- Jason Michael Aragon
Puente is live streaming a demonstration against ICE and Operation Streamline at I-10 and 18th Street. You can watch it here.
More from Derechos Humanos:
Just now, a group of immigrant rights activists blocked a bus filled with people headed to Operation Streamline, a federal criminal court they say represents the worst of the criminalization of immigrants. In Operation Streamline, people accused of crossing the border without authorization are diverted from immediate deportation and instead sentenced en masse as punishment to 30 to 180 days in private prisons at taxpayers’ expense. They are lined up in shackles and rapidly tried as a group to prison terms before eventually being expelled from the country. The Tucson court convicts an average of 80-100 people every weekday people in its sessions.
Protesters assert that, with Operation Streamline, fundamental rights such as due process and the right to adequate representation are being destroyed in efforts to criminalize immigrants and stigmatize migration. The victims are targeted for unjust and inhumane treatment as they’re unnecessarily imprisoned.
The civil disobedience today reflects growing impatience with Congress and the President to provide immediate relief to immigrants targeted for deportation while working for a permanent solution.
“Anyone who witnesses Operation Streamline will come away convinced that it is both unconstitutional and immoral,” explains Roberto Cintli Rodriguez. “There is no justice in that courtroom. It violates every principle the US claims to ascribe to. When humanity is confronted with unjust laws, it is our responsibility to challenge them.”
This action comes the day before a national convening in Phoenix of immigrant families, workers, and organizers initiating new efforts in a campaign to move the President to use his authority to stop deportations and expand deferred action, and days before a rally and march planned in Phoenix to “shut down” ICE.
This article appears in Oct 10-16, 2013.
More power to them. Operation Streamline reminds me of Nazi show trials.
Dr. Rodriguez says, “When humanity is confronted with unjust laws, it is our responsibility to challenge them.”
Just a few questions about this bit of hyperbole… Who gets to speak for humanity? What was the process of making that determination? What makes a law unjust? Unjust to whom? What gives people outside of courts of competent jurisdiction the right to make their own determinations of which laws to follow and which to ignore? What gives any private individual…whether a citizen, a legal resident or someone here illegally… the right to decide which laws to follow?
I recall Dr. Rodriguez did not hesitate to use the full force of law when he felt threatened by a drunk who corresponded with him from hundreds of miles away. What gave him that right, but does not give the police the right to enforce other laws?
Take your time…no need for a quick response. But please hold the vague platitudes; they will only generate even more questions.
There needs to be 16mil. more deportation US citnz. needs to take back our borders , crossing the border with no papers is breaking the law……the left and congressman Grijalva are promoting breaking the laws of this country . Grijalva gets most of his votes from the Mex. legal and not legal votes needs to stop..
first off Marty — I remember this mythology made up by a certain blogger in town re: the threats Rodriguez received. Not simple correspondence, but phone calls left on the teacher’s voicemail and threats of violence, use of a weapon. Post Jan. 8, not something folks were taking lightly.
@Marty: We each get to speak for our own humanity, and we each get to examine our own conscience about what is ethical and appropriate. In my view, if a law is unjust, it is imperative that I, as an aware, caring person, stand up against it. That is the only way such laws are changed. The Civil Rights activists in the 60s also made a fuss, sat in at lunch counters (which was illegal), refused to obey laws designed to harm them, and the powers-that-be arrested them, beat them, said terrible things about them, and even murdered some. The same thing is happening now. I will not sit silently while this continues, and I’m so proud of these activists, old and young, women and men, of various ethnicities, who are saying Not In Our Name. #Not1More
blaze_mason says, “we each get to examine our own conscience about what is ethical and appropriate.”
This is a very slippery slope. It works for you now, but if the “conscience” belongs to a Nazi, or a skinhead…or even a Tea party Republican member of the US House…would you say the same thing. If not, then you better figure out what distinguishes the right of someone you agree with to act based not on law but on their conscience and the same right being extended to those you (and I as well) think are wrongheaded. This is exactly the sort of vague platitude that does not stand up to close examination.
Mari says, “first off Marty — I remember this mythology made up by a certain blogger in town re: the threats Rodriguez received. Not simple correspondence, but phone calls left on the teacher’s voicemail and threats of violence, use of a weapon. Post Jan. 8, not something folks were taking lightly.”
Okay, what if I was to respond that this individual was acting based on his own sense of ethics and morals. Why should the law be upheld because you did not care for his actions? Until you can answer the question why it is okay for some folks to break laws, but not for others to break the law…depending solely upon whether or not you agree with them…you ought to think again why it is only okay for select people to break select laws. This is relativism at its worst.
Marty, glad you noted that it is the conscience of the Tea Party and the Nazis that thinks that it is OK to vilify a race and work toward the ethnic cleansing of the Fatherland. I hope you are not a member of either group and are simply interested in the morality of our actions. I have attended some Operation Streamline hearings and I am deeply troubled by the inhumanity shown in the courtroom. So it leads to a moral dilemma…do I wait for Congress to get around to it? or throw a sabot into the works?