Welcome to Arizona: "It's a Dry Hate..."

First it was legally-sanctioned racial profiling,
with a
touch of totalitarian "show me your papers" thrown in for good measure
(SB
1070). Next we were delivered a new law banning Ethnic Studies programs
or any
teaching that promotes "ethnic solidarity" (HB 2281). Then the state's
school
superintendent announced a policy whereby teachers with "heavy accents"
would
be prevented from being in classrooms in which instruction was being
given in
English. Despite all of this, we're continually told by proponents that
it's
not about race but about upholding the laws and securing our borders.
Wrong.
Let's be clear and upfront about what's happening here: it's mainly
about fear
and hatred, and it appears that it's only just begun.

From a peace and conflict studies perspective,
these laws
promise to deepen divisions, drive a wedge through communities, separate
family
units, and undermine constructive dialogue. They pit working people
against one
another, and require neighbors to police one another. In this light,
these laws
will foster a climate of suspicion and antipathy, in which violence -
both
rhetorical and physical - can flourish. Indeed, on some level these laws
themselves potentially constitute a form of "hate crimes" by persecuting
and
scapegoating a particular group based on that group's identity, and thus
raise
the specter of racially motivated violence in our communities.
Heartbreakingly,
it's more than just a mere specter of violence at this point for Juan
Varela's family,
as recently
reported by the Associated Press:

"Tension surrounding the passage of Arizona's
tough new law cracking down on illegal immigration contributed to the
slaying
of an Hispanic man, allegedly shot by a white neighbor, a representative
of the
dead man's family said Friday. Police and the family said the arrested
man,
50-year-old Gary Thomas Kelley, allegedly directed racial slurs at
44-year-old
Juan Daniel Varela before the May 6 shooting near their homes.... 'When
you
have talk that becomes aggressive, it escalates the violence,' said
Carlos
Galindo, a Phoenix radio
commentator acting as a spokesman for Varela's relatives at a state
Capitol
news conference."

A local
television report added further details, including a moving call
from the
family for peace in the face of potential violence likely to surge in
the
climate created by SB 1070:

"The alleged killer was yelling racial slurs
seconds before
he fired the shots that killed 44-year-old Juan Varela. Varela was a
third-generation American, yet his family claims he was called a
"wetback" who
was going to be sent back to Mexico
by the man who murdered him.... Varela's nephew and namesake says he
hopes his
uncles death will not be in vain. 'That's the reason why we're here
today is ... to
talk about hope and non-violence that we would not turn on one another,
that we
would not hate one another but that we would turn together with love.'
The
family feels the hysteria over illegal immigration contributed to
Varela's
death."

More broadly, and taken to their logical extent,
these new
laws targeting and profiling certain groups brush against the
unconscionable
practices of "ethnic
cleansing" that have been universally condemned under international
law. If
it can still be doubted that this is indeed the intent of SB 1070 in
particular, the law's sponsor, State Senator Russell Peace, affirmed the
rationale of displacement and forced expulsion in a recent
statement defending its passage: "Our law is already working. One
can just
scan the newspapers and see dozens of headlines like 'Illegal Immigrants
Leaving Arizona Over New Law: Tough, Controversial New Legislation
Scares Many
in Underground Workforce Out of State.'"

As in other conflict-ridden spheres where such
draconian policies
have taken hold - including in South Africa
where a young man named Mohandas Gandhi resisted racially-motivated
identification
laws and restrictions on the mobility of Indians - these practices of
displacement and induced fear devolve principally upon racial profiling
and
ethnic identification. When proponents tell you that it's not about race
but
about upholding the law, this is reminiscent of arguments put forth in
the
South in defense of poll taxes and literacy tests that plainly targeted
African
Americans. Such noxious racism is both legally and morally indefensible,
and
the demand that people produce their papers in the manner prescribed by
SB 1070
smacks of a totalitarianism that has no place in a democracy. Driving
the point
home, a video
primer on how police can determine who may be here illegally
(released by
SB 1070 architect Kris Kobach of FAIR) includes these nuggets: "speaks
English
poorly," "appears to be in transit or traveled a significant distance,"
"abruptly
exiting from the highway," "out of place or unusual in a specific
locale," and "indications
from dress, appearance and demeanor that the person is an 'illegal
alien'." The
potential for abuse and discrimination in such frameworks is indeed
palpable.

The racialized nature of Arizona's
policies becomes immediately apparent when considering the message sent
by
passing SB 1070 and HB 2281 in succession, and apparently the ruling
rightwing
regime isn't done yet with their spate of hate bills. In the queue now
are
additional measures, including one (SB 1097)
that would "compel
teachers and administrators
to determine the legal status of students and their families" and
require
annual reporting by schools on the "adverse impact of the enrollment of
students who cannot prove lawful residence in the United
States." (Note that only "adverse" impacts
are to be reported, and not any positive impacts of such students.) A
Phoenix
news station obtained emails sent and received by Pearce, including some
that
detail his stated
intention to circumvent the 14th Amendment by "push[ing] for an
Arizona
bill that would refuse to accept or issue a
birth certificate that recognizes citizenship to those born to illegal
aliens,
unless one parent is a citizen." In these messages, Pearce validates the
use of
the pejorative term "anchor
babies" - which is unsurprising given that in recent years he "has
proposed
equally odious legislation, such as only allowing Americans to wed
Americans,
sanctioning landlords who knowingly rent to illegal aliens, and so
forth."

All of this militates strongly against the
arguments
alleging that the gist of Arizona's intentions are merely about
upholding the
law, as Sarah
Palin argued in a recent visit to the state. If it's about the law
and not
invidious racism, then we should remedy the situation by providing a
clear and
workable path to legality for millions of hard-working people who
contribute
enormously to both our economy and culture. If it's about the law, then
the
U.S. Constitution must be upheld as well, including the 4th and 14th
Amendments
which guarantee freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, due
process,
and equal protection under the law. We should never put police officers
in an
impossible situation where they are forced to choose between ethically
doing
their duty and following the laws of the land. And in fact, many of them
have
spoken out against SB 1070, and some have even sued
to block its implementation.

Political wedge issues such
as those raised by what's happening now in Arizona
are intended to divide us, but the path to peace will be found by
working together
to resolve conflicts and address the important issues
of the day. We ought to strive to turn this crisis into an opportunity
to
overcome fear and hatred. Palin did get one thing right in her speech
here
endorsing SB 1070: "We're all Arizonans now." Obviously she meant to
exclude a
number of constituencies from this calculus, but ironically she stumbled
upon a
deeper truth in this unfolding jeremiad. Just as the Danish scuttled the
Nazis'
plans by standing in solidarity with Jews and others being persecuted,
so too
can people of good conscience everywhere stand with Arizonans as we work
to
undo the hatred and repression in our midst.

We are quite likely in the throes of a new civil
rights
movement in America.
The forces of hatred and fear have fomented the dilemma for public
debate, and in
that we may be grateful on some level for the opportunity to openly
confront certain
values that have been at work more covertly since the advent of laws
prohibiting express racism in America. Extremism presents many dangers,
and yet
also possibilities, as Martin Luther King, Jr. observed in his poignant
and
still relevant Letter from a Birmingham
Jail: "So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but
what kind
of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love?
Will we
be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of
justice?" In charting our course, we would do well to heed this reminder
of the
choice placed squarely before us today.