One more job for immigrants

[Radar]

One more job for immigrants
Rosa Brooks

April 14, 2006

OVER THE LAST few weeks, it'sa become obvious that the immigrant community is seriously out of the American cultural mainstream.

Mainstream Americans don't go in for protest marches anymore (mass protests are so '60s). But demonstrating a mind-boggling degree of cultural obtuseness, hundreds of thousands of immigrants turned out for nationwide rallies opposing the punitive Republican-sponsored immigration bill passed by the House in December.

Maybe it's a language problem. This nation's immigrant communities must have taken literally those lines in the Constitution about the right to assemble peaceably and petition the government for the redress of grievances.

Whatever. Real Americans — that is, those of us whose immigrant ancestors made it to the United States more than a generation or two ago — gave up on that sort of foolishness long ago. (The Bill of Rights is so 1791.)

When we Americans have a grievance we want redressed, we don't assemble. Assembling en masse is a sweaty, fatiguing enterprise requiring the purchase of lots of poster board and the occasional use of Porta Potties. Yuck.

Instead, real Americans sulk and whine. What's more, because we take pride in individualism, we mostly do our whining and sulking alone. As a result, even when we're really, really mad at our government, an outside observer would be hard-pressed to notice.

And we are pretty mad at our government these days.

Recent polls tell us, for instance, that 60% of Americans disapprove of President Bush's overall job performance; 74% disapprove of his handling of rising gasoline prices; 62% disapprove of his handling of the Iraq war; 63% think the president's role in the intelligence leak scandal was either illegal or unethical. Further, 45% of Americans think Bush should be censured or officially reprimanded for authorizing secret domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency, and an astonishing 33% of Americans think Bush should be impeached. (As a point of reference, public support for impeaching President Clinton averaged only 26% in the summer and fall of 1998.)

In many foreign countries, such a high level of popular discontent would translate rapidly into mass protests. In France this spring, polls suggesting that more than 60% of the public disapproved of a new labor law were soon paralleled by massive street protests against the legislation and a general strike. In Ukraine, public dissatisfaction with the pro-Russian regime led to mass protests in 2004. In Serbia, polls showing widespread unhappiness with the government of Slobodan Milosevic were followed by a popular uprising in late 2000, after Milosevic claimed victory in a disputed election.

By definition, immigrants are all foreign-born, so maybe this explains why the ones here have not abandoned the politics of mass protest. Not very assimilationist of them, is it?

Of course, sometimes mass protest actually changes things. In other countries, anyway. On Monday, for instance, French President Jacques Chirac was forced to withdraw the labor measure that sparked the protests; in 2004, the so-called Orange Revolution brought a democratic government to Ukraine; in 2000, the Serbian popular uprising forced Milosevic to step down and ultimately led to his transfer to The Hague to face trial for crimes against humanity.

Come to think of it, mass protests over the punitive Republican immigration bill may have brought about a change in U.S. politics too. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) suggested a new willingness to reconsider several of the bill's harsher provisions. All this because hundreds of thousands of the country's most politically marginal residents took to the streets.

What would happen if mainstream Americans did that sort of thing too? If the 33% of Americans who think Bush should be impeached took to the streets to peaceably express their views, that would be almost 100 million marchers — enough to wake up even the most somnolent of politicians. If the 47% of Americans who think U.S. troops should leave Iraq ASAP actually marched on Washington, our troops would already be on their way home. If the 60% of Americans who disapprove of Bush's job performance decided to stage a peaceful sit-in outside the White House, they'd spill over into a dozen neighboring states, and the American political machine would grind to a screeching halt.

Of course, political protest isn't easy. Effective protests take money, endurance and courage. Protesters have to take time off from work; they have to travel to distant cities and come up with somewhere to sleep and eat; they have to risk encounters with police who may not always distinguish between peaceful protesters and those who are breaking the law.

Especially when the stakes are high, political protest can be difficult, exhausting and dangerous work.

This may explain why so few Americans are willing to express their discontent through public protest. As with so much unappealing work here in the U.S.A., we leave that kind of thing to the immigrants.

[skysidhe]

Great Post.

I thought it was the right of an american citizen to assemble?
Or just to assemble?

So the march was for rights? To express rights? Dosn't one have to have some kind of leverage to prostest with? Like the ability to vote?

Just things that go through my brain. I don't have any answers or the time to spend much thought creating talking points.

