A few weeks ago, I read the sad
story of the beating death of Mexican migrant Luis Ramirez (age
25) in a small town in Pennsylvania. The details as reported in the
press are sad and disgusting regarding what allegedly transpired
between three white teens charged in the case and Ramirez. The story
has stayed in my mind.
Remember when others worldwide regarded
our nation as a beacon of light, a place where those persecuted could
come to seek a better life, free from religious and ethnic
persecution? Remember when you, perhaps, regarded our nation in that
way?
"The Mother of Exiles," as Emma Lazarus' The
New Colossus called her, was how America was viewed by those seeking
a better life. To come to America was a dream, a dream and vision
celebrated worldwide, and one which millions fulfilled much to the
benefit of our nation. As the plaque on the base of the Statue of
Liberty with Lazarus' inscription spoke of the Lady of Liberty's
world-wide welcome, millions came and built this nation.
Yet
such a warm welcome has not awaited many. When one considers how many
people desperately seeking asylum here have been denied, or even
those who go through the tedious process of applying for green cards
and citizenship who worry after years of living, working, and even
building businesses in America about the ultimate decision due to the
excruciating waiting periods, or we take a look at the immigration
detention facilities across our country filled with non-violent
people (including many children), we see the welcome has long been
gone though my question is was it ever really there?
Whether
"legal" or "illegal" is not the question; the
question what is just versus unjust or moral versus immoral?
Right
now, there seems to be an increase in vitriolic language against
Latinos, and disturbingly, it's becoming popular and seemingly
accepted in the mainstream.
Immigrations laws are immoral;
they give the U.S. government the control to grant or withhold
permission to foreigners wishing to enter our nation. Such power of
the federal government inevitably leads to violence. It's a violence
perpetrated not only by the government against those seeking life in
America, but a violence advocated by citizens themselves as the
rhetoric becomes more vicious, so do the attacks on Latinos.
It's
been three months since the ICE raid in Postville, Iowa (the largest
such workplace raid in our history). Families were separated,
businesses disrupted, and all for enforcement of immigration policy
against people who have built their lives and raised families in
Postville for years. Who were such hard working individuals harming?
What we do know is the town was harmed by this federal action. Most
of the approximate 389 arrested were Guatemalan, others were Mexican,
Ukrainian and Israeli. Such illegal workers pose no threat, but are
targeted by the ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement). Perhaps
such raids are a means to justify the existence and growth/funding of
the ICE with "Homeland Security."
The anti-immigrant
fervor in the United States is fueled by fear of those who cross our
southern border (though many "illegals" also come here on
legal visas and remain after their visa expires). But it is the
Mexican immigrant who is receiving the wrath of the public. Many on
the anti-immigrant bandwagon resort to hateful verbal attacks, and
others increasingly express their hatred through violent speech or
violence itself. Though there are those who restrain their fears to
mere discussion of ideas and the facts they selectively use to
support their positions, many others have chosen immigrants as the
group upon which not only to to vent their frustrations, unhappiness,
and hardship upon (as if immigrants were responsible for the deep
emotional and economic dissatisfaction in their own lives) but to
take it a step further in advocating all manner of persecution
including violence.
The phenomenon of irrational and unjust
persecution of a group of people has occurred throughout history.
Fear of the unknown is the cause, be it for the sake of religious,
regional, ethnic, economic, or other differences, the result is the
same: the fearful attacking the object they view as different from
themselves. In an effort to not address their fears, people often
simply attack.
Religious persecution is but one example: Early
Christian were persecuted by the Romans, Christians have persecuted
pagans, New secularists,the Japanese, and Russian orthodox Christians
persecuted Roman Catholics, and Christians have persecuted Jews and
persecuted one another between denominations for centuries -
differences in religious practice result in violence still worldwide.
These are but a few examples, each leading to violence and death.
When we take a look at regional and ethnic battles worldwide, as well
as between economic classes, we see the identical process taking
place: every instance of violent persecution began with a negative
stereotype thereby opening people's minds (and hearts) to
justification for their prejudice, discrimination, and ultimate
violence. It begins with a focus on differences.
Once the
bigoted prejudice is accepted, all manner of evil can result - even
genocide. As prejudice begins to be accepted in a society for a group
of people, it is fueled by propaganda and the words of demagogues.
Derogatory slang is used against the target to dehumanize them, and
once dehumanized, the discriminatory practices are easily accepted,
and as the hatred of the targeted group becomes the norm in a
society, then, too, violence is accepted. Examining even the most
recent wars of the 20th and 21 st centuries, and the same process of
dehumanization of the "enemy" leading one group, or both,
to engage in all manners of evil against the other. Whether the
Nazi's anti-Jewish propaganda or American anti-Japanese propaganda
(but two examples-there are many), it is an evil to be rejected by
any side during a dispute or conflict.
This process of
dehumanization is precisely what I see happening in the United States
against immigrants from Mexico (as well as from a few other nations).
