A challenge to my opposition to AZ Immigration law ... and my reply

Friends,

Since beginning to air my outrage at the new Arizona Immigration law, I've gotten a lot of supportive feedback. But there are two sides to every discussion (in this case perhaps many more than two.) Here's one challenge I got via Facebook, and my response. I feel both are worthy of reposting here for a larger audience:

--------------------------------------

Ben,

This is absolutely not true and I cannot believe that you are falling for this, or maybe you are willfully falling for it because it's fashionable to hate Republicans when you're gay. This is not a Hispanic issue at all. Those who do not agree are just as guilty of the racial profiling that will ALLEGEDLY take place. Such statements that brown people are being targeted is inflammatory and completely misguided. You by your statement are just as guilty as perpetuating and fanning the flames of racism as you accuse others of doing so. Sorry, Ben. You know I love ya, but when we disagree, we disagree.

This is a failure of our government to secure its borders from ALL who cross there illegally. And let's get something straight here -- both parties are at fault because it is the intention of the Democratic party to create a social underclass of people who are dependent on entitlements to survive and thus keep them in power in perpetuity through the entitlements that you and I have to pay for! I'm really tired of these politicians and their failed entitlement experiments who keep on asking us to open our wallets wider and wider. Aren't you?

The Republicans are just as bad for not engaging in workplace enforcement. However, if this was a Democratic bill that had passed the Arizona legislature, I am really skeptical that there would be such an uproar from those who feel so victimized now. It's just another cause celebre to give people reasons to hate what you choose not to understand due to your political viewpoint.

Additionally, If you actually read the bill instead of be a willing byproduct of the rhetoric, you'll see that no one is being capriciously stopped and asked for papers. They are only being stopped for suspicion of a crime, such as stealing or robbing a bank, or killing someone. Special Order 40 in Los Angeles does not allow Police Officers to inquire as to immigration status when someone is suspected of committing a crime.

If illegal immigration is so great, then why are private schools having long waiting lists from parents who want to get their children the hell out of LAUSD?

I challenge anyone to watch the movie The Border, produced by Chris Burgard, which is not a propaganda piece and I am willing to debate anyone at any time regarding this matter. I do not hate people of any skin color or of any nationality, but if you're going to be in our country, then you need to obey our laws instead of cutting in line.

And by the way, I am an registered Independent. Both sides need work and neither one wants to budge, so we're all screwed.

James Henson

-------------------------------------------------
And my response:
-------------------------------------------------

Hey Jim,

Thanks for weighing in. A couple of things:

First, there are two distinct issues on the table -- (1) the very real immigration problems facing America and (2) one state's misguided attempt to address these problems.

Number (1) is something we can discuss in the months ahead. I agree -- we are long overdue. But I'm not here having that discussion today. I'm here to not just talk but CRY OUT about issue number (2).

Then we come to your suggestion that I'm misrepresenting or misunderstanding things. Fortunately, in 2010, facts are easy to verify on the Internet via official sources. And in this instance, it is actually you who is factually incorrect. I've read the law thoroughly. I've read a variety of analyses from political minds from across the spectrum. And I've read Wikipedia. Here's the Wiki summary of SB 1070:

The law makes it a state misdemeanor crime for anyone to be unable to prove lawful residence in the United States upon being asked to provide such proof, [8] and requires police to make a reasonable attempt, when practical, to determine immigration status if there is cause to suspect they are illegal immigrants. [9]

This is how I've represented it, while your claim that "nobody is being capriciously stopped" is in direct contrast with the language of the law itself.

You further assert that according to the new law, people "are only being stopped for suspicion of a crime, such as stealing or robbing a bank, or killing someone." I'm not sure where you came up with this, but that represents neither the actual wording nor the practical application of the law.

Let's go straight to source. Here's an excerpt of the law itself. Far from targeting people "killing or robbing a bank," SB 1070 will allow an identity check for something as minor as a burned-out tail light:

From SB 1070 - "NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND THIS SECTION."

