Illegal immigration!
This is the topic of the moment here in the US.
Congress is currently working on a bill that they want ready by memorial day to address illegal immigration.
Here's the NY Times on where things stand.
The prospect of this bill bought thousands of people out on the streets in protest, including here in KC. This is why:
The paying back taxes is the real fuck you isn't it? We are talking about 2.3 percent of the population here in the world's biggest economy. It is quite a few people but this is America! Is this such a big deal for the land of the free? Obviously it is a big deal to the people without work permits, but should it be to anyone else?
Illegal immigration overwhelmingly means people from less prosperous countries who come to America and most often end up feeding on the crumbs that fall from America's middle-class table. Any social mobility is difficult because of their illegal status. Their 'crime'? I think it is best defined as not having the right pieces of paper.
Personally I find branding people as 'illegal' for doing something we are nagged our whole lives to do - that is "get a job and work hard you lazy son of a bitch", seems to set my teeth on edge.
And all they need is a bit of paper with a social security number and then it's legal. Give them the right numbers in the systems and they are no longer illegal. On a day to day level it is a very arbitrary piece of law it seems, so you would think people would tread very carefully, as it involves all sorts of delicate cultural and socio-political tensions. But alas no.
What we get is conservatives quoting Alexander Hamilton about the importance of keeping America American. Never mind that Hamilton was from the Caribbean and only moved to America when he was seventeen. Never mind this was a politician writing in the 18th century and that he was about as American as I am.
They also say: "well laws are laws and they must be upheld!" Again this is a very shallow argument. The Jim Crow laws were laws. Should we still have those? If all laws are always right then why does the US bother have this silly things called the Supreme Court and Congress and this messy business we call democracy?
Others are talking about threats to jobs and importing poverty - despite all the evidence pointing in the opposite direction.
So it is a security issue? Immigration of people with ties to certain countries is obviously a security issue, but really this is a seperate issue to latino immigrants. Yet it is amazing the degree to which the Department of Homeland Security has become involved in immigration over the USA's Southern border.
The debate just doesn't seem to be following reality.
There is only one reasonable argument for immigration reform and it is this: unless immigration is more strictly formalised then the system will lack basic fairness. Deserving people might lose out on getting the right credentials while others jump the queue. Fine. Personally I would use the arguments of the right wing against this point of view: I am uncomfortable with a bureaucracy having this sort of power over people - like the school board picking the sports teams at school: we'll take you but not you. A bureaucracy is not better equipped than individual American employers to make this decision. Where the government should be helping is by making sure the workers are not exploited when in this country.
So this single valid argument is very unconvincing coming from the right-wing - people who usually preach less government interference in the business of life not more, and who usually run a mile at the talk of government imposed quotas and procedures. And free movement of labour is a central tenet of free market economics is it not?
So am I missing something here?
Aaah yes of course I am: America's racial politics. Now that IS the elephant in the room ain't it?
Now for me I see 'race' as almost entirely a social construct. Latino is not a 'race'. People used to try and keep track of race in Mexico - with different grades of mestino or pure spanish and so forth, but (unlike in the up-tight north) people kept shagging each other, so in the end everyone pretty much gave up as it got a bit ridiculous. It was around this time that white people in America decided that those who lived South of their border were a different race to them, and those South of the border, quite reasonably said "hang on, if we're a different race to you, we'll define what it means thank you very much" and called themselves latino.
By contrast in Europe we don't think of, say, the Spanish people as a different 'race'. It hasn't (yet) been socially constructed in that way. American racial definitions sound absurd to me. The Spanish might have better tans than us but all that means is they are lucky enough to live all year round in the place British people go to get their tans.
And native Americans are the indigenous people of the land. How can you possibly object to them being anywhere?
Understanding race as a social construct is rather important when talking about it. Black people in American are black, black people in Rwanda, on the other hand, are either hutu or tutsi, depending upon some vague tribal distintion co-opted and reinvented by the Belgians. Race is basically whatever people want it to be. So the latino / white divide might make sense to Americans but it baffles me.
What it always boils down to is that many people don't like to interact with people who are not exactly like them, particularly when there is a perception of class difference. The ability to accept and enjoy a (usually minor) interaction with "foreign" people boils down a certain kind of empathetic intelligence a person has, how they were raised to treat others and how secure they are with themselves and their own way of life.
Any talk of keeping America 'American' is just utter rubbish, especially coming from people living in places called Los Angeles, El Paso or San Diego.
I usually find the anti-immigration lobby to be mean-spirited, stupid or as disenfranchised as the people they rail against. It is only the last I have any sympathy with.
So the solution? There is only one that makes sense: an amnesty for those who have been here more than two years, or those who have next of kin here. Status Quo for the rest. And a bill formally introducing Spanish as America's second language, with a mandatory competence in Spanish required to graduate high school.
Juro fidelidad a la bandera de los Estados Unidos y a la república que simboliza una nación bajo Dios indivisible con libertad y justicia para todos.
Congress is currently working on a bill that they want ready by memorial day to address illegal immigration.
Here's the NY Times on where things stand.
