On Illegal People...and Forgetful Ones: Reflections on Race, Nation and Immigration
The excitement would have been palpable. Such a long journey, alone, and now it was nearly over. He was almost there, just a few yards from entering his new country, the United States. His heart, by now, would have almost certainly been pounding in anticipation of what lay ahead: a new life of opportunity for he and the family he would send for just as soon as he found work and saved a little money. Soon, the miseries that had marked their existence back home would be but faded memories.
Just a few more feet now.
A few more seconds.
But it was not to be. Not this time.
Not for Jacob, whose real last name is still a mystery even to his descendants, like me, his great-grandson. Was it Shuckleman? Shuckman? Shankman, Schickman? Something like that, certainly not Wise, that much we know. Well, it doesn't matter really. Not to this story. What matters is simply this: as Jacob and his several hundred shipmates cruised into the harbor in New York, they were about to learn a lesson about the arbitrary and capricious ways of even those who proclaim their nation a land of fresh starts and opportunity.
For as it turns out, Jacob's boat arrived just a few days after the death of William McKinley, the nation's 25th President, who had been shot eight days earlier by Leon Czolgosz, the son of Eastern European immigrants. Indeed, immigrants from that exact same part of Eastern Europe from which Jacob hailed. Caught up in a momentary wave of hyper-bigotry against those of his regional heritage, Jacob and the rest would be turned around at the port of entry, denied the right to disembark, and sent back. Back to Russia. Back across the water, whence they came. One can easily imagine that as the weeks ticked by, during the agonizingly slow return to the home he thought he had left for good, Jacob must have wondered if he would ever again get the chance to make right on his promises to his wife and children.
As it turns out he would, but it would take six more long years. Six years until he could once again save up the money for the journey that had been previously aborted thanks to the prejudicial whims of those who felt themselves superior, and fit to exclude, to illegalize if only for the time being, those who merely resembled, or sounded like, or were from the same part of the world as Jacob.
And that, as much as anything, provides the most important answer to the question that is so ubiquitous in the midst of the current immigration debate.
You know the question. It sounds like this, voiced in the mouths of folks who wish so badly to stem the flow of those they call illegal aliens:
"What part of illegal do you not understand?"
As it turns out, I understand every part of it. I understand it all too well. Its meaning is inscribed on the cell memory of my ancestral line, burned into our familial DNA. For it is the label that was, for a while, placed upon my great grandfather. Not because of anything he had done, but merely because he had been born in a place that, in the eyes of those filled with hatred, rendered him suspect. After all, McKinley was killed by an anarchist whose parents were from modern-day Belarus, and so naturally, it made sense to treat a boat full of Minskers as though they were criminals. Just like today, the killing of a rancher near the border, supposedly at the hands of a Mexican drug smuggler, means that Arizona must crack down on other Mexicans, or anyone who might be a Mexican, in the country without permission.
What I understand is that racists are not very original. The targets change, but the game remains the same: it is forever and always about stopping the dangerous and "polluting" other. It is about the dominant group telling some group with less power that they are not as good, not as clean, not as moral, not as wanted, not as human in some way. It is about oppressing others in the name of protecting the self, failing to realize in what can only be considered one of the saddest spectacles of modern history, that in the end, the oppressor neither fully cows their target nor obtains the security they sought. Indeed they undermine it, along with any remaining pretensions to the national greatness that made the so-called "other" want to join them in the first place. The degree to which it is ironic is only exceeded by that to which it is pathetic.
And yes, I know, the voices that clamor for securing the borders insist they are not racists. But they are liars. There is no other word for them. They are liars. They said the same thing no doubt, or some version of it a hundred years ago. Even as they were using bogus intelligence tests to "prove" that Jews and Italians were intellectually inferior to real white people. There was no bigotry. It was just that certain people were less assimilable, don't you see? Yes I see. I see very clearly thank you.
Arizona's new law--which requires law enforcement officials to ascertain the legal status of anyone they think may be undocumented, so long as they have "reasonable suspicion" that the person might be in the country illegally--will almost surely lead to racial and ethnic profiling, no matter claims to the contrary. Indeed, there is virtually no way to envision the law being enforced other than by resort to such discriminatory actions. When asked to explain what an illegal immigrant looks like, the state's Governor admitted she didn't know, but she was confident that others in her state knew, and would enforce the law fairly. That's reassuring. Especially when literally all the anti-immigrant rhetoric in the state (and elsewhere) focuses on Latinos, especially Mexicans, who we are being told are to blame for a massive spike in crime rates along the border. Although the facts say otherwise--indeed crime has dropped dramatically in border towns over the last decade, and all evidence suggests that immigrant crime rates are far below the rates for native-born USAmericans--conservatives, having long ago abandoned such trivialities as research and intellectual integrity continue to push the lie forward.
Fact is, reasonable suspicion means whatever police say it means. You can make most anything seem reasonable. So, for instance, if an officer sees Latinos speaking Spanish in a public place, or hanging out, perhaps speaking to someone in their parked vehicle, they might presume the person to be a day laborer looking for employment. Under the law, cracking down on such work is to be especially prioritized, so there is every reason to believe that such indicators of suspicion would lead to widespread harassment of persons whose only real crime was being Spanish-speaking, brown-skinned and, from all appearances, working class in terms of clothing. Behavior that before SB 1070 would have been no cause for a search will now be considered reasonable, and will cause profiling to be deployed against Latinos, the vast majority of whom are there legally, and even citizens. Honestly now, does anyone really believe that white folks from European nations, speaking with accents, are going to be questioned under this law?
The truth is, this bill, and almost all anti-immigrant hysteria is about race, no matter how loudly and unconvincingly those persons pushing the agenda forward try and deny it. In the case of SB 1070, its chief sponsor is an overt racist who consorts rather openly with Nazis. And the group that is taking credit for getting the law passed was founded by a man who regularly inveighs against Latinos as inferiors, insists that America must remain a mostly white nation in order to survive, and has been associated with white supremacists for more than three decades.
The idea that conservatives merely want to crack down on those who enter the nation without proper documentation--i.e., they only want to stop illegal as opposed to legal immigration--is demonstrably dishonest. After all, if it were merely a matter of process (as in, "we don't mind if you come, but do it the right way, legally"), there would be an easy solution: just make coming to the nation legally as easy as filling out a postcard, mailing it in, waiting three days for a background check, and then you're legal. Voila, no more undocumented crossings. But no one ever suggests this solution, indicating that the problem, in their mind, is less about the distinction between documented and undocumented migrants, and more about the mere fact of brown-skinned migration in the first place.