Furthermore, anyone stopped for such a suspected violation (again, we're talking a fix-it ticket, not a felony) and unable to produce satisfactory papers, be they American citizens or foreign nationals, will be detained. The overwhelming majority will be Latino heritage. You can call me a racist for pointing out the obvious and seeing parallels to 1920s/30s Germany and South African Apartheid, but I stand by these assertions.

Finally, to lead your post with a suggestion that a tenured human rights activist like me is opposed to this law because "it's fashionable to hate Republicans when you're gay" is a cheap shot and frankly beneath you. It tarnishes the rest of whatever you might have to say.

Thanks for your input in any case! The plurality of perspective is invaluable as we continue this discussion as a nation.

Ben Patrick Johnson

Los Angeles, CA

CHECK MY PAPERS

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up."

- Martin Niemöller

April 26, 2010 (AP) PHOENIX – Gov. Jan Brewer ignored criticism from President Barack Obama Friday and signed into law a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation's busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico.

The legislation ... requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants ... and makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.

With hundreds of protesters outside the state Capitol shouting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said that she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling. Earlier Friday, Obama called the Arizona bill "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal.

"It's going to change our lives," said Emilio Almodovar, a 13-year-old American citizen from Phoenix. "We can't walk to school any more. We can't be in the streets anymore without the pigs thinking we're illegal immigrants."

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund said it plans a legal challenge to the law, arguing it "launches Arizona into a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust ... with nationwide repercussions."

I created this as an avatar and also something that can be printed and worn like a nametag as a conversation starter.

Q - "What does that mean?"

A - "I'm wearing this to protest the new AZ law that will require cops to check papers of anyone they suspect may be illegal. It reminds me of Nazi Germany and the way Jews and homosexuals were treated. They say this won't lead to racial profiling but that's ridiculous."

GEICO VO actor fired for political speech

Here's the story, according to PRWeb:

(Los Angeles, CA) April 21, 2010 -- Los Angeles actor, D.C. Douglas, says he was dropped from the upcoming GEICO "Shocking News" campaign after a group of Tea Party members harassed him and the insurance giant over a private voicemail the actor left for FreedomWorks. Matt Kibbe, President and CEO of FreedomWorks, posted Mr. Douglas' cell phone number in a blog post on biggovernment.com, instructing readers to "Feel free to contact (him)… call his employer too. Let them know that you…are now in the market for car insurance." The next day, GEICO held auditions to replace Mr. Douglas' voice on the campaign.

"I called as a private citizen to make a complaint," explains Mr. Douglas. "Racism and homophobia are my Achilles heal, but unfortunately my message included inappropriate words and I am sorry for that. However, telling their members to harass my employer to get me fired is an egregiously disproportionate response to my actions."

For the whole article, click here.

---------------------------------------------

The Washington Post picked up the story. Here's my response on WashingtonPost.com's 'Voices' section:

I'm one of Mr. Douglas' colleagues in voice-over. We're both successful at a national level, both men with strong political sentiments and a penchant (if not talent) for articulating them.

I work as a freelance announcer for most of the major TV networks and movie studios. Sometimes they, or their parent companies, make choices with which I profoundly disagree. I'm not shy, in those instances, to voice my opinion. I do so as an individual, not as a representative or employee of those companies. To me that makes a big difference.

It's similar to a member of the Armed Services or law enforcement speaking their mind. In uniform, or while acting a representative, one must rightly pay deference to one's employer. It's improper, for instance, for an active-duty service member to call out the President, regardless of politics.

But once out of uniform and speaking as a civilian without citing rank etc., things are different -- we have this gorgeous and maddening First Amendment, crafted to indemnify us as we say our piece, even if it includes invective or non-PC word choices, as in the case of Mr. Douglas' voicemail huff.

I happen to agree with some of Douglas' sentiments on the Tea Party, if not his choice of words or level of tact. As a gay man who embraces diversity, I am unsettled by polling that points to ethnic near-uniformity among Tea Partiers, and I'm scared by a lot of the tweets and Facebook posts I read from Tea Party leadership -- i.e. "McCarthy was right!"

