The National Socialist Movement scum show up armed to counter protest #occupyphoenix

Today at the first mass general assembly of the #occupyphoenix movement, neo-Nazi members of the National Socialist Movement showed up, armed and in their "Arizona Border Guard" militia fatigues, to counter protest.  Sporting assault rifles, they posed flanked by dozens of cops.  Recognizing key NSM organizers in their midst, several people confronted them and set about informing the generally ignorant crowd that before them stood actual fascists, armed to the teeth.

Ignorant liberals behaved in a variety of idiotic ways.  Some contending that the Nazis were part of the 99% as well, if only confused.  Others were actually intrigued by the word "socialist".  "I kind of like socialism," one old lady said.  Other confused liberals mistook the fascists for soldiers, forgetting their self-assumed pledge of non-violence (which apparently exempts the military as well) and posing their children for a cool shot with the army guys.

One liberal pacifist came up to confront people speaking loudly about the Nazis, telling them that the protest was supposed to be non-violent and that by using loud language we were being "violent".  She made no such attempt to approach the Nazis, highlighting the deep contradictions and blindspots in the ideology of nonviolence as practiced by this movement, which so far has only deployed this ideology inwards to control participants rather than outwards towards the genuine threats.

This attitude towards the NSM scum played out, quite predictably, along racial lines, with whites being the only ones to express attitudes of tolerance towards them.  This points to the continuing importance of addressing racism and the continual appeal and relevance of racial privileges within the movement.  Indeed, we can expand this argument to the whole attitude of the bulk of the white movement towards the police.  Experiencing policing in quite different ways than people of color in general, white middle class liberals mistake their own experience for that of others, and routinely attack anyone who questions the alleged 99% status of the police, or points out their quite obvious  tendencies towards violent action, as violent themselves.  To question the violence of the police is to be violent, according to this backwards analysis.

The presence of an armed fascist street-level opposition to our movement, in the form of the National Socialist Movement and it's "Arizona Border Guard" front group, is one major reason to reject dogmatic pacifism and poorly thought-out nonviolence.  Instead, what we heard from protesters speaking during the general assembly were declarations of the most naive nonviolence imaginable.  Arizona is a right wing state and the forces of reaction are huge and easily overwhelming if they want to be.

#Occupyphoenix organizers should not kid themselves about their numbers or power.  This movement clearly has capability to attract large numbers, as evidenced by the several thousand that showed up today for the general assembly and will march later to set up camp at Margaret T. Hance park.  But we need to be honest about our political circumstances and the forces of reaction arrayed against us.  Today is a reminder for those who are paying attention.

When the fascists finally departed, one man in a motorized wheel chair came up to me to ask me who they were.  When I told him, a cheer went up from the crowd mocking the vacating Nazis.  He looked at me and said, "They're gone, but don't mistake their absence for the absence of fascists in general."  Standing behind him were the cops.  Another lesson the #occupyphoenix movement has yet to learn.

Making Money, Making Change (Impossible)

I want to draw everyone's attention to a very useful essay over at Chaparral Respects No Borders, an always interesting blog analyzing the border, the migrant struggle and various other related elements within that fight. The essay, "Beware the Funders of Immigrants’ Rights", tackles something that bedeviled many of us last year during the whole SB1070 buildup and aftermath: the funding of the mainstream movement and the way it changes the terrain of struggle in Arizona and limits outcomes. And as such, it is a good opportunity to look back at some of the troublesome dynamics that came into play that summer.

This research provided in the essay puts weapons in our hands as we continue to maintain our autonomous position apart from both left and right, i.e., against both recuperation and reaction, in the struggle surrounding migration and freedom of movement. While anarchists should not be surprised by the recuperative and disruptive motivations of large capitalist funding sources like the Ford Foundation, knowing about it (since it is often hidden from view) allows us to point out the way it is messing up the movements we participate in, especially with the rise of the profession non-profiteer activist, so often recruited from radical circles.

Many of us here will remember two of the interesting and at first baffling contradictions of last summer. The first was the failure of many radicals outside of Arizona to support radical initiatives against SB1070. In this I would also include radical bands (and a certain radical frontman), some of whom signed onto the Soundstrike pledge of artists dedicated to boycotting Arizona and that thus helped to further isolate Arizona radicals through denying us opportunities for gathering, fund-raising and sharing strategies at the same time that the mainstream money funnel was in full effect for movement liberals. Fund-raising even by anarchists was often targeted towards liberal groups that had de facto or openly professed anti-radical agendas, even to the point of having collaborated in police attacks on anarchists.

At the very least, those organizations to whom the money was sent were not proposing anarchist or even radical analysis or solutions to the problem. While, the essay at CRNB is clear that the "Revolution Will Not Be Funded", it is important to separate foundation funding from the solidarity that anarchists and radicals engage in. While foundation funding is obviously top down and with strings attached, solidarity is free, supportive and egalitarian. It is important not to confuse the two, which is part of why it was so frustrating to see so much of anarchist and radical support paralleling the general trend of foundation funding, traveling the same channels created by the flows of capital, in essence. I know several anarchist projects centered around the migrant and indigenous struggle that could have used some solidarity and instead that money and materiel went to liberal groups. That's too bad and worth reflecting on by everyone involved, including those of us who were not able to make that distinction and need clear enough.

The second frustration was the constant tendency of out of state radicals who parachuted into Arizona to marginalize and ignore radical voices and actions, especially those of longtime in-state militants. Professional radicals flocked to Arizona by the hundreds, with their plans and pre-fabricated analysis. The worst of these organizers were the non-profiteer white "allies" who, dropping all pretense of sticking to their supposed radical politics, steadfastly defended liberal groups over anarchist ones, even though their information was limited in the extreme, having just dropped into a fight that had been ongoing for several years. Rather than turning to anarchist and radical comrades for analysis and advice on where to plug in and who needed support so that anarchist and other anti-authoritarian radical voices and projects could be heard and advanced, these organizers instantly tried to turn the tables on us, lecturing us in their own naive way about the conditions of our own struggle and informing us in often patronizing ways that our analysis of the groups composing the landscape of struggle was incorrect, despite our long experience.

