Sovereignty of a State

First, Happy Cinco de Mayo! I love Danny Trejo, it's no secret. And he has a special Cinco de Mayo message for you. (Apparently copyright laws have removed access to the video I posted here, but definitely check out the trailer for Machete through the above link).

All of this oppressive state-based legislation has got me thinking...Would these states be able to survive if they were a sovereign nation that did not fall under the protective umbrella of the United States? We have all heard it, California is broke. But of what consequence is that, really? The US has always got it's back, and no matter what the financial woe is, how much misfortune can really befall a state that is part of the US?

Now, I think about Arizona. SB 1070, in addition to being a racist measure, is financially going to screw the state if it works out. It is funny how economic interests are being posited as one of the motivations behind this legislation, because frankly, perhaps it is the influx of illegal immigrants taking unnaturally low-paying jobs that is keeping Arizona financially afloat in the first place. If this law is to pass, I am wondering A) if it could actually ever be "effective" in curbing illegal immigration, B) how they would measure such "effectiveness," and C) how it would really affect the state in the long-run. But even if this law becomes practice in Arizona, and it ends up hurting them financially, will it really hurt the state deep down? If Arizona were a sovereign nation, what would come out of all of this? I am thinking financial ruin might have something to do with it. But luckily the big bad US can protect all of its children from actually ever failing, so even though Cali can go broke, it is of no real consequence, is it not? I see a dissertation in the making: Can states make policies that are not in their best interest as a political move and not be negatively affected in many ways because they are a part of the US?

Luckily, many people agree that the law won't hold any water when it comes down to being put into practice. It is being called "constitutionally troubling," and I have heard that foreign policy matters do not fall under state jurisdiction. And basically, when you make a law that calls for police to detain people because of "reasonable suspicion" without defining what constitutes "reasonable suspicion," yeah, people are not going to let that fly.

And on a final note. In light of the anti-woman/choice/medicine legislation recently passed in Oklahoma, is it any surprise that some OK legislators are getting a proverbial boner over the idea of following suit with Arizona's SB 1070? Unfortunately, other states (like Ohio) are also considering similar moves. Thankfully, Ted Strickland has already said he would never sign such a measure. But read on in the article, because it looks as though there is still a looming threat.

WTF AZ?

I have been putting the finishing touches on my thesis. The concluding remarks I am adding at this point are more of a reflection of the "idea" of Latin America (to use Mignolo's phrase). One of my main closing arguments is that San Diego is Latin America, and thus belongs rightly as a space studied for a Latin American Studies thesis along with its sister city of Tijuana. (Although perhaps it would be more accurate to say that "Latin America" in itself is a problematic construction and concept invented to be a distinction between the "two worlds" of the Americas. Shit, I don't even believe in the concept or use of Latin America anymore and I am about to have a degree in "Latin American Studies").

In my conclusion I discuss how nationality was not used as an identifier for my informants because national identity becomes fluid for many inhabitants of the US-Mexico borderlands. I argue that by highlighting politically and socially constructed borders, the US practices a continued colonization of Mexico. By reinforcing what makes "Us" different from "Them," one group posits itself as superior. I just finished writing about how labeling individuals of the borderlands as "Mexican" or "American" is inappropriate in an area where many are likely to have more in common with someone on the other side of the border than their own.

But just as I am writing all of this into my conclusion, Arizona governor Jan Brewer signs a bill that legalizes racial profiling in the state in order to combat illegal immigration. Pardon my spit take. Alicia Mendez sums up some of the details and problems with this bill here. This is scary business, folks. To begin, the probable future of racial/ethnic/(lingual?) profiling in Arizona that will come about as a result of this measure is sickening. How can you tell if someone is an illegal immigrant, meriting probable cause to ask for proof of citizenship? Well I'll tell you one thing, I won't be stopped on the Arizona streets anytime soon due to SB 1070. So we can cross off gingers (daywalkers?) off the suspicion list... But what confuses me more than ever is the contradiction present in the conservative agenda here. Tea partiers are all up in arms because they think their freedoms are being taken away, right? Less government control, they say. And yet, they agree with a measure that will make it so that every Arizona citizen may have to carry around papers that confirm your legal residence in the US. And if you don't have that information at hand you can be detained. (Not if you are Anglo, though).

And one more thing...Are we forgetting the history of Mexico and the US Southwest?
I feel like I am in a weird time warp. What's next? I am officially scared about the direction things have been going lately. This climate of fear has a lot of people spring loaded and ready to pounce. And those people have guns.

It is at times like this that I need to take a deep breath, remember the teachings of Leslie Marmon Silko's Almanac of the Dead, and hope that I am not left to befall the same fate as the Destroyers.

Update 04.27: I love that Mexico has responded with a travel advisory for Mexicans traveling to Arizona. "Although details on how the law will be enforced remain unclear, the ministry said, 'it must be assumed that every Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time.'"