurs between the waring cartels, coyotes, and various smugglers (many of whom are illegal or legal immigrants)makes these law seen very "minimal impact" to most Americans; white or Latino.

[Emil Pulsifer]

"PHXsunsFan" wrote:

"Even having taken a criminology class for an elective, I learned that in prisons and jails in Arizona there are two Hispanic groups that self-segregate because of difficulty communicating and because of lack of identity among those groups that does reflect the community at large; be it the law abiding community on both cultures."

Prison populations are abnormally segregated by both race and nationality as a result of gang activity, which the authorities seem unwilling or unable to deter.

Individuals of ANY race or nationality are often pressured to join gangs "of their own" and may be subject to retribution by one or more gang if they fail to do so or if they cross lines. There are numerous instances, for example, of White supremacist gangs attacking White non-gang inmates for associating with other groups, even something as simple as eating at a table populated by those of another race.

So, I don't think one can extrapolate from the highly restricted and stereotyped behaviors of prison populations as enforced by violent racist or nationalist gangs, to the general population.

PHXsunsFan wrote:

"...what I hope to get out with my posts is that many of those "Anglos" who are pegged as kooks and xenophobes are anything but those things..."

Well, that's an interesting emphasis for a self-described Hispanic. I don't know how one would quantify the "many" here, but I would counter that many of those labeled as such ARE kooks and xenophobes. They spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to distance themselves from such attitudes, and to justify their obsession with Mexicans as something motivated by abstract concerns with law rather than with race, nationality, or culture, but they're seldom believable.

If the concern was primarily with the law, then a return to the traditional (non-quota) immigration law which governed this country until after the first World War ought to make them happy. Yet, they denigrate this tradition as something propagated by "open borders radicals" and seem adamantly opposed to increased Mexican immigration even if the result of changes to the law which make it legal. So, I'm skeptical of their concern with law per se and tend to judge them on the basis of their hateful, inflammatory, and often deceitful rhetoric.

I think many of them, even if well-intentioned, are ignorant and misinformed; and at the core is a residue that is ill-intentioned and works very diligently to spread propaganda that serves their racist agenda, even though they are sophisticated enough not to couch it in explicitly racist terms, for the most part.

[PHXsunsFan]

I cannot sympahtize or empathize with your sentiments emil because I do not see the explicit racism that you seem to describe many of the people who support the new immigration law having in their personal concerns with "Mexicans."

I do see the law as the motivator for stricter illegal immigration enforcement. I find it interesting that you are however, stuck on whether or not someone is "a self-described Hispanic." If you must I can give you my Myspace or Facebook links in order to check on my "brown-ness" to put you at ease...

I think in this instance your beliefs prevent you from seeing beyond your own, dare I say, stereotypes and bigotry for those that do not think the same as you. Because some one is anti-illegal immigration you seem to want to pegged them as radical kooks or racist; funny thing is that many with similar beliefs to yourself are just as incorrigible, unwelcoming of differing views and therefore hateful and disingenuous with your "open-mindedness."

While prison populations segregate "abnormally," they do tend to do so based on the community from which they came that holds some beliefs that allows for the segregation based on certain characteristics. Again, your oversimplification of very complex issues does not evaluate the "Hispanic" issue deeply enough I'm afraid to report. The "Paisa" and "Chicano" formula or segregation is not based on "gang affiliation" (it is actually one that differs and not really like the "bloods and crips" where only neighborhoods and streets seem to segregate people but from completely cultural values, views, and upbringing.

Cultural differences between blacks in certain street gangs or even whites does not mimic Hispanic cultural segregation and I find your comparison rather unfounded and unrelated. I have trouble understanding why those who "support" illegal immigrants cannot help themselves but to call those who do not support illegal immigration anything but radical. Doesn't seem that way to me, a "self-described Hispanic."

[Emil Pulsifer]

"PHXsunsFan" wrote:

"I find it interesting that you are however, stuck on whether or not someone is "a self-described Hispanic."

