The Cry For Freedom

I received the following quote via twitter this week.  The quote by Ana Levy-Lyons is from an essay she wrote for the recent edition of the UU World, our denomination’s magazine.  She states:  “It seems clear that there should be tension—enormous tension. Until the world is as it should be, until war and hunger are abolished, until power is shared and all voices are heard, we should not be able to fit comfortably into this culture.[i]“

She is talking about religious communities being counter-cultural, as being a model of a way of life that prophetically calls society to be different than the way society is currently manifested.  She then calls upon James Luther Adams, our Unitarian Universalist theologian of the 20^th century and quotes his words[ii]:

The element of commitment, of change of hearts, of decision so much emphasized in the Gospels, has been neglected by religious liberalism, and that is the prime source of its enfeeblement. We liberals are largely an uncommitted and therefore self-frustrating people. Our first task, then, is to restore to liberalism its own dynamic and its own prophetic genius . . . A holy community must be a militant community with its own explicit faith; and this explicit faith cannot be engendered without disciplines that shape the ethos of the group and that issue in the criticism of the society and of the “religious” community itself.

Harsh words to hear.  First the question of not being counter-cultural and then not committed to restoring liberalism, religious liberalism to its own prophetic genius that critiques society and our religious living within it.  Harsh words indeed.  But are there examples of this happening?

In 2005 I had the privilege of visiting Chiapas, a state in southern Mexico.  Chiapas is much like Alabama in some ways.  It too is among the poorest of its nation.  They too made international news for the ways the government oppresses people there. When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed by the US, Canada, and Mexico, the indigenous people of Chiapas realized that NAFTA was not for their benefit but would actually do them great harm.   All of the resources of this wonderful state, Let me repeat that,  all of the resources are owned not by the indigenous people.  The coffee, the beef cattle, the bananas, the honey, the oil, the electricity, and many other exportable resources; all of it is controlled by the Mexican government and American corporations. The people of Chiapas do not see any of the money produced by these resources.

The people who live here are living in dire poverty and they are exploited not only by their own government but also by the corporations from America and Europe.  But how are their needs presented to us?

In a piece that I wrote for the Chiapas Peace House Newsletter, The Children of El Pacayel[iii], I described the charitable organizations portrayal of such children.  I said I had been taken in by “the international charitable organizations that seek to raise funds by showing third world children.  You know the video clip.  The image of Sally Struthers walking down dirt trodden roads with children cast aside along the way unable to move from hunger or disease is meant to pull at our heart strings to donate money.   The closing clip shows her holding a young girl all gussied up and smiling.  See what your money can do?”

This form of charity, as well meaning as the donors are for those who are destitute does not answer the root causes of the poverty.  Leonardo and Clodovis Boff in their text, Introducing Liberation Theology, state this approach as “a strategy for helping the poor, but treating them as (collective) objects of charity, not as subjects of their own liberation…. There is a failure to see that the poor are oppressed and made poor by others; and what they do possess—strength to resist, capacity to understand their rights, to organize themselves and transform a subhuman situation—tends to be left out of account. Aid increases the dependence of the poor; tying them to help from others, to decisions made by others; again, not enabling them to become their own liberators.”

If some of this argument sounds familiar, it is because this is the argument of conservatives in this nation regarding welfare. Conservative voices might add the belief that poverty is caused by some sort of vice such as “laziness, ignorance, or simply human wickedness.”  Many liberals tend to see this argument as heartless towards those who are poor, not only in third world countries, but right here in America, right here in Alabama.   Liberals response to this argument is to maintain programs of aid to the poor as a form of compassion band aid or as Boff coins it, “objects of pity.”

Now don’t get me wrong, I am one of those liberals who want to keep those welfare programs in tact.  But perhaps, it is time for me to recognize that it is at best a temporary safety net measure and not meant to be a permanent fixture in any one’s life.

And that might be why there is the reform argument which is the response from liberals who believe that with minor restructuring within existing systems the situation of the poor will be improved.  Alas, Boff writes, “Reformism can lead to great feats of development in the poorer nations, but this development is nearly always at the expense of the oppressed poor and very rarely in their favor.”
This is also the belief that third world countries and even poor states like Alabama and Mississippi are poor as a function of backwardness.  In the process of time, if stimulus loans for economic development in Alabama or foreign aid for third world countries were given, then the result would be prosperity and progress.

The problem with reformism is that it is generated not from within the community affected but from outside of the community. Those who are to benefit from reform are “passive objects of action taken by others.”

NAFTA was supposed to be one of those reforms of the system. The thinking was if there was more ease in the production and trading of goods between nations then all would benefit from it.  However over 2 million farmers lost[iv] their ability to farm in Mexico once NAFTA was fully implemented in part because they could no longer compete with factory farms in the US and in Mexico.  In short, the old adage rings true; the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

There is a third way to approach and explain the problem of poverty.  It is a dialectical explanation: poverty as oppression.  Boff explains that “poverty [is] the product of the economic organization of society itself, which exploits some—the workers—and excludes others from the production process—the underemployed, unemployed, and all those marginalized in one way or another.”

The way out is not through charitable contributions or through reforms but by replacing the present way of doing things by offering an alternative system—a counter cultural approach.  It is the poor themselves who stand up to create this revolutionary approach to their liberation.

Liberation theology seeks to do this by seeking to first understand the historical context of the poor and oppressed and then find ways to respond in relationship to that context.  Now Liberation theology is steeped in Christology—Jesus teachings about the poor and the transformative process through the death and resurrection of Jesus as being central to Liberation Theology.  As Boff explains, “the poor are not simply poor, as we have seen; they seek life, and ‘to the full’ (John 10:10). This means that questions relevant to or urgent for the poor are bound up with the transcendental questions of conversion, grace, resurrection.”  And conversion, grace, and resurrection are evident in the evolution of the resistance movement Mexico and other Central American countries.

In Chiapas, the Zapatista’s initially rose up and declared war against the Mexican government.  And after blood shed in the early years of their declared war, they decided war was not the answer but rather a sustained resistance to exploitation. This came about after the massacre at Acteal, where some 40 innocent men, women, and children were killed by the Mexican military.  These people were not Zapatistas but happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  The world community stood up in protest. Marcos writes in the Sixth Declaration[v]:  “the first thing we saw was that our heart was not the same as before, when we began our struggle. It was larger, because now we had touched the hearts of many good people. And we also saw that our heart was more hurt, it was more wounded. And it was not wounded by the deceits of the bad governments, but because, when we touched the hearts of others, we also touched their sorrows. It was as if we were seeing ourselves in a mirror.”

My visit to the Zapatista community of Oventic revealed a community where a democracy by consensus was being developed.  These were a people who understood the historical context in which they lived.  Not only did they understand their ancestry as indigenous people of Mexico but also their 500 year history as a people living under the domination of the Doctrine of Discovery.  The result of this context enabled them to incorporate into their communities an understanding of their own oppression and empowered them to create something new, an alternative to the corrupt Mexican government.