I just mostly wanted to say it was an interesting read. Thanks

[Shocker]

I understand that the constitution gives all Americans the right to assemble and that protesting serves a very important role in society today. What I am confused on, however, is how people have taken the rights and priviledges granted by the United States Constitution and applied it to those who have come here illegally. I understand that ultimatly, we all are here through some sort of immigration, either our own or our forefathers, but even in the 1700's there was an established process for immigration. If you came by boat from accross the pond, then you probably ended up at Ellis Island, where you were documented and checked out for disease or other issues that might make you undesirable to live in this country. I mean, the concept of legal vs. illegal immigration is not a new one, and when the Constition was written, it was written to protect the rights of UNITED STATES CITIZENS, not the rights of people who broke the law in the first place to be here.

I understand that immigrants, both legal and otherwise, perform vital roles in our country, and even take the jobs that I know that I wouldn't want to do at least. Of course they have rights, but the rights they have as recognized by the United States are those rights that are considered basic human rights, not the other rights as outlined by the Constitution. We don't owe them anything for being here. We have created a process and have made laws allowing for legal immigration and eventual citizenship. They have chosen to break the law by not following the processes to properly immigrate here.

Ultimately, the U.S. government's responsibility lies in serving U.S. citizens, and one way they must do that is by protecting our borders and enforcing our laws. I realize that many illegal immigrants help our economy and perform vital tasks, but there are those whose law breaking does not stop when they cross the border, but they continue to break laws and are a threat and a drain on our society. And the immigration bills are just the governments way of protecting its citizens.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Shocker

What I am confused on, however, is how people have taken the rights and priviledges granted by the United States Constitution and applied it to those who have come here illegally.
...
when the Constition was written, it was written to protect the rights of UNITED STATES CITIZENS, not the rights of people who broke the law in the first place to be here.

No, it was written to restrict the powers of the United States Government. The rights are the rights of all people.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Shocker

Ultimately, the U.S. government's responsibility lies in serving U.S. citizens, and one way they must do that is by protecting our borders and enforcing our laws. I realize that many illegal immigrants help our economy and perform vital tasks, but there are those whose law breaking does not stop when they cross the border, but they continue to break laws and are a threat and a drain on our society. And the immigration bills are just the governments way of protecting its citizens.

What is a fact is that current laws are written as to create the problem. Laws mostly to appeal to those who FEAR. Those who see enemies everywhere - even in Canada. Those whose sound byte mentality see solutions in draconian actions.

The immigration laws have only made bad policy worse. Since you read everything pertinent before posting, then you also know about American trade laws, corporate welfare and other bad laws intended to enrich the elite at the expense of most Americans, international trade, immigrants - and even created the massive walkout of the World Trade Conference in Cancun. I have not yet been able to confirm this, but it is reported a speech by Bill Clinton saved the next World Trade Conference from complete collapse. Do we want to advance mankind or get made again at the Americans and French?

Of course you knew all this before you took an opinion about immigration. You advocate enforcing laws that are even based upon principles once considered anti-American. Or did you not even know about that Cancun conference? Did you also know why immigrants only get screwed - even $10K to lawyers because the system is designed unfriendly.

The problem with those who so complain about illegal immigration - too often - they don't even know why a problem exists. They spend too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh propaganda - sound byte solutions. We have massive illegal immigration problem because we don't deal with the reasons for that problem. Then we have some foolish idea we can solve it by unilateral attacks on another nation or building big walls. Such solutions only exist in radical politics. Such solutions exist where mandatory prison sentences even for marijuana are going to solve the problem. Clearly judges are too soft ... or persons with that opinion never first learned facts. When did you learn about the WTO conference in Cancun? Just another reason why we have illegal immigration problems. $10K for lawyers to get forms filled out? When did you learn about that one?

Shocker - two damning facts with your post. First you don't even try to address why the problem exists. That alone suggests your have a personal agenda rather than a grasp of the problem. Like extremists - both left and right - you advocate draconian solutions as if such actions always solve problems. Clearly if we only enforce the laws, then problems will disappear? Even military generals are not that stupid.

Those who blindly demand blind law enforcement as a solution for anything never bothered to learn lessons of history. Why do we have an immigration problem? We have met the enemy and he is us. When that was obvious, others instead demanded a solution in draconian actions – and without even learning why the problem exists.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Right HM, that's why the Feds try to head off Cubans before they hit the beach. One foot on American soil and they are entitled to full rights of the Constitution. They don't have to be a citizen or legal.

