I was struck (watching video of the sit-in) that their actions were so tightly focused on the DREAM act. Does anyone know who organized this action? Who is mobilizing people to demand this DREAM act — rather than focusing on a general amnesty?

This does seem to be tailored to draw in the second generation, college track immigrant youth — in a way that can separate them from the more newly arrives and less mobile among the undocumented people.

“The resistance of the youth has been focused on the injustice of persecuting the undocumented (as the recent sit in of undocumented students highlights).

“But meanwhile the expressions of the Democratic establishment have focused largely on one aspect of the Arizona impact — that DOCUMENTED Latinos will be profiled.”

Things may be more complicated that this. The recent sit-in was focused in particular on demanding the passage of the DREAM Act. This single action was praised by an editorial in the New York Times, while the broader student resistance in Arizona in the form of walkouts and other acts of civil disobedience went unmentioned.

While it is true that Democrats have been focusing on the profiling of documented people in Arizona and failing to defend the rights of the undocumented (this piece is a needed exposure of that), this doesn’t mean that they are opposed to pathways to legalization on terms that further polarize immigrant communities along lines of relative privilege and ultimately reinforce the system.

It is important to consider the debate within the immigrant rights movement regarding the military enlistment provision of the DREAM Act and to ask whether the interests of the most exploited and oppressed sections of undocumented youth, who do not have the resources to fulfill the 2-year community college requirement and for whom the only real option for legalization under the DREAM Act will be military enlistment, are reflected in the current campaign to pass the act (even while upholding the courage of the youth who are stepping out at this point).

The Democratic establishment will likely intervene in Arizona not only by trying to get votes in the upcoming elections, but also by attempting to narrow the political scope of the developing mass actions as much as possible, towards limited objectives such as the passage of the DREAM Act and away from the struggle by oppressed peoples for full democracy.

“These policies are indeed being driven by the electoral cycle and by the attempts of the Republicans to win elections by whipping up racist sentiments (for example, the superintendent of schools and main figurehead for the campaign to ban ethnic studies is running for state attorney general). However, it is kind of reductionist to view the policies mainly as a distraction from the “larger injustice” of deportation. This approach seems to flow from an oversimplified theoretical understanding of the state, asserting that all fundamental decisions are made outside of the electoral arena (inside executive agencies like ICE), while the purpose of the electoral arena is simply to distract from these decisions or to legitimize these decisions with the illusion of a popular mandate. The purpose and function of the electoral arena, and its relation to what is at the core of the state, seems to be complex.”

I agree that it is worth understanding more deeply the motives here on various sides. And certainly we need to more and more clearly understand what is wrong with a reductionist view of the state (where its operations are seen as the result of some more or less unified ruling class collusions, and electoral jostling is seen as mere charade).

I don’t think anyone thinks Arizona is a distraction. It has emerged as an outrage and as a sharp focus of struggle. And the rise of resistance (on May first, in Phoenix schools, and in many other places) is extremely important.

And it is an example of how it is often the actions of oppressors who “drag the oppressed into political life.”

And yes, the games being played here involve the congressional elections — on both sides — where Republicans (in some states) want to rally a nativist force, while the Democrats seek to exploit that to draw Latino votes to themselves.

But the facts is that both parties have been involved in deporting the undocumented. And we should not let that slip from the table.

The resistance of the youth has been focused on the injustice of persecuting the undocumented (as the recent sit in of undocumented students highlights).

But meanwhile the expressions of the Democratic establishment have focused largely on one aspect of the Arizona impact — that DOCUMENTED Latinos will be profiled.

We need to welcome and participate in the resistance over Arizona — but not in a way that unconsciously adopts the Democratic establishment’s blindspots, or that allows them to escape exposure. They too are a target and part of the problem.

And part of the issues had to do with the discussion of law.

The rightwing nativists constantly say “enforce the law.” they rant that the undocumented have broken the law. they scream that this is a country of laws, and that those who break the laws are criminals etc. They demand that state governments and local police “enforce the laws” — if the Federal authorities are not aggressive enough at doing so. And (as part of this landscape) the Democrats are now in charge of enforcing those laws, and have stepped up that enforcement at the federal level.

And we need to step into that scene, and raise a clear statement that this is an unjust law — that breaking it is not a crime, and enforcing it is not justice. We need to say that it is wrong to enforce unjust laws, and it is right to defy them. this is a point that large numbers of people are trying hard to articulate, and that is NOT reflected in the bourgeois political arena (though it is said in some Catholic circles active in immigration reform).

The right says “amnesty rewards lawbreaking….” when they really are just expressing their “fear of a brown planet.”

The democrats insist (as Michelle Obama did) that they must enforce the law until the law changes — and then they (rather quietly) point out that the bourgeois political allignments don’t allow them to change the law right now.

We should help people step back and see Arizona in the larger context. No one argues that it is a distraction. We should just understand that it is being used as a political football by bourgeois forces who often are all participating in the harsh day to day oppression and exploitation of the people.

No disagreement with this article where it argues for a focus on defending the rights of the undocumented (as a part of going “lower and deeper”) and on exposing the role of this administration (as a part of exposing the US state and the system as a whole).

But, at the same time, SB 1070 needs to be understood as an attack on the entire Chicano, Mexicano, and indigenous peoples. The documented who get profiled are not simply the “collateral damage” of an attack aimed primarily at the undocumented; and within the undocumented, at undocumented workers in particular.

It becomes clear that SB 1070 is an attack on entire nationally oppressed peoples in the Southwest, documented and undocumented, when it seen in the context of the other policies that have been passed recently in Arizona, banning ethnic studies and preventing teachers who speak with an accent from teaching English. The Arizona superintendent of schools has said himself that the ethnic studies ban was formulated and will be implemented with the direct objective of singling out and eliminating the Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican American Studies Department.

These policies also have to be seen against the background of the history of US settler-colonialism in the Southwest, even after the consolidation of the US as an imperialist state. The practices that constituted “US settler-colonialism in the Southwest” have to be identified. The role of their survivals today in the economics, politics, and ideology of the US social formation have to be analyzed.

These policies are indeed being driven by the electoral cycle and by the attempts of the Republicans to win elections by whipping up racist sentiments (for example, the superintendent of schools and main figurehead for the campaign to ban ethnic studies is running for state attorney general). However, it is kind of reductionist to view the policies mainly as a distraction from the “larger injustice” of deportation. This approach seems to flow from an oversimplified theoretical understanding of the state, asserting that all fundamental decisions are made outside of the electoral arena (inside executive agencies like ICE), while the purpose of the electoral arena is simply to distract from these decisions or to legitimize these decisions with the illusion of a popular mandate. The purpose and function of the electoral arena, and its relation to what is at the core of the state, seems to be complex.

First, it is extremely positive that Arizona is being demonized. And it is revealing that the Sarah Palin’s of the world are declaring “We are all Arizonans.”

So in some senses, a line has been drawn.

At the same time, this is a line connected to very bourgeois politics — and specifically to the November congressional elections. (And if this is not obvious to you, say so, and we will dig into this further).

This is an example of the system itself “dragging people into political life.” And what the people then do and think is then up for grabs.

We want to encourage the popular outrage over Arizona. We want to support the outbreaks of struggle and partisanship.

But we don’t want the whole to be confined to the terms of bourgeois politics (which respects the law, upholds the deportation of the undocumented, and ends with the election as the endgame).

How do we walk that complex walk in a creative way? Thoughts?