Anthropologist Duncan Earle writes: “ [vi][The Zapatistas] had no model except [for] their own indigenous belief that there should be consensus. They have been able to create a para-state that takes care of its own education, health, transportation and economics.”  In response to an article, he stated: “[vii]Chiapas is an island of peace and security, and in the Zapatista zones, good government and no drug cartel activity. That is why tourism is on the rise there, even Zapatourism.”

This approach was recently adopted by the indigenous Purépecha community of Cherán in the Mexican state of Michoacán where the Monarch Butterflies winter.  This was a community besieged by organized crime loggers and drug cartels. Their pleas to the government for intervention and protection went unanswered.  They rose up as a community and stopped the violence.  They kicked out the crime syndicate and removed the corrupt government and set up a council that uses governing principles of their ancestors.  This includes having a series of neighborhood bonfires at night.  They talk, they cook food for one another, and they come to consensus as to how to protect their community and their forest.

A report states this about the community: “[viii]Retaking old habits and customs; returning to the idea of la faena, work that’s done by all for the good of everybody. It wasn’t long ago that this tradition was still practiced. The elders will tell you: “we built this school with la faena” and remember how at a wedding or funeral, the tradition dictated that everybody helps with something: food, work, anything so that life is easier for all. This old way keeps people close.”

They have set up a counter-cultural community because the ways set up by the government were not protecting them from the violence of the crime syndicate or from the impotent and corrupt government. This community banned political parties as they see them as divisive.  They are a community under siege not only from the crime syndicate but also from the Mexican government. The community of Cherán is pulling together and creating something new because reform no longer worked.

But what about here?  How does Chiapas and Cherán relate to Tuscaloosa?  Yesterday, I met with Somos Tuskaloosa.  They are working on developing their goals for their future as the possibility of changing the system of immigration becomes feasible in an Obama second term.

Somos Tuskaloosa discussed the need to understand the historical context in which they find themselves.  They are realizing that they cannot simply allow the government to reform immigration without their ability to have a say in how that might be done. They see immigration as a piece of the racist history of the United States. They need to understand that history and the systems developed in response to that racist past.  Their desire to develop a community where all people are respected, not just as a rhetorical statement, but brazenly embraced for who they are is counter-cultural in Alabama.

And isn’t that what we want too?  To be a community that brazenly embraces the other as equal sojourners in life?  As Ana Levy-Lyons challenged us; how would we seek to abolish the war and hunger within our own hearts and in the larger community—figuratively and literally?  What would shared power look like here in this congregation?  How would we ensure that all voices are heard?

What would we need to change if we declared our community as an autonomous Human Rights zone in Alabama?  That is the definition of sanctuary—a place where people are safe and secure from the dangers of the world.   May we find the courage to participate in such a liberation—a liberation that yields to a just society. Blessed Be.

---

[i] “We should be more Counter-cultural” by Ana Levy-Lyons as found at http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/229846.shtml

[ii] IBID

[iii] http://www.chiapaspeacehouse.org/content/view/276/305/lang,en/ (website is no longer active, currently on hiatus)

[iv]NAFTA and the Mexican Economy, M. Angeles Villarreal, June 3 2010 Congressional Research Services as found at  http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34733.pdf

[v]  The Sixth Declaration http://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/sdsl-en/

[vi] http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2011/08/11/education/education1.txt

[vii] Dr. Duncan Earle (not verified) on April 16, 2009 – 01:53  http://hir.harvard.edu/blog/jason-lakin/fifteen-years-after-the-zapatistas

[viii] Pablo Pérez, Translation by Laura Cann  as found at http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2012/07/the-fight-of-cheran-day-it-began.html

 

“The Cry for Freedom” delivered at Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Tuscaloosa   by Rev. Fred L Hammond 11 November 2012 ©

Amendment 4 Does not Fix Racist Constitution

Tuscaloosa News does not seem to like my letters.  None of the letters I have written in the past 3 years have been published.  The newspaper seems more interested in publishing such pieces as “President is inviting the wrath of God“  which reduces this column to an entertainment section equivalent to the National Enquirer than serious debate.  After a week of waiting for a response or for publication, I am posting my letter in response to their editorial.

To the Editor:

The recent editorial supporting Amendment 4 (October 18) to the state constitution  does not seem to understand how racism works. Amendment 4 claims it will remove racist language from our constitution which was established in 1901 with the sole purpose of creating a White Supremacist State. Removing racist language is only a cosmetic touch as it does not and cannot fix the institutionalized racism that is still embedded in the constitution. The paragraphs that will not be removed by this amendment because they are not explicit in their racism are still racist. This particular section was written in the 1950′s when it was believed by the White majority that Blacks were not educable but merely trainable and that language remains. These terms, education and training refer to the alleged abilities that Whites versus Blacks had. The belief was Whites could be educated while Blacks could only be trained. The only way to fix our 1901 constitution is not by deleting phrases but by a complete rewriting of the constitution. Alabama Education Association Executive Secretary Henry Mabry is right when he states Amendment 4 removes the guaranteed right to an education. That is how institutionalized racism works. It is so embedded into our state constitution that to remove racist language actually restores racist policies. Cosmetic fixes are not enough, we need a new state constitution if we are indeed serious about undoing our racist heritage.

Fred L Hammond

Minister, Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Tuscaloosa

Postscript:  Since writing this letter, there have been  several conversations as to what the motivations or reasons are behind this amendment.  The author of the amendment claims it is purely to remove the stain of racism from the constitution.  Perhaps. One can never fully know what those intentions might be.

What is clear is this.  While removing racist language seems a laudable act;  this amendment REENACTS a provision that had previously been held unconstitutional that for racist reasons eliminated a right to public education. When actions to remove language is being undertaken within a document created specifically to create a white supremacist state then the whole constitution needs to be looked at to see where else racism is imbedded.  There are systemic aspects of racism  interwoven in the document that must be examined and rooted out.  For example; racism is also in the constitutional policies guiding the  actions of the governing body.  Removing racism demands not just a cosmetic touch but a full reworking from scratch in order to remove all forms of racial oppression.

Changing Our Narrative

 by Rev. Fred L Hammond 7 October 2012 ©

Last spring I delivered a sermon on the Doctrine of Discovery, a 550 year plus old document that set in motion the underlying narrative of the United States of America.  I talked about this doctrine then because our Unitarian Universalist Association was submitting a resolution to our Justice General Assembly in Phoenix to renounce this Doctrine of Discovery and request that all laws that reflect this papal decree be removed from our governing bodies. The resolution passed with an overwhelming majority of those congregational delegates present.

The story of this country is cast with this doctrine as a preamble to our history and the majority of our country’s actions have the spirit of this doctrine imbedded within them.  To remind us what the Doctrine of Discovery states, let me quote again Pope Nicholas V who in 1452 wrote:

” We grant to you (King of Portugal)  full and free power, through the Apostolic authority by this edict, to invade, conquer, fight, subjugate the Saracens (Muslims) and pagans, and other infidels and other enemies of Christ, and wherever established their Kingdoms, Duchies, Royal Palaces, Principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps and any other possessions, mobile and immobile goods found in all these places and held in whatever name, and held and possessed by the same [...]and to lead their persons in perpetual servitude. ^[i]

Pope Nicholas V wrote another edict to protect Portugal from other Christian nations laying claim to lands already claimed by Portugal.  And in 1493, Pope Alexander XI expanded this edict to allow other Christian nations to also lay claim to lands not already claimed by Portugal and gave Christopher Columbus the right to lay claim to the lands he set foot on for Spain.

