Sadly, the cartoon above is correct. See the interview:
A Chicago man who spent the weekend in jail and faced deportation on suspicion he is in the country illegally said what happened to him illustrates the need for America to change the way it deals with immigration.
Eduardo Caraballo said his self-described nightmare began last week when he was arrested in connection with a stolen car case. He maintains his innocence and says the car case is still being investigated, but says the real problems began when his mother posted his bail Friday.
Instead of being released, he was told by authorities that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was detaining him because he was an illegal immigrant.
“That’s crazy. Because I was born in Puerto Rico. I never knew that Puerto Rico wasn’t part of the United States,” the 32-year-old said Monday.
Caraballo said he repeatedly told officers that he was born in Puerto Rico and therefore an American citizen. His mother also presented his birth certificate, but despite that and his state-issued ID, officials told him he was facing deportation.
Yes, he was born in the USA. If you look at the video, he had both a real and legitimate driver’s license and a birth certificate. In spite of that he was threatened with deportation and held several days longer than warranted based strictly on his looks and on his accent. Somehow, I cannot imagine that happening to a white man without an accent in identical circumstances. This is the Latino version of what African-Americans describe as “driving while black.” This is the fear of Latinos, now made real thanks to Arizona. It is the fear that regardless of identification we will be stopped and held illegally by authorities. Recently I have come across one site and learned more about the author who claims it is possible to fight off a driving ticket. I will definitelly save contact info just in case. It is the Latino version of the 1950’s African-American who is arrested for vagrancy, or the old joke about the African-American who is stopped while jogging in his own neighborhood (hmm, both of those actually have happened more than once).
Sadly, there are some reading this who are already skimming the news reports to try to show that I am wrong. Sadly, there will even be some who will argue with me that the police did no wrong, despite the fact that several pieces of USA identification were shown. Sadly, there are all too many of you who will never be stopped for driving while white, and whose identity will never be doubted because you have the wrong skin color and accent, and thus you will continue to believe that we treat everyone equally in this country. Sadly, there are all too many of you who will agree that extraordinary measures–which you would never tolerate were they to happen to you–are warranted during this “extraordinary time,” whatever that may mean. And, sadly, all too many of you who are Rand Paul supporters will still not see why it is necessary to have strong and, yes, intrusive government civil rights legislation in order to ensure that the Bill of Rights is also applied to those who are minorities.
I can’t testify about the Latino issue, but I can testify about people of color being stopped for things that caucasians would not be stopped for. My then husband who is African-American was stopped once because he was driving our car in our neighborhood with my two children (who are caucasian) and whom he was in the middle of adopting as their own father was deceased. There was no pretext of a traffic violation. The question was whose children are these? He answered correctly that they were his and the girls told the officer plainly that he was their daddy. Only after lengthly back and forth and sobbing from the girls as to why the police officer was stopping their daddy, did they allow him to continue to drive home. They indeed followed him home, I guess to make sure that his address on his driver’s license was correct or something. At that time, he was not a “young black man”. He was a man of almost 50 with gray hair wearing a clerical collar.
’nuff said….
However, there has to be some sort of immigration reform and some sort of way to stop some of the violence and such that people I know who live on the border are being subjected to. I don’t know what the answer is.
Preach it Father!
Alix: I would think that this law could in fact exacerbate the violence. Consider the following scenario: an office pulls someone for a traffice violation and, upon approaching the driver, becomes suspicious that the driver or other occupants of the vehicle are in the country illegaly. Now, suppose that these people (males in all probability) are involved with criminal activities and are armed. What are they likely to do if the officer confronts them concerning their immigration status?
No, issue of violence on the Mexican border must be confronted with aggressive law enforcement focused on THAT, not on the question of illegal immigration in general. If Arizona needs the Federal government to kick in more in terms of money and law enforcement officers, so be it.
Phoenix and Tucson are said to be the #2 kidnapping capital of the world (#1 is Mexico City). My “Zonie” (Arizonan) contacts are full of war stories of “border bandits” jumping across the border, pulling a violent job in, say, Tucson, then fleeing back into Mexico. The violence is already there, and in Anglo eyes there’s a simple reason for it all: Mexico.
Also, I think here in the border states we’re getting a lot of the dregs of Mexico — petty criminals either going with the population flow or jumping the border to prey on the rich Norteamericanos or Mexican immigrants living underground in the Barrios and afraid of any authorities. Easy prey.