They simply don't want those people. They never have. They have always and forever deemed themselves capable of discerning who the better people were and who the lesser, and knew of course that they were of the former group.
That so many now embrace this kind of thinking, perhaps even some of those who once upon a time were deemed every bit as criminal and undesirable as persons coming from Mexico or Central America are today, is a chilling testament. And not merely testament to how racism works, but how memory itself can let us down, how forgetfulness has been elevated to the level of a national political sacrament, and how the promises of liberty and equality are hollow, lest we renew our commitment to them in each new generation.
Tim Wise is the author of five books on race. His latest is Colorblind: The Rise of Post-Racial Politics and the Retreat from Racial Equity (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2010).
Keywords:
About Tim
Tim Wise is among the most prominent anti-racist writers and activists in the U.S., and has been called, "One of the most brilliant, articulate and courageous critics of white privilege in the nation," by best-selling author and professor Michael...
Connections
A few comments
1. The flip side of claiming that anyone and everyone who thinks there should be some reasonable and legal limit on entrance into this country is racist, is the possibility that those making that claim wouldn't give a rat's behind about the issue if it were white people who constituted the bulk of illegals in this country. Make illegal aliens predominantly of English, Irish, French or Russian origin, and I doubt there'd be a peep from anyone who now claims this Arizona law is racist and discriminatory or that people who support it are racists.
2. Here's a link to the law itself. Anyone worried about its alleged discriminatory / fascist / oppressive components should actually read the law, something most critics of it seem not to have done. That alone should relieve them of any misgivings about it. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
3. As per the above, this law simply demands the enforcement of the Federal law: "NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW."
4. It does not "require law enforcement officials to ascertain the legal status of anyone they think may be undocumented" without prior "lawful contact," meaning that a law enforcement officer can not, willy nilly, pull over, stop, or detain anyone he simply feels is here illegally. There has to be some other legal reason first.
5. Federal law already requires non-resident aliens to carry their papers at all times. This law imposes no additional legal burden in that regard.
6. "The idea that conservatives merely want to crack down on those who enter the nation without proper documentation--i.e., they only want to stop illegal as opposed to legal immigration" is demonstrably honest. They / we don't advocate discrimination based on race, but being sane, rational people, we do realize that any and all countries have to have restrictions on how many people can come into their country and for what reasons and for how long. However, it is absurd to suggest that the cure for the problem is to simply make it legal for anyone with a pulse to come into the country at will. That's like saying that the solution to the problem of murder in the country is to make it legal. And, I should point out, we are the most generous country on earth when it comes to immigration. By a wide margin, we allow more immigrants into our country than any other country does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population), and primarily from non-white countries (http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publications/LPR09.shtm -- Table 10) That's hardly a racist immigration policy. Actually, our immigration policy is a testament to what a non-racist country this is.
This Arizona law is a rational and reasonable reaction to a problem that is the fault of the Federal government not doing its job. It doesn't secure our borders very well, which leaves states such as Arizona with a large alien presence that strains the resources of the state. If the Feds did their job adequately, individual states wouldn't have to take up the slack, which is really all this bill does.
Um ...
US citizens are not required to carry any paperwork proving their citizenship. So, if a dark-skinned Latino US citizen is out for a walk with nothing but his or her house keys, he or she can be detained on "reasonable suspicion" and nothing else -- because they can't prove their citizenship.
What should someone like me carry to prove my citizenship? A copy of the Mayflower Compact?
The biggest issue is that immigration is (rightly) a Federal matter, not one for state's rights. What's next? If you're born in New York and move to Maryland you have to be naturalized, or carry some kind of an internal passport?
Don't let's discuss the last time in history that internal passports were required to travel from one part of the country to another ...
I really don't think you get it.
>So, if a dark-skinned
>So, if a dark-skinned Latino US citizen is out for a walk with nothing but his or her house keys, he or she can be detained on "reasonable suspicion" and nothing else -- because they can't prove their citizenship.<
Again, there has to be some other kind of legal contact before "reasonable suspicion" even enters into the equation.
>what should someone like me carry to prove my citizenship? A copy of the Mayflower Compact<
Nothing, but if you'd care to keep a copy of that with you, enjoy.
>The biggest issue is that immigration is (rightly) a Federal matter, not one for state's rights.<
In this case, the Feds aren't enforcing Federal law, so a state is stepping up and enforcing it concurrently.
>What's next? If you're born in New York and move to Maryland you have to be naturalized, or carry some kind of an internal passport?<
Don't be ridiculous.
Be consistent
"Again, there has to be some other kind of legal contact before "reasonable suspicion" even enters into the equation."
Which is what she said. And is flatly discriminatory.
"
>what should someone like me carry to prove my citizenship? A copy of the Mayflower Compact<
Nothing, but if you'd care to keep a copy of that with you, enjoy."
Which means, virtually by definition, that plenty of citizens and legal aliens who have NO obligation to have their papers on them at all times will be held for questioning at risk of deportation thanks only to the color of their skin. It s a facially discriminatory set of rules of conduct and evidence. Yeah, no racism here.
"In this case, the Feds aren't enforcing Federal law, so a state is stepping up and enforcing it concurrently."
So what? The fact that they're doing it, despite the supposed pro-federal bias, that they're not being vetoed, and that they think it's important to act, exceeding federal requirements and being clearly discriminatory, is the racist part. That's our point. Also, who said the Feds aren't enforcing it? Since when did the states get the right to unilaterally determine that?
"Don't be ridiculous."
Too bad that's exactly the logic being deployed. Be consistent.
Consistency
"Again, there has to be some other kind of legal contact before "reasonable suspicion" even enters into the equation."
>Which is what she said. And is flatly discriminatory<
It's the opposite of what she said.
No, It's Not
The other kind of "legal contact" can be a policeman in a car or walking the block seeing ANYTHING that can be construed as illegal. In a car, it can be violating any of hundreds of arcane ordinances. And remember, it's only SUSPICION of violating the law. A police officer can pull you over if he BELIEVES you didn't have your blinker on for 305 feet, or were going 1 mile an hour over the speed limit, even if you were not. Meanwhile, on foot, it can be SUSPICION of drunk and disorderly conduct. Once they've talked to the person, they can ask for their papers, even when the person has done nothing wrong. This is just the way the law works, Brian, as even you admitted when I showed you the Supreme Court decision on the legality of pretextual stops.
It's not even remotely ridiculous, Brian ...