In retrospect, these particular liberal-radicals served a very important function for movement leaders in terms of hemming in militants and inoculating the broader movement from potential infection by anarchist ideas. At times, when movement leaders were forced to make certain concessions in terms of the form of organization (for instance, when leaders reluctantly permitted mini-assemblies to be set up at one rally so that people could discuss face to face about their problems and solutions) or actions (when it became inevitable that direct action of some sort, in this case civil disobedience, would have to take place on the day SB1070 went into effect), these out of state white liberal-radical "allies" served important spoiler and management roles, sanitizing actions and debate. In the case of the assemblies, for example, white liberal-radical "allies" joined other mainstream leftist reformers in deliberately injecting themselves into discussions among those composing the base of the movement, making sure the conversation was limited and redirected in the movement leadership's overall electoral strategy.

That created quite a few problems for anarchist organizing when the out of state tendency combined with a liberal protest establishment that elevated the maintenance of respectability in its donors' eyes and the lens of the capitalist media above all else, was mired in an ethic of sacrifice and moral suasion, and remained determined to keep an iron grip on a movement that had threatened (and had indeed managed) to get out of its control on several occasions, from the huelga general to the student walkouts. Rather than viewing such outbreaks as promising new avenues of struggle and sources of energy for a movement in bad need of it, instead such explosions were treated by movement heavies as threats to be controlled.

When considering these supposed white "allies", it's worth pointing out that since they brought with them resources badly needed in the fight, they were actually serving as the choosers of winners and losers among the various groups and individuals of color that would get support or be rejected. They were the deciders. In many ways, this white "ally" relationship, in its liberal form, looks a lot like the white patriarchalism one sees in many white activists in general, especially when it serves to discipline those militants and radicals who stand against the liberal movement leadership that these "allies" have anointed with their blessed non-profit dinero. Indeed, if we can psychoanalyze for a moment, there appears to be something in the mindset of this kind of white "ally" that seems to believe that their ally-ship is a necessary component of successful struggle when it comes to people of color. It's an interesting kind of alliance that retains the white "ally"'s central and privileged role in struggle at the same time chastising those militants who do not toe the mainstream line.

But somehow we all managed to make it through those long months, emerging a little beaten up physically and mentally, but still determined to move forward. Eventually, most of those out of state struggle touristas made their way home after the spotlight faded and the glory diminished, leaving us locals to deal with the aftermath, naturally. So it was with more than a little cynicism that we laughed our asses off when we at PCWC were tipped off that one of the groups behind the money pipeline, previously unknown to us, was an organization called (and you can't make this up) "Making Money Making Change". No, seriously. Say it out loud and try not to laugh.

What is MMMC? According to its website (emphasis mine),

Making Money Make Change (MMMC) is Resource Generation's annual 100-person gathering for young people with wealth (ages 18-35) who believe in social change. MMMC is a confidential space to explore issues related to wealth, privilege, philanthropy, and participation in grassroots movements for justice and equality. Through workshops, discussions, and community-building activities, participants support, challenge, and inspire each other to align their resources with their values and work for personal and societal transformation. While participants are young people with wealth, social movement leaders and nonprofit practitioners from other class backgrounds are invited to speak, facilitate sessions, and attend the entire retreat.

PCWC has learned that this group came to town some months ago and met with those local leaders who met the group's seal of approval, scouted out as they were by some of the liberal-radicals who had parachuted into town last summer. These local projects and leaders then had the "just and equal" opportunity to go hat in hand to the rich people begging for money. Sounds like a real reversal of the typical relationship under capitalism, doesn't it? I tell you, in my just and equal society I'm not forced to go begging to any rich person for money.

MMMC would have you, and maybe their donors, believe that they are merely facilitating the benevolent hand of the class traitor who seeks to help us out in our quest for that ever-vaguely worded "more just and equitable society" (note, not "a just and equitable society", just moreso) -- secretly and anonymously behind the scenes, of course. In reality, as we've seen from the sorts of projects they support, in fact they are the hand of the state and capital reaching into our movements, supporting projects that they are comfortable with, and that do not upset their class privilege. Which is not to say that anarchist groups ought to demand access to the money either. It's that the groups with the money, and the donors themselves, serve as goalkeepers, saying this far and no further. After all, a revolutionary movement that expropriated the rich would deny the sons and daughters of the rich (because, who earns that kind of money by the age of 35 and has a revolutionary perspective?) the very money they intend to help us with, not to mention eliminate all those non-profiteering jobs to boot!

I believe that Jon Riley is planning on going into this particular group a lot more in a future essay, so I won't say too much about it. But I wanted to point it out because it doesn't appear in the essay at Chaparral Respects No Borders but still represents yet another facet of the attack on anarchist and radical movements in Arizona. In many ways, the lesson we ought to take from this is that we should be even less compromising with our defiance of the left in the future. The gut feeling we all had last summer was right. It felt like a two front war and it was.

For instance, when we organized that summer's neighborhood actions, it often seemed like we had to beat off the attempts of the out of staters to impose themselves on our actions, scared as they were of autonomous activity, even as they were allying themselves with groups that they knew had attacked, subverted and vilified anarchists in the past. The leadership wanted us out of the movement, and that was facilitated by the liberal-radicals. And then when we turned to our own autonomous projects, along came those same professional managers of struggle to keep an eye on us, and to attempt to disrupt our organizing. The professional activist sees everything as part of her domain and expertise: everyone needs his help.