That said, they still are accountable for breaking any laws, but they are entitled to due process afforded by the Constitution.

Damnit Radar, I'm an American...... so boil that whole diatribe down to a sound bite, if you want to reach me.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence indeed, will dictate, that Governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

- Thomas Jefferson (remember him?)

It does not state that only US citizens have such rights. At the time these words were written there was really no such thing as a US citizen. People here were subjects of the King of England. That's it.

Shocker's post reminds me of Animal Farm - some of us are more equal than others.

[smoothmoniker]

Careful, mari. Before you know it, you'll start believing in Natural Law and moral absolutes.

[Shocker]

Ok, well first off, I don't have any personal agenda like tw suggested, other than of course looking out for the best interests of my family. I do not know any illegal immigrants, and I do not fear losing my job or anything else to an illegal immigrant. I do however, believe that the laws of our country should be respected and followed. And there is a real reason to worry about the immigration issue. Al-Qaeda operatives, just as easily as Mexican migants, can cross our borders and do harm to us. We know they want to. But the cost and complexity in making exeptions to the law is too high to not protect our borders.

Secondly, Mari, I in fact do recognize those words, they are very famous, and I do indeed agree with them. I do feel that every human life is entitled to those things, no matter where they are from, no matter their religion, no matter whether they have been born yet or not, and no matter their race. But that is exactly why we have the system in place to allow for them to come here and pursue their dreams - legally. What you must remember, though, is that those words do not come from the supreme law of the United States - the constitution, but from the Declaration of Independence, so yes obviously there were no U.S. citizens then. However, the words of our Constituion, as written in the preamble -

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You see, the U.S. Constitution was written at a time when there were U.S. citizens, and it was written in the best interests of U.S. citizens. It may sound harsh coming like this, but that is what the U.S. government is here for. And it is the job of the Mexican government to look out for the best interests of their citizens, as it is the job of the Canadian government to look out for their citizens, and so on...for every country out there...their ultimate responsibility lies with their own citiznens.

I'm not trying to say that illegal immigrants don't have rights, because they do. They have those inalienable rights of all humans, and laws have been established to protect those rights. They are allowed due process, they are allowed to be treated humanely. But at the end of the day, when it is all said and done, they have broken the law. You cannot deny that. You may not agree with the law, and you can try and change the law, but the law has been broken, and they will be returned from whence they came.

It's not perfect by any means, but what, pray tell, is?

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Shocker

Al-Qaeda operatives, just as easily as Mexican migants, can cross our borders and do harm to us. We know they want to

Ooo. Someone has been watching too much twenty-four hour news! Really, if Al-Qaeda wanted to cross the border to commit acts of terrorism, they'd do so just as they have done before: legally.

Originally Posted by Shocker

But at the end of the day, when it is all said and done, they have broken the law. You cannot deny that. You may not agree with the law, and you can try and change the law, but the law has been broken, and they will be returned from whence they came.

Okay -- let's round 'em up. Take every single one of the people that have broken the law and throw them in jail, make them face charges, or deport them. Let's hold all the employers, farms, and contractors accountable for not following through on proof of citizenship and minimum wage laws. Let's see how well this country's economy runs without illegals. Who knows? Maybe those jobs you're not willing to do -- the ones that pay close to nothing for back breaking work -- might suddenly become interesting to Americans. Let's see how much this country is truly willing to pay in taxes and inflation in order to force people to comply with strict immigration laws.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Shocker

Ok, well first off, I don't have any personal agenda like tw suggested, other than of course looking out for the best interests of my family. I do not know any illegal immigrants, and I do not fear losing my job or anything else to an illegal immigrant. I do however, believe that the laws of our country should be respected and followed. And there is a real reason to worry about the immigration issue. Al-Qaeda operatives, just as easily as Mexican migants, can cross our borders and do harm to us. We know they want to. But the cost and complexity in making exeptions to the law is too high to not protect our borders.

Did you forget to first learn what security people have demonstrated? Long before 11 Sept, we routinely identified and stopped domestic terrorism without Fatherland Security, without torture, without lies such as Orange alerts, and without hyping fear.