The prospect of this bill bought thousands of people out on the streets in protest, including here in KC. This is why:
Under the Senate plan, illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years or more would eventually be granted citizenship if they remained employed, had background checks, paid fines and back taxes and learned English.
Illegal immigrants who have lived here two to five years would have to travel to a United States border crossing and apply for a temporary work visa, but they would also be eligible for permanent residency and citizenship over time. Illegal immigrants who have been here less than two years would have to leave the country, though they could apply to be in a temporary worker program.
The paying back taxes is the real fuck you isn't it? We are talking about 2.3 percent of the population here in the world's biggest economy. It is quite a few people but this is America! Is this such a big deal for the land of the free? Obviously it is a big deal to the people without work permits, but should it be to anyone else?
Illegal immigration overwhelmingly means people from less prosperous countries who come to America and most often end up feeding on the crumbs that fall from America's middle-class table. Any social mobility is difficult because of their illegal status. Their 'crime'? I think it is best defined as not having the right pieces of paper.
Personally I find branding people as 'illegal' for doing something we are nagged our whole lives to do - that is "get a job and work hard you lazy son of a bitch", seems to set my teeth on edge.
And all they need is a bit of paper with a social security number and then it's legal. Give them the right numbers in the systems and they are no longer illegal. On a day to day level it is a very arbitrary piece of law it seems, so you would think people would tread very carefully, as it involves all sorts of delicate cultural and socio-political tensions. But alas no.
What we get is conservatives quoting Alexander Hamilton about the importance of keeping America American. Never mind that Hamilton was from the Caribbean and only moved to America when he was seventeen. Never mind this was a politician writing in the 18th century and that he was about as American as I am.
They also say: "well laws are laws and they must be upheld!" Again this is a very shallow argument. The Jim Crow laws were laws. Should we still have those? If all laws are always right then why does the US bother have this silly things called the Supreme Court and Congress and this messy business we call democracy?
Others are talking about threats to jobs and importing poverty - despite all the evidence pointing in the opposite direction.
So it is a security issue? Immigration of people with ties to certain countries is obviously a security issue, but really this is a seperate issue to latino immigrants. Yet it is amazing the degree to which the Department of Homeland Security has become involved in immigration over the USA's Southern border.
The debate just doesn't seem to be following reality.
There is only one reasonable argument for immigration reform and it is this: unless immigration is more strictly formalised then the system will lack basic fairness. Deserving people might lose out on getting the right credentials while others jump the queue. Fine. Personally I would use the arguments of the right wing against this point of view: I am uncomfortable with a bureaucracy having this sort of power over people - like the school board picking the sports teams at school: we'll take you but not you. A bureaucracy is not better equipped than individual American employers to make this decision. Where the government should be helping is by making sure the workers are not exploited when in this country.
So this single valid argument is very unconvincing coming from the right-wing - people who usually preach less government interference in the business of life not more, and who usually run a mile at the talk of government imposed quotas and procedures. And free movement of labour is a central tenet of free market economics is it not?
So am I missing something here?
Aaah yes of course I am: America's racial politics. Now that IS the elephant in the room ain't it?
Now for me I see 'race' as almost entirely a social construct. Latino is not a 'race'. People used to try and keep track of race in Mexico - with different grades of mestino or pure spanish and so forth, but (unlike in the up-tight north) people kept shagging each other, so in the end everyone pretty much gave up as it got a bit ridiculous. It was around this time that white people in America decided that those who lived South of their border were a different race to them, and those South of the border, quite reasonably said "hang on, if we're a different race to you, we'll define what it means thank you very much" and called themselves latino.
By contrast in Europe we don't think of, say, the Spanish people as a different 'race'. It hasn't (yet) been socially constructed in that way. American racial definitions sound absurd to me. The Spanish might have better tans than us but all that means is they are lucky enough to live all year round in the place British people go to get their tans.
And native Americans are the indigenous people of the land. How can you possibly object to them being anywhere?
Understanding race as a social construct is rather important when talking about it. Black people in American are black, black people in Rwanda, on the other hand, are either hutu or tutsi, depending upon some vague tribal distintion co-opted and reinvented by the Belgians. Race is basically whatever people want it to be. So the latino / white divide might make sense to Americans but it baffles me.
What it always boils down to is that many people don't like to interact with people who are not exactly like them, particularly when there is a perception of class difference. The ability to accept and enjoy a (usually minor) interaction with "foreign" people boils down a certain kind of empathetic intelligence a person has, how they were raised to treat others and how secure they are with themselves and their own way of life.
Any talk of keeping America 'American' is just utter rubbish, especially coming from people living in places called Los Angeles, El Paso or San Diego.
I usually find the anti-immigration lobby to be mean-spirited, stupid or as disenfranchised as the people they rail against. It is only the last I have any sympathy with.
So the solution? There is only one that makes sense: an amnesty for those who have been here more than two years, or those who have next of kin here. Status Quo for the rest. And a bill formally introducing Spanish as America's second language, with a mandatory competence in Spanish required to graduate high school.
Juro fidelidad a la bandera de los Estados Unidos y a la república que simboliza una nación bajo Dios indivisible con libertad y justicia para todos.
