NPR Crosses Dangerous Racial Border, Asks Candidates if Citizens Should "Report" Immigrants

During questioning in the Democratic radio debate yesterday, debate sponsor NPR came dangerously close to promoting civilian pursuit of immigrants. The New York Times summed up NPR's questioning in this way,

"If there is one issue that has challenged presidential candidates of both parties in Iowa this year, it is immigration, and the Democratic contenders were confronted with it again Tuesday, in a provocative way. Should American citizens, they were asked, turn in someone they know to be an illegal immigrant?"

Even after Hillary Clinton responded that citizens should not be "enforcing the broken laws of our federal immigration system," NPR's Steven Inskeep continued the line of questioning by asking, "If a citizen witnessed some other kind of crime, wouldn't you want them to report it?"

Contrary to what the Times tells us, such a line of questioning is not just "provocative", but is, in fact, more like DANGEROUS. In a political environment that already lends itself to countless forms of racial profiling (and to smashing the distinction between federal and local law enforcement under the guise of immigration policy), such a line of questioning only serves to further legitimate another formerly wacky idea, an idea one could, until recently, only find in the netherworld of white supremacist websites. Even those who constantly ask me, "What don't you understand about the word 'illegal'?" should recognize the inherent danger in NPR's approach.

Yesterday's questioning of the Democratic presidential candidates around immigration seems to indicate that NPR is willing to use public airwaves to provide broader forum for formerly fringe ideas. Public airing of such questions will only exacerbate racial tensions against Latino and other migrants that even the FBI tells us are the object of a disturbing increase in hate crimes (and that's just the tiny minority of anti-immigrant hate crimes that are even reported).

What would happen if, for example, such state-funded media started asking whether it was advisable for citizens to single out and report other people based on their religion or physical appearance? Experiences in Germany during WWII and here in the U.S. during the pre- and post-Emancipation periods have already demonstrated the danger in state-funded -- or any other media -- isolating a group for pursuit by local and federal authorities and civilians. This kind of racial logic further deepens the abyss opened after 9/11, when Muslims, South Asians and Arabs became the "beta's" for the new, state-sponsored, national security-tinged profiling of immigrants and other non-whites.

NPR's line of questioning has started taking us beyond "racial profiling" and into even more treacherous racial and political terrain. Imagine what would happen if, for example, some us decide to get licensed guns, drive to the U.S.-Canada border, capture and hog tie blond-haired, blue-eyed people that we suspect of being undocumented. Would we-say, the "Minutomen" -- get the same fair and balanced treatment from law enforcement and the media as the Minutemen, who have undertaken these very actions against Latino migrants near the U.S.-Mexico border? And would these white immigrants get the same treatment by federal and local law enforcement, civilians and NPR and other media?

NPR should know that raising these kinds of questions in the current climate will likely not result in profiling and further intensifying and expanding the governmental and civilian hunt for blond-haired, blue eyed Canadians and other whites. NPR's troubling line of questioning will instead impact non-whites already suffering the brunt of attacks by the same government that funds public radio.

NPR does have decent people and many relevant and good programs. But, left unchecked, those at NPR responsible for yesterday's debate questioning on immigration will likely follow the tried, true and audience-building path paved by hate radio on a.m. and private sector "successes" like Lou Dobbs, CNN and other media making an industry of fomenting anti-immigrant sentiment.

We should not be complicit in allowing publicly-funded institutions like NPR to cross this dangerous racial border.

This post first appeared on Robert Lovato's blog.

Comments

[Ginzaman]

Bring this question up is bad UNLESS everyone is willing to talk honestly about it and deal with all the consequences.

Right now there are roughly 12 million illegal immigrants. And unfortuntely there's a growing tide of racism. All the asshole neocon media pundits continue to exploit this to make themselves rich and the whole situation even worse.

Do you really think that powerful corporations are going to allow this slave labor class to be deported? The economy would fall apart. Two, rich white people would never stop that low to do these "minimum wage" jobs. On the other hand, have any of the neocon candidates said they would dismantle Bush's Executive Orders and Military Commissions Act? No. Also, detention "centers"(camps) continue to be built by the corporations. So everybody's in it for their own money and power. All it takes is one example that be interpreted as a "threat." And instantly Bush (or the next President) will declare martial law. And then what the f**k do we do?

[lungfish]

We have 12 million illegal aliens roaming our streets demanding that we cater to their languages, provide education, accept their children as citizens, etc.

We have probably several million businesses using them as a private, slave wage labor force to avoid taxes, etc and offering no benefits whatsoever to American workers.
Indeed we should be turning them in whenever we come across them and the system should do what it is already empowered to do. Deport them.

And if they are crooks, if they have broken any laws, they should do time. Perhaps we can put them to work doing public service like rebuilding New Orleans...

They are everywhere, standing around the hardware stores,etc looking for work while we have many American citizens who need to work. We should be hauling them off by the busload, they are easy enough to find.

Hell, if we arrest them for any crime they should do double the time if convicted and be held to work off the cost of their arrest and incarceration. They are not entitled to tax moneys or exemptions for anything including medical care to have their babies here.

We need to make it damned unattractive to attempt to live here illegally.

Businesses that hire illegals should be hiring an American for that work and paying them a fair wage.

Maybe I should stop renewing my drivers license and buying insurance and when a cop pulls me over I'll whine that I am an "undocumented driver" and I am being treated unfairly.

Maybe I should become a drug dealer and when I get caught, I'll bitch that I am an "undocumented pharmacist".

Maybe I should steal someone's social security number and if I get caught, I'll tell the gov how much of a benefit I am to the economy....

