Deportees waiting at the Arizona border. - AP
By ELIOT ELCOMEDOR
Special to The Tribune
BROWNSVILLE, TX - When word spread south to this border outpost that the federal government planned to build a wall between Texas and Mexico, the howling here swirled to the clouds. The town's mayor - Pat Ahumada - grew annoyed and then angry. In short order, the mood of the city was obvious - it would fight the wall. The matter sat well with its residents, the larger portion of them of Hispanic-descent.
Now, with Arizona boiling over with the same emotion following the state's decision to pass a harsh anti-immigrant law, mum has been the word here from politicians known to spring into provincial action at the drop of a critical ethnic phrase. Not one has issued a word damning the Arizona initiative. Elsewhere, in Los Angeles and San Francisco and, now, New York, public servants are ready for a fight. Last week, Black activist Al Sharpton anounced he would march with Hispanics in Phoenix to protest the new law, which allows police to stop and question "suspicious-looking" immigrants about their status in this country.
The latest supporters also come from the Big Apple. They plan to visit Arizona in two weeks two weeks, said Felix Ortiz. Ortiz is president of the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators. He will be joined by New York Assembly members José Rivera, Naomi Rivera, Adam Clayton Powell, Carmen Arroyo and Peter Rivera.
In Arizona, they plan to chain themselves to the border fence in a show of civil disobedience. Arrests are expected, but they are prepared for that.
“We’re willing to do that,” Ortiz told the New York Observer. “We’re willing to risk ourselves for the people of Arizona and other immigrants across the country.” Powell said he will soon introduce a resolution in the Assembly that would prohibit New York from “engaging in any business with the state of Arizona until this racially discriminatory law is defeated.” Similar action has been announced by the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles.
In Texas, meanwhile, a Republican state legislator from Tomball this week said she will introduce a bill similar to Arizona's in January.
From the Rio Grande Valley?
Nothing. Not one word from politicians forever quick to quip...
- 30 -
8 comments:
As media person and someone who is obviously passionate about the immigration issues today, I want to bring a point for your attention.
Take a quick perusal through the various media outlets on the web and let’s see where the immigration law in Arizona ranks on their list of priority stories. Your depiction of some vast uprising and the standing shoulder by shoulder is a pipe dream (except San Francisco).
New York Times – Not front fold, not back fold. Found an interesting one on the opinion page. No big stories on MSNBC, not CNN; Only the LA Times. Trumped by the oil spill.
We both know that these stories are driven by readership and on-line clicks determine much of that interest, or lack thereof. If you hit some of the more liberal sites, Daily Kos, Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow, you will see that the issue is rarely addressed, certainly not front page. All the analysis revolves around the impact to future political fights.
President Obama’s speech at the funeral of a black civil rights leader makes the FRONT PAGE of the New York Times, while the biggest, more blatantly racist state law to come around since the 1960’s doesn’t even register on the Richter scale?
BTW, That NYT Op-ed? This is it in a nut shell "In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties. "
Get taken for granted much?
ANON: It's all about perspective, isn't it? You obviously favor the new Arizona Law, so you see what you want to see and accuse us of seeing too much. Immigration - and the Arizona Experiment is but one phalange of the bigger issue - remains front-burner stuff in this country. Protests continue in Phoenix and just so you know, protests were held at yesterday's game betweee the Arizona Diamondbacks (big anti-immigrant law backer) and the Colorado Rockies in my beloved Denver. Protests are scheduled when the Diamondbacks next hit Chicago...and likely everywhere else they'll play. My copy of the day's NY Times, admittedly the Southwest Edition, has a nice spread on Arizona's mess on Page A14, the section front of the National Page - with four (4) color photographs. There is a second Arizona-related story (with color photo) on Page A6 of the International Page, presumably because the story is datelined Nogales, Mexico along the southern Ariz. border. It continues on page A12. Gauging import of issues playing across this grass-whorled country by way of newspapers or TV news is a crapshoot. But, Anon, if you want to find every morsel of news to do with Arizona's anti-immigrant law, well, keep looking; it's all there. You can begin by logging onto www.huffingtonpost.com or Salon.com or Slate.com, among a litany of others. Or, better yet, come see us from time to time... - Editor
PA:
You obviously favor the new Arizona Law".
