The Kind of Conversation That Needs to Take Place
In my book The Accidental American, I write about the immigration debate, which has been so influenced by nativists that we've been unable to pass a fair national policy, much less a modern one that takes globalization and cultural change into full account. Despite endless data about the many benefits immigrants bring, Americans who know better cannot get past their image of brown-skinned immigrants being evil.
My friend Leeann Hall told me this story a couple of years ago. LeeAnn is the director of a federation of community organizations in the largely white northwestern states. In 2006, her responsibilities included reaching put to their members in Weippe, Idaho (population 383) to get their support for comprehensive immigration reform. She arrived to find the townspeople full of the day's big news; after months of searching, federal officials had caught the white supremacist who had been shooting up the local lumber mill. It was widely believed that the terrorist had been living on the white supremacist "Almost Heaven" compound where Colonel Bo Gritz teaches paramilitary and survivalist skills.
As she sat down with her members for lunch, Leeann, who is pink-cheeked and blue-eyed, raised the topic of immigration reform. She asked the group for their thoughts on immigration with a "come on, you can tell me." There were shifting eyes and body parts, and then one man said, "What concerns me is terrorism."
Leeann took a deep breath and asked, "You've had a terrorist here all summer," said Hall. "Is he an immigrant?"
"No."
"Are there many immigrants around here?" There were a number on the other side of the forest picking tomatoes for a local contractor who was underpaying them.
"Are you afraid of them?"
Again "no," somewhat sheepish this time.
The idea that armed white supremacists living nearby were less frightening than Mexican families crossing a deadly desert to work in beet fields, dairies, and meat packing plants was absurd, but it was also a notion this community had stopped questioning. When Hall suggested that they had been listening to a bit too much of Lou Dobbs, her members laughed, then moved on to discussing the tough spot in which these immigrants must find themselves. That's the kind of conversation that needs to take place far more often, in the context of organizing to improve life for all.
America and Americans have a lot of problems. But come on, you can't seriously cite attitudes in Weippe, Idaho as representative of the rest of us.
July 8, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weippe, Idaho being awarded a badge of stupidity is going to piss off Floridians to no end.
July 8, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the biggest obstacles achieving rational immigration policy are relentless attempts by open-borders advocates to frame their opponents as racists. In truth, allowing unrestrained entry by illegal immigrants creates enormous economic stresses on sectors of American society least able to surmount such problems - the poor and working-class. The issue isn't that these newcomers perform tasks Americans won't do, it's that they perform any task assigned them at wages below what Americans know to be fair and equitable. A low-wage labor pool also erodes efforts to keep workplaces safe, and hours limited to 40 per week. For many of them, working 12 hours a day for peanuts is still a better deal than they're offered back home.
The economic advantages for employers in maintaining ready numbers of illegal immigrant labor are enormous. That's really the crux of the argument - and helping camouflage this ugly reality is another nail in the coffin of the Left's credibility.
July 8, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not make Mexico and the US a binational state?
July 8, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
¡Si!
Geef me tequila.
Or not.
July 8, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the biggest obstacles to achieving rational discussion is a policy of labeling others POV according to relative perceived bias...instead of considering the argument.
I don't exempt any grounds - sexual, racial, age, location, sexual, religious - from being used as a tool of prejudice over logic.
That is the nail in the coffin of Neo-Con credibility.
July 8, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You miss the point - the folks in Wieppe were directly challenged, in a friendly way, on their racist assumptions and shifted their attitudes. So, yes, it's perfectly appropriate to see them as pretty typical of most Americans...riddled with biases and assumptions but with the good heart and will to set aside those assumptions when challenged to live up to even deeper values of fairness and justice.
July 8, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you!
July 8, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beautifully said.
July 9, 2009 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
...But the assumption that American blue-collar workers are, perforce, racist, "riddled with biases and assumptions but with the good heart" - what would change, or even slight mollify, that attitude? Remember, we're talking about an economic class whose reluctance over your very particular "deeper values of fairness and justice" may stem from the fact that all this fairness and justice affects them adversely, economically.
What if this new, replacement population doesn't share your vision of fairness and justice, and isn't so receptive to big, puppy-dog anecdotes about instant re-education over a lunch table? What if they see all this, rightly, as nonsense? And what if they are even less sanguine about it?
July 9, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think reasonable people agree that overall there are a certain set of prejudices, stereotypes and biases that permeate our culture. There are widespread and known to all - though not all will claim them as their own, they know them. That is why the watermelon on the white house lawn cartoon was instantly recognized as playing on Obama's race and not on Michelle's penchant for organic gardening. These biases are part of the water in our national swimming pool.
