Matthew Rozsa
I know I've already posted my article on Arizona's racist anti-immigration law, but I feel that this issue is very important, which is why I'm not only going to put the link back on my Facebook status, but keep it there until the end of the week.
http://riskinghemlock.blogspot.com/2010/06/governor-brewers-observation.html
Laura Brown
Isn't immigration the jurisdiction of the Federal Government?
Matthew Rozsa
Apparently not.
Kevin Reagan
Of course it is. But the current administration is not going to do anything substantive with regards to illegal immigration or even the drug war that has spilled across the border. So the state of Arizona was forced to take matters into its own hands. Fun fact: the current federal immigration laws are HARSHER than those enacted recently by the state of Arizona. Where are all of the protesters of that legislation?? Oh, and Matt, I already clearly and thoroughly demonstrated how Arizona's immigration law is NOT racist. Your refusal to recognize this point is a classic example of a condition commonly known as being in denial.
Matthew Rozsa
To Kevin:
1) I was being facetious when I wrote "Apparently not". I guess that didn't translate.
2) The federal government does not have laws that authorize police officers officials to demand citizenship verification from drivers on "suspicion" that they might be illegal (hence racial profiling), nor are there any federal laws which state that someone can be arrested without a warrant for the same reason. Similarly, I was unaware of any national statutes that ban the teaching of classes which promote "ethnic solidarity or resentment", which though not directly involving the issue of immigration, is clearly relevant to it (at least insofar as Governor Brewer's administration and the state of Arizona are concerned).
3) Obama put forth a very sincere effort to reform our immigration policies. The problem is that while you no doubt support some of his measures (like doubling the personnel assigned to Border Enforcement Security Task Forces), you dislike the more progressive ones (like providing a path to citizenship for those who are already here illegally), even though they are fiscally sounder as well as more humanitarian than the right-wing alternatives.
4) Kevin, we did discuss this before, but not only did you fail to "clearly and thoroughly demonstrate" that the Arizona immigration law isn't racist, but I think I was rather effective in both rebutting your assertions and proving that the exact opposite is true. Feel free to visit our original debate (which I posted on my blog) if you wish to have a point of reference.
Matthew Rozsa
Here are the articles I have written on the subject so far:
http://riskinghemlock.blogspot.com/2010/04/arizonas-illegal-immigration-law.html
http://riskinghemlock.blogspot.com/2010/05/racism-in-arizona.html
http://riskinghemlock.blogspot.com/2010/05/racism-in-arizona-part-two.html
http://riskinghemlock.blogspot.com/2010/06/obama-in-arizona-president-we-need.html
http://riskinghemlock.blogspot.com/2010/06/governor-brewers-observation.html
On a friendlier note, I wish you a very happy Fourth of July (or Calvin Coolidge's birthday, you can take your pick - the fact that he was born on our nation's 96th anniversary is about the only good thing I can say about him, lol).
Kevin Reagan
Matt, I did in fact clearly and thoroughly demonstrate how the law is not racist. Curiously though, at least half of my argument appears to be MIA. Recovering it is going to require some digging on your profile (you will have a much better chance of finding it than I). I did have a rebuttal for your arguments in the second link above. In all fairness, that should be posted on your blog as well.
And Happy Fourth to you too, man.
Kevin Reagan
Miraculously, I found it. See my last comment on your May 13th status.
Matthew Rozsa
It is not "at least half of your argument" that is MIA; it is ONE post, in a thread with more than thirty entries, that I overlooked, probably because I failed to notice the update indicating that you had added it(given my prolific nature on this website, I receive Facebook updates all the time, and have been known to occasionally fail to spot a few). Besides, are you really accusing me of trying to duck an opportunity to respond to someone else's opinion? Apart from the implied assault against my intellectual integrity (which I resent), do you really think that is characteristic of ANYTHING you've seen in me during the time we've known each other?