So the historical narrative of the United States essentially begins in 1492.  We know the poem entitled The History of the U.S[ii]. written in 1919, which begins with the stanza:

In fourteen hundred ninety-two,
Columbus sailed the ocean blue
And found this land, land of the Free,
Beloved by you, beloved by me.

It implies that prior to 1492 this land was uninhabited, unknown to anyone, per se.  Columbus found it and introduced to this land European civility—or so we were taught in school.  Yet, there were people already here with a culture that was long established.  Howard Zinn[iii] writes in A People’s History of the United States: 1492 to Present   “These Arawaks of the Bahama Islands were much like Indians on the mainland, who were remarkable (European observers were to say again and again) for their hospitality, their belief in sharing. These traits did not stand out in the Europe of the Renaissance, dominated as it was by the religion of popes, the government of kings, the frenzy for money that marked Western civilization and its first messenger to the Americas, Christopher Columbus.”

Another poem entitled In 1492 by Jean Marzollo first published in 1948 about Christopher Columbus contain these closing stanzas

The Arakawa natives were very nice;
They gave the sailors food and spice.

Columbus sailed on to find some gold
To bring back home, as he’d been told.

He made the trip again and again,
Trading gold to bring to Spain.

The first American?  No, not quite.
But Columbus was brave, and he was bright.

This isn’t exactly what happened after Columbus landed in the Caribbean but it is what we teach our children.  Some histories will make mention that the encounter of Columbus and his crew with the native peoples of the island went according to Columbus’ plan of enslavement and genocide but this mention is equivalent to a footnote.  While these histories do not deny the atrocities they do not make it central to Columbus’ mission. Columbus wrote the following to Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand[iv],

“I took by force six of the Indians from the first island, and intend to carry them to Spain in order to learn our language and return, unless your Highnesses should choose instead to have them all transported to Spain, or held captive on the island. These people are very simple in matters of war… I could conquer the whole of them with fifty men, and govern them as I pleased… They are very clever and honest, display great liberality, and will give whatever they possess for a trifle or for nothing at all… Whether there exists any such thing as private property among them I have not been able to ascertain… As they appear to have no religion, I believe they would very readily become Christians… They would make good servants… They are fit to be ordered about and made to work, to sow, and do aught else that may be needed, …

To sum up the great profits of this voyage, I am able to promise, for a trifling assistance from your Majesties, any quantity of gold, drugs, cotton, mastic, aloe, and as many slaves for maritime service as your Majesties may stand in need of.”

In the short time after Columbus’ arrival the population of what is now known as Haiti, Dominican Republic, and Cuba was reduced from 3 million to 60,000.  The people of these islands died; some to European diseases like small pox and others through genocidal killing and suicide for not being able to secure the gold amounts desired.

Howard Zinn in his text writes[v], “To emphasize the heroism of Columbus and his successors as navigators and discoverers, and to deemphasize their genocide, is not a technical necessity but an ideological choice. It serves—unwittingly—to justify what was done.”

And this has been our stance in the Americas ever since. We called it by many names; Doctrine of Discovery, Manifest Destiny, the Monroe Doctrine, and today American Exceptionalism. It is a part of our narrative that covers up or hides many sins that we have committed as a nation.  And it is this narrative that we teach our children in schools.  America is best.  America is the greatest.  America is the home of the brave and land of the free.  America can do wrong in its eyes.

Of course the question arises, who is this America.  From the earliest days of this republic it was white men who were America. This is a White supremacist narrative that is presented to the world.

Congress in 1790 enacted this law:  All free white persons who have, or shall migrate into the United States, and shall give satisfactory proof, before a magistrate, by oath, that they intend to reside therein, and shall take an oath of allegiance, and shall have resided in the United States for one whole year, shall be entitled to all the rights of citizenship.[vi]

Now in 1790 all the rights of citizenship only pertained to white men who owned property, white women were not granted all the rights of citizenship. And in many states Jews and Catholics were also not granted all the rights of citizenship.  The definition of who was white in America was narrowly determined. Benjamin Franklin gives a definition of whiteness in 1751:  “[vii]That the Number of purely   white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is   black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians,   French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call   a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only   excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People   on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased.”

Today there are texts written entitled How Jews became White Folks and How the Irish became White.  Our narrative as a nation was told from the perspective of Whites as the only sanctioned narrative.  To go against this narrative is considered sedition. That is a strong statement but it is a true statement nonetheless.

Especially if you listen to some of the conservative voices in this country going against the narrative is indeed seditious.  The narrative of America as told is being destroyed by having a Black president.  Te-Nehisi Coates[viii] in his article in Atlantic Monthly proposes that the furor over whether Obama has an American Birth Certificate or proclaiming him to be a Muslim is a means to maintain the white narrative of America.  If Obama is not an American or is a Muslim then he is not really the president of the USA and the white narrative of America is preserved.  There is a photo going around FaceBook of a poster at a Koch Brothers sponsored protest against Occupy New York that reads, “I’m dreaming of a White President just like the ones we use to have…”

Preserve the narrative of America at all costs.  Obey our laws, obey our cultural norms.  Do not disrupt the 550 plus years of white narrative that declares whites as superior over all others.   In 1635[ix], a native person allegedly killed an Englishman in Maryland. The English demanded the native be handed over to them for punishment under English law.  The chief answered how they would handle the native and refused, saying “you are here strangers, and come into our country, you should rather conform yourselves to the customs of our country, than impose yours upon us.”   But to do that would have made the doctrine of discovery invalid.  It would have changed the narrative of supremacy.

Arizona HB2281 which was signed into law and into effect December 2011 banned the teaching of ethnic studies in Arizona schools.  The ethnic studies specifically banned were Latino ethnic studies.  This law states that “School[s] in this state shall not include in its program of instruction any courses or classes that include any of the following:

1. 1.    Promote the overthrow of the United States Government.
2. 2.    Promote resentment toward a race or class of people
3. 3.    Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.
4. Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

At the heart of this ban is a course of studies that were taught at the public schools in Tucson, AZ. Tucson is a community of about 47% Anglo, 42% Latino and the remaining 11% being Black, Native American, or Asian.  In the public school district the demographics change because many whites attend private or charter schools making Latinos to account for 62% of the student population.

