I want to thank and applaud the candor of Rep. Dana Rohrabacher from California and Glenn Beck of Fox News. They finally had the courage and audacity to say what so many of us knew to be true but would never admit.
The immigration debate is not about law, not about fairness, not about justice. It's about race. Plain and simple. It's about the fear of more brown people coming into our society, our culture.
When debating the DREAM act, Rohrabacher said, "This legislation not only increases the burden on our hard-pressed government programs and services, but will give foreigners who are here illegally preference over non-minority citizens." Non-minority citizens. Hmmm. That's an interesting phrase. Whatever do you mean Rep. Rohrabacher?
We all know what he means. "Non-minority citizens" means "white people." He doesn't even try to disguise who he's most interested in protecting. It's not American citizens, only "non-minority citizens." The rest of us are out of luck.
Beck was even more straight forward. He announced that the DREAM Act would mean, "...if you're white or you're an American citizen or a white American citizen, you're pretty much toast. "
Just like the Arizona law. Just like Sharron Angle putting Latino gang bangers in her political ads. Just like the manufactured debate about the 14th Amendment. What they all meant was very plain. We don't want brown people here. They aren't welcome. This country is for white people. This is about race. Nothing else. Race.
You will know this to be true by the howls of protest that will come from the right when they read this post. How dare we speak of race? How dare we impugn the character of the non-minority Rep. Rohrabacher? How dare we speak the truth? Watch. It will happen. And you will know them by how much they protest. For Rohrabacher and people like him: Opposing immigration reform is about race.
Take the debate on the 14th Amendment. Why are all these right wing ideologues, strict defenders of the Constitution, suddenly willing to throw out an amendment that has been part of our countries legacy for over a hundred years? Why attack the 14th Amendment? Why do it now?
We know the answer. It's about race.
The 14th Amendment says that anyone born in this country is considered a U.S. citizen. It is our birthright. Since 1868, it has been the law of the land. But now, a number of non-minority representatives, people like Rohrabacher, Rep. Steve King (Iowa), and Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas), want to do away with it. Why? Why now?
We know the answer, it's about race.
Thank god we live in America. It's true that as a country we have a long way to go in solving our race problems. Injustices remain, there are still things to fix, battles to be won, and it will take all of us working together to win them. But one thing is clear, we as a country don't like racists, no matter how much they cover their thoughts up with pretty language and seemingly rational arguments. We just don't like them, and they can't win.
I know there are lots of people who have genuine concerns about immigration policy in the U.S. Questions about security can be genuine. Worries about integrating the undocumented into our society can be genuine. But I for one am convinced that when we have a rational discussion about this, the vast majority of Americans will come solidly down on the side of legalizing the undocumented, and creating a rational, workable way for those who want to join this country to do so. I am equally convinced that those who shout the loudest, drowning out any chance for real discussion, are not concerned about immigration policy, border security or even fairness.
For them, it's about race.
I think the Republican Party has a choice to make. It can allow people like Rohrabacher Angle and Jan Brewer to dominate their politics, or it can chart a new course. It can stand with those flirt with overt racism, or stand against them. There is no middle ground here. There is no ducking.
If you believe like I do that hate and racism have no place in our politics and that only by finding common ground can we solve our problems, then remember the words of Rohrabacher. Remember what Glenn Beck's concerns really are. Remember those words and the words of those who would defend them, and remember that for those who shout loudest,
It's about race.
Fight against racism by joining CCC. Text CHANGE to 69866.
Follow Gabe Gonzalez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/communitychange
The tone of your post is one of anger. The shouting, the name-calling (even if your characterization of the above-mentioned people is relatively accurate), and attacks on fellow citizens make it increasingly difficult to respect your views. As much as I find racism offensive, it is not illegal to harbor, or even express, racist thoughts.
The 14th Amendment argument is not racial, it is ethical. Adults possess conscience of thought. Those who plan to and do enter the U.S without permission, and give birth to a child here, are committing emotional blackmail and economic coercion. For completely selfish reasons, "parents" knowingly blur the lines between America's compassion for the plight of others and our respect for the law.
There could not be a more irresponsible parental decision, nor a greater demonstration of disrespect for the document containing some of the very rights you invoke as part of your argument.