In the spirit of fairness, I will repost your entire comment here (and since this conversation is going on my blog, it will de facto appear there as well). My response will be in the post after this one:
Matt, I would agree with you about the whole ad hominem fallacy thing, but the problem is it not an ad hominem fallacy. Unless I have grossly misinterpreted everything you have written in this debate and previous ones (see Tea Party), your "larger argument," or at least one of them, is that America has not moved beyond racial differences and that racial biases and racism are still a driving factor in both legislation (Arizona) as well as social action (Tea Party). I will grant you one point: perhaps this is not truly philosophically liberal, but it has come to define the liberal, secular progressive attitude and perspective on this particular social issue. Thus, my "ad hominem fallacy" was simply an analysis of this perspective that provided context for your arguments.
To you, my second paragraph seems disingenuous because you still do not understand the exact purpose and wording of the bill in question. I refer you to my earlier post where I copied VERBATIM the AZ HR bill that slightly modified the original SB1070. Note the wording: "FOR ANY LAWFUL STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST..." That means, if the law enforcement officer has ALREADY STOPPED someone for reasons OTHER THAN THEIR RACE (you and I both know that the ACLU would have an absolute field day if race was the sole reason for stopping someone; not to mention, that would be UNlawful) THEN they would try to determine that person's immigration status. If you don't believe me, please see my earlier post where I included the link to the bill. As I noted before, your hypothetical situation where an officer recognizes a Latino driver and stops them simply because they are Latino is equally as ridiculous as the president's hypothetical (lie) "Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to get harassed — that’s something that could potentially happen… That’s not the right way to go" or the whole "Do I look illegal to you?" campaign. The third standard I referred to before, that of behavior, is already practiced EVERY DAY in law enforcement. If officers and detectives suspect someone of acting suspiciously and evasively they can take any number of further investigative measures from obtaining a search warrant to bringing someone in for further questioning. This didn't seem to be a problem in crimes other than illegal immigration.
I'm afraid you missed my point entirely on the education bill. I never claimed that it was being passed to protect white people from discrimination. Like I said, it was supposed to promote a more racially equal atmosphere and discourage resentment of other racial groups. Thus, my question at the end was rhetorical. Obviously, the point of the bill was not to protect white people from discrimination. That makes no sense, as you observed. The only discrimination it could have been protecting against was against Latinos. Which makes labeling the bill racist comical. With regards to coursework, again, this is another misinterpretation/ inaccurate characterization of the bill. It is not intended to cut coursework that teaches Latino history and send the message that "white is right", etc. Instead, it is intended to cut coursework that is discriminatory and promotes excessive racial solidarity. This is an attempt to undercut not only the ignorant Latino solidarity movements that were out in the streets in mass protest of the immigration bill, but also could include any potential white solidarity movements as well.
And yes, I did answer that question earlier in this conversation, despite the fact that it is a complete non sequitur. With that question, you were implying that my argument was that past discrimination against other racial groups somehow negates current moral wrongs being suffered by Latinos. I will stick to and expand the response I gave before- I was not necessarily saying that past discrimination negates any current moral wrongs. I was simply pointing out that the new bill is not targeted at Latinos. However, given how I have broken down the wording of the immigration bill in detail multiple times, I can conclude that no moral wrongs are even being suffered by Latinos in that case OR in the case of the education bill. That means the true ad hominem fallacy is your "simple observation" about my mindset.
Matthew Rozsa
"Unless I have grossly misinterpreted everything you have written in this debate and previous ones (see Tea Party), your "larger argument," or at least one of them, is that America has not moved beyond racial differences and that racial biases and racism are still a driving factor in both legislation (Arizona) as well as social action (Tea Party)."
Actually, you HAVE grossly misinterpreted everything I've said, mainly because you seem to believe that arguing that racism still exists in our society, and has been made manifest in the Arizona immigration laws and the Tea Party movement, means I feel "America has not moved beyond racial differences and that racial biases and racism are still a driving factor in both legislation... and social action." That's a bit like saying I am denying the great strides that have been made in medical science I claim that we still need to find cures for cancer, AIDS, lupus, and a number of other ailments. It rests on a simplistically dichotomous view of reality.
In regard to your second paragraph...
*sighs, rubs the bridge of his nose*
By the way, that asterisked description of my actions wasn't just placed there for comic effect; I really DID sigh and rub the bridge of my nose in exasperation.
Why? I'm not a huge fan of repeating myself.