You seem to think we can swim in a pool and not get wet. I submit that there is no way anyone can come of age in our culture, reading American books, watching American television and attending American schools and not internalize significant racist assumptions that influence our thought processes and reactions - though of course, we temper these with our personal commitments to recognize and overcome these biases.
I think the better solution is to recognize that none of us is free of bigotry and bias and get over our reactive "I am not a racist" defensiveness and instead examine how our biases impair our thinking and influence our actions and work to overcome that.
I agree the working class gets the short end of the stick in our economy, but it's not because people of color are benefiting at their expense. There is too much raw economic data that refutes that to spend 2 minutes on that issue. Yes, the people who are profiting want you to think that, but why allow them to divert you from their legal robbery of this country's wealth and resources with such shallow arguments. That people are so easily diverted from the real scourge of the working class to targeting immigrants and claims of reverse racism only proves the point that racism is deeply steeped in our bones and we reflexively believe and act on racist stereotypes to our own detriment.
July 9, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue isn't whether or not I or anyone else is a racist. The issue is how we are defined as racist - according to what framework and whose definitions the term is applied. For the Left, "racism" is not prejudice based on ethnic origin or skin color, it is not the certification in law or institution of the idea that ethnicity or color is superior to others. "Racism" is an entree to impart political agenda, it is the signal flaw that must remain statically unaddressed, uncorrected. That's why this society in particular can never be considered free of racism. Why then would its revolutionary transfiguration be necessary?
July 9, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I object to your description of the problem on many levels. To begin with a minor quibble, the left is much too heterogeneous to be so easily pegged into one hole as you tend to do. Secondly, the idea that racism is a wedge to push through a political agenda is laughable. If only it were so, many of the institutionally codified structural elements of racism would have been long gone by now. For pete's sake, states are passing nullification laws right and left for fear that the stimulus money for unemployment might require them to cover some occupations that employ mostly Latinos. Of course, they word it in terms of states' rights - where have we heard that before.
I object to your absolutely false characterization of those who are actively anti-racist. you say, "For the Left, "racism" is not prejudice based on ethnic origin or skin color, it is not the certification in law or institution of the idea that ethnicity or color is superior to other." And yet that is exactly what people are saying that it is.
Mostly, I object to your position because it's the position of apathy. It's the close our eyes and it goes away position. It never goes away.
July 9, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd response post.
July 10, 2009 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I say that one of the biggest obstacles to achieving rational immigration policy is the way people who favor a "deport 'em all" approach dismiss the rest of us as "open-borders advocates."
I know there are some people calling for "open borders," but I think this is a small minority who are not representative of many of us on "the Left." Except for the extreme ends of the political spectrum, the enormous majority of Americans, conservative and progressive, are in favor of preventing illigal entry into the country as much as possible. There are differences of opinion about how to achieve that aim, but the aim isn't that controversial.
The hotter disagreement is what to do about illegal immigrants already here, especially those who have jobs, obey the law, pay taxes, and are members of families and communities. Deport 'em all? Or set up a means for them at least to become documented, if not citizens? Some of us think the latter course is more practical as well as more humane, and for this we are accused of being in favor of "open borders," which is not usually the case. Again, these are two separate issues.
Ironically, it's the "tough on immigration" conservatives who are more likely to want to protect employers from facing consequences of illegal immigration. It is more often liberals (who are also pro-Union, remember, and concerned about job loss and wage erosion) who would prefer to discourage illegal immigration by going after employers who hire illegal immigrants, thereby shutting off the job enticement that attracts illegal immigrants.
July 9, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
For a small minority, they certainly are vocal.
Since you bring up the issue of deportation, I agree with you: It would be epitome of soullessness to import a workforce, exploit their labor, then kick them out. Many of them have paid in more than money to make the harrowing journey north. They stay. As far preventing illegal entry, I'm sure my ideas are no better or more screwy than anyone else's.
The most important thing we can all do, right now? Stop blaming the American working class for the mess. They are victims of this system, not its beneficiaries. This is a nation of 300-plus million, and if white American working stiffs were as rabidly racist as the Left loves to portray, we'd all be burning by now. Their objections to immigration policy may not be as articulate as they could be, but, you must understand, all their valuable time for elocution practice is eaten away in laundry and yard work - since they don't have underpaid, overworked illegal immigrant laborers to lend them a hand.
July 9, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink