“Today, immigrants have filled open slots—and disproportionately endure the most grueling jobs within the plant, like the de-boning line—but the central story of jobs in Russellville isn’t about immigrants. It’s about dangerous working conditions, poverty wages, and politicians bending over backwards for corporations while getting very little in return for their constituents. Now that’s a crisis Alabama politicians ought to tackle.”—
PHOENIX — A judge on Tuesday sentenced more than a dozen immigrant rights advocates to one day in jail stemming from a protest last year over Arizona’s controversial immigration law, but they got credit for the day they spent behind bars at the time of their arrest.
Justice of the Peace David Seyer handed down the sentence about three weeks after finding the group of protesters guilty of a misdemeanor charge of disobeying police orders. They had faced up to four months in jail and a maximum $700 fine.
The group was arrested July 29, 2010, when dozens of protesters took to Phoenix streets on the day Arizona’s new immigration law was set to take effect. They also were speaking out against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who organized an immigration patrol the day the law took effect.
The protesters massed outside one of Arpaio’s jails, beating on a metal door and forcing sheriff’s deputies to call for backup. Officers in riot gear opened the doors, waded into the crowd and hauled off those who didn’t move.
A judge ended up putting the most contentious parts of the law on hold. The dispute over the law will likely end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Among the protesters was the Rev. Peter Morales, president of the Boston-based Unitarian Universalist Association. Morales lives in Arvada, Colo., and Salem, Mass., and was elected as the first Latino president of the association in 2009.
“The sentence was as lenient as it could be without dismissing the charges,” Morales told The Associated Press from Arvada after attending the hearing by phone. “So I believe that the judge was clearly moved and affected by the character and the idealism and the comportment of the defendants.”
Arpaio said regardless of the length of the sentence, he’s happy the judge found the demonstrators guilty.
“I’m not going to criticize the judge,” he said. “Let’s just say it’s a conviction and it sends a message out that anybody that violates a law is going to be arrested and go to jail.”
The sheriff said Morales and the other protesters are welcome to sit down with him in his office anytime to discuss illegal immigration.
But, Arpaio said, “If he violates the law, he will be arrested. Period.”
Morales said he had no immediate plans to return to Phoenix for a protest, but he said the Unitarian Universalist Association was holding its general assembly in Phoenix next June and will hold an immigration protest at that time.
“Joe Arpaio hasn’t seen anything yet,” Morales said. “We will make our disagreement and displeasure known.”
He said the protest likely wouldn’t involve the kind of civil disobedience that led to his arrest last year.
and since many of us consider biology to be an essential requirement,
i’d like to know what other requirements there are for non-native cultural groups.
for example. i spent 2 years of my life in pakistan before moving to the US. i am pretty ‘americanized.’ does that mean i am not pakistani? i speak the language and i vaguely know the politics and i like the food. i am told i act white instead of pakistani. but can we define what it means to act white? to act pakistani? the desi girls in HS called me an ABCD because i dont watch bollywood movies or care about shopping at abercrombie. but i knew the politics and the language better then them. so. there is that.
there was a white girl in my class who grew up in bangladesh. maybe she doesnt find herself fitting in with white americans. but under this logic, she can never be bangladeshi or consider herself such because she is white and has (probably) white american parents.
the british crown brought indian slaves to african colonies. they were called coolies. well a lot of these coolies had children and blahblahblah in african colonies. thats why there is such a large indian/south asian diaspora in parts of africa. so anyway, sometime in the 1970s i think, this guy named idi amin took power in uganda and expelled all the south asians (who considered themselves to be indian african, ugandan, african, etc) because now his uganda was reserved for ‘real africans only’. but for the little indian diaspora kids who were now forced to move halfway across the world, they were african.
two years ago israel deported hundreds of migrant worker families because israel is for the jews. some of these families had children who were born in israel and lived there all their life. i think they were mostly filipinos. so these filipino israeli kids were not jewish ergo not proper subjects of the israeli state. and in the interviews i read, they were really fucking confused about going back the phillipines because they were not born there, they had never been there, they spoke hebrew instead of tagalog.