So... I won't. I'll quote myself instead (more arrogant, perhaps, but it allows me to a little bit lazier):
"Even though the immigration measure doesn't specifically mention Latinos as a group, using the term 'reasonable suspicion' in reference to whether someone is an illegal alien is vague enough that it can mean practically anything its practitioner desires, and as I pointed out to Jim, how are police officers supposed to identify whether drivers are illegal immigrants except on sight - that is, as to whether they 'look illegal'?"
The same principle applies to when you claim that the language "for any lawful stop, detention, or arrest" specifically precludes doing so on racial grounds. If a cop can claim that he believes someone is an illegal immigrant upon seeing him or her, then clearly stopping, detaining, or arresting them would be "lawful", assuming that suspicion is subsequently validated. Once again, this begs the question... on what basis will a cop, based solely on appearance, determine whether someone "might" be an illegal immigrant?
Ironically, you wind up proving this point in the very same breath in which you claim to rebut it.
"The third standard I referred to before, that of behavior, is already practiced EVERY DAY in law enforcement. If officers and detectives suspect someone of acting suspiciously and evasively they can take any number of further investigative measures from obtaining a search warrant to bringing someone in for further questioning."
Yes, but in those situations, the person is stopped on the basis of how they are ACTING, not on the basis of their RACE. The only way your argument is sound is if you can point to some way in which a person's ACTIONS can plausibly cause a law enforcement official to believe that he or she is an illegal immigrant. Do illegal immigrants walk a certain way? Do they swing their arms in a specific way? Do they wear shirts saying "I immigrated illegally to this country, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt"?
Needless to say, it is for this very reason that the situation President Obama described is all-too-possible.This post is getting long, so I'll respond to your second one in a separate entry.
Matthew Rozsa
1) I'm not going to discuss whether you meant to imply that white people needed protecting (in light of the very first comment you posted on that original thread, I think it's obvious that you did). Either way, your new argument - that a bill banning Latino coursework is meant to "protect" Latinos - bears very disturbing similarities to the logic used in the 1950s and 1960s by segregation proponents. They claimed that they wanted to protect African American students from the racial backlash that would occur if those schools were integrated (see Orval Faubus, Paul Johnson, George Wallace, and a host of others). Besides, since I don't recall hearing any reports about racial resentment against Latinos occurring because of these classes, that kind of deals a blow to the claim that they really needed to go, and that Brewer had the best interest of Latino students at heart.
2) I never said that they wanted to cut Latino coursework to send the message that "white is right".
3) "...it is intended to cut coursework that is discriminatory and promotes excessive racial solidarity. This is an attempt to undercut not only the ignorant Latino solidarity movements that were out in the streets in mass protest of the immigration bill..."
Once again, those are terms so vague that they can be applied to ANY class that falls under the broad criteria outlined in the bill. What's more, why precisely is it a problem for Latino students to be taught to be proud of their heritage? Why do you assume that "solidarity" automatically equals "resentment toward non-Latinos"? I think part of the answer to that question might lie in your characterization of the Latinos who were protesting the immigration bills as "ignorant".
4) "...but also could include any potential white solidarity movements as well."
See my first point.
5) Let me repost your very first comment on that earlier thread:
"Latinos are not the only racial group that are the targets of resentment."
Now here is my question in response to it, the one you labelled a non sequitur:
"How do you work out the logic of arguing that the discrimination endured by past groups somehow negates or mitigates the wrong being suffered by Latinos in the present?"
I think, considering that we were discussing discrimination against Latinos (either real or alleged, depending on your position) that my interpretation of "Latinos are not the only racial group that are the targets of resentment" as equalling "Other groups have suffered discrimination too, and this weakens your case" was pretty fair. For that matter, I'm not sure how "Latinos are not the only racial group that are the targets of resentment." could possibly equal "...the new bill is not targeted at Latinos." Maybe my command of the English language is shaky, but I don't know...
6) To the last two sentences of your post: Please see everything I've written on this subject.
Once again, as a means of reducing complaints that my "blog posts" are like "novels", and that I need to respect that my "readers" have this thing called a "life", I am going to refrain from posting the remainder of this conversation here. The unabridged text of the entire discourse, should you wish to read it, can be found on my Facebook wall:
No comments:
Post a Comment