I guess it's ok because - you know - um....

[groovychk]

The 28,000 residents of Maywood, CA – a small town of just over one mile square that proudly proclaims itself 96% Hispanic – are experienced at defending themselves from oppression. The "Maywood revolution" began last fall, when residents rose up against their police chief, who routinely had used roadblocks to confiscate the vehicles of undocumented immigrants and sell the cars for public revenue. Maywoodians threw out their city council and mayor in the November elections, an election in which nearly 100% of eligible voters cast ballots, and replaced them with representatives who promptly disbanded the police traffic division,demanded an audit of LAUSD, denounced the Sensenbrenner anti-immigrant resolution (this comment here turns this "news" article into a biased editorial), endorsed drivers licenses for all residents, and proclaimed Maywood a sanctuary city, where the police would no longer check immigration or citizenship status.
----


At first read it leaves me speechless.
But only for a little bit.
WTF? then comes to mind.
This is flat out rebellion. And since so many of the "citizens" of that city are foreign nationals - it makes it an invasion.
The idiot, racists, fundie dumbasses that organize the protests against such things are taking away from the reality of it being a bad thing.
The SOS are idiots granted - but look at the facts being presented in the rest of the article.
Respect the laws of the fucking country you live in! It is not your fucking country because you have illegally come over en mass and now constitute a majority of the town you've chosen to invade.

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/08/176057.php?theme=default

It's time to move in the National Guard and clean that town the fuck up.


Raising the flag of Mexico over a US Post Office in Maywood, California

Comments

[dualkarnain.livejournal.com]

:*

[groovychk.livejournal.com]

I wonder if we are ever gonna do anything. Seems like it's just gonna "happen".

[(Anonymous)]

Didn't we take/steal that land from them back in 1846?

[groovychk.livejournal.com]

No. We didn't steal the frigging land. And you don't get off the hook by saying it was just a question.
Assuming your semantic interpretation of events is correct - what is your brilliant answer??
And of course - if we are going to give things back because they are "stolen" then we need to all go back to africa or wherever it was that hominid apes started - since we "stole" the rest of the planet from the creatures already living here. Or maybe we should just all leave the planet. Or wait!! Mabe there's a time limit on thievery of land? Give me a break - that is the stupidest comment I've seen in my journal in awhile.

[(Anonymous)]

So what should define land ownership, how do we also propagate that rule/law/belief to the middle east. Simply having staked a flag on a land used to make it yours, by having both their feet on that ground could make it theirs.

If they had big enough guns, couldn't they just step into California and call it theirs again?

So we won the land during a war, not much a difference from stealing wouldn't you say? One uses force, the other doesn't. But the simple fact is that they used to live on that land and call it theirs until we rolled in.

If we were to share the 'land', could we manage to make it work in this different way?

blah.

[groovychk.livejournal.com]

"They" didn't live on the land. "They" never did.
Ancestors of theirs might have. Ancestors of a lot of people in the US. Even people who don't call themselves hispanic or even know of any Mexican heritage.
How do we propogate it to the middle east? If they can't settle it with law or money - use force. I don't particularly care. I don't live there. And it isn't our job to fix it.

[(Anonymous)]

And now what is a border, is it something that restricts the beliefs, thoughts and membership of a group of people by simply being painted on the ground, or is it something that is defined around such a group dynamically.

At the simplistic level, borders = taxes = infrastructure, so if you're part of the group you pay the taxes and have access to the infrastructure.

Whether they are legal or not, laws are relative and Arnie could, at the stroke of a pen, make them all legal. Yeah a few people might be unhappy and revolt, but then they are the ones that would be sent to jail for doing illegal things during their protests.....

So, then, is an increasing amount and complexity of technology something to wish for when we can't even get along with our sticks and stones?

[groovychk.livejournal.com]

Arnie couldn't at the stroke of a pen make them legal. He's not the ultimate authority on whether or not they can be granted citizenship. If you are here in defiance of the law of the land then go home. You have a country - go back to it. This is not communist wonderland. I don't owe you anything.
Laws are civilization. Without them we are pure animals. We will never get better as a species if we are constantly sinking to the lowest common denominator.
If you want to come and invade my country and my culture you damn well better have something better to offer than a big ass step backwards. If your culture and your language and your way of life was so gaddamn good that you have to continue it here - then you shouldn't be wanting to be here. Go home.
And a big Yes on increasing technology - it's the only thing that might help us. Or at least keep us from dying all in one basket. Luddites are actively courting extinction.

[groovychk.livejournal.com]

And if they had big enough guns they would. But they don't - so they invade subversively.

[(Anonymous)]

so why be angry at them, at least they're doing it peacefully :)

[groovychk.livejournal.com]

Because unlike thought experiments about past "wrongs" - this is the present and this is my country. I happen to believe in our culture and the foundations of this country.

[(Anonymous)]

hmmmm, interesting