« Now it learns its ABCs... | Main | A few more thoughts on the "Day without Immigrants" »
May 1, 2006
A Word is Born
From today's NYTimes (and, more specifically, an article about the "Day without immigrants"):
"When the rule of law is dictated by a mob of illegal aliens taking to the streets, especially under a foreign flag, then that means the nation is not governed by a rule of law — it is a mobocracy," Jim Gilchrist, a founder of the Minutemen Project, a volunteer group that patrols the United States-Mexico border, said in an interview.
Mobocracy. I'll remember that one.
When I have a bit more time, I will weigh in on this issue. There is a lot that I sympathize with, and take issue with, on both sides of this debate.
I think that, at the end of the day, the basic notion that appears to motivate this series of protests-that we should essentially enfranchise those who came and remain here in violation of our laws-seems silly and perverse. (For those who want to call me on this, the bill of particulars offered by the activist base behind today's action extends well beyond any kind of notion of a guest worker-type program). This isn't a cry for justice: it is an attempt at a showdown between a group of people and the rest of us over our resolve to stand by our laws (rather than cave in to pressure tactics and abandon them). In that sense, we cannot back down: far more is at stake here than the status of illegal immigrants. The hyperbole of these protests also rankles me: illegal immigrants are simply not the slaves they have been portrayed as being. If nothing else, they always have the option of returning to their home country. The fact that they do not do so suggests that, no matter how long their list of complaints with our society, they still do better by staying. In that sense, this is really about pressure tactics to sweeten a deal that already leaves them better off. It is not about the wretched of this earth, or at least this country, struggling for basic human recognition.
At the same time, many of the nativist arguments also fail to presuade me. To begin with, we are by and large a nation of immigrants whose ancestors were saved, elevated or both by this promised land. What would have happened to my Irish ancestors, fleeing a poor and very violent land (no, Ireland has not always been a rich, gigantic world-class golf course with a homey pub down every back stretch), if they had not been able to enter America? When I pose this question to many other second, third, etc. generation Americans, the response is invariably that our ancestors did not come here illegally. But isn't that a rather convenient out? They didn't come here illegally because, comparatively speaking, there were generally few or no legal barriers to their immigration to the USA (see, for example, the Famine Irish). The real question becomes "what would our ancestors have done confronted with the same immigration regime now confronting Mexicans, Hondurans, etc.?". The squeaking sounds you invariably hear after putting it this way are those of someone struggling to steady themselves in the saddle on that high horse.
I would also like to add that massive illegal immigration, even to a far greater extent than is now occurring, is not the worst case scenario for our nation. The worst case scenario would be any degree of immigration where we fail to bring the new arrivals and their descendants into the mainstream of our society. I'll call this the "French case" in honor of their recent riots by a disgruntled and isolated Muslim minority. The Romans used to say that "every slave is an enemy we harbor." We are in serious trouble when we get to the point where we say that about the people who clean our offices or their descendants. I guess what I am saying is that I would rather absorb every last Mexican into our society than have just 5% of them come here but never assimilate or feel as if they belong. This is the problem with policies or proposals that in spirit or content stigmatize or marginalize immigrants in the name of defending our society and its cherished values: they won't "cleanse" our society. They'll just put us in the same predicament that the Romans experienced. Recently, I heard strong sentiments toward a crack down on immigrants in light of the arrival of vicious gangs among them, such as Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). But by further marginalizing the Salvadorans that are in our society, pushing them farther from the mainstream with its opportunities and values, are we making MS-13 more or less of a threat?
Well, I ended up saying a fair amount after all.
Posted by dag at May 1, 2006 11:50 PM
Comments
You know, yesterday was May 1st, and apparently, it's a state holiday in California (or at least in the Bay area). Half of the businesses were closed for the international labour day, and the other half were closed in support of a protest against the house immigration bill (the idea being to show a day without immigrants).
A funny thing happened, in that it was barely perceptible. It was almost as if there were no protest. For all the bluster about how our economy would grind to a halt without undocumented immigrants working, only certain industries showed any effect (mostly restaurants, where the line cooks and dishwashers are almost always immigrants). It was as if there was no protest at all. I wonder if that's what they intended...
Posted by: The Good Rabbi at May 2, 2006 9:33 AM