The problem is that I've seen an awful lot of nativists at Phoenix New Times log in using Hispanic aliases in order to try to justify or legitimize their propaganda as being consistent with Hispanic views.

So far here, you've claimed that you were the victim of identity theft 14 times, that you were caught in the crossfire of gang shootouts "near a freeway", somehow managing to see their license plates to determine that they were Mexican nationals (though I know that if someone was racing through the streets and shooting in my direction the last thing I would notice is whether their license plates were locally issued or not); you've made it a primary goal to apologize for Anglo supporters of Pearce's new law, rather than simply expressing your personal views; and you've made some other comments which I find suspicious.

It's very possible, given my own experiences (see my remarks above about Phoenix New Times) that I am prejudiced about this, and am unduly suspicious of you. If so, I sincerely apologize. That said, I don't find your arguments compelling. Nor do I consider a Facebook page evidence of anything -- I could create one and put anything on it I wanted to.

Regarding your disenguous comments about prison gangs, yes, Mexican prison gangs ARE nationalistic in their segregation, many being run by the "Mexican Mafia": and as I pointed out before, the segregations in prison, by race and by nationality, ARE both abnormal and the result of enforcement by violent gangs.

[Emil Pulsifer]

P.S. Sorry, I was under severe time pressure to finish that comment during the last login session. I think that the "Mexican Mafia" is mostly composed of Mexican-Americans, whereas the Mexikanemi are mostly Mexican nationals.

http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs32/32146/appc.htm

Confusingly, the "bylaws" of the Mexican Mafia reference obedience to the Mexikanemi:

http://www.insideprison.com/mexican-mafia-prison-gang.asp

[Emil Pulsifer]

Incidentally, my impression (based both on personal experience and on criminal justice statistics) is that illegal immigrants from Mexico are generally less inclined toward crime than either Anglos or Hispanic-Americans. That, I presume, is a result of cultural conditioning, since the statistical difference disappears after a couple of generations of acculturation in the United States.

Generally speaking, I find the strongly Amarindian mestizos who form the core of Arizona's illegal immigrant population, to be soft-spoken, unassuming, friendly, and eager to avoid giving offense.

Perhaps among their own kind in their own neighborhoods they are more boisterous, and their attitude among Anglos in the general population is motivated by a desire to keep a low profile; but if any ethnic group common to Arizona seems to demonstrate low levels of aggression and rapaciousness, it is this one.

I don't know if it's their upbringing, their cultural conditioning, their Roman Catholic religion, or what it is: but they act like "nice folks" more frequently than other groups, and I feel more comfortable around them than I do among either Anglos or Hispanic-Americans, for the most part.

[Emil Pulsifer]

P.S. "PHXsunsFan", since you seem determined to document supposed frictions (which you are exaggerating) between Hispanic-Americans and Mexican immigrants, perhaps you could point us toward some reputable independent polls (sufficiently broad and "scientifically conducted") supporting this?

As I said earlier, most Hispanic-American families moved to Arizona within the last three generations and many still have family members in Mexico.

While there are always exceptions, I haven't noticed many Hispanic-Americans demonstrating on behalf of Russell Pearce or Uncle Joe Arpaio here in Arizona; whereas I HAVE seen plenty of them demonstrating AGAINST these parties and their works.

So I'll ask you again: where's the beef?

[Emil Pulsifer]

One last thing: could "PHXsunsFan" please document his assertion that Mexican nationals and Hispanic-Americans form segregated, rival prison gangs? I don't doubt it, given the tendency for gang hierarchies to depend on local connections and superficial similarities of race, region, and/or nationality, but I'd like to see some evidence of the phenomenon, as well as some indication of its commonality.

For example, MS-13 was originally set up to protect Salvadorans from Mexican and African-American gangs in Los Angeles (and is now composed primarily of Central-Americans); but you have referenced hostile rivalries between specifically Mexican prison gangs and Hispanic-American or Mexican-American prison gangs, and it is the latter which I want more documentation of.