Latest word in Southern California was some Concerned Activist Coalition going to the FCC to have radio talk shows silenced for Hate Speech (TM). Nobody’s heard of most of the Concerned Community Organizations (TM) in this coalition, but most all of them have Spanish names with a couple of “Raza”s.
Problem is, Orthocuban, we have a LOT of Mexican Supremacists (“Raza Boys”) out here which further confuse the issue (and scare what Anglos remain). These groups are MEXICAN Supremacist — as a Cuban, you’re as much of a Mud Race to them as to the skinheads. “Por La Raza, Todos. Otra La Raza, NADA.”
And Anglos see them getting a free pass in the media and local government “just because they’re brown” and able to play the Race Card on everyone else. These Raza Boys tend to dominate the Latino (TM) civil rights organizations out here and play the race card off the bottom of the deck faster than the OJ defense team. Add in all Our Betters in Sacramento & San Fran trembling in fear of being called “Racisto!” and I’m surprised there isn’t a big White militia movement springing up among us Anglos. (Or should that be “Gringos” or “Gabachos”?) What I call “Self-Defense White Supremacy”, not out of any classic White Superiority belief but out of pure tribalism — “If we don’t do it to them, They’re going to do it to Us!”
It’s Getting THAT Polarized.
I think it’s time for some harsh words.
First of all, to soften the blow, I think Caraballo can win a case in court based on clear evidence that he is, indeed, a US Citizen.
Besides that, the rest of your post abandons rational clear thinking in favor of ethnic grievance mongering. A white person will not get stopped on the street randomly because–surprise surprise–white people in America tend to be Americans. Yes, there is the off chance that a white person in America could be a Serbian or Irish terrorist, but when you hear hoofs clapping, don’t assume zebra. And even if the white non-American is not a terrorist, chances are he is the law-abiding sort.
Now, why do you suppose Arizona passed this law in the first place? Are Arizonans mean, evil, hate filled Nazis? Arizona, like all the border states, have a serious crime problem that can be curbed if illegal immigration is halted.
It just so happens that most illegal immigrants are Latino. There is of course the problem of the association fallacy. But if Latinos wanted to integrate more smoothly into American society, not committing crimes will help.
What would you have law enforcement do–assume everyone they meet is an American citizen so as not to appear racist?
From Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn’t this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn’t this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn’t this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God’s will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: “All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth.” Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.
Interesting. Bill Clinton said, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is” is.” Here, it depends on the meaning of the word “justice”. Mexico is by far the biggest source of illegal immigrants, but Mexicans get tourist visas by the boatload, while my Ukrainian relatives have virtually no chance. “Family reunification” provisions that bring entire Salvadoran villages here skew immigration policy against non-Latinos. “Anchor babies” suddenly legalize illegal immigrants. And of course, Latin American countries would never countenance at home the immigration policies they demand here.
Face it: latinos are different. Around 1/2 of all of them in the US are either illegals or descendants of illegals. Latino leaders routinely dispute US sovereignty over the Southwest; my tribe doesn’t. Latinos insist on national status for their language; my tribe recognizes English as the national language. Latinos insist on schooling in their language, often using tendentious foreign textbooks; my tribe doesn’t. Latinos call one organization “National Council of La Raza”; my tribe would be aghast at that. Latinos get angry when kids wear American flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo; my tribe loves and respects the American flag. The mother of the Latino mayor of San Antonio refers to the Alamo as “an affront to my heritage”; I see it as the sign of better things to come. Latino intellectuals call for the elimination of gringos, by force if necessary, and receive plum academic jobs; this comment could kill my career.
Does this apply to all Latinos? No, but it applies to the public face of Latinos. And contrary voices are few. I’m no xenophobe – both my parents are immigrants. But Latinos are different.
Here is an analogy you may be able to relate to, Kozak, since you are apparently Ukrainian: the relationship between Russia and Ukraine.
In the American case, the fact is that the United States provoked a war with Mexico and, in the aftermath, were able to seize a large section of Mexican land, land that is now an integral part of the United States. Further, especially after NAFTA, the economic relationship between the U.S. and Mexico is complicated and may be responsible for the fact that many Mexicans feel they have no viable economic option but to try to come to the United States, legally or illegally, if they wish to literally survive.
OK, father. Reasonable proposal, which I’ll consider. Meanwhile,
1) As a practical matter, Ukrainian attempts to secure any cultural rights whatsoever in Russia have been notably less successful than Latino efforts in the USA.
