Liberty for Me, but not for Thee
April 26, 2010, 10:21 am
Posted by Eduardo Peñalver
Chapter One, in which a bunch of white conservatives talk about how a law empowering police offices to harass anyone who looks Latino is not such a high price to pay to protect us from illegal immigration.
In old movies, don’t the Nazis keep asking people to show their papers?
Isn’t this the kind of thing conservatives are usually against (e.g., national ID cards)?
Sunday Loon Watch is aptly named
Maybe it’s time for sympathetic people in Arizona to start wearing buttons or T-shirts that say something like “Soy latino” (maybe even, “I am an illegal”). I posit this because it was how Danes effectively stopped the identification and deportation of Jews during WWII — every Dane was enjoined to put a yellow star on their forehead making it impossible to easily distinguish Jews and non-Jews.
Do you think that a blonde, blue-eyed Nordic looking (fe)male with a Scandanavian accent, if questioned by the police for anything, will be asked to show her/his papers?
If this law were in place in California and the cops tried this in LA’s, Oakland’s or San Francisco’s Chinatowns, there would be a rebirth of the tong wars.
If I were an Arizona cop, I wouldn’t touch this law with a 100-foot pole.
I sympathize with the folks concerned with drug-related crime in their neighborhoods due to proximity to the international border, and I sympathize with Mexicans and other Latin Americans crossing the border illegally to earn a living. Both sides experience understandable and rightful frustration with the powers-that-be in Washington.
However, this new law is not the way to go.
Goes to show what fear can do when careful thinking is called for.
I am wondering if by posting the new Law, you may have a more informed dialogue regarding the new Law, resulting in constructive criticism that could possibly help in the area of Immigration Reform.
“I wouldn’t touch this law with a 100-foot pole.”
Particularly not with a Pole unless (s)he could prove US citizenship.
;<(
“Goes to show what fear can do when careful thinking is called for.”
It was only less than 70 years ago when this irrational nativistic fear resulted in thousands of people of Japanese extraction being put into concentration camps throughout the West, along with their property being either stolen outright or via fire-sale prices.
The line from Hair (“white boys are so sexy”) doesn’t always hold up under too much examination.
I guess all the Christians in Arizona will continue to thank God each Sunday that they were not born Latino. “Not like those Latinos, Lord.” A population that is mostly from immigrant ancestors now condemns immigrants, forgetting that many of their ancestors came here illegally. Can one support this law and still be Christian? I doubt it.
Secondly, this will no doubt help democrats nationally. The party out of power usually does better in an off year. This is why some republicans stuttered while responding.
I was Googling complaints about illegal immigrants recently, and what I found interesting was that the resentment extends to the children of illegal immigrants, including those who are American citizens. There are complaints about how much money it costs to educate the children, and there are complaints that some of them get welfare benefits.
If citizen = good and illegal immigrant = bad, why don’t a lot of people want the American-citizen children of illegal immigrants treated like other American citizens?
I wonder what percentage of the un documented are much more Indio than Spanish; and how their ancestors did not see a border as they moved across what is now Arizona and Mexico. God help the Arizona Anglos if they arouse a Geronimo, they will be calling for Fed help quicker than a TeaParty candidate.
“The question is, did Arizona act reasonably in passing this somewhat Draconian law… I think the answer will be yes.”
WHAT? In what world are reasonably and Draconian NOT antonyms?
While I don’t like this – I generally oppose giving the police such unfettered discretion – I think this immediate pulling of the race card is counterproductive and ignores the legitimate concerns of the citizens of AZ.
For years, even common sense measures dealing with illegal immigration have been attacked and shot down as racist. For example, why do most jurisdictions avoid asking about or acting on immigration status even when dealing with criminal behavior? Every country in the world deports criminals who are illegally in their country. When someone suggests, for example, that it is racist to inquire into the immigration status of a person who is caught burglarizing a home or is in a hit and run accident the claim of racism you have to wonder what they think racism is. The charge looses its sting.
Maybe people are fed up, and maybe another cry of recism seems like the boy who cried wolf. But it is folly, and really unfair to label the 70% of Arizonans who support this as racists. Particularly since only 60% are white.
Sean, I think the reason so many suspect racism of those who support actions such as the same people usually oppose efforts to reform immigration laws.
Our immigration laws impose arbitrary and random quotas by nationality that have not been updated in decades. They impose excessive paperwork and financial burdens. They keep families separated for decades.
