Bright Eyes, Cursive, Desaparecidos to Play Concert For Equality


On Saturday July 31st, 2010 in Omaha, NE, several bands including Bright Eyes, Cursive, Desaparecidos (their first live performance since 2002), and Lullaby For The Working Class will gather together to fight for equality by playing a benefit show for the ACLU Nebraska. There will be two shows, an outdoor day time show commencing at 5pm at Downtown Benson, as well as a late night show at the Waiting Room in Omaha, NE. Tickets to the daytime show are $20. Additionally there are a limited number of Deluxe Packages available for $50 which allows access to both shows.

All proceeds from the concerts go to the ACLU Nebraska who are currently preparing a law suit against the town of Fremont, Nebraska, the latest in a series of U.S. towns that have decided to take immigration law into their own hands. ACLU Nebraska will file a lawsuit challenging the law which attempts to ban undocumented immigrants from renting, residing or being employed in the Nebraska town.

ACLU Nebraska Executive Director Laurel Marsh says, “If this law goes into effect, it will cause discrimination and racial profiling against Latinos and others who appear to be foreign born, including U.S. citizens. The ACLU Nebraska has no option but to turn to the courts to stop this un-American and unconstitutional ordinance before the law goes into effect. Not only do local ordinances such as this violate federal law, they are also completely out of step with American values of fairness and equality. We will be working with concerned citizens in Fremont who want to stop Arizona-like laws from getting on the books in their city.”

This is definitely something to pay attention to and attend if you’re able. Comment against this concert all already surfacing and include the following rather sadly grotesque statement:

The local news station also reported that some supporters of the tough immigration ordinance plan to attend the concert in protest. One of them, Susan Smith of the Nebraskans Advisory Group, told the station, “The comments that he makes are so anti-American and anti-white, he is actually the racist.”

This anti-American sentiment is quite often heard from anti-immigrants as a means to make those who care about other human beings seem like the evil ones. Truly calling someone anti-American means nothing at all. Actually, it’s quite ridiculous given this country was supposedly founded on immigration and when you fight for immigration you’re called anti-American. Obviously, as hinted in the statement above, this is about being pro-Anglo, not pro or anti American.

In this article the statement from Susan Smith of the Nebraskans Advisory Group continues:

“In Fremont, we’re trying to get the local government to get on the rule-of-law side,” she said. “This is more standing up for America.”

Being pro-anger and anti human rights is not standing up for America. It’ll actually be quite sadly comic to see people protesting a concert for equality. The protest against equality is simply a modern day out in the light version of the KKK and other both heavy and marginal racist groups. Obviously the news is edited so I don’t know what prompted Susan Smith to say Oberst was “anti-white” but the mention of color in her statement at all provides a glimpse into her and others mindsets.


Arizona Rising Up In The Name of Human Rights

I have to say I’m quite proud of the way the people of Arizona have come out to oppose this terrible legislation. There are a myriad of kind hearted compassionate people willing to stand of for basic dignity and human rights. It’s quite sad to see so much of the evil sneering of those placing all blame on other human beings – especially, in this case, undocumented migrants. This ‘there’s not enough room in this town for the both of us’ mentality is crude and quite anti-American.

20 Unitarian Universalist ministers arrested in Arizona immigration protest
Newark Unitarian Universalism ExaminerMichael Dalzell

Twenty Unitarian Universalist ministers from around the country were among the 83 people arrested Thursday in Phoenix, protesting the implementation of Arizona’s immigration law. The law took effect yesterday, a day after a federal judge stripped SB 1070 of some of its most controversial provisions.
“I am standing for human rights,” Frederick-Gray told the Arizona Republic before her arrest in front of the jail. “In the face of fear that is assaulting our community, we must not be silent. We must make it clear which side we stand on. We stand on the side of love.”

In the fight over Arizona’s immigration law, everybody loses

By Roberto Suro
Sunday, August 1, 2010

Arizona’s immigration law was never going to solve the problem of illegal immigration. That is not its purpose. Instead it is an invitation to a shootout in which there will be no winners. It is more of a provocation than an attempt to enact policy, and as a protest against Washington’s failure to fix a broken immigration system, it resonates.
The frustration has been building quietly since the last big push to overhaul the immigration system ended in June 2007 with the Senate locked in a stalemate. After more than a year of political drama, including massive immigrant marches in the spring of 2006, legislation had emerged with backing from President George W. Bush, some Republican moderates and most Democrats. It would have increased enforcement, offered legalization to the current population of illegal migrants and created measures to regulate future flows, including a temporary-worker program. But conservative Republicans attacked the legalization program as an “amnesty” for law-breaking migrants, while liberal Democrats split over the terms of the temporary-worker program. Comprehensive immigration reform, as proponents dubbed it, failed to get the 60 votes necessary to move through the Senate. Since then, nothing has shifted that political accounting, not even the 2008 election, which changed so much else in Washington. (click above link to read more)

What is the Rule of Law?

What is the rule of law anyway?   Anti-immigrant groups use this term quite frequently to clarify their position on immigration.  Supposedly the “rule of law” would state that if a person is undocumented they should be removed.  However, it does not take into account human rights, personal circumstance or anything else one would consider when humbly judging another human being.

According to most attempts to define “the rule of law” the most important consideration is in fact human rights and the individual freedom.  Laws are meant to protect freedom and promote liberty.  In this way the government works for the people as a whole rather than promoting only a select few over others.  According to the UN Charter:

Today, the concept of the rule of law is embedded in the Charter of the United Nations. In its Preamble, one of the aims of the UN is “to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”. A primary purpose of the Organization is “to maintain international peace and security… and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.” The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the historic international recognition that all human beings have fundamental rights and freedoms, recognizes that “… it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law…”

“Human rights should be protected by the rule of law.” This does not exclude those ‘humans’ anti-immigrant groups choose to demonize or marginalize. When we all wake up and see each other as humans treating one another with dignity and respect we will quickly see how things will change for the better. Immigration is a global issue. Somehow many feel that our fighting a war abroad is ok because it protects our local freedoms yet they don’t grasp the fact that actions abroad effect immigration through tyranny and oppression endured elsewhere.

What is the Rule of Law?