In fact, it's exactly what you advocate when you say that states should be permitted to set their own immigration policies.
As for your other statement about "legal contact" -- all it takes is just what Frederic described.
"You stepped out into the sidewalk an eight of a second before the light changed. You're jaywalking. Where are your papers."
Or perhaps this scenario:
"Is there a problem, officer?"
"Yes, your tail light is broken."
"No sir, it is not."
::smash::
"Prove it wasn't. Let me see your papers."
I am astonished that you cannot see how very rife this law is with opportunities for abuse. Heck, Joe Arpaio has been conducting unconstitutional sweeps for about a year and a half now, contantly hauling in legal citizens (who, as has been pointed out repeatedly, do not have to carry ID) who are guilty of nothing more than being brown in public.
It's all very well and good to pretend to one's self that we are in post-racist society, but SB1070 proves otherwise. Heck, immigrant-bashing is an American tradition in many ways, as disgusting as that may be. You might want to take a look at this outstanding op-ed from yesterday's Sacramento Bee and see how many of the arguments look familiar: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/09/2736245/bashing-immigrants-its-as-ameri...
you don't get it...
The idea that there has to be a legal reason for the stop first is irrelevant: anything can be reasonable: a busted tail light, not stopping sufficiently at a stop sign, changing lanes without giving a signal for the necessary amount of time (which by the way, varies from place to place). These are "violations" that we all commit, every day, but which cops rarely stop us for. But for Latinos, and not just undocumented folks, but ANY Latino who does these things, police could very easily use those "violations" as pretext for a stop., It would be legal to do so under the law, and would in fact mean profiling. Not because the cops are all a bunch of bigots. They aren't. But because under the law, they were expected to ascertain legal status if they have reasonable suspicion and if there is any other legal reason to inquire. ANY legal reason to inquire. That is where the abuse can and will come in...that you and others don't understand this is shocking. Truly...
I am also not really endorsing merely open borders in the way I describe (although I do believe in a very liberal immigration policy). I was using it merely as a thought experiment to demonstrate that legality is not, itself, the issue that people claim it to be...if it were, then making the process easier (even if not as easy as suggested) would be OK with those folks, but it isn't...
Nice Try
"1. The flip side of claiming that anyone and everyone who thinks there should be some reasonable and legal limit on entrance into this country is racist, is the possibility that those making that claim wouldn't give a rat's behind about the issue if it were white people who constituted the bulk of illegals in this country. Make illegal aliens predominantly of English, Irish, French or Russian origin, and I doubt there'd be a peep from anyone who now claims this Arizona law is racist and discriminatory or that people who support it are racists."
Since, of course, leftists in this country never reached out to Italians, Irish and Jews.
Oh wait.
I don't know what world you live in, but there are not politically powerful coalitions of anti-racists so rabid that they see racism everywhere and only care about race issues. Tim himself also writes about peace issues, international relations, etc.
That having been said, you are somewhat onto something, in that a lot of people may have only become interested in the issue due to the racism they saw. I can't comment, and the case is not nearly as obvious as Tim's points, but it could be true.
However, most people I know in fact are either fairly anemic about their commitment to anti-racism as regards immigration, instead saying that we are all a country of immigrants and embracing a pretty bland multi-cultural, assimilationist view; or come at the issue from a class perspective, since it's fairly obvious that immigration restrictions hurt the working class in an era of unlimited capital mobility. The only major groups I can think of coming at this from a racial perspective are Latina/os themselves.
From the bill text: [i]A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.[/i]
Yeah, that's not subject to an iota of abuse.
"3. As per the above, this law simply demands the enforcement of the Federal law: "NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW."
No, what that clause actually means is that this law doesn't let them restrict immigration MORE than the law allows. It certainly lets them get up to the threshold, even where others are not. More importantly, it empowers state officials to act in a way no other state can.
The fact that you find nothing suspicious that this is passed in Arizona and not in, say, New York, is pretty astounding...
"5. Federal law already requires non-resident aliens to carry their papers at all times. This law imposes no additional legal burden in that regard."
Federal law does not put them at risk of immediate deportation if they don't have their papers on hand at all times, and I can guarantee you a lot of, if not most, most white legal aliens don't.
"is demonstrably honest. They / we don't advocate discrimination based on race, but being sane, rational people, we do realize that any and all countries have to have restrictions on how many people can come into their country and for what reasons and for how long. However, it is absurd to suggest that the cure for the problem is to simply make it legal for anyone with a pulse to come into the country at will. That's like saying that the solution to the problem of murder in the country is to make it legal. And, I should point out, we are the most generous country on earth when it comes to immigration. By a wide margin, we allow more immigrants into our country than any other country does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population), and primarily from non-white countries (http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publications/LPR09.shtm -- Table 10) That's hardly a racist immigration policy. Actually, our immigration policy is a testament to what a non-racist country this is. "
Which is why, of course, you guys have Minutemen on the Northern border, New York and Michigan are pursuing similar laws to Arizona's, and we hear lots of heated rhetoric about Canadians "taking our jerbs".
Oh, wait.
Brian, you have to account for a) our much larger economy that makes it much more likely for people to come here, b) our position above South America (that continent we have impoverished through more than a century of imperial intervention), and c) our relatively large land s for one country.
What IS racist about it, Brian, making this a red herring argument and you dishonest, is the focus on Latina/o immigration as opposed to white immigration.
Also, WHY is it necessary for us to manage our borders? Free trade acolytes, like I imagine you are when it's convenient, should consistently demand NO limits on immigration, because labor according to Ricardian classical economics has to be free to go where it pleases. If we break down virtually all limits on capital flow but not labor flow, that's not only philosophically inconsistent and an unconscionable attack on liberties according to free trade folk, but also a predictable attack on the working class. How weird.
In any respect, since illegal immigration is a net private and public GAIN for the economy, and is in fact yet another form of colonialist exploitation, I wonder what the problem is.
What no one talks about, Brian, is the direction of violence and exploitation that caused this immigration. What we did to South America for a century has been largely illegal, certainly repellently immoral. Death squads, installing dictatorships, overthrowing democrats, torture, mercenary armies... the US has made sure that South America, which should be rich with its resources, is desperately impoverished except for a tiny elite. That's the context against which immigration has to occur. Either fix the immigration policy or have massive reparations for a century of exploitation, but do at least one.