So, moving forward, a hefty refresher of the friends/enemies fanatical analysis probably wouldn't hurt. While we fought hard for a politics separate and autonomous from the mainstream movement, calling out movement leaders and their strategies several times, we ought to have taken the fight to the liberal-radical white "allies" harder, putting them on the spot, making them choose sides. We did a good job driving the Revolutionary Communist Party out of Phoenix using similar tactics. The liberal-radical identity, and the funding it brings with it, is the mechanism for recuperation and marginalization and needs to be recognized as such the next time it shows its ugly head around here. What side are you on? An old mantra that never loses its power.

Update on the trial of the Border Patrol 6, two arrested at solidarity rally by Tucson PD

Below are two updates from the Border Patrol 6 (BP6) trial and the corresponding anti-borders solidarity march, both took place on Wednesday down in Tucson. From all accounts the BP6 lawyers were on their game and had the state on their heals through out the day, while at the march two people were arrested after allegedly hanging a banner. Check out the news article on the day's events, along with a new communique from the BP6. Thanks to Ray for the photos.

Border Patrol Headquarters Occupation Protesters Stand Trial to Fight Charges. Two Arrested During March to End Border Militarization and Racist Laws

Tucson, AZ – On February 23, 2011 More than 40 protestors took to the streets – two were arrested – while six people who locked-down and occupied the US Border Patrol (BP) – Tucson Headquarters on May 21, 2010 stood trial fighting charges of "criminal trespassing" and “disorderly conduct.”

Lawyers William G. Walker and Jeffrey J. Rogers represented the six as the city prosecutor called Border Patrol agents and Tucson Police to testify.

The defense argued the trespassing charge was not properly filed and were granted a request to file a memorandum addressing the technicality.

The trial is expected to continue on March 22, 2011. Corresponding rallies and actions are being planned.

At 1:30 pm people gathered in downtown Tucson at Library Park for a rally and then took the streets with banners reading, “Indigenous Resistance, Protect Sacred Places”, “Free Movement for People Not Commerce, Tear Down the Wall” and chanting “No Borders, No Border Patrol.”

Two people were arrested for allegedly hanging a banner that read “Las Paredes Vueltas de su Lado son Puentes (Torn Down Walls Become Bridges)” on a street traffic light. They were arraigned and released at 8pm at Pima County Corrections.

Additional banners were hung at various locations throughout Tucson stating “Egypt, Wisconsin, O’odham Solidarity”, “No raids, No deportations, No colonialism” and “Stop Militarization on Indigenous Lands”

O’odham Elders attended the court proceedings to demonstrate their support.

Donations can be made to support direct action efforts through Border Opposition Action Fund at www.borderopposition.blogspot.com.

END BORDER MILITARTIZATION NOW!

Communiqu矇 from the occupiers of the Border Patrol Headquarters in Tucson, AZ

We demand that the Border Patrol (BP), Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE), their parent entity, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Obama administration end militarization of the border, end the criminalization of immigrant communities, and end their campaign of terror which rips families apart through increasing numbers of raids and deportations.

The state thrives off of the climate of terror and fear that racist laws like HB2281 and SB1070, and new proposed laws like SB1611, 1308, 1309, 1405, have caused. This terror also manifests with thousands of troops invading indigenous lands, such as the Tohono O’odham, Yaqui, Kickapoo, Lipan Apache, to name a few. Since the creation of the current U.S./Mexico border, 45 O’odham villages on or near the border have been completely depopulated. This terror manifests with the bones of thousands – making the southern Arizona desert a grave yard, where the hopes and dreams of migrant families are stomped into the ground by border patrol agents, National Guard, minute men, and profiteering coyotes.

Through the military strategy of terror and fear the state maintains power and control.

We take direct action because we have decided not to be afraid. We are more afraid of not standing up to the state and what other crimes against humanity will be committed if it remains unchallenged.

We are not guilty of criminal trespassing or disorderly conduct.

The state, and by extension the border patrol, is guilty of occupying and destroying indigenous communities and ripping families apart. The development of the border wall has led to desecration of ancestor’s graves, it has divided communities and prevents them from accessing sacred places. When will this end?

These buildings, the court house, are made of brick and mortar and are the same brick and mortar that are the operation streamline immigration court just down the street. It is a direct manifestation of this system’s criminalization, where in the 3 hours that we’re in court today, nearly 100 people will be detained, adjudicated and deported through the streamline process.

Who are these building for? Who do they benefit? These are the same brick and mortar prisons are made of. It’s the same steel and concrete that is ripped from Mother Earth that’s used to build the border wall.

Politicians aren’t going to negotiate away our oppression. They are sitting in the chairs in their offices that are built on it. Our oppressors can only maintain their oppression as long as we are afraid of them.

If they are not going to do it, then we are going to find creative and direct ways to ensure that our communities are safe. We recognize that this is not going to happen within the walls of these institutions, these walls, these borders. It’s only going to happen if we tear them down. What does that look like?

Let’s come together, strategize, and embrace diverse tactics to effectively become the answer.

Today we also shed the term immigrant that has been used to attack our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, and children, many of whom are also indigenous, and to acknowledge and help restore the full human dignity that has been stripped away. To be immigrant should not be considered a crime unless 99 % of the U.S. is going to be ashamed and guilty of their pasts.

Our relatives are attacked on both sides of the border by colonial governments. The migration that the U.S. government is attempting to stop is driven more than anything else by the economic policies of the U.S. Free trade agreements such as NAFTA have severely reduced the ability of Mexicans and others from the global south to sustain themselves by permitting corporations to extract huge amounts of wealth and resources from these countries into the U.S. This has led to millions of people risking the terror and death that so many face to cross into the U.S. looking for ways to better support their families.

If the U.S. really intends on reducing migration it must end its policies of exploitation and wealth extraction targeted at the global south and instead pursue policies of economic, environmental and social justice for all human beings on the planet, thus reducing the drive to immigrate. But are they really going to do that?

Direct Action is about Direct Democracy. Building community is about communication, having respect for each other and doing something.

This is a struggle for freedom of movement and self-determination for all!
No racist laws, No colonial borders, WE WILL NOT STOP!

