A San Diego activist who was the first person arrested in Arizona during protests against the state's immigration law was released Friday night.
Mar Cardenas, an immigrant rights activist with the local May 1st Coalition, did not plan on being arrested in Phoenix until later that day. However, when she stepped into the street near City Hall where others were blocking traffic, she was taken into custody.
"I stepped into the street to take a picture and the police officer ordered me back in line. He says I didn't comply, but I actually did. He put his arm on my shoulder and pushed me," said Cardenas.
Cardenas said she panicked a bit because she was scheduled to drive a group of people to another event.
"I said, 'Omigod, omigod.' I don't know where they are and I'm being taken in," said Cardenas.
Right before she was taken away, she managed to give another protester her car keys.
She spent the next 30 hours in jail and said she has no regrets.
Cardenas was one of more than 100 local protesters in Arizona, but the only one taken into custody.
While the most controversial parts of the state's immigration law were blocked by a court, the protest went on for activists, including Cardenas.
She said the court fight is just beginning, pointing to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's crime sweeps allegedly targeting illegal immigrants...
Cardenas' arrest was her first, and she was charged with a misdemeanor for obstructing traffic. She faces community service and a fine...
I met Mar Cardenas a couple of weekends ago at a Coffee Party meeting. I knew she was one of the main organizers of a car caravan to Phoenix to protest the new Arizona immigration law, SB 1070. She is an energetic woman in her mid-forties who has a huge heart, a leader in the local Unitarian Universalist church, who also is the granddaughter of Lázaro Cardenas, one of the great former presidents of Mexico – in fact the FDR of our southern neighbor...
Several hundred demonstrators opposed to Arizona's hard-line stance on illegal immigration marched Thursday to the federal courthouse here, where a judge the previous day had issued a last-minute injunction against most of the state's controversial immigration law.
Three people were arrested in a carefully choreographed act of civil disobedience, when they stepped onto the cordoned-off steps to the building's plaza. Demonstrations are expected to escalate Thursday.
"We live here in a climate of fear," said Alfredo Gutierrez, a former state senator who joined about 100 people on the two-mile march from the state Capitol at 4:30 a.m and was one of those arrested. "The context of Arizona is foreign to this country. This is basically a nation that's become hostile to its own people."
» Don't miss a thing. Get breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox.
A federal judge Wednesday halted implementation of much of the immigration law, known as SB 1070, ruling it unconstitutional. But activists said they had to keep up the pressure on a state that has come to define the national debate over illegal immigration.
SB 1070, which would have taken effect Thursday, declared the state's policy is "attrition through enforcement" -- an attempt to drive out illegal immigrants, who make up about 7% of the population here, through a series of criminal penalties. Even without the law, though, the state has used many tools against illegal immigrants.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was expected to demonstrate one of them later Thursday by launching one of his controversial "sweeps," in which his deputies fan out through immigrant neighborhoods, stopping people for sometimes minor infractions and checking their immigration status...
I have been asked why I committed civil disobedience recently.
Being a UU calls me to many things, but most of all to respect the inherent worth and dignity of all people. I believe that it matters deeply how we treat one another – how we honor our community; whether it’s our faith community, our local community, or our human community. SB 1070 violates the very ideas, ideals, and principles I hold dear.
By the sheer fortune of the location of my birth, I immigrated to this country easily, had permanent resident status for most of my life, and was able to get my citizenship within a year and a half of applying. Many others wait 20 years or more. Why?
Our immigration policy is dysfunctional and has led to a situation where AZ and other states feel the need to pass immoral legislation to “manage” the challenges that come with a large undocumented population. SB1070, however, will lead to more fear, undue suspicion, increased polarization, and escalating conflict within our communities – it already has – and it isn’t even in effect yet...
Yesterday I was surprised to learn, at an introductory discussion at the South Bay Unitarian Church in Chula Vista, that Catholics believe in three gods. This was told to me by a "recovering Catholic" who says she is a pagan.
I'm afraid the "three gods" idea is a misinterpretation of Catholic belief. A woman sitting next to me at the discussion leaned toward me and asked, "Who are the three gods?" She herself had been raised Catholic, but without the benefit of Catholic religious instruction, so she was sincerely confused and curious.
I offered to this woman the explanation that my Irish parents gave regarding Catholic belief about the Trinity: just as each leaf of the shamrock has three sections, so God has three persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. (Protestants also believe in the Trinity, so why did the leader of the discussion limit her remarks to Catholics? Perhaps she has issues?)
I told the woman that Catholics do not believe in three gods, and she got so mad at me that she withdrew her offer of membership. She was shaking with anger, and said I'd have to talk to the minister. She said the nuns in Evanston, Illinois taught her when she was a child that there are three gods. I think she may be either misremembering or misreporting that story.
Another woman at the meeting said "I'm sorry" when I mentioned that I had been raised Catholic. I said I still considered myself a Catholic, just not a very good one, and I understood that Unitarians weren't required to reject their original religions. Clearly the women running the show at South Bay UU disagree with that notion--at least if the original religion is Catholic.
Ironically, these same women are planning a trip to Arizona on July 28-29, 2010 with the specific purpose of committing civil disobedience.