Being a legitimate Viking,
Being a legitimate Viking, (if "legitimate" and "Viking" can be used in the same sentence), my ancestors arrived here 500 years before Columbus, figured "Nothing to see here, people...move along" and went back to Denmark, leaving a few of us stragglers behind to fend for ourselves. The only reason my particular ancesters were here is becsuae we missed the return boat. I suppose we could have considered the English as illegal aliens, but we didn't have enough of a government established here to do much about it. And the fact that we didn't have anything in particular against the English as long as we could eat them. :)
I suppose we should be grateful because we missed the entire immigrant thing altogether. Again, mobody ever questioned our right to be here, because, frankly, at the time nobody else WANTED the place. Of course, that has changed a bit since then.
Eric
Like the Pinky Show Pointed Out,...
There are actually only two groups: Original inhabitants, now largely dead, and waves of immigrants. It's laughable that one wave of immigrants is trying to deny the legitimacy of the second wave.
Vinland
Eric, I know your comment was meant to be humorous, but—while there's no documentation of conflict between the Vikings and indigenous peoples of wherever exactly Vinland was—that doesn't mean "nobody wanted" the land.
Huntington Sharp, Senior Editor, Red Room
Hi Hunti: It might
Hi Hunti:
It might be more accurate to say that the Vikings didn't want the place enough to stick around very long. :) In fact, the only reason there are any Vikings in Greenland is because of Eric the Red's great land swindle. He had to name the place GREENLAND just to get people to show up. Then he retired a wealthy man and retired in Denmark. What a guy! I've been looking for a scam like that I can pull off. Alas, I don't seem to have inherited his wheeler-dealer genes. :)
Eric
Jacob is a less-than-convincing example
I, of course, know little about Tim Wise's great-grandfather, but it does not sound like he was given to breaking any rules or dodging any financial obligations. When he was unfortunately turned away, he spent the next six years working tirelessly to get another chance. He didn't hide in the bushes until the police walked away, then sneak past them. I'd be willing to bet that he was like my own great-grandparents who came from Italy and were rabid about following the rules and paying their taxes.
My own neighborhood is predominantly Indian and Hispanic. Those people came to work and share cultures (both theirs and ours), not live as shadows in Spanish or Hindi-only enclaves. The Hispanics are especially impatient with Mexicans who dodge taxes, because they feel those "undocumented" immigrants drag them down. We have a great community. And, if we Whites were all unrepentant racists, we would not be having community barbecues and our children would not be enjoying play dates with Hispanic and Indian kids. To say that anyone who supports the Arizona law is a racist is easy. Anyone who thinks in terms that are that black and white is bound to be wrong.
In the final analysis, one would have to live in Arizona to know the true extent of things. From Wise's comfortable existence in Nashville, assuming he's still living there, it is all too easy to pass judgment. We're living in a time when the state and federal governments are drowning in debt, some on the verge of collapse, due to public programs that inevitably send more money out than they take in. We simply cannot afford to take on millions of new people who strain the system and do not contribute. If they are contributing, then great. But, I do have to ask why they need to sneak over the border if their intention is to follow the rules. Why not just go through the proper channels that are currently in place?
There were no immigration laws during Jacob's time ...
But they started showing up in things like the Chinese Exclusion Act and other similarly racist propositions to Arizona's law.
The "proper channels" you and so many others cite are lengthy, time-consuming, *expensive* and designed to prevent anyone from immigrating to the US.
BTW, there is no such culture as "Hispanic."
"Hispanic"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hispanic
Main Entry: His·pan·ic Pronunciation: \hi-ˈspa-nik\Function: adjective Etymology: Latin hispanicus, from Hispania Iberian Peninsula, SpainDate: 1584
1 : of or relating to the people, speech, or culture of Spain or of Spain and Portugal
; especially : one of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin
2 : of, relating to, or being a person of Latin American descent living in the United States
Notice...
That that definition confirms Sharon's point.
It is used in the context of culture ONLY when referring to Spain and Portugal. It refers to people when used in the context of Mexicans, Cubans or Puerto Ricans. And generally, it is specifically used to refer to Cubans, Mexicans or Puerto Ricans. The term "Latina/o" has come into broader use.
Re: Notice...
>That that definition confirms Sharon's point.<
Fair enough, but it confirms the larger point that the use of the word "Hispanic" was perfectly appropriate and never was in question.
No...
A mere dictionary definition CANNOT do that. You can find a dictionary definition of Negro and colored, that doesn't mean they're in vogue. In actual fact, Hispanic has fallen out of use for a lot of people. Latina/o is more common now.
Survival
"I, of course, know little about Tim Wise's great-grandfather, but it does not sound like he was given to breaking any rules or dodging any financial obligations. When he was unfortunately turned away, he spent the next six years working tirelessly to get another chance. He didn't hide in the bushes until the police walked away, then sneak past them. I'd be willing to bet that he was like my own great-grandparents who came from Italy and were rabid about following the rules and paying their taxes."
And most illegals are hard-working people waiting through the process, paying all sorts of taxes while receiving no benefits, etc. (There are billions in tax monies being siphoned from illegals in services they either don't or can't use). Also, I'd be willing to bet Jacob would have gone in if he could, if he literally wasn't turned away by force and put onto the same ship back. After all, he came back, even though he had been told he couldn't come in.
Of course, even the poverty in Russia is not quite akin to the poverty in Latin America. For many, if they don't go to America, they will (or would have been at the time of leaving) killed by death squads or drug dealers or rebel guerillas or whomever, or will literally see their family starve. Many South American countries rely on a stream of money coming back from immigrants as a buoy to keep the economy afloat. I think that changes the calculation.
Oh, and there is the rude little point that we didn't invade Italy and aren't currently on Russian land, and that we didn't terrorize Europe for a century.
"My own neighborhood is predominantly Indian and Hispanic. Those people came to work and share cultures (both theirs and ours), not live as shadows in Spanish or Hindi-only enclaves. The Hispanics are especially impatient with Mexicans who dodge taxes, because they feel those "undocumented" immigrants drag them down. We have a great community. And, if we Whites were all unrepentant racists, we would not be having community barbecues and our children would not be enjoying play dates with Hispanic and Indian kids. To say that anyone who supports the Arizona law is a racist is easy. Anyone who thinks in terms that are that black and white is bound to be wrong."
There's a big gap between "unrepentant racist", "person who has racist views" and "innocent". People who claim they're only interested in lawbreakers then only focus on the Southern border, or who talk about illegals "taking our jobs" (as if a job is a commodity that can be stolen, rather than something granted by an employer who is CHOOSING to hire an illegal), or who talk about illegals as parasites even though NONE of the economic evidence points that way, are being racist, yes. No matter how many barbeques they have with their Latina/o next-door neighbors. It's like the "I have black friends" excuse: It doesn't cut it, even though it's independently commendable.