~NO BORDERS NO BORDER PATROL~

For more info:
http://oodhamsolidarity.blogspot.com/
http://survivalsolidarity.wordpress.com/

Freedom of movement is no joke: The Daily Show catches on to the contradictions of every day white supremacy in Arizona

Bravo to the Daily Show! Aside from the pass given to the pro-camera group, the Daily Show does a great job of highlighting one of the most glaring contradictions at work in the right-libertarian/constitutionalist milieu here in Arizona. For sometime now, PCWC has taken aim at the tension between white peoples' demands for free movement, with the expectation of increased policing for immigrants, coupled with the militarization of the border.

The Daily Show reporter Olivia Munn gets it right, demonstrating that the anti-camera movement's reactionary call for "cops, not cameras" is essentially a back door to a racist argument that says "free movement for whites, increased policing for everyone else". This position was probably best served up by the Tempe "Santas Against 1984" who disabled the traffic cameras a few years back and delivered a solid message against all controls on movement. Their youtube video went viral back in 2008, and takes Munn's send-up of the anti-immigrant/anti-camera tendency a step further by attacking both the cameras, and those who would control movement with borders.

The two videos are posted below, enjoy!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Arizona's Photo Radar
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes

No state has the right to control movement of free people.

As news comes again today that Democrats are committed to "securing the border" as a prerequisite for immigration reform, I think it's quite fortunate timing that our comrades over at O'odham Solidarity Across Borders Collective have posted up their compelling piece, "Movement Demands Autonomy: An O'odham Perspective on Border Controls and Immigration". Previously appearing as a pamphlet, this article does a fine job as a primer on understanding the point of view of the O'odham on questions of movement and the border -- a perspective that is sadly marginalized to say the least.

Indeed, we as anarchists, along with the indigenous peoples of this region, are well-placed to call out this bogus pairing of one so-called "reform" with another for what it really is -- a sell out. First off, if anyone has the right to say who can come and go, it is the original people of this land. And, second, the "securing" of the border that Democrats demand is not only a concession to the right wing but it is a betrayal of the various peoples whose traditional lands cross and are crossed by the border, including but not limited to Tohono O'odham territory in the south of Arizona and north of Mexico. Truth is, the people of Arizona should be turning to the indigenous to answer the question of who shall pass through these lands, not the racist settler state government.

In fact, when we hear "secure" what we ought to really understand is "militarization". Already T.O. is an armed camp of almost Warsaw Ghetto like quality, with border patrol and local cops (beefed up with Federal money) running wherever they please, harassing locals and denying traditional rights of crossing, not to mention maintaining checkpoints at the points of entry and exit from the rez (not just at border crossing points, which would be awful enough). The same controls and demands that will soon be made on migrants and everyone else the state deems worthy of suspicion are already in full effect on T.O. The surveillance we see here on our freeways originates on those border fences, checkpoints and spy towers. And the demand for their proliferation to the south will only increase them up here in the end. The dreadful situation in T.O. will soon manifest everywhere if we do nothing.

Of course, one can appreciate the bind that many indigenous people are in these days. "Reform" sells them out and the attack of SB1070 subjects them to the same profiling and abuse that it does the Mexican and other migrants who cross their lands, a great many of whom are in fact indigenous themselves. And the status quo is hardly acceptable either. These and other facts naturally dictate that there is no option on the table in the mainstream now which is satisfactory to solving this problem.

The fact is, as we and our comrades in OSABC have been saying for quite a long time now, there is no solution to the question of the movement of people without starting from the position of the indigenous. Not only are they more than deserving of justice given their history and ties to this land, but it is precisely their situation that reveals the bogus deal that is "immigration reform".

Knowing that, no one can in good conscience ignore or put their struggles on the back burner, or treat them as an after thought. If there is no justice for the indigenous of this region, then there is no justice at all. No borders, no State, no papers!

Read OSABC's article here:
Movement Demands Autonomy: An O'odham Perspective on Border Controls and Immigration

Resistance to SB1070 that you may have missed.

One of the problems with the overwhelmingly leftist orientation of the anti-SB1070 rally today, as evidenced by the seemingly unending admonitions to register to vote (for Democrats), is that it tends to obscure potential fractures and fissures on what may appear to be unanimity on the right with regard to the bill.

If you know anything about PCWC these days, it's probably that we look precisely for these kinds of potential openings in movements so that we can force open a space for more libertarian (in the traditional anarchist and anti-capitalist sense of the word) organizing, especially if we can encourage the development of contradictions that will cause a falling out on one side or another of white supremacy, and particularly amongst white movements on top of that. In our evaluation, it is the cross-class alliance of white supremacy that screws up what might otherwise be a revolutionary working class solidarity that would allow the overthrow of the capitalist state.

Anyhow, the events of the last few days have been momentous indeed, but in the rush of media attention and, as I mentioned before, due to the overwhelmingly leftist reformist orientation of the anti-SB1070 movement leadership (since they control the bulk of the message -- often with Stalinist like precision), some smaller actions have been overlooked. Here I will highlight two of them.

The first is of someone known to PCWC, and with whom we have interacted very cordially at a variety of our events, but who I won't identify since I don't know if he wants to be named. Regular attendees of PCWC actions and events will probably know him. The video linked below, taken by someone in the counter-protest on Friday, shows this person bravely moving into the reactionary crowd and calling them out vigorously for their support of the bill. In true fanatical fashion, this man begins yelling forcefully "This bill is the mark of the beast!", "Prepare for the New World Order!" and "Who would Jesus hate?!".



This is important for a few reasons. One, it comes at the right reactionaries on terrain that they are familiar with. This is something that we, as anarchists are not able to do anywhere near as effectively. Two, it opens a front on the reactionaries from their rear, hitting them in a way and from a direction that they do not expect. Three, it comes as a heartfelt and genuine defense of the true values professed by the libertarian and even Christian right, while recognizing the general tendency not to live up to them in any meaningful way.