Apparently the hope is that Arizonans will back down if the Unitarians are unpleasant enough. It seems to me that there is a bit of a contradiction here. These women don't want anyone in their church that disagrees with them about the number of gods worshipped by Catholics, and yet they think that somehow the people of Arizona will listen respectfully to folks who disagree with them about the number of immigrants that should live in Arizona.
It's a lost cause. Registering a protest only gathers sympathy when people accept that the protester is in the right. Polls show this not to be the case in the current situation. The public supports the Arizona law, and, in fact, support is increasing. Obviously the Arizona law is unconstitutional, but the majority of the population seems to see the law itself as a protest against the federal government's failure to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. The immigrants themselves would like to be legal; the law, however, makes that logistically close to impossible.
Most people on this planet--including many of the supporters of the Arizona law-- are just like the Unitarian women I talked to on Sunday: they have little use for others' opinions. My guess is that the Zonies will be just as headstrong as the Unitarians. The protests won't turn any hearts or minds. The protests might actually be counterproductive. They might have the same effect as similar protests that occurred the night before the vote on California's Proposition 187: the protests seemed to have triggered a landslide in favor of the proposition.
I agree that the law is bad, but the Unitarians need to think a bit more clearly about how one goes about changing the world. The attitude of the South Bay UU women seems to be that they can simply demand compliance from just about anyone. I would recommend that they think this through. How can you change the world when you're so obviously working from the same rule book as your opponents? I suggest open, free-flowing discussion that includes lots of different opinions.
Some possibilities:
1. Work to obtain better drug treatments for Americans so we won't be funding the narco-traffickers who are destroying the economy of Mexico, sending refugees north.
2. Better media coverage and social integration of immigrants in the US, so Arizonans and others won't be so afraid of them.
3. Pressure on Mexico to share the wealth among its citizens. Mexico has the richest man in the world (Carlos Slim). Simply by reducing his profits by a reasonable amount he could stop the transfer of funds from poor Mexicans to himself. Mexico could become just as comfortable a place to live as the US if the laws were more egalitarian.
A difference in approach is needed, not just constant posturing to prove who is stronger.
See ACLU lawsuit to stop Los Angeles Unified School District from laying off large percentages of staff at schools with inordinately large numbers of new teachers: Lawsuit: Layoffs hurt minority kids
Last night ACLU speaker Andrea Guerrero told La Mesa Democrats, "We defend you whether you are of our political liking or not." The fact is that it's impossible for a large organization to function--and even harder for it to get funding--without some horsetrading. Of course the ACLU plays politics; it just does it in a more restrained manner than most organizations.
There have been times when the ACLU has defended people with whom it disagreed. An example of this was when Oliver North testified before Congress about shenanigans in the Reagan administration such as selling missiles to Iran to get secret money to quash the uprising in El Salvador. (Now there's an example of some heavy-duty horsetrading: selling missiles to Iran!?! I don't recall the ACLU ever sacrificing its principles to that extent.) The ACLU insisted that the government couldn't use anything Oliver North said before Congress in its criminal case against him. A huge firewall was instituted between prosecutors and the congressional hearings.
Ms. Guerrero indicated that the new Arizona law ordering local police to act as immigration agents is unconstitutional because only the federal government is authorized to deal with such matters. This is the reason that California's Proposition 187 was enjoined several years ago.
Andrea Guerrero is the Field & Policy Director of the ACLU in San Diego & Imperial Counties.
When a Member of Congress is arrested, it's usually a scandal they try to cover up.
For Rep. Luis Gutierrez, it was a photo opportunity.
In the days leading up to a May 1 protest, the Illinois Democrat's staff carefully planned out his arrest for a misdemeanor trespassing charge, even notifying the police department of their intentions.
Along with other activists at the event, Gutierrez was trying to draw attention to a movement to overhaul federal immigration laws. But it was unusual for a sitting Member of Congress to be picked up.
"I think in order to win we have to give up our own comfort and challenge the system," Gutierrez said as he reflected on his arrest a week later.
The San Diego Unified school board unanimously approved a resolution tonight condemning a controversial Arizona immigration law, saying it allows police to engage in racial profiling.
The resolution also states that San Diego Unified will develop a policy to restrict school district employees' travel and conference participation in Arizona. It calls the law "an irrational and irresponsible response to our broken immigration system."
Critics said it was inappropriate for the school board to offer its opinion on Arizona immigration law, which falls far outside its purview. That worry was shared by school board member Katherine Nakamura, who voted for the resolution anyway. She said she couldn't abstain or vote against the resolution now that it was before her. Some critics booed when the vote was taken.
But backers said it was a civil rights issue that demanded that the school board take a stand.
"We have to make it our business," said school board member Shelia Jackson. She added, "If no one speaks up, then this law will spread."
The resolution was originally proposed by board President Richard Barrera and later altered by school board member John Lee Evans, who eliminated an earlier warning to families not to travel to Arizona, saying that they could make that choice themselves, and added restrictions on travel and conferences. It echoes a similar resolution passed by the San Diego City Council last week.