The Mexican American Studies program was considered seditious because it taught the history of the indigenous people of the America’s from the perspective of the indigenous people.  History of the indigenous people did not begin in Europe with the Greco and Roman empires but rather with the Aztec’s and Mayan’s.  Columbus’ arrival was not the heroic event that unfurled the ability of Europeans seeking to breathe free but rather as the beginning of an invasion that destroyed civilizations and enslaved and ransacked human and natural resources. It placed the context of the land of Arizona in its thousands of year old histories of a proud people who lived in this land and had its resources taken away from them, first by the Mexican government and then by the United States government. The bumper sticker of the immigrant rights movement, ‘we didn’t cross the border the border crossed us’ is not just a sound bite it is an historic fact of a people living in the southwest.

Theirs is a narrative that highlighted the values of community that holds itself together. The sharing and generosity that Columbus found in the Taino tribe of the Arawak people is not seen as a weakness but as a strength of their heritage.    Yet, it is this ethnic solidarity in a community value that was made illegal by the Arizona law in favor of the strident American individualism. American individualism where the pursuit of capital gain is not to uplift the society but only to increase the privilege and power of the one receiving the gain.  This is not the society that neither Columbus nor any of the Europeans encountered when they arrived on these shores.  Europeans encountered the culture of Iroquois Chief Hiawatha, who said, “[x]We bind ourselves together by taking hold of each other’s hands so firmly and forming a circle so strong that if a tree should fall upon it, it could not shake nor break it, so that our people and grandchildren shall remain in the circle in security, peace and happiness.” A Jesuit priest who encountered the Iroquois wrote, “[xi]No poorhouses are needed among them, because they are neither mendicants nor paupers… their kindness, humanity and courtesy not only makes them liberal with what they have, but causes them to possess hardly anything except in common…”

And while I am not so naïve to think that the native cultures of the America’s was idyllic, these are narratives that need to be incorporated into the American narrative as a whole in order to sort out and sift the wheat from the chaff.  There are aspects of cultures found right here in these lands that could aid in the redemption of the American narrative that has spawned centuries of white supremacy and violent racism against others.

The Mexican American Studies program was one of those programs that sought American redemption through the telling of a history from the perspective of the native people’s point of view.  These students have the potential to contribute to our society if they are given the tools to understand where they fit in the narrative of this country.  They get to begin to rewrite that narrative to include their achievements, their cultural contributions.

The high school drop out rate of Latino’s nationally hovers around 56%.  The Tucson school district after implementing their Mexican American Studies program found the drop out rate decrease to 2.5% in the school district. Tucson students who attended this program did better in state exams as compared to their peers in other schools.  The students found that they found a reason why education was important for them to pursue. They discovered that education was relevant to their life experiences.

Clergy in Tucson[xii] wrote a letter in support of the Mexican American Studies program.  They wrote:

“As people of faith, we recognize how important our history and stories are to us. Scriptures are nothing more than the passed down stories of people who wanted their children and their children’s children to remember the ways in which God had moved within their lives and in the course of human history to bring forth freedom from slavery, forgiveness from retribution, love from hate, and grace from sin. The history of the people of faith within sacred scripture has never been the dominant history; our history is not the history of Egypt but the history of the Hebrew slaves, not the history of Babylon but the history of those carried away into captivity, not the history of Herod but the history of a refugee family who had to flee to Egypt, not the history of Rome but the history of a peasant named Jesus and his followers.” The same is true of the Mexican American Studies program; it is a history of a conquered people, the indigenous people of these lands.

Howard Zinn recalls a statement he once read that stated, “[xiii]The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you don’t listen to it, you will never know what justice is.”

Yes, the story the Mexican American Studies program tells is counter to the narrative of this nation but it’s aim is not to raise up people with seditious acts but rather to honor the lives of those lost.  To glean from their stories the richness of their lives and the lessons their lives still have to offer us.

It may come as a bit of surprise to folks that tomorrow has two names as the holiday.  It is Columbus Day, a day in which Alabama anyway, seeks to honor those of Italian heritage. It is also American Indian Heritage Day, a day to honor the contributions of the native peoples from these lands.  It may seem odd that Alabama is only one of a few states and municipalities that honor the native people of this land officially. I hope Alabama gets why honoring Native Americans tomorrow is so important in our country.

This state also continues to honor Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Confederate Memorial Day.  And I think I now get why it is important for Alabama to honor and remember these people from a painful time in our nation’s history when ideologies clashed so brutally.

In order to fully live up to our potential as a people we need to understand our story as a nation. We need to change our narrative to include the fullness of our story; the good, bad, and ugly truths of our story.  It would be easy and it has been easy for parts of our history to fade away because they are too shameful, to painful to face.  We have done this in America.  We have tried to forget the Japanese Interment camps during World War Two. We have tried to forget the turmoil and unrest of the Civil Rights era.  We have tried to forget the brutal murders of sexual minorities like Matthew Shepard and the thousands who commit suicide because their sexual orientation is not viewed acceptable by society. And I am sure there are some of us who would prefer that the Undocumented remain in the shadows of America.

But if this country is to live up to its most sacred creed, then we must do its work to undo white supremacy and white privilege where ever it is established. It does not serve us well, it never ever did.

[i] http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/02/dum-diversas-english-translation.html

[ii] http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2274/where-does-that-1492-ocean-blue-thing-about-columbus-come-from  Poem written by Winifred Sackville Stoner, Jr.

[iii] A People’s History of the United States: 1492 to Present (Howard Zinn)- Highlight Loc. 72-75  | Added on Wednesday, October 03, 2012, 04:41 PM

[iv] http://red-coral.net/Columb.html  from the poem Columbus in the Bay of Pigs by John Curl

[v] A People’s History of the United States: 1492 to Present (Howard Zinn)- Highlight Loc. 214-16  | Added on Friday, October 05, 2012, 01:02 PM

[vi] As found in the article “Fear of a Black President” by Ta-Nehisi Coates http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/fear-of-a-black-president/309064/?single_page=true

[vii] http://www.dialoginternational.com/dialog_international/2008/02/ben-franklin-on.html

[viii] “Fear of a Black President” by Ta-Nehisi Coates http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/fear-of-a-black-president/309064/?single_page=true

[ix] A People’s History of the United States: 1492 to Present (Howard Zinn) – Highlight Loc. 456-60  | Added on Friday, October 05, 2012, 01:39 PM

[x] A People’s History of the United States: 1492 to Present (Howard Zinn)-Highlight Loc 426-31

[xi] A People’s History of the United States: 1492 to Present (Howard Zinn)-Highlight Loc 431-35

[xii] http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2011/06/21/faith-leaders-ethnic-studies-program-is-a-valuable-educational-program

[xiii] A People’s History of the United States: 1492 to Present (Howard Zinn)- Highlight Loc. 252-53  | Added on Friday, October 05, 2012, 01:09 PM

It’s no Exaggeration HB 658 is Mean Spirited

Rep. Micky Hammon stated  before voting to move the revision bill HB 658 out of committee that “Churches need something written in crayon because they exaggerate.”  Exaggerate?