In my opinion the disconnect that is being called out between professed Christianity and actual results derives from their adherence to white supremacist values. They defend their cross-class alliance of whiteness over their professed values of Christian love for their brother and sister, effectively. And, probably most importantly, the charges made in the video demands accountability and asserts an either/or dichotomy that attempts to erase middle ground, asserting, will you be Christian or will you hate? Will you be Christian or will you support the "mark of the beast"? This is very important because to oppose the bill in many ways contains within it the potentiality of refusing the alliance of whiteness. PCWC has spent quite a lot of effort encouraging this sort of thing and I welcome it and support it. Cheers for this revolt!

The second video is one published by Shelton at 4409. Shelton is perhaps best known amongst anarchists for his work around speed cameras. We have engaged on this front several times in the last year, encouraging their work but also being critical of pointing out what we perceive to be the unconscious white supremacist undercurrents of their strategy.

I want to be clear, this is not to say that we consider Shelton a white supremacist or anything of the sort. Even though he opposes what he calls "amnesty" for the undocumented, we believe that the racism inherent in the argument he makes is not conscious or malicious: it is the sort of white supremacy that underlies most of the assumptions that underpin white organizing in general, whether of the left or right. The flaw is not his in particular and it is important to separate it from the kind of overt racist strategy that we see being pursued by those who support the bill.

And, indeed, the arguments that Shelton has made in the past against the bill are generally pretty good although, as with the anti-SB1070 current on the left, he suffers the same problem of demanding increased policing at the border. On the left, this manifests in a demand for reform that included heightened border patrol enforcement at la linea itself. This is important for a lot of reasons, but not least of all because it sacrifices the lives of people that live on the border, specifically but not limited to the Tohono O'odham people, whose land down south is bisected by the border and who have an inherent right of travel across it. This right is currently under heavy assault by the very forces that many opponents of the bill propose to "secure" the border.

On the right the opposition to SB1070 is weakened by a similar assertion that if policing at the border were increased, then there would be less need for internal surveillance and checks on movement. Indeed, this is also the critical flaw in the libertarian/constitutionalist opposition to internal border patrol checkpoints. You can see how, ironically, these two positions, though from opposite poles of the political spectrum, suffer from the same problem. The fact is, militarization of the border must be separated from the discussion of SB1070 (and, of course, it must be opposed). If not, it remains a devil's bargain that sells some out in the name of defending others. That's not solidarity.

So, in that context, consider Shelton's interesting new video, in which he goes to the state capitol and confronts legislators on the bill and its effects. Aside from its entertaining nature, it is really informative about the kinds of opposition to this bill that could -- and sometimes does -- spread from the right. This is a tendency that I continue to believe is worth engaging with and I would be very interested in developing some sort of way of further fleshing out common ground for critical solidarity with elements of this type that are interested in challenging the bill and constraints on free movement generally (the position we defend). Of course, in the end, we will not accept any increased policing at the border because we believe in free movement for all. However, that in my opinion does not preclude the increasing investigation of points of common struggle within this milieu.

Arizona: A State of Emergency

Below is a draft of a text that was originally written for an anti-racist blog. I was approached and asked to contribute a piece about the dire situation in Arizona for a national audience, unfortunately this never saw the light of day due to their objections over the centrality of the border and indigenous struggles to the immigrant movement.


By Jon Riley
Phoenix Class War Council

What’s left to be said about Maricopa County? What can I tell you that you don’t already know? Need I mention the racial profiling by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), the “crime suppression” sweeps targeting immigrants and communities of color, the living conditions in tent city jail, the harassment of rival political figures, the courting of radical anti-immigrant groups, and, of course, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s appetite for the limelight?

You’ve read the condemnation from national news sources, such as the New York Times editorials, and in the constant stream of articles on anti-racist websites and blogs. It is clear that the situation in Maricopa County, and throughout the state, is increasingly hellish for anyone concerned with human freedom. We recognize that the situation on the ground is untenable for organizing. Communities are constantly on the defensive, racist lawmakers are on the legal offensive, and our movement is tired of losing.

For us to resist this state of emergency the movement will have to change.

The desperation is ever present in Maricopa County. Local activists devoted to challenging the racism oozing from the local state legislature and county sheriff are exhausted. The years of symbolic protest and moral appeals to the white citizen majority have failed. Even when Arpaio’s numbers slipped in the polls (he currently is seeing some of his highest poll numbers state wide), support for anti-immigrant ballot initiatives remained at 80%. Other activists and lawyers have sought the intervention of the federal government, and while the Department of Justice has sent a handful of observers to the county to little affect during their 20 month stay. The situation has only grown worse, more families are broken up by MCSO workplace raids, more immigrant workers have been deported, and even more have “self-deported,” fleeing the state that was their home.

Was it just four years ago that we saw the “huelga general,” a real general strike that happened here in Maricopa County. In downtown Phoenix hundreds of thousands of workers marched and rallied for protection from the coming onslaught of anti-immigrant legislation and popular white hysteria that was reaching a fever pitch. Now we’re lucky to see a few thousand marching for immigrants and calling for the end of the era of racialized policing. The dwindling numbers are of no surprise to many of us, for years organizers have stonewalled and marginalized radical voices and tactics, preferring symbolic and moral appeals to power, especially as the demands of the movement are in retreat. Gone are the “somos America, we are America” slogans, now the signs read “We are human,” a plea to the white citizenry to recognize, at the very least, that immigrants are also human beings.

Anarchists in the valley- and more specifically those who have for years resisted and organized against the Sheriff, state politicians, and local laws- are trying new methods in this struggle. We’ve seen the failure of the movement's moral appeal to white citizens, whites are engaged in a political alliance with the elite, one that rewards them with white skin privilege, over solidarity with other working class people of color. Why don’t we redefine the debate by hitting at the system’s contradictions instead? The same Sheriff deputies white people believe protect them from the “evils of illegal immigration” will also be the same agents of the state evicting them from their foreclosed home. Indeed, indigenous people are also facing forced relocation from their traditional lands, in northern Arizona the Din矇 resist the corporations seizing the land for resource extraction, while down south the Tohono O’odham are harassed by the Border Patrol, and removed from their lands for the construction of the border wall. The state dislocates immigrants, American families, and indigenous people from their homes, why aren’t we building a movement that addresses this?