But it wouldn't matter to me if Mr. Douglas' ideology was polar opposite to my own, say if he were a gung ho Tea Partier himself. It'd be his American right to hold that perspective and articulate it. Those who follow my activism know I've made some strange bedfellows over the years, including my defending the gay-hating Westboro Baptist Church's right to conduct what I consider hatemongering.

Meanwhile, it's certainly GEICO's legal right to hire or not hire whomever they please for their VOs. But their releasing Mr. Douglas purely for of his political speech saddens me, and not just because a colleague is out of a gig.

It feels like a step backward for all of us.

Ben Patrick Johnson
Los Angeles, CA

The Vatican is playing a dangerous, destructive game

I’ve had a few people following my Twitter and Facebook feeds ask why I’m so riled up about the Vatican’s pedophilia crisis. I want to explain, but can’t fit it into 140 characters.

Initially, I was troubled by the allegations of abuse. There was the string of outrageous cases we’ve heard about over the past few years -- predatory priests being moved around from parish to parish, even internationally, to quiet or make moot victims’ complaints. The result has been what one would expect: a multiplication of damage instead of a mitigation. As more and more cases became public, it grew clear Roman Catholic officials knew what was going on; it was they who facilitated the moves in each instance, suggesting (in a striking misplacement of compassion) it was for the good of the priest or, as in the letter revealed last week by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), for the “good of the Universal church.” Put in contemporary terms, it'd be bad PR if people knew what was really going on.

All this made me shake my head in disgust. But it's not been fodder for me to get on my soapbox. Things have changed.

Multiple statements have come out from Roman Catholic leadership in recent days suggesting blame be laid on targets as wide-ranging as Judaism and mass media. But the loudest and most troubling is the insistence that the church doesn’t have a pedophile problem, it has "a homosexual problem." This rickety proposition was first floated by William Donohoe, president of the Catholic League, in a full page ad in the New York Times and in interviews with the major news outlets. Then on Monday, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s de facto Secretary of State, said the following in Chile:

“Many psychologists and psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and paedophilia. But many others have demonstrated, I have been told recently, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia. That is true. That is the problem.”

Wait -- he’s been “told?”

Not only is Cardinal Bertone relying on hearsay, but that hearsay is completely wrong, as evidenced by every reputable study available. Perhaps the Vatican doesn’t have access to the Internet and search engines to verify the most basic of information?

I’m being sarcastic. In truth, what’s going on is a calculated, systemic indictment of a group of people, in this case gays. This is what happened in Germany in the 1920s when a rising political movement vilified Jews. We know where that led. It’s happened around the world and in America to various ethnic and religious groups, resulting in discrimination and violence. Each new wave of immigrants that reaches America's borders -- from the Irish in the 19th century after the potato famine, to Italians fleeing disease and starvation, to people of Latin heritage today -- must endure an period of outright persecution before being accepted into the mainstream. Political movements like the Tea Party capitalize on the public's fear, institutionalizing it through repetition and propaganda. Just ask a Tea Party follower about immigration and listen to their frighteningly sectarian talking points.

As a group, gays in particular have had a mixed go of things recently. In Mexico City, same-sex marriage is now legal. Meanwhile, in Uganga, a top government official has been attempting to make being gay a capitol offense punishable by death. For certain, anti-gay sentiment -- inflamed by rhetoric like that coming out of the Vatican this week -- leads to tragedy. This is not conjecture, like the Vatican’s noodling. This is broadly evidenced fact.

Systemic defamation is ALWAYS wrong, whether it comes from the Tea Party, the Ugandan Parliament, or the Roman Catholic Church and its Holy See.

The Vatican should be ashamed of their maneuvering. They should own up to the church leadership's tragic mistakes and work diligently to put things right rather than pick a vulnerable group upon whom to transfer blame. The Church exists to honor the teachings of Jesus Christ. Right now, I can only think Christ would be horrified at what Roman Catholic hierarchy has posited in his name. As a Christian and a gay man I, along with others, refuse to sit silent while this perversion continues.

That is why I’ve been so vocal about this issue. Count on my continuing to speak out.