A child born in the U.S. to illegal aliens has been used as a pawn by his very own parents. The child is a citizen by right. But for the parents, citizenship can only be a privilege they want in return for having committed a felony. Even citizen felons lose certain rights. The child becomes the proxy for avoidance of criminal prosecution/deportation.
The parents are risking deportation. If deported, do they take the child with them, eliminating his opportunities afforded here? Or, do they leave the child behind, burdening our foster care system for 18 years?
This debate has continually been framed a certain way "Lawmakers like to suggest that "illegals" are coming to take advantage of our benefits and jobs".......
Not about small businesses and employers and the American citizens who benefit through the employment of illegal labor in their homes, businesses and corporations.
I find it ironic that the same people who rally against affirmative action believe they need affirmative action through immigration policy to protect their jobs against foreign competition.
I find it ironic that the same people who rally against the specter of socialism believe that the government should be permitted to interfere with a business person's freedom of contract to employ whoever is best for the job in his judgment.
For those who say it's about jobs and the economy, consider this.
The government may be able to tell American employers that they cannot hire immigrants (either those who are here without documentation, or those who you seek to bar by not increasing the number of visas available so they have a line to get into).
But employers still don't have to hire you.
Not enough workers who will do the job at a wage that allows them to sell goods at a price you'll pay at Wal-Mart?
Simply outsource the job. If it's a low-skilled job, fire the American workers that supervise Mexicans. If it's a high-skilled job, fire the Americans who work alongside Indian H-1B workers.
Do you shop at Wal Mart? Then it's clear you won't pay for someone to work for $20 an hour for a job that an immigrant in the US can do for $10 an hour, or an American business can pay an outsourced worker $1 an hour to do overseas.
You seem to be suggesting that it would be inconsistent to advocate for discrimination between nations if one advocated against discrimination within nations. (I guess the logic is something akin to: If you oppose segregation (between citizens), you can't oppose segregation (between global citizens) -- Free flow of people!) There is no such purported inconsistency.
Imagine if I opposed eating eating a particular type of animal, say humans. By your way of thinking, given that opposition,it would be inconsistent for me to not also oppose the practice of eating every other animal -- how, after all, could I consistently oppose and not oppose that same thing? (I use that example because I am cooking a steak right now).
Obviously this is nonsensical reasoning. There's no contradiction in advocating for and advocating against different things. What you're really suggesting, I'm guessing, is that, as you see it, there's no real difference between nationals and non-nations (citizens of a nation and citizens of the world). Clearly, not everyone shares your way of thinking.
This is a fair point. It boils down to: isn't nationalism (meaning "nativism" or "non-globalism" ) just a form of "socialism" -- after all, the government limits choice and imposed regulations. I used to agree with that. The problem is that globalism and open-borderism inevitably leads to a worse socialism than otherwise. It's simply illogical for,say Mexicans, to come to the US and not support
"progressive" reforms and forms of redistribution or entitlements -- that is, to not support forms of socialism. Many don't -- which is surprising and in my view somewhat illogical -- but many more do. They split 2:1 democrat. Now the dummy republicans set up "Hispanic" affirmative action; they also passed Amnesty in the 90's and tried to push through a bill a couple of years ago; they're even have long range plans to run George P. Bush. But this wins them few returns because it's only logical for many hispanics to support democrats and for democrats to import them.
interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:
a.. Number of States won by:
Obama: 19 McCain: 29
b.. Square miles of land won by:
Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
c.. Population of counties won by:
Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
d.. Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was
mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income
tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency
and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's
population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal
invaders called illegals - and
they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
The DREAM Act is nothing but amnesty for illegal aliens who, by law, have no right to be here. Why don't these illegal aliens go back to their own country, take their parents with them, and make the best of it there. The American people are fed up supporting the illegal aliens and this invasion of 12-20 million of the illegal aliens. It has to stop. Granting any form of amnesty will only encourage more, and where will it end? Our laws need ENFORCED! We don't need or want any form of amnesty. Is this so hard to understand?
This is just a thought, but if we get rid of all the illegal aliens, would this open up jobs for Americans. Illegal immigration is also costing us an estimated $250 BILLION a year for these illegal aliens. Think of the money we would save that could bring our enormous debt down. So maybe it is time to get our immigration laws ENFORCED and finally get the illegal aliens out of this Country. Another costly thing are the anchor babies. This has to end also!
How about this: Dem support of DREAM Act is about gaining latino votes and disregard for rule of law.