Like the mainstream movement, we too want an end to the racial profiling and the attacks on immigrant communities, but we don’t want to enter a one sided debate with those in power over who can come, who can go, and who stays. Free people, need to move and live freely, we say no deportations, no foreclosures, no relocations!

Beer & Revolution: Roundtable Discussion on Borders and Movement

This month Beer & Revolution's format is switching from hosting speakers to a roundtable discussion format. The discussion topic will be "Borders and Movement," and we've invited two Phoenix area collectives busy fighting the militarization and ideology of the border. The good people of CAROB (Central Arizona Radicals Opposing Borders) and the O'odham Solidarity Across Borders Collective will be present to offer their perspectives on how we can give the heave-ho to the current society of misery and domination, and start some kind of new project of freedom. This will be an open discussion, and as always we encourage participation, criticism, discussion, and new ideas.

This is the fourth monthly Beer & Revolution meet-up for valley anarchists, last month PCWC brought out northern Arizona anarchist Joel Olson for a chat on fanaticism and the struggle against white supremacy (audio can be heard here). Over 30 anarchists and other politically minded people came out for an engaging discussion, the usual selection of tasty beers on tap, and the opportunity to meet new folks from around the valley.

Join us for Beer & Revolution this Sunday, Saturday 13, as usual this will kick off at 9 PM and the discussion will get started after 9:30 and will be held at Boulders on Broadway in Tempe. This event is free, non-drinkers are welcome too, and don't forget to bring a friend as well! See you this Sunday, cheers!

Opposition builds in the borderlands, from the checkpoints to the wall: Who participates, who sits on their hands

by Jon Riley

Day by day news seems to grow worse from Arizona's southern border. The federal government's plans for increased militarization and technological policing is outpacing the ability of immigrant advocates, critics of the policies, and all of us who want the total abolition of the border to fight back.

I took a day trip with some of our allies from the O'odham Solidarity Across Borders Collective down to Green Valley, a farming town in southern Arizona that rests 40 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border line. Our intent was to travel down south to hear and observe the American Civil Liberty Union's (ACLU) forum on the constitutionality of the border patrol checkpoints and the "100 mile constitution free zone," to get some perspective on the situation.

Phoenix Class War Council has been particularly interested in the dissent coming from Green Valley, as well as near-by city Tubac, in regards to the temporary border patrol checkpoints becoming permanent stations. In addition to the discontent from further south, there's been the development of an anti-checkpoint movement from groups in the Valley, most notable would be the Ron Paul supporters from camerafraud.com and 4409. These groups have created a series of videos documenting their protests of the check point on the Interstate 8. There are considerable differences between the two groups and their motivations in challenging the checkpoints which I'll explore below.

A renewed white citizen activism in Arizona is the legacy of the anti-immigrant groups that have dominated the debate on immigration, policing, and movement controls in state politics for much of this decade. These groups, which range from special interest groups influencing public policy to vigilante formations patrolling the border, essentially fought for a total militarization of the borderlands by criminalizing nearly every aspect of daily life for undocumented workers. Their victories were won though the polls, legislation, and in the streets. They galvanized white working people, who feared an erosion of their "way of life" and privileges, into giving the state carte blanche to terrorize communities of color in the hunt for "illegals." What's happening in Green Valley/Tubac is a sign that the anti-immigrant fervor had gone too far, even for those who support "securing the border," or the more reactionary "deport them all" line. One thing seemed clear from the comments at the ACLU gathering, many residents yearn for the days when the border patrol stayed down at the border.

Many of the residents who came to the ACLU forum last Thursday (as well as the previous night's community meeting in Tubac, which we did not attend) vocalized their frustration with the growing presence of the border patrol outside of the realm of enforcing border security and detaining migrants. Many that spoke at the forum described the border patrol as a general crime-fighting tool for the state that not only hunted and detained migrants, but that also acted as an auxiliary police force, carrying out dubious searches on Green Valley and Tubac residents' vehicles with drug-sniffing dogs. Other complaints revolved around the checkpoints pushing smugglers and "illegals" into the towns along the interstate. In addition, many at the forum saw the check points as invasive to the 4th amendment right defending against search and seizure, as well as their ability to move freely.

A hard line group of residents there were not only vocal in their support of the border patrol. In addition to interrupting the legal advice from the ACLU lawyers, they also yelled at other residents who supported excessive border security, but who did not support the border patrol checkpoints. This had a polarizing effect on the discussion, making any criticism of the border patrol as an institution nearly impossible. The only exception was when our O'odham comrades spoke. They were the only speakers not talked over or shouted down by the pro-checkpoint radicals.

Like the Camerafraud and 4409 groups, the anti-checkpoint sentiment at the Green Valley meetings came from a nearly entirely white audience. While sharing his own story of racial profiling by the border patrol, one Latino man ended his talk by noting the almost complete absence of any people of color at the forum, and how valuable their perspectives would be when shared with the other attendees.

Camerafraud and 4409 have made their names from their presence in the streets and on the internet, largely as a result of their participation in the anti-speed camera movement in the Phoenix metro area. Camerafraud has functioned as an organizing umbrella for a core of activists with backgrounds in the constitutionalist and Ron Paul grassroots presidential campaign a couple of years back. 4409 has produced a number of videos on the speeding and red light cameras, and more recently on the anti-checkpoint protest.