How did you ever construe that from my observation on media coverage and demographic politics? NOTHING could be further from the truth, but you "seeing what you want to see" wasn't the point.
However, your "A-14" ranking of the story supports my contention.
I am a regular reader of the Huff Post and I qualified the dearth of coverage through the polituical discussion of the law, didn't I. Go back and re-read Huff's coverage Patrick. It does not address the substance of the law, only how it may effect GOP / Democrat demographics. As of a couple of minutes ago, the Arizona issue was regulated below an ol spill and more Palin / Death panel crap.
Not exactly the coverage you would expect for a mjor civil rights issue.
Oh.. I listed MEDIA, not Salon.com or Slate.com, lest we get into that discussion.
A-14? Really?
I ask again, "Get taken for granted much?"
Man, I stand corrected, Salon does have a major story on Arizona.
Tab down below the one about the White House Press Cops inviting Justin Beiber to perform at their dinner, keep going past the AP story on Rielle Hunter going on Oprah,... There it is. "SHAKIRA VISITING ARIZONA OVER IMMIGRATION LAW."
Over at Slate, the lead story is "Should African Governments Pay for Reperations for Slavery"?
The fourth story is a reprint from the Washington Post that is based on challenges to the law with the words " critics worry that allowing Attorney General Eric Holder to file suit would put the government in the middle of a fraught political issue only months before the midterm elections. ".
READ Politics may trump a legal challenge from the White House"
Not exactly front-fold stuff there, Mr. Editor.
ANON: Still perplexed as to what it is you want from me. I acknowledged my sources and pages in the NY Times where you could find the story. Have I said this is the WorldBeater story for the ages? We chase stories/topics/issues/personalities that interest us. Nothing more and nothing less. The "granted" bit I don't get. To what do I owe this, pray tell? Explain and then maybe we can resolve this "Return to Little Big Horn" moment. As always - and as with everything - you are free to venture forth your thoughts, feelings, positions, etc., etc. But I do wish you would simply make your case and not seek a tapeworm debate via this forum. I can live with you saying the Arizona Law ranks right up there with the Right to Bear Arms, or whatever. Trying to beat me upside the head with linear thinking is, well, sort of is off-putting, if you get my drift. Can you restrict your comments to our postings and not about me. I'm at a disadvantage, cause I have no idea who you may be. State your case as it relates to the issue, in this case the anti-immigrant law in the Grand Canyon State. I say that with all due respect, although I know (as I am often told) that messaging has its own way of filling in for tone, verve and, well, the essence of a face-up chat, and there are times when words can be misconstrued... - Editor
Point taken -
Here it is: It pisses me off that most of the country really could care less about this insulting law. They don't care because it does not effect them.
Everyone wants the vote, but no one will support you when you need the support.
We kid ourselves if we think the rest of the US cares one wit what happens in Arizona beyond the political implications.
ANON: In a country of immigrants from all corners of the world, that, my friend, is to be expected. A Melting Pot society must endure the whims of all ethnic sectors. You'd be accurate in saying, no screaming: "If it ain't Teabaggers, it's immigrants; if it ain't Wall Streeters, it's the Elderly!" Welcome to the circus. Now, take to the center of the Main Tent and send in the clowns... - Editor
Don Patricio, my good compadre, the people from Az, are nothing but bigots, that think they owned that land. The Sob's tea baggers and all the rest of the fools, are nothing but old overweight loosers that are looking for 15 minutes of fame.
They forgot they took away the land from the indians, they are a bunch of angry good for nothing. They don't have anything else to do but to complain, and any idiot that is supporting the Az. law is a racist, probably using hispanic cheap labor. Because his kind are to expensive. Mr. you can move to Az. but they probably wouldn't like out there. Anglo people don't even like themselves.
Post a Comment