The assertion that Latinos are the "enemy" is becoming
accepted as such hateful rhetoric increases. Cloaked in the guise of
"national security" racism is being encouraged.
Mexicans
and other Latin American immigrants are referred to in the most
derogatory of names, not just by extremists, but by those considered
"mainstream" be they talk show hosts, politicians, or
others in the public eye. The result has been a significant increase
in crimes against Latinos (or those perpetrators thought to be Latino
because of their skin color) regardless of their immigration
status.
I recommend an excellent article from the Southern
Poverty Law Center entitled Immigration
Backlash: Violence Engulfs Latinos (by Brentin Mock). The article
provides just a sampling of some of the egregious acts of violence.
And this racist phenomenon is not new here. The U.S. federal
government has a long history of discrimination resulting in death
for those it deemed unacceptable to allow into our nation. A very
brief sketch of federal immigration policy:
Prior to 1882,
there were few restrictions on those entering the United States. But
since the early 1900's, our country has favored some ethnicities
above others and backed up that racism with our laws. Supposed
"reasoning," similar to the "reasoning" espoused
by current anti-immigrant propaganda, relied upon "studies"
and "reports" which were designed to "prove" some
races inferior or harmful to the best interest of society. Beginning
in the 1890's, groups such as the anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic
American Protective Association grew in numbers as they played upon
Midwesterner's fears of immigrants as they lobbied for immigration
restrictions and stricter citizenship tests. And it was in 1891 that
the U.S. Congress passed the Immigration Act forming a bureaucratic
agency within the Treasury department charged with screening,
processing, and rejecting immigrants (in 1875 the Supreme Court had
decided immigration regulation would be the responsibility of the
federal government, which was followed by the 1882 Chinese Exclusion
Act and the 1885 and 1887 Alien Contract Labor Laws both of which
restricted certain laborers from entering the country).
Defying
individualism, liberty, and limited government power, followers of
such thought were ready to "protect" their way of life
(their political agendas which they felt threatened by the differing
political viewpoints of the new settlers) by fighting hard for
immigration restrictions.
Soon national immigration policy
became a political tool of division subject to playing on the fears
of the people to promote political agendas for acquisition of
political power. Intellectuals began publishing articles opposing
America's longstanding celebration of immigration in favor of an
entirely opposite view promoting protectionism from immigrants who
they categorized as unskilled and responsible for deteriorating the
quality of life in cities. One prime example of such rhetoric came
from social scientist/economist Richard Mayo Smith who wrote, "It
is scarcely probable that by taking the dregs of Europe we shall
produce a people of high social intelligence and morality," (1)
Further, Smith in his "Emigration and Immigration: A Study in
Social Science (1890) wrote, "we must disabuse ourselves of the
notion that freedom of migration rest upon the right of the
individual. It is simply a privilege granted by the power of the
state" (2)
Throughout the 1900's, more regulations were
passed giving the federal government increased control to exclude
immigrants with a quota system, banned all Asians except Japanese
(1917-1924), ad reduced visas and based those they granted on
national origin. The legislation gave preference to immigrants from
northern and western Europe. It wasn't until 1965 that the racist
immigration laws drew controversy, with the bans on Asians and
immigration discrimination based on race, place of birth, sex and
residence being lifted. The immigration policies had resulted in
thousands of Jews being turned away who sought haven from Hitler
(even while quotas were no where close to being met). By 1965, the
immigration backlogs were enormous for those wishing to come to our
nation legally.
And, then, as history repeats itself, the U.S.
government imposed strict laws again with the 1986 imposition of
fines on employers hiring illegal immigrants, and in 1990 more laws
restricting certain laborer immigrants over others' entry into the
country. Then the U.S. Patriot Act (2001) and the merging of the
Immigration and naturalization Service into the Department of
Homeland Security in 2003 with yet a new bureaucracy for processing
called the U.S. Citizenship and US immigration Services with
immigration enforcement handled by the Department's Border and
Transportation Security Directorate called the Bureau of US
immigration and Customs Enforcement. Once again, fearful people are
rallied to target groups of people as the enemy" from whom they
must be protected by their government - and liberty is lost. Thus
describes the popularity of legal immigrant restrictions, and the
current dangerous sentiments against "illegal"
immigrants.
Immigration detention is now the fastest growing
form of incarceration in the United States.(3) It's a big business
now. Do a search on the detention centers and read about the
conditions men, women and children are subjected to. (One such
article: Families
Behind Bars: Jailing Children of Immigrants By Kari Lydersen).;
and another regarding the allegations of mistreatment at a Washington
state detention facility where a report by the Seattle University
School of Law and the human rights group OneAmerica concluded
detainees are being held " in conditions that violate both
international and U.S. law," see Julia
Dahl's August 5, 2008 piece: Private Prison Co. Again Accused of
Human Rights Abuses, Report: Immigrants in US Facility Held in
"Atmosphere of Intimidation.")
