Saturday, February 11, 2012 8:03am EST
Make this your Home Page | RSS 
I'm all for Black/Brown coalitions...but what about the Supreme Court?
Pamela D. Reed | Posted May 9, 2010 12:02 AMJoel Dreyfuss, editor at The Root.com recently penned the article, "Why Blacks Should Be Outraged at Arizona's Immigration Law?" Mr. Dreyfuss observes that "Black Americans have not turned out in large numbers at immigration rallies, despite the fact that many African-American politicians talk of the need for coalitions with Hispanics."
And his is only one of any number of similar articles by African American journalists and/or activists, making me quite reflective in recent days. Many, many questions are bubbling in my brain--competing alongside my fixation on the upcoming Supreme Court (SCOTUS) nomination. I'll just share some of them here.
For starters, have Latinos "turned out in large numbers" in support of African American causes? Ever? Moreover, do Latino politicians "talk of the need for coalitions" with African Americans? Ever?
And with regard to the SCOTUS, would Latinos support the petition urging President Obama to nominate a Black woman to the SCOTUS? Moreover, if an African American woman were to be tapped for the high court, would Latino organizations write to their memberships, urging them to contact their senators to ensure her confirmation, as my beloved Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. did in support of the Sotomayor nomination?
Returning, however, to the Arizona immigration law, I see the potential for racial profiling--if its application is abused.
Dr. Christopher J. Metzler, international human rights law expert and Associate Dean, Georgetown University School of Continuing Studies believes that "opponents of the law should express their opposition of the potential for abuse, not the law itself. While there are many things to challenge in the law, labeling it a racist law is not a winning argument."
And there's just no getting around the fact that securing the Mexican border is a very real problem. Few would argue this point. But some do, most notably Temple University author and professor of African American Studies, Dr. Ama Mazama.
"This is their land, to begin with, asserts Mazama, and it is quite ironic that Europeans would use humiliating and questionable techniques to dispossess them once again of their right to be here. If anything, they should receive an apology and reparations for the wrong that was done to them not so long ago, and for the wrong that is being done to them again today. Furthermore, one must question what is really going on here: are Europeans afraid that they are losing ground because of their low birth rates, and might be overwhelmed demographically by the indigenous people?"
No matter your perspective, clearly, there is a real conundrum here and hard decisions will have to be made.
Let me be absolutely clear here. It is absolutely wrong to randomly stop people in the streets based solely on their race or nationality. For example, if Arizona law enforcement officials were to set up checkpoints seeking documentation from all Latinos, this would be outright racial profiling, which is insidious and specious.
On the other hand, if there is a valid reason for a police stop, like a traffic violation, then I don't see a problem with Arizona police officers asking for proof of citizenship/residency, which is what the controversial new law actually allows.
Metzler reads the statute similarly. "There is nothing in the text of SB1070 (the Arizona immigration law) that gives law enforcement officials unfettered authority to stop, question, arrest, and detain any individual they suspect may be in the U.S. illegally."
"The law allows questions of citizenship to be raised by law enforcement only if a person has been detained because they are suspected of a crime or a violation of the law, such as a traffic violation. In other words, the stop must first be legal," adds Metzler.
Granted, there may still be valid issues with the law; however, we must find a way to address illegal immigration. And if one has proof of citizenship, why not just show it? Or, as Stanley Crouch colorfully asserts in a discussion on overcoming America's racial barriers, in the documentary Ralph Ellison: An American Journey, "If you got the grits, serve 'em."
It's not like requiring a literacy test to vote--as was routine in the disenfranchisement of African Americans during Jim Crow. Nor is it, like some have suggested, comparable to the "slave passes" that were required for enslaved Africans to "legally" go anywhere alone. After all, my enslaved African ancestors--brought here through forced immigration--would have loved nothing more than to return to our African homeland.
I mean, could somebody please tell me, how can there be any realistic resolution of the immigration dilemma if, at some point, IDs are not checked?
Personally, I think that the application of the Arizona law bears watching...however, I think most of the uproar is political. And please know that I'm not mad at my Latino brothers and sisters for exercising their political muscle. I'm just saying...
Finally, I wonder if there would be such an outcry if Florida were to suddenly pass a law requiring that all Haitian immigrants prove citizenship--or, say, all African immigrants in New York--as Mexicans must in Arizona. Would Latinos rush to form Black/Brown coalitions and take to the streets in solidarity with their darker brethren? (Disclaimer: And, Lord knows, I'm all for Black/Brown coalitions. I just want them to be reciprocal).
Moreover, would Latino organizations suddenly boycott the offending states, as the Alphas did by cancelling their national convention in Phoenix (reportedly forfeiting over $300,000 in fines and penalties)? And would the NY Knicks or Miami Heat even notice the situation, let alone wear special jerseys in solidarity, as did the Phoenix Suns on Cinco de Mayo?
Dr. Boyce Watkins, Syracuse University finance professor, has similar concerns, saying "what must also be noted is that all of the energy that the [Phoenix] Suns are willing to put behind this protest for the Latino community has never been shown for the African-American community. For some reason, the black men wearing athletic uniforms have almost no willingness to speak out in the name of their fellow African-Americans wearing prison uniforms."
And, moreover, while our anointed African American leaders are taking to the streets in Arizona, President Obama is about to nominate his second Supreme Court Justice--and so far, not one of the supposed African American contenders has even been granted an interview. But do Black (and Latino) politicians, activists and Greek letter organizations even care? And would they publicly support the petition urging President Obama to nominate an African American woman?
Based on their response so far--or lack thereof--not so much...