They recently demonstrated against the checkpoints a few weeks after a Tempe pastor posted a video on youtube describing his violent arrest at a border patrol checkpoint on the I-8 after he refused to comply with the standard citizenship question on the grounds of the 4th amendment. Unfortunately, in a more recent video post, Shelton, one of the members of 4409, defends the anti-checkpoint protests, but seems to be making his case on his heels, at times saying that the protest wasn't about "Mexicans, or illegals, or any of that," but that it was instead a demonstration in defense of the 4th amendment. He also makes the case that the checkpoints are not actually intended to find "illegals," rather they exist as a means for the state to "condition the American people to accept this kind of invasion of their privacy." He goes on to remind viewers that, of course, he opposes illegal immigration -- he just wants the border patrol at the border, not miles inland asking drivers their citizenship status, or with expanded police powers to detain drivers for non-citizenship related investigations.

I agree with the core arguments of 4409 and the citizen formations in southern Arizona, perhaps summarized best by this: that the temporary checkpoints are clearly a threat to a freedom loving person's ability to move as they please, and that potential permanent stations will continue to represent a gross privacy intrusion by police agencies. However, our commonalities end there. Despite their differences, the anti-checkpoint crowd maintain a pathetic position best described by one Green Valley forum attendee's t-shirt slogan: "Secure the border at the border."

Our O'odham friends managed to subvert this dialogue in Green Valley by talking about two things neither the constitutionalists from Phoenix, or the residents of Green Valley are discussing: the effect the militarization and surveillance has had on the area's indigenous people and people of color. Being a people who transcend the border line, the Tohono O'odham are separated from their relatives and the preservation of their way of life by the border wall . Some of the crowd scoffed at their words, but many others seemed in awe, as if the entire language of the border debate had changed in an instant. Could this be a tiny victory? Can we count on the big talk of the pro-militarization and pro-checkpoint residents to continue to drown out the moderate and dissenting voices?

We at PCWC see it like this: we believe in the free movement of people, all people. We oppose all controls on migration, be it a border wall, a checkpoint, or a retinal scan and a passport. As long as these white groups opposing the checkpoint offer no aid or solidarity to communities of color who are also suffering from the growing policing in the region (in a much greater and total manner than the residents of Green Valley or Tubac, or the constitutional activists of 4409), then these movements are in essence fighting for the freedom of mobility for white people alone. Meanwhile the racial profiling, the border patrol invasions of Tohono O'odham villages, and the oppression of the border wall will persist for others. Yet, the possibility of these communities and activist groups finding commonality, and even creating a spirit of solidarity, with the indigenous people of the borderlands creates many more potentialities for freedom, and perhaps could even give way to a social force that could undermine the ideology that allows the border wall and the accompanying controls to grow by the day.

We will continue to explore the contradictions that exist in the white responses to the checkpoints and to find the possible points of congruence that their position shares with those indigenous and communities of color who are struggling through the daily terror that the checkpoints and border controls present. We believe that these forces have the ability to challenge state power independently, but that this will have little consequence as long as the social and political order remains dominated by white groups that continue to deny the humanity of the folks on the reservation, and those on the other side of the border just so that white folks can maintain their privilege to travel without the same intrusion from the authorities.

Contradictions in the border debate: CAROB flyers the Border Security Expo

Phoenix Insurgent

Below I have linked to the text of a flyer distributed Tuesday at the Border Security Expo by PCWC's comrades in the local pro-migrant anarchist group CAROB. Organizers of the Expo itself recently reported their satisfaction with the event, which eerily presented a variety of technologies that vendors hope to see deployed sooner rather than later at the border, but which we will surely see not long after on our streets and in the hands of local police forces. Obama's recent re-invigoration of the high tech border effort will certainly help things move along in that unfortunate respect.

Considering the CAROB flyer, I think it does several things worth remarking on that we at PCWC have been trying to work on ourselves. Most importantly, from my perspective, the piece looks for connections, fault lines and hypocrisies that result from or defy spoken or unspoken ideologies. For instance, linking the deployment of surveillance technology narrowly at the border to their broader spread away from the border and onto our freeways is a point well worth pushing (and one made by the infamous Santa's last Christmas). The same is true with the point about comparing the border and the airport. After all, it's freedom of movement that is being both challenged and defended within the camera/checkpoint dialogue.

At PCWC we've explored similar terrain with our pieces about the light rail and immigrant detention camps. A soon to be forthcoming article by me on cameras statewide and the resistance to them in one context, versus the embracing of them in the other will explore the white supremacist tension that lies at the heart of both issues: that freedom of movement is reserved for whites, not for migrants. One of the interesting things about the Arizona movement against immigration, against the internal checkpoints and against the roadside cameras is its generally libertarian composition. There is much overlap within each particular facet and each makes similar appeals and arguments, but each is tainted by an underlying and often unstated white supremacist assumptions. Presciently, CAROB has recognized the link here between the resistance by many in the white libertarian movement and whites in general to the internal checkpoints, even as these same people remain generally mum or even supportive when it comes to their utilization against migrants or on Native lands.

For instance, evoking the magical word "citizen" is a frequent line of defense used by those white libertarians that challenge the checkpoints, revealing a tacit acceptance of the police tactic if only it were deployed against what are presumed to be the right people -- i.e., Mexicans and others categorized as alien by the white power system (which has historically included more than just migrants). We see further in this example how the word "citizen" itself operates as a codeword for "white" in most cases. Sadly, references to the constitution itself, in this context, likewise echo past rejoinders for the defense of white citizenship. Clearly, such positions have no place in a truly libertarian movement.

Which is precisely why they are so interesting to engage. While many people find the contradictions above reason enough to define an opposition and to line up against it, those of us here at PCWC are more interested in what unseen opportunities may be revealed by them. Which is not to say that one would form an alliance with racist reactionaries. Obviously not. However, not every white libertarian is a Minuteklan supporter. And much of the support in the broader white community isn't as deep as it seems at first glance.

If contradictions exist (and they surely do), within their debate, then it means opportunities to engage with libertarian elements inclined to an anti-racist dialogue that defy the left-right straightjack may present themselves and, if finessed and studied, they may provide the potential to redefine the way that whiteness plays out in that context. Perhaps a rift can be created between the reactionaries and wider white society by focusing on these potentialities. And shifting the ground under whiteness opens further opportunities for class struggle.