It is not an exaggeration that children of documented immigrants are being bullied in school as a result of passage of HB 56. These are people whom, Rep. Hammon said would have nothing to worry about because they are legal in this country. Yet, here we are, children, legal children of parents with legal status being bullied simply because they are immigrants.  It is not an exaggeration that our neighbors who are legal residents are being harassed by strangers in public arenas for looking like an immigrant. Strangers have accosted them and screamed at them to go home to Mexico. These are people who are born in Alabama but happen to be of brown skin.  Again, people Rep. Hammon said would have nothing to worry about because they are of legal status.  It is not an exaggeration that immigrants, legal status, are followed by police after they leave a Mexican grocery store or restaurant, simply because they are brown.   It is not an exaggeration that immigrants are being called vectors of disease by a radio show host after one case of Hepatitis A was discovered at a Northport fast food restaurant.

These events of racial hatred are all a result of HB 56.  This law supports the creation of a hostile environment not only for Rep. Hammon’s targeted audience for attrition through enforcement but for every immigrant.

During the public hearing for SB 41, Senator Beasley’s bill for repeal, Senator Hank Sanders compared these very experiences to the ones he had as a child growing up before Civil Rights in Alabama.  The fear is palpable and it is real.  Immigrants, US born and documented, do have to worry in Alabama that they may be racially profiled not just by law enforcement but by the average citizens who believe they are doing their citizenship duty.

It is also not an exaggeration to state that Rep. Micky Hammon’s statement reflects a disdain for religious values that guide humane behavior.

Churches, congregations, synagogues, and other houses of religious practice are the holders of the values that a society ought to reflect.  These are values that reflect who we ought to be as a people, as a community, as a state, and as a nation.  Every religion has in their core values the premise of loving your neighbor as yourself.  Every religion has in their core values the honoring and preserving the integrity of the family unit.  Every religion has in their core values the welcoming of strangers.

These values are also not an exaggeration.  They are central to our faith traditions.  We sing about them in our services.  Our weekly readings of the Scriptures reflect these values reinforcing that which we seek to see in the world. We either live these values in our daily lives or we do not.

When these values are contrasted with the values expressed in HB 56 and its revision bill HB 658, it is clear that they conflict with the core message of our faith to welcome the stranger for we too were once strangers  in the land of Egypt.

HB 658 must not be passed into law.  It goes against every core value our religious state proclaims as worthy to be emulated.  That is not an exaggeration, Rep. Hammon, that is the holy truth of who we are called to be.

Conflating Fear with Disease

It is an old story.   We divide those who are different from us by categorizing them as stereotypes. And when those stereotypes are markedly negative; it makes the other, something to be shunned, something to be feared as a threat, something to control, something to be destroyed.  It makes the other into some thing instead of a person with dignity and worth.

It is actually a very dangerous game.  Someone somewhere is going to hear these opinions and decide it is time to make a stand against the other; especially if that someone feels themselves powerless in their own circumstances.  We have seen this scenario before.  The shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, TN was because a man was down and out.  He felt powerless to address his circumstances and he had heard on radio and TV that the blame was to be placed squarely on the liberal politicians in Washington, DC.  He didn’t feel he had a chance to exact revenge on them so he chose a group of people who he felt sure had placed those liberals in power.

So it is with alarm when I heard Leland Whaley of Leland Live on WAPI radio based in Birmingham, AL turn a story about one case of Hepatitis A in Northport, AL into a story about immigrants being vectors of disease.  It was pure speculation on his part.  The employee at the McDonald’s was never identified as being of any specific nationality or race.  Yet, Leland felt duty bound to proclaim immigrants as the cause for this one case of Hepatitis A.  He was “just askin’ ” the questions that no one was asking, he said. This is a disease that can be spread by poor hygiene, as in infected restaurant employees not washing their hands after using the restroom. He implied that immigrants, especially those from south of our border, do not have the hygiene skills to wash their hands after restroom use.  He went on to proclaim that Hepatitis is on the rise in this country and it is directly because of the millions of immigrants who have entered this country from countries like Mexico.

It isn’t true.  Hepatitis A infection rates are not on the rise in this country.  In fact, the health department reported that Hepatitis A is trending downward in this country[i], 90% decline of cases over the last 20 years.  Twenty Years!   And Western Alabama has about one or two cases of Hepatitis A every year. Not exactly an outbreak.  Not exactly something to get all freaked out about.

Leland Whaley further stated that TB rates were on the rise in the US because of immigrants.  Again, this is not true.  TB infection rates are also on the decline in the US.  And rates of infection among Latinos are among the lowest when looking at TB prevalence in ethnic groups in the US.[ii]

Yet, Leland Whaley suggests blame of one case of Hepatitis to an entire population of immigrants and then lumps in TB infections to further denigrate and label a population of people as vectors of disease. This is at best irresponsible journalism.  At worst it is hate-mongering geared towards driving yet another divide between us and them.  In this case the US are white people and the THEM are immigrants.  To make such assertions of a group of people being vectors of disease is to spread fear into the population to keep the focus off the real issues affecting the nation.

Whenever a nation begins to denigrate people living within its borders by associating people with diseases, with crime, with violent behavior that nation begins the path towards displaying the ugly side of humanity.  It is a step towards removing the humanity of these individuals.  When people are no longer seen as human, then it becomes easier to normalize behaviors of denigration and oppression.  It becomes acceptable to round people up like cattle, pass harsh criminal punishments for non-violent offenses, and justify these actions as a public health and safety precaution.   We can then turn our eyes away when self proclaimed crime fighters hunt down an unarmed teenager because the media reporters have already reduced black teens who wear hoodies into violent threats.  Now the media is trying to reduce Latinos into vectors of disease.  How soon will it be until someone comes up with a tried and true method of eliminating alleged vectors of disease?

Leland Whaley owes a public apology to the Latino community in Alabama.  We have already seen far too many times in this country when hateful rhetoric is heard by unstable individuals in this country.  Leland Whaley needs to be held accountable to his rhetoric on Alabama’s airwaves.

---

[i] http://hepatitis.about.com/od/overview/a/numbers.htm

[ii] http://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/statistics/TBTrends.htm

Is The Republican Platform Compatible with Unitarian Universalism?

Republicans traditionally have been a minority in our Unitarian Universalist congregations.  I have generally sought to be tolerant of republican ideology because my grandfather and great grandfather were both republican politicians having served as Town Supervisor and Mayor. Their achievements in these roles are ones I have been proud of and continue to be so.  However, what I have been observing in the  political arena of late is not my Great Grandfather’s or even my Grandfather’s Republican Party, the party of Lincoln.

This has been a very difficult year politically. In a spirit of full disclosure, I am currently a registered Democrat.  I am moving my affiliation to Independent because the values I am also seeing expressed in the Democratic Party are also not my values. However, I am even more uncomfortable with the values I am seeing expressed by the Republican Party.  My discomforts in these two parties lie in my convictions to embody Unitarian Universalist values.

We all  come to this faith from some place on the political spectrum, even those who are born into this faith have a socially constructed political framework in which they operate.  However, if we are serious in engaging our faith as Unitarian Universalists, I do not believe we can stay in the same place we were in when came to this faith. We must engage our political framework with the same fervor that one might engage one’s privilege or racism, as the  political framework in this country is tied into the matrix that supports privilege and racism.  Ours is a transformative faith if we allow it to be so.  While on the one hand, I would want to create a space to allow republican ideals, such as my grandfather and great grandfather expressed them, within our congregation; I am on the other hand increasingly concerned that the platform of the Republican Party is not compatible with our faith values and is in fact dangerous in our desire to dismantle privilege  and racism.