We need immigration reform--and Mexico needs to stop oppressing its poor. The richest man in the world, Carlos Slim (left), achieved his wealth on the backs of the poor of Mexico.
We need immigration reform By John C. Wester (at left in photo) Catholic Bishop, Salt Lake City Washington Post
...The federal government since 2002 has spent over $100 billion on immigration enforcement initiatives. This amounts to a doubling of Border Patrol agents to almost 20,000, nearly 700 miles of border fencing, a failed "virtual" fence costing billions, and a tripling of detention beds.
This is not to mention the manpower, weaponry, and other resources spent on immigration enforcement raids over the past several years, used to whisk away powerless mothers and fathers from their even more powerless children.
Yet, despite this strategy, along with its tragic human consequences, there has been no sustainable progress. In fact, the number of undocumented has risen over 50 percent in the past ten years, from 7 million in the 2000 Census to 11 million today.
There are lots of options once we start pretending that human beings who are different from us are somehow less worthy of respect: perhaps an old-fashioned brand burned into their skin, or a number tattooed on their arms. It seems that running in a Republican primary requires candidates to appeal to the worst attributes of likely voters.
Pat Bertroche, a Republican primary candidate for Congress in Iowa, has illustrated perfectly why you don't refer to human beings as "illegals": it's dehumanizing. And once you've lost sight of someone's humanity, you feel comfortable saying and doing pretty much whatever you want to them.
At a Republican forum, where candidates vied to outdo one another with disturbing anti-immigrant rhetoric, Bertroche rose to a new high — or low — and beat his competition hands down. The Congressional hopeful said, referring to undocumented immigrants who are detained and deported, "I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can't I microchip an illegal?"...
Photos by Pedro Rios, American Friends Service Committee KUSI has a video of the April 26, 2010 rally at the San Diego federal building. After the video was recorded, the crowd at the rally grew larger, to about 200 people.
My guess is that Arizona police won't arrest many migrants, but that there will be enough havoc created to cause costly lawsuits. It seems to me to be a foolhardy law that won't really change anything. Congress needs to create immigration reform.
Here's a video of another recent rally about immigration: Stand on the Side of Love On February 28th 2010, interfaith leaders and community members gathered in front of the San Diego Edward J. Schwartz Federal Building to call for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
Fox News has a nicely-edited video of the April 26, 2010 rally: San Diegans protest Arizona immigration bill Opponents call for boycott of neighboring state By Jennifer Musa FOX 5 San Diego Reporter April 27, 2010 About 150 loud but peaceful demonstrators gathered in front of the Federal Courthouse in downtown San Diego to protest an Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigrants. The new law, Senate Bill 1070, makes it a crime not to carry immigration documents or proof of citizenship in the state and requires police to question people about their immigration status if they suspect they are there illegally. Opponents of the law chanted, "Shame on Arizona," during the 90 minute rally...
PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the toughest illegal immigration law in the country on Friday, aimed at identifying, prosecuting and deporting illegal immigrants. The governor’s move unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive battle over immigration reform nationally.
President Obama at the naturalization ceremony for 24 active duty service members at the White House on Friday.
Even before Governor Brewer signed the law at a 4:30 p.m. news conference here, President Obama strongly criticized it.
Speaking at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active-duty service members in the Rose Garden, Mr. Obama called for a federal overhaul of immigration laws — an overhaul that Congressional leaders signaled they were preparing to take up soon...
Washington, D.C.- Frustrated by Congress’ failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform, states across the country continue considering legislation that relies heavily on punitive, enforcement-only measures which not only fail to end unauthorized immigration but also have the potential to dig their state’s finances deeper into a hole.
The latest example of this kind of policy nose dive is in Arizona...
Today, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer may sign into law a bill that has the potential to sink her state much deeper into the red than it already is...
In Arizona, when a bill is introduced in the state legislature, a "fiscal note" is attached which lays out the cost of implementation. In the case of SB 1070, the accompanying fiscal note is shockingly lacking in detail, concluding that "the fiscal impact of this bill cannot be determined with certainty...
In the absence of any current fiscal data on the cost of SB 1070's implementation, some Arizonans are pointing to a fact sheet produced by Yuma County Sheriff Ralph E. Ogden in response to similar legislation proposed in 2006. Yuma County is one of Arizona's 15 counties, with a population of about 200,000.
The 2006 fact sheet estimates the costs of a bill which would have authorized the police to arrest illegal immigrants on trespassing charges if they were simply present in the state (the bill was eventually vetoed by then Governor Janet Napolitano). The Yuma County Sherriff's fact sheet shows a staggering potential cost to Yuma County law-enforcement agencies. The Sherriff estimated:
* Law-enforcement agencies would spend between $775,880 and $1,163,820 in processing expenses; * Jail costs would be between $21,195,600 and $96,086,720; * Attorney and staff fees would be $810,067-$1,620,134; * Additional detention facilities would have to be built at unknown costs.
Furthermore, in an email between Yuma County Attorney Jon Smith ... noted that his county was already struggling with a budget deficit by furloughing employees and forcing days off without pay. He wrote:
"It was also noted that the Superior Court, Justice Courts and Municipal Courts would also realize increased costs if that legislation passed..."