An earlier version of this article appeared at Diverse Issues in Higher education.com.
Dr. Pamela D. Reed is a cultural critic, public speaker, and associate professor of African-American literature and English Composition at Virginia State University. Her self-published collection of essays on Barack Obama, Race and American Culture is forthcoming this fall.
-
NEWS UPDATES
- Marja Vongerichten Talks Kimchi Chronicles (0 comments)
- ( comments)
- ( comments)
- ( comments)
- ( comments)
-
the pilates biz commented on How black voters took on the Clinton machine:
Wedding pics are always my favorite. So pretty. So happy....
-
Chykar commented on Kola Boof On Bin Laden's Death:
Well... I really don't know wat to say, she sounds like she went thru ? lot at the hands of Mr Psyc...
-
thepilatesbiz commented on The Reverse Bradley Effect:
so i think that a bit of respect for the marathon distance comes in the knowing....
-
Cecil Jones commented on Why we can't support Chris Brown:
Chris Brown has not shown the world his ability to love someone other than himself properly. We ca...
-
pletcherzam commented on Maya Angelou speaks out for Obama:
It should seem obvious that the processes that drive a cell through the cell cycle must be highly r...
Mark Allen
John Amaechi
Maya Angelou
Crystal McCrary Anthony
Patricia Arnold
Algernon Austin
Randall Bailey
Rick Blalock
Kola Boof
Keith Boykin
Mario Brossard
Michael Brown
Theresa Caldwell
Clay Cane
Jasmyne Cannick
Charisse Carney-Nunes
Audrey Chapman
Gordon Chambers
Staceyann Chin
Mark Corece
Gilda Daniels
Yvonne R. Davis
Terrance Dean
Marcia Dyson
Damon Evans
M. Franklin
Lenora Fulani
Ron Glover
Keli Goff
Peter Gomes
Deondray Gossett
Kia Gregory
Zulema Griffin
Malcolm Harris
Marc Lamont Hill
Alicia Hines
Dennis R. Holmes, M.D
Earl Ofari Hutchinson
Jessica Ingram-Bellamy
Jacqueline Jackson
Avis Jones-DeWeever
Quincy Lenear
Carl Lewis
Rae Lewis-Thornton
Shannon J. Love
Rod McCullom
Terry McMillan
M.W. Moore
Alphonso Morgan
Nicholas Nelson
Clarence Nero
Charles Ogletree
Spencer Overton
Shirley Parker
Deval Patrick
Charles Pugh
Anwar Robinson
Eugene S. Robinson
Rashad Robinson
Mark Sawyer
Tara Setmayer
Rev. William Sinkford
Alexander Smalls
Basil Smikle
Nadine Smith
Doug Spearman
John Stanley
Jamal Story
Ronald Sullivan
David Dante Troutt
Omar Tyree
Linda Villarosa
Dorian Warren
Isaiah Washington
Robin Washington
Diane Weathers
Reg Weaver
Marcia J. Williams
Nathan Hale Williams
Jeff Winbush
Kai Wright



MySpace
flickr
YouTube

2010-05-11 00:24:29
2010-05-11 08:25:09
Like some "dutch" poem said, one day they'll come for you too.
It is sad that "they" dont seem to show support of blacks, but as you agree that the law is open to abuse, well you have to stop it, to the best of your ability. Even if you were not the direct target of the abuse yourself.
Often these rights to protect justice are like a wall of dominoes, when one piece falls the rest follows. It is strategic to protect the first brick from falling off.
You might do this begradgingly, but it must be done. It is unbearable to live in a state that promotes human violations and of a particular group of race.
2010-05-11 08:45:49
2010-05-12 04:18:29
And that has nothing to do with the actions of the said group. It's a personal strategy.
2010-05-12 08:41:02
2010-05-13 08:57:09
I think, for instance, that if we were friends and you had a husband that was not particularly friendly or hostile towards me, I could still support your husband - without reciprocity from him - in circumstances that meant your welfare, as my friend, was enhanced. Because your happiness is what would bring me additional satisfaction.
In this instance, it would be the non abusive State in the future from which reciprocity would come. So, perhaps you are all right that there must be a pay back towards me from somewhere. And what I am proposing is that such pay back is there in the future, although not neccessarily from latino movements. And it is still strategic and for personal gain to support all causes for human justices. The gains may not be immediate, but that's fine.
I think most of environmental issues and causes are based on this type of thinking.
2010-05-13 18:48:41
2010-05-19 22:28:38
2010-05-20 17:53:15
2010-05-21 21:58:05
2010-05-22 18:05:13
2010-05-22 20:20:11
2010-05-22 20:31:37
2010-05-22 20:40:38
2010-05-23 18:45:58
2010-05-24 09:19:36
2010-05-24 09:46:06
2010-05-25 11:47:47
But what about the rest of humanity?
Does not that come into the equation at all when asking questions about sovereingty or migration?
2010-05-25 11:51:19
I know those are core issues around sovereingty and migration.
2010-05-25 13:27:18
2010-05-26 07:01:47
2010-05-26 18:07:11
dont let the language use limitation obscure the intended meaning. that would be legalistic rhetoric and insincere.
2010-05-27 07:39:17
2010-05-27 17:03:44
2010-08-18 20:09:39
2010-08-20 19:52:58
2010-08-27 10:31:58
2010-08-27 12:07:14
2010-08-27 12:16:47
2012-01-02 22:59:17
To see your comment, wait approximately two minutes, then simply refresh the page.
Report issues/abuses to suggestions@thedailyvoice.com