The Democrat party also has its play in seeking to maintain privilege and racism in our country, so  I am not ignoring the incompatible values of this party.  It seems current and past administrations have adopted the policy of democratizing the world by force and ironically are punitive when democracy is spontaneously expressed here at home.  Democracy is one of our Unitarian Universalist principles but it has a caveat attached to it; the right of conscience.  This speaks to me of the freedom for a people to choose their own democracy structure even when it does not support American corporate interests.  American foreign policies have been based on privilege, on a belief of American supremacy, and on the false assumption that America is God’s chosen nation to police the world.  An example of this is the Joint Special Operations Command, or JSOC, the secretive force that assassinated Osama Bin Laden.  Regardless of America’s ethical justification about this particular mission, the JSOC operates through out the world with little to no accountability, not even to the Commander in Chief[i].  This stance of our nation is antithetical to Unitarian Universalist values as I understand them. Both parties are guilty in adhering to values that represent ultimately in sustaining America’s shadows.

However, The Republican Party has expressed an agenda that is anti-woman, anti-worker,  anti- immigrant, anti-religious freedom, anti-elderly, and racist.  I do not understand how any Unitarian Universalist, who is seeking to honor the principles of inherent worth and dignity of every person; Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations; and the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process can in good conscience continue to support a party that is actively working to devolve American society back to a repressive and oppressive era, more reminiscent of 1812 rather than 2012.

Recent laws that have been passed or proposed in our country by our Republican leaders support my thesis.   Several states have passed or are in the process of passing a personhood amendment, where the rights of personhood are conferred at the moment of conception.   This law would make abortions for any reason—be they economic, life preserving, or rape induced–illegal.  It would make many contraceptives illegal because these contraceptives work in preventing the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall and thereby aborting the pregnancy.  Virginia’s republican leaders just passed a bill that would force women who are considering an abortion to have a transvaginal ultrasound[ii], a very intrusive forced procedure.  The republican governor has stated he will sign the bill into law.  In this sense, the Republican Party is legitimizing rape by forcing women to an intrusive, medically unwarranted probe procedure against her will.

The current brouhaha by republicans over health plans requiring contraceptive coverage is being called an attack on religious freedom; however, these proposed laws are an attack on religious freedom by forcing non-believers to adhere to another’s faith dogmas.

Further, a recent hearing on the contraceptive insurance issue[iii] excluded women from testifying on the issue that directly affects them, further proof that the current Republican party is anti-woman.  To quote a banner from an earlier time in our history, “No self -respecting woman should wish nor work for the success of a party that ignores her sex.[iv]”

The Republican Congress majority just voted to not reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act because it has provisions that offer “protections for LGBT individuals, undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse and the authority of Native American tribes to prosecute crimes.”[v] This stance by the Republican Party is against the Unitarian Universalist principle of justice, equity, and compassion in human relations. These laws are incompatible with Unitarian Universalist principles.  These laws are an attempt to return women to an era of bare-foot and pregnant, and therefore to a subservient status of a previous century in order to curtail their freedom and growing power.

In Indiana, the republican senators have introduced a bill  to empower that state to withdraw from Medicare and Medicaid,thereby leaving the elderly, disabled, and the poor who need these services for their own quality of life.   This is an act of war on the marginalized in our country.  This is not a political party that has the interests of its constituents at heart but rather interested in maintaining the privilege of the elite.  This action does not reflect the values of Unitarian Universalism.

It has been said, the greatest threat to any nation is not the threat from abroad but rather the threat from within.  The Republican Party has been active in promoting that this threat exists.  They have chosen to give this threat a name:  the illegal immigrant.  However, factions within the Republican Party have expanded this threat to the immigrant, with or with out documentation[vi].   The laws that have been passed against immigrants, while claiming to be racially unbiased have in fact used race and foreign language usage to be criteria for asking for documentation.  Proof of racism by the Republican Party is in the response of republican legislators in Alabama who refused to see constituents who were Latino at a recent lobbying day sponsored by Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice.  White constituents were allowed in to see their legislators but when the white constituents wanted to include their Latino friends, the Latinos were denied access[vii].  There have been republican attempts to pass legislation to prove presidential nominees are birthright[viii] American citizens which is a racist response to the Obama presidency. No amount of legitimizing the concern can convince me that these legislative moves are not racially motivated.

The Republican Party is anti-LGBT.  The Republican Party has publicly endorsed their opposition to same gender[ix] marriage[x], gays in the military[xi], adoption by gay parents[xii], and support for protecting anti-gay bullies,[xiii] and support for the discrimination against gays.[xiv]  The Unitarian Universalist Association has since 1970[xv] fought for the inclusion of sexual minorities in the citizenship of this country.  This anti-gay stance by the Republican Party is in direct opposition to Unitarian Universalist values of inherent worth and dignity of every person.

The Republican Party is anti-worker.  Unitarian Universalists since our consolidation of our two denominations have made strong resolutions for worker rights and economic justice[xvi].  The Republican Party however has opposed worker [xvii]rights and worker [xviii]organization by passing bills[xix] that diminish [xx] labor[xxi] protections  and the worker’s ability to survive economically.  Again, these measures by the Republican Party go fully against the positions that Unitarian Universalists have consistently made at General Assemblies for the past 50 plus years.  Passing legislation that would create and enforce an extreme power imbalance between worker’s rights and corporate interests flies in the face of our principle for justice, equity, and compassion in human relations.

For these reasons, I have concluded that the Republican Party platform as it stands now is antithetical to being Unitarian Universalist.  One simply cannot live Unitarian Universalist values and remain to be a Republican in this day and age.  I realize this will be seen as an offensive statement to those who identify as Unitarian Universalist Republicans but if you are still reading, I would encourage you to contrast your values to the values of the Republican Platform.  The number of  incompatible positions by the Republican Party are far too many to overlook to enable Unitarian Universalists to assent to its platform.   I recognize that there are some aspects of the Republican Platform that a Unitarian Universalist could easily assent to but in my mind they have become too few in order for a Unitarian Universalist engaged in embodying our principles to live in harmony with Republican values.