An aspect of the
federal government's war against immigrants is Section 287g of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a law made in 2006 authorizing
the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into agreements with
state and local law enforcement agencies. That provision is part of
the problem as Latinos, who are not U.S. citizens, are reluctant to
report crimes of harassment or violence for concern they may be
deported. (Who can forget the arrest and detainment of Juana Villegas
in Tennessee last month? A nine-month pregnant woman, stopped for
routine traffic violation, ended up forced to give birth in the most
disagreeable circumstances (read
details here from the story as reported in The New York Times)
simply because she was undocumented.
Such local collaboration
with federal authorities is increasing. Sold as a means to get
violent criminals off the streets, obviously the opportunity for
misuse is abundant. From the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement website about 287g,
"Terrorism and criminal activity are most effectively combated
through a multi-agency/multi-authority approach that encompasses
federal, state and local resources, skills and expertise. State and
local law enforcement play a critical role in protecting our homeland
because they are often the first responders on the scene when there
is an incident or attack against the United States. During the course
of daily duties, they will often encounter foreign-born criminals and
immigration violators who pose a threat to national security or
public safety." Did anyone really think Mrs. Villegas was a
potential terrorist, or in any way posed a threat to national
security and public safety? Is Section287g simply playing on American
fear of terrorism to justify the enormous budget allocated of for
"Homeland Security" and its increased power?
It is
such blatant disregard of individual liberty, of which free movement
is intrinsic, which has caused the U.S. federal government's
discriminatory immigration practices to result in much tragedy and
death. Be it the enormous bureaucracy for those applying for legal
status, or the enormous bureaucracy enforcing immigration laws
against those who simply seek to come here but do not seek
citizenship, the costs - economically and ethically - are
enormous.
None of this would have happened if not for the
fear-based persecution of those who differed by the populous.
Immigration has sadly always been viewed as racial issue for the U.S.
government.The current anti-foreigner sentiment is not new, but the
continued unenlightened fear of a people who seek someone to blame
for their own nation's as well as their own personal problems. It is
the "us" versus them" syndrome, and Latinos more than
other immigrant group are the ones targeted.
To those who cry
"They're breaking the law," I say "Get rid of these
unjust laws as we have others." Government regulated immigration
has always, by its very nature, been arbitrary and discriminatory
basing policies on ethnic and geographic (and other) biases. Such
laws go against human will. They violate the natural desires of
people to travel, to migrate, to seek greater opportunityand they go
against the natural desires of people to not only hire others, but to
welcome others into their life, their homes, their families, and
their communities. There should never have been preferential
immigration policy, and there should not be now.
To let supply
and demand, need and want, private enterprise work freely (and work
it will) is the answer. Just get government out of the way, and let
people themselves determine where they wish to live, where they want
to try and make a living, and who they wish to hire. Let's end
government protectionism of certain businesses/industries, let's end
government discrimination, let's allow people to decide who they
associate with.
Until the history of moral failure of this
nation's immigration policies is recognized, more will suffer.
Immigrants, "legal" or "illegal," should not be
expected to check their customs, beliefs, traditions, religion,
language or their human rights at the border. Only a fearful people
would require such irrationality and fear should never do the
choosing between right and wrong.
People are dying in their
quest to come to America. Human smuggling from Mexico as well as from
Cuba, results in terrible suffering and death. Families suffer in
federal detention centers. All because the federal government
continues its immoral persecution of people simply seeking to live in
America. The hypocrisy of a nation, as ours, ever trying to condemn
oppression anywhere else in the world is glaring, for ours is a
government which forbids such oppressed peoples to seek refuge (even
as the U.S. government's imperialism destroys the economic
infrastructure of many countries and creating refugees worldwide and
accepting only a fraction of them).
I do not see the public
outcry for the mistreatment of human beings that is occurring in this
nation. I do not see public rejection of the detention camps. Nor do
I see much empathy for those who die as a result of repatriation. I
do not believe this is a matter of rational pro or con on the issue
of immigration; I believe it is a deep rooted racial bias.
As
the demagogues become more brazen in expressing their hatred,
disturbed people will take it upon themselves to show their
"patriotism" by violent behaviorafter all, they're only
following the example of their government which they worship - with
the rightness or wrongness never questioned. The "American"
spirit would be welcoming, the tyrannical spirit condemning. The
disturbing increase in persecution of Latinos happening now gives me
a grave foreboding as to what evil lengths the U.S. government, and
the citizens themselves, may ultimately accept as their hatred
becomes solidified as a group war to defend their meaningless
"national pride" or perhaps it would be more accurate to
say their meaningless "racial pride."
Notes:
(1)
America in the Gilded Age by Sean Dennis Cashman, pg. 98
(2)
Dividing Lines by Daniel J. Tichenor, pg. 77
(3)Few Details on
Immigrants Who Died in Custody by Nina Bernstein
************
Christine Smith is
a writer and political activist from Colorado. You may visit her
blog: http://www.christinesmith.us/wordpress