Until then, I plan to throw financial support to businesses in Arizona. There are organic gardening supply companies, organic beef, pet supplies, and most anything else you might need. I can send support via the internet OR I could take a trip and see the desert before the heat takes hold OR I could encourage others to plan their meetings, seminars, conferences, and vacations in the desert southwest of Arizona.
I will not intentionally toss my dollars (as weak as they are) toward Los Angeles or San Francisco. No way. Stand firm Arizona for what you believe. There are many more of us supporting you.
Arizona State Flower
And who didn’t have a crush on Mark Lindsay?
Hello? Anyone? Anyone there? Hello?
12 comments:
Having spent some of the happiest years of my childhood in Arizona, I find the recent turn of events sad beyond measure.
As one of the minority of Anglo kids in my South Tucson school in the Sixties, I went to school with Hispanic kids, Mescalero Apache, Navaho, Pima and Chiricahua Apache kids. All of them spoke with what, to my ears, were accents. (Or maybe my New England twang was the accent.) Yet all of those kids boasted families that had been in Arizona for centuries. (Long before the Johnny come lately Anglos who only showed up at the turn of the last century.) Our school fostered respect for all traditions -- even to the extent of the lunch room menu which regularly featured tamales, Navaho fry bread and stone ground tortillas. I remember it as one of the most enriching cultural experiences of my youth -- and I'm someone who went to school in various places in Europe.
Surprisingly, this proximity to "heavily accented English" did not mar me. I went on to major in English literature. At an Ivy League college. And did well.
How will Arizona define "heavily accented English" which might require detention by police and a demand for papers? Is it safe for me to take my British husband to Arizona? Or is it only SOME accents that are offensive? Why is this all so reminiscent of the Jim Crow laws of the South that made it illegal to be "living while Black"? In that day and age, a policeman could stop you on almost any pretext and ship you off to Parchman Farm for nothing more than being in the wrong neighborhood with the wrong skin color.
Even the most cursory reading of the Constitution will make clear that detaining people with no cause other than skin color or "funny accent" is completely unacceptable.
*Lisa - I have no beef with accents. Everyone has some type of accent. As for being raised around people with accents, I have you beat. People here illegally (red, yellow, brown, white, Marzian, Neptuner, etc.) are putting a strain on our systems.
Mr. Paul is probably in the country legally. His accent is not against the law. No accent is against the law. I'm staggered that he is fine with people crowding in front of legal immigrants waiting to come to this country.
I'm still educating myself by reading the legislation rather than commentators. At this point, Arizona is correct in their legislation. They are protecting their citizens.
Los Angeles and San Francisco will not notice my absence; but I will feel much better supporting Arizona.
However, I say: "Go Celtics!"
Thank you for taking the time to comment. Now back to the garlic patch.
The United States was formed from immigrants and I am glad we are a mixed bag of different nationalities as were my ancestors of German and Irish descent. They had to sign papers of naturalization. So having said that I do not what so ever see anything wrong with aliens having to show identification of citizenship.If my descendants had to sign allegiance papers to the United States then it should be no hardship for those today doing it. It is not difference than me having to show identification to write checks, vote, or of the other things we have to do on occasion. Where I am prejudice maybe is if they want to live here then get citizenship status do it the right way so that they can contribute to all of the freedoms of being an American citizen. I am for what the Arizona governor did and hope other states follow suit. Arnold gov of California may make his jokes of not letting him in the country but he did become a citizen so he needs to preach what he practices instead of garnishing votes. Sorry I get vocal on certain issues. I cannot see bankrupting the states for illegals.
If I broke the law I would be thrown in jail so fast I wouldn't have time to stutter a reply. Why make laws if we are not going to enforce them. I frankly do not see what all of the backlash is about.The new immigrants are no better than what my descendants were.
Pretty cactus bloom LOL!
*Hocking - thanks for taking the time to comment. Please continue to speak up. There are many, many more like us that would rather go about our business and keep to ourselves. This is something that needs our voices.
The argument is not about illegal immigration. Illegal is illegal. If you break the law, you should be punished within the letter of the existing law.