---

[i] http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/02/jsoc-ambinder/

[ii] http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/14/gop-controlled-virginia-legislature-passes-two-of-the-most-restrictive-anti-abortion-bills-in-the-nation/

[iii] http://twitpic.com/8kqt00

[iv] https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=345989135435714&set=a.313440945357200.79095.111174925583804&type=3&theater

[v] http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/15/425816/grassley-takes-straight-domestic-violence-victims-hostage-to-lash-out-at-gay-victims-and-immigrants/?mobile=nc

[vi] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/anti-legal-immigration-ad_n_1276284.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

[vii] http://www.acij.net/press/hundreds-rally-pray-and-lobby-repeal-hb-56

[viii] http://www.salon.com/2011/03/02/obama_states_birther_legislation/

[ix] http://qsaltlake.com/2011/11/21/gop-presidential-hopefuls-attack-gay-marriage-in-debate/

[x] http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135439994/republicans-mount-defense-of-anti-gay-marriage-law

[xi] http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/06/13/244431/five-gop-presidential-candidates-would-reinstate-dont-ask-dont-tell/

[xii] http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/02/anti-gay-apoption-bill-advances-in-va.html

[xiii] http://wonkette.com/459543/tennessee-gop-wants-law-to-protect-anti-gay-bullies-from-persecution

[xiv] http://peoplesworld.org/business-group-pushed-tennessee-to-pass-anti-gay-bill/

[xv] http://www.uua.org/lgbt/history/185789.shtml

[xvi] http://www.uua.org/statements/topics/8029.shtml

[xvii] http://www.ibew.org/articles/11daily/1112/111209_NLRB.htm

[xviii] http://www.npr.org/2012/02/09/146595736/arizona-lawmakers-target-public-workers-unions

[xix] http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20111209/BENEFITS02/112090302/

[xx] http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/nj_employee_benefits_commissio.html

[xxi] http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/08/421510/new-hampshire-gop-repeal-lunch/

Legal but not Moral

” It’s not a moral issue at all- it’s an issue of legality,”  wrote a commenter on an earlier post. This person wrote further attempting to argue his point.  It is an interesting comment but one that holds very little water.  If obeying the laws of the land were the only determinant of what is moral and just, then this writer has some merit in his argument.  However, there are many laws that have been passed by the US government in its 235 year history that have been legal and immoral.

And there are many examples in other governments where what is legal has not been what is moral.  But let’s just look at American history at the legal laws have been passed that have been immoral.  The laws that were passed that removed the indigenous people from their homelands were immoral.  The laws that enslaved a people were immoral, including the laws that required slaves to show their papers, giving them the right to be away from the plantation, to any white person they met on the road. (Does this sound familiar?)  The laws that banned the vote from non-landholders, women, and blacks.  The laws that sent the CIA, our soldiers, and trained militants from the School of the Americas  (SOA) into combat to destabilize governments in Central and South America (Nicaragua, Columbia, Guatemala, Chile, and Argentina as examples). And laws that then will not grant amnesty to the refugees of these countries because we are allies with the SOA trained dictators.  Laws that banned  interracial  marriage and same gender marriage.  Laws that banned races and genders of people from access to education and employment opportunities. All very legal, but not very moral.

Morality has to do with how we are with one another.  Morality is expressed in how we treat other people.  So when actions are coercive against another, that is considered to be immoral.  The laws that demean another being; whether female, or of another race, or ethnicity, or nationality are also considered to be immoral. Jim Crow laws of the 20th century while very legal were not moral because they went against the very fabric of all of our religions’ tenets that teach us to treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated.

It is therefore deemed as immoral those actions that are done against another that are not of the person’s fault.  Therefore the laws that deport children who were brought here as young children is seen as immoral because to deport them means removing them from the only culture and, in some cases, the only language that they know. The laws targeting children by checking their citizenship status before attending school  and placing families at risk in defiance of Federal law of education regardless of status are immoral.  Deporting young people into Mexico who only speak English and know nothing of that country other than it is the country of their parents is immoral.  Actions that attack the family unit are seen as immoral.  When mothers and/or fathers are deported and children are made wards of the state, this as in immoral act against the family.

The Federal law regarding immigration is an immoral  law. One such federal law, The Secure Communities Act that instead of targeting violent criminals who are here without documentation is targeting the undocumented that if they were able to enter the country legally would make the ideal citizen. But our federal process is racist, convoluted, arduous, decades long to complete, and outrageously expensive. The process itself is immoral and unjust.

The states passing their own versions of attrition through enforcement laws are also immoral laws.   Landlords become accomplices to ICE  by having to check residency papers before being able to rent to people of their choice.  States are targeting churches and domestic violence shelters who transport people to their services, which under these laws are being charged with felonies for human trafficking and harboring undocumented.  These laws are immoral because they limit civil and religious liberties.

Employers are being mandated to use E-Verify, an employment data base that only is able to screen 46% of the workplace with any sort of accuracy. This system does nothing to intercept those engaged in identity theft. Citizens are being told they are not legal in the US to work and are losing their employment. And while a first denial has a limited time window to check for errors, employers are simply denying employment rather than do the legwork to verify the information as correct.  Employees are not being told why they are being let go.  The process is seriously flawed and creates an unjust system that harms peoples ability to support themselves.

The federal and state laws addressing immigration have to be reformed.  There needs to be a humane process for acquiring citizenship in this country.  It can be done and it can be done in a manner that is morally and ethically sound.

Yes, it may be very legal to pass such laws.  But at some point, one has to make a decision as to which law one will obey.  The laws of the land or the laws of conscience that guide our behaviors in how we treat our human family.  I will obey the laws of conscience.  My faith demands that of me.  What does your faith demand of you?

Text of presentation at SB 256 Public Hearing

Senate Bill 256 section two opens with this statement, “The state of Alabama finds that illegal immigration is causing economic hardship and lawlessness in this state.” I would like to know on what evidence does the state of Alabama make this assumption.

Here are the facts, The Congressional Budget Office in 2007 determined, “Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use.”  This does not indicate economic hardship.   The law advocacy group, Alabama Appleseed, found data that stated that immigrants in Alabama account for 4.9 Billion dollars in state revenue in 2009.  This also does not indicate economic hardship.

So what about lawlessness.  Since 1980 both violent and property crime rates have dropped nationwide according to the US Census Bureau.  But let’s look more closely at Alabama with data from the FBI. In 1980, Murder rates were at 13.2 per 100,000 and in 2009, 6.9 per 100,000.  Rape, robbery, aggravated assault remained roughly the same between 1980 and 2009.

What about the numbers of immigrants nationwide—in 1980 1-16 people was an immigrant, in 1990, 1-13 and in 2007 1-8 were immigrants. This data is from Center for Immigration Studies.   In Alabama, we know that according to the US census, the immigration population in 1990 was 1.1%.  It grew to 2% in 2000 and to 4% in 2010.  So if immigrants were indeed causing an increase in lawlessness, then their increasing numbers might be found to correlate with an increasing number of crimes but this is not the case.  What does show a possible correlation to crime rates is the increase of the poverty rate in Alabama from 14.6% in 2000 and 16.6% in 2010.

The State of Alabama has not proven its case that immigrants, documented or undocumented are causing either economic hardship or increased lawlessness.  What the state of Alabama has proved by this bill is that it is scapegoating the economic woes of Alabama on the backs of immigrants instead of addressing the real cause of its problems which is a corrupt tax code that deliberately privileges corporations and the wealthy and over burdens the working class and poor.

The result of this will be economic suicide.  Alabama may succeed to drive out our immigrant population because of the racial profiling and harassment that will ensue resulting in all of our businesses losing the 4.9 Billion dollars in revenue this group of hard working, decent people contribute annually.