You would know that if you always first asked questions such as why. And then you would also know a new administration shut down, demoted, and quashed existing protection systems in a proclamation that only Saddam was a threat. One FBI agent asks why his bosses were not charged with criminal negligence because they quashed every attempt to stop 11 September. Of course you knew that because you want to protect your family. Unfortunately too many blindly believe in law obedience without first asking questions - and end up promoting death. You did not ask why which explains the classic Al Qaeda myth.

If first asking questions, they you understood who Al-Qaeda terrorists are. Domestics. Those you so fear don't need porous borders. You knew this once you ignored political agenda propaganda - ie Rush Limbaugh. Your political handlers forgot to mention that? You forgot to ask of them embarrassing questions? Only if you have a classic personal agenda.

You were asked to address the problem. Your entire response was nonsense about strict law enforcement and myths about terrorists. Classic blind response without first learning underlying reasons. Without those underlying reasons, your answer lacks credibility - is classic of a personal agenda. Worse, your answer implied you don't want to know why. Devoid of what is required to be a patriotic American.

Shocker - this is not a personal attack? It is an appeal for you to change from anti-American (blindly answering as ordered by a poltical party - Democrat, Republican, or Communist) to being patriotic American (someone who first askes embarrassing questions). The question was why. Why do we have an immigration problem? Avoid that question by using classic personal agenda reasoning - as an anti-Ameican would do to blindly follow a party line. This time, address why a problem exists without Rush Limbaugh proclamations. Don't foolishly play the Al Qaeda card. Posting myths is akin to insulting. Long before drawing any conclusion, first ask why - as a patriotic American does. Why do we have an immigration problem - and therefore put the future of your family also at greater risk?

[xoxoxoBruce]

What? People shouldn't have to answer for breaking the law unless someone has a hidden agenda? Nonsense. The law is on the books and it doesn't matter why, when someone is caught breaking it. Guilty?....end of story.

Now if you don't like the law....want it changed or repealed, only then does the "why" enter into it. Why was it enacted? Why can't it be repealed? Then you can get into all the hidden agendas and conspiracy theories you want.

But while it's in effect it should be enforced.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But while it's in effect it should be enforced.

I think the problem is that it hasn't been enforced for a reason that is quite clear -- we need cheap labor. The reasons stated for needed enforcement (i.e. - security) are essentially used to push politics.

This really is a mess.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's more like selective enforcement against those that are of no value to the people with political clout.
That's why I'd like to see it enforced across the board.

[Shocker]

Well tw...looks like you figured me out. I'm really an unpatriotic operative of Rush Limbaugh, here to try and sway your minds into actually following the laws of your government and to build support into protecting our borders, our jobs, our history, our language, our culture, and, um... well what else am I forgetting that I'm sure you think I'm trying to do?

No the truth is, you don't even know me or my motivations, and for you to just assume that I don't care about my country or am not patriotic is just ludicrous. As a matter of fact, I actually do care greatly about this country, and that is one of the reasons I want our borders protected. You see, the Al Qaeda threat, whether real and imminent or not is still there, and you can't say for certain how they plan on coming here or how they plan on attacking us. I'm not trying to sound like Rush Limbaugh either, cause I actually am at work while he is on the radio-I've never heard his talking points, so to even bring him up in this doesn't make sense.

Bruce is also right in saying that if you don't like the law then change it. This is after all, supposed to be a democtratic country. And he is right in saying that as long as it is in effect it should be enforced, across the board. It seems to me that my motivations in wanting the immigration laws enforced has come under some scrutiny by some on this forum. I however, would like to ask a question - yes tw, a question! Why is it you are so adamant about not enforcing our existing immigration laws, protecting our borders, and promoting the general disrespect for our laws and the system? Don't get me wrong, I agree there IS a problem and it needs to be fixed. There IS a need for immigration and cheap labor. There IS a need to protect our borders. The government DOES have a duty to protect its citizens. I do love my country and I also respect the laws in place. In a democracy like ours, if there is a problem with a law, it will eventually get worked out, so while you may not support enforcement of immigration laws, they are the law and should be enforced as long as they are the law. So if you want to make it into me spewing political rhetoric, fine, you can do that. But when you boil it down, what you have is people breaking the law. Forget the circumstances for a moment and ask yourself, when is it in the public's best interest to have a massive amount of people break the law? Under what circumstances is it ok to break the law? During the civil rights movement in the 60's, black leaders decided that it is not in their interest to break the law to make a point, but to use the legal system already in place to make a change, and it worked. Why now will not immigrants do the same thing?