Cut it down to 3mins and have better makeup and this is great.

Been there, done that. The Story: Part One ; Part Two ; Part Three.

Bolivian law was changed in December 2007 to require new, complicated, applied-and-paid-for visas of United States citizens entering Bolivia. Whereas before Americans could enter Bolivia and receive a stamp granting them 90 days of tourist entry, now Americans must pay over $100, provide extensive documentation, and submit an application in order to have 90 days of tourist entry. The argument made in favor of this policy change: reciprocity. America has immigration restrictions, therefore Bolivia will have immigration restrictions. Reciprocity.

In the spirit of reciprocity, then: Why are so many of the people who support Bolivia’s ability to investigate citizenship actively opposing the United States’ ability to investigate legality?

Bolivia’s policing of immigration matters is openly racist; Arizona’s policing of immigration matters is just.

In 2009, my friend and I were the only people approached in the entire bus terminal that day. We were the only people detained. We walked into the terminal and were immediately stopped. Why? Only because our skins are pale. We were stopped only because of the color of our skin. We were victims of racism. I was particularly struck (emotionally) by the poster hanging on the wall in the hall of the immigration detention office… the poster was a PSA about needing to struggle against racism. Funny: none of the victims of racism depicted were white. I felt very much neglected as I was threatened with third-world jail as a result of my pale skin.

The Arizona law is fundamentally different from the Bolivian system. The Arizona law empowers police to investigate immigration legality when a person has already been stopped for another legal reason. They cannot randomly pull people over because of their skin color.

I, as a “white” person in Bolivia, South America, was stopped and investigated because of the color of my skin.

Someone else, as a person of any color in Arizona, United States of America, can be investigated under reasonable suspicion only if they have been stopped for another legal reason.

Bolivian Law: Racist.

Arizona Law: Just.

Interested in more information regarding what the Arizona law actually means? Read Heather Mac Donald’s article.

Let’s get this out of the way: Wrong. Very wrong. Really, really wrong.

How Is Shakira Wrong ? (Simplified):

The Constitution is a document that frames and limits the United States Federal Government. Over time many portions of the Constitution have been applied to the States.

The Constitution specifies existence of U.S. citizenship. The existence of this stipulation creates a division between citizens and non-citizens. A difference exists.

Amendment 14 Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Citizenship involves a degree of ownership of the government, including the protection and reservation of specific rights. Notice: “No State shall make or enforce any law with shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens“. The Constitution is specifically protecting the privileges or immunities of citizens.

What of non-citizens? Notice: “nor shall any State deprive [...] without due process of law; nor deny to any person [...] the equal protection of the laws.” All consideration of all people is within the context of the law. What does Federal law say? Enter the country legally. An illegal immigrant is, by definition, not abiding by U.S. law. An illegal immigrant is, by definition, violating U.S. law. Does the Constitution protect their rights? Certainly. How? By the application of the law.

The law exists in unity. Protections and limitations work in unity. Therefore, both the protections and the limitations of the law apply to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil (and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Constitution). They are alive on U.S. soil, so their rights are protected by the law. Jointly, they violate the limitations of the law, so they are punished by the law.

Why Is Shakira Wrong? (Simplified):

Shakira’s concept of constitutional theory is very alien for many of us. There’s a reason for that: she’s, legally, an alien. Shakira is Colombian. Latin American constitutional theory is very different from United States constitutional theory! In the U.S., the Constitution is a document that frames and limits our government and our federal government’s laws. The Constitution is the foundation for the law. The Latin American standard is different: in Latin American nations, the constitutions (remember, simplifying!) are the law! The U.S. Constitution is a stable document that is difficult to textually change but undergoes detailed interpretive shifts. Latin American constitutions are unstable documents that are much simpler to textually change. Regime changes are often paired with changes, and often full-scale replacements, of constitutional documents. A Latin American unversed in U.S. constitutional theory cannot be expected to have a solid understanding of the degree of difference. Frankly, however, all that does is provide a bit of context for Shakira’s blatant ignorance.

Reality: Shakira’s country, Colombia, allows U.S. citizens to enter Colombia and stay for 60 days as a tourist. If  a U.S. citizen stays for longer than 60 days without permission then that U.S. citizen is fined and prohibited from leaving Colombia until the fine is paid. Why is Shakira demanding that United States law not apply to immigrants without also demanding that her own country lift restrictions on immigrants?

Miss Bleish is from my hometown, Kansas City, and is now based in my home State, Texas. She recently participated in an activism activity supporting the decriminalization of marijuana – a cause I, too, support. A man participating in the protest was arrested by undercover police officers. The activists, including Bleish, expressed verbally their opposition to the arrest. Ultimately, Bleish was also arrested… for disorderly conduct. She is requesting that concerned individuals call the police department involved and “demand” that the charges be dropped. She argues that her behavior was not disorderly. She argues that all activist-participants were behaving nonviolently.

I disagree.