Illegal is Illegal and if we can find them we should deport them. We should fine or imprison those who hire them or rent living space to them.

[1will]

This column has been up too long and it seems there is little interest in it.
I'm ready for Mr. Lovato's next column on how it's racist to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws.
I hope the author continues to confuse immigrants with illegal aliens.
This issue seems to be the only subject that unites both the Right Wing and Left Wing. I should say both Left Wing and Right Wing citizens. Our politicians on both side seem universaly united in screwing Americans on this issue. Almost everyone seems to agree we need to enforce our immigration laws, secure our borders and stop talking of amnesty for criminals. It's nice to see a little unity this holiday season.

[thesimulacra]

This is the kind of crap that makes it really hard to be a liberal in America. Did you fail reading comprehension in school? The question was "IF THEY KNEW THEY WERE AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT"... it wasn't "if someone looks like they might be an illegal immigrant", the condition was that they absolutely knew this person was here illegally. So how is it racial profiling to turn them in? To use your own reckless and idiotic example, if I saw a black man rob someone, should I not tell the police because I would be guilty of racial profiling?

I swear, getting a rational debate out of this country is like squeezing blood from a stone.

[Hopalongpoppyseed]

Oh come now Mr Lovato; let a thousand questions bloom. Let the people decide what they think of the questions, but stifle your censorious heart. I don't need you protecting me.

[VicPerry]

Once I heard Steve Inskeep would be at the debate I wondered what kind of drivel would surface - that guy is a craphound of the first magnitude. With him, Juan Williams, Cokie Roberts, the unbearable business section and the various drones from the right-wing think tanks to provide flak, Morning Edition has become the worst news show on NPR. Which is saying something, alas. Because, gasp, it's still better than commercial news. We are so doomed.

[williamg]

"During questioning in the Democratic radio debate yesterday, debate sponsor NPR came dangerously close to promoting civilian pursuit of immigrants"

The author loses his credibility when he refered to them as immigrants, rather than illegal (or undocumented) or any other way you want to describe their immigration status. How dishonest. This is why that this side of the debate is losing ground - dishonesty!

[williamg]

"What would happen if, for example, such state-funded media started asking whether it was advisable for citizens to single out and report other people based on their religion or physical appearance?"

There is NOT an illegal religion in America. There is NOT an illegal physical appearance in America. It is a crime to be inside the United States without permission. Period.

What the author should be asking - isn't it in fact DANGEROUS for writers to try and equate an illegal act with that religion and physical appearance.

[aninconvenientgay]

So....reporting someone whom you know to be violating the law is now a fringe idea? Really? It's not as if NPR is suggesting that people should chase down illegal immigrants and shoot them on sight...perhaps Mr. Lovato should tone down the rhetoric and not resort to the sort of overblown reaction that always seems to be counterproductive to a cause.

[Cranbot]

I don't know how old you all are, but I just turned 50 and I remember public service ads when I was a child telling you to turn in illegal aliens. Of course, as a kid I always thought they meant Martians. (One of my favorite shows was My Favorite Martian).

But all in all, fair is fair and illegal is illegal. Do we say illegal is illegal except in this case?
Two things, there are many who pay their dues and wait many years to come here and do it the right way. Shouldn't they have priority? Second, If I am traveling in Russia while pregnant and have the baby while I am there is it automatically a Russian citizen with all rights bestowed? I do think that needs to change in this country.

A major reason that the laws need to be enforced is that if we don't it contributes to businesses and individuals taking advantage of these people, paying them less than minimum wage, treating them poorly all the while holding it over their heads that if they complain they will have them deported.

Don't buy the rhetoric that there are jobs that Americans won't do. We need a living wage and if you are not willing to pay it, your job will go begging. If we stop the hiring of illegals, wages will have to rise to be competetive.

[Rule Of Law]

If we begin by enforcing our immigration laws at the top with the corporations, repeal NAFTA and induce Mexico, and other countries, to improve their economies, we can help to avoid situations like these in this news report of yesterday:

State Report: California Prime Market for Human Trafficking

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=35912

Information like this shows exactly what is wrong with the arguments of the illegal apologists and open border proponents. Because even if you gave total amnesty to every illegal here now, what do you do for the next generation lured across by empty promises only to be enslaved? If at that point you're talking no borders, no laws, no countries...I say, No thank you!

[HowietheScreamer]

I listened to the debate, and I think your characterization of the NPR questioners is inaccurate. I did not get the sense that they were "advocating" for vigilanteism, but rather trying to draw out the candidates and see where the distinctions are.

That said, I would HOPE that this same sort of question gets asked of the Republicans when they finally agree to a similar debate. Of course given the rabid hatred for NPR that most Republicans have, I'm not holding my breath for that ever to occur.

[heckleNjeckle]

Did anyone hear Gravel's position on immigration?
He has the idea that these aliens are HUMAN!
What saucer did he fly in on?

He also suggested (get this!) that DEMOCRACY is a good thing, even for PALESTINIANS! Hoo boy, NPR changed the subject real fast when he said that.

Good thing they didn't give him a chance to tell about his advocating for diplomacy with CHINA way back before Kissinger and Nixon did it.

And he's opposed to war! What a nut.

[oogabooga]

The legal immigration process costs about $3,500, with all of the fees, doctor's exam, background check etc included. An illegal alien spends about the same for a smuggler's help. So why not apply those funds to the legal process?

[MARTYB]

I have reported illegal aliens to the local ICE
office,and i tell you it was a real pleasure to see them rounded up, even though they got 0 help from the local police as this is one of those "sanctuary cities". Nope, i don't have a problem at all about reporting illegal aliens to the authorities, deport them all.