The issue, and what is arousing ire, is subverting the premise of probable cause -- one of the key tenets of the US judicial system. Being slightly brown and speaking with an accent is NOT probable cause. As for banning ethnic studies, targeting people with accents and expunging multiculturalism. So Arizona wants to wipe out all traces of the peoples who lived and contributed to the region before the Anglos showed up? Again, nothing to do with immigrants -- legal or otherwise. Everything to do with racism.
*Lisa - The argument IS completely about illegal immigration. Plain and simple. I do not care one's point of origin. If they are here illegally --- scoot. Scram.
As I've stated elsewhere (& you know where elsewhere)that I am reading the two pieces of legislation regarding illegal immigration in Arizona. As far as I'm concerned, Arizona is doing the right thing. San Francisco, LA, and Austin are so completely wrong that I can't even understand how they think.
Nonetheless, thanks for returning with your point of view. You are always welcome here where good behavior and language are a permanent fixture.
Plenty of ways to enforce or enhance existing immigration laws without throwing out the fundamental concept of probable cause. That's a protection I, for one, am not willing to give up. Nor should you. It protects all of us and contributes to our basic freedom as Americans.
But come on, probable cause is a tissue thin protective barrier. Something as minor as rolling through a stop sign or having a turn light burned out can be cause for a policeman to LEGALLY stop someone and demand identification.
I really don't think you want guys with guns -- even if they are police -- to have the ability to detain and search someone on such nebulous pretexts as "thinking they look suspicious" or "suspecting they might be illegal". I've lived in countries where that sort of power is the norm. Believe me, it always ends up being abused.
*Lisa - and with that we will continue to disagree. I stand firm on enforcing the law. I've read both of the recently passed pieces of legislation and in SB1070 find "probable cause" twice. The law did not read nor imply to round up any of them that don't look like us. It did not throw out probable cause. How about helping law enforcement protect citizens?
Come on. You have stated so much on your own that there are legal citizens of many backgrounds in Arizona. In fact, I suspect they are among the majority that support the new legislation to protect Arizonans. I certain there is a variety of backgrounds of those law enforcement officers. SB1070 is enforcing law that the Federal Government isn't.
NCLR, SEIU, and other deplorable organizations are behind the ridiculous boycott of the fine state of Arizona.
I will support the state in a "buycott". In fact, it will be too warm to be out in the garden this afternoon; so by way of the magical internet (thank you Mr. Gore - don't get me started), I will be making purchases based in Arizona and encourage others to do the same.
Now off to farmers' market.
I'm not a Constitutional Law scholar, but then neither are you. But I have heard plenty of such scholars say that the wording of the law is very nebulous and does violate the concept of due process as set out in the Fourth Amendment.
I do think it's interesting that the Republican Party has chosen NOT to hold its convention in Phoenix. They say it has nothing to do with the controversy. But if they really stood behind the law and thought it was defensible, I would think they would have rushed to show solidarity. I think the fact that Michael Steele immediately disclaimed any connection really speaks volumes.
No one wants to tie law enforcement's hands. And everyone wants laws that have stood the Constitutional litmus test to be enforced. But I don't think we want to throw hard-won rights down the toilet to do it. Having checks and balances and clear rules for our enforcement agents can only be a good thing.
Besides, it seems like trying to round up illegals one by one is like herding gerbils. Wouldn't it be easier to go after the companies and concerns that are hiring them? I mean, these people are not coming into Arizona to take siestas under sombreros. They are coming because there is work, enough of it that they think the great risks to get here are worth taking. So that tells me, there is a huge economy in Arizona that trades in illegal labor. More efficient to get those guys who are hiring and creating the environment for illegal alien traffic.
But perhaps at this point, garlic is more interesting.
Holy Mother of Garlic, Lisa. We will not agree on this topic. The record needs to be made clear. I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I'm a gardener. I believe ALL politicians are worms. They are the bad kind of worms...not the kind of worms I enjoy in the garden. Now I need to put the subject to rest. Oh there will be more...just not right now.
Please note: I have been called an internet troll again by a WC darling. Charming. Those readers/contributors are sure teaching me junk.
Thanks for sharing in this discussion.
Just for the sake of sharing my viewpoint so others hear it, I do fall on the Lisa Paul side of the matter. I guess it's the Libertarian in me.
I look forward to reading more garden posts :)
Thanks for weighing in on the civil discussion, Erin.
Post a Comment