Thankfully, Bleish was recording with her handheld camera. Also thankfully, the recording survived the process. The video is embedded below. My impressions of the situation are taken entirely from her blog and her video. I have deliberately not read any external arguments on the subject. I’ll announce my bias right now: I began watching her video prepared to be angered at inappropriate police behavior and was excited to see a young liberty activist in my home area. I found Bleish and her story via Facebook mutual friends. I entered the story predisposed to support her. I watched her evidence and wholeheartedly disagree with her story and her behavior.

What happened in that video? Here is a basic outline:

• Man arrested for behavior that occurred prior to start of recording (therefore unknown circumstances to me).
• Crowd and Bleish kept reasonable space while verbally protesting.
• Police escorted arrested man to their vehicle.
• Bleish and some crowd members followed very closely.
• Arrested man was placed in the vehicle. Crowd is very vocal, and some activists used rude words to express themselves.
• Bleish partially entered the police vehicle with at least her hand, arm, and camera, and probably her head and one shoulder.
• Bleish remained very physically close to the vehicle and the officer to whom it belonged, temporarily blocking the officer’s access to his vehicle.
• Bleish repeatedly made extremely personal comments to the officer, including: “Do you have children? They’re gonna smoke pot someday. You’ve probably smoked pot before.” Her volume increased and she began yelling at the officer within his personal space: ”Do you have children? Do you have children? Do you have children? [...] Your children will smoke pot someday! Do you want them in a cage?” Sections of these phrases were repeated, and Bleish’s tone increased in volume and strength.
• After having partially entered his vehicle, the officer exited the vehicle and walked past Bleish in order to communicate with the small group of activists blocking the vehicle from driving forward.
• The activists refused to move. The officer restrained one of them.
• Bleish physically stood over the restrained activist and the police officer while the officer handcuffed the activist.
• The group of activists surrounded the officer and the restrained activist.
• The officer and the restrained activist moved behind the car and away from the large group.
• Bleish followed them. She got so extraordinarily into the officer’s personal space that at one point the camera almost made contact with the officer’s cap. She was within inches of him for an extended period of time while yelling at him and making personal remarks about his potential behavior with his children.
• Another officer demands that Bleish and the others leave the officers’ personal space. Bleish refuses and she and the group continue to verbally harass the officers.
• Bleish was restrained.

Bleish and others declared at several points in the process that their activities were completely non-violent, but that is not true. Their invasion of individuals’ personal space while screaming personal verbal attacks and accusations is a form of violent activity. They were using their bodies to limit the activities of the police officers. That is textbook disorderly conduct and interference with police activity. It just is.

I have experienced another person using his body to restrain my movement; I have experienced it when physical conduct was made and when no physical conduct existed. Both types of situations were a form of violence. Neither type of situation was peaceful. That is what Bleish did: she initiated force by using her body to limit another person’s spacial freedom. In this case, that person(s) was a police officer. A police officer must be allowed to preserve his or her personal space because a police officer, by nature of the position, is under constant additional threat. Any individual’s personal space deserves respect because that space is a part of one’s physical and psychological self. Bleish violated that principle.

What should Bleish have done instead?

• Granted the officers and their vehicle the same degree of space she would expect the officers to grant her.
• She was right to get the arrested man’s name ; she was not justified in entering another person’s vehicle to get that name.
• She should have politely asked to communicate with one of the officers in order to get information regarding their destination and ask permission to ask the arrested man’s name (had she not been able to hear his name from a polite distance).
• Refrained from all personal remarks. The officer was doing his job – whether one disagrees with that job or not, his behavior was professional and polite during all points of Bleish’s recording. She owed the same degree of polite professionalism to him.
• She was right to record the entire process.
• Had she not engaged in inappropriate behavior leading to her arrest, she should have followed the police vehicle in a non-threatening manner in order to be at the station to offer assistance to the arrested man when the time came.
• She should have observed the behavior of the arrested man. He was relatively calm, he was genuinely non-violent, and he appeared slightly embarrassed by her behavior (although he appeared grateful for the chance to state his name).

Bottom-line: people pull these stupid stunts. They are thoughtless. They are emotional. They are raw. They are irresponsible. They are done in the name of liberty! This is not mature civil protest or civil disobedience and this is not reasoned revolution. This is hypocritical idiocy that hurts the cause of liberty. Shame on you, Miss Bleish.

I recognize the emotions that get riled up in these situations. I’ve been shoved into an unmarked military-police vehicle by non-uniformed officers in a country that does not have reasonable protections and/or respect for personal and civil liberties. One feels anger, frustration, and helplessness. One is conscious of being abused. At one point I let my vocal tone and my body language express these feelings, and at other times I was mature and self-restrained. I know.

I know that the United States citizens on U.S. soil still have the best status of liberty of all the people in the world. I know that we are desperately close to losing that status, and I know that we must cherish, nurture, and defend that status. The preservation and reestablishment of our liberties requires that we behave in such a way that demonstrates that we respect ourselves and others. Bleish and her companions failed in that respect. Their motivations and extraordinarily heightened emotions provide contexts for their behavior. Our response as a community of activists should be three-fold. We should recognize that their behavior was absolutely inappropriate. We should train and strengthen ourselves to respond better should we find ourselves in similarly difficult circumstances. We should find a balance between helping Bleish, et al., refind their footing and not allowing such cases to cast an ugly shadow across the shining light of Liberty.