Would you support a party that shows complete and utter disregard for the rule of law by wanting to change the constitution to make your children illegal in the country of their birth.
The Dream Act is not against the rule of law.
Whether or not you're a citizen, you have these constitutional rights:
The Right to Advocate for Change. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of groups and individuals who advocate changes in laws, government practices, and even the form of government.
Corporate owned Republicans love illegal immigration. Illegal immigration gives them cheap labour and high profits. Then at election time they use illegal immigration as a wedge issue to garner votes from gullible voters who believe immigrants are to blame for the mess Republicans made.
For Republicans it's a win win win situation.
It's Jobs ~ It's Jobs ~ It's Jobs
16 million Americans out of work
11 million illegal aliens working in the USA illegally for half-price wages
No common sense in that
Kids are “beaner hopping” now, looking for Hispanics, especially Hispanics they think are “illegal” (how they can tell is anyone’s guess) to pummel for sport. It's definitely about race.
It’s NOT the Economy: Bigotry and Racism Drive the Anti-immigrant Movement
In the canon of American myths the notion prevails that economics drives bigotry and racism. Nothing could be further from reality.
The contemporary anti-immigrant movement in the U.S. is first and foremost grounded in and driven by white nationalism—the ideology that claims the U.S. is a nation crafted by, for, and of whites—and the inherent bigotry and racism of that ideology. The strategic use of economic downturns, job losses, and competition for public resources to build a restrictionist base aimed at curtailing immigration are but weapons used by that movement to advance its goal of maintaining white control, white dominance, and white political power as demographic change moves the nation toward minority white status by mid-century.
http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2009/04/22/it%E2%80%99s-not-the-economy-bigotry-and-racism-drive-the-anti-immigrant-movement/
There is an illegal immigration problem
There is not an anti-immigrant movement in the U.S.
There is an anti-illegal-immigration movement in the U.S.
Redefining the word "immigrant" is an attempt to differentiate between those they hate and their own grandparents.
I've encountered a new argument in my travels, both in the comments here on AlterNet and around the internet. It's perhaps best captured by the motto of the "Illegal Invasion News" blog: "IT'S NOT 'IMMIGRATION' AND THEY'RE NOT 'IMMIGRANTS.'" (This claim is often articulated in that ALL CAPS style so popular with small children and lunatics who are off their meds.)
The word "immigrant" has nothing at all to do with legal status. It means, simply, to move from one place to another for the purpose of settling down. Papers, no papers -- it's all irrelevant to the act of migrating.
The claim can be dispatched easily enough with a little elementary etymology. The word "migration" first appears in the English language in reference to humans in 1611, some 37 years before the modern nation state, with its discrete borders, came into existence. The Latin root of the verb "to immigrate," immigrare, predates that by more than a thousand years. Human migration is a phenomenon that dates back to before homo sapiens even existed -- pre-modern humans migrated wily-nilly. So, clearly, the word "immigrant" has nothing whatsoever to do with one's paperwork being in order; its roots predate the existence of contemporary legal systems.
http://www.alternet.org/immigration/85551/?page=entire#comments
Obviously, either you're not interested in what's right and wrong in any meaningful way -- but rather what's good for you -- and to that end, you will toss out libelous charges such as 'racist' -- or you have a very different moral understanding, an understanding that many people do not accept.
That said, as I noted above, Rohrabacher's concern was about hispanic immigration given the existent "diversity" quotas, which effectively discriminate for Hispanics and against non-Hispanic whites -- in an attempt to "equalize" things. I'm sure, given your opposition to ethnoracial discrimination, that you appreciate that concern.
Whose pockets is that money going into? Do you every wonder that?
And What 'race' is it that is invading the US? Most hispanics are a mix of bloodlines from Europe, and indigenous peoples. Indigenous, here on the continent for millenia. The 'invaders' were Europeans who came to the Americas in the last millenium, took individual possession of land that was communally owned, shared, revered! It's a long sad story and the fear and loathing of those Americans, whose ancestors came here from other places, is another curious and sad chapter. The hate and anger of uneducated, misinformed, middleclass white Americans is fed, no doubt, by lobbyists who work for the prison and security industry, Those lobbyists wrote the law in AZ, wrote that law because illegal immigration is profitable, that's why politicians who are funded by these interests will never support the Dream Act. It would be a threat to their current and future profits.