in a seminar i went to with some world famous african studies scholars, one scholar suggested that africa would only become powerful and regain what has been lost to colonialism by articulating a distinctly black pan-african identity. a white woman in the audience who had spent her entire life somewhere in africa was very upset by this statement. my white friend who has devoted half his life to working in the congo and zambia would be upset by the prospect that he could never be a real african because he isnt black. he and the woman both realize their privileges positions as white folks in a colonized land, but does this mean they cannot form relationships with the soil, the sky, the people?
this is what i mean when i say that you cannot vet or establish tangible measures for cultural membership.
because the world is full of crisscrossing lines that cannot be untangled, and instead of suggesting that liberation is only possible if they were all untangled and the linear injustices faced by one thread were corrected, we have to work with the reality,which is that things are nuanced and Everything Is Complicated.
i dont want to suggest an answer for/against any of these scenarios but i want to suggest that things are not as clear as they seem as this is the reality many of us refuse to grapple with.
Critics of immigrants have launched a full-scale advocacy campaign of fear and resentment about immigrant women and their families. Misconstruing basic facts about immigration and using phrases like “lawless destructive anarchy of invasion,” “anchor babies,” and illegal alien invader,” anti-family, anti-immigrant lawmakers are advocating legislation at the state and federal level that would deny citizenship laws.
The National Coalition for Immigrant Women’s Rights (NCIWR) is the only national collaboration to specifically focus on women and gender issues in the public discourse on immigration. We work to elevate women’s voices and push back against dehumanizing attacks. The coalition represents more than 40 leading organizations with a presence nationally and in every state.
“I told him with absolute conviction that I’d rather eat with, live next door to, work with, and hang out with any random Mexican (no matter their legal status) than some bigot who thinks he’s superior to someone else because his family happened to roll over here from Scotland in 1875. Add to that the fact that in the intervening 136 years, the sum grand total of his family’s existence in America is him in a stained T-shirt, sitting in a filthy cab, reeking of cigarettes, driving my ass around, whining about immigrants.”—Marc Randazza (via icantbelieveitsalawblog)
Identity. Noun. “The condition of being oneself or itself, and not another.”
This is something that I’ve struggled with in my life as long as I can remember. I was born to two immigrant parents. One German and One Malaysian-Chinese.
Since I was young, you could say I lived the “stereotypical” first-generation Asian American childhood. Piano, viola, chinese brush-painting classes, get togethers with “family friends”. Deep down inside I always knew I belonged to my Asian heritage even though I was only half. Yet people were constantly finding ways to take that feeling away from me.
When I was younger, I had a “petite” figure, which my mother could dress me up in nice dresses (that I hated). This all changed when I hit middle school. I grew far taller than my mother, aunts and female cousins. I was the one being called “big boned.” Since my body didn’t have a similarmetabolism to other asian girls my age, whenever I would gain weight I would instantly be accosted. This never really bothered me; I was a little insecure but still comfortable with my weight. That is, until I hit high school.
My freshman year, I went to a school with an accelerated program, renowned both locally and nationally. Naturally, the school attracted a diverse student body. I went in knowing very few people and found myself attached to the familiar. The Asian Girls. A group of six or so girls who had known each other through Chinese school and other various gatherings. I was the tallest, the widest and the most non-stereotypical “Tiny Little Asian Girl.”
This came to their attention very quickly and was pointed out at every opportunity. To me, it seemed like every time one of them felt they were lacking an aspect of being small, fragile, graceful and adorable, they could point out that I was far less. Five plus years later, I still wonder why I put myself through that shattering of self-esteem. The worst of it came when one of the girls flat out told me to my face, “You are not like us, you are not Asian”. It seemed from that moment onwards, I have fought even harder to become one of them. Tiny, skinny, porcelain-faced, jet-black straight hair. This wound festered to the point of attempting to starve myself. Making myself miserable to please those who used me to boost their own self-esteem.