Also, Mexicans don't dodge taxes. They can't. Aside from income taxes, most workplaces have various workplace tasks for benefits they can't access, and there's sales taxes on commodities that fund many services they can't access. Anyways, why should they pay taxes off of $1 an hour exploitative work? The solution would be automatic amnesty, wouldn't it? Then you could punish tax dodgers without them being able to claim that paying taxes would require fraud.
"In the final analysis, one would have to live in Arizona to know the true extent of things. From Wise's comfortable existence in Nashville, assuming he's still living there, it is all too easy to pass judgment. We're living in a time when the state and federal governments are drowning in debt, some on the verge of collapse, due to public programs that inevitably send more money out than they take in. We simply cannot afford to take on millions of new people who strain the system and do not contribute. If they are contributing, then great. But, I do have to ask why they need to sneak over the border if their intention is to follow the rules. Why not just go through the proper channels that are currently in place?"
This is insane, and actually more than a bit racist, not to mention classist and sexist.
70% of the federal government's budget goes to some manner of military or "defense" program. Why isn't THAT what's tanking the budget? The next largest chunk are various programs that benefit the rich, like the bailout of the banks, or the bailout of Goldman Sachs, or subsidies, tax breaks and other investments. See Take the Rich Off Welfare. The TINY chunk of social services you're talking about CANNOT be responsible for the debt. Get rid of them and America is still in a bad debt situation. As Chalmers Johnson and Dean Baker point out, if you cut the military budget a fraction, we're in a rosy situation.
Of COURSE public programs send out more money than they take in. That's what they DO. Public programs are not money-making enterprises. They hedge against negative externalities and produce positive externalities. Without federal government funding, we'd have millions more starving seniors without Social Security, no Internet, no canning and canisterization, no modern aviation.
And there is NO evidence that illegals "strain the system". Greg Palast once asked an economist what the economy would be like if there were no illegals. The guy laughed and asked, "What economy?" Our economy is being BUOYED by cheap domestic labor, taxes being stolen from their paychecks and their purchases of basic goods, etc. Virtually every independent study on the topic indicates that illegals are a net fiscal boon, private and public.
The reason why people don't go through existing channels is because those channels can take decades. They don't have decades.
Limiting immigration doesn't stop the loss of jobs and the loss of capital. Companies will seek out those poor workers anywhere. It just makes the working class weaker and slams the poor harder. No wonder the rich and their media systems keep on hammering it home.
> The "proper channels" you
> The "proper channels" you and so many others cite are lengthy, time-consuming, *expensive* and designed to prevent anyone from immigrating to the US.
Lengthy and time-consuming are not excuses. If you cannot take the time, maybe you should consider staying where you are. Expensive has to do with the lengthy, time-consuming part.
> BTW, there is no such culture as "Hispanic."
Spare me the liberal speech codes. My Hispanic neighbors regularly use that phrase. It's accepted within their circles, however much you want to be able to correct people who do not agree with you.
"Just Stay Where You Are," Redux
Jeff wrote: If you cannot take the time, maybe you should consider staying where you are.
I learned something very interesting yesterday, Jeff. Perhaps it will interest you as well: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/12/2743975/head-to-head-is-the-reaction-to...
Quote: A sister born in Mexico applying today to join her U.S. citizen brother has to wait 131 years to get a U.S. immigrant visa. A minor child waits 3.5 years to join a U.S. citizen parent, which is reasonable. But, during the wait, if he turns 21, he has to wait 112 years.
----By the same token, Jeff, it takes only 9 years to obtain an immigration visa if one is from Bulgaria (I verified this with a Bulgarian immigrant, FWIW). You see, your obvious assumption is that rules are equal across the board when it comes to obtaining an immigration visa, regardless of from whence a person hails. They aren't. I guess if someone is willing to wait 131 years for a visa, they probably won't be applying any time soon, eh?
Xenophobic much?
Jeff Jones wrote: Lengthy and time-consuming are not excuses. If you cannot take the time, maybe you should consider staying where you are.
Nice.
I guess that people in need of political asylum (which is not easy to obtain) should just "stay where they are." I wonder when we'll engrave *that* on the base of the Statue of Liberty.
"Expensive has to do with the lengthy, time-consuming part. "
Not necessarily. However, your attitude is obviously that only the wealthy should be allowed to attempt citizenship. Gotcha loud and clear.
BTW, I doubt seriously that your "Hispanic friends" (is this like the people who insist that they have "black friends" or "gay friends" and thus their hate speech doesn't count?) call themselves Hispanic. Every one of the Latinos/as of my acquaintance specifically identify themselves as Nicaraguan, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, etc. They do not call themselves Hispanic (meaning "from Hispaniola," or Spain); heck, if they're from Spain, they call themselves Spanish.
"Just stay where you are."
Feh.
Well...
"Lengthy and time-consuming are not excuses. If you cannot take the time, maybe you should consider staying where you are. Expensive has to do with the lengthy, time-consuming part."
If doing so means death at the hands of death squads or impoverishment thanks to the government of the country you're immigrating to? No thanks. I think legal restrictions on immigration inherently assume that immediate survival is not an issue for them to be just. That's why asylum laws exist.
We don't get to talk about the law in this country, well, EVER, but certainly not as regards Latin America. If we had done nothing to these people and they came over here to suck on Uncle Sam's teat for free, well, yeah, that'd be a problem. We're so rich you'd think we could tolerate it, but hey, that's another issue. But I think everyone knows which way the guns have been pointed for centuries.
But anyways, get off your high horse and notice the problem. You asked why people didn't use legal channels. We explained. Also note the discrimination in the legal channels: White folks find it MUCH easier to become legal aliens or citizens. (I know this because my mother is a legal alien). So a way to reduce the immigration problem and deal with the millions who commit no crime except being here is to make it very easy to apply. You, and in fact no one else, have given us no reason not to do so. You claim that they're parasites, but since you can't plausibly deal with illegals anyways without massive and costly enforcement, wouldn't citizenship be at least BETTER?
"Spare me the liberal speech codes. My Hispanic neighbors regularly use that phrase. It's accepted within their circles, however much you want to be able to correct people who do not agree with you."