So, when some people scream about “illegal immigrants” and say they only want others to obey the law, others respond: “Yes, let’s make it easier to comply with the law.” And then the screamers oppose such reforms without explanation. So if the anti-immigrant folks (and they ARE anti-immigrant because they want to limit immigration) were really not racist, would they not support making it easier for immigrants to enter legally?
Perhaps there’s something I’m not seeing here…
I think this immediate pulling of the race card is counterproductive and ignores the legitimate concerns of the citizens of AZ.
Sean,
From what I read and from a little bit of personal experience, I wouldn’t say the problem is racism. I would say that there are many people who feel the same kind of intense, irrational fear and hatred of illegal immigrants that racists feel about the people of the particular race they hate. So if you could tell a Latino American citizen from a Latino illegal alien just by looking at them, I think the Latino American citizens would have nothing to fear from the illegal-immigrant haters. But of course citizens and noncitizens look the same. I can’t remember the details, but there was a bias attack not long ago in New York City in which a man was beaten for being an Arab, or Mexican, or whatever, when actually he was Indian, or Greek, or whatever. Even if you believe illegal immigrants deserve any mistreatment they get, Latino citizens of Arizona are probably going to suffer if this law goes into effect.
As I understand it, if a police officer pulls a car over for a traffic violation, he is allowed (required?) to request the driver furnish a driver’s license and vehicle registration. If the driver cannot do so, and if the driver cannot speak english (or speaks it very poorly), the officer has cause to ask the driver’s legal status. This is a normal policy in most countries, including Mexico and the Central American nations. For what its worth, I believe that in Mexico it is the equivalent of a felony to be there illegally. In Nazi Germany, people were asked for their papers solely on the basis of whether they were Jewish. It had nothing to do with what country they were from.
In addition, the Arizona law simply reiterates federal law. Whast exactly is the problem?
For all the Leftist wailing about extremist rhetoric by Right wingers and Tea Partiers, I see that on this one, for the Left anyway, the reductio ad Hitlerum occurred almost instantly.
I admit I also, usually, go too soft on Mexicans. There are lots of them in California and so many (both documented and undocumented) are friends of me and my wife. In my defense; most Mexicans I know are decent, hard working people; kind hearted and friendly. I know some cause problems, but the majority are decent folks.
Hopefully this Arizona law will prompt President Obama to grant the sort of Amnesty that President Clinton should have granted before he became so dreadfully sidetracked, and that President Bush tried half-heartedly to grant.
Basically it seems that after the Reagan 1986 amnesty, in addition to the Federal Government actually doing its job, part of which is properly tending the border and properly tending our trade relationship with Mexico so as to maintain some upward lift on the Mexican economy, in order that we keep everything current and legal within the USA ( clean slate so to speak), we should re-run the amnesty routine in one form or another every ten years or so. We should have had one in the mid-late 90′s, and again in 2006 or so.
If our federal government would simply focus on doing its job – like building and maintaining roads and bridges, tending the border and maintaining the military – instead of nosing its way into public schools, manipulating state laws, and a hundred other areas where it really has no business being, as nation we would be better off.
In any case; because we Americans have truly been blessed, because thankfully we are about the most fair minded and practical people on this earth, and because as a people we are more decent and kind hearted than most other nations, an amnesty for the many (millions in fact) hard working Mexican indocumentados we have in this country is long over due.
Ken, your comment reminded me of something attributed to Churchill: “The Americans will always do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other options.”
Ken: Your statement,
In any case; because we Americans have truly been blessed, because thankfully we are about the most fair minded and practical people on this earth, and because as a people we are more decent and kind hearted than most other nations, an amnesty for the many (millions in fact) hard working Mexican indocumentados we have in this country is long over due.
while demonstrating that you are a kind-hearted and well-intentioned person unfortunately leaves some issues floating around and banging into principles of fairness and prudence. Granting amnesty to all illegal immigrants would (will) make a statement to everyone who followed the law, namely: SUCKERS!. Anyone who has ever had a boorish jerk shoulder or sneak his way to the head of the line will attest to the visceral anger and outrage thus engendered in those waiting patiently. And does anyone really think that if/when amnesty is declared that all the pios talk of fines, learning English, going to the back of the line will be followed? This new defined class of residents (legally waiting and working its way through the system – that is to say, legal residents albeit temporary – will in fact constitute a step up from illegal status and thus invite a new wave of illegal immigrants who will attempt to get in to game the system.