Even to this day, I’ve struggled with my identity. Yes, I am not a “Tiny Little Asian Girl.” I’m proud to be an Asian-American Woman, regardless if I fit a stereotype or not. My best advice to girls who are struggling with their own identities is to cultivate your own image of yourself. Don’t let others or the media put a label on what you “should be.” Be yourself. Love yourself. Peace, Love, APIA.
How Do We Live and Honor Each Other Despite Our Differences?
by Krista Tippett, host
This show with Richard Mouw was as hard as any in my memory to produce, edit, script — and even to justify, as news unfolded while we were creating it.
I have known Richard Mouw for 15 years and interviewed him on this program in its early days. Other Evangelical Christian leaders have been more visible in American political and media life: Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard, James Dobson, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and on the more progressive side Jim Wallis and Richard Cizik. I have followed them, but I have also always kept my ear and eye on quieter figures like Richard Mouw. As president of Fuller Theological Seminary, with more than 4,000 students from 70 countries and over 100 denominations, he is training generations of Evangelical and Pentecostal pastors and global leaders.
A book he first wrote in 1992, Uncommon Decency, has recently been released in a revised version with the subtitle, “Christian Civility in an Uncivil World.” Mouw has long been a kind of bridge person — theologically conservative on some issues and more progressive on others — but he most fervently insists that the way people are treated is a greater measure of Christian virtue than the positions one takes. I’ve wondered rhetorically how our political life would have evolved differently if the Christian re-emergence into politics in the late 20th century had modeled a practical love of enemies.
My own deepest despair at present is not about the vitriol and division per se — as alarming as they are. It is about the fact that we seem to be losing any connective tissue for engaging at all, on a human level, across ruptures of disagreement. Across the political spectrum, many increasingly turn to journalism not for knowledge but to confirm individual pre-existing points of view. What we once called the red state, blue state divide is now more like two parallel universes where understandings of plain fact are no longer remotely aligned. This leads to a diminishing sense of the humanity of those who think and live differently than we do. And that is the ultimate moral slippery slope, for everyone on it and for the fabric of our civic life.
Richard Mouw lays out the imperative to all kinds of Christians for gentleness, reverence, humanity, and “honor” of the different other at the heart of the Bible and the life of Jesus. But this is not a feel-good plea for harmony. Even as he calls for civility and gentleness, Mouw reasserts his public and private opposition to gay marriage and civil unions. The civility he calls for would not minimize difference, at least at the outset, but would create a different space for discussing and navigating it — indeed for bringing differences into public life with virtue and vitality of expression. Picking up on a phrase coined by Christian historian Martin Marty, Richard Mouw builds upon this idea of “convicted civility.”
We had impassioned and difficult discussions on our production team about his ideas, and the complications and contradictions they present. When he says that, as a Christian, he sees other human beings as “works of divine art,” can that genuinely apply to a person whose sexual identity he defines as fundamentally wrong?
This all drives towards a question I pursue in so many of my conversations: How does social change happen? We will not all be “on the same page,” as Americans like to be, on sexuality or many other issues for generations to come. The 21st century has opened up questions Western civilization thought it had put to rest. Some of them are intimate and raw, terrifying in every life at some point and therefore all the more unsettling when we are forced to ponder them out in the open together. Same-sex marriage is but the tip of an iceberg of human redefinition: What is relationship? What is marriage? What is friendship? What constitutes a family? In this messy moment, we retain our rights and responsibilities as human beings and citizens to discern our truths and live by them. But we have no choice, at the same time, if we want this to end well, to search for new ways to discern our multiple truths while living together.