[PHXsunsFan]

Emil, again you are oversimplifying and I find your stereotypes of "soft-spoken" and "nice" illegal immigrants just as laughable as the notion that most are criminals on the other end of the spectrum.

Also, I'm never called the segregation of "Paisas" and Chicanos as gang related, LOL! If you read my posts you'll see that I've stated the exact opposite and that this segregation is purely cultural/ethnic. Among other things, many illegals are NOT of the same characteristics of Mestizos in the the U.S. that characterize Chicanos; many are from southern and central Mexico which furthers the gap between the two cultures.

2,500 protesters at the Capital, many bussed in from Los Angeles and of MANY immigrant races/ethnicities is not evidence that most Mexican-Americans of Hispanic-Americans support illegal immigrants...

An interesting read is Walls and Mirrors: Mexican Americans, Mexican Immigrants, and the Politics of Ethnicity. It examines the differences and some similarities between the two groups and one that segregates the two groups the most; a "reject[ion] of the notion of the melting pot, he explores the ways that ethnic Mexicans have resisted assimilation and fought to create a cultural space for themselves in distinctive ethnic communities throughout the southwestern United States."

And sorry, but I am not someone who created fake facebook pages and what is a "nativist?" Is this a Navajo? Hopi? Tohono O'odham ??? :-)

And to clarify, the 14 intrusions into my identity and use of SS# were 14 different "accounts." I have on record, 7 evictions from various properties in 3 states while I was commissioned in the Air Force and station at various bases around the world in military housing. I have two different cell phone accounts, a few credit cards, and other various forms of credit (even an attempted mortgage fraud case) fraud on my 3 credit bureau reports. It was a pain in the ass to correct and still, after 3 years, working on clearing nearly have of the accounts from my name!

Also, Emil (as my eyes roll) the shooting was NEAR a freeway, not a high speed exchange that turned into a neighborhood from the access road. I clearly saw Chihuahuan and Sonoran plates of the vehicles and reported one full plate number to the police whom responded.

[Emil Pulsifer]

"PHXsunsFan" wrote:

"Emil, again you are oversimplifying and I find your stereotypes of "soft-spoken" and "nice" illegal immigrants just as laughable as the notion that most are criminals on the other end of the spectrum."

Presumably PHXsunsFan is aware that most criminals in the United States are NOT Mexican nationals. Why, then, the obsession with them? (By the way, what's your opinion of Russell Pearce? Is he a racist or a xenophone, or just another "poor, misunderstood patriot"?)

My personal experiences are not "stereotypes". A stereotype is a mistaken conception based on inexperience. When I said that I've found most "campesino" types to be soft-spoken and easy-going, that's an objectively correct description of my personal experiences which is not open to correction by you.

In fact, these individuals are often so accomodating that their naturalization status can be determined on that basis. At a bus stop, for example, they usually hang back until all of the Anglos have boarded. No citizen is that polite!

I presume, of course, that someone has instructed them to defer so as not to stand out, though the effect is just the opposite.

But the other "personality traits" I mentioned seem to be natural rather than affected, and I stand by my characterization (which of course is necessarily broad, as any generalization is -- there are exceptions).

[PHXsunsFan]

So Emil, when you say this:

"When I said that I've found most "campesino" types to be soft-spoken and easy-going, that's an objectively correct description of my personal experiences which is not open to correction by you."

That "rule" what only apply to you! Or should I ask for stats, polls, and scientific data to back your assertions like you ask of me? Very interesting how many on this site say that open dialogue with right-wingers difficult, yet the same can be said of most left-wingers especially on this site.

I believe I'm rather "nice and generous" as I always let ladies (and attractive men, :-)) board the train ahead of me and I lack a "campesino" upbringing. But then, as I'm sure you'll point I, I just might be biased about myself. Sorry Emil, don't mean to pick on you, I'm sure if we knew each other personally we'd actually get along.

As for your question on Pearce, UGH, he is an interesting individual who I'd never vote for who is riding this wave. I believe most who support his "rule of law, country of laws" rhetoric are duped by that cover up of what I think hides his racism.