You were elected to create jobs so that Alabama can thrive but this hardhearted, and dare I say, arrogant bill will instead destroy Alabama.  Do not go down this immoral and unjust path, Alabama’s people deserve better from you. You are better than this.

 

When We Assume or Update on Public Hearing SB 256

Tuesday was the day for Alabama’s Senate to hold their public hearing on their version of the Arizona style immigration bill, SB 256.  This public hearing had a different feel than the house version of this bill.  It was located in a small cramped room of standing room only.   The senators instead of just listening to comments made their own comments in response.  It was these comments that were most telling regarding the mindset behind this bill.

All of the speakers who spoke to this bill spoke in opposition. Shay Farley of Alabama Appleseed confronted the assumptions that are written directly into the bill’s language.  It was the direction I would be going in my presentation as well when my turn to speak came.   She spoke directly to the assumption that “illegal immigrants” are the cause of lawlessness and economic hardship.  The responses from Senator Scofield and another senator whose name escapes me were of the anecdotal stories of gangs, of property values decreasing because of overcrowding, the costs to schools for Spanish translators where the population is 20%  immigrants, and of hospitals not being able to recoup full costs from births of immigrants.   Anecdotal stories based on assumptions that if “illegal immigrants” were rounded up and deported then gangs would disappear, overcrowding of housing would cease, the need for Spanish translators would no longer exist, and hospitals’ maternity wards would be paid in full.  Ms. Farley countered that hospitals are mandated by federal law to provide services regardless of immigrant status. Once the child is born they are citizens thereby making hospitals eligible for full reimbursement.  The senator responded that if the immigrants simply were not here in the first place the hospital would not have to worry about full or partial reimbursement.

There is another narrative that could be applied to these anecdotal stories. That narrative is one of extreme poverty but to apply this narrative would require a different solution where tax codes are revised so that corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes in the state enabling reinvestment into communities where poverty reigns supreme.   But in this state of Alabama where white privilege is institutionalized in its constitution, it is going to take more than retelling the story of immigrants.

The assumption that if 20% of a student population speaks Spanish then that same 20% must be here illegally or born to parents who are here illegally is a false assumption.  The senator stated that if these illegal immigrants were removed then the school could hire more teachers instead of having to pay for translation services.  It is a huge assumption that 20% native Spanish speaking children in a school equals 20% undocumented children.  How would the school district or the state for that matter  accomplish the removal of these students so that there would no longer be any need for the nine translators the senator stated this school now employs?

It is quite simple of course.  Begin by stopping every driver who appears to be of foreign descent.  Now it could be for legal reasons such as driving over the speed limit or failure to use turn signals but it might also be for such minor infractions like a cracked tail light.  Create laws that require every aspect of the immigrant’s  life is spent proving their right to be here.  Every new job, every new rental, every new medical procedure, every minor infraction, every time  a ride is hitched to work, every time a church provides transportation to attend worship, every time a driver’s license is renewed, every time a marriage license or a hunting license is sought, every time children are enrolled into school or college ; the immigrant is there proving their right to exist. This proposed legislation impinges on all of these aspects of life in this state and creates felonies for all who refuse to comply to it.  This is legal harassment.

The assumption that “illegal immigrants” are receiving services that they do not deserve is strong.  And since the state cannot know who is or is not here illegally, every one who is of reasonable suspicion is stopped. It is no longer about removing undocumented people, it is about removing immigrants from the state.

A young woman spoke and stated that she is the face of immigrants in the state.  She stated that her parents became citizens through the immigration act of 1986.  The opportunities created for her family has enabled her to pursue her doctorate  but because she is Latino she will be targeted under this legislation. By her looks  alone  it will be assumed that she is undocumented.  Senator Sanford replied that all she needs to do is show her driver’s license and be on her way as if the indignity of being targeted again and again is that easily resolved.  He added that he appreciates her putting a face to immigrants in the state but hers was not the face this bill is targeting.  Senator Sanford does not get it.  His response was smug and arrogant.  His response implied that he could tell what the face of an undocumented person looks like in Alabama.   How many times will a police officer see her brown skin and then create a reason to check her out?  How many time will this happen before she decides Alabama is no longer a safe place for her because of institutionalized white supremacy and privilege?

Assumptions about the anecdotal stories is what is driving this bill.  Not facts.  Not concrete data.  But assumptions on the anecdotes.  Assumptions that are developed through the lens of a constitution that was never dismantled and discarded after the civil rights movement struck many of its provisions federally unconstitutional.  A constitution that still declares itself to be a white supremacist document and still institutionalizes white privilege through out the state.  The white senators do not get it.  They sat there and in the face of facts and in the face of evidence that proved their assumptions wrong, they smugly stated they were in the right.

I will post the text of my presentation in a separate post.

Where fools rush in…

Mississippi state legislature is rushing to pass SB 2179, a copy cat law of the controversial SB 1070 that went into effect in Arizona on July 29, 2010.  Rushing to pass legislation is a huge red flag that something is amiss in this proposed law.  Good legislation does not need to be rushed through.  Good legislation can take its time to bear up under the scrutiny of debate and democratic process.

It is only bad legislation that needs to be passed quickly in order to squelch the questions that are raised regarding it.  And this bill has all the earmarks of an unjust law that will cause unnecessary  heartache and economic disaster for Mississippi.   Lt. Governor Bryant has already stated publicly that he wants to “scare Latinos out of Mississippi.”  He has not minced words on how racist his opinion is about Latinos.   This law will indeed scare Latinos.   Latinos who are here legally will be negatively impacted by this law.

And for those who argue that if a person does not break the law,  they have nothing to worry about,  is in denial of Mississippi’s own racist treatment of African Americans in years past.  Law abiding African Americans also should have had nothing to fear in the mid-20th century but they were harassed and falsely arrested and accused at every turn.   Here the proposed law states if it is “reasonably believed”  that the person may have committed an act that would cause their deportation they can be arrested without warrant.  What might constitute reasonable belief?  Speaking Spanish?  Participating in day labor because unemployment rates are high and this is the only paying gig in town?

Arizona’s economy has suffered a serious blow after its passage of SB 1070 and not because of any boycott but that estimate alone is $141 million in just four months after the law passed.  Latino’s have left that state taking with them disposable income that supported apartment complexes, restaurants, mom & pop stores, and a host of other businesses have failed since they passed their racist law.   Arizona’s Latinos purchasing power in 2009 was $30.9 billion annually.  Latino owned businesses in Arizona had sales and receipts totally $4.3 Billion.

Mississippi cannot afford to turn away businesses in the state.  They need the revenue.  They cannot afford to close down businesses that are caught hiring undocumented citizens.  Imagine the devastating economic  impact if the Howard Industries ICE raid were to happen after the passage this bill.

Immigration is a complex issue.  There needs to be rational discussion on how to address it.  To rush in and pass this bill is to repeat the shameful behavior that Mississippi participated in the past.  This bill does not serve the good people of Mississippi well.  It needs to be defeated.