For instance, and from a fanatical point of view, a campaign against the internal checkpoints that adheres to unbending opposition to white supremacy might reveal some interesting partners and openings for class struggle and, just as importantly, for the liberation of spaces in the southwest for movement by all people. This is something we here at PCWC have really just started to explore but I think it's quite worth investigating.

Read CAROB's interesting article here:

CAROB flier for Border Security Expo

Release them all! Stop jailing migrants!

This is the second text printed on the fliers that PCWC members distributed on the May Day/May 2nd immigrant solidarity march in Phoenix. This piece was by our good friend and comrade Sallydarity, "Release them all! Stop jailing migrants!" is yet another valuable contribution of hers to the understanding of the situation facing immigrants in Maricopa County.



by Sallydarity
http://chaparralrespectsnoborders.blogspot.com

We've heard the stories: Undocumented immigrants are getting kidnapped and held for ransom, and perhaps found in drop houses if the police get a tip. The migrants are vulnerable targets because they have been criminalized by the state. Something we don't hear too much about is that the biggest armed gang in the country is kidnapping migrants and holding them against their will. They're not holding them in drop houses; these uniformed kidnappers are handcuffing the migrants and incarcerating them in jails and detention centers.

If we feel that it is tragic when traffickers do it, why do we let the police get away with it? Whether they are "rescued" from traffickers, stopped while driving in one of Arpaio's sweeps, or confronted with the ridiculous charge of conspiracy to smuggle themselves, migrants get caught up in the US prison system for no other reason but crossing a man-made line in the sand.

Arpaio, taking pleasure in humiliating brown-skinned people and getting cheers from racists, stands out as the villain of Maricopa County. But the other police departments are acting in similar, more quiet ways. While migrants and activists wait to hear what the federal government will do to save us from Sheriff Joe, the Department of Homeland Security is holding hundreds of thousands of people- triple the number of people in detention just ten years ago- in detention centers. If they end 287g they will only replace it with something more tasteful; something called "Secure Communities" which will target our "criminal alien" population. Meanwhile our legislature is coming up with new ways to criminalize migrants.

Migrants have been criminalized for who they are and where they are from- not for doing harm. If anything is harmful, it's punishing people for trying to survive the results of colonialism, capitalism, and globalization (which most US citizens enjoy the benefits of). When it is nearly impossible to make a living and nearly impossible to migrate legally, anyone would travel to where they have more opportunities. Why then would advocates for immigrants' rights legitimize the arrests of undocumented immigrants by complaining only about the "legal" people who get caught up in the racial profiling sweeps? We mustn't buy into the efforts to divide us! We need to bring down the walls between us, as well as the physical walls- the border walls, the jail walls, and the walls of the detention centers.

It should be a crime to imprison people for trying to survive!

Blood on the Line: Resistance, Empire and Repression at the Border

This is the first text from a flyer distributed at the May 2nd demonstration in front of the county jail. Perhaps a critique will appear here if I have some time to do it. Certainly a lot can be said about the generally sad state of the pro-migrant camp these days.


By Phoenix Insurgent

The border fence is a result of three factors, inextricably intertwined: the expansion of capitalism, global war for empire and the desire of common people to organize their own lives free of the first two.

In 1854, the ratification of the Gadsden Purchase settled a border dispute stemming from the American invasion of Mexico seven years earlier (the “Halls of Montezuma” reference in the Marines battle hymn pays tribute to the occupation of Mexico City). With the war over, Southern capitalists and slavocrats turned their greedy eyes west, hoping to expand their trade and the slave system. Mountainous northern Arizona was deemed too difficult for a railway, and so the US purchased from Mexico the region that now encompasses southern Arizona. Thus the border moved, splitting both Mexican cities like Nogales and native peoples' traditional lands.

During this time, the border remained open and people moved relatively freely back and forth. A surveying team in the region left stone piles every couple miles as they traveled, delineating on the land a line on a map generally deemed meaningless by the region's inhabitants, who were keen on constructing their own lives free from such interference. In fact, the first physical barrier wasn't built between the two countries until 1918, when US war hysteria led to the Battle of Ambos Nogales.

Paranoid about a German-backed invasion from Mexico, the US deployed forces to Nogales. When a man crossing the border refused inspection by US troops, it quickly degenerated into open warfare, with American soldiers exchanging fire with Mexican troops and ordinary Mexicans fed up with the degrading treatment routinely meted out by US border guards. The resulting bloodshed left three US soldiers dead and hundreds dead and wounded on the Mexican side, including the mayor of Nogales. As a result, the US built the first chain link fence dividing the two countries.

Since then, as Capital and the State expanded their domination of the region, that fence has grown, even though our resistance to it has continued. While American Capital has become increasingly free to travel to Mexico, sucking the wealth into American banks, people have fought for their right to cross the border on their own terms, free from regulation. Tribes divided by the border have struggled to maintain their historical right to cross and migrant workers have voyaged back and forth in search of work and visiting family.

And, of course, millions of white Americans have crossed for vacations and to set up second homes, something that is largely unremarked by mainstream American society. Indeed hundreds of thousands of Americans live in Mexico, many of whom never register with Mexican immigration agencies. In the US, the freedom of white people specifically and American citizens in general – and the rich of all nations -- to travel to Mexico is considered a birthright, the spoils of war. Meanwhile, the legitimate desire of other people to do the same is criminalized and regulated.

Nevertheless, the right of all humans to travel wherever they wish, whenever they want is elementary to being a free person. As an obvious impediment to that, it is therefore our position that not only should the border fence be stopped and dismantled, but that free movement of all people should be encouraged. All people now held for “immigration” violations should be immediately freed and those already deported should be allowed free travel back if they so desire. All facilities for immigrant detention should be closed and leveled without delay.