This is true. (By the by, Jones: "Liberal speech codes" = "not being an asshat"). Hispanic may have fallen out of favor, but it's still a valid term, used by those communities, and I don't see a reason to doubt that, Sharon (though everything else you said was right on the money). Ditto for Chicana/o.
That having been said, Jones, Hispanic focuses on only some South American immigrants. Not all immigrants are Mexican or from the Hispanic areas. So Latina/o has come into vogue because it's more broadly descriptive.
> I guess that people in
> I guess that people in need of political asylum (which is not easy to obtain) should just "stay where they are." I wonder when we'll engrave *that* on the base of the Statue of Liberty.
I agree it's terribly unfortunate. But the US cannot afford to be a haven for every human being seeking asylum. I don't know if you've noticed but we're flat broke. In fact, we're worse than broke...we're neck-deep in debt. Yes, I understand that many believe we're supposed to place humanitarian concerns before practicality, but you eventually get Greece-like collapse when that happens.
> BTW, I doubt seriously that your "Hispanic friends" (is this like the people who insist that they have "black friends" or "gay friends" and thus their hate speech doesn't count?) call themselves Hispanic.
I didn't say they called THEMSELVES "Hispanic." Nor did I use one word of hate speech. If you assume that opposition to the amnesty is mere hate then you're stereotyping.
I said my friends and neighbors are comfortable with using the phrase "Hispanic culture" as a blanket term for any customs originating in the countries you listed (among others). I even remember seeing a Mexican guy use it in Reader's Digest in an article about dating between White and Mexican Americans. He said that his White girlfriend really enjoyed the "richness of Hispanic Culture." You can pick my argument apart, but being [politically] corrected by another White person carries about as much weight as being called out by a right-wing zealot.
The truth is extremes never accomplish anything. I read "White Like Me" and was pleasantly surprised to see that Tim comes across as a lot more reasonable in that book than he does on this blog. That book doesn't have an extreme tone at all. Then, I read "Between Barack and a Hard Place" and the angry volume shot through the roof. I can only assume that the increased harshness in tone is a product of frustration at not a single person having seen their station in life improve as a results of the rants.
You may assume that I'm some conservative racist, but you're wrong. Not everyone who opposes amnesty is a far-right racist. I'm a centrist who does not listen only to conservative radio and news. I read some conservative stuff, but always balance it out by reading Huffington Post, firedoglake, media matters, Tim Wise, etc. Ask yourself if you have made the very assumptions about me that you seem to think I make about others.
Here's what you wrote:
"Spare me the liberal speech codes. My Hispanic neighbors regularly use that phrase. It's accepted within their circles, however much you want to be able to correct people who do not agree with you."
Then you wrote, "I said my friends and neighbors are comfortable with using the phrase "Hispanic culture" as a blanket term for any customs originating in the countries you listed (among others)."
But, see, that isn't what you said. You described your "Hispanic and Indian" neighborhood. I merely pointed out what you yourself admit: Latino/a people do not self-identify as "Hispanic." ::shrug::
The only assumptions I've made about you are based on what you have written here; am I to magically know all of these things you say in your last paragraph?
Do you really think that illegal immigration is responsible for the ridiculous debt of this country? 'Cause if so, I would like to point you in the direction of the two illegal wars (just for a start). Or the TARP program put into place by Dubya (but for which many people on the right like to blame Obama, despite it being signed into law before the election even took place).
Again, I must ask where the outrage is concerning the *Northern* border. There are some 70K (estimated) illegal aliens from Canada in the US ( http://www.canadaupdates.com/news/illegal_immigrants_from_canada_steal_u...). There are an estimated 50K illegal Irish immigrants, 30K in NYC (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-rodriguez8apr08,0,1...). And yet, I see no outrage seeking renewed NINA laws, or from Northern border states demanding to see "papers please" from Canadians about whom there is a "reasonable suspicion." This is because Canadian and European (read: Caucasian) immigrants *blend.*
Truth is, crime is *down* in all of the Southern border states -- despite what people like Joe Arpaio want to pretend. http://mediamatters.org/research/201004290029
My point with the "Hispanic friends" comment was that there are always people who say "Hey, I have gay friends and they're okay with me not supporting their equality" or "Hey, I have black friends and they don't mind that I'm in the KKK." I just wonder whether your Latino/a friends are really okay with what you espouse -- especially since, as I pointed out, I see no outrage on your part about illegal immigrants from any other culture.
Drop in the bucket
> Again, I must ask where the outrage is concerning the *Northern* border. There are some 70K (estimated) illegal aliens from Canada in the US ( http://www.canadaupdates.com/news/illegal_immigrants_from_canada_steal_u...). There are an estimated 50K illegal Irish immigrants, 30K in NYC (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-rodriguez8apr08,0,1...). And yet, I see no outrage seeking renewed NINA laws, or from Northern border states demanding to see "papers please" from Canadians about whom there is a "reasonable suspicion." <
70 thousand Canadians and 50 thousand Irish illegals in the US barely constitute a drop in the bucket. According to slightly outdated 2005 figures, there were 7 million Mexicans alone. Plus 470 thousand from El Salvador, 370 thousand from Guatemala, etc. If one were to consider them in direct proportion to their numeric representation, that consideration would be negligible.
Okay, but how many illegals
Okay, but how many illegals are in ARIZONA? Conservatives are rejoicing that it seems like the new law is making a few thousand illegals leave the state. So people are willing to spend a ton of money and time just to catch a few thousand more illegals each year, yet aren't willing to do ANYTHING about tens of thousands of white illegals? Come on.
Also, that's just Irish and Canadian. Illegal Russian immigration has also been a problem. Obviously, the majority of illegal immigration is Latina/o, but if the mere legality was the concern, presumably these people would want to chase lawbreakers EVERYWHERE. Not just on the Southern border.
And it's not like these European immigrants aren't security risks, either. A substantial portion of the Irish in Boston and NYC, legal or not, had ties to the IRA. Russian illegals are frequently connected to the mob, or exploited by the mob. And security experts say that we really need to be worried about the CANADIAN border, given how much larger it is and how trivial it is to get across. So rational policy would demand that we put a tiny fraction of the work we do in protecting the southern border in protecting the North. But racism isn't rational.
Yes...
"I agree it's terribly unfortunate. But the US cannot afford to be a haven for every human being seeking asylum. I don't know if you've noticed but we're flat broke. In fact, we're worse than broke...we're neck-deep in debt. Yes, I understand that many believe we're supposed to place humanitarian concerns before practicality, but you eventually get Greece-like collapse when that happens."
