Arizona's tough new immigration law has drawn criticism from many in academe, including calls for groups to boycott the state, but at least one scholarly organization says it will go ahead with a meeting scheduled to be held in Tucson later this month.
Leaders of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association say they are troubled by the law, and many of their members oppose it.
But Robert Warrior, the association's president, said on Thursday that the encouragement of scholars of American-Indian studies at the University of Arizona and financial constraints had persuaded association officials that it was best to continue with the meeting, which is scheduled to begin May 20.
The law, SB 1070, which was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last month, requires state and local police officers, including those on campuses, to ask people whom they suspect are illegal immigrants to provide evidence that they are in the country legally. Critics are concerned that the law will lead to racial profiling, force people to carry documents, and otherwise make them feel unwelcome.
Mr. Warrior, who is also director of American Indian Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said the association was spending "hundreds of thousands of dollars" on the meeting, and it was locked into contracts for conference space at Tucson's Westin La Paloma hotel and for other expenses. More than 600 people will attend the meeting.
"Canceling a thing like this, especially this late, is tremendously costly," he said. "We're a pretty new organization, and we don't have the money that the Westin would charge us to cancel."
The association's leaders sent a letter condemning the law to Governor Brewer two days after she signed the legislation, Mr. Warrior said.
They also plan to express opposition to the law at the conference and have invited a Congressional opponent of the law, U.S. Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona, to speak. The group is also adding a session at the beginning of the three-day meeting that will feature guest speakers who are working to fight the law.
Some members say those plans do not go far enough, and Mr. Warrior said he knew of at least eight people who had already decided to boycott the meeting.
Those who have withdrawn include Jace Weaver, director of the Institute of Native American Studies at the University of Georgia and a founding member of the association.
Mr. Weaver said he understood the financial need to proceed with the conference, but he wanted the organization to take a firmer stand, such as by refocusing the plenary sessions around discussing and protesting the law.
Native populations should be particularly concerned about the law, he said. "The immigration law puts people of color at risk for being hassled, at the very least."
Comments
1. megginson - May 07, 2010 at 06:53 am
As with California's fatally flawed Proposition 187, we are again facing the irony of Native American populations being harmed by a law that is supposed to curb illegal immigration. It is reminiscent of that old cartoon that shows a person of European descent shaking his fist and crying loudly, "Send all the illegal immigrants home!", with the American Indian standing behind him saying, "Sure, I'll help you pack."
2. jffoster - May 07, 2010 at 08:53 am
Clearly the Arizona Law, however ill advised and ill formed, is not directed against American Indians. And No. 1, while your joke is amusing, there'll have to be at least two or three Indians in that line, and only the last one, a descendant of the very FIRST of several waves to have come from Asia, will be the one remaining.
3. nativepoet - May 07, 2010 at 10:31 am
Megginson, I now that "race" is important, but we should not allow today's ideas of race let us forget that in 1492, those with dark skin were cast from Spain. Where did they go? I've got an idea...
4. honore - May 08, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Megginson, for what it's worth...90% of these Mexican illegals are of indigenous decent (15%-20% of Mexicans are of European descent, though most Americans CANNOT wrap themselves around that reality).
The majority of illegals DO NOT have an "indigenous" self-identity, but rather a generalized "Mexican" identity. It's kind of like asking a Zulu if they have a "Black" identity and then wondering why their facial expression says..."huhhhhhh?".
And then to make matters worse, they come to the US, where they are IMMEDIATELY shoved head first into our misinformed and ignorant "latino/hispanic" rubric and you have one mixed-up, socially-compromised and politically disparate dynamic very ripe for political charlatans to exploit. Welcome to the world of American ethno-arrogance. Not very pretty is it.
Go to Arizona, enjoy the sun and move on with your life. It is not likely this issue will be resolved in any of our lifetimes.
5. goxewu - May 10, 2010 at 09:38 am
Re #2:
Prof. Foster's comment, indicating that only one [group of, I presume] Indian[s] will be able to claim indigenous status [i.e., having come across the Bering Strait onto a continent populated only by wildlife], inadvertently supports the argument that almost all Americans are descendants of "illegal" immigrants of one wave or another.
Of course the largely white supporters of the Arizona law have legality on their side--as though there's never a disconnect between the rationale for any law (in this case, "We're only enforcing neglected laws already on the books") and its probable immoral practice (i.e., the ability to stop-and-frisk, so to speak, any Latino who looks like he "might"--because his skin is the same color as most illegal immigrants'--be in the U.S. illegally).
6. jffoster - May 10, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Actually, the point Goxewu refers to in 5 was advertant. I suppose technically one can't be a illegal immigrant unless there is a society with immigration laws, and the first Indians to have come over from Asia were band level foragers with bilateral descent. But once unilineal descent develops, there are customary if not statutory immigration policies.