B.E. article on APhiA Arizona Boycott.

[sigmadiva]

There are two problems I have with the article:

1. I thought the bill was to prevent illegal immigration. The writer states that the bill is anti-immigration.

2. He makes this assumption that [American Blacks] should support the protest of the AZ bill since Afro-Caribbeans would be affected too. In a very short-sighted way, I don't see why American Blacks should be out front protesting. The AZ immigration issue is not 'our' fight.

Just to clarify: I'm not anti-immigrant. I'm anti-illegal immigrant, no matter what country you come from. Illegal immigrants use 'the system', but they don't pay taxes into 'the system' - that is the problem I have.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

There are two problems I have with the article:

1. I thought the bill was to prevent illegal immigration. The writer states that the bill is anti-immigration.

The bill is widely called the Arizona Anti-Immigration Bill. It may be more accurate to call it an anti-illegal immigration bill, but it's not outside the national conversation for the author to use such terminology in this article.

2. He makes this assumption that [American Blacks] should support the protest of the AZ bill since Afro-Caribbeans would be affected too. In a very short-sighted way, I don't see why American Blacks should be out front protesting. The AZ immigration issue is not 'our' fight.

Perhaps because he wasn't speaking to "me," I had a different take. What I got from the article was that the author was saying everyone should be concerned. Then, he spoke out of his own experience (i.e. a person with Afro-Caribbean ties).

While I understand and appreciate what boycotters are trying to do, on the other hand, why punish the business owners who do not support the bill? I think it would have been a great move for Alpha Phi Alpha (among others) to have found an Arizona-based business that was vocal about opposing the bill and then given that person/company all their business.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

The bill is widely called the Arizona Anti-Immigration Bill. It may be more accurate to call it an anti-illegal immigration bill, but it's not outside the national conversation for the author to use such terminology in this article.

I would expect the "average American" to probably call it the anti-immigration bill, but as a journalist for a prestigious publication, he should get his facts straight.

Perhaps because he wasn't speaking to "me," I had a different take. What I got from the article was that the author was saying everyone should be concerned. Then, he spoke out of his own experience (i.e. a person with Afro-Caribbean ties).

I am concerned. I just don't feel that as an American Black this is an issue that impacts me directly. Thus, I will not be out there protesting the bill.

While I understand and appreciate what boycotters are trying to do, on the other hand, why punish the business owners who do not support the bill? I think it would have been a great move for Alpha Phi Alpha (among others) to have found an Arizona-based business that was vocal about opposing the bill and then given that person/company all their business.

This would have been a better option.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I would expect the "average American" to probably call it the anti-immigration bill, but as a journalist for a prestigious publication, he should get his facts straight.

I should have been more specific. I was referring to journalists representing outlets including the Wall Street Journal and CNN.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

I should have been more specific. I was referring to journalists representing outlets including the Wall Street Journal and CNN.

Same expectation would apply. That is the problem - you (general you) should be able to rely on these publications for accuracy. I guess not.....

[Phrozen1ne]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

While I understand and appreciate what boycotters are trying to do, on the other hand, why punish the business owners who do not support the bill? I think it would have been a great move for Alpha Phi Alpha (among others) to have found an Arizona-based business that was vocal about opposing the bill and then given that person/company all their business.

With time constraints and what was needed to pull off this convention, I don't think that would have been possible. Nice idea though.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by Phrozen1ne

With time constraints and what was needed to pull off this convention, I don't think that would have been possible. Nice idea though.

I agree.

To be clear, I appreciate the praise that Earl Graves gave Alpha. You don't see that very often and it was appreciated.

Alpha Phi Alpha has strong reasons for boycotting Arizona, and one might say that the reasons are intrinsically tied to the soul of our organization. I'm not one to say "do your research" because you'd have to know what you were looking for, but I will say that Alpha was always intended to be a social justice organization, regardless of race.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

There are two problems I have with the article:


2. He makes this assumption that [American Blacks] should support the protest of the AZ bill since Afro-Caribbeans would be affected too. In a very short-sighted way, I don't see why American Blacks should be out front protesting. The AZ immigration issue is not 'our' fight.

So, should I not care about Domestic Violence against women because as a man I'm not affected, or harmed, by it?

Even a casual look at the history of minorities in America shows the need for at least strategic concern if not outright action in the face of discrimination. Yes, America is a daily freak show and we fly off the handle about too much, but against something as egregious as this legislation, action is necessary.

If I ignore your skirmish today, can I really expect you to help me fight my war tomorrow?

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

So, should I not care about Domestic Violence against women because as a man I'm not affected, or harmed, by it?

Even a casual look at the history of minorities in America shows the need for at least strategic concern if not outright action in the face of discrimination. Yes, America is a daily freak show and we fly off the handle about too much, but against something as egregious as this legislation, action is necessary.

If I ignore your skirmish today, can I really expect you to help me fight my war tomorrow?

Devil's advocate.

What's so discriminatory about the Arizona law? How does it differ from Federal law?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Devil's advocate.

What's so discriminatory about the Arizona law? How does it differ from Federal law?

As I always say, the devil doesn't need an advocate.

Have people read the Arizona law thread(s) on Greekchat? There's some good back-and-forth for both sides of the debate. Agree or not, it provides a framework for the issue.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

As I always say, the devil doesn't need an advocate.

Have people read the Arizona law thread(s) on Greekchat? There's some good back-and-forth for both sides of the debate. Agree or not, it provides a framework for the issue.

I've read it. Read the threads, participated in the conversation.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

I've read it. Read the threads, participated in the conversation.

Then the issue isn't being the devil's advocate about the law itself but rather understanding why some organizations are approaching this head-on, as in the case of Alpha.

I agree 100% with TonyB06 eventhough I see the pros and cons of the Arizona law.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

So, should I not care about Domestic Violence against women because as a man I'm not affected, or harmed, by it?

Even a casual look at the history of minorities in America shows the need for at least strategic concern if not outright action in the face of discrimination. Yes, America is a daily freak show and we fly off the handle about too much, but against something as egregious as this legislation, action is necessary.

If I ignore your skirmish today, can I really expect you to help me fight my war tomorrow?

Thank you.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

So, should I not care about Domestic Violence against women because as a man I'm not affected, or harmed, by it?

Even a casual look at the history of minorities in America shows the need for at least strategic concern if not outright action in the face of discrimination. Yes, America is a daily freak show and we fly off the handle about too much, but against something as egregious as this legislation, action is necessary.

If I ignore your skirmish today, can I really expect you to help me fight my war tomorrow?

I agree with you and your point.

But let us stick to the issue at hand - the AZ bill is about preventing illegal immigration. Maybe the way they are going about is not the best, but something must be done. Illegal immigrants become a drain on society because they are using government agencies that they don't pay for.

I think that it is wonderful that we live in a country that is willing to provide a decent amount of services to it's citizens - I have no problem with that. I do have a problem when Maria is at Harris County Hospital having her 6th kid, no insurance, all the while she and her husband are sending their money back to Mexico, and my property taxes keep going up because Maria keeps having kids she can't pay for, but I have to.

[Phrozen1ne]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Maybe the way they are going about is not the best...

Exactly.