And, again, Jeff, that has to do with a lot of things.
A) The actions of a few "smartest guys in the room" who got away with anything illegal, immoral and stupid that they wanted to
B) A runaway military-industrial complex
C) Increases in inequity, decreases in growth and financial instability thanks to the neo-liberal regimes of the post-Bretton Woods era
Immigration isn't on that list. Immigration isn't even PLAUSIBLY on that list.
This is all putting aside your racist and insane assumption that immigrants are only outputs and not inputs, that they contribute nothing. More people means more workers, more consumers, more taxpayers. You'd have to show that some things don't scale upwards evenly, like limited land or something. You don't even bother. No one does.
"The truth is extremes never accomplish anything. I read "White Like Me" and was pleasantly surprised to see that Tim comes across as a lot more reasonable in that book than he does on this blog. That book doesn't have an extreme tone at all. Then, I read "Between Barack and a Hard Place" and the angry volume shot through the roof. I can only assume that the increased harshness in tone is a product of frustration at not a single person having seen their station in life improve as a results of the rants."
Or, y'know, injustice. That tends to get in people's craw. If you had read Speaking Treason Fluently, or any of Tim's work before White Like Me, you'd note that it sounded just as angry or angrier than Between Barack and a Hard Place.
But this is empty rhetoric. Everyone defines themselves as reasonable, everyone defines the other guy as the extreme. When extremists want to defend themselves, it's always having unflinching morality, or standing up for their principles, or whatever. It's an empty argument and it doesn't mean anything.
The fact remains that much of the rhetoric around the immigration issue, the arguments, the motivations, are flatly racist. They appear racist to black and brown folks, and to white anti-racists. You can interrogate that, figure out why that may or may not be the case, or you can dismiss it out of hand. In any respect, we still have to face our racial divides and inequalities, no matter what happens with immigration.
"You may assume that I'm some conservative racist, but you're wrong. Not everyone who opposes amnesty is a far-right racist. I'm a centrist who does not listen only to conservative radio and news. I read some conservative stuff, but always balance it out by reading Huffington Post, firedoglake, media matters, Tim Wise, etc. Ask yourself if you have made the very assumptions about me that you seem to think I make about others."
I'm just replying to what you're saying. It's insane, it's misinformed, it flies in the face of obvious facts. It'd be one thing if you ACKNOWLEDGED that the other side existed and had arguments against it. You don't. I applaud your reading choices, but still.
Now, notice that no one is saying that EVERY anti-immigration advocate is necessarily racist, or saying racist things. But surely there are a lot who are.
...and here's what you wrote
> Do you really think that illegal immigration is responsible for the ridiculous debt of this country?
You're putting words in my mouth. I blame too many government obligations for the debt...and yes...I am deeply critical of the wars. I am an honorably-discharged Army officer and do not like seeing my friends risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor do I like paying for those wars. But, I'm also deeply critical of social security and Medicare. Those programs have deteriorated just as all lifetime benefits do. Now, we cannot afford ANYTHING new, and that unfortunately includes denying political asylum in all but the most drastic cases.
> Again, I must ask where the outrage is concerning the *Northern* border.
We weren't discussing the northern border, but you're absolutely right. Canadian immigrants cost just as much as Mexican ones. I certainly don't support their entry either. And, I'm all about cracking down heavily on American citizens of any background who dodge taxes, including some of my own relatives.
> I just wonder whether your Latino/a friends are really okay with what you espouse
My Latino/a friends have better things to do than pick apart every reference for the tiniest hint of ignorance or discrimination. And, just because I have friends from other countries, does not mean I'm trying to say that I don't have even a shred of racism in me. I've had those moments like the one Tim covers in his book about how he was momentarily concerned to see that his airline pilot was Black. The best I can do as a human is to analyze those instances and try to avoid them in the future. Like anyone else, I'm not perfect.
People of European descent are not the only people on earth who discriminate. That doesn't make it right, but we're certainly not the worst of the worst. At least we can have these discussions. My Indian friends and co-workers speak openly about racism and discrimination back home. Some of the things they say happen are egregious...reminiscent of Jim Crow (read here: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?250317 ) When I was in Jerusalem last December, I saw two young Palestinian men poking fun at a Nigerian man who came walking out of the Christian section of the city. He was reciting some prayers to himself and they laughed out loud and shouted slurs, which made him very angry. The Nigerian man kept yelling, "Don't touch me" over and over again and they almost got into a fistfight. The point is that these things do happen in the US, but it's not accepted here.
I hope that you'll at least recognize that I'm a reasonable person. Again, I don't support extremists on either side because I believe that the center is the only way that works in a large, diverse country like the US. I don't believe in pure capitalism. When you unleash the free market on critical resources, you get Enron. But I also believe there are certain things that the government is just not capable of running nor providing.
Take care.
No, I'm not putting words in your mouth ...
You are the one who said we (the US) were flat-broke and cannot afford to provide asylum to all who seek it. That's why I asked if you seriously believed that illegal immigration was to blame for the budget crisis.
You say that racism is not accepted in the US ... but obviously it is. For reference see SB1070.
You take care as well.
TLDR-Too Long Didn't Read
I wanted to throw in my small comment that preventing illegal immigration is not the same as committing racism. This idea is a new phenomenon created by our current media.
On another note, as a student of history, I especially enjoyed Eric's posts regarding the Vikings. Actually, the Vikings did encounter indigeonous peoples when they arrived at North America...and the encounter was not of a peaceful nature.
Anyway, as the daughter of a veteran of WWII, I support laws passed to inhibit illegal immigration. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with national security and citizenship. Besides, does anyone else wonder why these people don't try and make their own countries better places instead of coming here to take from the country we've fought to make better? Hmmm....just food for thought...
"These People"
First of all, thanks for admitting that you didn't read a bit of the discussion.
Second, two simple words ("these people") tell me just about everything I need to know about your position. It's very much "us and them." We are all "these people" -- part of the human race.
Frederick provided you with some great food for thought; perhaps it will help you understand "these people" better.
And I say all of this as the daughter of a Vietnam Veteran, granddaughter of two WWII veterans, niece of two Korean War veterans, former wife of a Gulf War veteran ... I can continuing hauling out the autobiography/pedigree if you'd like, but it really serves no more purpose than your statement -- which was an attempt to try to take the moral high ground because of who your father was.
It's not the law people are
It's not the law people are having a problem with... it's the fact that it's a law that will do very little to inhibit illegal immigration, and at the same time allows for very loose interpretations that will likely result in serious violations of the rights of legal American citizens (as if this weren't already happening enough).