2) The notion of two peoples, Latinos and …what?…in the US is lethal to national unity. Seen Belgium?
3) No sane Ukrainian dreams of getting the Kuban back after 80 years of Russification, or even Peremyshl after 65 years of Polonization. Why do 160-year-old Mexican claims still justify all this rage? Or obligate us to, by state action, fight assimilation of Latinos?
4) Can you imagine 10’s of thousands of Ukrainian citizens marching in Stavropol or Voronezh with Ukrainian flags, yelling Ukrainian slogans, and demanding their language and immigration rights everywhere in Russia, while saying that the border crossed them? I don’t know if the police would die laughing or just beat the #@%! out of them.
So, I am assuming that you believe that the Ukraine, Latvia, and Estonia were wrong for declaring their independence a couple of decades back? They should have remained under Russia, given your arguments, correct?
NO, I am not arguing for a “free” Southwest. I do not agree with those who argue for that. But, I am taking your argument to its logical conclusion.
Certainly there is little if any chance that the SW U.S. would ever be returned to Mexico, something that surely even those who might advocate this must realize. However, one thing that I love about the United States is that the fact that Latino/a citizens (and others) can freely advocate such things if they so choose.
The point about bringing up Russia/Ukraine and the rest of it is simply this: so often we act as if it were 1975 and the United States were a small, relatively weak nation newly emerging on the world stage. Thus, for example, we get defensive about such incidents as the one concerning Cinco de Mayo, mentioned above. My reaction? Darn right. Get the U.S. flag out of there. This is a celebration of something else and all you are trying to do is to disrupt that celebration. What do we call this? Bad manners, pure and simple. The United States is the 3000 lb. elephant in the living room. We are not threatened by expressions of ethnic pride such as Cinco de Mayo or by communication in languages other than English. (A hundred years ago or so, safety signs in the cooper mines in Butte, Montana were posted in no fewer than 13 languages. Prior to that, many PUBLIC schools in various part of the country conducted classes exclusively in German.)
Further, again, with the adoption of NAFTA, due to a large influx of corn imported from the United States, prices in Mexico dropped so low that many, many, many small famers were driven off the land and are, even now, contributing to our “illegal immigration” problem. Thus, this problem is literally, to a large extent, our problem, a problem that we ourselves have largely created.
The United States, thanks be to God, is a salad bowl, not a melting pot. Every different ethnic group, whether Mexican, Cuban, Urkainian, Swede, Turkish, Polish, Indonesian, Indian, Pakistani, Ethiopian, Jewish, or whatever, which settles here enriches U.S. culture (and the English language as well). I for one am exceedingly grateful for this.
Actually, no. Russia gobbled up all of those countries. There was no Ukrainian/Latvian/Estonian country left to go to.
We gobbled up a huge but extremely sparsely populated part of Mexico. Mexico remains sovereign and independent, and 99% of the Mexican people were on the other side of the border as of 1849. That’s why I used Kuban as the analogy: it’s old Ukrainian ethnic territory (included in the Ukrainization of the 1920’s) but now in Russia. If we had simply annexed Mexico, that would be another question. We did conquer Cuba, but gave it independence.
But why do you raise this issue? You are the one who says secessionists/Reconquista-ites are a tiny minority.
Ortho Cuban,
Are there any laws in the United States that one should have to obey, or are they all open to further review on a pick and choose basis? There are some I don’t like so I await your priestly advice.
Please note that it was the police and the ICE who broke the constitutional rights of Eduardo Caraballo. He, himself, broke no laws.
So, should the police have a right to violate constitutional rights, given by the Constitution and confirmed by the Supreme Court? Or, should the police get to pick and choose which rights they enforce on which people? And, should the common citizen have redress to Congress and the courts and protest marches (right of assembly), or must the common citizen simply put up with whatever the current authorities say is legal?
But, let me give you two harder cases. Do you agree with those who claimed that the “Negro” in the 1950’s was completely wrong for going on marches and boycotts to get their civil rights? That is why Martin Luther King finally wrote against the white moderate, because their arguments about law and order ended up being part of the support structure for racism and Jim Crow laws. Are the anti-abortion people wrong for refusing to accept certain laws nowadays? They say that the right to life impels us to engage in protests and even (at times) civil disobedience.
I apologize for the typos in my post above. Specifically, the date referenced should be 1795 and I mispelled “Ukrainian”. Obviously the Internet is scrambling my posts ;-o