Until those who employ illegals are fined heavily and thrown in prison to do some serious behind-the-bars time, and the borders are finally secured, and that utterly corrupt nation gets its act together, nothing will change much.
Bob,
You are correct in that granting amnesty is not fair to folks from other countries. After all, one cannot simply or easily walk from China or India to San Diego or Calexico. However it is also worth noting that we need not treat all nations the same, that we can give preference to people from some nations over those from other nations.
In fact we do this with many nations. For example we prefer Indians and Vietnamese over folks from Sudan or Somalia – why? Because we have fewer problems with Indians and Vietnamese than we have with folks from the other two nations. Basically it boils down to the fact that this is our house and we get to have the say as to who enters and who does not.
Now the fact is we have carried or helped old Mexico in one way or another for generations; that is our lot. They are our neighbors and while the Mexican society and government are certainly flawed, I can think of worse neighbors. Now we have several million Mexicans working here with out papers (the old WOP acronym comes to mind); some of whom have been here since just after Reagan granted the 1986 amnesty. What are we going to do with them?
For the last twenty-plus years (since the 1986 amnesty), many Americans – not just big hotel chains and Argri-business outfits, but many average Americans – have basically given these illegal workers a wink and a nod, and have hired them to pick crops, slaughter beef, mow yards, clean house, paint our houses, care for kids, etc.. Every American that did this knew very well at the time that the person they were dealing with was illegal.
What were these Mexicans supposed to think? All of them arrive poor, and most have no more than a forth grade education. Most of them are however, quite trusting, hard working, Christian (most are Roman Catholic), and decent. Obviously we wanted them here; we paid them well (compared to what they were used to), and we were friendly toward them. We Americans basically gave them the impression they were welcome and that ultimately whatever problems they had with their work status would be resolved in future. Meanwhile – we implied by our actions – if old Jose just worked hard enough, that he could trust that we (the Americans) would make things Ok. He counted on us.
Now, twenty years on, after Jose and the other indocumentados have worked long and hard, all the while trusting that we would somehow “make it right”, after many of these folks have bought homes and land, have married and have kids growing up here and all the other things that come with living a normal life, now some are saying that we should simply round up these folks, haul them back to Juarez or whatever other Mexican hell-hole they came from, and tell them that “next time”, they should follow the rules.
I do not think that is the type of people we are. We are better than that; we are a Christian nation after all.
We are not they sort of people who would be proud of ourselves for having snookered some of the poorest folks in the western hemisphere into working ten or twenty years for us at low pay with the implied possibility of a better life, only to toss them out like yesterday’s newspaper. Moreover, we owe it to ourselves and our children not to become that sort of people. No no, we are much better than that.
We made our proverbial “bed” and now we’re squabbling over how to sleep in it.
No easy answers.
Ken:
We don’t have to “do” anything but enforce our immigration laws; when an illegal alien gets on the radar for some reaso, enforce the law.; There’s no need to “round them up” as you so disengenuously suggest, unless we can get the relevant government to pay for it. My wife, who is an American citizen who came here legally feels sorry for the illegals because she is a humane and loving woman. I, on the other hand, am not a humane person and don’t pretend to be and I say that following the rules and obeying the law are not afterthoughts but absolute requirements if we are not to descend into chaos, as for instance like in Mexico, and points south.
Bob,
I agree with you that we should enforce our laws. Once we square away the illegals we currently have, we – via our federal government – need to properly patrol the border and enforce the laws of our land.
My point is that for the Mexicans already here, since we Americans essentially coaxed them here to work for us on the cheap (against our own law by the way), to be fair we should simply normalize them via amnesty.
Keep in mind of course that I am not talking about undocumented criminals; I am talking about decent hardworking types who have been here for years without trouble. Undocumented criminals should be sent directly back to their native country.
As for your opinion about rules; rules are important of course, but they are not the end-all be-all solution to everything. In fact Jesus said as much to the strict doctrinaire Jews of the Old Testament. Law and order are essential to any decent society, but they must be tempered with mercy and love of God and neighbor. In other words, there is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.
Still, I do not think you and I disagree on the main thing. I think our federal government should back away from things it does not do well (like nosing into schools or forcing socialism or other weird social structures on the states) and should instead focus on things it is capable of handling, like patrolling the border, maintaining roads and bridges, staffing the military, and delivering the mail.