It's true that preventing illegal immigration is not the same as committing racism... but racism is often practiced in the guise of "preventing illegal immigration", so these two can't easily be separated. And the only reason it's a "new phenomenon" is that for most of our country's history, racism was not considered a problem by those who weren't affected by it, or important enough for the media to discuss on a large scale.
"does anyone else wonder why these people don't try and make their own countries better places instead of coming here to take from the country we've fought to make better?"
What I really wonder is how you can imagine that the people coming here wouldn't prefer to do that. Do you think that that Mexico, for example, is full of folks who are born being taught that their purpose in life is to go to America? Most of the people who have the means and influence to make their countries better are mostly still in their home countries, doing very well for themselves. And BTW, I guarantee you that your father (I assume) fought alongside plenty of immigrants or sons of immigrants in WWII.
I'm stopping here for now, because I don't need to repeat things that have already been written in this thread... which, you mentioned, you didn't read (I recommend you go back and do so). So, basically, you wanted to make your comment, but you didn't want to learn anything about any other perspective, presumably for fear that you might be tricked into thinking about something that could challenge your well-established beliefs.
Pretty unoriginal "food for thought".
Yeah...
"You're putting words in my mouth. I blame too many government obligations for the debt...and yes...I am deeply critical of the wars. I am an honorably-discharged Army officer and do not like seeing my friends risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor do I like paying for those wars. But, I'm also deeply critical of social security and Medicare. Those programs have deteriorated just as all lifetime benefits do. Now, we cannot afford ANYTHING new, and that unfortunately includes denying political asylum in all but the most drastic cases. "
Except there's NO evidence of the claim that Social Security and Medicare have "deteriorated" and all the evidence in the world of the other claims. It's simple: Social Security and other government aid campaigns are a tiny fraction of spending. They CANNOT be responsible for our economic woes. And cutting down on them is fiscally irresponsible. It's like not spending on food because you're broke.
I also find it deeply suspicious that you just write out raising taxes as part of the solution. Tax all those millions of millionaires. Raise the capital gains tax, or close tax loopholes, or raise the income tax rates at higher brackets. If government is broke, wouldn't THAT be a potential solution? Nope, it's keepin' immigrants out.
By your reasoning, we should be demanding a freeze or a cap on births too, since we can't afford the MUCH more serious cost of raising children. After all, surely you acknowledge somewhere in your mind that immigrants work and buy things. They're at least adults. But children provide nothing of value and cost a lot. If we're going to stampede on the liberty of people to move where they please and follow work and capital where it goes, a liberty essential to "free trade", then surely you must be willing to stampede on reproductive rights?
Of course, this is all a non sequitur because immigrants WORK, and therefore pay some kind of taxes even when they don't or can't pay income taxes, so all the economic evidence point to them being fiscal net BENEFITS. Immigrants DON'T "COST": They pay. You should want MORE immigration, not less...
"We weren't discussing the northern border, but you're absolutely right. Canadian immigrants cost just as much as Mexican ones. I certainly don't support their entry either. And, I'm all about cracking down heavily on American citizens of any background who dodge taxes, including some of my own relatives."
Okay, so, we mention this point several times, you respond to it only now, and most people don't even bother mentioning it. Nope, no racism here.
"People of European descent are not the only people on earth who discriminate. That doesn't make it right, but we're certainly not the worst of the worst. At least we can have these discussions"
Ummmm, hi? Fred here. What about THE HOLOCAUST? Slavery, specifically racialized? Jim Crow? The genocide of Native Americans? The top atrocities in history are European. (No, this has nothing to do with Europeans' innate character but rather due to cultural traits and the balance of power and brutality). As if no where else in the world has discussions about elementary justice...
Bear in mind that free speech laws and the degree of alternate or dissident media and thinking in a country are not necessarily correlated. A lot of evidence shows that Soviet citizens were getting plenty of alternative news. But Americans, while they CAN talk about the issues, face institutions of insidious brilliance in the media, in institutions of indoctrination ("education"), etc., so that the terms don't even get brought up. Yes, we have the negative (as in, enabling but not empowering) right of free speech; no, that doesn't necessarily lead to the positive good of free discourse. In a market economy where I can buy a bigger megaphone, the issues and needs of the rich blare out everyone else's concerns.
Anyways, this is a massive and irrelevant non sequitur. Yeah, the rest of the world is racist. So the hell what? We need to deal with our racism. Let them deal with theirs.
"I hope that you'll at least recognize that I'm a reasonable person. Again, I don't support extremists on either side because I believe that the center is the only way that works in a large, diverse country like the US. I don't believe in pure capitalism. When you unleash the free market on critical resources, you get Enron. But I also believe there are certain things that the government is just not capable of running nor providing."
You do seem reasonable with a balanced and nuanced position. But it's also one that is ignoring obvious facts on the topic and not engaging with the important elements you're leaving out...
"I wanted to throw in my small comment that preventing illegal immigration is not the same as committing racism. This idea is a new phenomenon created by our current media."
No, but no one CLAIMED it, not even the media, so you're abusively and dishonestly beating up on a strawman while claiming persecution.
Surely, you'd admit that if someone said, "Don't let the ni**ers in", that'd be opposing illegal immigration AND being racist, right? The two are logically distinct but also not mutually exclusive.
So our CLAIM is that the present discussion about illegal immigration is not racist as a LOGICAL conclusion true for all discussions about illegal immigration, but rather that the PARTICULAR discussion we're having is racist. This is unquestionable, and you're not denying it.
"Anyway, as the daughter of a veteran of WWII, I support laws passed to inhibit illegal immigration. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with national security and citizenship. Besides, does anyone else wonder why these people don't try and make their own countries better places instead of coming here to take from the country we've fought to make better? Hmmm....just food for thought..."
What a wonderful comment. I bet the rest of the world never had that wonderful, creative idea. (No racist contempt here).
Let me give you some things to Google. Death squads in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. Pinochet. The Generals in Brazil. The attempted CIA coup against Chavez. The Mexican-American War. NAFTA. GATT. The IMF. The contras. Somoza. Arbenz.
They tried that, A.B. They've always tried that. No one runs across a border to a land that hates them, across desert, leaving everything behind, unless they have to. What's racist is that you assumed this reason HAD to be greed, or parasitism, instead of sheer survival. You also just assumed out of hand that we had done nothing to warrant it, historical innocents. When they try to make their land better, we stop it by force and violence.