Month-long resistance to SB1070 in Tucson starts tomorrow

Ya basta! Month-long resistance to 1070 planned in Tucson

Ya basta! Month-long resistance to 1070 planned in Tucson

Tucson-based Derechos Humanos, in union with at least 7 other organizations, is planning a month of action against SB1070.

Everything begins tomorrow (June 29) with a press conference at 11:30am at the State Building in Tucson which is located at Broadway and Granada. Tomorrow marks the one-month countdown to SB1070 becoming law in Arizona.

There will be a weekly vigil from 4-7pm every night at the State Building.

The press release is below. You can be sure Three Sonorans will be covering this month of action!

For immediate release

(Article continued below)

June 28, 2010

Coalición de Derechos Humanos
No More Deaths
Tucson Samaritans
UA Students Against SB 1070
Tucson May 1st Coalition
International Action Center of Tucson
Tierra Y Libertad Organization – TYLO
We Reject Racism Campaign

Press Conference
11:30am – June 29th
State Building
Northwest Corner of Congress and Granada
Tucson, AZ

Communities across the state and the nation have galvanized in opposition to SB1070. Today we announce a press conference for tomorrow at 11:30 am, one month before the effective date, to call for RESISTANCE.

For the next 4 Fridays, our Tucson community will mobilize from 4 PM to 7 PM in front of the State building in Tucson, Arizona, to join with the hundreds of actions across the country demanding a repeal or nullification of this dangerous and racist law. From youth to labor to faith and community-based organizations, our commitment to social, economic, and political justice commands us to act in defiance of this and any other law that violates basic human rights. We act on the principle that if a law is unjust, our duty is RESISTANCE!

Our actions come from our acknowledgement that we are all one community and that our foremost responsibility is to care for one another. SB1070 is totally contrary to our basic duty to act to protect each another, and so we MUST resist any enforcement of this law.

Buy Three Sonorans a coffee!
Become a sustaining member
Choose a level

20 comments on “Month-long resistance to SB1070 in Tucson starts tomorrow
  1. violates basic human rights

    How does SB 1070 violate basic human rights?  When did it become a basic human right to be in a country illegally? 

    I’m one of those Dick Army Republicans who actually supports a guest worker program and an aggressive amnesty program.  Neverthless, the law is the law and it should be enforced.  And, our laws say that you’re not supposed to be in this country illegally.

    SB 1070 opponents—have you considered the possiblity that hysterical language (like the kind you see in the press release above) and wild logic leaps (SB 1070 “violates basic human rights”) might actually hurt your cause, instead of helping it?   

    • When did it become a basic human right to be in a country illegally?

      When the US created arbitrary laws that make it illegal and impossible for people to seek basic dignity and free movement based on lines drawn in the sand.

      • It’s not just the US that enforces its borders, Seth—every country in the world does it.  Are they all wrong?

      • My answer is that I reject the self-serving premise of your question. 

        If the police can demonstrate probable cause for stopping someone, the race of that person shouldn’t deter the police from making that stop.

        More to the point, the police shouldn’t be deterred by activists who claim to see racial profiling everywhere, in everything.

        • Now it’s my turn. How does the presence of a battalion of National Guard troops, along a border stretching from east of Agua Prieta to San Luis Rio Colorado, “militarize” the Arizona border? 

          I await your answer.

        • They can pull over someone for speeding, that’s fine, but no American citizen has to prove their citizenship at any point to local cops.
          But, in Arizona, the “probable cause” can be citizenship status.  We aren’t just talking about traffic stops. If a cop has “reasonable suspicion” that one is not a citizen then they have “probable cause.”
          But what EXACTLY is reasonable suspicion.  How do you just look at someone and know their citizenship status?

          • I’ll agree with you here.  (At least, I think I’m agreeing with you).

            If SB 1070 results in an environment where Hispanics in Arizona get questioned on their legal status simply for being Hispanic, then SB 1070 will have to be modified or repealed.

            I suspect that law enforcement officials who use the law responsibly will make sure they have sufficient evidence to assert probable cause before they detain someone under the law. 

            In the example you cited, if the police officer pulls someone over, asks them for identification, and they don’t have any, I’d think the officer has grounds to question their legal status.  If an adult in modern American society doesn’t have at least some form of government-issued identification, that’s out of the ordinary. 

            If, on the other hand, they have valid Arizona drivers’ licenses and vehicle registration, then I doubt the officer has grounds for more than writing a speeding ticket.  I do agree that simply “being Hispanic” shouldn’t be enough.

            Ultimately, if you’re in America legally, you’re supposed to have some form of documentation, somewhere. 

          • I’d be interested in knowing what led ICE to suspect this gentlemen wasn’t in the country illegally.  The article doesn’t say.  And, while it’s possible ICE overstepped their authority, I’m not ready to reach that conclusion—and deny ICE the benefit of the doubt—-without more information.

            If the driver thinks he has a case, file a complaint.  He already has media attention (3TV and you) to back him up; I’m sure free legal help is just a phone call away.  If you want a fuller answer from ICE, demand it.

            What does Sherrif Joe Arpaio have to do with this?  ICE is a federal agency.  It’s little asides like that that make me suspect you’re trying to demagogue this issue.

    •  Neverthless, the law is the law

      Until it’s not the law anymore, which is the desired goal.  I don’t know of anyone opposed to SB1070 who wants the law to stand, but be ignored.  No, we want it repealed.

      Speaking of the law, when is the US going to pay the damages awarded by the courts to Nicaragua for illegally interfering in a sovereign country? 

      • Until it’s not the law anymore, which is the desired goal.  I don’t know of anyone opposed to SB1070 who wants the law to stand, but be ignored.  No, we want it repealed.

        There’s absolutely nothing wrong in that.  Good luck in your endeavors along that line.

        Speaking of the law, when is the US going to pay the damages awarded by the courts to Nicaragua for illegally interfering in a sovereign country? 

        “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” 

        Ya gotta love Andrew Jackson.

  2. Define reasonable suspicion:  the police stop a vehicle for speeding and observe the driver and passanger to be two middle eastern looking men.  In the back seat in plain sight are 6 bags of amonia nitrate fertilizer.  The nitrate is a bomb component but not illegal to possess.  How do the police proceed.  What should they be allowed to do.

    • Just as they do with armed neo-nazis at the state capitol… let them be, unless it’s illegal.
      And how important is the race of the driver and passenger… was it necessary for your scenario?

      • @wpgood…..I think the mention of  the 6 bags of amonia nitrate fertilizer,  should have been the “ding ding” moment.  It is not a good thing to have in the back seat of a car this bomb making components.  The mention of the “two middle eastern looking men”  was totally not called for. You could have said two men.  No, you decided to make it ….Boo!  more scary.  You lost me at the description of the men.

        • “Ding ding” – two guys want to either fertilize something or blow something up. What makes you assume one over the other?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.