Of Kings and Kingdoms, 1
Did you notice La Granmarcha? Last week the Hispanic/Latino/Mexicano/Anahuaca population of southern California marched, 500,000 strong, through the streets of Los Angeles to protest immigration reform. The streets leading to the government buildings were impassable (even more so than they usually are; have you ever tried to drive in downtown LA?).
The big question is, Why? Why would half a million people get out and protest about a situation, against proposed laws, against secure borders? And the correct answer is NOT "Because Spanish-language radio and TV encouraged them to."
You're closer if you say, "Because they see the border and the government of the US as illegitimate." The U.S. doesn't have the right to keep Mexicans and Central Americans out. Whatever the conditions of their arrival, those who are here have a right to be here. Their parents, children, and cousins have a right to be here, too, because the US has no legitimate reason for excluding them.
If the jobs, benefits, and lifestyle are better here, they should be allowed.
What's more, those who oppose the open border are racists. It's impossible for a person to want resticted immigration because they believe in the rule of law, in the danger of full access, in the economic disadvantages of such a system. No, it can only be because that person hates Hispanic/ Latino/ Mexicano/ Anahuacas. ("Anahuacas", by the way, is a name for indiginous Californians. And I don't mean the Missus, who was born in San Francisco.) That's all there is to it - you are a racist.
The beautiful thing about calling someone a racist is that it immediately takes the argument out of the rational realm and into the emotional. There are few labels that can do it as effectively (only "child abuser", "fundamentalist Christian", and "Republican" spring to mind) and it doesn't matter whether the label is accurate or not. Those who receive the label are now (by definition) ignorant, self-centered abusive, greedy, oppressors, whose opinions on any subject are to be disregarded. Conversely, the one who does the labeling is now, by extension, an intelligent, altruistic, caring, selfless, rights-respecter, whose opinions on every subject are to be accepted without question.
I can understand why someone would want to come here. If I was from most other countries, I'd want to come here, too! But "want" is not sufficient. And if we're going to discuss immigration effectively, we have to drop the word "racist" (because that says there can only be one legitimate point of view, that of the labeler). My conversation must include law, culture, and faith (since I am a citizen of a Kingdom higher than either the United States of America or the Estados Unitos de Mexico). And I hope that as I think about these things I can expess something worth expressing.
Hit the comment button and let me know what you think. And in the meantime, here's a link you can follow for another perspective:
http://www.mexica-movement.org/granmarcha.htm
The big question is, Why? Why would half a million people get out and protest about a situation, against proposed laws, against secure borders? And the correct answer is NOT "Because Spanish-language radio and TV encouraged them to."
You're closer if you say, "Because they see the border and the government of the US as illegitimate." The U.S. doesn't have the right to keep Mexicans and Central Americans out. Whatever the conditions of their arrival, those who are here have a right to be here. Their parents, children, and cousins have a right to be here, too, because the US has no legitimate reason for excluding them.
If the jobs, benefits, and lifestyle are better here, they should be allowed.
What's more, those who oppose the open border are racists. It's impossible for a person to want resticted immigration because they believe in the rule of law, in the danger of full access, in the economic disadvantages of such a system. No, it can only be because that person hates Hispanic/ Latino/ Mexicano/ Anahuacas. ("Anahuacas", by the way, is a name for indiginous Californians. And I don't mean the Missus, who was born in San Francisco.) That's all there is to it - you are a racist.
The beautiful thing about calling someone a racist is that it immediately takes the argument out of the rational realm and into the emotional. There are few labels that can do it as effectively (only "child abuser", "fundamentalist Christian", and "Republican" spring to mind) and it doesn't matter whether the label is accurate or not. Those who receive the label are now (by definition) ignorant, self-centered abusive, greedy, oppressors, whose opinions on any subject are to be disregarded. Conversely, the one who does the labeling is now, by extension, an intelligent, altruistic, caring, selfless, rights-respecter, whose opinions on every subject are to be accepted without question.
I can understand why someone would want to come here. If I was from most other countries, I'd want to come here, too! But "want" is not sufficient. And if we're going to discuss immigration effectively, we have to drop the word "racist" (because that says there can only be one legitimate point of view, that of the labeler). My conversation must include law, culture, and faith (since I am a citizen of a Kingdom higher than either the United States of America or the Estados Unitos de Mexico). And I hope that as I think about these things I can expess something worth expressing.
Hit the comment button and let me know what you think. And in the meantime, here's a link you can follow for another perspective:
http://www.mexica-movement.org/granmarcha.htm
posted by David Hardesty | 8:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home