Richard Mouw suggests that we need to start some of our conversations again from the beginning, certainly the conversation about sexuality. He believes that only by naming our hopes and our fears, articulating them among ourselves, revealing them to each other, can we begin to recreate something called a common life, which can contain, and not be destroyed by, our differences. I want to believe him, to believe that this is one answer to the question of how social change happens. If I didn’t believe that a new kind of conversation can also be a starting point for walking forwards together — living together, differently — I would not do what I do.
And yet, maybe another reality we have to live with is that these critical new conversations will start small, in many places, compelling us to connect dots for awhile in lieu of convening the sweeping dialogue we might hope for. We’ve posted a piece we admire by fellow journalist Sasha Aslanian titled “Sex, Death, and Secrets” — featuring an interview with two lesbian pastors who’ve experienced a roller coaster ride of discernment within their own denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Please add your thoughts, stories, and pictures — your dots, if you will — to this difficult, dispersed, essential conversation.
Had a Russian couple come through my lane tonight. The guy in front of them struck up conversation and asked them where they were from, how they liked the country, etc. Nice guy, too- he’s a regular customer and is always real cool.
It turned out the couple had been here five years, so he was…
There is such a strong correlation between language and culture that I feel like the loss of one ultimately means the loss of the other. And this is what bothers me the most. There is just so much history behind the fact that I am here today, doing whatever the hell it is I’m doing that it just seems so ungrateful to not pay tribute to it all. I once read somewhere that the blood that runs through the Vietnamese-American people is the blood of heroes, warriors, and saviors - all those that risk their lives for the sake of the mother country and the future of their children. Why would we ever want to deny this AWESOMENESS that runs through our veins? Why would we not want to learn a language that will bring us closer to our history? Why would we ever want to forget our identity?
“Còn tiếng Việt thì còn nước Việt”. As long as the Vietnamese language still exist among generations to come, then the love for Vietnam and its history will never be forgotten. I am a first generation Vietnamese-American and I will never forget it.
Sensei Keiko Fukuda of S.F. became the first woman to be promoted to judo’s highest level.
After 98 years, the phone call finally came.
Last week, Sensei Keiko Fukuda of San Francisco became the first woman to be promoted to judo’s highest level: 10th degree black belt.
Only three people in the world, all men living in Japan, have ever reached that mark.
The martial arts promotion by USA Judo brought 98-year-old Fukuda to tears at the women’s dojo where she still teaches in Noe Valley. (Fukuda was the subject of a Chronicle Datebook profile on July 25.)
She gave up marriage and left her homeland to dedicate her life to judo, fighting gender discrimination that kept her at lower belt levels decades longer than men less skilled than she.
"The time was right," said U.S. Judo Federation promotion board member Eiko Saito Shepherd.
A celebration is being planned for mid-October to coincide with Fukuda’s annual International Kata Championship at San Francisco City College.
"All my life," Fukuda said, "this has been my dream."
I wanted to give you heads up about a volunteer opportunity that may interest your center. The Chinese American Museum (CAM) is celebrating an upcoming event called the 15th AnnualHistorymakers Awards Banquet happening Thursday, Sept. 22, 2011 at the Westin…
A sports radio talk show host’s short-lived Twitter posting that called Giants pitcher Ramon Ramirez an illegal alien after his errant pitch Friday night started a baseball brawl had the Internet world in an uproar Saturday.
The ensuing online discussion - full of racial epithets, general insults and obscenities like many Internet and sports debates - turned out to be far uglier, and lengthier, than the on-field fight that started the whole mess.
Tony Bruno, whose nationally syndicated show is broadcast on KNBR, posted his comment on Twitter during his show about Ramirez hitting the Phillies’ Shane Victorino with a pitch Friday night, a pitch that sparked a bench-clearing brawl.
“gutless #!@%*# Giants,” he posted. “(Giants manager Bruce) Bochy is a coward for having his illegal alien pitcher hit a guy since mighty Frisco boys…”
The comment was quickly removed, but not before many fans read it, and some copied it and reposted it on various Internet sites.
On his Facebook page, soon after, Bruno posted a heated horseshit apology.